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 Dweller (talk | contribs) at 09:43, 21 December 2012 (→‎When you were doing the admin around resysopping...: Silly!). 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.


MMA Help please

Can I please have some help with JonnyBonesJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please, he has a bad case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT with regard to the use of Flags at List of current UFC fighters, I have pointed him to both the MOS:FLAGBIO and the RFC on it WT:MMA#RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG but he just reverts and repeatedly accuses me of WP:VAND both in edit sums and now at my talk page. Mtking (edits) 05:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal at AN hasn't passed yet, so I'm hesitant to intervene until such time as it passes and I can operate under the normal admin enforcement model. If it's a regular violation of policy, you might just throw up a request at AN. MBisanz talk 06:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had a chance to look into this. That's an unacceptable use of the warning tool. MBisanz talk 06:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding MBisanz. But I warned MtKing for vandalism because of his removal of sourced material about Mark Hominick's retirement on that page. I felt that was vandalism and content removal and dealt with it accordingly. I also feel MtKing has made alot of bad faith pointy edits and AFD nominations, and I'm not the only one who believes that. I feel MtKing also has wrongfully used warning templates on me, accusing me of personal attacks when I did not do anything of the sort. And also accusing me of breaking the 3RR rule, which I did not do. It is clear he is biased against MMA on wikipedia, and has harassed MMA editors and abused his status many times on this site, which is not good for wikpedia, seeing as how they are asking for donations right now. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reality check: Hi MBisanz, as you may have seen, I posted this an WP:AN in response to a posting of JonnyBonesJones. He then posted this thread at my talk page. I am not having a good day and would appreciate an objective reality check... was what I posted at AN inappropriate, or a personal attack? I am not seeking any administrator intervention, I just want to know if my judgment is so far off that I am today unable to recognise inappropriateness in my own actions. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was offended that you said I was unwise and yes i took it as a personal attack. Maybe you would have a better day if you were more respectful to people and kept your opinions you make about other people behind your computer to yourself. What you said had nothing to do with the AfD. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, you're fine. I would've posted the same thing and probably have in similar circumstances. It was all good advice and I advise you to keep giving it in the future when you see it is useful. MBisanz talk 17:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MBisanz, I appreciate your feedback and encouragement. Looking at user talk:JonnyBonesJones, it looks like my advice fell on deaf ears.  :( EdChem (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Internet urban legends

Hi MBisanz, could you read my comment at Talk:Internet urban legends on a deletion discussion you just closed? Sorry I didn't get there in time to comment in the discussion itself. Thanks! --Noiratsi (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi : )

I just wanted to clarify something which I think you know, but decided I shouldn't presume.

I think you do amazing work in general, and I think that the proposal is well intended.

So I didn't want you to ever think that my comments are in any way adversarial towards you.

I just look around and see so much entrenchment and needless "rules" continually building up around various wikipedia processes when, if we toss the unnecessary process, we don't need the "party of the first part..." type rules : )

Setting aside for the moment whether you'd support it or not, what would you suggest as a "next step" to eliminate the arbcom elections, to replace with the consensual process? - jc37 00:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The next step to eliminate the elections by replacing them with a consensus process would be to figure out what you mean by consensus. The actual meaning of the word consensus as applied in my real-life experiences is that no one disagrees with the agreed upon outcome. That doesn't mean they agree with it, merely that they don't disagree so much as to dissent. Consensus on Wikipedia means a different thing and does permit a vocal minority opposition to remain after a decision has been made. Figure out if you want a consensus that reflects net agreement on the candidates or greatest support for the candidates or least objection to the candidates. Once you figure that out, it'll become easier to think of how to get there. MBisanz talk 19:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&oldid=529095369"