Jump to content

User talk:MBisanz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MBisanzBot (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 5 January 2009 (test of newsletter bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions to request their removal.

Sleep Chamber

Sleep Chamber is a major industrial band from the 1980s. Check their discography at Discogs : http://www.discogs.com/artist/Sleep+Chamber Why did you delete the article made by Brad Miller? This is probably the best informed person about the band. And this band deserves a wiki entry. Your deletion was abusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.110.250 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping re bots & main page images

[1] You've got a pending bot to handle Main Page uploads in the BAG currently, if I'm not mistaken. Sure would be a good thing for that to go live. :) rootology (C)(T) 00:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hey there MBisanz, I saw you closed this AfD, but because the article was moved to And Then There Was Me (Mario album), only the redirect was deleted. I should also point out that And Then There Was Me (album) is another redirect. Just though I'd point it out. DiverseMentality 02:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, fixed now. MBisanz talk 19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Royer

User_talk:HeureusementIci suggested I talk to you about the removal of the Ray Royer page. Basically I'm wondering if you could explain why my argument for keeping the Ray Royer page was rejected. As I understand it WP:MUSIC states that he heeds to have "had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country" and "A Whiter Shade of Pale" has done exactly that. I don't understand the problem?

I also left a question about checking how noteworthy his work in "Freedom" and "Nerosubianco" are. This was important as it showed noteworthiness beyond Procol_Harum (ie linking back to the Procol page was not the right thing to do, IF they are important enough). Do you have any suggestions on checking this?

I'm not seeking to have the decision reversed, just understand why it was made. Thanks.

Stormcloud (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album you refer to was done by the band, it was not an individual recording by Ray Royer, therefore it would not qualify him per WP:MUSIC. MBisanz talk 19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! knowing that and reading WP:MUSIC again that makes sense. Ok, if you can indulge me, two more questions:
  1. What's the view on checking the noteworthiness of Freedom/Nerosubianco
  2. Is it permitted to keep the Category: Procol Harum members" tag on the redirect page? I'd like to do this because it would mean that the Procol_Harum_members Category page wouldn't be a person short. My original objection was on consistency, With the redirect I think this would work better

Stormcloud (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about Freedom/Nerosubianco, it is totally outside my field of specialty, you might ask User:DGG or User:BlackKite who are rather academically inclined. Also, the redirect rules normally discourage categories_for_redirect_pages, but there are exceptions, so it would be an editing judgment to categorize or not. MBisanz talk 19:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. I'm going to add the Categories to the redirect page for consistency (or at least completion) in the page. I'll also ask User_talk:DGG about noteworthiness. Stormcloud (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nike sponsorships afd closing

Hi, I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike sponsorships, and while I'm not too invested in the discussion (despite my responses which might indicate otherwise), I'm wondering why you decided to close as keep. If we're simply counting !votes, it was 3-2 in favor of keep, which is hardly a consensus and, at least from my POV, the issues I brought up specifically, whether being sponsored by Nike is notable (since Nike isn't all that discriminate in its sponsorships) or the apparent unwillingness/inability by editors to maintain the article, weren't addressed. I guess I'd like to know, for future references, how to better make my points in Afds and what criteria the close decisions are made. --Mosmof (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did everything right here, not much to improve on at all. What hurt was the lack of participation. If you read my essay on AfD closing, User:MBisanz/AfD, you see that AfDs close on a continuum. At best this close was No Consensus, which default to Keep. Now as the the arguments, you made a good one for deletion, but the only other deletion comment was centered as "better as a category", this is alot like the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement that is generally discouraged since it really doesn't address the article itself. As to the Keep arguments, they were poorly presented, but I got the general feeling they were saying the topic was notable because of its prominent role/coverage in the industry. I suspect your other nominations may have a better chance for deletion if only because Nike is the most famous sponsor and once you remove that claim to notability, it is harder to overcome Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. MBisanz talk 03:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I'd hate to come off like I'm trying to "win" these debates, but I'd like to be better prepared in defending my points, and I'm willing to accept that what I think is right isn't necessarily policy or consensus. In any case, I appreciate your taking the time. --Mosmof (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcome

Thanks for the welcome. You'll probably have guessed by now that I'm not exactly "new" here, but given the amount of vitriol and bad faith actions that have already been directed at User_talk:Tony1/AdminWatch (up to and including a completely bad-faith MFD attempt), I have decided that I am exercising my rights as per WP:MULTIPLE and WP:SOCK#LEGIT under the Segregation and security clause, part 3 and will only enter that discussion under a separate name (viz: this one). It's not worth the time or possible frustration to be the possible target of harassing emails or even phone calls over this issue, so I simply will not take the risk. This account will never edit any pages save for speaking on that talk page, replying to those who message me directly via this account's talk page - and will never cast a vote in an MFD or other related policy either way. Sorry to sound like a stick in the mud, and my apologies if it comes off as gruff, but that's just the way it has to be until wikipedia's culture sees some real changes. WhoWatches (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SimSig - thanks

Thanks for the "no concensus" on the SimSig page. When the appropriate sources open again after new year, I shall endeavour to get the reliable sources that the others so desperately want. Happy New Year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.120.45 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Should the notice at the top of the Talk:SimSig page (about the deletion debate) be moved, or does that stay? I can't find any guidelines on that. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that stays so that people in the future can figure out what has happened in the past with the article. Now if the notice was on the article page, it should be moved, but the talk page is appropriate. MBisanz talk 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for that. Happy New Year to you. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Everyme

I am notifying you of the above as it concerns an editor you had blocked who seems to be yet again evading a block by using at least two IPs. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll sit on it for a bit and see what other admins think. MBisanz talk 15:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have notified the other admins who were involved as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to wv

FYI: there is {{Copy to Wikiversity}} for pages outside the scope of wp, that might be more apporpriate at wv. --mikeu talk 16:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo. Good to know, I shall try and incorporate it into my AFD closures. MBisanz talk 16:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:؟

Hi, I would like to use that name, but it is blocked. Is there a problem?
I opened the account in Germany (where I live): http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch&user=%D8%9F
Would it be possible to answer here: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:%D8%9F&action=edit ?
I want to use this acount as a special acount to discuss nonsense, more precisely, nonsense literature. Seriously: The meaning of of the name is Snark. Perhaps you get the idea.
Happy new year, --84.150.103.14 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done pointed user at WP:CHU/SUL. // roux   23:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Cryptol

No, the result was keep. There were no standing arguments for deleting it. You're supposed to read the substance, not count bolded word. What a waste of time it is to research and reference an article on Wikipedia. This is, you know, step one, so I can get on to the deletion review. --KP Botany (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I don't count bold words, try reading my essay at User:MBisanz/AfD, in this case the arguments made that the current level of coverage in reliable sources fails to mean the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia were more substantial than the argument that being an NSA sourced concept makes it inherently notable and inherently lacking sources. MBisanz talk 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were not more substantial, because they were incorrect, as further down is noted by other posters. I'll take this as a no and waste my time on Deletion Review instead of creating redirects from common names and writing new articles on missing plant families and requested plant articles. --KP Botany (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I do believe the consensus was for deletion of the article. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. MBisanz talk 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, actually read the deletion discussion. --KP Botany (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion review for Cryptol

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cryptol. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KP Botany (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles
A cat to ease all of your troubles
 Happy New Year!
Hey there, MBisanz! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear MBisanz,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks, to you as well. MBisanz talk 21:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matthew.... I'm relatively new to Wikipedia.... but are you the person that deleted Ecompetitors Inc for a New Year's surprise? If so, I think the article should be put back because it is noteworthy. According to your bio you have a background in business... and perhaps you are aware of Michael E Porter in your business coursesat Hofstra which is down the road from where I grew up in Franklin Square. Do you know of ANY resource in the world that provides industry information at the Porter level? I'm sure the answer is No. There are few seven year projects today because most companies can't afford millions of dollars to build something truly new and noteworthy. Please reconsider and put the article back - it is noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porterfan1 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An opportunity to do the right thing

Hello Matthew.... I'm relatively new to Wikipedia.... but are you the person that deleted Ecompetitors Inc for a New Year's surprise? If so, I think the article should be put back because it is noteworthy. According to your bio you have a background in business... and perhaps you are aware of Michael E Porter in your business coursesat Hofstra which is down the road from where I grew up in Franklin Square. Do you know of ANY resource in the world that provides industry information at the Porter level? I'm sure the answer is No. There are few seven year projects today because most companies can't afford millions of dollars to build something truly new and noteworthy. Please reconsider and put the article back - it is noteworthy. Porterfan1 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecompetitors was very clear that the article failed Wikipedia's notability requirements. Yes, I have heard of Michael Porter but I am not familiar with the concept you are describing. You may contest my deletion at WP:DRV. MBisanz talk 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Hello MBisanz. You protected WP:NOT on December 30 after me and a user, who was indefinitely blocked until December 9, had a revert war on the page. A month is a long time to protect a policy, and I think it is unfair to other Wikipedia editors that they cannot edit WP:NOT for a month because of a spat between me and a user I requested be added as a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Editors on the talk page of WP:NOT have noted that they cannot currently edit that policy. Could you please unprotect that page? If an admin lifts the current protection on WP:NOT, I promise I will not edit that policy at all during the month of January, possibly longer. If I do edit WP:NOT during January, you or any other admin is free to block me for a year. If you would not be comfortable unprotecting WP:NOT, I can also ask Penwhale, who protected NOT right after you, or I can make a request at WP:RFUP.

The admin who has has reverted the removal of PLOT (the section of policy I and others dispute) the most times has started a user RFC on my behavior, and I am prepared to make several concessions there. Since March 2008, PLOT has been removed from NOT by 4 users, and re-added by 10 users — but I have removed it the most times. Among the removers and adders, many were involved parties of E&C1 or E&C2, although I am the only remover who was a party to either, E&C2. I first removed PLOT from NOT in March 2008. When I removed PLOT from NOT in April 2008, thinking there was no consensus for it to be in NOT, Sceptre, an involved party of E&C1 *and* E&C2, reported me as a vandal to AIV after giving me a level 3 warning on my talk page. I was blocked for vandalism and I left Wikipedia for a week, and during that time, Sceptre told TTN, another involved party of E&C1 *and* E&C2, it was good news that I left. The blocking admin started an AN thread and several users said my edits were not vandalism. If you want, I can tell you more about the history of that section of policy and what I've done since January 30, 2008 to try to change it, although I will offer a summary soon at my user RFC. Thank you for your time. Happy New Year by the way. --Pixelface (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz will likely request that you ask at WP:RFPP so there's no chance that he'll be accused of siding with the requester. Kylu (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wowies that is a lot to read. I'd like to ask you take this to WP:RFPP basically for the reason Kylu suggests and because as you admit, there were two parties edit warring, and only one of them (you) has pledged to stay away from that page. Also, should you or anyone return to edit warring there, the odds are incredibly low I will be blocking for that reason, just because it will give the appearance that I care which version of the page exists. That said, I suspect a reviewing admin at WP:RFPP will look favorably on your voluntary abstention from reverting, which you may want to include in your Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pixelface#Response_to_concerns. MBisanz talk 01:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should not have reverted Pixelface a second time; I was in the middle of composing my post to AN/I when he reverted my restoration of the consensus version; I reverted again with a better edit summary pointing out that he was being disruptive. I should not have used 'rvv' as I acknowledged at his RfC. In my AN/I post I said I wanted out (for all the good reasons). I have stated that I will not touch that policy page or the redirect page; User talk:Jack Merridew#Be carefuldiff, so I have no issue with unprotecting the page nor will wp have any issue with me there. I'll clarify further; I will not touch those pages at all for at least January (the time for which the protection is set). Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivians in Brazil

Can you remove the AfD tag?, thanks. --Jmundo (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MBisanz talk 06:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

If you look upwards about five sections on my talk page, you'll see this response I gave to "History of the Arab People" (who was recently banned as a sockpuppet, btw):

I'm truly, honestly flattered that anyone would consider nominating me to become an administrator, but I'm afraid that I spend FAR too much time at Wikipedia as it is. Although I might get involved in some page disputes and am sometimes a vandalism watchdog, my main goal here is to improve existing articles or to create new articles about history. I don't think I will have enough time in my daily life to devote energies to that gigantic, ongoing project AND the various duties that would entail being an administrator. I respectfully decline this nomination. Thanks, and I hope you understand.

So, there's your answer to that. That's all; have a Happy New Year!--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blanked rfa's

Hey Mbiz, I think you should refactor your last post at WT:RFA. Those people had their RfA's blanked for a reason, now you are highlighting them so that people will go out and look them up. I deliberately didn't mention the one's I knew about because they were requested to be blanked for a reason.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MBisanz talk 23:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy MBisanz's Day!

User:MBisanz has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as MBisanz's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear MBisanz!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YAY! Thanks a bunch. MBisanz talk 07:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cars diecast deletion

thanks for taking care of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Disney-Pixar_Cars_Die-Cast_Line. Can you review that entry to make sure all listed pages were deleted, please? SpikeJones (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MBisanz talk 05:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Soggy biscuit

I've asked for a deletion review of Soggy biscuit. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page you might want to participate in the deletion review. I've gone straight to DRV without discussing this with you first as this is a slightly complex case also involving the outcome of another AfD that you did not close. :) DWaterson (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Color corrected USGS images

I did the color-correcting on all the pictures you sent (except the Chrysler building, per request) and left you a link in a mail to the RapidShare. If you have any difficulty with the download, let me know. The .zip came to approx. 61MB. Kylu (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.


The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: 200th issue 
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones 
Wikipedia in the news Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost
ArbCom elections: Elections open Wikipedia in the news 
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System Features and admins 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost
From the editor: Getting back on track 
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK 
Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting 
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers 
Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

relist a AfD again?

Any chance you could relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backslash paper once again? --Cybercobra (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not due to be relisted for another day or two. Will judge then. MBisanz talk 09:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGNPOST delivery

Just to let you know if you ever need the Signpost delivered again due to the normal bot working my bot would be happy to send out the signpost :P ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 10:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll remember that. MBisanz talk 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cry (film)

Shucks. I was in the middle of showing notability through sourcing and the article disppeared. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DRV . Juzhong (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closed early per SNOW, but re-opened per request for full time. MBisanz talk 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the speed. If I cannot save it, I will gladly endorse its removal. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the opportunity to continue working on the article. Imagine my surprise when it got snowed as I was improving it. While THIS was not suitable for Wiki and deserved a snow, I was able to turn it into THIS, which now has multiple sources shiowing notability. Sometimes it seems an AfD can move a touch too quickly (chuckle) for my slow fingers, so thanks again. If the improved article survives at AfD, I will make a move from The Cry (film) to The Cry - La Llorna (film) so it will be easier for others to further research. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy)

Hello! If you check the edit history, I was in the process of searching for sources (I usually look for sources and then comment in the discussion). Just to keep things simple, would you be opposed to a merge and redirect then to Strangers with Candy? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap, history restored to enable merging. MBisanz talk 02:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I have begun a merge accordingly. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 neighbours plots

The article Neighbours 2009 plots was included (towards the end) of the above AfD. Not sure if you are comfortable deleting it as part of your close, although I don't personally have a problem with you performing such a deletion. If you are not comfortable deleting the article under that close, I will restart the deletion process for it. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy))

Kindly reopen. To close after one day is not correct, when many people did not yet have a chance to comment, such as myself. And I see other people are working on sources. In fact, some were added just before you closed. And if you did not mean to close but just redirect in the middle of a debate, then tell me, and I will simply revert the redirection. DGG (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-opened, but you may want to review User_talk:MBisanz#Flatpoint_High_School_.28Strangers_with_Candy.29. MBisanz talk 09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test

This is a test of my newsletter delivery bot. MBisanz talk 13:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test

This is a test of my newsletter delivery bot. MBisanz talk 13:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test

This is a test of my newsletter delivery bot. MBisanz talk 13:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test

This is a test of my newsletter delivery bot. MBisanz talk 13:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test

This is a test of my newsletter delivery bot. MBisanz talk 13:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test

This is a test of my newsletter delivery bot. MBisanz talk 13:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test

This is a test of my newsletter delivery bot. MBisanz talk 13:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&oldid=262087608"