User talk:MBisanz

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.

YOU!

CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

TUSC token fa25b957c9efa54ee67b217d20c2934e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hello

DougsTech (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Unblocking Peter Damian

It looks to me like there is no consensus on WP:AN/I for an indefinite block of User:Peter Damian. Accordingly, I'm requesting that you unblock him. I'd prefer that you do it yourself so that we don't have even an intimation of wheel warring going on. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, there is no consensus that he should be indefinitely blocked. naerii 17:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  23 minutes late [1]. MBisanz ^talk 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  Boo :P Thank you for being agreeable on this matter. I got all indignant and it was far too late :P naerii 17:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for bringing the block to WP:AN. You did the right thing, and I appreciate your responsible action. Even if we disagreed on the original block, I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith. Nandesuka (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Announ.JPG

Thanks for the tip. Image licencing is tricky. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi. Is there any way you can semi protect my talk page? The same guy who was attacking my user page has been de-archiving the page. Thank you for any help. Libro0 (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock question

Hi MB, when you have a moment care to have a gander here? The edits are vaguely making me feel our Nothing buddy, but I can't confirm it. You also worked more closely with him. I could be far off base but wanted your input. Hope all is going well in your world. TravellingCari 17:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see what other mischief he finds. Got a couple ears to the ground on him. He'll stumble, meaning less work for us. :) TravellingCari 04:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)q

Neutral admin

Could you look at this: [2], User_talk:Dreadstar#Re-Breast_talk, [3], [4], User_talk:AGK#Please_Tell_Dreadstar_to_back_off.

I need a neutral admin input. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

MBisanz, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

My RfB

Thanks for the questions. Just to be clear, are you looking for a succession of one-word answers in Q8, or is one word answer, followed by justification OK? --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This will sound silly, but it's your question, so I'll answer it in the way you wish, lol. If anyone wants my rationales they can post their own question. Please see my note - I'll probably take a good while to do justice to the question. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I just flicked this one open. I'm so puzzled you could put me in a box and sell me in a toy shop. I'll have to look into it, but it's made me smile so thanks for that. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah. A bit more investigation and I'm with it now. I actually laughed out loud. I'm going off wiki now. I'll try and work on that list later tonight, otherwise I'll progress it tomorrow. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Silkroad Online

Silkroad Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Per your protection log note, I'm requesting unsalting (or undeletion, if necessary due to the huge # of prior edits) of the Silkroad Online article at DRV. I've got a new stub in my userspace (User:Matt Fitzpatrick/Silkroad Online) that I think would be a good (re)start. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 21

Hi. Unfortunately we have come across a deletionist who seemingly intends to try to delete all of adequate fair use images that we have on wikipedia. For instance Image:Yone Minagawa.jpg etc etc. Fully complies with fairuse and it is potentially destructive for this editor to be nominating mass images in this way. I;ve uploaded thousands of images to wikipedia only if they fully comply with general wikipedia policy on irresplaceable imahes and am not going to tolerate having my images drilled at me like is being done.

For instance he has nominated the image in Soe Win because it is non notable? Can you believe this is his criteria? The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 2 Interpretation

You seem to be basing a large number of your deletion criteria on the fact an image comes from a news agency, and therefore harms their economic interests. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news agency, we tag our non-free images as such, therefore, per NFCC 2 "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." our coverage, in and of itself, will not replace the original new agency's market. To this end we limit the number of images per page and require low resolution images, as well as the whole NFCC tagging and categorization scheme. I really would prefer you took this interpretation up at WT:NFCC than continuing to tag compliant images. MBisanz ^talk 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as we use a news agency's image of an event/person to illustrate a text about that event/person, we are replacing the original market role for that image. You may want to take it to WT:NFCC yourself, if you're still unsure. --Damiens.rf 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If your're still unsure? Do you have to be so patronizing? You;ve already tried to make out that some of our most established users including Bisanz, User:Maxim, J Milburn and myself are clueless about what images are acceptable when we all have a lot of experience with dealing with such issues on wikipedia. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bisanz if I am going to have messages drilled at me everytime I log in because somebody disagrees with the rationale I am in for one hell of a future on here because I have uploaded thousands upon thousands of similar images and I am going to get it all thrown back at me and have my talk page spammed with them. I am very concerned about this and I don't want to have to waste all my time on here defending images when I could be getting on with what I do. It is disruptive and not helpful to wikipedia and basically I am going to be punished big time by being drilled images for deletion for trying to help wikipedia,, The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to WP:AN or WP:RFC, there is ample precedent that users such as this who specialize in non-free content review must act with care in their actions. MBisanz ^talk 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The worrying thing is that there are other deletionist editors spurring him on and "very much encouraging" him to delete content. We've seen the images for deletion page completely swamped today to almost record levels, jumping on the band wagon. He is going to make an awful lot of editors unhappy in doing so, particularly those images which have a full rationale which the uploader has spent time adding. Once again there seems to be a different perception of fair use criteria in that in one piece of rationale it clearly is valid and in others it makes it look invalid. If he continues to swamp the images for deletion pages then I will certainyl be reporting him. There is a difference between good faith intentions, and a mass nuke attempt of images which are currently being used of encyclopedic purposes on wikipedia. In my view such a course of action does nothing to improve wikipedias content and is not constructive. I'm sure there are many images which don't qualify for fair use on here, but I for sure am not prepared to see such images as those politicians and deceased bio images deleted. Its put me off editing today to be honest in that you never know what will come of your work and time you put into wikipedia if people invent ways and justify deleting it. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone linked me to a news article off-wiki that seems to indicate that a news image of a dead person is not fair use unless the image itself is the subject of the article, so I'm a bit unsure on how to proceed, since I've always seen death as a good enough ground to go fairuse. This needs further discussion somewhere other than weeklong, image specific IFDs. MBisanz ^talk 21:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the person is dead or not plays no role at all in real-life fair use law. In fact, the moment a prominent person dies it may very well increase the market stakes in existing commercial images, because it opens a whole new temporary market for the news coverage of their death. The only thing about dead or not dead is that death affects the Wikipedia-internal "irreplaceability" condition, which is not a fair use factor but a self-chosen rule that an image has to pass on top of being fair use. That brings into play things like promotional, "non-commercial-only" or "by permission" images provided by the dead person's heirs or organisation, which would otherwise be categorically excluded for living people. But images of dead people still need to pass all other criteria, and any that fail NFCC2 have no chance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It would help certainly but the changing of image policies on here and the difference in views on what is fairuse is undoubtedly an ongoing struggle on here which is one of the most demanding I;ve faced on here. Similarly, limited use of screenshots of films were permitted for identification of a key scene in a film and to illustrate its content but now there is a major effort to remove these images because now images are only permitted to critically analyse a film in a production section not in the actual film contents. I can sort of see why some people might think they are doing the God of Fair Use Imagery's goodwork by removing them, vbt it is kind of a frustrating one that these people aren't spending their time filling out stubs and building the encyclopedia constructively instead. Some images you can see should be deleted a mile off, but it is the ones where there is a clear divide on their acceptability, which if this news agency policy is used as an excuse to delete then we are going to lose a dreadful amount of irreplaceable content, whicb will be a further blow. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for further reference about news agency images, please see WP:NFC#Unacceptable use (item I.6), and also the DRV cases at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 27 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 29 (about Image:Serbs_burn_US_embassy_in_Belgrade.jpg and Image:Belgrade Kosovo is serbia protest Obraz flag Karadzic portrait.jpg respectively). Just the first such case that comes to mind. These deletions are extremely routine and all fall squarely under CSD I7. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with your block, i got through it. i just thought you should know a little history between me and Rlevse and Dreadstar

During the first block (my first) and 1/2 The admins wanted me to admit wrong doing before even attempting to listen to me. When they did ask for evidence of others wrong doing they ignored it and told me i was pushing the blame on others. Wasting my time making me look for something they could have looked for themselves. it takes 2+ to edit was and usually 2+ to be uncivil.

It just seems to me that Rlevse and Dreadstar are/were protecting the editors on the breast article who have been there a lot longer then me, and have worked with the two or at least Dreadstar who worked with Rlevse.

I hate digging up a dead horse. beating it or being the one that killed it, but during the first dispute Dreadstar focused on me not indenting on the talk page, "Being uncivil" and edit waring with multiple users.

Yes i edit wared with the lead and possibly the removal of images in the gallery, but these things seem so small yet these editors make a big deal out of it.

I might have got a tone here and there, but getting called this and that (WP:TEND) and being accused of censorship and sexualizing images would rub anyone wrong and put a little venom in them.

But i get zeroed in on by Dreadstar who left the others alone, didn't even ask them a question or comment on their talk page that they might be responsible for something.

Do you know how many images were in the gallery on the breast article when I first arrived? 57 images, and I removed 8 of them. Asher196 reverted it every time and after the second time claimed it was to big of a change and would need consensus. You might be able to see why I accused these editors of WP:OWN. I mean to make a fuss over 8/57 images and a picture of some guy's gal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=prev&oldid=228949811 my removal of the images in the gallery

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228949811 Asher196's revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228950202 My second removal of these image

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228952105 The second revert from Asher196 with a comment asking me not to make "major changes without consensus"

That was one anchor that got attached to my foot when it came to that article. I mean honestly was 8/57 images so horrible or unreasonable to remove? I know i sound like a broken record or something but why was i the only one being focused on in the charge of edit warring?

I mean Dreadstar must have posted 50+ diffs showing some kind of crime i committed, yet he wouldn't even attempt to look for the diffs, which were easier to find back then, that showed Asher's edit waring with me.

Am i so wrong in asking that if a person can take the time to get those diffs against one person, that they can look for some more?

Then I am the only one who gets a noose around my neck when it came to the gallery again.

Asher196 hid the gallery to keep the stretching down. I mean loading 57 images causes the scroll bar to jump around like an idiot. Well here comes Atom to revert it saying it was broke.

I thought it was a honest mistake and i corrected him and told him it wasn't broke but programed to hid to help in navigation of the article. He reverts it again, this time claiming censorship.

I revert his revert and assure him its not censorship.

Well i guess because i reverted twice i am in a edit war? He reverted 3 times. once Asher's edit twice my own.

Asher196 hiding the gallery http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=229168263&oldid=229167936 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229168263 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608

Atom's Reverting it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608

Me correcting him http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229329371

Atom reverting it a 2nd time, this time using the censor card 2RR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229373351

Me correcting him a second time might be considered 2RR but that's a case by case thing I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229633092

I gave Dreadstar all this info, and he still focused on me not indenting, and edit warring. Gave me the old speech "You're responsible for your own actions" That is when i accused him of being bias. I had seen his presence on that article and its talk page, discussing the topic and how to improve it with the others. I felt he was to involved and as far as i knew or still know he could have been friends with Asher196 and Atom.

Well after that little episode of calling Dreadstar bias, Rlevse came into my life. He protected the article which i had no problem at all with. He said take the time to discuss it with the other editors, which is did.

I continued to discuss the lede and gallery with my peers on that article, but somehow and i still don't 100% get how, i got blocked for breaking consensus and edit warring.

Now what was the point of blocking me for edit warring when the article was protected? Also how exactly can i go against consensus with in a article that is blocked?

I get accused of calling a fellow editor a liar, and both me and the editor i was accused of calling a liar told both Dreadstar and Rlevse that it wasn't the case.

I got accused of calling a fellow editor (Atom) disruptive. I had made a survey and he called me making it disruptive. I told him plain as day him saying that was disruptive.

I'm sorry if this seemed like a rant but do you see where i'm coming from?

Am i wrong for accusing the editors on that article of WP:OWN? Or being WP:TEND?

I accused Atom of both because he has said things like "I just want to block you from editing and hurting the article." and a combination of OWN and TEND when he says things like "I only suggest not an illustration because I don't think that it will be acceptable by a consensus as the lede, even though it could gain some support. If you choose not to do that then I will follow up with a new lede proposal so that we can get closure."

If you want i will look for those diffs but its easier to copy past then thumb through the history.

Maybe you can see now why i distrust Dreadstar and Rlevse and wish that they not contact me or get involved with me.

I just thought you should know that little bit of drama in the last month. Keep up the good work cheers.Yami (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Thanks for the nice things you wrote about me on the RfB. My take on dispute resolution is as follows. There's no consensus for the Crats as a team to act in this way. However, many of them are skilled as individuals. I'd humbly say that I have some abilities in this area; as well as the Copa del Rey example listed in the RfB, and a host of little niggles I've solved that aren't worth listing, I've been working on a formal Mediation (currently stalled) on Contras. But I come back to my discomfort over using the Crats as a group. If consensus were that they should have a role, I'd happily go along with it. But I could only interpret the question in the light of current consensus and policy, which I did. Anyway, I owe you a debt of gratitude for that horrendous Q8: I no longer have any reservations at all about whether I can make a good Crat; I know I can do a good job if given the chance, even if not everyone will agree with my decisions. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

banned

I'm not actually banned you know - I'm just blocked forever - belive it or not there is a difference I was surprised to find that one out). Someone tried for a community ban but it was opposed. --87.114.7.44 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly true. There was an attempt to suggest that Fd be unblocked, when User:Allemandtando was unmasked, and it went down in flames. There was a prior attempt to create a community ban through discussion at AN/I, as I recall, and there was one admin who refused to support it. I've heard the definition of community ban be that no admin is willing to unblock. That's obviously true at this point. There was some negotiation attempted, and I tried to support it, but he, apparently, will not tolerate anything that leaves him visible.

In any case, MBisanz, you blocked the IP Fred was using for a week. That's ineffective in stopping him, because he just reboots and acquires another IP in the 81.112-87.115 range within minutes. A day should be sufficient if you are going to do it, not sure if it is worth it. (The risk of blocking an innocent user is low, but not zero.) It occurred to me that there would be a more effective way of dealing with his edits, and those of people like him, but it would require some thought. By the way, he continued vandalism to my Talk page, when it went off protection briefly, and did what he could, before that, to vandalise a self-RfC I've created in my user space. Ironically, I invited him to participate, I think he might have something to say of value, but I think he has another agenda. --Abd (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use my name as a excuse to spam your sham RFC. You just don't get it - nobody wants to be involved in such a rigged process. And there isn't an effective way to do with my edits - because there doesn't need to be - my main account has over 30,000 and is a well respect editor. My secondary account has about 10,000 edits and although not so well known is a well respected policy maker. --87.112.53.52 (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Make a report to WP:ABUSE, Ill handle it personally   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin Incident

Patience is a virtue, also, you wont be the one to block steve crossin as the situation is clearly being handled by ArbCom and is beyond any administrators discression. when they get enouigh views arbcom will act.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BN

Hiya! Matt, can you remove the rather large box and just leave the text? I appreciate your opinion here, and agree that the concerns needed to be raised, but the large box does look a tad attention seeking or something. Ta! Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it! Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So I see. No worries my man, it just looked a bit jarring. Again, glad you brought up the subject as it needs to be reviewed. Hoping you're well. Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

But I like boxes :-( --Deskana (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wikimania2007logo.gif

I remember formally ceding the rights to the wikimedia foundation, but I don't know exactly how the image is licensed. You may want to contact samuel klein? Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 03:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)