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.

New message!

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

RfA

Thanks for the offer - I'd be glad to have the tools to serve Wikipedia further. However, I'd like to give it a week or so, if that's OK with you, as I want to write and expand some mathematics articles. Best, -download | sign! 04:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Just give me a day's notice.MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! Have a nice day.  :) -download | sign! 19:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

user:yellowmonkey

if user yellowmonkey does not exist then how can it block other editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.55.206 (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. MBisanz ^talk 20:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Usernames on Wikipedia are case sensitive, so User:YellowMonkey may exist while User:Yellowmonkey does not. Looks like YellowMonkey has deleted his userpage. -download | sign! 20:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Criminal Harrassment/ Deleting User From Malaspina User Account

It has been brought to our attention at Vancouver Island University, formerly Malaspina University-College, Student Services Department that one of our students used our computer to edit list of terrorist incidents 2009 after a week of decay, 142.25.100.125 and 142.25.100.130. He then created an account and used it on his home computer and you have blocked him. You have violated Wikipedia rules as it states that editors cannot block an account if they are created at a different address as in this case. Not only that you have blocked the use of Vancouver Island University library staff and customers from using nearly one hundred computers. If you do not immediately unblock these accounts, and Toronto2010 that was created on our system, or we will take legal and criminal action against you and Wikipedia staff.

Doug Ross President Student Services Vancouver Island University —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaspina Ad (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked this account per WP:NLT. Rodhullandemu 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On Josette's page

To this:

Buttermilk, in my time on Wikipedia (5+ years) I have seen some vicious attacks, I have made some of them myself, but I think you are probably making one of the lowliest ugliest attacks I have seen. What do you want? Lar to come to his wife's defence? Josette to dissolve into tears? For all I know, both may happen - both would be excruciatingly embarrassing to witness - as, I suspect, you are well aware! I have not even bothered to look at the edits you are so bothered about, your comments made that unnecessary. So here is some advice from a very experienced editor, who is not her husband, lover or even an sighing admirer: Grow up and shut the fuck up! Is that clear enough for you? Giano (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You responded:

I've read the above and must say I agree with Giano and Jack rather strongly. Buttermilk, I strongly urge you to stop the personal attacks, Wikipedia takes personal attacks very seriously because of the environment required for collaborative editing. If I see comments like this again, it is highly likely I will block you, so this is the only warning you will receive. MBisanz talk 05:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My comment: Do you really think this sort of hard swearing is appropriate for Wikipedia? From a neutral observer, this looks like a treat to me, or at least "upping the ante". Also Giano said "I have seen some vicious attacks, I have made some of them myself...". I certainly don't "strongly agree" with this approach. Frightening! Wallie (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It probably is not the best language, but it is a rather old conversation you cite. Giano has historically been accused of making uncivil comments, so he is certainly an expert on what qualifies as an uncivil comment on Wikipedia and I agree with his comment that Buttermilk was making an inappropriate comment. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OK and thank. I could see the setting. From my viewpoint he was "rushing to a damsel in distress". However, I think people can put things more diplomatically. To my mind, using uncouth language is a no no on Wikipedia, no matter what the circumstances. However, I did like your response to my query. Wallie (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for archive of article "Nicholas Chan"

As per the topic, I would really appreciate it if you can assist in providing me with the archive copy of the article which was deleted. If it can be put in my userpage, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Ncknight (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done at User:Ncknight/Nicholas Chan. MBisanz ^talk 17:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Another Jersay sock

You blocked this one for a week: same MO, Somala, Terrorist, Sri Lankan wars, etc... I've lost my will to care considering this would be is 5 puppet, but I highly despise using an IP to revert consensus-supported edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Miller (chairman)

Would you consider closing the AfD, based on the new evidence provided? thank you. Ikip (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved as the nominator, so I shouldn't close, and since the outcome looks clear-cut, it shouldn't be an issue. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussions implicitly referencing you

You have been mentioned via link at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal:_Requiring_the_closing_admin_to_say_more_than_.22The_result_was_._._.. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

CBTF Technology

Not sure what you meant to do here but it's gone to a redlink. And a re-direct when it was only the creator asking for it? Of course he thinks the matieral ought to be kept. Can you clarify? Thanks StarM 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dang, I was trying to copy a link and copied the piped link instead. Since it was a low-turnout AFD, I figured redirecting was the better compromise over deleting outright. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I get why you do it, but I hate that things can't be relisted to gain consensus rather than settling for what we have to do after one relist. Thanks StarM 00:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One of these days I'm going to change the relist policy. It causes so much trouble for AFD commentators and closers alike. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, unless I'm looking in the wrong spot, it's only a guideline. I think it just leads to repeat noms when either party is unhappy with the close, which doesn't really meet the supposed goal of not cluttering AfD. I think AfD as a whole needs a makeover, but that's a horse of another colour entirely. StarM 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Amit Abraham

Hi, thought I would let you know that there are two articles Dr. Amit Abraham and Amit Abraham. The second one probably, got missed out becuase the AfD tag on its page links to the the AfD entry of Dr. Amit Abraham. Maybe you would like to speedy delete it? Thanks. --Deepak D'Souza 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. MBisanz ^talk 07:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth de la Porte - harpishordist - deletion by M BSantz

Dear M Bsantz

I and a great many other people were enormously distressed at the fact that you had deleted this entry in wikipedia as a "blatant breach of copyright." What copyright plerase do you believe to have been breached here?

Yours Sincerely

Dr Paul Dawson-Bowling

Elizabeth de la Porte - harpishordist - deletion by M BSantz

Dear M Bsantz

I and a great many other people were enormously distressed at the fact that you had deleted this entry in wikipedia as a "blatant breach of copyright." What copyright please do you believe to have been breached here?

Yours Sincerely

Dr Paul Dawson-Bowling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.126.39 (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It was copied from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Porte-Elizabeth.htm. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in on this, but you may wish to see OTRS:2752624. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if there is permission for the text, feel free to restore, but as I'm reading that ticket right now, it only gives image permission. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted file talk pages

Hi, would you please restore the deleted talk pages you've just deleted, by moving the talk to the individual Commons pages? There were very important comments (awaiting responses) left at some dozens of those. Thanks very much, Badagnani (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages with valuable discussion in question are: File talk:Brady's Leap1 7-12-08 (1).jpg File talk:Cairo Opera 1.jpg File talk:Camilo202.jpg File talk:Chirimoyalarcomuseum.jpg File talk:Concert Mysorepalace.jpg File talk:Crop Korean dessert-Patbingsu-01.jpg File talk:Crop Korean dessert-Patbingsu-02.jpg File talk:E7918-Dordoy-Bazaar-blankets.jpg File talk:FLMap-doton-Greenacres.PNG File talk:Fruits of Dracontomelon duperreanum.JPG File talk:Fusilli.jpg File talk:Gabrielenos.jpg File talk:Garam Masala new 2008-1.jpg File talk:Georgiamoon.jpg File talk:Gulo gulo 2.jpg File talk:Hkbitters.jpg File talk:Korean shaved ice-Ingredients-01.jpg File talk:Korean shaved ice-Patbingsu-01.jpg File talk:KrarAnd-I-Sitting.jpg File talk:Life48.jpg File talk:Lionel Tertis.jpg File talk:Mahmoud Guinia.jpg File talk:ManyAmari.jpg File talk:Noodle spicy ricecake.jpg File:Gaitasanabresa.jpg

Badagnani (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Restoring. MBisanz ^talk 09:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're very kind. For future "moved-to-Commons" photos I think pushing Talk page comments to Commons would be fine; in many cases they have questions awaiting responses, such as "when was this taken," "who took this," or similar questions about the photos' content or origin. Badagnani (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

All done I think. MBisanz ^talk 09:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Uploaders of photos can be very problematic, as they often don't ever answer such queries. Badagnani (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here. I believe your observation that such questions are rarely answered is correct; it also begs the question, though. If there is little likelihood of getting one's question answered on the file talk page, why not ask the question on the user talk page of the editor to whom it is directed? That would seem to me to be much more likely to result in the question being answered and, in many cases, the information relating to the image being improved. Might you consider doing this in the future? Risker (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Charles Bukowski smoking.jpg

Hi Matthew
What was the point of deleting File talk:Charles Bukowski smoking.jpg? The image exists locally, the talk page was not wholly unuseful, and it in particular it had an important history, namely the edit history of the file at its previous location.
Cheers, Amalthea 09:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the section above I probably don't have to ask you to doublecheck your other deletions (I only had a look at the one because it was on my watchlist), and to refine the script you're using to select them. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 09:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually they were hand selected, from a list I hand reviewed at User:MBisanz/FT (You can see the bottom part I haven't finished yet), I selected very short (under 200 characters) pages and then removed those without substantive discussion, in this case an IP had overwritten the file history. I copied the file history from the old rev to the File page itself, which is the convention Commons uses. I've already done 6,000 or so over the last couple of months, so I think my visual review is pretty accurate, but I will keep an eye out for those sorts of situations. MBisanz ^talk 09:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, alright, now that you said it, I heard that you deleted a lot of them from the discussion at Template talk:Fmbox. That will make double-checking them all rather impractical, but also probably not necessary. But please keep an eye on page histories when you select them.
Thanks for cleaning the house, and Cheers, Amalthea 09:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that if the questions/comments/suggestions go unanswered, they get deleted? That doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. –xeno ^talk 16:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is ludicrously not part of CSD G6, so clearly and obviously not part of it, that it's hand to figure out what's going on in your head. Page deletions are heavy actions. There are many reasons for talk pages beyond discussion: for example, to make a note about a page for future people who might wonder about something. There are at least three problems here:

• Whether your deletions are a good idea or not, they are manifestly not covered by CSD G6;
• You failed to follow the terms of CDS G6 itself in its direction to make a clear edit history;
• You engaged in a significant controversial issue;
• You show no sign of stopping.
• I believe this is a clear abuse of administrator privileges, and you should rethink entirely what you are doing. Deleting content permanently with this kind of casual approach is entirely unacceptable in my opinion. Tb (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

imo, only talk pages created in bad faith should be deleted in this fashion. –xeno ^talk 17:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost, but not even then. CSD G6 is not for that. CSD G1, G2, G3, might be ok. But CSD G6 is not even for deleting pages created in bad faith. We have these policies for a reason. Tb (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled

Hi. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining that you have deleted the page, it's just that I can't work out why you would want to delete "File talk:HeartWhatAboutLove.jpg", (much less, why you did delete it.)
Your edit comment: "Deleted because "Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial housekeeping". using TW" is far from enlightening. (Perhaps even cryptic?)
The G6 description doesn't help much either: Technical deletions. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, deleting dated maintenance categories, or performing uncontroversial page moves.
Further: If no special tag like {{db-move}} can be used and the reason for deletion is not self-evident, a reason for deletion should be supplied, for example on the talk page or in the edit summary. From my position, "the reason for deletion is not self-evident".
So, may I bother you to explain why you deleted it? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm still puzzled as to why you deleted the page, and would be interested to understand your motivation / rationale for doing so. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My rationale was that the entire page was an IP asking two years for the source of the book and posting his phone number. Talk pages are not used to contact the source of a publication and people shouldn't post their phone numbers onwiki. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree with the motivation and intent. And now that I can see what is on the page, I also agree that the page content is inappropriate.

Because of lack of experience in this area, (aka my personal ignorance), I don't know what the best way to address this sort of issue is - deleting the page does seem to be one option, but my problem with page deletion is that it removes the page history, so non-admins have no ability to work out what happened or why. Can you tell me if there are other options for addressing this sort of issue? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

wacky deletion

Why on earth did you delete File talk:ECUSA arms.gif? The cited reasons were CSD G6. Let's see. Merging page histories? Nope. Maintenance category? Nope. Uncontroversial page move? Nope. As CSD G6 says, "If no special tag like db-move can be used and the reason for deletion is not self-evident, a reason for deletion should be supplied, for example on the talk page or in the edit summary." So let's see your edit history: "non-controversial housekeeping". Nope. So what gives? Tb (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File talk:NHHR07.png

Would you mind restoring the above link please? I was explaining why I added the base url template to the file's page.--Rockfang (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Restore 'em

(I've taken the liberty of clerking your talk page and subheaderfy'ing all these complaints) I think perhaps you should consider restoring all (and by all, I mean not just the ones people complained about) of these recently deleted file talk pages. Per my comments about, just because a 200 character good faith question/comment/suggestion went unreplied to, doesn't mean it should be summarily deleted. Also, as there is controversy (apparent from the above), G6 doesn't really apply here. regards, –xeno ^talk 18:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, ok, I asked ST47 to restore the latest batch since he can do it much faster than I can, should be done in an hour or so. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

cheers, –xeno ^talk 19:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tb (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've replied to your invitation at my talk, with some suggestions on refining the list for easier manual review. –xeno ^talk 12:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

This is a little late, but thanks for the welcome:) I really like the Wikipedia Dept. of Fun (which I wouldn't have ever have found without your welcome). Once again, Thank you. --Danitnt (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete Category talk:Supramolecular chemistry?

Please restore this page. Why did you delete a talk page for an active category. Randomly deleting pages is very destructive to Wikipedia. You need to a the very least go through the process of requesting a deletion. M stone (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It had one comment from an IP that wasn't related to the category topic. I've recreated as an actual on-topic category page. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you fix the page in the page first instead of deleting it? Deleting pages like this is very disruptive and destructive. This is why so many content contributors become disillusioned with Wikipedia. M stone (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because off-topic test pages like that are deleted as they do not improve content. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But I don't even know what content was deleted. If you fixed it or blank the page then there would still be a history to examine. But because you deleted it I have know way of knowing what was there. Clearly you knew how to fix the problem, because you just did it. So why did you chose to delete it instead of fixing it? I suspect that you really don't understand how frustrating unjustified deletions are. M stone (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No page blanks discourages blanking, and deleting test pages does not prevent someone else from creating a useful page in the future. I just patrol new pages and fix them as best as I can with my limited time. And I have had articles of mine deleted before, so I understand that issue, but this isn't even an article or content or the discussion of content. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't keep such pages, M stone. There is no reason to keep them. Simply blanking a page should be avoided. I don't think that this is an "unjustified deletion" nor anything to get frustrated about. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No justification for deleting the page was given. The message left was "Deleted because "Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial maintenance". using TW" Therefore it was by definition a deletion without a justification. I don't think that anything in this particular case was lost, but I really have no way of telling because it was deleted. I think that deleting pages and then seeing if anyone complains is a rather destructive approach to "fixing" Wikipedia. If you don't have time to fix a page I would suggest you leave it alone instead of simply deleting it without posting a notice that there is a problem. M stone (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite the paradox you've created. "...I really have no way of telling because it was deleted." Uh, of course.... --MZMcBride (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I do concede that I have no idea when the page was created or what was on it, so it was probably completely appropriate to delete the page. However, it would be nice for me to have some way to confirm that no important discussion was lost. I am sure you can understand that this might be a frustrating situation for me. M stone (talk)

Might be better off deleting the comment and preserving any potentially useful edit history (or at least verifying there was none). Bongomatic 04:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There was none. Perhaps WP:CSD#G2 would have been somewhat clearer but there was no useful history in the page. As for "deleting pages and then seeing if anyone complains" - I doubt MBisanz even considered the possibility of complaints over such a trivial thing. Mr.Z-man 05:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Query

Hi MBisanz

I have seen your actions in a number of AfD discussions and you appear to be a rational editor/administrator acting in good faith. What is up with this AfD? Specifically, why haven't you withdrawn it or at least addressed the points made by the (unanimous) chorus of editors (including editors who are often considered deletionists by others) who disagree with the nomination?

Regards, Bongomatic 02:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

When I nommed it, it looked like a BLP1E piece, among other things not mentioning his CEO role at Digital Media/News Corp or even giving a birth date. I've seen many of these pieces for CEOs from different companies and sometimes it is just an advert-piece of a one hit wonder and sometimes it is just a poorly done stuff, so that is why I AFD'd it. And a couple of sections above someone asked why I didn't withdraw it, and the reason is that I don't like closing AFDs I start, since in this case some could argue a withdrawl isn't as strong a close as a Keep is. I agree it will be kept and that now is a decent article that actually covers all the points of his notability. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. Bongomatic 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I don't understand what you meant but I will try to look into it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.Solsticefan (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy MBisanz's Day!

MBisanz has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as MBisanz's day! For being one of our more rational and experienced admins, enjoy being the Star of the day, MBisanz! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 05:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

YAY! Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Matt ! :) -- Tinu Cherian - 05:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I was recently thinking about this comment of mine the other day on AN/I, and I reckoned it may have come across as unnecessarily hostile. As such, I wish to say that I'm sorry if it did come across as aggressive in any way at all: it was not my intention for it to be so. Best wishes. Acalamari 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I wasn't offended, thanks for the note. MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fandangle Page

I saw that you have previously deleted the Fandangle page for not meeting WP:BAND. I would like you to consider looking at my article of Fandangle; this is currently a sub-page, but I would like to re-create the deleted article on the band. Thanks. -- Mike |talk 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Dragon Ball films

Hi Mbisanz, what was the content of this talk page before you speedied it? I'm thinking it was a project banner (but am not sure); if so, why did you delete it? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was an incorrectly formatted CFD notice, I went back and added the right tag. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I'll add the relevant project banner in a minute. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Green Vehicle AfD

Please explain your rationale for closing the AfD. No consensus was reached. Few of the Keep 'votes' addressed the problems. Are you recommending we overturn the Neologism guideline? Are YOU going to do the heavy lifting there? Greglocock (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Several people disagreed it was a neologism and cited external sources to show its usage. I particularly like the neologism guidelines and have used them in several of my own AFD nominations. But I cannot overturn community consensus at an AFD when closing to suit my own needs. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at those sources? The only one that defined it was a schoolbook by an anonymous author. Which was probably cut and pasted from the green vehicle article. Greglocock (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins do not evaluate the content of an AFD, the people commenting evaluate the content, closing admins evaluate the arguments made by good faith participants. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markel Hutchins

I added additional sources and information to address concerns about there being insufficient referencing and indication of notaibility. I noted this in a comment, and there has been no response from those vting to delete. I think the concerns about the article have been addressed, and ask you to reconsider the deletion. Ground Zero | t 02:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Even with the changes, no one came back to the debate to comment further, and people had returned previously to comment, without new comments from them, I can't decide that the new sources satisfy the criteria. Sorry I cannot be of more assistance. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX on Template:Vandal

Hello, I noticed that a number of months ago, you added NOINDEX to Template:Vandal (and forked it from Template:Userlinks). Do you remember why? {{vandal}} is often used on user talk pages and WP:AIV. For example, NOINDEX made its way onto my user talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I did it since the term "Vandal" has a specific connotation that "Userlinks" doesn't have. Namely one would be likely to use the term "Vandal" when negatively describing a user, where "Userlinks" would be used in generic situations. It made sense to me to NOINDEX the one that would be used negatively, while leaving the generic term intact. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that you aren't NOINDEXing the vandal, you're NOINDEXing the page on which the vandal was discussed. That's not what we want, right? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if the vandal's username was his real life name or if he was vandalizing a BLP, then we might want to NOINDEX the page on which the discussion took place. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Relist AFD

Hi MBisanz , please kindly relist ZK_Framework_(2nd_nomination). in 2nd nomination, user Flaming Grunt voted twice. Not sure if it is fair? Would you please extend the nomination? And please review of talk page of ZK_Framework, there are many reference. But they don't participate this nomination. It's a pity that there are two published books about ZK, and it is deleted for not-notable. (talk)

It was already extended once, the guidelines discourage further relisting (see WP:RELIST), and the consensus was clear. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus isn't clear to me, Flaming Grunt voted twice, or the result should be equal. Is is fair? 03:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote, and as I noted in my close, I was aware he commented twice. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any clear evidence to delete ZK because of not-notability? This shall be a misunderstanding. ZK is a famous Ajax framework which is always listed the most active project over the past two years on sourceforge.net, the biggest open source hostting website. There are two published books, ZK - Ajax without JavaScript, and ZK Developer's Guide. Simply google ZK, and ZK is listed the most relevant item. Robbiecheng (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

More notable reference could be found

1. ZK and Agile at TheServerSide
2. The ZK Framework at Dr.Dobb's Poral
3. ZK - AJAX without the JavaScript at IBM Developer's Works
4. Ajax with the ZK Framework at deverloper.com
5. ZK Ajax Java Web Framework: Ajax with no Javascript at infoQ.com Robbiecheng (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the consensus stands, you may wish to seek WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 07:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been listed at DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. MBisanz ^talk 08:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is DRV is wrong approach? I should try WP:Requests for undeletion first? I am not sure if the consensus stand? Less than 10 users express their opinions, and the article is deleted? The reason sounds weak to me, and please read those references. Thanks. Robbiecheng (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Requests for undeletion is another name for WP:DRV, so it is fine to take it there. However, 10 comments is a large number at AFD and closing admins judge the comments, not the content or sources. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

San Diego...

...hasn't been edited in two days, and has had good faith edits by two unique IPs in the last ten. I don't think an indefinite semi is warranted here. –xeno ^talk 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oopsie, I was shooting for 72 hours. Fixing. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Darn, you beat me to fixing it, leaving at your settings. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had gone offline. With no edits in 2 days, I still wouldn't see the point. –xeno ^talk 02:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Peru relations

only 2 people actually said merge, the keep arguments were mainly wait for outcome of centralized discussion rather than addressing notability. so why the decision to redirect? LibStar (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Weighing all the comments, it could have been a delete, but in light of WP:PRESERVE and the redirect suggested by Martin are a cheap compromise. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Thanks! :) -- Luk ^talk 12:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:FloNight#User:Jack_Merridew_bot — Rlevse • Talk • 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to you (MBisanz) there. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Churchill College Junior Common Room

How was the result a redirect? It was clear that the consensus was to keep it. Only one person wanted to redirect this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churchill College Junior Common Room was very clear against keeping. MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

Instead of merging, Kasaalan instead moved it to yet another new title. Enigma^msg 16:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirected. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to another title, because you redirected it. For merging the content into main page, first we need an agreement on main page editors, yet most of the away currently. I took MBisanz's own and the deletion review admin's advice, created a new page called Public reactions to Rachel Corrie's death, added critizising cartoons of Rachel Corrie, along with Political Rections, and documentaries on her. He asked for a deletion of the whole page with its content, without even bothering any merge or reading any part of the article, therefore trying trashing weeks of hard work, although I warned him beforehand. He didn't even bothered to discuss it on the main page, or in any other relevant page. I put a warning on main page's discussion as a warning for other main page editors. Without a collaborated work any merge into main page will not be right. On the other hand, I know this is a strict reply for my insist on Irgun's actions adding to the relevant pages, but he is acting POV and biased, and most of all as a reply to my edits in other pages. Now what should I do exactly. You advised creating new page in the first place, I took your advice created new page with relevant content, now you are redirecting it, so will you review your decision. Also can you please read the content this time before a judgement, as I said before we have a length issue in main page. He has no intention on reading the article or improving it, he just tries to revenge it. Kasaalan (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to retain an article on that topic, the re-written version must pass DRV, your removal of the merge tag without actually merging the content was improper. All the content is still there under the redirect and can be merged when consensus is reached at the article as to how it should be done. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So explain me what steps I should take first. I removed the tag because I created a new page considering the critizes on deletion review along with the admin's advise and some other user's support, therefore revising the page accordingly. And only after the attempts of the above user-admin, that acts on revenge. You and the deletion review admin, along with various other users including dedicated page editors, advised me to create a new page that contains all the public reactions, therefore I did it, considering that solved the case, so what part is improper I am not sure. Also can you please fully read the page this time, review the notability of its content, measure its length before reviewing your decision on merge, so you can clearly understand, merging means over 100 KB length, where wiki guidelines advises us to create some sub pages in the first place. And for the sake of readability and on consensus we created the page based on notable sources. There is nothing POV in the page, the content is notable and deserves its own title, and still in progress Kasaalan (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to put the new page at deletion review for the community to review it and approve its inclusion. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I will do that, thanks. But will you read the article before voting. Because I followed your advise, created the page accordingly, yet you deleted the article. If you remember the first deletion vote was in favor of merging into Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie's death page, yet you verdict as merging back into main page. And since you say it is not about the votes, your decision is important. Because if you don't read the case, you will verdict the same. So will you examine the main page and relevant content this time. Also is there a time limitation for deletion review, since most of our editors possibly away. Kasaalan (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably won't comment at the DRV extensively as it is outside my topic area and as a closing admin, I only judge the arguments others make at the AFD debate, not the actual content. See my philosophy at User:MBisanz/AfD, which I based off the deletion guide for admins. MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment See this. Enigma^msg 20:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked for opinions of a number of people that may be interested in the article, for the most part our main page editors, and project editors, so is there any hidden thing involved in publicly available wikipedia. If you really want to know, I even posted a link to the admin's talk page that closes the deletion review, likewise I posted here at closing admin's page. Is there any info that I tried to hide and you revealed. The last time I asked for a deletion review, only 2 of the page editors were voted since most are taking wiki-breaks, so I am trying to draw other people's attention by even posting on their user pages. I already posted relevant links in the Rachel Corrie main discussion page, and project pages, that are publicly available. I asked people's opinion, not asked them being POV. Because some deletion review voters even vote without reading the main article. Kasaalan (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you bother to look at my user discussion page, you can clearly understand my approach to the topic.

Very much appreciated, my motive is letting editors know about the voting beforehand. Since I created a deletion review, yet most of our dedicated page editors not voted, it turned on a contrary base. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_CorrieWikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_16 Most users don't even read before they vote, and on behalf of their political views. So if you please have a look to the articles first. Last revision copy of the article is available for your review.

Closing admin clearly stated earlier that his decisions not made by quantities, but as he posted his policies above, he considers the dedicated page editor's ideas primarily, and other editors might convince him better. Did you even read the discussions about the deletion review, or is this only some kind of personal revenge in the closing admin's discussion page. Kasaalan (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please tone it down Kasaalan, we are all here to make an encyclopedia and alleging bad faith about Enigma who is only trying to help is not appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 23:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As you request, I won't accuse. Yet that link to my user talk pages, has a silent but a very heavy claim, that I had to answer clearly and publicly, or it would show me as POV or biased somehow. I was trying to gather more relevant editor's attention to the matter. Because, I don't want to discuss another deletion review, with voters that are not familiar to the article. Some voters approaching to the topic differently since it has a political tune, and some other even don't care its content or references at all, yet for wikiguidelines it is not different than Ford Mustang, and deserves its subtitles likewise. I will try to build a better case with other main page editors, so that you can reconsider your decision. Kasaalan (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another editor pointed me there was a rule that might be against posting a post like this in various user's discussion pages. I will try to read relevant guidelines first. Yet I do it in a public open way in discussion pages, that any editor from any party who is relevant to the article can also aware of the discussion, along with some user talk pages of the editors to draw attention. But without project and main page editor's no clear judgement is possible, shouldn't I let others know the discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, MBisanz, I hope you don't mind me intervening here. I closed the DRV, so Kasaalan asked me for advice on what to do. After reading the AfD and DRV, I advised him to create a new article which met the AfD concerns about POV. After reading your original discussion with him, where I noted that you had already given him the same advice. He then went and restored the article, but he also added some negative material to the article to balance it out. To my eyes, that would qualify as a substantial enough change that DRV would not be necessary, the new version should probably be nominated for AfD. I've been under the general impression that if an article is substantially changed, then it can be re-created without having to go through DRV, although of course the new version could be nominated for AfD at any time. Do you object to another AfD?--Aervanath (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, ok, do drop a word for Ricky, the original AFD nominator, as he is probably in the best position to decide if he wants to re-nom the new article. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Aervanath, the article was in editing progress actually, yes I added the political statements of the USA Parliament members, since it would contain the public reactions, and after main page editors work on the article, it would be neutral anyway. Why did you take my implementations negatively. Also, After such a tragic death, you shouldn't expect much criticizing comments anyway, even the IDF officers were not blaming her much. Rachel_Corrie#Reaction. You can easily see, I added the criticizing cartoons calling her blatantly "stupid" in the text under artistic tributes, as the opposing editors suggested in deletion review. Before the user redirected the content into the main page, actually I stopped editing the page. I undoed his redirect, explaining a merge should be done before any redirect should take place, which is highly time consuming and requires main page editors' consent and agreement, and maybe he should do the merge if he likes to redirect into main page that much. He then said, that I should have done it already since 1 months passed of the verdict. Actually much less time passed, since we have also took a deletion review. So I moved the page, began adding relevant content as suggested, removed AFD tag. Yet while I was still implementing the other politic comments from various parties, and reactions, the page is closed even before I completed my work, and publish a link on main page, so the work was still in progress. Maybe I shouldn't move but create a new page, but I consider that might also taken negatively, so I publicly stated on main discussion page that I am creating a new public reactions page. Yet I would take at least 1 day to improve it, before other editors also could edit and the page fill its title fully. Yet, that is why I came up with the actions having reprisal character, before I even finish the work on the page and publicly post its new content and link, the user tracked my edits urgently, and tried to shut it without bothering to discuss me first. Kasaalan (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to restore the article as modified and then let the original Afd nom know so he can see if he wants to re-nom. Thanks, MBisanz.--Aervanath (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

An article that closed as merged has instead grown by another 10k or so bytes. No, this is not enough of a change to impress me. It's clear from this and this that he has no intent on removing extraneous information and applying a proper summary style. Besides the discussion was closed on March 22nd, and it wasn't until a month later he decides to rename and remove the heading. It's clear this wasn't a new article but keeping the old one. Your choice, if you want to enforce the merge option or I'll list it again. It may survive then fine or people may take the prior decision seriously. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia-Kazakhstan relations

I've merged the "content" (such as it was) to foreign relations of estonia. Not sure what the next step is for a merger. Toss up a redirect or do delete the page now?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Figured it out. Never mind. THanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

I saw you reading this (LINK REMOVED) Wikipedia Review thread. I wanted to let you know this specific post is a lie. Please see User_talk:Dtobias#Wikipedia_Review_thread and User talk:Naerii#Wikipedia_Review_thread. Somey is lying about me being a woman. Do not believe him. I am, legally, a minor. Jonas Rand 68.96.209.19 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like advertising a thread to get everybody and their brother to check it out!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, since I have my userspace google-dexed I don't like having WR links in, and I really don't care what they are saying over there. MBisanz ^talk 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. You are one of the Badsites people, I'm not interested. Jonas Rand --68.96.209.19 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, if I was one of the Badsites people, I wouldn't have an account at WR, I just don't like external linkspam in my talk archives after one of the links I had was spamblacklisted and messed up my archives. MBisanz ^talk 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize. I thought that I should inform you, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.209.19 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Inbox

I know some people have Wiki email accounts they don't check as regularly so I'm just letting you know, in case you didn't already, that I have replied. Your email was a pleasant addition to my inbox. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I saw it. Will get back to you later tonight. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no rush. I'm off to bed so won't be reading it tonight anyway. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent AfD results

I don't understand why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Mongolia relations as delete, while closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Peru relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Kazakhstan relations (and many others) as merge. Could you atleast undelete Estonia–Mongolia relations and make it as a redirect like you did with the other two articles, so the content can be merged? I or someone else will get around to doing the merge eventually, as time permits. There is potential for future development in the relationship and there are past cultural connections between the two countries. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than outright deletion [1]. Re-directs are cheap. Thanks Martintg (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did the redirect, please don't use it though to slip the article back in when no one is looking as someone else did a few sections above on this page. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I plan to create a section on bilateral relations within Foreign relations of Estonia using this content when I get around to it. Cheers. Martintg (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was just going ask what happened. I agree (although I made a half-hearted attempt to salvage the article) that Estonia-Mongolia relations was a bit of a stretch. Not going to dispute the decision. I couldn't figure out why restored "Estonia–Mongolia relations" (17 revisions restored) showed up in my watchlist, but when I clicked I saw Foreign relations of Estonia with no material I recognized. The mystery is solved. Maybe there is something that can be used, Martintg, but my guess is that the first priorities will be Russia, Finland, Sweden, Germany etc., with Mongolia a long way down the list. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On that theme, could I ask about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–Croatia relations? None of the three "keep" votes even attempted to address the notability of the article, instead pointing to a discussion elsewhere as a reason for keeping. Shouldn't votes address the articles at hand, rather than extraneous issues? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if the Keep comments were weak comments, there are many people active in this area and there was a lack strong deletion comments. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

UP:GPS

I had created UP:GPS for experimental purpose and can be deleted anytime. Along with UP:GPS, I had created UP:GPS/S and many more with the start name for my subpages. You are most welcome to delete them anytime.I apologize for creating such experimental pages. Srinivas G Phani (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, thanks for the heads up. MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your message was rudely deleted

I see that QG has removed your notice. I discovered that when I finished my warning to him for violating BRD. He has a habit of doing this, IOW ignoring others and just barging on. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

He can remove it if he desires to. MBisanz ^talk 05:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. He's done the same with mine. Now we'll just have to see if he heeds the messages or not. Reading and heeding are two different things! The one can be IDHT and combative, and the other collaborative. I have no intention of reverting him again, since I rarely even get in this situation. But QG needs watching for this type of thing. It's a common tactic of his. If he follows the advice to participate in the discussion, per BRD, then we'll possibly see a peaceful solution. Then again it might still end up in him stonewalling and more IDHT circular discussions with him. I will likely not participate. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Matt

You're a braver man than I Gunga Din, for taking on the AfD closes of the bilateral relations articles :) - Good work. You missed a template here (not surprising as someone moved the article twice during the AfD) and the AfD close template ended up on the redirect, I fixed it here. Just FYI, I think its all sorted - hope that was cool. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you fixed it. The student has now surpassed the master. :) MBisanz ^talk 07:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

<bows> (sound of Gong striking) ah so desu ka! Paxse (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFA

Thanks, I have accepted and replied to the questions, but I haven't transcluded it yet. It is the bank holiday weekend where I am and I won't be around (i.e. don't have internet) to answer optional questions from about Saturday 0:00 UTC until Monday 15:00 UTC. I'm happy for it to go up now if you think it should, but I wondered if it should wait until I can commit to be on Wiki each day for the entire duration of the RfA (i.e. on Monday). Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, wait as long as you need to. MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:RfBAG

Thanks for the kind words and nomination.

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

-- Tinu Cherian - 11:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

) smiled back :P .. Just looking out how the BAG norm turned out. Happy to see people have confidence in me -- Tinu Cherian - 18:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The boilerplate told me to...

So I'm just letting you know I've accepted your nomination, though I haven't actually posted as such yet. I'll be working on that in the next few minutes. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 15:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)