Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:37, 26 March 2009

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: 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.

Homosocratic

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 Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages 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)

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

Sophia Lamar

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)

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

Belated B-Day (Lyrics borrowed from MC Chris)

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>!

Smile!

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 Misplaced Pages.
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Killing Yourself to Live

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)

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)

If you look at Misplaced Pages: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 20:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jordan Johnson (Singer)

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)

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

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)

Thanks for the note. MBisanz 03:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OTRS issue

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

your opinion please...

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)

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

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

Abuse filter

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

Moving images questions

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)

Yea, not the case of granting "move" status, and it is disabled anyway per Misplaced Pages: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 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Death.jpg

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)

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

KVIrc logo

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. Tothwolf (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, this 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)

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 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 22:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the image may be under a Creative Commons Share Alike license, at least according to the original website where it came from 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 is where the problems began for that image. Tothwolf (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

Clerk ping

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

Elina Fuhrman

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

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

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)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bass player

Per request at Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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)

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

Thanks! MBisanz 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bass player

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)

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

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

Image advice

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 | 10:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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 | 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mailing list

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)

 Done MBisanz 21:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Nope, I didn't get anything. MBisanz 08:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama article arbitration

With reference to your note about my being a party or not, 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)

Canvassing

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

Another deleted image

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)

done. MBisanz 02:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Nope, nothing else. MBisanz 02:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

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)

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.

Thank you

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)

No problem. MBisanz 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		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. Enigma 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PIRA Constitution

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)

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 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

Note on my talk page

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)

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

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

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 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Berkeley Systems logo

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)

Restored, have fun. MBisanz 04:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

What to do the morning after

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)

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 21:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Death of Marvin Schur

Hi, could you please explain your decision on Misplaced Pages: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)

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 23:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nasal irrigation

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)

 Fixed. MBisanz 23:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

File:1999 west nile map.jpg

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)

Recent deletion

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)

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

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

Image query

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)

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)

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

Thanks C.Fred! MBisanz 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gillian Hiscott deletion 17/0/2009

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)

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)

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

You're invited!

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 Misplaced Pages Loves Art and upcoming projects like Misplaced Pages at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages 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 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) 19:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio

I'm thinking of taking this to DRV. See - 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)

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 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 22. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

List of controversial non-fiction books

Hello! Could you please usefy this article? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 01:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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 19:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Okay. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Avatar: The Last Airbender Trading Card Game

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)

Sounds fine to me. MBisanz 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA Request

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)

Ahh well, keep up the good work. MBisanz 08:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

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)

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)

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)

Also why you chose a swearing word on Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A Clear Answer to False Fork arguments "What Forking is and What Forking is not" Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages:Summary style

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 ], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout ]. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 00:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

File:USAirF.insignia.e9cmsaf.afm.png

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)

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 21:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Your kind nomination...

... 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)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Verne E. Rupright

• 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)

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

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

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)

transwiki request

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 19:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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 22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Image problems

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)

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 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Degree programs at Boston College

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)

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 07:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 22:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Imge duplication

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 Misplaced Pages and which I transferred to Commons: File:Buddhist Temple at Maheshkhali Island.jpg

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

 Done. MBisanz 09:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MBisanz/PP

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)

• 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 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FUZE Meeting

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 Misplaced Pages and modify it so that it fits Misplaced Pages norm instead of simply deleting it.

Thank you. ~FabulosWorld

FabulosWorld (talk)

Replied at DRV. MBisanz 22:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Message moved from the top of the page

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Venetian people, the Misplaced Pages 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 22:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for FUZE Meeting

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)

Thanks. MBisanz 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

Images moves

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

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 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

Deletion of Venetian People page

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)

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

Some users from this IP address are currently blocked?

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.171.210 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking out. MBisanz 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Sheehan (entertainment journalist)

Hi - could you take a look at this and see if it's any different to the one you deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paul Sheehan (entertainment journalist)? I don't know what to tag it with but I think it needs something! pablo_hablo. 20:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Identical, WP:CSD#G4 and {{db-g4}} applies. MBisanz 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought it was the same, but hadn't memorised the whole thing! pablo_hablo. 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these the same image?

Could you check if File:X-Chat Logo.png (deleted) is the same as File:Logo xchat.png (commons)? Tothwolf (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The background shading is slightly different, but otherwise it is the same image. MBisanz 01:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good deal. The deleted image was a free image but the one from commons will work fine for the XChat article and the other places the original had been used. Also, could you see if there was anything on the category page for Category:Wikipedians who use XChat? Its easy enough to recreate but I just wondered if it has been set up the way the others were. Thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I restored the category, feel free to edit it. MBisanz 03:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've cleaned it up and added examples. It should begin to repopulate soon. Tothwolf (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD close

Since I supported deletion I'm obviously happy with the way you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama. As someone who has closed a few controversial AfD's in the past, however, I'm wondering if you might consider offering a bit of a rationale rather than simply saying "delete." Taking the latter route is hardly the end of the world or anything, but I think it might be useful for folks on the "keep" side (and indeed on the delete or merge side) to know why you made the decision. In part it's just a matter of fairness - there were a number of keep and merge !voters who made reasonable arguments - but also given the incredibly contentious nature of almost every Barack Obama-related article an exposition of your rationale might serve as something to point to when future conflicts/articles like these come up.

This is obviously just a friendly suggestion on my part - ain't no thing if you decide to leave it as is.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanded per request. MBisanz 04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD close: Herb usage

Hi, regarding the above, since forking is the issue, would it be acceptable to merge the deleted contents with existing articles, such as Herbalism? Cottonball (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Best suggestion is to edit the existing articles to include the sources and content that is missing. Weaving new content with existing content produces an easier to read article. MBisanz 05:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. But i am surprised that the articles were deleted suddenly. Is it true that discussions need to cease for a week before deletion takes place? Cottonball (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The process is that a deletion discussion is open for comments for five days and then is closed by an uninvolved administrator. MBisanz 07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Incidentally, i've just republished all the pages in Google. i guess i will not be able to put them up again in Misplaced Pages. Cottonball (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, MBisanz. In a related question to this AfD closure, I wondered what you would suggest for the remaining articles that weren't (but should have been) part of this AfD nomination? See here. Is the best course of action a new AfD nom for these? Thanks, Rkitko 13:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well 2 more AFDs (one on TCM and one on the other articles), might work, or maybe work with Cottonball on merging the content to other articles. MBisanz 20:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your fair comments, MBisanz. The stated reasons for delete are forking and synthesis. It appears rather straightfoward to address these concerns. To address the SYN reason, we can simply take out all my comments from the articles, while leaving the verifiable citations intact. To address FORK, we can put the deleted articles as sub-articles of existing articles. If we do that, my immediate concern will be that the WP:WALL charge will be levied against the main article in order to delete all related articles, as has been done with Herb usage . That will be sad, and that is why i am reluctant to do a MERGE. Cottonball (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge and redirect decisions at AfD

Hi there. I was just seeking some clarification on a couple of points. If an AfD is closed as a merge to something, who has responsibility for actually carrying out the merge? I'm presuming it's not the admin, but does it fall to the nominator, or just the general community? The same for redirects, though they at least are a quick job that the closing admin could do. --GedUK  08:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging and redirecting is the responsibility of the general community. My closing script automatically does it for the redirect closes (you might call it an extreme merge). But merging usually involves deciding on what content to keep and what content to cut, which is best left to those involved in the topic field, so the closing admin doesn't usually get involved. MBisanz 08:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The closing script tags the articles to be merged, which puts them in an appropriate "to be merged" category (I asked MBisanz about this 2 weeks ago). On the general topic, there is a recent discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)‎#Rethinking AfD practice of Merge defaulting to Keep. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mergers for discussion/Killing Yourself to Live

Following a recent discussion at the newly created Misplaced Pages:Mergers for discussion, I would like to request userfication of the deleted articles Killing Yourself to Live, After Forever (song) and Solitude (song) (AfD available here). There seems to be general consensus at MRfD that this content is better merged than deleted, and I would like the opportunity to see if there is any content that should be merged. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I had already userfied one to User:Lykantrop/After Forever (song), I restored the history of Killing Yourself to Live so it is there, and seeing as User:Black Kite was the one who closed the third AFD, I would suggest you ask him for a copy. Also, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the MRfD process since 1. there isn't an admin closing it, 2. I do not see any community discussion on the process and right now it looks like an attempt to circumvent AFD by changing the make-up of the group contributing to the discussions. Have you thought of starting a process RFC to get consensus for it? MBisanz 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is a process until people get involved. And in a certain sense, yes, I am trying to circumvent AfD; in the sense that with certain kinds of issues, people shouldn't have to use AfD at all. AfD is not the only solution, and I would like to see far less articles show up there when a merge type discussion can do a better job. It just so happened the first trial discussion was about a previous AfD, but future discussion will involve articles before they show up at AfD, if they ever do. My hopes is that MRfD can replace certain dysfunctional, destructive and polarizing aspects of AfD with a more leveled discussion. But yes, an RfC sounds like a great idea. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion got started in a similar manner. (Uh oh, my gray hair is showing...) /me puts away the broom and gets out a shovel...
2002-05-15 – 2004-05-28
2004-05-28 – 2004-09-20
2004-07-14 – 2004-07-16
2004-06-16 (leftover redirect?)
2004-06-16 – current
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. Gray hair and all. MBisanz 07:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

Aloha, MBisanz. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind userfying the recently deleted Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama as I requested in my statement at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama. Please let me know (on this page) if this isn't doable. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's crap. Why do you want it? DS (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I moved it to User:Ali'i/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama while Dfly was typing, but as there were serious concerns at AFD, it will need to go to DRV before being mainspaced again. MBisanz 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously. I want it more for the salvagable info for use elsewhere, rather than back into mainspace. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

IRC

When you have a moment, if you can log back onto irc I'd like to discuss something with you. Synergy 16:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:White noise spectrum.png

21 March 2009

(diff) (hist) . . Colors of noise‎; 01:13 . . (+54) . . MBisanz (talk | contribs) (Tagging Image:White noise spectrum.png which is up for deletion per CSD (TW))

I think the problem with this image has been corrected (see its talk page). It looks ok to me, flat in linear space. On Colors of noise, it's the pink noise graph that looks like it's still wrong: it should be flat in log space but isn't. Was there some other reason why you tagged it for CSD? Cheers. Quaestor23 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue I had with the image is that it doesn't have a license saying what terms it is uploaded under. This is because there was a fault in the system in 2006 that let some images be uploaded without description pages. MBisanz 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reverse chain letter

This is for not pushing "refresh" before script closing this AFD :)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I deserve it. Thanks :) MBisanz 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Userbox template migration

Who should move userboxes to userspace? I uncovered {{User no IRC}} while fixing a number of broken boxes and it doesn't look like something that should be in the Template: namespace. It doesn't appear to be in use but I guess the polite thing to do would be to move it to a subpage of the original author vs sending it to TfD. Tothwolf (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it is ok, the leading "User_" signifies that even though it is in the Template: namespace, it isn't a template for content. MBisanz 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I meant per Misplaced Pages:Userbox migration due to it being negative/derogatory (not that I exactly agree with everything in the userbox migration solution, but if it was passed it should be applied fairly). Tothwolf (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose ask the person who created it, since he is still active at Special:Contributions/Ghirlandajo. MBisanz 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I'll get to it later I guess. Maybe it should just go to User:UBX with the 100s of others... Oddly enough, Ghirlandajo might have been someone we should have brought in to help with the uCoz issue since he is Russian. Tothwolf (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Anthill assistance

I think I stepped in an anthill while working through my todo list when I started fixing the userboxes/categories the other day and I could use some assistance.
There had previously been an upmerge proposal for three of the categories (info here) and I thought it had already been dealt with but I can't find any further discussion now. At the time of the CfD, there were only a handful of users in these categories due to the removal of the category code from the userboxes:
Category:Wikipedians who use IRC
Category:Wikipedians who use irssi
Category:Wikipedians who use mIRC
And Category:Wikipedians who use XChat is the one I asked you about yesterday that had been deleted even before this CfD because it was empty due to the userbox category code removal.
When some rapid fire editing rolled in tonight, discussion ended up scattered across 3 talk pages: Killiondude, ABCD, and Black Falcon.
Black Falcon suggested talking to MZMcBride but I don't believe I've ever had any interaction with MZMcBride and I didn't want to just show up and drop a broken antfarm on his desk talk page unannounced either :)
--Tothwolf (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)