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 Ligulem (talk | contribs) at 10:42, 23 December 2012 (→‎User Ligulem: 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.


Talkback at Tucoxn's talk page

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

Deletion of Magic's list of characters ?

Why did you do this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.36.23.123 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering characters: A MBisanz talk 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(20692) 1999 VX73 & (20694) 1999 VT82

Hi M - There were two identical articles with two nearly identical AfD discussions, but with different outcomes. I believe that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/(20692)_1999_VX73 should also have ended in a redirect to List_of_minor_planets:_20001–21000--Nixie9 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I had to click back and forth there a few times because it didn't make sense to me, but none of the from VT82 saying redirect didn't show up at VX73 in the same force, so it split the decision. I've reverted my close and relisted it to see if that happens with an additional week. MBisanz talk 16:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results

People is getting impatient. I left an answer to someone in WT:ACE2012 that results should be given away before December 20, 2012. I guess that it is an accurate date, doesn't it? Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That date sounds accurate. I'm nudging things as much as I can on my end. MBisanz talk 16:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at The Duke of Waltham's talk page.
Message added 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joakim Mogren‎

Can you clarify your closure statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joakim Mogren‎? Technically, there were two pages listed, but your AfD closure only seems to have been applied to the primary page in that discussion. The AfD tag on the other page was removed by someone else, but it would be good if it AfD closure also addressed it. Probably as 'no consensus' as several of the AfD posts also seemed to ignore the second page, so if someone feels it should be deleted, they probably need to refile a new AfD just for that one page. --67.137.149.122 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for letting me know. MBisanz talk 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good move

Was trying to figure out if/how to do that myself without making things worse. NE Ent 20:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist query

Hi mate, just wondering what you're looking for with your relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exotic weaponry? I'm sure you had your reasons, but an explanatory note might help - there now seems to be some confusion as to exactly what you're looking to have clarified by consensus. Cheers! Stalwart111 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MBisanz talk 22:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks - that should help! Stalwart111 22:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

You need a few of these. All on Jimbo, of course. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thankyou Blofeld" said Bisanz. "I'm now happily drunk and in a state where I'm an even worse 'crat than normal. "♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks buddy! :::renames Dr. Blofeld to "~~"::: MBisanz talk 18:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

If you can, would you just pop in and offer an opinion here [1]. Someone at WP:WER has raised a really interesting idea and we would like someone with some experience to see if this has been discussed, is off base, etc. and I can't think of anyone better to just look at this. Not asking for any hard work, just an educated perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Since you closed Kagura (Azumanga Daioh) as redirect, would you mind looking at ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Mihama‬ and ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayumu Kasuga‬? They both seem to be headed in the same direction. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MBisanz talk 17:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post close

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeafChat close - any other opinion/analysis of the discussion? Closers frequently opine - feel free. --Lexein (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, even after relisting it, one commenter thought the sources merely proved it existed and another commenter thought the sources proved it met the notability criteria. Given the lengthy discussion on the sources and participation of several editors, it would appear the community cannot come to a consensus regarding the sources provided. MBisanz talk 20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any problem with me copying your response to the close, for posterity? --Lexein (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Sikh -> Patit?

Quick query, just wondering how you decided the consensus was for a merge to Patit?

The only person in the AfD discussion who supported/suggested that particular article seems to have a close connection with the subject, and it was my opinion that person finds the subject distasteful, and would prefer to minimize the subject by relegating it to a very bare article concerning a very concise set of religious definitions regarding the group (Mona Sikhs) in question. While that Mona Sikhs might be covered by that definition, that definition does not begin to adequately describe these peoples in terms of society, religion, ethnic culture, etc.: in fact, the Patit article/law/definition seems specifically to EXCLUDE these peoples as being proper members of their society/religion, while the Mona Sikhs themselves would appear to consider themselves Sikhs regardless. The grammar used by the person who suggested that article for the merge indicates they may be of the Sikh group, or a person from that region, and I feel it does both the Mona Sikhs AND the Sikhism article a disservice to have the former be merged into an article which leaves little room for anything other than the legal/religious definition of "Patit": this would be like me suggesting that "Methodist" should be merged to "Heretic {Catholicism)" instead of "Protestantism", where it would more properly belong.

Thank you for your all your time and attention in working on this wiki, as well as for your consideration. besiegedtalk 00:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

My apologies, I misread the meaning of duplicate in the nomination to be in favor of that. I've gone ahead and re-closed it to point at Sikh. MBisanz talk 00:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies necessary, and thanks again for your efforts! I'm pretty sure you admins don't get enough thanks in comparison to the grief you get--editing alone these days is like swimming in shark-infested waters--without having to apologize for minor and easily corrected oversights or misunderstandings, though your civility in this is also truly appreciated; have a happy holiday season! besiegedtalk 15:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:) MBisanz talk 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Katja Kassin

Hi. I just reverted a good-faith edit because the matter was resolved, with heavy involvement by AnonEMouse, in 2007.

I explained my action on the new editor's page, then went to AnonEMouse's talk page to alert her that a resolved issue might be reviving. I see she's on break and yours was a trusted name I saw on her page, with a recent, unrelated notice.

Would you please keep an eye on the Katja Kassin article, in case BLP trouble arises? Thanks. Best, David in DC (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted and semi'd. TPS, please help me keep an eye out. Thanks. MBisanz talk 03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SST mobile game close

Regarding the deletion of the Starship Troopers: Invasion "Mobile Infantry" page, could you please clarify what prompted this decision? I would like to proffer an argument for its re-establishment.

The commentary on the article didn't seem like it cohesively reviewed or cited the information contained in the article itself, nor did commentators acknowledge the proffered second party sources (which were mentioned in the talk page to no effect). I argue that the deletion was premature.

Most importantly: commentators did not mention deleting other under-referenced portions of the universal canon that are still extent (see the SST board game for a prime example). I view this as slightly reactionary.

Reasons why I feel the article should be re-created: 1. The movie acts as a canonical prequel to the recent "Invasion" film, and (as noted in the article) uses sources from the film itself and leads into its story. Hence the "exists but not notable" argument should be considered moot; it's an official part of the story. 2. Additional press sources for the game are available. 3. The game is notable for being the first mobile game to exist in the franchise's history. While this may sound like a PR point, the cultural significance is irrefutable (consider the related Gundam series in Japan, which drew significant influence from the series). 4. Deletion criterion as offered by certain editors seemed to have a popularity contest-like bent to them; the article remained objective. 5. It stands to reason that popularity alone shouldn't be used as simple grounds for inclusion.

Thanks for your time!

MechaDev (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.133.163 (talk) [reply]

I'm sorry, your reasons don't align with policy, as it is generally understood, nor do they align with the comments at the AFD. The article will not be re-created. MBisanz talk 11:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The game is cited multiple times within the other canonical wikipedia entries. Couldn't the article simply have been edited? Again the comments in several cases blatantly ignored the article's text.

MechaDev (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2012 (PST) 216.40.133.163 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, the result of the AFD was that editing was not enough and that it needed to be deleted. MBisanz talk 00:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

Matt1. I noticed your replies at several places, and wanted to note my appreciation for your time. Especially I wanted to note the wp:bn question. I had noticed a comment or two about someone requesting their bits back, but I hadn't realized it had turned into such an elaborate discussion. All I can say is: that for myself - I do have the utmost faith and trust in you and the other 'Crats. (well, 99% of them anyway). Also on a personal note: I've noticed that when I need a hand with something, YOU are quite often the "Johnny on the spot" guy who lends a hand .. A personal thank you for that as well.

While I'm here, I'd also wish you and yours a most wonderful holiday season. All my best.

  • 1. Or, if you prefer the southeastern US style when addressing a person by their first name, then "Matthew" :-)

— Ched :  ?  16:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I thank you for your continuing contributions to the project and look forward to editing with you in the new year. MBisanz talk 00:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you were doing the admin around resysopping...

did you spot this? Any use? --Dweller (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I think I got all useful information out of there, but feel free to prove me wrong. MBisanz talk 00:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly! --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Advise / Help

Hi MBisanz,

Am Dr. K. Kokula Krishna Hari! I came across many people saying that there was an article at Wiki regarding to me and my organization (Association of Scientists, Developers and Faculties). When I tried checking it, unfortunately it was deleted because the articles were unsourced. Now, I have those article listings in newspapers. Can you advise me how to proceed, as am not an advanced Wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdykkh007 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources, you should bring them to WP:DRV. If you don't know how to use DRV, list them here and I will file a request. MBisanz talk 00:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

For consistency, would you be interested in notifying the former crats of the policy change as stated on BN? Those who have been inactive for more than 3 years have until 2/1/13 to request the bit back before they are required to go through an RfB.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 01:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MBisanz talk 01:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 03:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palam Kalyanasundaram

Hi I wonder if I might impose upon you for a copy of the article and talk page that was deleted today - I did a lot of research and would like to keep it, I think it is very likely that the page will be recreated very soon. I hope that isn't inconvenient, many thanks. --4letheia (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done at User:4letheia/Palam Kalyanasundaram. MBisanz talk 11:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a big old pain, but any chance of the talk page too as that had most of the research on discredited claims - many thanks for your prompt response --4letheia (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done MBisanz talk 14:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, many thanks --4letheia (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald Content

Hi, would you mind giving me a copy of the content of the UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald page that was deleted this morning? I'd like to roll that content into the 2012 in UFC omnibus. CaSJer (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed it to you. MBisanz talk 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers villains

I'm surprised that this happened, that no one who would regularly edit the article was notified about it, and that it got deleted. I'm assuming it was just a list of every antagonist but I can't be too sure at this point. I find it odd that Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers was chosen as the next article for deletion as it's just a list of characters (and lists I was certain were kept up to other criteria rather than notability; and a "subjective list" is a bit odd way to define it). Would you mind telling me exactly what on the now deleted page was problematic? Was it a list that included every single monster of the day or something? As I've dealt with that on the article currently at AFD and other similar articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you a copy of the article. The AFD was unanimous for deletion and even had been relisted an extra week. MBisanz talk 17:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just find it odd that no one bothered to notify any specific WikiProjects. And looking at the deleted page I still don't see why it was deleted. It was a list of the major antagonist characters, but I don't really see any need in arguing for its restoration. I'd just rather not see the more substantially articles get thrown out as it'll set a precedent that's I'm going to inevitably be blamed for by the fandom because I didn't stop it or caused it or who cares.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why other projects weren't notified, maybe ask the nominator? MBisanz talk 18:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was {{TOKU}} on the talk page?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was tagged with {{WikiProject Tokusatsu}} {{WikiProject Fictional characters|class=List}} {{WikiProject Lists}}. MBisanz talk 18:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How odd.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett.

Thanks for the help with the Barrett images. I'm glad that I FINALLY managed to do it right. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. MBisanz talk 21:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request clarification of change in resysopping policy

Thank you for placing a notice on my (old) Talk Page about the change in the resysopping policy. At first, I thought that the new policy was that a desysopped admin had to ask for the admin bit back within three years of being desysopped but, after actually going to the RFC and reading the new policy, it seems to me that a desysopped admin could ask for the bit back anytime as long as he was never inactive (as an editor) for more than three years. Thus, in theory, a desysopped admin could make an edit every two years and 364 days and thus maintain the right to ask for the admin bit back indefinitely. Is my new understanding of the policy correct or was I right the first time when I thought that the three year period involved three years of inactivity as an admin (due to being desysopped)? Does the new policy accept a single edit (even to one's own User Page) as sign of activity? Reading the wording of the policy literally, that's the conclusion I came to. However, that seems so incredibly lenient that I figured I should ask to make sure.

My particular case is complicated by the fact that I was an admin under the user name User:Richardshusr but have since changed my username to User:Pseudo-Richard. Thus, you left your notice at User talk:Richardshusr. I almost never use my old account User:Richardshusr and use almost exclusively my new account User:Pseudo-Richard. However, in terms of counting "three years of inactivity", the contributions for Richardshusr show only one edit because the contributions history was moved to the Pseudo-Richard account (coincidentally by you). Thus, before today, it would have appeared that my account had been inactive for almost three years. In fact, I have been very active under the user name Pseudo-Richard.

At this time, I am considering two options: (1) I could just ask for my admin bit back now and slide under the three year deadline (2) I could resume editing at least sporadically under the old username Richardshusr to keep the three year deadline out in the future. It is NOT my intent to game the system. I am NOT attempting to wikilawyer the policy. I just want to understand what the policy is and also get a bit of advice as to how certain tactics might be perceived. If I would be perceived as gaming the system by keeping the three year deadline at bay through making sporadic edits, then I will rule out that approach.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

--Richardshusr (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading is correct. One edit ever 2 years, 364 days would retain eligibility to request resysopping. Also, it applies to the individual, so as long as you continued to edit under User:Pseudo-Richard, the eligibility (and inactivity rules which deny eligibility) would apply to that account. My apologies for the confusing sequence of notifications. Presently, you are eligible to request resysopping through December 22, 2015. While editing once during that period of time would satisfy the rules, it probably would be perceived as gaming. My advice would be to just keep editing, request resysopping if you think the admin tools would help you edit, and otherwise set a Google Calendar alarm for 2015 just in case you take a long absence. I should also note that the standard rules apply, so even if it is within the three year period, a crat might deny resysopping if it appears the admin resigned because of bad conduct or socking or the like. MBisanz talk 07:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Want my account back!

Hey, whatever you did caused my account history, talk page and watch list to disappear. I want them back. Crock81 (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Please explain

Can you please explain this close? One of the delete voters (Cindamuse) changed their vote to Keep. Two of the delete voters (Anthony Bradbury and Max Semenik) voted Delete because "References appear to be primarily subscription websites", which is both not a bad thing nor does it have anything to do with notability and the statement is also untrue. Then the first two just said GNG, which is refuted by the expansion I did with more sources in the article. So how is there a consensus to delete? SilverserenC 09:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Ligulem

Thanks for your notice. I'm a bit surprised to read that I had been desysopped. I can't remember having seen any notice of this. Of course it's true that I have been inactive, but I'm still pretty surprised not having gotten any notice of desysopping? I can't even find anything to that effect in user rights log. I of course am not up to whatever the current rules and procedures are and might be missing something. Back when I got my admin bits, it was a big deal to get them. I'm indeed currently thinking of if it would be worth trying not to definitely loose them and what needs to be done in order to keep them. After all, I think I was in good standing when I stopped editing. Thanks for your help. Ligulem (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&oldid=529427128"