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 MBisanz (talk | contribs) at 01:32, 16 February 2009 (→‎One more thing: res). 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.

Vandalism to your User page

I was trying to keep up with the vandalism on your User page and the Talk Archive pages, but I was told at ANI that you're a big boy and can take care of your own space. Therefore I won't bother undoing the vandalism further. Apparently admins have to take care of themselves. AnyPerson (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped User talk:MBisanz/Archive 7 from full- to semi-protection, `cause otherwise the bot would not be able to archive old dicussions from this page. If you feel my change was in error, please feel free to adjust the protection settings. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, wise idea, BTW, I have your email and am thinking of a response. MBisanz talk 21:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incidents famously considered great blunders (2 nomination)...

Go figure, just as I am about to argue to keep it, it is closed, anyway, for now, could you please userfy it? Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done at User:A Nobody/List of incidents famously considered great blunders MBisanz talk 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What am I doing wrong, I can't find the articles deleted edit history here: [1]. dougweller (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best not to supress the redirect when moving something like this, rather take the time to delete it afterwards so the trail of breadcrumbs is intact. –xeno (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, so List of blunders was created just after the AfD was started. I'm not clear about what the protocol is here - do we see it as actually a different article, or as the same article retitled? Looking at the section headings, I'm inclined to say it is basically the same article dougweller (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has a template saying it is in the process of a major rewrite, so I say give it time and then see. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:List of blunders. It is my experience that often people vote an article to keep, but don't really do something to fix it. My suggestion in the AfD page to restart the list on a firm ground was ignored. Since you asked to userfy the page, I understand you have serious intentions. So if you know anyone else who want to make this list a decent wikipedia page, please notify them. - 7-bubёn >t 16:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review deletion of Pucci Dellanno

Hello there,

I am the person who created the page for the artist, etc. - I believe you are the administrator who deleted the page? If so, can we please review this deletion?

I understand your comment about the majority of the links being from myspace - I had in fact put other links there which have been modified / deleted over the course of the years.

In fact, I also understand the fact that you say the article is biased, although I must say I only modelled it on other articles about singers, and would be willing to change the style - I just never thought it was necessary since the article had been on Wikipedia for 2 years, other people had contributed links and amendments, etc.

I work in A&R, and although Bridget Grace is no longer one of our artists (in our books), she is in fact a very important figure in the dance music world, she often goes to Detroit - where she works still with people such as the four Tops http://www.simonevitaleband.com/onlineshop/goinhome.html etc. - and so we would like all the people who enjoy her music to know a bit about her.

We consider it very impressive that considering that Pucci Dellanno is now a private individual, her music continues to be published, and mixed, and bought, and danced to, after more than 20 years from the first successes she had.

As I mentioned in the discussion about deletion, all you need is to enter "bridget grace music" or "bridget grace singer" or "aurora dellanno" in a search engine for pages and pages to come up showing either her current IT career or her music still being very much in the fore or house/dance scene.

I really feel that the page is no more and no less important than that dedicated, for example, to Ed Ball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Ball_(musician) or Alan McGee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_McGee - both people who had an influence but are now retired from the music industry, but whose pages are not candidates for deletion.

Thanks.

Thom.

Thomaslear (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it isn't my choice, the community decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pucci Dellanno that the article should be deleted. The existence of other articles is not relevant to retaining this one. Feel free to appeal the decision at WP:DRV. MBisanz talk 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry, I do not agree - there was no real debate, 2 people do not make the community. I am going to appeal.

Thanks.

Thomaslear (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Pucci Dellanno

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pucci Dellanno. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thomaslear (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Transcluding portions of pages

Hi MBisanz, if I recall, your name has come up before in the context of a technique to allow blocked editors to edit their own talk page and have that section appear on (for instance) ANI so that they could have their own input displayed within the main discussion. Am I dreaming about that, or do you have a specific technique?

My interest here is nothing to do with blocking, rather to do with transcluding specific sections of one talk page onto another page. If that's possible at all, I'd love to know how it's done. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wrap the text you want transcluded with <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> tags a transclusion of the page will only include what is between those tags. –xeno (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh - two questions then: does the onlyinclude tag automagically exclude the rest of the page? and presumably this will work only once per archive page, i.e. the onlyinclude will collect all instances and we can't have <onlyinclude name="foo">? Good sandbox material in any case, thanx! Franamax (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, any other content would need to be wrapped in <noinclude></noinclude>. And you can only have one sequence of <includeonly></includeonly> on a page from what I have seen. So you would have it set up as <noinclude>Stuff you don't want</noinclude><includeonly>Stuff you do want</includeonly>. MBisanz talk 12:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching

Hey MBisanz, I was wondering if you were free for coaching? Grsz11 00:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I've just sent an e-mail. Grsz11 04:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Front desk

Since you closed the above, I thought you might be interested in this and this. The user seems to be unwilling to accept the consensus at AfD. – The Parting Glass 08:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a request at WP:RFPP. MBisanz talk 13:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Val 2.0 → 2.0.1 waiting

MBisanz, please see Template_talk:Val#The_final_solution. User:Dragons flight writes that he “posted a correction” for {{val}}. I independently saw this bug on Kilogram. Note the last two lines of the second paragraph in Kilogram. Note too, the last lines on the first and third paragraphs in the Carbon‑12 section. This is due to a lack of close-spans (</span>). Since this span-based bug persists after a purge, I assume that Dragon flight’s “posting” of a correction requires action on your part to make it happen. Greg L (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, Vsmith fixed it. MBisanz talk 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Tracy

Can you re-open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Tracy. The entire debate seems have been focused on his professional career, and ignores completely that he won the Hermann Trophy - which surely makes him notable! Nfitz (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It already was open more than five days and the consensus was a rather firm delete, despite the inclusion of the award fact in the article from the beginning of the AFD. I really can't see any grounds to extend it per WP:RELIST or close it against consensus. Sorry. MBisanz talk 02:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close seems correct. The complete lack of anyone involved in the AfD process to apply the principles of whether the article should or should not be kept, rather than blindly deleting articles because they are not professional athletes astounds me. And I guess the next step is DRV. Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD never ceases to amaze me. Suffice it to say, I will not oppose the DRV, I just can't insert my own opinion in closes. MBisanz talk 02:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to do a mass unfree deletion

How do I do a mass unfree deletion for the screenshots on WIN News#Bulletins? Images are unneeded in the article and the images of the new readers are replaceable. Bidgee (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have some scripts that make it much faster. MBisanz talk 13:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. :) I wish you luck in the CheckUser and Oversight elections. :) Bidgee (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hometowned

Hi! I have two questions about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hometowned:

  1. Why did you delete before soft redirecting?
  2. Since I copied the Wiktionary definition word-for-word from Wikipedia content that no longer exists, could this cause a problem with the GFDL attribution requirements?

--Explodicle (T/C) 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use a script to close AFDs, and it has no "soft-redirect" option, so I deleted and then dropped in the soft-redirect manually. Best practice would be to import the page from en-wiki to en-wikt. I'll ping an admin from there who is an admin here to do it. MBisanz talk 15:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Possibly unfree File:ChiEmeraldsPortal.jpg

Why do think that the image is unfree? I labored two hours over it to make sure it was perfect. I used the pre-defined shapes, textures, colors, gradients, brushes, etc. in Adobe Photoshop Elements 4. I thought this all up myself. The Chi Emeralds are MY invention, and you can't say otherwise (without it being false, of course). Therefore, I modified the Copy Right section and removed the template. Besides, I'm only using to decorate my user page, so, of all the things on Wikipedia, this is one of the least important. Now, if I was using it in an article, then that would different story. So, please leave me alone, and let me decorate my user page as I see fit. Thank You. PieMan.EXE MyPage | Exchange Words With Me 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'dg

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'dg as delete. I came across what appears to be a GFDL-violating copy at Talk:Green Lantern#FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'dg.

I came here because you were the closing admin, you have experience with AfD and deletion, and I'm not sure that the issue warrants AN. Feel free to refer me elsewhere. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I suggest you take it up with Ikip and failing that, then WP:AN, I can't quite figure out what is going on. MBisanz talk 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply. I'll try that. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request - please userfy Bezgovo cvrtje

I expect new contributions to that article, I would like them to go directly into that article, bypassing me, recording edit history Thank you Power.corrupts (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must see a DRV before moving it to the article space. Placed at User:Power.corrupts/BC MBisanz talk 03:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idle RPG

I'm not sure why it it appears Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idle RPG was closed early. Can you explain why this was done? Thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debates last five days, this debate lasted 4 days, 23 hours, and 39 minutes, I believe it was an appropriate close. MBisanz talk 03:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought it had only been 4 days, I'll take your word for it that it was nearly 5 days. The thing is, we established WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS within the discussion and there was still active discussion going on. Generally these get relisted so discussion can continue but that wasn't done here. Would you be able to reopen the discussion at this point since it was already closed with a result listed? Tothwolf (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RELIST, relists can only be done if there is a lack of discussion, I'm sorry, I really can't do anything else here. MBisanz talk 03:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks for the trouble! Tothwolf (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed but do I remove the hat?

I've merged the article content from Sfcrowsnest to Stephen Hunt (author)#SF Crowsnest but am unsure if I should remove the {{afd-mergefrom}} hat from the destination's talk page. I assume the hats on the source will get deleted when the article itself is deleted. Also could I change the existing Sfcrowsnest into a REDIRECT to the new section or are we committed to having the article deleted from the namespace? --Marc Kupper|talk 05:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can change it to a redirect and remove the hat whenever you are done merging it. Remember to always be bold! MBisanz talk 14:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:Merge and delete is possible, merges almost always result in redirects. Regarding the tag, an editor may replace it with the parameter-compatible {{afd-merged-from}} once the merge is completed, or AnomieBOT will detect the redirect and update the tag automatically. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in North America by media market

There's a dispute at List of television stations in North America by media market, and I was wondering if you could look at OTRS 2008091610055854 and determine what, if anything, is wrong with using the new data provided on the talk page (the PDF document)? For discussion see Current List of DMAs on FCC website (public domain) Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 06:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it appears that ticket is in a restricted queue of some sort that I don't have access to, I think User:Daniel or User:Jredmond might have access. MBisanz talk 10:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why

I just want to upload a album cover to A Day To Remember's new album Homesick and no one will let me. shannon.holliday21 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to be auto-confirmed to upload images. Please see WP:IFU to request an image be uploaded. MBisanz talk 14:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing

I don't want to take up too much more of your time as I know you stay fairly busy, but I wanted to check with you on one more thing about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idle RPG AfD stuff.

Were you aware of this [2] [3] and this? [4]

If not, would these have affected your decision to close as Delete vs Relisting or closing as No Consensus?

Thanks again! Tothwolf (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of those exact things, but it wouldn't have triggered a relist since there was substantial debate from both sides on the AFD (ie. one side didn't slip a fast one by the other). MBisanz talk 04:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced a "fast one" as you put it wasn't slipped by, even unintentionally. The reason is this [5] was only caught less then 24 hours before the AfD was closed. Because the person who nominated the article used an invalid category for the AfD categorization template, the AfD ended up in the Unsorted (Debate not yet sorted) category and got less attention than it should have or would have otherwise received had it been listed in the proper category from the start.
Also, the person who nominated the article not only failed to put the article name into the AfD template when attaching it to the article, they failed to notify the editors of the article of the AfD and add either a template or a small comment about the AfD on the article's talk page. Because the editors involved in creating this article were not notified, they were not given the opportunity to engage in the AfD discussion. (I personally only got involved and added proper citations to the article after someone else removed the {{prod}} template because it was obvious to me that the person who added the {{prod}} intended to send the article to AfD.)
I'm also concerned that it seems you did not take into account that the person who nominated the article for AfD eventually agreed that the article passed WP:V / WP:RS see [6] and [7]
It bothers me that the arguments that they brought up were eventually resolved, yet you did not seem to take the full discussion into account when you closed the AfD as Delete.
I'd really like your thoughts on this and I felt it would be appropriate to at least bring these to your attention and get you take on it before progressing to Deletion review stage. I can completely understand if a number of things were overlooked in the AfD discussion itself because even for me the dialog was getting to the point of TLDR. Tothwolf (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the deletion policy and notifying significant contributors is a courtesy, not a requirement of the AFD process. AFDs are a community discussion, so even though the nominator changed his mind, the community consensus was still to delete. And notification on the talk page of the article is not required, nor is deletion categorization a requirement of the deletion policy. MBisanz talk 01:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does (s) mean?

In this history, what does the summary (s) for your edit mean? Is there an explanation of why the redirect was made soft? I checked the talk page, but it had been deleted. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To help with people who scrape the database for free content, we converted all the non-free image tags to being with Non-free, since the old tags are referenced in lots of conversations, but shouldn't be used as redirects, a softredirect lets us maintain the link for people reviewing old discussions, while ensuring compliance with the new taxonomy. MBisanz talk 04:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But it would have helped had you linked each soft redirect's edit summary to the discussion of this change. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arb

Hi. I moved an edited version of my rebuttal to the claim of Durova that I am running a sock back to my evidence section without the off-topic speculation. According to my read of the instructions that is the correct place to have that, not to mention that I am giving evidence, to wit my disavowal and another point. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification for closing admin.

Good hello. An article for which you closed the deletion discussion as delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Capricciosohas been recreated at Rob capriccioso. I've tagged it as a speedy G4 but would sure appreciate some oversight if you have a moment. Concern has also been expressed that the creator of the articles and the major editors may have COI and puppet issues. Any help you may be able to render is most welcome. Thanks. L0b0t (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is a bit concerning, have you tried taking it to WP:COIN. MBisanz talk 05:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, these guys are persistant and fast. Article was speedy deleted yesterday and has been recreated, again, at Rob Capriccioso. Maybe COIN is the right answer. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result of AfD: Bristol Indymedia

Per WP:DRV, could I ask you - qua the closing admin - to take a second look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia? The nom was closed with a finding of no consensus, but it seems to me that there was a consensus to delete or redirect. There were four votes for that result; true, there was a week keep vote and a keep vote, but I don't think they defease the consensus, individually or in sum. The keep vote by user:Jezhotwells was predicated on his promise to provide one additional reliable source supporting notability; even if one more source would make all the difference, however, it was not tendered at any time in the five days between Jeremy's vote and the closing of the nomination. The week keep vote fares little better. user:JulesH offered a strong argument for keeping an article that had not been nominated: she observed that the organization had been involved in a potentially notable event, but such involvement is not a valid reason to keep an article about an organization. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the no consensus closure, FWIW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sindhi_ethnicity

Hi MBisanz!

Please could you explain to me how this discussion resulted in a redirect? I'm very confused about it.

Cheers, S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I closed the AFD [8] it had already been redirected. As the only AFD comments were Delete and Merge, my options were to leave it a redirect, a completed merge, or delete the redirect, I felt leaving the redirect best reflected the AFD consensus. MBisanz talk 00:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can understand that. I believe the page was (inappropriately) redirected and protected shortly after the AfD discussion began. -- I don't believe any content from the previous article was merged?--S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AfDs and the "rescue" tag

Greetings, and thanks for all your work closing AfDs in the past while, it has not gone unnoticed. Just a quick note to ask if you could check for {{rescue}} tags on surviving articles when you are removing the AfD notice; you missed one out here at they tend to clutter the article rescue category. Cheers, Skomorokh 00:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&oldid=271014746"