User talk:MBisanz: Difference between revisions

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.

This is MBisanz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The words homosocratic, autosocratic and isosocratic along with a host of other obvious conjunctives of Socratic are in use in academic circles but usually not in publications and often made up on the fly in an attempt to explain concepts. I have been in many conversations where Latin or Greek conjunctives were resorted to. I do not know anyone who would publish a paper using one. The papers that do get published will not be found in Google because the journals do not permit Google indexing.

The reason the word Homosocratic is so important is because it is being used to describe Wikipedia and Wikipedia like institutions. There is an entire university using the homosocratic process and even a movement in Wikiversity to get them to institute a homosocratic interaction for learners.

Is there some other word you would like them to use. The word homosocratic is a reasonable use common sense exception to the rule against words not found in Google. 69.39.49.27 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, the WP community decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosocratic to delete the page, you need to go to WP:Requests for undeletion MBisanz ^talk 05:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you deleted that article? Sophia's definitely notable - she's been on major talk shows to speak of her past as part of New York's early 90's club scene, is a contributor to numerous publications, and continues to perform internationally with her art. I don't know how good the article actually was, but she definitely needs one. Could you at least reopen it...? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.84.174 (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Lamar where the community decided to delete the article. You would need to make a WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

e107 is an open-source CMS (content management system) whose article has been deleted due to (I am guessing) lack of input/defense from interested parties, after someone on a misguided de-clutteration jag decided it wasn't worth the non-ink it was non-printed on. I've been trying to compare various free, script-installable web content management systems. Wikipedia has entries for many of them. Until a few days ago, it had an entry for e107. simplescripts.com (via bluehost, my provider) offers it as one of their installs. I was hoping for a third-party take on the system, or a comparison of its features. But I won't find it here.

Google surely provides enough data to vouch for e107's existence, development vitality, and sizable installation base. Example info: http://php.opensourcecms.com/scripts/details.php?scriptid=19

Looking at some of the other entries here, it looks as if you are promoting deletion of articles about CMS's in general. These are of interest to the internet community, have business consequences in many cases, are of contemporary interest. These can't have the same notability and reference standards as say, dog breeds -- if you (and the 'wikipedia community' that meets without requiring any sort of representative jury or quorum standards) are judging this kind of content as if it were fixed, non-evolving, demonstrably of interest to a majority of this or that institution in which some kind of authority is vested, etc., I think you are making a mistake. There are small but vibrant user and developer communities that are working with projects, systems, etc. that will not make it into PC World or NYTimes or whatever, because these are not widely known to people working in different areas. Some topics should be closer to the cutting edge than to the tail end of received (institutionally supported) opinion.

There are nuances related to category that should be recognized (and this is aside from the fact that I disagree with the general mindset that wikipedia should be culled of niche articles or allegedly sub-AAA-notability subjects). It doesn't make sense to delete technical articles because they deal with small projects. It makes sense to delete articles that are advertisements, or so broken with bias that editing becomes futile. It doesn't make sense not to apply the same standards evenly to articles in the same general category (which means dealing with people who know the subject, not asking a bunch of e.g., technical writers, or MBA's, what they think of, I don't know, MINIX).

Lastly, if you delete, or promote and achieve deletion, and then ask interested parties to file a request for undeletion as a means of redress, you are doing damage to the human spirit, subjecting it to the dumb violence of bureaucratic rectitude. Electrons may be inifinite, but human time and effort are not. It is much easier to delete than to create, and when in doubt, editing should always be turned to first and second and third. If there is any hope of salvaging work so that someone else might profit it from it in the future, I would ask that we please nurture that possibility. Skandha101 (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Wikipedia community deleted the article at this discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/E107_(software) for lacking notability in reliable sources. All articles must have coverage in reliable sources. These sources do not have to be paper sources, but must be reliable. Also, I have not targeted CMS articles, I've closed over 4,000 deletion discussion (see also User:MBisanz/AfD) per community practice that topics must meet certain criteria before they can be included in Wikipedia. The reason the AfD process exists is so that editors can have a chance to make sure an article cannot be edited to something worthwhile, before deleting. MBisanz ^talk 06:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, this is the internet. "reliable sources" are hard to come by. Blogs don't count. Personal sites don't count. This, plus some common sense, is itself is enough to tell you that something is broken. Sure, anyone can start a blog. Or a vanity site. But some blogs are widely taken seriously or taken as reliable and authoritative (security, tech news, come to mind). Because of the way net publishing is done (drupal, joomla, wordpress, etc. all support blogging or blog modules) a lot of the big media sites have blogs. 'new media' is basically blogs. Some of those sites are crap, and some have legitimate reporters (and are more and more often cited by 'traditional' journalists or media themselves). Anyway, this is basically a culture war, but debate is prematurely foreclosed due to the zeal of many citizen editors to abide by the Rules As They Are Written. I'm just saying you should think it about. If you're taking part in so many deletion-quests, keep one eye on the changing landscape. Eventually, wikipedia will just be replaced as the de facto open compendium if it will not welcome new subjects and new editors, or niche subjects and niche editors. This shouldn't be understood as loosening standards, but as changing the parameters in a nuanced way. So, it has to be done intelligently. But I'm afraid that the system, as it is, drives away people who have the right kind of judgment to define new and useful parameters. One size does not fit all for all topic areas (or maybe it does, and I don't understand wikipedia). You're going to get all these afd's where no one opposes deletion, 'cause the relevant proponents already gave up and left in disgust. Skandha101 (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have several nuanced notability guidelines at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, so it really isn't a one-size fits all model. And we have the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to do the exact kind of vetting that you speak of. But at the end of the day, we work on the consensus model, so we do need a wide variety of people to apply those guidelines to ensure we maintain the right balance of inclusiveness and verifiability. MBisanz ^talk 08:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't really disagree with that. Take care. --Skandha101 • 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your one year older, one year wiser. 
Rock n' Roll star king czar and a kaiser.
A room full of friends, a mouth full of cake. 
Every present is for you and it feels pretty great.
Youre the man of the hour, the V.I.P. 
You get the first slice of the p.i.e.
But first blow out the candles and make a wish. 
Put a smile on cus it's your birthday <naughty word here>!

I see that you closed the Frasier's Curse AFD as delete, without further comment. Are you sure deletion does not violate the GFDL? As I noted in the discussion, many phrases were copied from Frasier's Curse into the Frasier (season 6) article, so it's my understanding that we need to at least keep the history of the former.

I'm not an expert on the GFDL -- pretty much everything I know about it I've gleaned from AFD discussions -- so I may be completely wrong. I would appreciate some clarification on this issue, though. Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 19:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are a bunch of ways to comply with GFDL. You can list the 5 largest contributors to the deleted article in an edit summary to the retained article, you can copy the history of the deleted article to the talk page of the retained article, you can do a history merge of the edits, but that breaks up the history, you can copy the list of contributors to the new article and then revert the edit, or you can do a protected redirect to the new article. Most of the time we don't care since in general Wikipedia does a poor job of following the GFDL, but since you asked, I've created a protected redirect. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that. Zagalejo^^^ 06:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page was deleted. I ask you for a restoration of this article, because there were some big mistakes in the debate. The debate mentioned an other article about this subject that had been deleted in January. I think the article I proposed was very different from the precedent one that I read in Wikibin. It seems to me that my article was deleted just because some administrators made a wrong relationship between my page and another one that had been deleted before. When a member of the deletion debate, Gordon... (I apologize, I forgot his name), presents as argument a relationship between my words "academic references" and the note "see the numerous self-publications by Muata Ashby", it is a complete mistake. My note about publications by Ashby was concerning an other part of the article and was not presented as an academic reference. The academic references I had given were very different, they refered all to several University Ph. D. : Lilyan Kesteloot, Dieux d'eau du Sahel, Voyage à travers les mythes de Seth à Tyamaba, L'Harmattan/IFAN, Paris, 2007, ISBN 978-2-296-04384-8, p. 75. Paul L. Hamilton, African People's contributions to world civilizations : Shattering the Myths, R.A. Renaissance Publications, 1995, p. 129. M. Adam, Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'Etranger, PUF, Paris, 1984, p. 256. Lilyan Kesteloot is Director of Researchs in IFAN (Dakar) and Professor at the University Cheikh Anta Diop (Dakar), she is a great specialist of African cultures. M. Adam was professor of philosophy at Bordeaux University, in France. L. Hamilton is Ph. D, too. About the subject itself, it is a fact that there are several yoga schools and yoga masters troughout the world who teach Egyptian Yoga and wrote about it. Has a Wikipedia aministrator really to put in debate a fact that exists since long time ? My article was not about Khane himself, but about the branches of Egyptian yoga that I know. Khane cannot be forgotten, because he is currently considered in Europe, Africa and Canada as one of the main exponents of Egyptian Yoga. But I had mentioned other branches that are completely independent of his school. It is true that the main references I had cited come not from the USA (except the recent self-publications by Ashby and the book by Pr. L. Hamilton), but from UK, France, Spain and Senegal. Is the English version of Wiki dedicated only to USA ? Is something notable just when it is notable in the USA ? Is the rest of the world completely nonexistent ?Neferhotep (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• COI Archive 28#Egyptian Yoga
• COI Archive 29#Egyptian yoga (again)

Here are the COI links where this was discussed. I was curious so I looked them up. Hard to tell much from them without looking at the actual edit histories but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was assumed these were the same article since they had the same title. Tothwolf (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you are right that this is confusing Tothwolf. We have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian yoga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga, which were both clearly delete. If the COIN reports were confusing the users, that might be grounds to overturn, but I would prefer a DRV to let the community review the matter and compare the articles and sources to figure out which one should be returned, if either. Also, Neferhotep, you started this section with "Deletion Review", but did not file a Deletion Review at WP:Requests for undeletion, do you wish to do that? If you want to and cannot figure out the coding, I can file a pro-forma request for you. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but wonder if the person who made the second report though these were done by the same person because they had a similar title. AfD of the first article certainly doesn't mean a topic ban was in place. Tothwolf (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your responses. I don't know how to do a WP:Requests for undeletion. I would be grateful to you if you can file a pro-forma request for me.Neferhotep (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Egyptian yoga. 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. As you requested. Prodego ^talk 23:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xclamation point has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! You deserve this, being one of the biggest helps to the administrative processes on Wikipedia.
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Greets! I have seen you closed the discussion. I just wanted to note that one of the nominated articles, namely After Forever (song), was deleted against WP:MUSIC policy. It was deleted under the supposition that it is not a single, but it was released as a single. I noted that in the discussion and presented a source, but I was ignored. The article also contained several sources including books and magazines. I would be glad if you can do something about it. Thanks and have a nice day!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also reviewed this discussion and am not seeing a clear consensus to delete. There is a majority of people saying to delete but they don't seem to be really engaging the issues raised by the minority of people arguing to keep. I was under the impression that deletion discussions are not a vote and are not really supposed to be run by majority rule but rather by consensus. Cazort (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:Rough_consensus#Rough_consensus and my personal closing thoughts at User:MBisanz/AfD, it isn't a vote count, but an assessment of the good faith views of the participants. In this case a large consensus of people believed the songs failed music notability and a small consensus of people felt the sources established notability. Since both sides held those views in good faith and there was no incontrovertible evidence (copyvio, etc), the overall consensus was to delete the articles. MBisanz ^talk 20:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a disagreement between arguments based on sources and arguments based on opinion, the arguments based on sources ought to prevail unless there is a clear reason for discounting those sources. No reason was given by those arguing to delete why the sources presented were not sufficient. And "rough consensus" does not mean a "rough majority" of people arguing to delete. "AFD is not a vote" applies whether you discount non-policy-based or opinion-based arguments or not. Consensus means "general agreement", and that was clearly not present. A "large consensus" versus a "small consensus" means "no consensus", unless "large" is much greater than "small". DHowell (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument made by the deleting side was that the sources did not establish notability, that moved it to delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me how did you decide to which side to turn. "After Forever" was a single (not just a song), so it doesnt need to chart or anything of the things that a common song needs to do to be notable. So I came up with an argument that nobody disproved. What is then the reason of the deletion? It doesnt seem relevant to me to delete it just because the majority wanted to delete that when they could not disprove the argument of the other side. If 20 people decide to delete The Beatles, does it get deleted if no one else notes that it is nominated?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I just wanted to ask you - if you dont want to un-delete the article - could you please provide the source of the article, so that we can use the information that it contained, please? Thank you :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If 20 people said The Beatles should be deleted for failing some criteria and no one said anything against deletion, then yes that would indicate consensus to delete the article. I've put After Forever in your userspace at User:Lykantrop/After Forever (song). MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Have a nice day :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I could just get some feedback on the discussion there. I'm a bit distressed...I've disagreed with the outcomes of deletion discussions many times before but never as strongly as with this article. I also feel very strongly that the discussion had No consensus. I asked many questions. I feel like the other editors responded only by dismissing my comments, not by referring to sources and to wikipedia guidelines. Examples:

• "I don't think the Circuit City case where he's quoted by the LA Times is notable." by User:THF. This is an assertion and conflicts very strongly with wikipedia guidelines. The case might not be notable to a lawyer but it is notable in the wikipedia sense because it has received coverage: [1] and it might be interesting to people interested in circuit city. (I certainly found it interesting as I am actually quite fascinated by questions of how that company was managed.)

• People kept referring to the "Notability is not inherited" guideline, but after reading the section Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED, I'm not seeing how that guideline is applicable here. People made comments like "having notable clients doesn't make you notable", which was true, but the fact that his work with his clients has attracted media attention in numerous reliable independent sources seems to establish notability to me--and no one addressed/acknowledged this.

• No one addressed what I said repeatedly about the wikipedia guideline WP:N, which reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

I find this deletion to be highly inconsistent with guidelines. If you could read over the discussion in more depth, and just give me some feedback on my talk page, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Right now, I'm planning on very cautiously re-creating the page in userspace until I have a fully-sourced page that I can just launch up there. I'm hoping that will convince people. I just wanted some outside feedback as to what is going on here because I can't help but feel like people just ganged up on me for no good reason--almost as if the other lawyers in the discussion somehow had a bone to pick with this particular guy or with the idea of including more lawyers in wikipedia, for some unknown reason. Cazort (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to ask the individual participants in the AFD for their specific views, but in reviewing their comments, I think the point they are making is that notability comes from coverage about a person, not coverage about someone they are associated with that incidentally mentions them. For instance, a newspaper review covering the Rolling Stones and mentioning that Garage Band opened for them, contributes to the Rolling Stones notability, but not Garage Band. In this case it seems the people were looking for articles on the lawyer, not on his clients that mention he is their lawyer. Overall the consensus is rather clear, I'm sorry I can't be of more help. MBisanz ^talk 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent closure of the AfD discussion of Math 55, what happens now that there is no consensus? Does the page stay? Acceptable (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means the page is kept since the community could not decide on deleting it. It is weaker than a Keep, so article improvements may still be required or someone could open a new AfD discussion in the future. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was relisted for a more thorough consensus. But from what I've seen, it was only one !vote short of a WP:SNOW, and that vote was from the article's creator, who replied systematically to every Delete !vote, and the "quality" of his replies prompted me to openly invoke WP:DENY. One might argue that he may not understand English very well, but I doubt that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the sometimes the best way to deal with a SPA account acting like that is to let the community show him the strong consensus for deletion and that he is getting his "day in court" so to speak. Hopefully that has worked now. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please could you userfy this page for us so we can edit it to suit the Wikipedia guidelines?

The clown category in Wikipedia has 46 American clowns, many of whom are less notible than Alan Clay. In the Australian clown section there are currently two clowns, neither of whom are still alive.

I'm sorry for the advertising in the first draft of the article. We just copied the resume. But we are happy to put the time in to turn it into a proper article.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishAUS (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, random administrator whose name I've seen around quite a bit.

In the process of trying to grow my experience on Wikipedia, I made a non-admin closure on AFD:Wellworths (GB). I wanted to get a second opinion to see whether or not my closure was appropriate and justified. Thanks! Matt (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was a good attempt, but it was a narrow enough margin that I would have left it for an admin to do. Wikipedia:NAC#Appropriate_closures gives a good guide as to when non-admins should close AFDs. Since there were good faith delete comments, that really wouldn't have been a good NAC. MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, better luck next time, I guess...I guess I'll just claim WP:BEBOLD in my defense this time. I did read the guide beforehand, I just assumed that the outcome would be pretty cut and clear on this one. Matt (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An article was recently deleted through WP:Articles for deletion/Rajinder Kumar Kamboj. However the content had also been moved to Rajender K Kamboj where it still exists. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed! Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 04:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.  :) Taroaldo (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real mess, it was listed for AfD and deleted, restored at DRV but the AfD template was never re-added but it has been relisted several times since. Now seems to be a hoax, though hardly blatant given its taken this long to discover. Could you please delete, as the AfD though not 100% procedurally correct, seems to have reached an firm consensus. Forward planning failure (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my original deletion that was overturned at DRV, so I can't be the closing admin. Sorry. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forward planning failure (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a confirmed sock of indef-blocked troll User:RMHED. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you started the shiny new feature. If you plan on using it at Category:Media requiring renaming, I have put up a bot request to handle those files instead, I think that would be much easier than doing it manually. Just a heads up to save you unnecessary work. Regards SoWhy 08:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that won't work, at least not well. A lot of the template requested renames have illegal characters in them like : and / so a human needs to correct them. Also, a good number are missing the file extension or have the incorrect extension. I think this is going to be a by-hand task. With Splarka's script, I've done about 250 today, so 3 or 4 admins working on it should be able to do it in a few days. MBisanz ^talk 08:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those can be filtered out and ignored but missing extensions can be fixed by the bot (it just needs to compare old extension = new extension after all) . I know it's doable by admins but a bot could be useful to do it in future and after all, there are multiple backlogs to handle for admins, so I think those 3-4 admins should rather do them instead (which is why I will plunge into C:SD now). But I cannot stop you if you want to do it manually ;-) SoWhy 08:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I don't know if someone told you already but there seems a bug with renaming (see this comment), so you might want to be careful or pause it until it's been resolved. Regards SoWhy 12:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could take a look at 2009031310000561. Further information at here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your opinion. You closed the {{afd}} of Joshua L. Dratel. This was one of thirteen nominations for deletion made by the same individual in one fell swoop.

I acknowledged that there was some merit in some of their nominations. But in Dratel's case, and in several other, in my opinion, the nominator lapsed in filing poorly researched nominations on notable individuals.

I've listed some of the additional references for Dratel here

If you had been aware that Dratel had been so extensively covered, would you still have concluded the article merited deletion?

If you do not think the additional references are sufficient to establish notability, what addition do you think would be required?

Do you think that it would be appropriate for you to userify the original article, to allow additional references to be incorporated into it? Am I correct that if you, as the deleting administrator, are satisfied that a userified article has been sufficiently improved, you can authorize its restoration to article space, without requiring a DRV?

If you are prepared to userify the article, could you please do so here -- User:Geo Swan/review/Joshua L. Dratel?

You get a lot of requests. Maybe my request for userification to User:Geo Swan/review/Joshua L. Dratel was drowned out by other's requests. So I am repeating that request. Could you please either userify the article, or offer the reason you think you should decline my request? Geo Swan (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I can never tell what caused the orange bar and sometimes miss stuff. Userfied. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you meant by "selectively reenabled"? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you fixed the misspelling that the name that File talk:Brookwood cemetery 5.jpg previously contained. It is one of many images that I have marked as containing a spelling error in the title. (I'm a member of WP:TYPO so this thing comes up a lot.) It is my understanding that it is now as easy as moving an article title to move a file title. And that you must be an admin to do the moving. Is that correct? The old method of manually re-uploaded and moving the history was an absurdly complex process. It used to be that users could be granted move status but I don't think that's the case anymore. It'd be really great if I was able to move images but the last time I RFA'ed I got SNOWBALL'ed, which kind of sucked because I've contributed more to wikipedia than some of the admins that voted me down. Anyway, is moving image names as simple as just moving now for admins? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, not the case of granting "move" status, and it is disabled anyway per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#File_moving_disabled. It is as easy for admins as any other page move (except you need to be precise with namespace names and extensions). MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Death.jpg and File:Death (DC Comics).jpg seem messed up. As text, the first is a redirect to the second. However, the media is still associated with the first file.

The media needs to be redone so it's in the right place, Chris Bachalo and Death (DC Comics) need to be updated, and finally File:Death.jpg needs to be removed entirely so commons:File:Death.jpg is usable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll toss it on the file for the devs to fix. Arrgh. MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look into undeleting File:Kvirclogo.png? This is the logo image for KVIrc, which is GPL software. I'm not sure why it was deleted under CSD I7 as the upload log shows it was tagged with the {{GPL}} template. [2] Tothwolf (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this [3] explains what happened to it... I can't help but wonder just how many 1000s of images that bot tagged improperly. Tothwolf (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored and tweaked it, it still needs a description and source and stuff, but should be good for a few days. Yea, that bot tagged alot of images, about 200,000 deleted, I managed to save a large number of logos, but couldn't catch all the errors. MBisanz ^talk 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone ever comb the deletion logs to see what else should have been restored? I'm sure I'll come across more of these as I really start digging into the IRC articles. I'll see what I can find out for the source on this logo. It may just need {{logo fur}} or something. Tothwolf (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, at the time I was fixing over 200 images a day and not getting enough sleep, and still the bot was beating me in speed, didn't have the time to check the logs. MBisanz ^talk 22:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the image may be under a Creative Commons Share Alike license, at least according to the original website where it came from [4] Its still possible to process those logs isn't it? Might make for an interesting project to code up something to build a chart/graph from that mess. Seems like I came across another one of these logo problems too didn't I? Now I remember, it was File:Xaric screen shot.jpg. It didn't get deleted but it was re-tagged improperly (also free software tagged as non-free) and it was removed from a number of IRC articles and even the {{IRC-stub}} stub template. If you check the edit history, you can see that this [5] is where the problems began for that image. Tothwolf (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have no idea how to process those logs, you might ask Bjweeks (talk · contribs) or MZMcBride (talk · contribs), they know those kind of things better than I do. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've kinda got my hands full atm with the cleanup tasks I've taken on with all the IRC stuff, so the image deletion logs thing is just one of those things for my to do list I guess. I added the license template to File:Kvirclogo.png and hopefully I did it right. I'm not too familiar with the standard way to tag CC licensed images. Tothwolf (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, license looks find, let me know if you need help with anything else. MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[6] About a temp NOINDEX copy with history for evidence...? rootology (C)(T) 22:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you totally confused me here.... StarM 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yea, my script failed to change the /Log page transclusions, so I just reverted and re-ran it. Whoopsie. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

damn scripts not doing what they're supposed to do to make our lives simple :) Think I saw something about a birthday -- hope you had a good day. StarM 01:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bass player, please close this off. Sorry, I'm no expert. I'm still feeling my way around a bit. Thank you. Belasted (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, no problem, my first articles were also deleted, it just takes time. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement, but I did not write that article, nor have I written any article. I was just requesting it for deletion and my lack of experience simply pertained to the deletion of articles/disambiguation pages. But thanks for your help. Belasted (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! (I think. I just read the conversation above this.) Belasted (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there-- I just had an edit conflict with you on the Bass player Afd. Here's what I had written:

Keep This needs to be a dabpage with 3 alternatives, Bass Player (the album), Bassist, and Bass Player (magazine). The third is a redlink, which per MOS:DABRL is acceptable since it has incoming links from multiple other articles requesting the article be written. In any case I'll write it tomorrow if I get a chance. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Should I just go ahead and change it back to a dabpage, or would that be warring? Or am I mistaken in my reading of MOS:DABRL? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me role back my close, you comment, and I'll leave it open for a bit longer. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Matt. I need some guidance about correcting a minor upload problem. I ran across this photo. It seems someone uploaded a file using a previous title. The old photo belonged in the infobox of Dorothy Dietrich -- and it appears to be properly licensed at Commons. The new photo is used in the Polish WP here (there isn't an article on the Englsh WP) and has public domain licensing there, but appears to be using the same Dorothy Dietrich photo licensing info. What is the proper procedure here? Should the newer photo upload simply be deleted, or should the two be separated and then proper licensing docs requested for the second photo? Or is a CSD tag appropriate on the second photo? There is probably a simple fix to this, but I wanted to avoid causing any mistaken deletions -- and, of course, would rather know the procedure myself. Regards. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well right now there are no files at the English wikipedia, they are all at commons. Ideally the files should be split out into 2 versions and each properly licensed. Whether that means downloading the old version of the first image and re-uploading or downloading and reuploading the current image and then deleting the last revision, that is all up to you. MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the response. I'll delete the current version, however I won't be able to reupload it again because I am unable to locate the user who originally uploaded it to the Commons. Personally, the photo appears to me to be a scan from a yearbook and is probably under copyright. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please will you send a test email when you have a moment. I think I've set up the permissions correctly, and a tailored error message too, so your test will prove the efficacy of one! --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MBisanz ^talk 21:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Never saw it. I'll take another look when I get 5 minutes. Did you receive anything back at all? --Dweller (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I didn't get anything. MBisanz ^talk 08:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to your note about my being a party or not,[7] the comment and use of a question mark in my discussion header was more an expression of confusion as to the scope of the issue than a request to be dismissed - I have changed it accordingly. I would think that as a procedural matter my request that we not entertain Noroton's vendetta against me is something we can take care of via a motion or workshop discussion, rather than handling now at the final stage of accepting this as a case. I would rather not consider that now, because I imagine most arbitrators are not keen to make a preliminary ruling on anything before the case even starts. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

any chance of coming to the NYC meetup, weekend after this on the 29th? DGG (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found another image that was deleted by that bot. File:Acrophobia screenshot.png Looks like the it was caused by the page rename from Acrophobia (game) to Acrophobia (video game). Tothwolf (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there any license or attibution info for File:Acrophobia.gif that isn't already present in File:Acrophobia screenshot.png? Tothwolf (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing else. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that vandal and sockpuppet who kept harassing me on my talk page ;). DougsTech (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DougsTech (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for helping me out, and I really appreciate it. Hopefully everything is taken care of now. I made a stronger password with letters and numbers this time. I had the false impression that 8 random numbers would be hard to crack, obviously I was wrong. Landon1980 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. MBisanz ^talk 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Your hard work at AfD is appreciated. Heck of a lot of AfDs closed, and kudos for that. There will disagreements about some the closes, which is why we need bold admins to handle the tough ones. Enigmamsg 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about your close here? Surely the fact that this is a copyright violation outweighs any other arguments? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did think about that, and realized Wikisource might have different fair use rules than enwiki (I know Wikiquote is much more liberal for instance), so as long as they know what they are getting, it is their choice. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikisource editors are responsible for making their own decisions, but in practice just tagging it here means that we will be hosting the article indefinitely, so are responsible for any copright violation until it is transwikied. This was the last article that I tagged for transwikiing there, and it still hasn't been done after more than a year. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bugged a Sourcican at User_talk:Jayvdb#Fair_use, so it shouldn't last long. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I've added a comment there (did you notice it was a block from nearly two years ago?). If you notice anything like that in future, could you direct it to the arb-l mailing list (or unblock-en-l), and not to me personally? I'll only end up forwarding it on. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Didn't see it was so old, weird. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BTW, did you see my note on the talk page of that subpage of yours? Carcharoth (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I saw the note, I haven't had the time to look at the other ideas you gave me, so it is sitting in my inbox, I should get around to it sometime this week. MBisanz ^talk 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check into File:Berkeley Systems logo.PNG? It doesn't look like a bot deletion, but it might be something that can be fixed with a simple template addition. It might be good to have the original company logo back on the Berkeley Systems article since it looks like I'll probably end up doing some work on that article while working on a related article. Tothwolf (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, have fun. MBisanz ^talk 04:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got it in the article again. Hopefully it will stick this time ;) Tothwolf (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question. You just deleted List of controversial non-fiction books based on my nomination. Is there any robot or procedure to remove the now dead links to this page? Or are they just cleaned up by and by by editors who see the red links? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it is just done in the course of editing, but I just ran a script to delink them all, so it should be good now. MBisanz ^talk 21:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please explain your decision on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Marvin Schur? I am quite astounded at this outcome. Are you saying that the article is notable, but merely needs a change in title? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Death of Marvin Schur was clearly determined not to be notable, but there were comments indicating content had been merged and split, etc, so to err on the side of GFDL caution, redirecting was a cheap solution, the discussion did not express any view on Marvin Schur, although it looks to me like a weak article. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that User:Grockl has edited the archive of their sockpuppet report. I believe that this (along with this selective talk page cleanup) is in response to my warning to the user. Could you have a quick look and see if there is anything that needs doing? Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The constant need to relicense, redescribe, re-whatever images every 6 months or so to save them from the newest rule change of the deletionists is why I, although an admin, here never bother to upload images I create anymore. Rmhermen (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I really didn't see this coming so I failed to make a backup. Is there any chance you could just dump and userfy both the article and its talk page to user talk:Sillyfolkboy/sandbox? Don't worry, I'm not looking to recreate the article, but I think some of the writing and sources would help to write the new article "Islamic radicalism in the United Kingdom". I'm sure if you look at my last edits in the deleted history, and the page at time of deletion, then you can see I was pushing in that direction anyway.

Many users stated that the above, or similar, would be a much more neutral title. Indeed, many of the sources and academic studies directly focused on this issue rather than just British Pakistanis. I can guarantee that when I get around to writing I won't cherry pick bits from the article as was done previously. Thanks in advance. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was already stuff in your sandbox, so I moved it to User:Sillyfolkboy/sandbox1. MBisanz ^talk 22:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it appears that you edited this image File:Young Love Issue 1 (Crestwood-Prize).jpg, which I uploaded. Although I recall uploading it, the History page doesn't list me at all. I'm happy to add the description required, but remain bemused about how it disappeared - I recall creating it, and can see the remnants of it on the description page. Any idea what happened, and how to recover the initial text rather than having me re-create it, please? ntnon (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this comment, I had to look at the image. Ntnon, my best guess is that the license tag and all went into the edit summary when you uploaded the image. So, you show in the history of the image upload, but not the text description page that goes with it. I've added as much of the original text that was visible in the image upload summary. —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Weird. Well, that's that explained and fixed then, thanks for your help. ntnon (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks C.Fred! MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note you instigated the deletion of the article about myself and wonder if you can further assist with advice.

Although I understand that being the partner of a print firm is irrelevant as far as notability is concerned, and that The Library Theatre is unimportant, The article was initially created in order to provide general information on me, as a playwright, for professional individuals who work with me in the theatre industry, and always look up everyone else on a team. I have no great knowledge on what is required, nor the patience to learn and no doubt worded things wrongly. However it has been there for over a year and some administrators had kindly contributed to get it in better shape.

I understood, that authors have a placing on the site, so long as they are not self published, or published by vanity publishers.      I have plays published with play publishers Cressrelles and Jasper Publishing who are not in the least connected to me in business nor vanity publishers .  A few of these are adaptations of classic novels which have been used by professional companies.  Therefore companies who are considering performing the plays may wish to look me up, as did recently  a professional theatre in Budapest who are currently adapting one of my plays for performance.

I have a novel published by small publishing company Seventh Wave Publiscations, which was initially in the top 20s list for it’s genre (fiction WW2) by major British book retailer Waterstones. It’s dropped down the list a little because there aren’t any left. There is shortly to be a re-print and re-sales of the first edition are at on sale at Amazon, they range from $30 – 60

I hae plays published by theatre play publishers who are nothing to do with me businesswise, nor vanity publishers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillhiscott (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need to preserve a reputation on the internet. Maybe a simple list of my publications would be acceptable, but cannot risk re-creating the article if administrators automatically believe it should be deleted. I feel a little hard done by as people with less achievements still have articles.

Any further opinion or advice? Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillhiscott (talk • contribs) 19:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I really cannot see a way Wikipedia could host a list of publications, because Wikipedia only reports things covered in other sources. You might ask the people who participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Hiscott is they have any suggestions, but my best suggestion would be the Publishing Wiki. MBisanz ^talk 22:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 29th, Columbia University area Last: 01/18/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of taking this to DRV. See [8] - with the evidence about the Spanish Heraldry Society, it looks as though what we have is an incestuous group of 'confraternities' and people, with no notability. I also see that a keep vote was from an account set up just for that purpose. Any comments? dougweller (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I did catch the SPA comment when reviewing it, but weighing the points made by established editors like DGG pushed it to an NC. It did have an iffy feeling though when closing (I would have commented to delete if I wasn't closing), so I wouldn't a DRV. MBisanz ^talk 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was tired last night (in fact got out of bed to write the above), but looking at WP:DRV and the box with 4 points, it appears that DRV wouldn't apply right now. I guess what I need to do is to follow point one and ask you to review your decision and consider reversing it. Then if you don't, point 3 is about a deleted article, 4 is ANI which would be silly, and I'm not at all sure about 2. I guess a new AfD is a possibility, I really am not sure about the correct process right now. I'm out most of today anyway so won't get around to this until Monday now I think, any advice would be welcome.Thanks. dougweller (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well from my past experience, I would say the best thing to do is file a DRV citing the SPA and sourcing issues. I've found that second AFDs usually are rejected and you have fulfilled the "talking with deleting admin" part, so you are clear to go on that requirement. MBisanz ^talk 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 22. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you please usefy this article? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done at User:A Nobody/List of controversial non-fiction books MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. By the way, could you please also transwiki List of controversial non-fiction books to wikia:list:List of controversial non-fiction books? I just noticed the list wiki today!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin at wikia:list, so I can't do imports there, which means I can't complete a transwiki. MBisanz ^talk 22:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I closed this after you relisted it, I thought I'd tell you why. One "delete" voter who later stated redirecting might be a good idea. A few solid "keeps" and a strong rationale for a redirect. Therefore, I found a way to "split the baby". I closed as "redirect" but check out the closing statement. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm honoured that you think I'm qualified to become an administrator, but I really have no desire to become one - I just like making content on wiki. Thanks anyway! Skinny87 (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh well, keep up the good work. MBisanz ^talk 08:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you closed this as merge to Rachel Corrie#Reactions.

Firstly, there is no consensus at all that this is the right action (not even a majority of "votes"). Secondly, trying to merge it back in the RC article is an obvious non-starter, for all the reasons discussed on that article's talk page - above all, it is far too long to be merged back.

I am wondering whether you might have misread some of the later contributions, which suggested merging into a separate article Public Reaction to the Death of Rachel Corrie (or similar title) which would allow a wider scope and remove the problem of perceived bias in an "Artistic Tributes" only article. That would have my support, and I think is the course which most contributors there would support.

--NSH001 (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes counted how the result is merge to Rachel Corrie#reactions is decided

5 direct keep

2 merge to reactions to rachel corrie seperate page

3 delete and merge to rachel corrie

Also some other dedicated pages editors from various opinions hasn't voted yet, but they expressed their opinions on creation of seperate page earlier in talk page so there were a consensus.

I also want an explanation on how you decided after voting The general consensus was either keep or merge artistic tributes on a seperate General Reactions to Rachel Corrie page. Also the delete voters arguments were wrong since there are various other artistic tributes pages in wikipedia. Also no NPOV is an issue since the page has no unneutral side. Kasaalan (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let MBisanz answer for himself, but I'll point out to both of you that AfD is not a vote, nor is a !vote, so majorities and vote counting are irrelevant. I'll also point out to Kasaalan that "the delete voters arguments were wrong since there are various other artistic tributes pages in wikipedia" is classic WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also why you chose a swearing word on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is your issue most possibly but not polite. First of all, this is not othercasesexist argument, since some users voted for delete claiming no other page exist, but I proved there are other. Also they claimed the page is a fork, but I don't know any guideline like fork, I again proved there were other similar manner articles, because they are fit to wikipedia guidelines. Yet your otherpageexist guideline also not fit well because my arguments not solely based on otherpagesexist, yet it was just an answer to false claims of delete voters. So either provide me a reason to delete the article or show me a page to complaint for changing the judgement since it is completely wrong. Without consulting the dedicated editors of the page and against their will deletion and merging into main article is wrong. Kasaalan (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the delete voters claims were the ones you mention in the guideline, so again I demand an explanation for the judgement with proper guidelines referring to them. None users explained how the judgement took place or why exactly the discussion is closed. If our opinions doesn't matter why there is a discussion page for deletion.

Also some other dedicated pages editors from various opinions hasn't voted yet, but they expressed their opinions on creation of seperate page earlier in talk page so there were a consensus. Kasaalan (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller is right that AFD is not a vote. It is based on arguments about policy. In this case the arguments that this article was a POV-fork that violated NPOV, the core principle of Wikipedia, were more convincing than the arguments citing a talk page discussion to split and the existence of similar pages elsewhere. You can appeal this deletion at WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Clear Answer to False Fork arguments "What Forking is and What Forking is not" Wikipedia:Content forking

What forking is

Forking can be unintentional or intentional. POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

What content/POV forking is not

There are some things that may occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking, when that is not necessarily the case. Some of them are listed here. Please note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not mean that something is not a content fork -- only that it is not necessarily a content fork.

Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles

Main page: Wikipedia:Summary style

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout [[Criticism of XYZ]]. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.

I don't think you have read all of the forking concept or you wouldn't misjudge like this. It is about policies but the article not violating any policies in real term. First of all if you say the article is POV-fork you are simply wrong. This is what POV fork is. I didn't create the page for any disagreement. On the controversy I created the article on agreement from opposing view editors consent. I created the consensus on main page therefore I cerated the article, this is simple as that. Neither editor liked too much info on main page including me so we decided some seperate titles needed for some sections Also the page is not violating NPOV in any way, since this is a fact article which I collect the artistic tributes to Rachel Corrie, and I am not excluding any view or else. Kasaalan (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller is indeed right that AfD is not a vote. It does very much look to me, however, that you have not read, or have misread, the later contributions to the AfD, who were suggesting a merge of this article into a new article with wider scope, as I pointed out above. There was an obvious consensus developing that this was a course that would satisfy all, or nearly all of the participants, and avoids any question of a POV-fork (although I don't think it is one, I can see it might appear so to someone unfamiliar with the article history). I would rather not have to take this to DR when there is such an obvious solution available, so am offering you an opportunity to reconsider. --NSH001 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can merge it to a different article at a different title, that is fine. The merge target is just a suggestion from the close of the AFD that indicated the current title and current content (on its own), is inappropriate for inclusion. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A heavy majority on the votes decided at least keep the page as a seperated public reaction to rachel corrie article page and only 3 opinions were to delete the article if you count yourself 4. Yet none of the delete voters has contributed to the main Rachel Corrie article at least for months, and not sure even if they read our discussions on the archive pages. I would like to add documentaries and political reactions and made a reaction page. Yet an artistic tributes page alone is just fine according to the wikipedia guidelines, if you think otherwise first you should prove it in some sound terms. Kasaalan (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know who this person is, so I don't have an opinion as to what should happen to the article, I just interpret and close the AFD. If you disagree with the closing result of no article at the title specified in the AFD, you would need to go to WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot did something I am not sure I understand. No gripe about it, just curiosity.

Long ago, I drew some military rank insignia and gave them to WP. One of these pictures was File:USAirF.insignia.e9cmsaf.afmil.png. It appears that on 19 March 2009 the bot resubmitted the picture under the different filename File:USAirF.insignia.e9cmsaf.afm.png. On 21 March 2009, two days later, it contacted me to tell me to update the licensing information on this new version. The original had that information.

Not that it matters. There is a much better SVG version available. My original should probably be deleted anyway. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, we can keep the duplicate with the license, since some people prefer PNGs to SVGs, we will just get rid of the duplicate copy without the license info, darn system errors. MBisanz ^talk 21:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... came as a great surprise. Thank you for the vote of confidence and for your nice words (though I have 0 Huggle edits!). The extra flags would be useful for various things that I pester kindly Admins for now. I'm not really sure that I would pass an RFA. I'm pretty much a niche editor and they tend to do poorly at RFA. If you still think it's worth a try - can we hold the nomination for a couple of days? I have a couple of delayed projects to finish off, some userpage re-organising to do and a busy couple of days coming up at work to boot. Cheers, (and thanks again) Paxse (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello MBisanz. I missed the above discussion, and have multiple reliable sources that verify notability from; Yale Daily News, KTUU-TV, Anchorage Daily News, The Boston Globe and others as proof. As you closed this debate, what do you suggest? Should I take this to deletion review? May I have it userfied? I would appreciate any advice. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I userfied it to User:Ism schism/Verne E. Rupright, add the sources, etc then run it through WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to work on the article, and bring it up to standard. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Would you be so kind as to transwiki Hitman weapons to wikia:annex:Hitman weapons? Sorry if it's too many requests at once, I just been going through some discussions to see if they're worwthile putting anywhere. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin at wikia:annex, so I can't do imports there, so I don't know how it can be transwikied there. MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have created a number of description pages for images that don't exist, such as File:Hebb bobby\\x7e sunny\\x7e\\x7e\\x7e\\x7e 101b.jpg and File:Coat of Arms of Székesfehérvár.jpg. Are you using some tool that's having trouble with Unicode filenames? --Carnildo (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MZM pointed that out to me a couple days ago that my browser was set to the wrong font setting, I've fixed it going forward, and since all of those are deletion taggings, it should fix itself in a few days. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered this and wondered why, if the there were far more delete votes than merge or keep votes, the decision was to merge. I would've voted delete, BTW, as I seem to recall lists of majors as being unencyclopedic and serving little purpose besides advertisement (the only exceptions being particularly notable programmes found in reliable, third-party sources per WP:UNIGUIDE). --Aepoutre (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there isn't a requirement on how much must be merged, so it could be very little or everything. Merge is a nice way to compromise discussions like that so all parties are happy and can decide on the specific content worth including in the main article on their own. MBisanz ^talk 07:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I see. To your knowledge, however, am I correct in saying that a list of majors is unencyclopedic? I was curious about the discussion, for sure, but it's brought up this larger encyclopedic vs. unencyclopedic issue for me. --Aepoutre (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally such a list in unencyclopedic. I believe back in my old days (59,000 edits ago), I created such a list for my alma mater. I think it was soon deleted or I was advised it might be speedied, so yes, it is established practice to delete such things. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the clarification. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't on crack or something. Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you here. Can this image below on english wikipedia be deleted:

• File:Buddhist Temple at Cox's Bazar.jpg

Its a duplicate of this image here that is being used on Wikipedia and which I transferred to Commons: File:Buddhist Temple at Maheshkhali Island.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. MBisanz ^talk 09:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the cascading protection on User:MBisanz/PP protects the following templates which would not otherwise be protected:

• Template:ACE 2008 guides
• Template:Bureaucrat2
• Template:FA-icon
• Template:Formeradmin
• Template:Green
• Template:NoSpam
• Template:NoSpamEmail
• Template:RFARlinks
• Template:Rfarlinks
• Template:Section

Also, the talk page is protected from creation. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I changed the protect settings so those pages aren't affected, but I can't undo the talk page protect since that is done from the spam blacklist and not the page protection interface. MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MB, I checked today and saw that you deleted the article FUZE Meeting. I do not understand what was non neutral about the article. Can you please help me get the article back on Wikipedia and modify it so that it fits Wikipedia norm instead of simply deleting it.

Thank you. ~FabulosWorld

FabulosWorld (talk)

Replied at DRV. MBisanz ^talk 22:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO WRITE YOU SO I AM SURE YOU RECEIVE IT. i AM NOT VERY GOOD WITH WIKI, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN I AM IGNORANT IN MY FIELD OF STUDIES. WHY DID YOU DELETE "VENETIAN PEOPLE" ARTICLE? THE PEOPLE IN VENETIA HAVE A LANGUAGE, A 3000 YEARS HISTORY, AND ALSO PRESENT LEGAL STATUS. THE SCOTTISH, THE CATALAN, THE BASQUE... HAVE MUCH LESS THAN VENETIAN, BUT YOU DO NOT DELETE THEM. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING PERSONAL AGAINST VENETIAN? DO YOU IGNORE HISTORY AND PRESENT SITUATION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffaeleserafini (talk • contribs) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Raffaeleserafini, I took a look at that AFD discussion for this article. The people were saying the article need references for research and a neutral point of view, because Wikipedia has strict policies when it comes to POV and Original Research (neither are allowed in the enyclopedia). Please don't make assumptions into motivations of editors. (Sorry to intrude on your talk page, MBisanz, I just felt like commenting - feel free to remove if you mind).Spring12 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spring, feel free to comment anytime. My grandmother was Italian so I have no animus to the Italian people. But at a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian people, the Wikipedia community found the article should be deleted for the reasons Spring cites above. I was just the administrator closing the discussion. The deletion can be appealed at WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of FUZE Meeting. 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. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of vandalism on the pages and that could be one reason why they were temporarily in an abandoned state. But they were not in an abandoned state. The article, even now, carries links to them . Could they somehow be recovered? White adept (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to recover the article is at deletion review. MBisanz ^talk 05:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi .. It seems there is some issue with these file moves you made - could you please look into the issue.. [9][10][11][12]. White adept (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a quick glance, I see the edit before my move was

# (diff) 05:34, March 16, 2009 . . BJBot (talk | contribs | block) (1,657 bytes) (BJBot, orphaned fair use image tagging)

So I think it is the case that I moved an image tagged for deletion that was later deleted. MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MBisanz,

I just read the beginning of your deletion log for Venetian People. I imagine that you had other reasons in the rest of the text, but I need to correct you on the first statement. A Venetian ethnic group does indeed exist.

The following link has the Articles of Regione Veneto's Statute. This is an official law of the Italian Republic. It states "il popolo veneto" (Venetian People). Within the Italian Republic, only Sardinian and Venetians have the status of people (even though I personally believe that others should as well). This is not trivial, because according to international law, a people has rights of self-determination and protection. This is only what has been recognized by the Italian government. Here is the link: http://www.consiglioveneto.it/crvportal/leggi/1971/71ls0340.html#Heading14

Then, as far as publications goes, the following is a book on European ethnic groups that clearly lists and describes (even somantically) Venetians: "i popoli della terra", Tom Stacey, vol. 18, pp. 130-133, Mondatori editore, 1972. I believe this is the link to the English version, but I am not sure because it has only 144 pages, while the Italian publication I am referring to has 20 volumes. Anyway, here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=EnQ7AAAACAAJ&dq="peoples+of+the+world"+"tom+stacey".

Finally, even without official legal and bibliographical evidence, I find it very strong to state that an ethnic group does not exist. Especially in the case of a people who has an internationally recognized language, with dictionaries and literature. A people who had their own country for 1100 years. An ethnic group does not disappear in 150 years (6 generations), especially of this size.

Please reconsider your deletion. If 99% of the content was not wikipedia worthy, I am fine with your decision, but deleting Venetians as a whole, as an ethnic group, is not appropriate.

Thank you,

Bolivendarsen (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been listed at DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In particular the user:hobojaks has been unfairly blocked.

In addition hobojaks has claimed the right to vanish. Do you think we could all agree that the discussion would be improved if comments could be made from this IP address. The user or users typing from this IP address is entirely capable of going to a public library and getting a new account, but doing something wrong to prove a point is generally not such a good idea.

The user or users typing from this IP address maintain that hobojaks no longer exists, and invoke not only the rule that users have the right to vanish, but also the ignore all rules rule when it comes to participating in discussion of the present deletion argument.