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 59.95.55.206 (talk) at 13:19, 25 April 2009 (→‎user:yellowmonkey: new section). 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.

Deletion of Negima-related articles

I'm sorry for the incovenience, but, recently, you have deleted many Ngima or Akamatsu related articles (Specifically, the "Magic in Negima", "Shinmeiryuu" and "Items and Artifacts" ones, that I remember). While I agree with some of the reasons for deletion, I feel sorry the loss of any information, and specially information I'm interested in. I'm not asking to undo the deletion permanently, but, it isn't possible to undo it for some time, so we can move the all the articles (And their respective histories) to the Annex Wikia, and then to the appropriate Wikia? Maybe it isn't necesary even to put the articles back: I just need acess to the text of the articles and their related histories. I'm not used to Wikipedia "inner workings", and I don't know if it's even possible, but, if it is, it would be better than just "throw away" the work of many people.

Thank you for your attention.--Lord Metatron (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can email you the text of the articles and you could paste that into the negima.wikia referencing Wikipedia. It wouldn't be possible to move them directly since I am only a Wikipedia sysop and one needs to be both a Wikipedia and Wikia sysop to complete a move. Would you like them emailed? MBisanz talk 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. The e-mail is patriciojr13@gmail.com. But, just to make things clear. When I put them on the Wikia, they'll lack the previous version history and any templates, won't they? Just to be sure.
And thank you very much for your help!--Lord Metatron (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they will lack histories. I sent the first two, but I can't find the third article, is it under a different name? MBisanz talk 00:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"List of Items and Artifacts in Negima", then. Maybe with a "!" in the end. --Lord Metatron (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, all sent off. MBisanz talk 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New message!

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at Control-alt-delete's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Institute for Health Freedom article

Hi Matthew. Thanks for helping out in the recent discussion regarding the proposed deletion of the Institute for Health Freedom article; I'm sure that with time it can be made into a worthy article! Might you have time to take a look at some edits made yesterday by a new editor called HealthFreedomSupporter? My reason for asking is that I feel that his/her deleting text and replacing it with a PR Newswire reference and a link to the organization's own website are not as reliable in terms of sources as were USA Today, the Washington Post and Psychiatric News. Do you think that it would be appropriate for these these edits to be reverted? Thanks again. Vitaminman (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and educated. MBisanz talk 08:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, thanks! Vitaminman (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Somebody with the IP address 75.103.6.164 seems to have reverted your fix and removed some additional material that I added just after your edit. Do we have any way of knowing whether this is the same IP address as that of "HealthFreedomSupporter"? It's only a hunch, but my guess is that it is. ;-) Vitaminman (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IP registers as a NYC business IP, so only one of 8 million possibilities there. MBisanz talk 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs

Hi. I haven't logged in to the wikipedia in a while (real life, etc.) and so I missed the AfD (you were the admin who closed it) for an article I created and had maintained a bit over the years. This makes me sad. I have a few questions. First, should I try a deletion review, so I get a chance to express my views on the matter? Secondly, given the time/effort/writing that I put into the article, is there a way that I can download its text / revision history for myself? Thanks, Doops | talk 14:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should take it to WP:DRV if you think there is substantial new evidence that was not covered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs. If you would like, I can email you a copy of the deleted page. MBisanz talk 21:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Malakov article deleted before relevant issues were carefully discussed

Dear MBizanz:

I would like to initiate this discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia policy to examine, more carefully, the matter of the "Daniel Malakov" article deletion which occurred this week. According to my understanding, you were the Administrator who deleted "Daniel Malakov". (Please correct me if this is a misunderstanding.)

Just now, I performed a search at The New York Times website. I find listed there 268 articles on "Daniel Malakov." This is a powerful indicator of notability. In my opinion The NY Times is not a "Tabloid." Does Wikipedia consider it to be one?

For comparison here are some other The New York Times hit counts today:

Daniel Malakov: 268 (this is pre-sentencing, scheduled to take place next Tuesday 4/21) Sante Kimes: 538 Kitty Genovese: 696 David Berkowitz: 2610 (clearly the most notable murderer of the last 20 years.) Distaffperp (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Malakov (2nd nomination) was open for 11 days and the prior discussion also indicated deletion. You really would need to see a WP:Requests for undeletion at this point. MBisanz talk 21:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panda Toes

Could you please look at this again and relist? Sources came to light after the delete !votes occurred. No one other than the nom commented after that point. Hobit (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but relisting is discouraged when there are more than a couple of comments. The current relisting guideline does not provide for relisting when new information is presented. MBisanz talk 21:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been significant discussion about this and DrVs that have succeeded based on the new information argument (I think you closed one a while back). At the least the delete !votes claiming their are no sources need to be discounted given that they are factually untrue. That would get you to no consensus in a hurry. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer DRV, if only because I don't like judging content, and judging if those earlier comments are satisfied with the later sources is a bit outside of what admins should be doing. MBisanz talk 21:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Policy-talk

You added this template to the top of all the policy-talk pages, but it's not clear that the template is ever useful on any page, let alone all the pages? —Centrx→talk • 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last place

Anyone should put his face is on a userpage. You even look like an accountant. Put down the books and start chasing women...Kaltenborn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Re: RFA

Hey MBisanz, thanks for nominating me for adminship, it was actually nice to read what was written and know other people did see value in the effort I've contributed with. I regret to inform you though, that at this moment in time I do not wish to go through the application process to become an administrator, it's not too high on my priorities. Thanks once again. :) Borgarde (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re-opening my RFA

Thanks. I mean that. It is a great distraction for me. Law shoot! 10:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Proposal

Okay, fixed now. Kirill [pf] 23:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please assist me?

Hi. I have just created an arbitration subpage called Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop/Mythdon-PD with only the "." symbol in order for it to be created. However, I need you to format the page in the way it should be. Thank you. —Mythdon t/c 03:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MBisanz talk 04:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision to delete

I had a look at the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treecat and counted 14 delete, 4 merge and 10 keep (including 1 comment). I'd say this is a clear "no consensus".

I know that a decision is not made based on counting votes, but those in favor of keep (including me) have voiced arguments as well. Could you please explain how you came to the decision to delete? Debresser (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded my close a bit. A further explanation would be the lack of reliable secondary sourcing was a fatal flaw that killed the notability of the article. Google hits alone do not create notability and the arguments on lack of sources were convincing. MBisanz talk 07:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you courteous answer, and in such short notice.

The same question I'd like to ask about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorverse concepts and terminology where 10 were in favor of deletion and 8 of keeping. Again, as one of those in favor of keeping this article and in view of the strong arguments brought forward, especially the arguments of "core article of the Honorverse" and "glossary", I'd like to understand your decision, please. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded. In that case it was that people could not prove the topic of "concepts and terminology" was notable, due to the lack of secondary sources covering that concept. In my experience, I've found such articles tend to be good import candidates for related Wikia wikis. MBisanz talk 07:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. Nevertheless, I feel, this last decision is likely to be contested. Thank you for your trouble. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please do contest it. There was no consensus on how to handle this. I think that it was closed based on the general view of the closer on what was required for these article, not the view of the consensus.

DGG (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS question

What does the permission for this image say? We probably need permission from the subject as well as the photographer for using an image depicting someone at least arguably identifiable doing illegal drugs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket merely confirms that oaktowncrack.com is the copyright holder and does indeed release it to GFDL, no mention of the subject or photographer's views on the matter. MBisanz talk 14:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bevill State Community College

Updated DYK query On April 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bevill State Community College, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedows OS

Keep? Based upon what... my comments about it not fulfilling policy and not only entirely correct but went without rebuttal! At worst it was non consensus given that there were two delete arguments and a single keep argument, with the other two voices being a pathetic cry to keep it for no reason and the other simply giving the reason "per Olaf Davis". Did you forget that the entire purpose of reviewing the AfD is to take a non-partisan view of the outcome of the discussion? I hope you did forget, because otherwise, your ability to read and comprehend an on-going discussion is worryingly faulty. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to no consensus per your request. Also you may wish to review my AFD philosophy at User:MBisanz/AfD. MBisanz talk 22:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I support your entire AfD philosophy, so I suppose you simply implement it better than I would. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK problems

Hello! Your submission of List of colleges and universities in Nevada at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Hello! Your submission of Connecticut State University System at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 17:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Brown (martial arts instructor) (2nd nomination)

Hi there. Quick question, I know your thoughts on relisting but really, to close this as no consensus when the weak keep acknowledged he hadn't re checked his links (they didn't work) and the keep cited the subject's own company? If neither are really keeps, how can this close as no consensus without turning into re-nominating again? I just don't see how closing this as no consensus is the right close when the keep was so poor. Any thoughts on this? I'm not going to DRV because I don't care enough, but I can't understand this close. Thanks! StarM 01:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well jmcw's comment got a very low weight, but JJL did come back with additional sources that he thought made the case. If someone had found an article to merge/redirect it to, like a list of martial arts developers, technique page, etc that would have been my preferred choice to an NC close. And of course this article was at AFD before, and I suspect unless more sources develop, it will be back at AFD as WP's standards slowly increase. Really one of those "I don't have a good answer and wish I did" situations. MBisanz talk 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A list might be a good idea if there are enough of them. Too bad I know nothing of the field to figure it out. I think this one's going to be a forever NC close because no one cares enough. Oh well :) Happy Monday StarM 12:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Template:Cite map to the references gadget you have (RefTools)

Is it possible you could add that to the template, it would help us road guys a lot. - See Template:Cite map.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you have the right person? I've never used RefTools or Cite map. If you give me a direct thing to copy-paste I can do it, but I have no idea about the technical end of things. MBisanz talk 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I am sorry, I sent this to the wrong person :| - My error.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marz (rapper)

Would you be willing to re-open? This discussion has been compromised by sockpuppetry. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. MBisanz talk 04:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As you can see here, I have created a lot of work for myself by uncovering this sockpuppetry. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I saw, good work. MBisanz talk 04:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nomination

I'm very flattered, however I decline the nomination. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. Ok. MBisanz talk 05:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Nobody's Fault But Mine

Would you consider reviewing the closure of this AfD in the light of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JamesBurns (checkuser results: here)? A relist with the sock comments struck or a pass at DRV would probably be a good idea. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 14:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ps Barnstar

See my recent barnstar in the light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive, don't make yourself a tool of some well known deletionist's army of sockpuppets. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If only we made everyone have a camera on top of their computers.... Oh well. MBisanz talk 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just about to point out that that was somewhat unfair, since you acted in good faith as the closing administrator and had no more knowledge of this than HexaChord did. Anyway, you'll be distressed to hear that you're the closing administrator in a number of these discussions, so there is more coming your way down the pipeline, as we work our way through them. One such is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa vs Pretty, which I think is best taken to Deletion Review, rather than being directly re-listed. Uncle G (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't know the backstory of this. We've had discussions on this before. Discussions about closing AfDs about one day early when only a few !votes (mostly socks now we know) were there, or giving three one line delete !votes (mostly socks now we know) more weight than two keep !votes actually citing sources (which in my eyes should be "no consensus" or even "keep" rather than "delete"). That is why I think MBisanz should not close AfDs at all. But I am no admin, I may not know the game well enough. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Matthew, what are your thoughts about this? Do you think that your approach to AfD closures has made you prone to the effects of these sorts of sock puppet antics? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really am not sure how any administrator can overcome this sort of sockpuppetry merely on closing style. The only way I would have closed these AFDs different is if I had looked at the content and put my view in place of the otherwise in good standing accounts at AFD. To be able to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa vs Pretty and say "those two deletes are socks" is something I don't think any administrator could pull off, they used different wording two days apart. Most socks are red-linked talk page, newly registered accounts. Those I can and do recognize and take into account, but something like this I don't think can be guarded against. MBisanz talk 02:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I certainly did not mean to suggest that an admin could ascertain that such !votes were those of sock puppets. But what do you make of HexaChord's characterization of your approach? It's a pretty serious charge, "giving three one-line delete !votes more weight than two keep !votes actually citing sources (which in my eyes should be 'no consensus' or even 'keep' rather than 'delete')." Is that accurate? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone back and double checked the AFDs HexaChord and I have in common where I closed contrary to his comment, here is a sample of my results
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith's fifteenth studio album NC despite there being more deletes and HexaChord's comment that violated WP:NOHARM
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Behavior (Praxis single) I relisted based on HC's claim of new sources, he !voted more than once and even with the alleged sources, other editors felt it failed the notability threshold.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binge and Grab HC's comment failed to address the question of notability/sources.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It (MSI Singles) Discounted per WP:INTERESTING
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing Yourself to Live Fairly clear to me, group noms are accepted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obscured By Clouds Tour HC was the only person not arguing to delete this, yet I still redirected per his comments
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Empire Shall Fall All other participants supported merger
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are One (Buckethead song) HC was the only person arguing to keep

Now I've compiled a list at User:MBisanz/HC of AFDs HexaChord and myself edited. A quick scan through them does not show any with the vote count he indicates, so I would need a specific instance to better respond. MBisanz talk 03:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked through these as well, and did not see anything along the lines of what HexaChord was suggesting, so I'm not sure if HC is referring to some other AfDs in which HC was not involved. I jumped into the discussion, perhaps impulsively and unfairly to you (I'm still reeling from the discovery of how long this sock puppetry went undetected), but also because something about HexaChord's comment rang true. Perhaps it was your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TGT (group), in which your gave some credence to the others' rationales (JamesBurns and A-Kartoffel) by closing it as "no consensus". It disturbs me that contributors who simply pass by and say "no sources" are given as much weight as those who make efforts to actually search for sources—that was the kind of thing that made me wonder if AfDs become more prone to these sorts of sock puppet antics. I also reacted a little to your comment above (and in the past) that you give weight to any "good standing account". It's tough to know just how many of those accounts, these brief-rationale-at-AfD-providers, are as-yet-undetected socks. So that's my more complete explanation of why I asked you the questions I did. :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naga Chaitanya

Hey, can you re upload the article, so I can usefy it. Thanks! Universal Hero (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done at User:Universal Hero/Naga Chaitanya. MBisanz talk 22:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBY Ltd

Can you have a look at BBY Ltd in relation to the edit war with LibStar. Do you believe it is appropriate to include Company Management? Additionally the line in relation to a reward in BRW Magazine?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zip1010 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit outside my area of knowledge, you might try asking User:Daniel or User:Darkfalls for more help. MBisanz talk 03:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of colleges and universities in Nevada

Updated DYK query On April 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of colleges and universities in Nevada, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles left over from closed AfD

Yo Matt, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq–Malta relations but the tags are still up at Iraq–Serbia relations and Iraq–Singapore relations. Are we to understand that these articles are to be kept, or deleted? Thanks, Skomorokh 06:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I assumed since they were crossed out, they were withdrawn. Removing the AFD tags. MBisanz talk 06:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, appreciate your time. Regards, Skomorokh 06:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of R&B musicians

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R&B musicians should not be closed as delete due to the socketpuppetry of User:JamesBurns (see List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns) who voted with puppets in this AfD. Untick (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untick, a new discussion was started by Black Kite at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R&B musicians (2nd nomination). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for archive of article "Nicholas Chan"

As per the topic, I would really appreciate it if you can assist in providing me with the archive copy of the article which was deleted. If it can be put in my userpage, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! 220.255.7.239 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More from the pipeline

I said that there were more, didn't I? ☺ Unfortunately, what we have here in these cases are the sockpuppetteer and just one other person. In the case of the latter discussion in particular, the other person's contribution is "nn", which is useless. I suspect that had the sockpuppetry not existed these would have been re-listed for further discussion. Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Market Hero – I annotated the master list with "Sockpuppets were responsible for tipping a multiple relist to delete, looks like a no consensus close would be appropriate. Independently, Black Market Hero has been undeleted, merged, and redirected." If you concur, please re-close, and I'll notify Michig (the primary interested editor). Flatscan (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosed per your suggestion. MBisanz talk 04:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've done the needful. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another one is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Grundy (song), where the sock puppet contributions may have had an effect. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. MBisanz talk 01:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punkradiocast.com Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, keep 'em coming. MBisanz talk 02:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You betcha. :) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Like That (song) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted. MBisanz talk 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None the less

Hello, you (or, at least, the AWB bot) have been treating "none the less" (three words) as a typo, and changing it to nonetheless (one word).

Most dictionaries say it can be either. The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (ODWE), which I have always gone to when in doubt, says the three-word version is actually to be preferred (unlike "nevertheless", which is always one word).

It's a very small matter in the great scheme of things, but I think at the very least there is no need to change "none the less" when it appears as three words. Alarics (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll point it out to the devs. MBisanz talk 04:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help on RS queery

Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terowongan Casablanca

Might I ask that you take a look and perhaps close the AfD since the nom has witdrawn the nomination based upon improvements? Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (Now why do I have this talk page watched? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you know what you're doing

...and have a degree in accounting, I'll run this article on accounting software by you first, but I'll be happy to try to hand it off to some Wikiproject (can you suggest one?) if you don't have an opinion: User_talk:Dank55#Notability. (Not watchlisting, you'll break my watchlist) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat 2

You forgot to include in your summary of the decision that administrator Will Beback and other three users were admonished for their conduct in articles related to Prem Rawat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.235.32 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also forgot to post a notice in the discussion page of the Prem Rawat article and all related articles about the revert limitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2#Revert_limitations that apply to everybody, not just these that were admonished or banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.235.32 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was done was sufficient. MBisanz talk 04:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Please see the relevant thread, here.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new sock: 207.237.61.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Could you please block it?— Dædαlus Contribs 09:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a new email.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India–Malta relations

Can you check if this edit of yours (which I reverted) was inadvertent, or if I missed something ? The AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India–Malta_relations. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes, I was closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta-Asia relations and took it as a withdrawn AFD, not as a split AFD. Thanks. MBisanz talk 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That explains it. One benefit of the minor snafu was that I got to read User:Marcusmax's !vote at the Malta-Asia AFD, which I have now cited in my keep vote at the India-Malta AFD. Still swimming against the tide, but there's hope. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagged for deletion

I was surpised to see an article I created on a young author (M.H.A. Menondji) was deleted. I have two additional pieces of information on this writer; the first is the title of the book she authored and that is scheduled for release on May 8, 2009 (Beyond Those Hills: an Officer and a Lady, available after May 8, ISBN-9781441485304), the second is an article recently published on an online magazine (See link http://www.jamati.com/online/books/mha-menondji-inspiring-french-beninese-author-beyond-those-hills-an-officer-and-a-lady/). I can add a stub if the deletion is cancelled.

Thank you for reconsidering!

That page was deleted by User:Jimfbleak, you would need to ask him about re-creating it. MBisanz talk 04:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of MediaRing Limited

Hi,

I am the creator of the MediaRing Limited Article page. I would like to check with you, why was our page being deleted?

Hope to hear from you soon.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpatel72 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete it, it was deleted by User:Alexf. MBisanz talk 05:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gadsden State Community College

Updated DYK query On April 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gadsden State Community College, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

I was skimming ANI and I noticed a section captioned "Appeal for block reevaluation" which appears to reference one of your blocks. I don't know if anyone has advised you of the discussion, but it would probably be helpful for you to comment there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by ANI, he means AN ;> Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal for block reevaluation. –xeno talk 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. MBisanz talk 00:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Brown (goaltender)

Since you didn't put a reasoning in your delete closure, I am going to ask for one now before I take the closure to DRV. As this was clearly a case of no-consensus at the very worst. -Djsasso (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentators disagreed over whether or not he passed WP:ATHLETE, I found the arguments that there were no sources indicating a significant professional career to be more convincing than the arguments that other similar articles exists or that sources might exist. MBisanz talk 21:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, just wanted to see what your opinion was since very close calls like that without a comment are just begging to be reviewed. I will be taking it to DRV since sources were actually provided, they didn't just say they might exist. -Djsasso (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mike Brown (goaltender). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Djsasso (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sock/meatpuppets evading ban

MBisanz, thank you for your note at the SPI I opened. I omitted a capital 'P' in the username User:JohnklausPowell, and I've corrected the problem. Thanks again. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary–Peru relations

I noticed that you closed this discussion as "delete." However, I feel that 6 delete !votes, followed by 3 keep !votes do not constitute consensus. AfD is not a headcount; delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, keep, keep, keep ≠ 6 delete with 3 keeps scattered throughout. The result should be based on the merits of the arguments presented. Generally, !votes at the end signify a change in the direction of the debate, especially if editors have researched the Internet and found new evidence for notability. In particular, the sources given by Mandsford and WilyD are sufficient to show that the subject is notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless people come back and change their comments, I cannot read into it that they are now satisfied. In particular, one person did come back and say they were not satisfied with the sources. MBisanz talk 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it just meant that they did not care enough to return. I doubt that all of them have actually checked and held the sources to be unreliable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And then we wander down the path of the admin trying to judge the content to see if it is good enough now to satisfy the earlier comments, and then people complain that admins are substituting their judgment for the community's. It's a terrible process, but it is better than all the other ones :P MBisanz talk 01:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is, maybe it should be relisted. While normally relists are used when there are few !votes, perhaps it would be more appropriate to WP:IAR here and give people a chance to respond. If more people support "delete" after the relist, then delete it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried that in the past, for awhile actually, and then people kept complaining I was violating the deletion guidelines by not following WP:RELIST, it is a catch-22. MBisanz talk 05:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the deletion; while perhaps they were enough to verify the article's content, the sources presented by WilyD (talk · contribs) were challenged as insufficient to prove notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersay sock

Toronto20010...previous name was Tuesday2009. Same M.O as all his other socks. I would post a SPR but I'm rather busy at the moment. I'm not sure if you can do anything about it but I figured it was worth a shot since you've been involved before. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Blocked MBisanz talk 01:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace-notices styles

I just noticed your changes to MediaWiki:Editnotice-7 and {{visibility}}. You made them 80% wide and talk page brown. That goes against the current (but weak) consensus for namespace notices. So I invite you to join the latest discussion about this: Template talk:Fmbox#Requested edit.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why you deleted a PAGE !

Lastly I noticed that you deleted a page named Electrointerstitial scanner, I am finally a physician, frequently using that page to teach my students and learn about innovations in medical technologies.. What you did still incomplete until you explain me your act. Please try to answer me as soon as possible, otherwise this could train serious consequences ! You also can install EIS page at its place without prolongation of our talk. Thank you in advance for your ethical answer and explanation. Sincerely

--naseem abi shaheen (talk)

The deletion was as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro Interstitial Scanner, when the community decided to delete the page. I will not restore it. You may contest at WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz talk 03:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thanks for the offer - I'd be glad to have the tools to serve Wikipedia further. However, I'd like to give it a week or so, if that's OK with you, as I want to write and expand some mathematics articles. Best, -download | sign! 04:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just give me a day's notice.MBisanz talk 04:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

There are new messages for you at this topic. Since we apparently have consensus for keeping this user off wiki, or rather, keeping him blocked, would you be able to extend the block lengths on his three IPs?— Dædαlus Contribs 06:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk and Jeske seem to have it from the technical POV, I'll leave it to them for now. MBisanz talk 06:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:yellowmonkey

if user yellowmonkey does not exist then how can it block other editor?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&oldid=286037421"