Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:38, 13 November 2008

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give his feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his edits at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/MBisanz 2.

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 Misplaced Pages? 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: 9 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 9 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please adopt me!!!

I have and adoptme on my page, but i would really like it if you adopted me p.s. I have just put an edit on the article "earthquakes" and the section is called "earthquake fault types" please review me and tell me how i am doing!. Coolgyingman (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not adopting anyone at the moment, you might try asking another administrator. MBisanz 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ok but it said you were on the adoption page Coolgyingman (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Proper ok for image?

As a Commons admin, you might want to check the permissions status of Image:SteveKantrowitzPhoto.jpg; the rationale doesn't quite seem to be what's required, as far as I can see, no OTRS ticket number, etc. Risker (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, the uploader has been blocked for such things before. I've tagged it as lacking permission, so it will be deleted unless OTRS gets an email in the next week. Thanks. MBisanz 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for you strong support in my rfa! And all of the times you have helped me on the project and all of your hard work on my AC! •If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy• ·Add§hore· /Cont 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

http://wikimediafoundation.org/Donate/Support/en is wrongly stating that the donation buttons are CC BY SA, while they are GFDL. The original puzzle was released under GFDL. Cary bass made his buttons and uploaded them under GFDL, but didn't credit the original creators of the puzzle : .

The donation page state they are CC BY SA, but it's wrong. Also, it doesn't provide nay link to the button's pages, or credit the authors, which is a copyright violation. ANd now, you decide to change all buttons' licence ?! You have no authority to do that, only the creator can do so : http://wikimediafoundation.org/Special:Contributions/MBisanz

--Lilyu (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no authority period. I just do whatever it looks like Cary tells me to do. So I assumed everything uploaded there is GFDL, unless there is an indication otherwise, the new donation form says those buttons are CC, so I change them to CC. I'm not the person to take this up with as I don't actually have the authority to make any real decisions. MBisanz 04:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Lilyu, I was given PSD files and did not make the original graphics, so please don't go throwing accusations around. Secondly, containing as it does elements of Wikimedia's copyright logo and is simple and unoriginal and hardly meets the threshhold of creativity required to hold a license. You may do better complaining on foundation-l or bring in the original creator to complain before leveling accusations against myself or Mbisanz and creating insinuations against either of us. Bastique 05:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

... --Lilyu (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a breath, and look at it calmly : whatever licence is used, GFDL or CC BY SA, the page where the image was uploaded need to say who is the author of the button. That's one thing, that look quite evident, no ? Than, if another page use the image, it need to wether give a link to the previous image, or a link to the licence's text and credit the authors.

Than, if the the button use another image licenced GFDL, it's a derivative work, and it should also be GFDL, and crediting the creators of the first image (the wiki puzzle).

Finally, if the wikimedia foundation wants to claim to hold copyright over the wiki puzzle image, the board needs to state so, and discuss with the creator of the image, or fill up a complain.--Lilyu (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Two points

As was made crystal clear to me when I was given access to the WMF wiki; it is not a content wiki and does not have to abide fair use rules as enwiki does with an WP:NFCC, so the whole thing of linking to the sources, etc I may do if I have time, but it is not a requirement

If the license should be changed, if the board needs to say something, what the threshold of originality is are all thing that are well above my pay grade of unpaid-volunteer-who-does-what-he's-told, those sound like questions for a mailing list or someone who actually has authority to make decisions on the WMF wiki (not me). Thanks. MBisanz 13:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was quite surprised by your and Cary's reaction to my message, they were really not wikilove and open minded. It tooks me nearly an hour to find even who i could talk to, and english is not my mother language : it's hard to try to explain things in a foreign language, i did all of that just to warn there was something small to fix about the licenses of this buttons. I do understand meta might be quite different from Wikipedias & Commons, but i was expecting experienced peoples as you and Cary to know that uploading images without licenses or tagging it cc-BY-sa (and saying to everyone : use them under CC BY SA) without saying who is the author, might be something to fix. I'm just fed up now, and discouraged, forget it...--Lilyu (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucky I have your ACE2008 page watchlisted...

...or this might have persisted for more than a minute. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I keep trying and failing to recruit qualified candidates. Woe is Misplaced Pages! MBisanz 17:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually think we have a pretty good crop - certainly good enough that we should be able to find seven better than me. But, like the edit summary said, an honour to be considered. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ADO page deletion

So if I've got this right, Wiki wants a document from an authority acceptable to Wiki, saying that Avalonian Druidry is 'real'. Wiki has already accepted Druidry as being verified, but individual branches of Druidry are not until individually verified. Since you are accepting publications by members of listed organizations as verification for their own orgs, does that mean Wiki will accept ADO member publications as verification for ADO? Or is there another criteria especially for smaller organizations?

Simply being referenced in other written sources is not a validation of the truth or value of a spiritual path, BTW. This is especially true when the sources being referenced are outside sources only by virtue of having been published to the public. Being referenced in mainstream publications is merely a stamp of approval from the dominant culture.

The intent of the article was not to 'prove' ADO beliefs (no spirituality can do that), but simply to let people know that this type of Druidry exists, and how it is or is not the same as mainstream Druidry. So... what kinds of verification would be acceptable for an emerging spirituality?

Thank you for your time. MVLB (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC).

I just closed the debate at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Avalon Druid Order (ADO), you would need to ask the people who commented there about the article content. MBisanz 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

AN subpages

Did you know there are 928 pages as subpages of the administrators' noticeboard (including redirects)? That includes subpages of both AN and ANI and AN3 and AE, and all their archives. I have done a spreadsheet sorting them by main type (AN, ANI, A3, AE) and then by secondary types (archive, other , subpages and subpage archives). Would you be interested in a copy? This was prompted, incidentally, by me noticing your recent subpaging of an ANI thread, and I got to wondering just how many of these subpages there are. I know from experience that subpages can easily get lost among the listing of archives (though all should theoretically be linked from an archive somewhere), so I thought it was about time (unless it has already been done) for a template or page to be made listing all the AN and ANI subpages (AN3 and AE don't seem to have subpages other than archives or structural stuff). Anyway, for AN and ANI combined, there are 77 subpages and 7 archives for two of those subpages. I hope you don't mind me listing them here. Please feel free to move them somewhere else. What I was thinking was that a list could be maintained somewhere (maybe integrating with the archiving process), or a template could be used to tag the subpages and put them in a category? If there was some way of extracting the date each subpage was created and annotating the link with that date, that would be good as well. What do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem dropping it here, I'll probably subpage it to my userspace somewhere and try to figure out what to do with it. There should be a manual archive of these pages somewhere, I just don't know what is best a Misplaced Pages: index page like we do for RFCs or a Template: like we do for AN. Any ideas? MBisanz 22:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/All and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/U/User:. So someone has done topical archiving (something different from listing subpages) before, but those pages don't seem to have been updated since February 2008. I haven't a clue what the system is at RFC. The AN template? You mean Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox and the templates listed there? Incidentally, there is a note there about a new bot being needed to do the updating of that template. And this (referring to Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox/Search) looks interesting. Have you used the new search tools yet? I summarised them at WP:SEARCHING and used them to generate the lists at WT:BLP#Listing relevant BLP pages. I might drop nixeagle a note and point him here and at WT:BLP. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:SOFTBLOCK?

My IP was blocked for things I didn't do. Generally shared IPs should be soft blocked as noted in WP:IP. thank you--Ipatrol (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and when I see an IP adding a userbox as vandalism my thought is that the IP is a logged out account and if I hardblock it, I'll flush out the account. MBisanz 03:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Need assistance

please see this thanks Enigma 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Risker fixed it. Thanks. MBisanz 04:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Now there's a sock editing the page. Enigma 04:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP and removed talk page privileges; will see what happens. And yes, I did check the geolocate, so I will be keeping an eye. Risker (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We're dealing with a very determined vandal. User talk:XavierFox42 Can the user be blocked indefinitely (e-mail blocked as well) and the talk page full protected? Thanks, Enigma 05:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing tag on WP:MOSNUM

Can you please tag this protected page properly? I really like those big notices up top, as it draws people into the consensus making process which I believe would help a lot on this disputed issue. Count me among those tired of arguing about linking years in articles, as I can't seem to get through to the current WP:OWNers that historical context is important. (Nor do I quite get the more general consensus, what with HTML being 20 years old, that blue links are some evil scourge to be used as a last resort to only the most arcane of subjects -- the well known events of, say, 472 not apparently among these.) I am upset that they are using bots and scripts to force this change throughout the project by fiat, especially as ArbCom has frowned on such antics before, and they know it. But having made all my arguments on the talk page repeatedly, and lead the horse to water, I'm trying to resist the urge to drown it in the process of making it drink. I've asked repeatedly for these people claiming consensus, despite all evidence to the contrary, to file an RFC, but to no avail. -- Kendrick7 05:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess you are too busy. I'll just make a request at WP:AN. -- Kendrick7 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I would put the tag, but the protection is due to expire soon. At this point, I don't see it having an impact on the conversation much. An RFC sounds like an excellent idea for such a dispute. MBisanz 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But I don't have time (no pun intended?) to get riled up in these WP space disputes lately. I'm one of these "shades of gray" types (much like our Catechism), yet the nature of our project draws a lot of people who see the world in only black or white: Geographical links good, temporal links bad. I basically have time enough to patrol a vastly pared back watchlist for stupidity once a week (if that) and little else. Some days the project feels like less of an encyclopedia and more like a MUD, but oh well, I can only hope there are enough people who appreciate Misplaced Pages as a research tool to maintain some common sense while I'm mostly AFK. -- Kendrick7 05:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Misplaced Pages Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages: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) 22:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Boodlesthecat

I think this block is a mistake. Please see here. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick reminder when closing AfDs as redirect

Please be sure to knock off any assessment banners like {{vgproj}} when redirecting pages. It helps keep our WP:1.0 stats accurate. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I use an AFD closing script that supposedly automates everything. I will have to tell its maintainer about this so he can code it into the next version. Thanks for the note. MBisanz 03:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi MBisanz. Which AfD-closing script are you referring to here? Automation sounds good. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Insert the change I made in this edit into your monobook.js. Press Ctrl-F5 and you should see two new tabs at the top of all AFDs. MBisanz 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, is that fast! The only thing I miss is a full-length preview of my often-verbose deletion summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice one!

That was one topic that didn't have much excuse to exist, IMHO. dougweller (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that once something hits 70K of text and the board is over 200K, that is the time to subpage. Met my rule, so I did it. MBisanz 21:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a good rule. I wonder if there are any commonalities among most topics that get that long. dougweller (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a good bet that tag teams are frequently a common factor.  :) --Elonka 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the academic team vs the nationalist team. In team sports, when a player doesn't play according to the accepted rules, that player is admonished by the referee to play fair and ejected from the game if he persists. Where's the referee, and why are some looking the other direction? 128.226.130.90 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Page title

Hi, just curious why you chose this particular page title? I would have stuck with the name of the original thread, or "ChrisO's subpage". --Elonka 21:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I couldn't include a link in the page name and it seemed that it was a thread about ChrisO started by you and that throughout it people referenced behavior by both you and ChrisO, so that seemed to be the theme of the thread that people would be looking for in the archives . MBisanz 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true that I started the thread, but it's not really about me. In fact, if you scan through the comments in the thread, my name doesn't even come up that often. The main topic is ChrisO's subpage. --Elonka 22:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris G bot

Hi Bisanz,

Could you comment on Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Chris G Bot (4th request)?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Human Values

Hi. You closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human values as delete, but the duplicate article Human Values with a capital V, is still lurking around. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)  Done Thanks. MBisanz 10:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mylasa

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the Battle of Mylasa had been moved to Battle of the Marsyas. I think you may have just deleted the redirect and not the actual article. AniMate 10:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)  DoneMBisanz 20:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures deleted without any discussion

Why didn't your discuss these pictures with the uploader before assuming copyright violation? What is your basis for asserting copyright violation? I created these pictures myself, or based them on other public domain images. --Jonathan108 (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you took those images from this website which asserts full copyright on its materials. Posting them here is a violation of their copyright. MBisanz 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That is my own website! I have donated the use of the image to the public domain. That image is all over the web by now.--Jonathan108 (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you email a list of the images you are releasing to the public domain to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so it can be legally recorded? I trust you, but there are so many impersonators on the internet that we need to be sure it is actually the owner of that website that is releasing the images. MBisanz 02:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I just sent the email. Feel free to send a message to the address on the site to confirm that I own the site. Thanks! --Jonathan108 (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

All restored at Commons per OTRS permissions. Thank you. MBisanz 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mentorship

You recently edited WP:MENTOR. Would you be interested in reviewing the three new sections I posted at WT:MENTOR? Incidentally, I went looking for User:MBisanz/RfBan to see if WP:MENTOR was linked (it wasn't) and I found this, which made me laugh! Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you be my knight in shining armour

Dear Mr. Bisanz, firstly may I say how much I have enjoyed looking at your photographs here, seldom does one see such relaxed posture, and one so at ease with their surroundings. However, I am a little concerned about the pink eyes, one dry sherry on a Sunday morning is one thing, but.....well you do have very pink eyes. I only mention it as one who cares, such a pity if that finely toned physique were to be ruined by the demon drink. However, to business why I am here? I hear you ask, rather nervously. I note that here you say, I am likely to run for the local council elections. Yet, that evil Italian boy tells me that I have insufficient edits? Can he possibly be right, do you know more than he? Quite frankly that's not hard. He no doubt wants a clear field for himself. Like so many of our finest Arbs and Admins I have not the least desire to write pages and perform mundane tasks, no, not at all, like so many I am bred for finer more important tasks. Perhaps you could confirm - am I eligible? No, no you naughty man, I mean to run for Arbcom. Thank you so much for your support, I know I can rely on your vote......such a pity about poor Mrs. Palin, you all have my sympathy, there are far too many mousses, gnus and elks and such wild vicious animals cluttering up your beautiful country. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My lady, as I do read the requirements for you eligibility, thou must have attained the age of 18 years. No more than that is required. You may, at your leisure, wish to consult with my dear friends Ultraexactzz and AGK who are ever the wise gentlemen in this matter. MBisanz 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I am sure you are quite wrong, there is a minimum edit requirement, what is it? and do I have it? I also note that this year dearest Jimbo and his friends want the real life names and addresses of all prospective Arbcom members, I am quite used to men using subterfuge to find my phone number, so that is no problem - odd though, that it is not more publicised, because it was definitely not a requirement last year, of this I am 100% sure. Just one of those little things that creep in when men want ladies to put themselves forward, I suppose - the fiends. The number of edits required if you please? Isn't this all going to be exiting - can you not feel the thrill creeping all over you? Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the ACE page quite clearly ma' lady, and I see nothing of this 1000 edit count rule, which I doth recall from last year, best to inquire of my good chums for a definitive ruling. MBisanz 21:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, It would seem that you are both correct on the matter. Lo, I see that as recently as Wednesday last, the policy was that 1000 edits were required to stand as a candidate - thus. In anticipation of the many seekers of the office, the page and its policy were rewritten, and the 1000 edit requirement was inadvertantly lost - thus. Since candidates have submitted their names for consideration without the requirement's oversight, I am uncertain of its force - So, you may be eligible after all. However, while you may have the right to be a candidate, it is possible that a lack of experience would limit your success in the endeavour. I had the rare honor of standing as a candidate myself, lo these many years ago. With nary but a few edits to my name, though, it was not the triumph it might have been. So, in short - You can probably run, and the best of luck to you, but it might not be unwise to wait. Yours, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh you are clever Mr Alcatraz, thank you so much. How wise you are. Should one or shouldn't one? I'm quite of a dither - does one really want the bother or is it one's duty? I'm not the least bothered about lack of experience, who has written less than most of the present incumbents? and just look at the remarkable job they have done. I shall have to think about it some more, aren't they silly to have left such an important factor off the page? Perhaps they don't think it's important. Oh and by the way, as I'm here, dearest Mr. Bisanz, I know you won't mind me saying this: not a patterned tie, with a patterned shirt, not even with the contrasting collar - I know your American, dear, but it's not sartorial. Well I shall have to think on, I may have a word with our constitutional King, he may want a constitutional Queen, now wouldn't that be nice? Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Cat addition

No worries, I appreciated the apparent vote of confidence. Euryalus (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate questions and OTRS access

Hi, Matt. Can you look in the future for question of this nature and mark them as irrelevant? I think asking a candidate why they no longer have OTRS access is entirely too personal, since the rationale for granting or revoking OTRS access may involve privacy related issues. As well, the conversations about one's suitability for OTRS should have no bearing on one's suitability for candidacy or other issues on wiki. We've turned down some very good contributors, because of reasons that have nothing to do with trust or character.

If one's elected position requires access to some queue or another, we will, of course, grant them said access regardless. Thanks. Bastique 03:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Cary, I understand the uncomfortable situation such questions place both the person being asked and the OTRS admin corp and will keep an eye out for such situations in the future. MBisanz 03:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway (film)

Do you not normally provide rationales with your closings? Given that the !votes were 5-4 in favor of keeping (including the nom) I don't see a consensus to keep. I hope you were not swayed by the phony sources cited by one editor. Fletcher (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well first a majority of people favored keeping it, second, I am not in place to judge the sources, merely if people believe the sources meet our policies, which is seems a good number did. At best it could have been a "no consensus" which still would have resulted in the article being kept. MBisanz 03:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fletcher (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Imaginationland: The Movie

You said the "result was redirect", but you also inexplicably deleted the edit history. Is there a reason you deleted reliably sourced content, thus preventing even a merge, as was suggested by some of the commenters in the discussion? DHowell (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There were a number of people citing "Delete and Redirect" and "Delete and set a redirect" which means I click the extra button when closing that deletes the article before setting the redirect. MBisanz 04:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But none of the "delete" arguments were based on policy, and I cited reliable sources in both the AfD and in edits to the article made after all of the "delete" arguments. This really ought to have been one of those cases where a single policy-based "keep" argument should have at least warranted a relisting or no consensus close, not a "delete and redirect" based apparently on nothing more than a headcount. DHowell (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, if I was going on vote-count it would have been a straight delete, I interpreted the votes to point at redirection as the optimal outcome. MBisanz 12:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That you are talking about "votes" at all means you are missing my point, which is that none of the arguments to delete were policy-based. Even if redirection were the optimal outcome (which I still claim it isn't after I managed to find sources and edit the article) that doesn't justify deleting the edit history behind the redirect. DHowell (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll restore the history for a day or two if you'd like to rescue the references, but I do believe the history needs to be deleted per consensus eventually. MBisanz 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Consentblock

The template, though used infrequently, is used (check what links to it) and there is another example on the unblock-l list tonight. If you don't mind, I will be restoring the template. -- Avi (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, feel free, I may tweak it with a tmbox at some point though. MBisanz 04:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your threat

I do not appreciate your accusation that I have been edit-warring "for the past couple of weeks" at MOSNUM, and believe that it is false.

Think carefully before making such accusations, which are very unwelcome, just as is your threat to block me.

How dare you finish your note with a sarcastic "Happy editing" after issuing such a threat.

I am going to take every action possible to see that your behaviour is reconciled with the expectations for administrators. You should resign immediately, in my view. Tony (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)l

For the historical record, my basis for warning Tony1, Locke Cole, and Arthur Rubin that if they continue to edit war at WP:MOSNUM I will block them was

Tony1:, , , ,

Locke Cole: , , ,

Arthur Rubin: , , , ,

I will also note that Kotniski (talk · contribs) and Tennis expert (talk · contribs) were aggressively editing the page prior to the Nov. 3rd protection, but since they have not edited it since then, I felt it was not necessary to warn them. MBisanz 13:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I've copied this from the Fritzpoll (talk)page, coz he pointed me in your direction. This was my question on his page:

"I've recently been trying to bring the Cal Schenkel page up to wiki project biog standards, by adding a small gallery of the images he created. But a fair use rationale bot has removed two of the images. I dont know much about images, but I've gone to the image page and indicated why I think the image is being used fairly on the artist's own page. I think it's ok if the image is being used on the page of the graphic artist himself, and its low res. and the work of the artist cant be illustrated in other ways? But I see you've just removed my image of Trout Mask Replica, so I guess I must be doing something wrong. Cal Schenkel is an album sleeve artist and is the artist who created the image for Trout Mask Replica and it's low res?Pamela Gardiner (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)"

and this was his answer:

Hi there! Right, the only reason for my reversion was because it had been commented out by FairUseBot, and I percieved that to potentially be undoing a legitimate operation. My image policy knowledge is hazy at best. I will therefore point you in the direction of either User:Giggy or in the direction of administrator User:MBisanz who should be able to address your questions adequately. Sorry I can't be of more help, but perhaps they can be! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So can you help. Now I've added the artist's name to the image page, can I put the image back on his page>Pamela Gardiner (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I fixed the image and put it back in the article. Should be good to go. MBisanz 18:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanxs for that! Clever! Pamela Gardiner (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Editor review

Well, you've said you have been actively editing for a year, so I assumed... Hmm, it's not too difficult to write a FA, though in recent times it's become more difficult since we have got good reviewers in place. An FA is like any other college project. Sadly in recent times, I've not been active on that department after getting about 16 featured.

Getting a FA helps quite a bit. Once you know how to search for references, and what to look for, its pretty easy to swing AFD debates. It's also a great way to collaborate, understand the issues facing wikipedia. In addition, if you know how an article is written, so it's easy to look figure out what's POV, so when it comes to protection, you can accordingly think of the protection that needs to be applied. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice, I will endeavor to do better. MBisanz 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try your hand at article rescue. It involves several relevant skills. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Review one of my admin actions....

Not to overturn it, since it seems to have been accepted by a lot of people, but yesterday I blocked Realtorlindsay (talk · contribs) for spamming her contact details of her company all over the place. It's been suggested that I was a little harsh in doing so before a number of warnings had taken place. Can you give me an objective assessment? Criticism is the only way I'll learn! :-P Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if I am doing the math right, she made a bunch of edits, got warned, made one more edit, then blocked. Would I have made the block; probably. Was it a valid block; sure. But let's step back here for a second. Let's say she had the edit screen window open when she was being warned. Now she doesn't see the orange bar until after she the saves the edit. That means she never sees the warning until after she made the edit she got blocked for. Is there any way we can know if that happened or if she saw the warning and kept going; nope. But, sometimes the benefit of multiple warnings is that at least there is an time-pattern where we know people will see the orange bar. Still a good block, if only because of the promotional username and COI aspect though. MBisanz 13:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A good summary - I'll watch out in the future. Probably would have been a fair username/COI block, but strictly speaking I blocked for spam. Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

You might want to give several of the editors at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Talk page a nudge. They are trying to create a cross-namespace redirect. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done and thanks. MBisanz 13:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ouch! I wasn't expecting that opinion. Did you look at Talk page#References? Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I skimmed the article, but as it seems clear everyone else wants the article deleted, my main concern is it ending up as a redirect to some page, which it shouldn't be. I think most of the content could be go into Wiki as it is well sourced. MBisanz 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding article One Year MBA in India

Hi,

I believe that you deleted this article One Year MBA in India as majority were of the opinion about the deletion of the page. However, all the delete votes were cast when the article was listed like a directory. I made lots of changes since then and was wanting to add more information to it.

Could you reconsider adding the article back and allow me some more time to put information? You can put a vote again later!

Thanks for your consideration.

WikiOn ( t | c ) 15:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

False accusation

You have just made a false accusation on my talk page. Kindly withdraw it, together with your unwarranted threat; and post an apology, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Diffs supporting warning , . MBisanz 15:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You cite two diffs, both made today, in support of an accusation that I have been edit warring "for weeks"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

Check your talk page. MBisanz 15:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done, and note that you have slightly modifed, but not withdrawn, your false accusation. Please do so now. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the warning stands, revert warring on a guideline is disruptive and continued actions will result in a block being applied to protect the encyclopedia. MBisanz 15:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What arrant nonsense. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to apologize to Andy Mabbett for falsely accusing that user of edit-warring and threatening to block them. We all make mistakes from time to time in our zeal to improve and protect the project, and you've made one here. Please be big enough to admit it and do the right thing by apologizing. --UC_Bill (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

An editor who walks into a dispute and starts revert warring without having been involved in a discussion is disrupting that page and will be blocked if they continue, simple as that. Given Pigsonthewing's 10+ prior blocks for edit warring, he clearly understands what he is doing and what the community expects. MBisanz 18:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I do; and there was nothing wrong with my edits, unlike your unwarranted accusation and threat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Falling Kingdom

Yo Matthew, is there any chance you can salt the falling kingdom (and its capitalizations, if necessary)? The article has been deleted and recreated several times at different titles, and the author doesn't really get it. The question of the deletion debate was less keep/delete than sources/salt. Thanks in advance, the skomorokh 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz 21:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Muchas gracias, the skomorokh 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, can you get The falling Kingdom too? Cheers, the skomorokh 22:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Also  Done MBisanz 22:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

re: WP:WELLKNOWN

My edit summary was probably not as clear as it could have been. Unfortunately, that's part of the problem with an edit summary - I can't drone on and on expounding my full thoughts. What fun is Misplaced Pages if we can't bore each other to tears?

What I was trying to get at in that comment is that public figures by definition have a lowered expectation of privacy. Speedy-deletions citing BLP already have to meet a high bar - that bar is even higher for well-known figures who have actively submitted themselves to public scrutiny.

We still should not be publishing John McCain's SSN but personal opinions and political positions would certainly be fair game. For major politicians, even the most derogatory of redirects generally gets an RfD discussion to determine whether the pejorative is sufficiently notable that it should be kept.

I happen to think that redirect should be deleted. I just don't think that it can be speedy-deleted. Thanks for your comment. Rossami (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, I understand, thanks for the clarification. MBisanz 22:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyme

Hey MBisanz, would you be able to remove a comment Everyme made with an IP on my talk page that I do not want in the history? Grsz 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked him for the comment, I'd prefer not to become involved in handling the comment, try User:Tiptoety. Thanks. MBisanz 03:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet cats

Hi MB, can you explain what I should be doing in sock reports so you don't have to clean up after me? I don't speak AWB -- but I'm all about making others' lives easier. Let me know what I should be doing. Thanks! StarM 04:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, when you create a category, if you drop {{Sockpuppet category|PuppetMasterUserName}} on the page, it categorizes it and does other stuff like removing the category from google, etc. Thanks! MBisanz 04:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you've been adding this template, but you put "a user" in place of the actual user name. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my main purpose has been to categorize the cats en-masse. I will probably edit the template today or tomorrow so that an entry of "a user" causes it to hide the username or something. MBisanz 12:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks MB! StarM 12:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of oldest Catholic bishops

Mbisanz, you closed this discussion as no consensus. This is correct according to votecount, and correct if you take the cited policies at face value. However, this is supposed to be a discussion, and no one has indicated how the article and the cited policies match. I replied to DGG's keep, but got no further answer. I did not reply to RFD, since he just stated "per DGG". I replied to Star Garnet, but he again gave no indication how the cited guidelines were relevant. I didnot have the chance to reply to Bearian (very late comment), but he just reiterates that it meets NN (still no indication how), and adds WP:OUTCOMES. The only thing about lists in that page is "Lists and categories have different uses, and lists nominated for overlapping categories are often kept." This list was not nominated for overlapping a category at all, so this is utterly irrelevant.

Since no one who wanted to keep has indicated in any way how this list meets WP:NN, and that was the basis for their keep arguments, I would consider these arguments empty, and would urge you to reopen the debate or close it as delete. Fram (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I re-reviewed it and the only close options I can see are Keep or No Consensus, even taking the substance of the comments into consideration, since people can disagree over concepts such as notability. Granted, the AFD does not prevent other options like redirection, renaming, or redefining the scope of the page, so that might be an alternative. MBisanz 13:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While I don't agree, I don't feel an urgent need to take it DRV, so I'll move on now. Thanks for replying and re-reviewing! Fram (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SBS Transit Service 579

No delete comments were made after other articles were added. The consensus is only for the original article. --NE2 18:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All of the deletes except ÆÅM and Milbourne reference the entire set of articles, so I believe that it is a valid close for all of them. MBisanz 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)