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 Gyrost (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 21 December 2009. 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.


File:BillHarney RayNorris zoom.jpg

Hi you deleted this file because of a potential copyright infringement, but I said in the accompanying text that it's public domain and I gave a link to the page where it says so. So what do I need to do to reinstate this photo?

Thanks Gyrost (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


01:11, 21 December 2009 MBisanz (talk | contribs) deleted "File:BillHarney RayNorris zoom.jpg" ‎ (Deleted because "WP:CSD#F11". using TW)

Images on Sugarcane Grassy Shoot Disease (SCGS)

Dear Mr. Matthew Bisanz,

All the images (that were deleted) were created by me during my research on SCGS. Please guide me by giving objective instructions to upload the same images again. I am not really getting which tag to add to the images so that it will become legal display.

Thanks n regards,
Amit Yadav.
Amityadav8 (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


AIV

That attack on talk:Timur seems like open proxies. If so a long block is warranted. Thoughts? Materialscientist (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could just be a /b/ attack. –xenotalk 23:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bot out there that is supposed to test and block open proxies, which are not my specialty, so I was more focused on stopping the immediate problem with quickie blocks. I suspect this attack was a /b/ coordinated attack and not open proxies. MBisanz talk 23:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

In the old days I would have sent Email

Subject: Reason prevailing

Hello -

Sorry you have been dragged into all of this. Regarding reason, I regret that as long as EEML! is being shrieked like WITCH! I shall be responding. In good faith I spent an inordinate amount of time responding to the evidence presented against me by individuals. I'm in my mid-50's with family health and other issues, I do not need to be defending my integrity against puerile Wiki onslaughts that take full advantage of ArbCom being content agnostic.

Then I find that anything and everything I have responded to apparently means nothing, as there is no indication ArbCom has listened to anything I have presented in my defense, instead they have crawled inside my head in the grossest assumption of bad faith with virtually no findings against me, yet proposing one-year topic or total bans.

You tell me what avenue I have for defending myself. When this started, I prepared an act of contrition to forward to ArbCom for their consideration when I felt the time was right. I have since deleted it, regretting I did not take a more forceful stand against my accusers.

ArbCom is fueling the problem with their guilty as charged assumption, as they have not looked for an understanding of the situation but only for bad-faith explanations for anything that can be potentially mapped from an Email to an on-Wiki article or editor. According to their logic, had Russavia been harassed in real life for some reason, coincidentally, EEML members would have been found to be the most "likely" perpetrators. In a real court, innocence is presumed and proof must be considered incontrovertible; on Wikipedia, guilty is actively sought and "likely" is good enough.

Done venting. No response required. No action being lobbied for. You are free to share this or not as you see fit. My respect for ArbCom goes down daily as the thoughtful answers provided to some of my election questions now appear to be lip service, or, worse, apply in all cases except my special case.

/Peters

Fair notice: I will consider responses from my detractors here harassment. I am only posting this on-Wiki so I can't be subject to more accusations of lobbying, etc. should it become known I made contact. Don't blame me for the atmosphere, I'm only responding.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I want to thank you and Shell for all of your help. Unlike some others, you both are problem solvers and I appreciate that Tony the Marine (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. (P.S. Your last edit at WT:Edit warring was months ago, but I'm hoping you remember something you consider interesting, because we haven't had much participation in the survey so far this week.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about word limit

Does the 500 word limit on arbitration requests apply to responses to other users? I don't want to break any rules here. Drolz09 04:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, responses to other users counts towards the amount, replies to specific questions from arbitrators, (so far the only question put forward is asking why this is urgent) do not. MBisanz talk 12:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Atomic clock

I think you deleted that page by mistake. It's certainly not a G8... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed although it was on the pre-screened list. MBisanz talk 06:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Thanks, I was wondering which to do, make them both links or neither I chose the wrong one! Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget...

I noticed that you didn't move non-party comment on the Tothwolf case to the case talk page - is that the standard now? o.O - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just walked in from a four hour drive, so I didn't actually look that closely. So, no, nothing I just did changes standard practice. MBisanz talk 05:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MBisanz2.jpg

Whats the deal with this page? (Its listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space)--Jac16888Talk 12:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was testing the new import function and was using it in a bugzilla request, but that is closed now so I've deleted it. MBisanz talk 22:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oh right. Thanks--Jac16888Talk 22:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone![reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Deleted images from Selvino children

Hi,

Please let me know why you deleted these images. These are photos that were uploaded by one of the Selvino children, Umberto Schoeps, and he granted them common license. He is pictured as a child in group photos which depict the Sciesopoli building. He is owner of the photo and is entitled to upload and grant license.

These photos are unique, not available anywhere else, and document a significant historic event.

I will re-upload these photos with them and tag them as holdon to prevent speedy delete without debate in the next occurrence.

However I would like your advice as to how to prevent a speedy delete by you when we do this.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Bowei Huang/A1DF67

On December 15, User:Bowei Huang requested that his username be changed to User:A1DF67 because he wanted a more obscure name.[1] Since you were the admin who actioned that request I thought I'd address this to you.

Bowei Huang has been on a crusade to automate everything which, while commendable, has caused several problems because his method of doing so has caused numerous errors requiring multiple reversions in multiple articles. He first came to my notice when he attempted to automate the approximate population of Australia which resulted in, at the time, an easily confirmable error.[2] After I reverted that mess, he made other changes on different occasions, all of which were subsequently reverted.[3][4] After seeing several warnings on his talk page I was a little suspicious after his name change request. Despite his request for an obscure username, User:A1DF67 hasn't made a single edit.[5] Instead, he has continued editing under User:Bowei Huang.[6] making mistakes and not correcting them and conducting testing in articles, rather than a sandbox.[7][8][9]

Getting to the main reason for my post, what we now have is a user who has requested and been given a name change. The new name hasn't been used but now holds all of his past edit history and more importantly, numerous warnings, while the old username has been cleaned of warnings and has effectively been given a fresh start. There is no indication by either username that it is an alternative account of the other. I don't think I need to connect the dots. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&oldid=333114876"