User talk:MBisanz/Archive 7

Articles_for_deletion/List_of_residences_in_EastEnders
Hi there - can you explain how this AfD could end in a delete? And why it ended early? When it ended, there was nothing here that indicated a consensus for Delete. Hope you can look again. Thanks. --DaveG12345 (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worthy, I would have argued to keep. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 10:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, although I also complete disagree that the consensus was for a delete, the nomination was for two articles, including List of buildings in EastEnders. Perhaps you weren't paying too much attention to the actual arguments (as the fact that it was two articles was clearly mentioned several times in the discussion)?  It would be good faith, in that case, to resurrect the article until someone who has read the arguments can make a more informed decision, because at the moment this looks like a deletion that may not have been in good faith... Stephenb (Talk) 13:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I did read the arguments, yes, I did miss the second article listing and I've fixed that. The arguments for deletion, citing the lack of reliable sources, specifically the lack of secondary sources discussing the topic, was a very convincing argument compared to the keep arguments citing the potential existence of sources.  MBisanz  talk 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, well, I disagree - I think that when an article has clearly been worked on by a number of editors over a long period, the article deserves to be given more time to be improved (after the addition of relevant tags) rather then deleted, destroying that work (i.e. more productive than destructive) - but at least you have made things consistent now. I still don't see how you could have missed the fact it was two articles if you had read the discussion (where I very deliberately point it out to someone else who had missed that!) but I will take on good faith that you somehow did... Stephenb (Talk) 13:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of it is that I am not looking at the articles when I close an AFD. I make a conscious effort to block out the article title and focus only on the arguments presented.  This helps reduce any bias I may have about the article (in this case being about a very well known TV show).  And if you look a few sections up on this page (or in the most recent archives, not sure), another admin is reminding me that I tend to be too lenient and relist AFDs to give them more time for improvement.  So I'm not really sure how to weight the requirements of WP:RELIST with the position you are highlighting.  MBisanz  talk 14:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * MBisanz, I strongly urge you to also look at the articles, because as much as we like to assume good faith, people in discussions can mispresent things or outright lie. I have seen discussions in which someone will say "unreferenced" and be followed by some WP:PERNOMs, when the article actually has inline citations and a reference section with at least some reliable sources (that's not to say I haven't seen dishonest keeps either).  Unfortunately, sometimes "arguments" may sound convincing, but not actually reflect the reality of the article for whatever reason.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the close a couple times now and it still reads as a delete. The deletion arguments on sourcing and lists are very strong.   MBisanz  talk 21:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But did a consensus of those evaluating those arguments find them "strong"? That is what you are supposed to be evaluating. That you are personally persuaded by the delete arguments should play no part in the closing, when the arguments were validly addressed in good faith with rational arguments based on policy. The editing policy says we should strive to preserve information that is verifiable; I've argued that offline sources are likely to exist and B.Wind's counter-argument that "both those periodicals ... have web sites" is irrelevant when the websites do not contain full-text archives of the magazine's content. It is likely that these sources are only available in British libraries (or to British Wikipedians who have saved copies of these magazines), but I don't know if any of the British participants in the discussion have tried to looked for these sources (I live in the United States, and probably will not find these magazines in my local library.) And I don't see any indication that the EastEnders WikiProject, who would be most likely to be able to find the appropriate sources, was notified of this deletion discussion. (Actually, Stephenb did add the debates to the WikiProject page, but less than 2 days before the AfD was closed.) DHowell (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong arguments are those that are somehow based on policy. A weak argument would be "Delete: We have too many articles of this type" or "Keep: Is useful to me".  If sources are found, then an article meets the sourcing guidelines.  If sources could be found, an article does not yet meet the sourcing guideline.   MBisanz  talk 12:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bandy AFDs
Hi, MBisanz. I'm concerned about the different results for Articles for deletion/Bandy World Championship 2009 squad lists and Articles for deletion/Bandy World Championship 2007 squad lists. I realize they were nominated separately and some people only commented on one, but it seems that arguments for either would apply to both. I'm also concerned about the "delete" result for the 2007 list; I found the delete arguments to be largely unsupported. Take Stifle, for instance, who merely listed a few numbers from the listcruft essay and never responded to my question asking how the lists were "unverifiable" or "original research". It's my understanding, that recommendations should be supported; shouldn't Stifle have explained in what way the lists were unverifiable? Powers T 14:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes they are similar articles, but I can only go by the comments at the AFD page. At the page that was deleted there appeared to be a rough consensus that the article failed the list guidelines by being unverifiable/original research, and thus was an indiscriminate collection of information.  Even after weighting Stifle's lack of response, there still was a consensus to delete.  MBisanz  talk 14:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained how it was unverifiable and original research, so Stifle didn't need to. The problem here is keeping the 2009 squad list, merely because ThemFromSpace couldn't be bothered to copy his !vote as the others did. As Peridon says, it looks a bit silly Benefix (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did somebody mention my name? Although I !voted at the one AfD, I didn't see the other which very closely related.  Alas, I didn't get to participate so even though you can guess what I'd say, I never got to say it.  Since AfD isn't about consensus but arguments I would have closed both as delete but I can't argue with the closures that were made, especially the one made in my absense. Themfromspace (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm loath to go back and add in new comments, if only because then everyone would always want to go find more people who support their side. Might I suggest waiting a month or so and re-AFDing, or maybe just redirecting to Bandy World Championship 2009, since you do not need an AFD to agree on a redirect?  MBisanz  talk 15:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, so lack of inline references makes something unverifiable? The information is verifiable just by clicking the convenient link at the bottom of the article.  How can that possibly be original research?  Powers T 15:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Signature help needed!
Hi, I was recommended to contact to you by user talk: Kingturtle. I'm trying to create my own signature, without '(talk)' being displayed in brackets. I've changed it back to default, but even when i've edited my signature, '(talk)' is still displayed...any ideas? Thanks. Whirl editing (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Under Special:Preferences, enter Whirl editing into the Signature field and check the box under it for Raw Signature. That should work.  MBisanz  talk 15:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. Whirl editing (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

QCubed article deletion
You mentioned "Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial maintenance" as the reason for deletion of the QCubed article. It seems that the requests of the administrators have been fulfilled: with several rewrites, the article is no longer expert-oriented; it can be understood by a large community of web application developers. Did we (the QCubed framework contributors) misunderstand something? --Alex94040 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was deleted as a result of this discussion Articles for deletion/QCubed, because the wikipedia community did not find it notable enough for inclusion. You may contest the deletion at WP:DRV.  MBisanz  talk 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The arguments on the discussion page towards deleting the page were (mentioning only folks that are NOT a part of the QCubed community):

- An argument about the article being Spam made by Fiddle Faddle (clearly, you and I are having this discussion here, so we're probably not blatant spammers - or we are, but we must be so determined that we spend hours discussing it) - Peridon started out as Delete because of "probably spam", but then switched to Keep. - LinguistAtLarge is the only person that suggested notability as an issue, but Peridon refuted it suggesting that there are "quite a few ghits" Considering the user base of QCubed, and the fact that we've rewritten the article multiple times to make it more compelling (we can certainly work on including more references), I, and the rest of the QCubed community, would like to ask you to reconsider. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex94040 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

QCubed is an extension of QCodo (which has a Wiki article), rather more of a continuation of QCodo (because it is a community driven project). We have an extensive community, just as much as QCodo possibly has. We have more members and more dedicated core-contributors than most php frameworks that already have a wiki article. I'm not sure how you determined our notability. We are more notable than most frameworks that already have a wiki article, some of them I haven't even heard of. Please rethink this deletion. JonKirkpatrick (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Article is clearly non-technical and suited for almost every audience. QCubed is a well-known PHP Framework which is a port of QCodo PHP framework. The deletion discussion also has a lot of "KEEP" statements. It was not correctly deleted.Article should be not be deleted.Reconsider.Marcosdsanchez (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the deletion criteria and the discussion were quite clear. I would suggest you seek WP:DRV if you still disagree.  MBisanz  talk 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleting something solely based on notability is a "last resort" in the Wikipedia guide lines. I've gone through just a few php frameworks that have a wikipedia article and not one of them constitutes "notability" based on Wikipedia guidelines.  Would you like us to add a reference to our extensive API documentation? Our extensive examples documentation? Our extensive bug tracking system?  None of this was discussed before it was deleted.  The page went through a dramatic text overhaul and even added proper external links and sources.  Nobody commented on the change that wasn't part of the qcubed community, nor did anyone say anything about adding notability.  If you still agree with your decision we will take it up with DRV. JonKirkpatrick (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for QCubed
An editor has asked for a deletion review of QCubed. 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. JonKirkpatrick (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rationales in the closures
I said that it would inevitably come up again, didn't I? &#9786;  But at least when the prior discussion comes up at Deletion Review, as also now seems likely, your closure won't be challenged for being rationale-free, as would otherwise have been the case. This is the benefit of providing a rationale in the closure. It's always a good idea to provide a rationale in the closure. From the looks of what is above, you'd probably have a much shorter and less busy talk page if you made it a habit. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, good point, thanks for the advice.  MBisanz  talk 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sawyer
As it happens, I was tending toward a delete vote myself, but this closure seems odd. I count one keep vote and one delete vote. Arguably (and I have mixed feelings myself) the delete vote, however honestly expressed at the time, is rendered obsolete by later findings. Usually I'm no fan of extensions in the time given to AfDs (I tend to want to put them out of their misery), but this I think is just where it would be appropriate. Or if it isn't, then at least add a persuasive reason for your closure as deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well I don't like to vote count, but I'm counting 3 delete and 1 keep, Mbinebri, Omarcheeseboro, LSD for deletion and DGG for retention.  MBisanz  talk 02:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * would you comment on whether you agree with the WP:BIO criteria for creative artists that work in major museums is sufficient?--the person's work either .... d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums,  Or do you agree with the comment of LSD that "If getting shown in a museum was sufficient for notability, we'd have a hell of a lot more artists' biographies." There was one policy based argument, and that was mine. The discussion otherwise was biased by the author's original irrelevant defense and the equally irrelevnt objections (a common fate for spammy articles, certainly, but ...) DGG (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two museums isn't several, hence it doesn't satisfy WP:CREATIVE. The article's deletion is valid for that and other major points of non-notability.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 03:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see BN, Schonberg, MFA Houston.  And  if it meets one of the alternative notability criteria, that's sufficient. I  do take a broad view of notability sometimes, but I do not go this far out of my way to defend the indefensible. DGG (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One is unsupported, but three isn't exactly impressive either way. But rather than beat a dead horse by arguing points already made in the AfD entry and supported by other editors, I'll shut up and wait for another comment by MBisanz.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 04:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with WP:BIO (and all notability guidelines for that matter), but I don't get to interpret the content w.r.t. the guidelines, I get to interpret the community consensus. In this case the arguments citing a failure of sources to show multiple galleries and a promotional tone were stronger than those citing the existence of sources. If it was a closer level of disagreement, it might have been an NC, but given the weight of the good faith belief that the sources failed to establish notability, the close was delete.  MBisanz  talk 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly I was very surprised indeed by the closure, so surprised that I miscounted. Sorry about that. -- Hoary (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the nature of the discussion, I think there would be no real point in continuing the afd the way it begun, and, MBV, if that's the way you understood the discussion, that's the way you understood it. I am going to suggest improving the article and trying again later. I am puzzled at the degree of heat involved--once an afd gets to that point, discussion is usually hopeless, and immediate deletion review just makes things worse. DGG (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Darwin Brown
Hi. I would like to know how you concluded a consensus of "delete" on this above debate? Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
 * People felt the subject failed the WP:ONEEVENT criteria and therefor should be deleted. It was a clear consensus of the community that felt that way.  MBisanz  talk 10:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

List of programmes broadcast by TV ONE (Indonesia)
Hi. You closed the AfD of this as delete, but would you consider restoring the edit history of this and making it a redirect to TV ONE (Indonesia)? I think it would be worth merging the information as I did with List of programmes broadcast by QTV (Indonesia) (an AfD you also closed, but as a redirect) to QTV (Indonesia). DHowell (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ as redirects are cheap.  MBisanz  talk 10:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: RFA
No go ahead and delete it. thanks for asking though. Kira Chinmoku (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Squeezety
Still at it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  MBisanz  talk 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced he got the message. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Shopping Centres
Hey. I have a few things to say. One, are you still a member at WikiProject Shopping Centers? On the Template:Infobox shopping mall, I would like there to be a "logo" option added but it is protected. I have asked the community on the template's talk page (where 2 people had brought up the topic a few months earlier than me) and on the wikiproject talk page but no one has responded. There would be no harm done because it would be optional, only included if added to the template in the article. Could you please add this? Thanks.   Chicken-7    talk 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I am a project member, I'd prefer not to make a decision about the template. Could you ask at the WP:Helpdesk?   MBisanz  talk 12:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I just asked there.   Chicken-7    talk 10:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OTRS for Bob Muran
Hello. Could you take a gander at OTRS ticket 2009012810027179 regarding the Bob Muran article? The original article was flagged as being a copyvio, however it has been asserted that both the external site and the Wikipedia article were written by the same author. Unfortunately I am about clueless when it comes to OTRS (but want to learn more about the process). Any help you could provide would be much appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The "there is permission on Commons for using the text from the website" comment at the AfD also has me a bit mystified since I cannot find any text at Commons about Mr. Muran (just an image). --Kralizec! (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reviewing it. WP:OTRS gives an overview, but this specific situation isn't clear cut enough that I can give an immediate answer.  MBisanz  talk 18:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries; this entire issue has been rather ... complex and time consuming all the way round. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I looked it over a bit more. The current statement on file with OTRS is insufficient to support permission to reuse. I've contacted the person who submitted the work for a more specific statement of permission.  MBisanz  talk 21:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

James Matador article deletion
I just want to say that, I don't believe the James matador page should have been deleted. The protests for the articles deletion comes from 2 individuals both: Coaster7 and camera123456, individuals that are frequent contributors to the Love Systems page, and Coaster7 individually created the Nick Savoy page. Love Systems and Nick Savoy are in direct competition with Mystery and James Matador's dating company the Venusian Arts. I believe that the article was posted for deletion in order to stifle the competition. I also agree that if the article reads to much like a sales ad, then it SHOULD be re-written, but an article that has been deleted because of competition is not right. James Matador has a lot of credible sources that were sited, and he is amongst the most well known figureheads in the seduction community, worthy of a wiki page just as much as Nick Savoy, if not more. Kowalski6 (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry the community consensus at Articles for deletion/James Matador was quite clear.  MBisanz  talk 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete Gpirate
Please undelete Gpirate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisudia (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the consensus at Articles for deletion/Gpirate was quite clear.  MBisanz  talk 03:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cherryade
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cherryade. 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.  Majorly  talk  10:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANN
As you commented, it's not currently a very useful page. However, I feel my proposal for a bot would help, and would require very little work on the part of the WikiProjects. What do you think? (Probably best to paste on the BRFA, but I don't really care either way). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Assyrian Christian Stele
I'm confused by your closure for Articles_for_deletion/Assyrian_Christian_Stele. I didn't see a clear consensus - three people wanted to delete (counting myself), one wanted keep based on an assumption that the sources were correct (which they weren't), the creator of the page wanted to keep (but had no sources), and only two recommended redirect. More importantly, the crux of the whole AFD nomination was the violation of WP:OR which was never addressed. Give the lack of consensus and the failure to address the core reason for the AFD, how can this nomination be closed? Otebig (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It had been open about five days per regular procedure, and I closed it based on the continuum of closes, as described at User:MBisanz/AfD, which I find a useful way of closing AFDs as a compromise instead of leaving it as No Consensus, when there is a clear consensus that something needs to be done.  MBisanz  talk 02:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the violation of WP:OR? I assume WP:RS still applies on Wikipedia, and this name "Assyrian Christian Stele" has no sources, reliable or not. This title clearly violates policy - an argument I've made several times and have seen no one disagree with (besides the article creator, who has never shown a source supporting his argument). How can the existence of this basically made-up name be justified? Otebig (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There was disagreement on that point of the AFD and given the choice between closing as No Consensus, which would have meant the article would be kept, and Redirect, the latter seemed like the best option.  MBisanz  talk 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who disagreed? Besides the article creator, who was incorrect in what he said about his source, people either agreed with me or did not address the WP violations. It seems they did not read the reason for AFD carefully, instead immediately assuming it was a debate about which article should redirect to which, not that fact that one of the article names was made up. All articles, especially history ones, have to be based on sources. The facts here are simple: there are no sources, and this article name violates WP:OR and WP:RS. This is a verifiable fact, not an opinion. Do I have to scan in every page from every book on this subject to prove that the term "Assyrian Christian Stele" does not exist in any source? I spent over three hours going through all related material both online and in the Indiana University library (which is a huge library with many books on the subject), and found not one source using this term. This is clear, obvious, verifiable violation of two of the most important policies on Wikipedia. Otebig (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The people citing Merge and Keep disagreed. There was no other way I could have closed it.  I cannot override community consensus.  MBisanz  talk 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge was never an issue here - it was delete, keep, or redirect. It is clear you did not read this AFD clearly. Please reopen it so we can finish our discussion, or else I will need to either open a new AFD or a RFC. Otebig (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Peterkingiron mentioned reverse merge as an option which disagreed with deletion.  There were and are no grounds to WP:RELIST it.  I really think WP:DRV or WP:RFD is the next step at this point.  MBisanz  talk 09:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ==Deletion review for Assyrian Christian Stele==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Assyrian Christian Stele. 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. Otebig (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi, thanks for your response to my suggestion on the RfC talk page for Arb enforcement. I am not clear on this at all in relation to my recent ban. Another editor took me to the arb-com noticeboard here: complaining that I had been edit-warring. I was banned that same day, without notice of the discussion until the decision had already been made. I did complain to the banning admin I was told that "isn't any requirement for notifying you of the discussion, or allowing you to participate." My reading of the sanctions led me to believe that there should at least have been a warning from an admin, as I read "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision" as applying to this article but the banning admin refered to this warning given during my first week of editing at wiki some six months ago for an entirely different article, as acceptable warning. I did make my case at the admin's talk page but to no avail.

At any rate, I am not terribly upset about not being allowed to edit the page (and I am still allowed to edit the talk page) since most of my edits were immediately reverted anyway. But what has happened is that the article is further weighted on one side, and false material is allowed to remain in the article because some editors cannot be convinced that the material is false. Let me give just one example since it was mentioned as part of the reason for my ban. The article in question stated in a couple of places that Israel had admitted that it used white phosphorus "against civilians." That is not true. Israel has always claimed that it used wp only in a legal way, such as for illumination etc. For Israel to acknowledge that she used wp "against civilians" would be to admit to war crimes. There is no RS that says this, but rather the editors in question are misinterpreting what the references say.

There was no dispute resolution over that issue, or the issue of the inbalance of the photos, which is the main reason for the article ban. Shouldn't something have been done to actually get resolution on the issues rather than simply banning someone? I was told I did not seek consensus & compromise on the talk page but rather argued my perspective. This is not the case, as I did both. There are some 25-30 pages of archives and the banning was done in one day. It would have been impossible for the banning admin to have done a fair job researching. In fact, the banning admin could have been said to briefly acknowledge that his decision was influenced by the opinion of other admins, rather than the merits of the case.

Do you see a problem with the process here? Or is it just me? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to appeal the ban, see WP:RFAR, if there is a content dispute, talk it out at the talk page, or if you can't resolve it there, see WP:RFM.  MBisanz  talk 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's clear. I don't think I want to appeal the ban, but I must say it has been enlightening. It's clear that wiki is far from free of office politics, which is kind of too bad.  Thanks for your responses though.  I appreciate your input. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bill Zito
Hey, can I ask you what led you to keep this one? --Smashvilletalk 17:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus believed that the league he played in while in Finland was high enough to meet the bar for WP:ATHLETE, some people disagreed, but the rough consensus was for retention.  MBisanz  talk 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah...see, I don't think he actually ever played anywhere in Finland. No sources could be found to prove that assertion. Instead, Hockeydb, which is actually pretty inclusive, had nothing on him past college. --Smashvilletalk 17:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 21:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

re-post
this deleted  article Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers has been re-posted here; Timeline of Islamic science and engineering by an editor who should know better. Your help fixing this would be appreciated. I would just delete it but I want to follow the correct process and I dont know what to do. Thank you J8079s (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Drop a db-repost in such situations, but the article you link to has been around since 2005, so I am not certain if it is covered under the AFD.  MBisanz  talk 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I copied these from the edit history;

(cur) (prev) 20:35, 8 August 2008 Jagged 85 (Talk | contribs) (187,802 bytes) (moved "Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers" section to a new article: Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 14:00, 25 January 2009 Jagged 85 (Talk | contribs) (238,897 bytes) (→17th–21st centuries:  merged text from "Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers" article back into this article) (undo)

Should I just take this to the talk page?
 * Thank you for your time J8079s (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks a bit confusing, I'd say the talk page or WP:AN if it ends up that there is deletion needed.  MBisanz  talk 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing BRFAs and categorisation
Hey MBisanz, just a quick note about closing BRFAs. When you add the template, could you not sign after the status (approved, etc.) as it causes the template to fail to add the correct background colour/category, placing requests into Category:Wikipedia_recently_completed_bot_requests instead, a category which probably should be deleted. Thanks,  Richard 0612  23:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I didn't realize that.  MBisanz  talk 04:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about the early closure of afds
Hello, I noticed you have recently closed AfD debate(s) early and would like to direct you to a discussion currently in progress at the administrators noticeboard here relevent to the early closures of AfDs. Thankyou and happy editing! Sorry if you are already aware of this discussion. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My RFA
Matt, thank you again for the nomination at the RFA, and all the advice you've given me. I will not let you down. rootology ( C )( T ) 07:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Exaile Deletion Discussion
Hello, I see you closed to Exaile deletion discussion. First, I believe that this was premature. There was significant argument made to keep; the discussion at least deserved a relisting to create consensus. Second, you say no specific sources were cited for retention... please read the discussion over. While I didn't give specific links, I showed a couple, and others backed them up. I do not see how the closure is justified. Estemi (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The deletion debate ran the entire six days, per WP:RELIST only if there is a lack of commentary should it be relisted. The retention comments linked to other wikipedia articles as sources.   The deletion arguments cited the lack of independent citation about the article.  Those arguments were more convincing per the reliable sourcing guideline.  MBisanz  talk 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By saying it was "reviewed by Linux.com and Softpedia", I was referencing those reviews as sources and linking to our articles to give a sense of what the sources are. "Exaile has been reviewed by several good sources (Linux.com and Softpedia come up at the top)." I assumed the average reader would google the actual reviews, as I said specifically that I was talking about reviews and not Wikipedia articles. Estemi (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that did make me stop and re-read it. But then I read the comments saying there was no coverage of the specific article, just trivial mentions in reviews, and it became clearer.  MBisanz  talk 23:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The point stands that there were specific independent sources dealing exclusively with the subject and not yet any consensus regarding their sufficiency. You say they are "trivial", but others disagree with that assessment; in situations like this, it seems the answer is to either relist or end with "no consensus". Estemi (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there were too many comments to relist and the deletion arguments dealt with the nature of the sources (trivial), the retention arguments did not address them. It was consensus to delete.  MBisanz  talk 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stewards/elections 2009
Dear MBisanz, I have voted against Mardetanha nomination and I appreciate if you read my comment there, whether you decide to vote (no matter if you agree with me or not). I think it is very important that knowledgeable and respectfull users such as you be involve in a very serious issue which can affect real lives of some wikipedia users. Best Regards --Kaaveh (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for British National Party election results
An editor has asked for a deletion review of British National Party election results. 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. Emeraude (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cherryade
The script I use automatically mentions that the history was deleted. To avoid any confusion, it's probably best if you delete a page prior to redirecting it to avoid any confusion or accusations. - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Front Desk
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Front Desk. 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. Floridian06 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how I am related to that page. Could you refresh my memory?  MBisanz  talk 02:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I see now. Ok.  MBisanz  talk 02:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pipe Wrench (cocktail)
This entry had been living a perfectly happy life until I made the (apparent) mistake of making some of my first edits as a contributor to Wikipedia by linking to it from a listing of beer cocktails. It seems completely out of the spirit (no pun intended) of this living document to delete it. This certainly deserves a review. I invite you to join me to enjoy one of these cocktails in person if you have some doubt about its history or following. Jerseybrewjunkie (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I just close per community consensus, and consensus at Articles for deletion/Pipe Wrench (cocktail) was very firm.  MBisanz  talk 02:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin coaching?
Hi MBisanz, I was wondering if you had any slots open for admin coaching. You can see the message I left on User talk:Balloonman for more, he declined since he's taking a break. I'm not really concerned with the method you use, I could just use a mentor for general advice on Wikipedia and maybe becoming an admin. Thanks--Res2216firestar 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your election page
See Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Spatz is Back
Gary Spatz has been recreated, following deletion this week (after the AfD you closed). It doesn't look so different to me; do you think it's a G4? If so, it might need some seasoning. Frank |  talk  12:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, it is a G4, I prefer not to go around enforcing AFD with a second delete, since it can appear then I have an attachment to my close, could you find another admin?  MBisanz  talk 12:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'll do that. (I had deleted the lowercase-last-name-version, so I'm a bad candidate too.) Frank  |  talk  13:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reed Cowan
INre Articles for deletion/Reed Cowan... at the very least please userfy this one to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Reed Cowan. I really feel the deletes were made wiyhout concern to the additional improvements to the article. Notability was asserted and well sourced in Reliable sources independent of the subject. I understand you don't have time to look at everything, but the concerns of the delete votes were soundly addressed before I left for work today. I got home and poof... it was gone. What about takning a second look? Thanks, And with no aspersions cast to your good work, I think this should go to DRV, as the article was improved after Bongo's last WP:UGH. There were 2 deletes to an poorly sourced article and one "keep" from the guy who improved it markedly. Maybe a relisting? Best regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is where I don't like policy. I want to relist more AFDs than I do, but WP:RELIST says it is only for discussions without alot of comments.  Given that Bongo commented after your re-write, I took that as reinforcing the delete.  But since you ask, I will userfy it.  If you can get it to a point where Bongo, Carlos, or Arbiter don't mind it being an article, we can skip the DRV.   MBisanz  talk 03:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Err... he commented after ONE of my earlier rewrites... not the final rewrite. After Bongo's last comment, I realized he was focusing on a version that began with only the first assertion inre the awards, and might not have read further into the text. After he posted, and 25 minutes before your close, I had finished a hefty rewrite to bring ALL assertions of notability to the beginning of the article... with sources. In that interveneing 25 minutes, he did not comment on my having addressed his concern of "there is no other material claim to notability". Please look at the history... of how the article looked when he last commented at 6:12 and how it looked after I finished responding to his concerns at 19:56. Different. Stronger. Multiple assertions right out front. Different. Majorly so. But he never responded in the 25 minute span between last improvements and its deletion. Last version before his comment: diff. Vesrion after my last improvement: diff. Nice new sources too. If you still think I should have him take a new look at the one you userfied, fine... What do you advise?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate judging content, since I'm not supposed to when I'm closing an AFD. Can you ask him first?  It he says no, then I'll take a closer look at it.  MBisanz  talk 03:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough request. I will ask the nom and deleters to look at it again... though I already have a strong sense of what Bomgo's answer might be. However, WP:AGF and hope. I will remove te RDV tag on the article name. No sense getting carts before horses. If I do not get a response I will retag it. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not want to bumble through the hassle of a DRV if there are other options. I have full acceptance that your deletion was fully in good faith and based upon comments from prior to the article's final improvement... and I fully understand why some who nominate or opine a delete might not wish to reverse themselves. What options are there beyond DRV?  And you may as well go ahead and look now... at the BEFORE the improvement and the AFTER the final improvement... and note that the last comment toward deletion was some 15 hours before that final improvement. Now its your opinion I seek, as it is greatly valued. It has been suggested that I seek permission to simply recreate the article with a clean slate and see if it gets thrown back to AfD even though improved. Whatcha think?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sure, you can always go ahead and create a new article. I don't go around enforcing my AFD closures, so as long as an article meets criteria, it should be ok.  MBisanz  talk 13:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I remain fully opposed to the restoration of this article. At the end of the day, the truth remains that Reed Cowan is a local news reporter, with no assertion to notability whatsoever, despite what Michael asserts. Many local TV journalists do not have an article here. Why? Because they are not notable enough. They are not Brian Williams or Tom Brokaw. Reed Cowan is simply not notable. As for what Michael later asserted, I would like to point out that many (dead or alive) people have resolutions in honor of them, does that make them noteworthy for Wikipedia, or merely a footnote in American law? Many people have epiphany and born-again experience throughout their life. Does that make them notable for Wikipedia, or merely a better person? This is the question we have to ask ourselves. I have my answer already. It is now painfully clear that Reed Cowan is simply a journalist, and not Saint Reed. Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See Michael, this is why I was saying I can't assume your re-write made the article something that meets policy. AFD closes are based on the comments on the page, not the closer's view of the article, for the specific reason that the comments reflect a broader consensus then the decision of one person.  Sorry I can't be more helpful here and thank you Arbiter for chiming in with more context.  MBisanz  talk 13:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

These 2 CD images
Dear Matt,
 * I believe these 2 conditional use images from CNG Coins on English wiki can be deleted:


 * File:Pulcheria.JPG
 * File:Costantino X - histamenon - Sear 1847v.jpg

They have been moved to Commons. Commons has an OTRS ticket for CNG coins. An Admin told me its and I have used this template for images from this site. Feel free to check the duplicates on Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes they can, and I have done so.  MBisanz  talk 12:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisting reminder
I'd encourage you to have a look at WP:RELIST which changed not too long ago. Many of the AFDs you have relisted lately should really have been closed as no consensus (or even delete). Stifle (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, this is the struggle I have. When I follow relist and close things as delete (like you are saying), people go to DRV saying "this should've been a relist", and when I relist things with comments or new information, you rightly show me the policy.  Any suggestions on how to reconcile this thing?   MBisanz  talk 12:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest pointing out at the DRV that you were following the policy; DRV is only there to check that the policy was followed properly.
 * We also owe articles on AFD a "speedy trial" of sorts, and so having an article on AFD for over two weeks (two relistings) is a bit much. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove this rangeblock, please
This range belongs to Verizon. I think it's the Northeast United States, but I'm not sure. While dynamic, in my experience, the IP changes happen only once every few days, so you can block where you find it. --Raijinili (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 02:57, 31 January 2009 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.161.0.0/16 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Block evasion)
 * The vandal using that IP changes his IP and range very very frequently and was on it on the 27th and the 31st. Since it is a softblock, I'd prefer not to undo it unless we are seeing lots of collateral IP damage.  MBisanz  talk 20:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Collateral IP damage
My IP address 68.164.185.103 was blocked. In my opinion /16 x 7 is too wide a net whatever your reasons. My ISP is Earthlink, so if this range covers Verizon as well, there you go. I think most unregistered users are going to be as puzzled as I was and would be unlikely to navigate to complain, so please do not interpret silence to mean no damage. Luckily for your feedback I had an account and decided to take the time. --Cab.jones (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, my address isn't in that range, is it?? ..Oh I see, you have blocked five consecutive ranges. That will catch a lot of fish.

Cab.jones (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 06:57, 31 January 2009, MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.164.0.0/16 (Talk) (expires 06:57, 7 February 2009, anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion)
 * 06:57, 31 January 2009, MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.163.0.0/16 (Talk) (expires 06:57, 7 February 2009, anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion)
 * 06:57, 31 January 2009, MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.162.0.0/16 (Talk) (expires 06:57, 7 February 2009, anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion)
 * 06:57, 31 January 2009, MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.161.0.0/16 (Talk) (expires 06:57, 7 February 2009, anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion)
 * 06:57, 31 January 2009, MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked 68.160.0.0/16 (Talk) (expires 06:57, 7 February 2009, anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion)


 * Hmm, ok, lifting 164 block.  MBisanz  talk 12:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unrelated_alpha-2_codes_in_ISO_639_and_ISO_3166
Hi MBisanz, may I kindly ask that you post a copy of List_of_unrelated_alpha-2_codes_in_ISO_639_and_ISO_3166 to User:TalkChat/List_of_unrelated_alpha-2_codes_in_ISO_639_and_ISO_3166 - I will see and add sources etc. Maybe I can make it a real article.

Thanks a lot and happy editing TalkChat (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  MBisanz  talk 02:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of e107 (software)
Hello Mattew, I do not understand at all the criteria to delete the page E107_(software). The e107 entry was also moved from the List of content management systems as per 27 January 2009. I don't see why e107 that can be compared to similar systems like Joomla, Mambo and Drupal must disappear. On behalf of the e107 community; admin 'nlstart' of e107. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.135.163 (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia community had a discussion at Articles for deletion/E107 (software) and decided to delete the article.  MBisanz  talk 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

IPs of blocked user personally attacking you
See and  and discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 12:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mail
Received. Thanks! Pedro : Chat  16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia mention of you
I stumbled across an unflattering mention of you at Wikipedia's entry in Uncyclopedia (last sentence in the lead paragraph). I removed it out of courtesy (the link is an old version), but just wanted to let you know. It was added by anon (68.163.173.49) in case you cared. Killiondude (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you, that was very nice of you.  MBisanz  talk 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Backlinks removal
Can you explain why you removed the link here? --- RockMFR 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I speedy deleted Posterior capsular opacification, which was a circular redirect, and apparently Twinkle unlinked it as well. Is that a new feature in Twinkle?  I'll have to double check for an option button next time I use it.  MBisanz  talk 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I requested deletion of that redirect precisely to make links to that term red. I felt that highlighting the need for a new article was the best option in this case. Please do look for a way to turn off this feature in Twinkle, and perhaps ask the maintainer to make this feature off by default. Deleted articles should not be automatically delinked.--Srleffler (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see, I'll fix it.  MBisanz  talk 04:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it, thanks.  MBisanz  talk 04:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

closing admin
The debate for Akane-chan Overdrive was closed by you on 06 February 2009 with a consensus to merge. It says merge, it doesn't say redirect, which is all Farix did, he didn't merge a damn thing. He is working in contravention of a posted vote, to further his ends when he blanked the page before the vote. The vote says we don't have to merge everything, but he didn't do anything, and reverted my actual merger which was the stated outcome of the vote. Now this is a WP:POINT violation, done in WP:bad faith. Please have a look. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was merged properly per all other book to author merges. We don't merge everything, we merge titles and years of release. Kintetsubuffalo is being disruptive, and seems to be the one assuming bad faith and making personal attacks against an editor who does know how to merge. He has also posted this same message multiple places. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no merge, and I made no personal attacks, but yes, I clearly openly call bad faith on both of these users. Nothing was changed on the article. A redirect is not the same as a merge. Should I call for 3O, or what? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are making personal attacks. I've posted a note to the anime/manga project for additional views. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be why admins do not make content decisions at AFD closes (like what a Merge is, etc), so I really can't add more to this situation, but if using my talk page to discuss will help improve the article, please feel free to continue.  MBisanz  talk 19:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it isn't. DreamFocus decided to add himself to the issue and is canvassing/forum shopping. And rather than discussing the issue, those responding to the canvassing are simply reverting to Kintetsubuffalo bad version, irregardless of all relevant guidelines and policies, including the biography MoS and WP:NONFREE. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bezgovo cvrtje
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bezgovo cvrtje. 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) 14:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Assyrian Christian Stele (2nd nomination)
It has been proposed that Nestorian Stele be renamed and moved to Memorial of the Propagation in China of the Luminous Religion from Daqin. Please give your views on the talk page for this article. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jéské Couriano
"Other admins have ZERO permission to protect my page. For reasons which I have made clear before, I do NOT want my page protected from Jarlaxle's wethers, nor do I need it protected from them."

Should this be revised? Cool Hand Luke 05:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrm, he contacted me privately to do it and said he would handle it when he came back. I'd be happy to leave it for the time being.  MBisanz  talk 05:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I tweaked it.  MBisanz  talk 05:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Darko Bodul
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Darko Bodul. 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. Aecis·(away) talk 13:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to your User page
I was trying to keep up with the vandalism on your User page and the Talk Archive pages, but I was told at ANI that you're a big boy and can take care of your own space. Therefore I won't bother undoing the vandalism further. Apparently admins have to take care of themselves. AnyPerson (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I dropped User talk:MBisanz/Archive 7 from full- to semi-protection, `cause otherwise the bot would not be able to archive old dicussions from this page. If you feel my change was in error, please feel free to adjust the protection settings. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, wise idea, BTW, I have your email and am thinking of a response.  MBisanz  talk 21:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Articles for deletion/List of incidents famously considered great blunders (2 nomination)...
Go figure, just as I am about to argue to keep it, it is closed, anyway, for now, could you please userfy it? Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ at User:A Nobody/List of incidents famously considered great blunders  MBisanz  talk 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What am I doing wrong, I can't find the articles deleted edit history here: . dougweller (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably best not to supress the redirect when moving something like this, rather take the time to delete it afterwards so the trail of breadcrumbs is intact. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, so List of blunders was created just after the AfD was started. I'm not clear about what the protocol is here - do we see it as actually a different article, or as the same article retitled? Looking at the section headings, I'm inclined to say it is basically the same article dougweller (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It has a template saying it is in the process of a major rewrite, so I say give it time and then see. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of blunders. It is my experience that often people vote an article to keep, but don't really do something to fix it. My suggestion in the AfD page to restart the list on a firm ground was ignored. Since you asked to userfy the page, I understand you have serious intentions. So if you know anyone else who want to make this list a decent wikipedia page, please notify them. - 7-bubёn >t 16:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Review deletion of Pucci Dellanno
Hello there,

I am the person who created the page for the artist, etc. - I believe you are the administrator who deleted the page? If so, can we please review this deletion?

I understand your comment about the majority of the links being from myspace - I had in fact put other links there which have been modified / deleted over the course of the years.

In fact, I also understand the fact that you say the article is biased, although I must say I only modelled it on other articles about singers, and would be willing to change the style - I just never thought it was necessary since the article had been on Wikipedia for 2 years, other people had contributed links and amendments, etc.

I work in A&R, and although Bridget Grace is no longer one of our artists (in our books), she is in fact a very important figure in the dance music world, she often goes to Detroit - where she works still with people such as the four Tops http://www.simonevitaleband.com/onlineshop/goinhome.html etc. - and so we would like all the people who enjoy her music to know a bit about her.

We consider it very impressive that considering that Pucci Dellanno is now a private individual, her music continues to be published, and mixed, and bought, and danced to, after more than 20 years from the first successes she had.

As I mentioned in the discussion about deletion, all you need is to enter "bridget grace music" or "bridget grace singer" or "aurora dellanno" in a search engine for pages and pages to come up showing either her current IT career or her music still being very much in the fore or house/dance scene.

I really feel that the page is no more and no less important than that dedicated, for example, to Ed Ball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Ball_(musician) or Alan McGee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_McGee - both people who had an influence but are now retired from the music industry, but whose pages are not candidates for deletion.

Thanks.

Thom.

Thomaslear (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, it isn't my choice, the community decided at Articles for deletion/Pucci Dellanno that the article should be deleted. The existence of other articles is not relevant to retaining this one.  Feel free to appeal the decision at WP:DRV.  MBisanz  talk 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not agree - there was no real debate, 2 people do not make the community. I am going to appeal.

Thanks.

Thomaslear (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pucci Dellanno
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pucci Dellanno. 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. Thomaslear (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 22:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding portions of pages
Hi MBisanz, if I recall, your name has come up before in the context of a technique to allow blocked editors to edit their own talk page and have that section appear on (for instance) ANI so that they could have their own input displayed within the main discussion. Am I dreaming about that, or do you have a specific technique?

My interest here is nothing to do with blocking, rather to do with transcluding specific sections of one talk page onto another page. If that's possible at all, I'd love to know how it's done. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wrap the text you want transcluded with  tags a transclusion of the page will only include what is between those tags. –  xeno  ( talk ) 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh - two questions then: does the onlyinclude tag automagically exclude the rest of the page? and presumably this will work only once per archive page, i.e. the onlyinclude will collect all instances and we can't have ? Good sandbox material in any case, thanx! Franamax (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, any other content would need to be wrapped in .  And you can only have one sequence of  on a page from what I have seen.  So you would have it set up as Stuff you don't want  Stuff you do want .  MBisanz  talk 12:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Front desk
Since you closed the above, I thought you might be interested in this and this. The user seems to be unwilling to accept the consensus at AfD. – The Parting Glass 08:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest a request at WP:RFPP.  MBisanz  talk 13:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Val 2.0 → 2.0.1 waiting
MBisanz, please see Template_talk:Val. User:Dragons flight writes that he “posted a correction” for val. I independently saw this bug on Kilogram. Note the last two lines of the second paragraph in Kilogram. Note too, the last lines on the first and third paragraphs in the Carbon12 section. This is due to a lack of close-spans. Since this span-based bug persists after a purge, I assume that Dragon flight’s “posting” of a correction requires action on your part to make it happen. Greg L (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, Vsmith fixed it.  MBisanz  talk 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Tracy
Can you re-open Articles for deletion/Marcus Tracy. The entire debate seems have been focused on his professional career, and ignores completely that he won the Hermann Trophy - which surely makes him notable! Nfitz (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It already was open more than five days and the consensus was a rather firm delete, despite the inclusion of the award fact in the article from the beginning of the AFD. I really can't see any grounds to extend it per WP:RELIST or close it against consensus.  Sorry.  MBisanz  talk 02:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The close seems correct. The complete lack of anyone involved in the AfD process to apply the principles of whether the article should or should not be kept, rather than blindly deleting articles because they are not professional athletes astounds me.  And I guess the next step is DRV. Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * AFD never ceases to amaze me. Suffice it to say, I will not oppose the DRV, I just can't insert my own opinion in closes.  MBisanz  talk 02:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll wait until Articles for deletion/O'Brian White is completed, as he is also a Hermann Trophy winner - as that may clarify things. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How to do a mass unfree deletion
How do I do a mass unfree deletion for the screenshots on WIN News? Images are unneeded in the article and the images of the new readers are replaceable. Bidgee (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have some scripts that make it much faster.  MBisanz  talk 13:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. :) I wish you luck in the CheckUser and Oversight elections. :) Bidgee (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Coaching
Hey MBisanz, I was wondering if you were free for coaching?  Grsz 11  00:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, I've just sent an e-mail.  Grsz 11  04:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hometowned
Hi! I have two questions about Articles for deletion/Hometowned: -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Why did you delete before soft redirecting?
 * 2) Since I copied the Wiktionary definition word-for-word from Wikipedia content that no longer exists, could this cause a problem with the GFDL attribution requirements?


 * I use a script to close AFDs, and it has no "soft-redirect" option, so I deleted and then dropped in the soft-redirect manually. Best practice would be to import the page from en-wiki to en-wikt.  I'll ping an admin from there who is an admin here to do it.  MBisanz  talk 15:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Possibly unfree File:ChiEmeraldsPortal.jpg
Why do think that the image is unfree? I labored two hours over it to make sure it was perfect. I used the pre-defined shapes, textures, colors, gradients, brushes, etc. in Adobe Photoshop Elements 4. I thought this all up myself. The Chi Emeralds are MY invention, and you can't say otherwise (without it being false, of course). Therefore, I modified the Copy Right section and removed the template. Besides, I'm only using to decorate my user page, so, of all the things on Wikipedia, this is one of the least important. Now, if I was using it in an article, then that would different story. So, please leave me alone, and let me decorate my user page as I see fit. Thank You. PieMan.EXE MyPage | Exchange Words With Me 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Request - please userfy Bezgovo cvrtje
I expect new contributions to that article, I would like them to go directly into that article, bypassing me, recording edit history   Thank you  Power.corrupts (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You must see a DRV before moving it to the article space. Placed at User:Power.corrupts/BC  MBisanz  talk 03:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Idle RPG
I'm not sure why it it appears Articles for deletion/Idle RPG was closed early. Can you explain why this was done? Thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion debates last five days, this debate lasted 4 days, 23 hours, and 39 minutes, I believe it was an appropriate close.  MBisanz  talk 03:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought it had only been 4 days, I'll take your word for it that it was nearly 5 days. The thing is, we established WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS within the discussion and there was still active discussion going on. Generally these get relisted so discussion can continue but that wasn't done here. Would you be able to reopen the discussion at this point since it was already closed with a result listed? Tothwolf (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RELIST, relists can only be done if there is a lack of discussion, I'm sorry, I really can't do anything else here.  MBisanz  talk 03:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks for the trouble! Tothwolf (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

List of television stations in North America by media market
There's a dispute at List of television stations in North America by media market, and I was wondering if you could look at OTRS 2008091610055854 and determine what, if anything, is wrong with using the new data provided on the talk page (the PDF document)? For discussion see Current List of DMAs on FCC website (public domain) Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 06:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it appears that ticket is in a restricted queue of some sort that I don't have access to, I think User:Daniel or User:Jredmond might have access.  MBisanz  talk 10:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge completed but do I remove the hat?
I've merged the article content from Sfcrowsnest to Stephen Hunt (author) but am unsure if I should remove the afd-mergefrom hat from the destination's talk page. I assume the hats on the source will get deleted when the article itself is deleted. Also could I change the existing Sfcrowsnest into a REDIRECT to the new section or are we committed to having the article deleted from the namespace? --Marc Kupper|talk 05:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can change it to a redirect and remove the hat whenever you are done merging it. Remember to always be bold!  MBisanz  talk 14:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While WP:Merge and delete is possible, merges almost always result in redirects. Regarding the tag, an editor may replace it with the parameter-compatible once the merge is completed, or AnomieBOT will detect the redirect and update the tag automatically. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why
I just want to upload a album cover to A Day To Remember's new album Homesick and no one will let me. shannon.holliday21 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to be auto-confirmed to upload images. Please see WP:IFU to request an image be uploaded.  MBisanz  talk 14:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What does (s) mean?
In this history, what does the summary (s) for your edit mean? Is there an explanation of why the redirect was made soft? I checked the talk page, but it had been deleted. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To help with people who scrape the database for free content, we converted all the non-free image tags to being with Non-free, since the old tags are referenced in lots of conversations, but shouldn't be used as redirects, a softredirect lets us maintain the link for people reviewing old discussions, while ensuring compliance with the new taxonomy.  MBisanz  talk 04:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. But it would have helped had you linked each soft redirect's edit summary to the discussion of this change. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Arb
Hi. I moved an edited version of my rebuttal to the claim of Durova that I am running a sock back to my evidence section without the off-topic speculation. According to my read of the instructions that is the correct place to have that, not to mention that I am giving evidence, to wit my disavowal and another point. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Notification for closing admin.
Good hello. An article for which you closed the deletion discussion as delete at Articles for deletion/Rob Capricciosohas been recreated at Rob capriccioso. I've tagged it as a speedy G4 but would sure appreciate some oversight if you have a moment. Concern has also been expressed that the creator of the articles and the major editors may have COI and puppet issues. Any help you may be able to render is most welcome. Thanks. L0b0t (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is a bit concerning, have you tried taking it to WP:COIN.  MBisanz  talk 05:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, these guys are persistant and fast. Article was speedy deleted yesterday and has been recreated, again, at Rob Capriccioso.  Maybe COIN is the right answer. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Sindhi_ethnicity
Hi MBisanz!

Please could you explain to me how this discussion resulted in a redirect? I'm very confused about it.

Cheers, S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By the time I closed the AFD it had already been redirected.  As the only AFD comments were Delete and Merge, my options were to leave it a redirect, a completed merge, or delete the redirect, I felt leaving the redirect best reflected the AFD consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can understand that. I believe the page was (inappropriately) redirected and protected shortly after the AfD discussion began. -- I don't believe any content from the previous article was merged?-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the content is still under the redirect, so anyone can go there and pull it out to merge it. Further, on the continuum of deletion (see User:MBisanz/AfD), redirect would usually be the result of such a discussion, that someone did it before the close of the AFD is something more to take up with them then with the AFD closer (we just close the discussion, we don't actually edit the content).  MBisanz  talk 01:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Can I take that as approval to merge some of the useful content from the deleted article to Sindhi people?  I think the consensus was that a lot of the deleted material was well-informed.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  01:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You can do whatever you want with the content, its GFDL and AFD only decides the big picture stuff (retention, deletion, etc), and leaves the editorial decisions to the editors.  MBisanz  talk 02:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't, because Sindhi people is protected. :)  What I was asking was, could it be un-protected please?  -- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  02:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  MBisanz  talk 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you!-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  03:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing AfDs and the "rescue" tag
Greetings, and thanks for all your work closing AfDs in the past while, it has not gone unnoticed. Just a quick note to ask if you could check for rescue tags on surviving articles when you are removing the AfD notice; you missed one out here at they tend to clutter the article rescue category. Cheers, Skomorokh  00:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't rescue managed by a wikiproject? I think it is more of a clean-up template that a project decides when to add or remove than an official part of the AFD process.  MBisanz  talk 01:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only intended to be up as long as the article needs rescuing i.e. for the duration of the Afd. Yes, it's coordinated by us fine folks at the Article Rescue Squadron, but you'd be doing us a huge favour if you would backspace it away with the rest of the AfD topmatter when closing articles as kept. Cheers, Skomorokh  02:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 07:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Result of AfD: Bristol Indymedia
Per WP:DRV, could I ask you - qua the closing admin - to take a second look at Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia? The nom was closed with a finding of no consensus, but it seems to me that there was a consensus to delete or redirect. There were four votes for that result; true, there was a week keep vote and a keep vote, but I don't think they defease the consensus, individually or in sum. The keep vote by user:Jezhotwells was predicated on his promise to provide one additional reliable source supporting notability; even if one more source would make all the difference, however, it was not tendered at any time in the five days between Jeremy's vote and the closing of the nomination. The week keep vote fares little better. user:JulesH offered a strong argument for keeping an article that had not been nominated: she observed that the organization had been involved in a potentially notable event, but such involvement is not a valid reason to keep an article about an organization. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I endorse the no consensus closure, FWIW. –Juliancolton Tropical   Cyclone  22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The key for me was that even after relist, new parties to the AFD disagreed on what to do with the article, for me that is the hallmark of an No Consensus close.  MBisanz  talk 02:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, I'm afraid that doesn't satisfy me. You have previously noted that "[d]eletion discussions are not a vote," that you are "looking for a rough consensus as to what should be done," and that you "will weigh the quality of the arguments made by each side, and that weight may drastically shift the end result from what a numerical tally would indicate." just so: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Here, as I noted above, the arguments on the other side lacked any heft at all (one defended an article other than the one nominated, and the other appealed to a promised butress that never materialized). I could understand the result being no consensus based purely on the vote tally, but we agree, I think, that vote tally isn't the appropriate metric.
 * As I see it, there was consensus both before and after the relisting that the article's time was up; the only disagreement was whether the article should be deleted and the page redirected, or if both should be interred. That does not, in my view, divide the consensus in any material respect, because it isn't credible that one who votes to delete the article would prefer the article being kept over redirection. If users have to start explicitly stating first and second preferences along the continuum, that should be debated and incorporated into the AFD guidelines. I really think that reconsideration is appropriate here. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies, but would you mind clarifying whether your intent is to discuss this further here, or if I should raise at DRV at this point? I'm not a newbie to WP, but I am a newbie to this aspect of it, so some gentleness would be appreciated to the extent appropriate to the circumstances. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * DRV would be the next step. WP:RELIST prevents me from relisting, and there was no rough consensus on what to do with the page.  MBisanz  talk 22:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying that there wasn't rough consensus rather assumes the answer, doesn't it? ;) At any rate, I'll put together a listing and post to DRV; when that's done, I'll message Juliancolton, too, since he wrote above to support your decision and may wish to do so again at the DRV so long as he knows it's there. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the mouse
Knew it would be deleted. No problems. Respect your decisions always.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'dg
Hi. You closed Articles for deletion/B'dg as delete. I came across what appears to be a GFDL-violating copy at Talk:Green Lantern.

I came here because you were the closing admin, you have experience with AfD and deletion, and I'm not sure that the issue warrants AN. Feel free to refer me elsewhere. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I suggest you take it up with Ikip and failing that, then WP:AN, I can't quite figure out what is going on.  MBisanz  talk 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick reply. I'll try that. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I received no response from Ikip, and have thus started a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Eleazar (painter)
Hi Mbisanz,

I am the person who created the page for Eleazar (painter) - I believe you are the administrator who deleted the page, aren’t you? If so, can we please review this deletion? First of all, it’s necessary to say that I only understand a little English. Apart from that, I want you to know that Eleazar is a notable painter because he is known in Spain, specially Barcelona, and in other European countries like Switzerland (specially the canton of the Jura). I enclosure a selection of his Curriculum Vitae with his lasts exhibition. In addition, you have to know that Eleazar has been selected by the FIFA in representation of Spain for the exhibition that will take place on the occacion of the South Africa 2010 World Cup; a exhibition that will cross 32 countries around the world.

Solo Exhibitions: (Selectión) 2008 Imaginart-Gallery. “La Familia”. Barcelona / Ermita de Santa Margarida de Fontarnau. Osona

2007 Galería Carmen Torrallardona. Andorra / Antigua Capilla del Hospital de Sant Sadurní d’Anoia. “Sants i Martirs” / Galería Paqui Delgado “Diosas”. Sant Sadurni d’Anoia. Barcelona / Galería C’an Pinos. “Ellas”. Palma de Mallorca

2006 Galería Contrast Montcada. In Memoriam (Made in Spain). Barcelona

2005 Galería Multiplicidad. "El Quijote". Madrid / Galería Contrast. "Tontos, Bufones, Reyes y Princesas". Barcelona / Galería C.Torrallardona. "Estoy todo el tiempo pensando en mis cosas". Andorra / Galería Courant d'Art. "Artistas Catalanes en el Jura". Chevenez. Suiza.

2004 Galería La Santa. Barcelona.

2003 Galería Courant d’Art. Chevenez. (Suiza).

2001 Galería Camilla Hamm. Barcelona / Conservatori Superior de Música del Liceu. Barcelona.

2000 Galería Boto de Roda. Torroella de Montgrí. Girona / Galería Art Contrast. Barcelona.

1996 Galería Elite Art. Barcelona

1994 Galería Gloria de Prada. Barcelona.

1992 Galería Perfil. Barceloa

1986 Casa de Cultura de Los Llanos de Aridane (Canarias) / Caja de Ahorros de Santa Cruz de la Palma (Canarias).

1984 Librería Epsilon. Barcelona

1982 Casa de Cultura de Castelldefels. Barcelona

1979 Galería Melchor. Sevilla.

Groups Exhibitions (Selectión) 2008 Scope Art Fair. Imaginart Gallery. London / Bridge Art Fair. Imaginart Gallery. Berlín. / Galería Carme Espinet. Barcelona / Imaginart Gallery. Barcelona

2007 Capella de Sant Antoni. Torroella de Montgri. Girona / L’Oum Errebia. Azemmour. Marruecos

2006 Feria Estampa. Galería Multiplicidad. Madrid / Galería Courant d’Art. Chevenez. Suiza / Galería Contrast. Barcelona

2005 Feria Estampa. Galería Multiplicidad. Madrid / Centro Cultural de Burriana. Castellón / Casa de la Música. Villarreal / Diputación Provincial.Castellón.

2004 Art Forum Copenhagen 2004. Copenhagen / Galería Contrast. Barcelona / Galeria Courant d’Art. Chevenez. Suiza

2003 Feria Estampa. Galería Multiplicidad. Madrid / Artexpo: Galería Contrast. Feria de Barcelona / Artexpo: Galería Boto de Roda. Feria de Barcelona

2001 Univesitat Internacional de Catalunya. Barcelona / Artexpo: Galería Boto de Roda. Feria de Barcelona / New Art. Galería Camilla Hamm. Barcelona / Galería 98. Cadaqués. Girona / Pati Llimona. Ayuntament de Barcelona / Artexpo: Galería Boto de Roda. Feria de Barcelona / Fundació Internacional Josep Carreras. (Lleida y Tremp) / Galería Art Contrast: “El Circo”. Barcelona.

1999 Galería Rrose Selavy: “Compact Art”. Barcelona / Galería Marc 3: “Quin te n’enduries al vint-i-ú?”. Barcelona / Galería Contrast: “Bestiari: Zoo 2000”. Barcelona.

1998 Galería Boto de Roda. Torroella de Montgrí. Girona. 1995 Galería Periferi-Art. Lleida / Galería Gabarro Art. Sabadell / Teatre Villarroel. Barcelona.

1993 Premi Ricard Camí. Caixa de Tarrassa / Museu d’Art Modern de Tarragona.

1992 Palau Moia. Generalitat de Catalunya. Barcelona / Galería Perfil. Barcelona / Galería Periferi-Art. Lleida / Colegio de Abogados de Barcelona / Premio Internacional de Pintura “Ybarra 1992”. EXPO 92. Sevilla / IX Premio “Francisco de Goya”. Centro Conde Duque. Madrid.

1984 XXIII Premi Dibuix Joan Miró. Barcelona / Salas de Cultura de la Caja de Ahorro de Navarra: Burlada, Estella, Sagüenza y Tudela / Paraninfo de la Universidad de Barcelona / Caixa d’Estalvis de la Caixa. Tárrega. Lleida

1983 Galería Ramón Sardá. Barcelona

1981 Colegio de Arquitectos y Aparejadores. Barcelona

1980	III Biennal de Pintura. Barcelona / Casa Batlló de Gaudí. Barcelona

Collections (Selectión)

•Colección Hoteles AC (Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Alicante, Murcia, Burgos, Badajoz, Córdoba, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Oporto y Milán) / Colección B.P.A. (Banca Privada de Andorra) / Colección Hoteles H10 (Roma) / Il.lustre Colegi d’Advocats de Barcelona / Laboratorios Janssen-Cilag. Madrid / Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Facultat de Psicología. Tarragona / Hercesa Inmobiliaria. Madrid / Clinica Delfos. Barcelona / Hoteles Quo. Villaviciosa de Odón. Madrid / Bellavista Raich & Asociados. Asesoramiento de Empresas y Consultoría. Barcelona / Accon S.L. Actuaris i Consultors Empresarials. Barcelona / Colección Grupo HG (Hoteles y Gestión). Barcelona, La Molina, Cerler, Sierra Nevada y Baleares / Colección Lluís Bassat. Bassat Ogilvy. Consejeros de Comunicación. Barcelona / Colección Antonio Catalán / Bufette Cuatrecasas. Abogados. Barcelona / Seguros Iberia. Barcelona / Caja de Ahorros de S/C de la Palma. Canarias / Creade. Consultora de Recursos Humanos. Barcelona / Colección Cavas Roura. Alella. Barcelona / Excmo. Ayuntament de Castelldefels. Barcelona / Excmo. Ayuntament de Sant sadurni d’Anoia. Barcelona / Colección Laura Allende / Colección Trow Revue d’Art. Suiza / KPMG. Auditoría, Asesoramiento Legal y Financiero / CIBC World Markets PLC. Londres / Colección Yves Riat. Suiza / Colección Pierre L’Hoest. EVS Broadcast. Liege (Bélgica) / Colección Martín Schlaff. Casinos de Austria

Finally, I want to excuse me about the incidents that happened with the Eleazar (painter) page because I’m a new Wikipedia user and I had problems for writing the article, the image files and for making the suitable references, all because of my poor level of English. If you think that the article can be improved, please let me know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleazar1954 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion at Articles for deletion/Eleazar (painter) that resulted in the article's deletion. You would need to talk to the people who commented in that discussion to see if there are new facts they did not take into consideration when commenting.  MBisanz  talk 15:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

About a redirect -> soft redirect
Can you shine a light on this edit? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:MBisanz.  MBisanz  talk 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Out of interest, is this a documented procedure, or just something which was worked out for this particular issue? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I made it up at a WP:BRFA to solve a problem at the time, and then just hoped no one ever needed to change it. :)  MBisanz  talk 16:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag
I deflaged Fluxbot, don't need that flag now. Thanks, —  xaosflux  Talk 05:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kotava
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kotava. 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) 09:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing
I don't want to take up too much more of your time as I know you stay fairly busy, but I wanted to check with you on one more thing about the Articles for deletion/Idle RPG AfD stuff.

Were you aware of this  and this? 

If not, would these have affected your decision to close as Delete vs Relisting or closing as No Consensus?

Thanks again! Tothwolf (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of those exact things, but it wouldn't have triggered a relist since there was substantial debate from both sides on the AFD (ie. one side didn't slip a fast one by the other).  MBisanz  talk 04:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced a "fast one" as you put it wasn't slipped by, even unintentionally. The reason is this was only caught less then 24 hours before the AfD was closed. Because the person who nominated the article used an invalid category for the AfD categorization template, the AfD ended up in the Unsorted (Debate not yet sorted) category and got less attention than it should have or would have otherwise received had it been listed in the proper category from the start.


 * Also, the person who nominated the article not only failed to put the article name into the AfD template when attaching it to the article, they failed to notify the editors of the article of the AfD and add either a template or a small comment about the AfD on the article's talk page. Because the editors involved in creating this article were not notified, they were not given the opportunity to engage in the AfD discussion. (I personally only got involved and added proper citations to the article after someone else removed the prod template because it was obvious to me that the person who added the prod intended to send the article to AfD.)


 * I'm also concerned that it seems you did not take into account that the person who nominated the article for AfD eventually agreed that the article passed WP:V / WP:RS see and


 * It bothers me that the arguments that they brought up were eventually resolved, yet you did not seem to take the full discussion into account when you closed the AfD as Delete.


 * I'd really like your thoughts on this and I felt it would be appropriate to at least bring these to your attention and get you take on it before progressing to Deletion review stage. I can completely understand if a number of things were overlooked in the AfD discussion itself because even for me the dialog was getting to the point of TLDR. Tothwolf (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I re-read the deletion policy and notifying significant contributors is a courtesy, not a requirement of the AFD process. AFDs are a community discussion, so even though the nominator changed his mind, the community consensus was still to delete.  And notification on the talk page of the article is not required, nor is deletion categorization a requirement of the deletion policy.   MBisanz  talk 01:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not quite how I interpreted the guideline docs, but you are correct in that they do not say it's mandatory. Ah well, we'll let DRV sort it out I guess. Thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Péter Gulácsi
Hi there. You deleted this article a while back as a result of an AfD (Articles for deletion/Péter Gulácsi (2nd nomination)).

The article has now been (correctly) re-created as he has now played some professional top-level matches. However, the old version of the article contained a load (well some at least) of good sources and quotes that would enhance the new version. I was wondering whether this data was still available, and if so if you could restore it to my user space (User:Ged UK/Péter Gulácsi would be fine). I know that it's possible to restore stuff that's been deleted, but i don't know whether that is possible after an article has been restarted. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  MBisanz  talk 13:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, info merged into the new version. --Ged UK (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Eleazar (painter)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eleazar (painter). 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. --Eleazar1954 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

MarkFD
Hello Matt. This 3RR case has mentioned a user who you blocked indef for socking last October. By his admission, MarkFD is actually Fronsdorf, who is still indef blocked. Does this imply that MarkFD should be blocked as well? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Leadership University deletion
I have a question about the Leadership University (leaderu.com) deletion. 2 of the 3 votes to delete came before I located and added an article that appeared in the Christian Post. The article was entirely about Leadership University and would seem to satisfy the demand for notability from a third party source. Did you notice that? I only had time to go through about 200 of the 38,000 Web pages linking to leaderu.com and noticed that there are a number of published books that site leaderu.com in their references (including books on both sides of the intelligent design debate).--Sixtrojans (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as an additional person supported deletion after your edits and none of the people supporting deletion before your edits came back to the AFD to change their comments, the consensus still was to delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't mistake this for being argumentative. After I added the Christian Post reference there were actually two votes -- one to keep and one to delete. I also just noticed (unfortunately after the fact) that there are 70 Wikipedia articles that reference content on leaderu.com. Wouldn't that add to the notability claim? If I rewrote the article using appropriate citations would that be acceptable? I don't want to be accused of disrupting Wikipedia. I've never had an article that I've been interested in that's been deleted, so this is new territory for me and I don't want to cause trouble. If the 3 delete votes truly represent the will of the community, I'll let this go.--Sixtrojans (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The one Keep comment cited WP:ILIKEIT and was from an account that had only made 2 edits Special:Contributions/Rafmagnsofn. Also, WP article citations do not create notability or add to a claim.  If you re-wrote the article, it would need to pass a WP:Request for undeletion to be re-included.  MBisanz  talk 00:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

errol Fisher
I have userified it as User:1027/Errol Fisher after being shown there are references for his photographs in the museums specified. Please give the user a week or so to add them & fix the article generally, & then let her (& me) know if you think its sufficiently improved. DGG (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey AfD
Hello. I just wanted to let you know about an AfD you closed today. The article I put up for deletion was Until the End of Time, however you have chosen to close the debate by re-directing the article to a Genesis album! Understandable mistake I know, because there were a lot of Genesis articles and Carey articles up for debate at the same time....didn't try and fix the problem myself as I wasn't sure if it was your intention to delete or re-direct the Carey article. Thanks! Paul75 (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh! Yea, they were all running together, yes, make sure it points at the right artist.  MBisanz  talk 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Orcas mergers
I saw you closed some of the AfD's for individual orcas with decisions to merge into Captive orcas. The article on Captive orcas in fact was created as a merge of all these individual articles, then I added some introductory content and compressed down the individual orca sections, dropping repetition and genealogy details which seemed a bit too much for Wikipedia. So I think the individual articles are already merged, just need to be changed into redirects. I did that for two of them, then wondered if I was moving too fast? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is fine. That is all editorial judgment stuff.  AFD just sets the broad course and leaves the smaller decisions to discussion after.  MBisanz  talk 15:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * O.k. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the last set of orca entries. Next question is how to improve the article. There is a lot more trivia than I would like - and maybe it should be split. But easier now there is one lump of text, not many. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted against policy??
You are credited as having deleted 2008 Kenosha helicopter crash.

A reason for keep was cited as The reasons to keep this aren't too strong but it does meet the criteria under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AIRCRASH#Notability The crash was a helicopter owned by Midwestern Air Services, a charter company. The criteria to keep is "It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. An occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition." If we want to modify the criteria, then that's a discussion that should occur on that WP page, not this AFD. So my gut feeling is to delete but my careful consideration of the criteria says it's a keep. Therefore, it's a keep

According to policy (and this was calmly and cooperatively discussed), the article could be kept, policy reconsidered, and the article later deleted after (if) policy is modified.

Help me understand why violation of policy was the preferred method. Was it possible that the shear number of votes made your decision?

Part of the reason to understand the process is that I want to create an article that will not be deleted. My proposed article is an aviation article and does meet the policy criteria to keep. However, if policy is violated, keeping is not a given.

Please do not merely say "fuck off, get off my back, pass the buck to deletion review". Discussion is more important that the fate of this Kenosha article which I was not interested in enough to edit myself. Chergles (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion at Articles for deletion/2008 Kenosha helicopter crash was clear. An API fault caused my script to delete the article, but not post the AFD close.  Another user noticed it and fixed it for me.  However, the community interprets policy and admins interpret consensus.  In this case the community found the article not to meet retention requirements and the consensus was to delete it.  MBisanz  talk 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that there was a consensus to delete. Even I thought that it was approaching the point of delete, myself.  However, policy seems to state that it was a keep because it was a chartered airline aircraft.  I think we should follow policy and examine the policy.  I am most interested in understanding policy rather than arguing about this particular article.  However, isn't the correct thing to do is to hold open the AFD until the policy is clear (or keep it and renominate it if the policy is changed)?

Please don't say "go to deletion review" because that requires a lot of effort to defend the article. I'm not so sure I want to defend that particular article. It's almost like a lawyer defending an axe murderer.

Sometimes, policy is made with a specific example in mind and a new case doesn't fit the policy. Other times, people have a different opinion than the policy and want their opinion upheld. This may be the case that a keep fits policy and people have a different idea in mind (i.e. only big airlines, like British Airways and United Airlines count). Chergles (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We work on consensus, which means the community interprets policy as it see fits at the time being. AFDs cannot be held open while policy is debated and retention is not appropriate in the face of overwhelming consensus to delete.  The reason we have AFD is because every situation may not fit perfectly into policy and it is up to the community to interpret how it applies to the article.   MBisanz  talk 20:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying. However, the community didn't follow policy.  If the policy wasn't clear or was clearly aimed at another situation, this is understandable.  So can any policy be overridden by the community, even banning all ArbCom members and Jimbo?  Or what if the community decided to ban MBisanz just because they wanted to ban someone.  (examples of going against policy) Chergles (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The community interpreted that guideline (please refer to the difference between policy and guidelines at POLICY) to not apply to that article. I'm sorry but I must refer you to DRV as I will not be altering the AFD close.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your discussion. I will not go to DRV because I have doubts about that article. It was a bit unclear what to do when consensus goes one way and policy seems to go another. Since it's a very obscure airline and not even a scheduled airline, I have little enthusiasm to try to get the article undeleted. Please don't misunderstand and think I dislike you or am arguing with you. It was just a situation where the consensus and policy seemed to conflict somewhat.

With that behind us, we can joke about what would happen if consensus was to remove ArbCom and Jimbo Wales' authority. A revolt, I think that would be. At which time, they would exercise their control over the computer servers and quell the rebellion! Chergles (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Article Deletion: Request restore
I understand you took the decision to delete the article Web 3.0 I am struggling to understand why? I'm reasonably new to wikipedia, so I am unsure how to go about the deletion process. As far as I can see from the explanation it was because of potentially three things: 1. It was not well written, whilst this maybe true it seems unnecessary to delete it for this reason. 2. That it doesn't exist yet. Granted, but, the concept DOES exist. The page was about a concept, not a physical entity as far as I understood it. 3. It was stated it had "no defined meaning" this is simply not factual. The truth is that there are several different meanings, and interpretations to the word... surely it would be better to have an article that (if better written) explained these different meanings, and contexts. This can only happen if there is an article to start with. Personally I had found the original article, while somewhat confused, an excellent starting resource to find out more. I'd like to see it restored. I am posting here as you were the deletion admin, as I understand it, if I am mistaken or if I need to speak to someone else, please feel free to pass me on. Thanks for your time. --Daniel Cull (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs to exist and be covered in reliable sources before it attains notability and can be included in Wikipedia.  MBisanz  talk 18:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thanks for the incredibly quick response! I can't really comment on the "reliability" of the sources. As I don't recall what they were, and Web 3.0 is certainly not my field. But I would have thought these would be reliable? No? , One of them is the London times... pretty sure they have a publication track record of reliability, and I mean one of them is Tim Berners Lee - the dude invented the internet! But enough with that, onto the "exist" comment.. then surely there should be some question as to whether God should be deleted. I know I am being facetious, but, only to prove a point... I think Web 3.0 exists as a concept... therefore it does. So maybe, the old axiom I think therefore I am, does have some relevance. The point being that others also think this way... there are probably thousands of online mentions of the concept... as well as thousands arguing that it will never be a 'thing'. But, thats not the issue - the issue for wikipedia is whether the concept exists, surely, as I have show concepts that can't be proven to exist in the real are allowable. Therefore I would argue it really does exist. And therefore I don't think its reason enough to remove it.
 * In summary - It does exist as a concept (or concepts) and there are reliable sources to show this.
 * I think it would probably be unhelpful, and a waste of your time for us to argue this here... so, could you please point me towards the process whereby these differing opinions could be considered? Thanks again for your comments and help. --Daniel Cull (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The place to contest deletions is WP:DRV.  MBisanz  talk 01:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help. It seems that its already a closed issue there, and a solution has been found that will incorporate the last restore into another wikipedia page, reason given: because it is an important term and is widely searched. Thanks again for your comments and thoughts. --Daniel Cull (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor review
Hi there! I'm currently on editor review, and I'd be grateful for your opinion on how you think I'm doing. Editor review/Ged UK. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (ODNI)
Can we relist this, rather than close as no consensus? Only four people commented, and one of them based his keep argument on a false premise that he refused to defend. THF (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RELIST only permits relists where there is a lack of discussion and even then stresses that second relists are discouraged in favor of no consensus. I'm sorry, but it is difficult to justify a relist for such a discussion.  MBisanz  talk 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ANL
Just wanted to say that I think your ANL is a great idea. Do you need any help getting it going? Maybe creating ANL? Is it in use yet or are you just piloting it for now? —Eustress talk 18:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was an idea that I never got around to working on, although it you wanna take it and run with it, feel free to use my space.  MBisanz  talk 18:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dining Late with Claude La Badarian
Could you userfy the article for me for me to User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Dining Late with Claude La Badarian? I was kinda surprised we did not get more discussion or even a relisting. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, I know your feeling, but WP:RELIST discourages a second relisting where there are comments. That is one policy I wish would be changed.  MBisanz  talk 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion/Restoration of AbleNET
I wanted to thank you for the fair review. Santavez (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD close
Hi. I was doing something at AfD, and I ran across the discussion regarding Lsongs, and I posted a comment to the discussion. I noticed that you closed the discussion as a no consensus... Could you please explain your reasoning behind that close? Do you give weight to the argument that a strong precedent has been set for including articles of that nature regardless of notability, or do you feel that its notability is demonstrated, or was it something else? Just to let you know, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your decision. I've been away from Wikipedia a lot for the last 8 months or so, and I'm wondering if the landscape has changed while I was away, and maybe I'm out of touch with current AfD culture. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Landscape has changed a bit. My AfD closing thoughts are at User:MBisanz/AfD.  In that case I saw a couple of experienced editors disagreeing over the existence of reliable sources.  That is the sort of vague area that people can disagree over (copyvio or hoax usually is not vague), that causes me to say "They have a good faith disagreement", and lacking a clear consensus one way or the other on the disagreement, led to me close as NC.  MBisanz  talk 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

After further thought, I've gone ahead and redirected the article to Linspire. If you disagree and revert me, then of course I won't edit war, but I can't stand by while we keep an article about which even its staunchest defenders didn't even claim that there was independent source material. I'm definitely open for discussion of this decision. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, I just close 'em.  MBisanz  talk 21:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we done yet?
All of those ClueBot IV deletions were making me dizzy. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so, the category is empty.  MBisanz  talk 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Picken
Out of curiosity, where and by whom was the prod for Andrew Picken contested? I can't find any on-wiki links, but I could be missing something. I think I'll send the article to AfD soon. Graham 87 00:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rjd0060 contacted me off-wiki (he is traveling) and said someone had emailed him contesting it. Per PROD he asked me to restore it.  So I did that.  MBisanz  talk 00:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WTF? There's an article about what seems to be a notable writer hidden in this edit. See this and this about concerns that I and another editor have had about the article. But now that there's two articles in the same page history, it makes things even more interesting! Graham 87 00:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And see this talk page message. Hmmm. Graham 87 01:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears 3 copies of the article were deleted, and then all restored at once, giving the weird page history.  MBisanz  talk 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Andrew Picken. Graham 87 03:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Sheree Silver
I'm still a little bit unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy regarding this things, so I had a question. I'm assuming you deleted this article based on lack of notability, so could I re-create it once more independent sources become available? Thanks.Spring12 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You would need to document those sources at a WP:Requests for undeletion to bring the article back.  MBisanz  talk 02:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Frequenton-Photon
This page had a "Mark for Deletion" and also a "Flag to Keep". Yesterday I had a rewrite to publish, but since it had also had other's work on it, I has asked Sandstein, who flagged it for deletion, if the rewrite was still required. I had to await his answer on arising this morning, as I guess we are living in different time zones. So was a little surprised to find it gone this morning, still inside the 5 day discussion period and unable to input the rewrite that Sandstein had confirmed was still required. Is it possible to have the page restored to enable me to publish the rewrite for approval. Thank you Hegaldi (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the consensus to delete is so strong that even a re-write would not change the course of the AFD. I suggest taking the re-write to WP:Requests for undeletion to gain consensus for inclusion.  Would you like a copy of the article in your userspace to work on for such a request?  MBisanz  talk 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Little Fyodor
userfy plz k thx riffic (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Remember to go to DRV before restoring.  MBisanz  talk 06:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

merge
I see you closed this, I'll go ahead and do the merge stuff if you want to point me to any wp:tips on how to proceed. — Ched (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Try reading MERGE, I think the Selective Paste method would work best for this situation. When you are done, you can redirect the old page to the new page.  MBisanz  talk 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Userfication
Regarding Articles for deletion/Demos and More, would you mind userfying the article for me? You can put it at User:IllaZilla/Demos and More. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  MBisanz  talk 00:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Daveport Iowa=
You are listed as an administrator for deleting Davenport, Iowa African American history (changed to African Americans in Davenport, Iowa). There was a deletion debate and that article was not slated to be deleted. What gives?Brrryce (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Articles for deletion/African Americans in Davenport, Iowa.  MBisanz  talk 03:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sophia Lamar
Hello there, I would like to add reliable sources to attest to notability for the Sophia Lamar entry which was recently deleted. She is a legend & an icon in not only New York City but also the transgendered and fashion communities as a whole, far more notable than most of the figures on the List of transgender people which remain. Please advise on how I should go about this; I can assure you it was not a vanity page that she tried to maintain herself. Thanks! Dnyinnyc (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, there was a discussion at Articles for deletion/Sophia Lamar. You would need to go to WP:Requests for undeletion with evidence of notability to recreate the article.  MBisanz  talk 21:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Myer stores AfD
Hi, I'm a bit suprised that you closed Articles for deletion/List of Myer stores as a delete - by my reckoning (albeit as someone who voted to keep the article) there was no consensus either way. While AfDs aren't a poll, there were 10 keep votes and 11 delete, with both sides arguing that WP:NOTDIR supported their position. The deletion discussion wasn't helped by the very poor quality of the original AfD nomination which provided no detail on the nominating editor's concerns. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I don't vote count, but including the nominator, the count is 13 delete, 10 keep. Some of the Keep comments are quite strong, but DGG's argument citing past practice and the Keep comments merely indicating the article isn't intended as a directory tipped it to a rough consensus to delete.  MBisanz  talk 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Mainly as a procedural matter I've taken this to DRV asking that the discussion be relisted. The DRV is at Deletion review/Log/2009 February 28. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 02:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Note
Thanks for your note, but maybe you misunderstood what was going on? Jaakobou edited Nishidani's comments, I reverted it, he reverted me, and Tznkai reverted him. So... why warn me? Avruch  T 03:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, your note to both of us is over three hours late. Avruch  T 03:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know I am running a bit late. I broke my knee this week and am a bit slower moving around than usual.  Just that reverting on WP:RFAR, even to the right version, isn't a good idea, since if there is a problem (someone editing someone else's comments or someone being uncivil), that is something that clerks should know about to make sure it is dealt with.   MBisanz  talk 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that is silly. Kind of like saying you shouldn't leave a note about editing comments at RfAr unless you're an ArbCom clerk. Avruch  T 03:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is useful to let the clerks know though, so that we can be on the look out for that kind of editing. Now Jaakobou has been warned not to edit war and had it explained what he should do if he objects to a comment.  If he does it again once the case starts, it won't be a warning from a clerk, it will probably be a block.   MBisanz  talk 03:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Randy Mengullo
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Xeltran (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You kept Forestle
Thanks! You decided to keep the entry Forestle based on WP:SNOW. Could you please explain this guideline; I read the wiki page but do not fully understand what it means in the current case. Does it mean that the case FOR keeping the entry was very clear from the discussions? This might be particularly important as the Forestle entry early had a speedy deletion tag that was removed after a short presence. Second, the notability issue is still marked at the top of the Forestle entry page, although essentially every important aspect of Forestle has external references that in my view are fully suitable. I would very much appreciate your help. --Subwaynyc (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It means the unanimity of the people saying to Keep at that AFD meant the AFD had a snow ball's chance in hell of resulting in a Delete. Other editorial issues like Notability should be dealt with at the article talk page or at the relevant Wikiproject.  User:DGG knows alot about Notability, so I might ask for his help.  MBisanz  talk 22:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanations and the hint. Subwaynyc (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You closed Articles for deletion/Pre channel early
Uhm, you closed Articles for deletion/Pre channel almost two days early (28 days in February...). Relisted: 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Closed: 04:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC) This was not a clear consensus deletion and it was currently split about 50/50, especially as the nom withdrew the AfD (withdrawn long before the first relist), which put it at an exact 50/50 split. There was also a source from an actual book, and not a "self published" book. Please double check. Thanks. Tothwolf (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was listed on the 15th, it was past due, not early. Also the AfD sure looks like a delete to me, it only looks close if you see it as a vote. Chillum  04:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't overdue. It was relisted twice instead of a no consensus close the first two times. A relist still has to go through the normal 5 day listing. I had already removed two sections from the article that prompted the initial nom and first two delete votes, which is likely why this thing got relisted and no one else really felt like voting delete. Tothwolf (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, relists don't have to go through the normal 5-day listing. Juliancolton (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the various early AFD closing discussions, no one has ever voiced an objection to closing a relist after the five day period but before the 10 day period. This was already working on 14 days.  Please see WP:RELIST and WP:DRV.  MBisanz  talk 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So why wasn't this closed as a no consensus before we got a few more drive-by deletes? Going by the discussion this was still clearly a no consensus issue. If not for the fact that we actually found sources I'd have voted delete on this one myself. (Sorry to hear about your knee, I didn't have your talk page watchlisted so I hadn't seen you mention that until now. Probably a bit cliché but hope you feel better soon.) Tothwolf (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because AfD is not a vote. Also, by talking about him closing it earlier, are you saying that you are complaining that he closed it "early" as Delete, but would not have complained if he had closed it "early" as Keep? J.delanoy gabs adds  05:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I'd have likely asked the same thing if had been closed early as Keep. IMO the only possible outcome of that AfD given the current discussion that I'd seen was no consensus. Tothwolf (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the concern. AFDs generally get closed whenever a patrolling admin gets around to them. There are maybe 10 admins who patrol AFD on a regular basis, so closing times are fairly random. In this case what tilted me more towards Delete was that Capitalistroadster and Sloane came back after the improvements were made and still thought it should be deleted. Now if you can convince Dynaflow or Frozenevolution that it is ok, that would tip it towards a No Consensus close, but without any indication of change of their opinions (they did have 10 days to come back to the discussion), it is sort of stuck here.  MBisanz  talk 05:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the things that's bothering me here is the first two "voters" never bothered to come back and follow up after the unreferenced sections were removed. Capitalistroadster didn't see the references on the Talk page (or read the full AfD until I made a bold comment pointing out the references were on the talk page). Then he changed his reasoning that they should be in the article (which might be valid if not for the fact we located them after the AfD was initiated and had planned to rework the entire thing anyway). As for Sloane...eh... I can't take anything he said seriously. Would it be appropriate to post links to Sloane's talk page here? (I ask because worry those might turn into a can of worms...) Tothwolf (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I closed the AFD, so it is my can of worms, feel free to post to anyone who is involved in it to look here.  MBisanz  talk 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, let me rephrase that, would it be appropriate to post links here linking to Sloane's user page? Tothwolf (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, although I'm not sure why, I can find it easily enough :)  MBisanz  talk 05:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh...persistent little vandals aren't they...shesh... Anyhow, I tried to WP:AGF but after I stumbled across these hidden/secret pages:
 * User:Sloane/GameAfD's
 * User:Sloane/Conspiracy, Paranormal & Fringe Theory AfD's
 * User:Sloane/Various
 * User:Sloane/911TMCruft
 * ...the only conclusion I could come to is the guy lives to nom things for AfD and vote to delete everything on AfDs. I just couldn't take him seriously at that point (and I saw these before I left a followup for him in the AfD.) Tothwolf (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there's this: I didn't even notice that until I checked his talk page's edit history tonight. Tothwolf (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not really seeing how this relates to the article in question. I mean just because someone was blocked for editing at another article isn't a reason to discount their comment at AFD.  Unless you can show me something Sloane has done wrong at this article. I can't do anything further.  MBisanz  talk 07:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That link might help explain why he didn't bother to come back and clarify? Have a look though the AfDs from the redlinks linked from his pages above. If you look close you'll spot the different usernames he has used. These look like trophy pages to me... This is why I can't take anything he said in the Pre channel AfD seriously. Tothwolf (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well that really isn't a strong enough reason to go back and change the close. I think the best bet at this point will be getting more high quality sources and taking it to WP:Requests for undeletion.  MBisanz  talk 07:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you see what I meant I guess? I mean yikes... We already had sources that covered the material left in Pre channel and they were on the talk page. The nom checked them and seemed ok with them as did some of the others who weighed in during the AfD. I've got a full archive (all revisions) of Pre channel anyway. I thought this might happen so I carefully archived everything so I can work on rewriting/merging it and the other related articles that need major work later. At that point I'll likely just do a redirect and request a history undeletion to remain GFDL compliant. I'm more concerned at this point with the fact that there are people on wiki who are just here for a delete thrill. I suspected there were a few here and there, but this one disturbs me. Btw, I might as well ask here since I'm thinking about it... Are you handling things for Rjd0060? I wasn't sure if I should post things to his talk page or yours? --Tothwolf (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirects are fine by me, so just flag me or anyone else down to do the GFDL undeletion. Yea, it concerns me with such VestedContributors, but I can't do anything about that, so I just do other things.  I'm covering for Rjd while he is traveling, so what can I do for you?  MBisanz  talk 07:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we work on whatever we can... I've got a number of prods that I'd uncovered that Rjd0060 deleted but I wasn't sure who to ask about them. He hadn't been active so I wasn't sure if something had happened to him or what. I'm not really ready to deal with those articles just yet, I've just been compiling a list while cleaning up the rest of the IRC stuff. I'll see if I can get them sorted out in the next day or so. Btw, I discovered a few AfDs that were initiated and led by two people in retaliation after their own IRC project's article got deleted (that article has since been recreated after it became notable) but the articles that were deleted covered competing projects that were already notable. What's the proper course of action for dealing with that sort of COI mess? It's blatant and one of the two guys even mentioned he was going to do it in the AfD for his project's article. Should I provide links to those here? Tothwolf (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not worth it here, I can't do anything about that sort of thing on my own. You might try posting to WP:AN.  I can handle undeletions of his PRODs whenever you are ready.  MBisanz  talk 08:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll work up a list of the prods. It looked like someone went though the entire category of IRC networks (and maybe some others) and prodded pretty much everything. It left an awful mess of redlinks in the templates and it took me awhile to figure out exactly what had happened. What would be the best way to present that COI mess at WP:AN? These two guys actually tried an AfD on a third article after they succeeded with the first two but it looks like they gave up their plan of getting all the other articles deleted after the third one failed. Looking at their account histories it seems like they created their accounts just for the purpose of dealing with their own project's AfD but then almost immediately targeted those other articles after it got deleted. I actually have those links ready at hand because I've been trying to figure out the best way to deal with the mess they created. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just look at current threads, define the issue, the facts, and ask for admins to review and act on them.  MBisanz  talk 08:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

&lt;insert break here&gt;

I thought about this and decided I should clarify some things for the record as I still consider this a bad close. There just wasn't any way to consider this AfD as anything other than no consensus. I would take it to DRV if not for the fact that DRV doesn't seem to be worth the trouble and would otherwise take up a lot of time I'd rather spend working on other articles.

Here is a breakdown of the AfD itself (nomination:withdrawn, keep:3, delete:4):


 * nomination: Zetawoof -- (withdrawn after sources were located)
 * delete: Dynaflow "There's no way I can see it passing WP:V, let alone WP:WEB" -- Seemed to be referring to sections of the article that were removed for failing WP:NOT / WP:EL, never came back to clarify.
 * delete: Frozenevolution "Cannot find any reliable sources as per nom its unlikely that reliable sources do exist." -- That's funny, I managed to find some, including a dead tree book reference that is also used in some of the other Warez articles.
 * keep: My own comment and vote where I pointed out we had sources.
 * relist: "no consensus" (20 February 2009)
 * relist: "no consensus" (25 February 2009)
 * keep: Letsdrinktea -- "Looks notable enough and has potential"
 * delete: Capitalistroadster "unless references from reliable sources are added." -- Didn't read the AfD or see that that references had been placed on the talk page for discussion.
 * delete: Sloane "As no references." -- Also didn't seem to read the AfD...
 * My comment pointing out the references on the talk page again...
 * keep: MichaelQSchmidt "and allow continued improvement of the article since there is an active good faith effort to address the nom's concerns."

If this wasn't "no consensus" then it should have been closed as a delete instead of being relisted twice. Further discussion did not help with consensus and obviously did not help improve the article as it is now flagged as deleted.

--Tothwolf (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Note
If you have the time, you may wish to see this message I left to you on Commons: When there is 199 outstanding flickr images and images have been waiting to be reviewed for 1 full week...something is seriously wrong here. I wish SterkeBak was around to clean this up but he's gone. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Austenasia
You closed it and deleted it, but it seems someone moved it to Empire of Austenasia, where the AfD notice is still visible? Not sure how that works or what I can do. § FreeRangeFrog 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. Thanks for noticing.  MBisanz  talk 01:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:RfC
Yeah, I meant to add this back then but forgot. It won't get any comments, but it'll be there at least. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nuclear demolition
Why'd you close as a redirect? I think almost everyone thought that the content was thoroughly unsuitable for Wikipedia, so why preserve the history? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I could delete the history under the redirect if you wanted. Fire's comment on the likelihood of a search term was very strong though.  MBisanz  talk 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no pressing need to delete the edit history as far as I can tell. In any event, reasonable close.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be a reasonable search term, but nearly everyone strongly agreed that the article's actual content was original research/made up or a hoax. Multiple editors calling it "ridiculous" or expressing severe reservations as to the concept ("What is this", "My goodness", "[only] God knows", etc) is especially compelling and makes me think the content should be permanently removed since it will never be of use anywhere on the project. I won't make an issue of this if you disagree, but I was surprised that such an obvious consensus to nuke the content led to a redirect closure. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per your arguments, I deleted the history of the redirect.  MBisanz  talk 05:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to listen. I enjoy working on this project with receptive editors. :) Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD review request
Please reconsider deletion of Jack Talbert, discussed [here]. Of the two editors who voted Keep, one clearly did not read the article or review sources (this is easily determined by observing that his reason for voting keep was faulty; he stated that Talbert was an inventor, a claim neither Talbert, nor the article makes), and the other was Talbert himself, the author and subject of the article (conflict of interest). Neither of the sources establish notability, if closely examined.--E8 (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It came down to a disagreement over notability. I could have pushed it towards deletion, but I felt there was good faith disagreement over the notability of the subject.  I would suggest a merger or redirection to Gasoline Vapor or an AFD in another couple weeks when the fate of Gasoline Vapor is known.  MBisanz  talk 04:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratchet & Clank Future: (TBA)
I noticed you just deleted that article (thank you, by the way), but, the creator of that article, has decided to move User:HK22/Unnamed Ratchet & Clank Future Sequel (created by ), in which I prodded earlier but the user userfied to the userspace) to Ratchet & Clank Future: (TBA) after you deleted it. I'm thinking that this is more of a dispute resolution issue (a user wanting to de-userfy another user's article into the mainspace against that user's wishes) than an admin issue (I did inadvertently tag for G4 here but reverted here after discovering what happened. I don't know if admin help is needed here, but since you were the deleting admin, I thought I would let you know. Thank you, MuZemike 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, HK22 probably should be ask what he wants to do.  MBisanz  talk 08:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:


 * Books extension enabled
 * News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Smile!


A NobodyMy talk 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! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wait a minute. You are the final arbiter? Despite there being what I think were reasonable compromises to explore, you can simply say, 'Delete'? I'm not comfortable with that. I note that you wrote an article on a bowling alley, which I'll assume is something you consider notable. I don't accept that. In fact, I think it's absurd. I'm hoping the administrator review process is considerably less capricious than this. Brrryce (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Heavy metal in Muslim majority countries
Can you re-open the AFD and extend its duration? There is no consensus to merge the content into heavy metal music: two editors suggested that but after I made a reply, one of them has changed his mind into delete. I can only assume the other editor has not returned to the AFD and seen my response. In any case, that means only one editor thinks it should be merged into heavy metal music, another editor thinks its should be merged into black metal, another thinks it should be kept while two editors (including myself as nominator) think it should be deleted. --Bardin (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I closed as a Merge into either article. WP:RELIST only permits relisting for a lack of comments, not a disagreement of comments. Merging can be discussed at the article talk page, AFD is just for deciding retention of the article.  MBisanz  talk 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think four comments qualify as a lack of comments, especially since not one of those four comments were in agreement with another. Also, Heavy Metal Music is nothing more than a redirect so there's little chance that anyone will complete the merge. You might want to change it accordingly. --Bardin (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Four is a good number of comments, and there was definitely consensus to not retain the article. Merging it presented the best compromise method of dealing with it.  I moved the merge tag to the talk page with the proper capitalization.  MBisanz  talk 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2 DRVs
Hey MBisanz, I thought I'd inform you about these...I opened Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_2 & Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_2 (2 AfDs you closed) because there were some issues with IP socking that may have changed the outcome. Please stop by, if you can, and add your input. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That new VP page...
I'm gonna invoke WP:IAR here -- that "Redundant policies" village pumps page is just ridiculous, and I really don't think an immediate delete would be controversial. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> Equazcion •✗/C • 05:18, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, thanks.  MBisanz  talk 02:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kurdish genocide (WWI)
Hi! Am I wrong or did you only delete the talk page, and not the article? Sardur (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An oversight I am sure. I took care of it. Chillum  06:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks! Sardur (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chillum!  MBisanz  talk 02:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall request (moved from your user page)
Hi - I still haven't heard a reply back from you re: your deletion of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa after the deletion discussion had advised against doing so. So I filed a report against you. Brrryce (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Brrryce - MBisanz's close was probably wrong, but you're likely to find that a recall won't be successful. Have you tried bringing the case up at deletion review? Wily D  18:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I responded in User_talk:MBisanz. You placed a comment in a smiley template in another section.  If you want to recall me, fine.  But I would ask you take the article to WP:Requests for undeletion as recall desysops a person, it doesn't recreate the article.   MBisanz  talk 02:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of MogileFS article
i've moved the discussion of your deletion of the MogileFS article from Rootology's talk page to my own since his talk page seemed like a silly place to have the discussion--Rootology didn't comment on it and you didn't follow up on my reply to your comment there. Rather than clutter up his talk page, the discussion of the deletion is now here. --Craigster0 (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Prods and a much larger mess, help requested
I've mostly finished sifting out the prods from the red links list although I'm not ready to have them all restored just yet. I'd like to have them restored slowly so I can have an updated version ready for each article as they are restored. I was able to pull copies of this batch of prodded articles from deletionpedia so I have copies to work with.

What troubles me is while going though all of these links for the final sort, I noticed a pattern and upon further digging discovered a connection with a much larger issue. It doesn't have anything to do with the admin who deleted them (he was just deleting expired prods) but I have some concerns about the person(s) who prodded them. I think this is going to warrant further investigation and I'm requesting help in sorting out this mess. I'd been absent from Wikipedia for a long time until this last year for personal reasons and I really don't know who to contact now since things on Wikipedia seem to have changed a lot since I was originally active. The very reason I returned to Wikipedia last year is I noticed articles were disappearing from the Internet Relay Chat categories. I initially noticed articles were disappearing while I was working on fixing a bug in some software. I had been using one article as a quick reference and when I happened to try to pull it up again, it had been deleted. It has taken me this long to finally get to the bottom of this mess and what I've found really disturbs me. I hope you can bring this to the attention of the correct people so we can right the problems and make sure this doesn't happen again.

There were at least 14 articles that I can find that were mass-tagged with a prod template in this batch. There may have been others but these are the articles I could find going by the red links that I removed while reworking the navigation templates. These are not all of the IRC articles that disappeared but these are the articles I can easily connect to the same mass-prod.

Here is the list that I have so far. I'm not ready to have them all restored just yet but I would like you to restore one that I'm just about done reworking which I'll mention below.


 * Abjects
 * AbleNET
 * AfterNET (redirect: Afternet)
 * AustNet
 * BRASnet
 * Blitzed
 * Byxnet
 * GamesNET
 * Global Gamers (redirect: Global Gamers Center)
 * IRC-Hispano
 * IRCHighway (redirect: Irchighway)
 * LinkNet
 * NetGamers
 * UniBG

Two of the 14 articles are already back on Wikipedia. You restored AbleNET last week and Byxnet was recreated from what appears to be a snapshot version by one of its editors (I guess he didn't know how to contest a prod). AbleNET's talk page currently needs a history merge, Byxnet itself needs a history merge for GFDL compliance, and Byxnet also needs a talk page restoration.

AustNet appears to have gone though an AfD so I doubt you can do much with this one yourself but maybe other admins can get involved and help fix this larger mess.

IRCHighway for some reason isn't showing up in the deletion logs. I'm not sure what's going on with that one. Its redirect still shows up though and I was able to pull a copy of the article itself from deletionpedia.

The article I'd like to have restored first is Abjects. I believe this is the one that kicked off this mass-prod. As you were already aware, AbleNET was deleted outside of the rules for a prod since it had already gone though an AfD. It also had plenty of references and clearly was a notable topic even if the article was (and really still is) in need of major attention. (I'm currently trying to help the other editor who asked to have AbleNET restored clean up the references section and include cite templates.)

Abjects contains a section and a reference linked to a court case initiated by Hal Turner against 4chan.org, 7chan.org, Ebaumsworld.com, NexisOnline.net, Abjects.com, and John Does 1-1000. This alone more than made Abjects a notable article even though like AbleNET, it was poorly written and needed major work.

After I discovered the Hal Turner connection and court documents, I started digging deeper into online postings made by Hal Turner on a number of fringe sites where he posted and discovered what seems to be a loose connection with this mass-prod of IRC articles. It appears that one or more supporters of Hal Turner or someone somehow connected with this group decided to try to rid Wikipedia of IRC-related articles. Nothing firm was stated that I saw but there was a general unhappiness within his group of supporters over the information available on Wikipedia. I haven't checked the edit logs of the other IRC network articles just yet but I'm wondering if the rest of the Internet Relay Chat networks were similarly targeted and prodded. If this is the case, I would expect that the Rizon article would have also been targeted as it just so happens to be the home of 4chan.

In any case, this mess is a bit overwhelming and I'm requesting assistance in trying to sort it all out. I can rewrite and improve the articles themselves but I feel that I'm reaching my limits on digging into the larger issue. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

--Tothwolf (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you are really busy right now so this can wait if need be. If there is someone else you think would be better suited to help handle and clean up this mess handing this off to someone else would be ok too. Thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed the Abjects article. I suggest taking your research to WP:COIN, they have good people who can help you further on the front.  MBisanz  talk 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've reworked Abjects and I think its much better now than it was previously. I've also reworked Rizon but the vandals are still removing content. I tried taking it to Requests for page protection but even with 40+ links to the diffs showing the long term ongoing vandalism, comments left by the vandal claiming to use automated processes, and logs of past semi-protections someone tagged the request as declined. If there was any content on the talk page for Abjects we should probably also get that restored. As I mentioned above, AbleNET's talk page currently needs a history merge (if it existed), Byxnet itself needs a history merge for GFDL compliance, and Byxnet also needs a talk page restoration (if there was any content there as well). I guess I'll go ahead and try to fix up AbleNET's references next and then figure out which of the other prods I want to tackle after that. (Btw, I've discovered even more articles that were part of this mass-prod batch but I still need to sort them out. This is an awful mess.) --Tothwolf (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I merged all the histories. Let me know if you need anything else undeleted.  MBisanz  talk 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I finally put the info I had so far for this specific batch of articles into a table and put it on the WikiProject IRC/to do page. I'm not quite sure what to start with next. This is a much larger mess than I originally thought. (And this isn't even the mess I mentioned earlier about the software authors nominating competing project's articles after their own project's article was deleted.) Tothwolf (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tige Boats AfD Discussion
I was curious if the page I recently authored was still up for deletion. It has been put up twice for discussion and I have noticed that no one in the community has objected to the article. I wanted to get your thoughts on if there were any revisions that needed to be made to make it Wikipedia worthy. I think the original dilemma is now solved seeing that the article now has credible notability. Thank you assistance!Mlsizemore (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know that particular field well. I was just relisting since few people had commented at the discussion.  Right now it looks like it will close as a No Consensus Keep, so it should be ok.  MBisanz  talk 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Thanks for the timely response. I just couldn't get a hold of "Mr. Senseless" so thats why I left a comment on your talk page. Thanks for the info!Mlsizemore (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We Are One
I hope you have considered Ricky81682's KEEP for "We Are One" in this discussion for your decision in this discussion. Not to mention the MERGE votes... -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ps: Regarding this comment I ask for a more thorough discussion of "We Are One".-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2 10:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirecting only redirects the article, all the content is still under the redirect, so it can be merged (the effective difference between Merge and Redirect in zero). WP:RELIST permits the extension of discussions only when there is a lack of comments (one or two), there were more than that, so relisting wouldn't have been possible.  Also, I think I finished the history merge you tagged.  MBisanz  talk 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in the case of "Spokes..." the content is not available anymore. Same for "Binge and Grab". I don't know what exactly makes them less notable then "We Are One", but you might tell me. Also, I've made a note at the "Welcome..." discussion, which points out the double standard, being used on Wikipedia. As for the merges, 1 out of 9, yes. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2 22:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've closed a good number of AfDs, and it never ceases to amaze me how two nearly identical articles can have different results just because different people comment in the discussions. It is a real double standard, I agree, mitigated to some extend by deletion sorting, but otherwise no solvable.  Redirects are generally harmless, so if you want me to restore content under a redirect, let me know where and I'll do it.  MBisanz  talk 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just do the remaining 8 history merges if you want. I have to nominate dozens of Beatles and Pink Floyd songs now... ;-) -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OTRS query
Hello. Could you check out OTRS 2009030410054823 and review my protection of Jeanne Boylan? I protected the redirect for three months as per this request at WP:RFPP, however another editor is disputing this. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OTRS ticket supports the idea of protection of the redirect per the deletion policy for marginally notable subjects.  MBisanz  talk 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

EPiServer
Could you please tell me why you said the afd is keep? I know afd's are not vote but the three keeps are all arguments that it exist. Personally I would have waited or at most said no consensus. 16x9 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well WP:RELIST does not permit relists when people have commented. And given all of the comments after the relist were keep, it moved it that way.  Also No Consensus defaults to Keep, so it is the same effective close.  MBisanz  talk 02:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How did you determine keep? was it a vote to you? 16x9 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See User:MBisanz/AfD for a more detailed discussion. In this case several established users disagreed over the notability of the article.  The promotional nature of it was cited as a reason to delete and was corrected by a user.  OwenBlacker provided several sources.  That tipped it to Keep.  MBisanz  talk 02:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would add that the subject is clearly notable and to me, it was nowhere near close to a delete. I missed the AfD but this is a clear keep. Frank  |  talk  02:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank Frank, but most of those are PR. I guess I will agree to disagree.

Fred M. Levin
Can you explain to me how canvassing clearly happened? Which on of these did I violate? I used limited scale, a neutral message, audience was non-partisan, and it was done in the open. although several people said Levin was not notable as a scholar, no one discussed the issue that I raised that perhaps he should not be judged as a scholar but as a therapist. You also said that I attacked people. Where in the deletion review did I attack anyone? Mwalla (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla


 * FYI, I've already tried explaining to Mwalla that he's getting rather WP:POINTy about this, but got reverted. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 23:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your message was not neutral and you asked for help at the AFD, that is canvassing.  MBisanz  talk 23:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Kentico CMS
The discussion for the AfD on this article was closed by you with the comment "The result was no consensus." Since I voted and argued to keep the article, this is fine with me as the net result is to keep. But I'm wondering how you can say there was no consensus??? The majority of people who took the time to comment voted to "keep". Proxy User (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of the keep comments were made by WP:SPA accounts, in particular, 194.213.50.164's was not based on any part of our policy. In the end though, the comments by yourself and JulesH though did balance it into an NC.  MBisanz  talk 02:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Greenfinger AfD redirect
Following the result of this AfD discussion which you closed as "keep", the nominator chose to redirect the page. This redirect was contested, and the nominator redirected again with the summary: "the consensus was NOT to keep the article. in any case, redirecting an article is not a matter for AfD.". While technically true that AfD does not have authority over redirects, I believe forcing this action is contrary to the spirit of your AfD close. Your views on this matter would be appreciated. (I am a previously-uninvolved third party.) –  7 4   03:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * AFD does not preclude a redirect. Redirects can be decided at an article regardless of the AFD result.  Disruption can be handled at WP:AN/EW.  MBisanz  talk 04:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The redirect in question cited the comments in the AfD as consensus for redirect. While I agree that the article can be redirected/merged outside of AfD, this particular usage seems biased to me, occurring 17 minutes after you presumably didn't feel consensus favored redirect (unless you are opposed to closing as "Redirect" for technical reasons?). –  7 4   04:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My reason for keeping the article is that Andrewjlockley indicated there was new information and Stifle agreed. Redirection can be decided at the article's talk page, and deleting the article makes it more difficult if the talk page later decides to copy it to another wiki.   MBisanz  talk 06:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Eric O'Keefe
While referencing U.S. Term Limits I came across a red link for Eric O'Keefe. I know he had a Wikipedia page before hand, so upon further investigation, I see that you removed his page. I would like to know why?

This person played a large role in one of the most influential political movements in recent history. During the 1990's numerous U.S. States adopted term limits for elected officials. O'Keefe was instrumental in the success of this movement. He also published a book that received high praise from Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman.

It would be a disservice to users of Wikipedia to not have access to biographical information on O'Keefe. I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to delete his page and bring back the information of an individual whose work, agree or disagree, has played a substantial role in our political system.

Iupaulies (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Stellar Crisis Removal
I am puzzled as to why all reference to Stellar Crisis has been removed from Wikipedia.

Stellar Crisis was the first browser based game on the web. It was listed in the list of multiplayer brower games. [List_of_multiplayer_browser_games] and as every game in that list has a reference page there was also one for Stellar Crisis.

I can see that some attempt was made to validate the information on that page however although links to the web sites serving that game and the yahoo user group were given it is surprising that no query was sent to any of the three server sysops. (There's a term you don't hear anymore; sysop.)

The Silver Dart was the first airplane flown and has historic significance. There is only one copy made for the 100th aniversary. The validity of this plane & it's flight is validated through the people of the area and notes of the developers. This is the same type of material that validates Stellar Crisis. If I interview the old guys where would I be able to get it published. The magazines are dying. We put it in Wikipedia.

Stellar Crisis has historic significance. It is unfair to remove it.

Attempts to use the wayback machine which was only started in 1996 see FAQ to verify existence of a site for 1993 seems ineffective however it can validate back to 1998. The archive shows sites active in Dec 12, 1998 and 1999 If you wish to maintain historical accuracy adding the phrase "claims to have launched in 1993" would not be unreasonable. Deletion is!

You appear to have found the article and although it gives only a cursor reference to Stellar Crisis. Publicizing a free game is significant in an advertiser paid magazine. Do you consider the stellar-crisis room web site to be published or gamestats.com from 1999 or on everything2

The following instruction page available on sourceforge is dated as "Revised 5/5/97" and other documents on sourceforge present the year as 1992 although the source code for version 2.9 shows 1996.

The list of servers is available at servers and on the front pages at the links above for 1998, 1999.

I'll dig around and see what other references I can get to validate the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider22 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was this active game removed from the browser based games list? This is even more puzzling.

Strider22 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia community decided to delete the article in this discussion Articles for deletion/Stellar Crisis for lacking notability in reliable sources. You would need to file a WP:Requests for undeletion at this point.  MBisanz  talk 07:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

First I should acknowledge that although I saw and contributed to earlier page versions, I did not see the article upon which you based your decision.

As I read the policy it indicated that I should discuss with you, the deleter, first. Are you simply saying you won't change your mind and don't want to discuss this or is my reading of the policy inaccurate and I need to progress to an undeletion request?

Stellar Crisis is at least as notable as The Continuum and KDice. I'm not looking at further examples as this isn't a competition. If it is your decision, should I prepare an article for your review? Strider22 (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I am more than happy to discuss it with you. The participants at the deletion discussion found the article did not have citations to reliable sources.  Wikipedia requires an article to have coverage in reliable sources in order that the article be notable.   That is why the article was deleted.  I've looked over the article again and would find myself hard-pressed to change my mind on the close.  MBisanz  talk 00:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BRFA request
I'm still "getting there" with Bot flagging, so forgive a stupid question, but it appears that SoxBotVI has long had its flag? --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that means the flagging crat never updated the approved page, it is Cobi's fault here. Also, if you want an easier way to update the page, you can change   to   and it'll make the botlinks code for you.  MBisanz  talk 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --Dweller (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

JasonR
Hey there.

I wandered across your post to Ed Poor's talk page regarding User:JasonR's access level. This may have already been answered, but I don't see it here...

JasonR was an employee of Bomis before Wikipedia took off, and he did some programming work for Wikimedia and was granted rights for doing a few specific tasks in software management. This was before teh wiki had graphics or any sort of popularity. To my knowledge he no longer works for the foundation or Wikia.

Happy editing to you. Keegan talk 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is the sort of thing I had been hearing in poking around, but your confirmation is good.  MBisanz  talk 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy Cow
So I logged in this morning, saw the RfA talk page, saw the RfdeR, and thought, "How long until Jimbo steps in?" Sure enough, didn't take much more than my twelve hour shift. I agree with you that it was supposed to be a theoretical debate but damn, that ball got ran with. Good job starting the discussion though, now we have the precedent of "There seems to be an incorrect assumption and undercurrent here, though, which is some notion that the community has the sole and sovereign right to determine who is given the admin bit. This is not true, has never been true, and will never be true." I've been waiting to read that for a long while. Good stuff, IMO, came out of this though it will be a long while to sort out the pieces. 99.206.202.180 (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, that was me. My thirty-day cookie expired.   Keegan talk 06:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tige Boats
I see the page I authored was deleted by you. I do need a question answered though, why does one person saying "delete" constitute deletion? Apparently sources are irrelevant according to you and wikipedia.
 * and supported deletion, no one other than you opposed it during the 10 day period, they showed a lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, per the deletion policy I closed as delete, you can appeal the decision at WP:DRV.  MBisanz  talk 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * I'll second the barnstar and I also would like to let you know that I found your conduct at the recall exemplary.  Syn  ergy 00:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A comment on your system for recall
Hello Matt. You survived a trial of your own process! Here's a few advantages of your system: I wonder if the threshold for filing a case could be made higher. Even an WP:RFC/U needs two people to certify. If you were truly abusing admin powers, wouldn't at least two people be mad at you? Asking the filer to have at least 600 edits would be another idea. I notice that the people to whom admin recalls are advertised get grumpy if they think a minor issue has been treated as grounds for de-adminship. Making it slightly harder to file a request could be beneficial to them as well as you. (Even if your scheme put higher standards on the filer, anyone could still file a conventional de-adminship proceeding, so nobody would be disenfranchised from recalling you).
 * 1) Asking the filer to specify the admin powers misused
 * 2) Use of clerks, which makes your scheme more believable
 * 3) Short time interval (48 hours)
 * 4) The person who wants to recall you has a choice. They can file under your scheme, or they can open a conventional de-adminship proceeding.

In your recall form, what is the purpose of the heading 'Editors who agree with filer'? It seems that only the votes of administrators will count towards a recall. Is your form intended as a place for anyone to add comments and discussion, or do you just want the signatures of the five admins who support recall? EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the original version a recall needed admins and editors, I changed that later after seeing other admins' recall processes. I'm toying with the idea of some higher bar for filing, I don't like edit count, so I was toying with something like "rollback or admin userright" or maybe "100 edits and 30 days".  I should know a little later.  MBisanz  talk 03:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hussein el gebaly
Was not no consensus, you should reconsider and take the arguments and policies into account or extended the time it was up for vote.Troyster87 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RELIST only permits relist if there is a lack of comments, established users had comment in favor and in opposition to deletion at Articles for deletion/Hussein el gebaly, no consensus was the only possible close.  MBisanz  talk 05:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hussein el gebaly
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hussein el gebaly. 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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruppert
Matthew, we've met before, over an issue similar to this, and I wondered if you might care to shed some counter opinion upon my own. &mdash;Dixie Brown (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:


 * News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
 * Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

re Articles for deletion/Faith in Place
I disagree with your closing of this AfD as "no consensus" rather than "delete" (despite your closing of the related Articles for deletion/Clare Butterfield as "delete"). I've also seen a previous statement of yours that you don't actually look at articles before you close AfDs on them, which seems a rather cavalier way to go about the matter. Would you be willing to reconsider your close of this one, or will I have to take it to DRV? Deor (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I try to avoid taking a personal stake in the article content, since I am only supposed to look at the community consensus on the article, not my own feelings on the topic. In this case several established users commented in favor of keeping and several changed their comments from deletion to retention based on new data, there was no consensus to delete the article, so I think your next option would be DRV.  MBisanz  talk 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Swoopo
2 reverts each by 2 editors equals an edit war??? 2 weeks protection??? I'm not sure I understand the justification here. NJGW (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You reverted two different editors a total of three times, my options were to block you for edit warring or protect the article, I decided to protect the article given its history of spam editing, etc.  MBisanz  talk 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your counting is off on two counts, but I forgive you. I rechecked to make sure.  NJGW (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Faith in Place
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Faith in Place. 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. Deor (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Heat and light
I think you got them mixed up? – xeno  ( talk ) 01:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably, I've never actually understood that metaphor, lemme see if I can fix it.  MBisanz  talk 01:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I always figured: Heat is bad (it burns), light is good (it enlightens) ;>. – xeno  ( talk ) 01:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

relist
I agree with you on the need to fix relist. Even though I'm mostly an inclusionist and at it reads closing as "NC" would benefit my general opinion, I think it's the wrong thing to close as NC when there has been very little user input. For whatever that may be worth :-) Hobit (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability vs ILIKEIT
Can you please tell me how either of these two AfDs were keep? Articles for deletion/Music on Console, Articles for deletion/Noatun (media player).
 * Music on Console
 * had a keep vote from Lulu of the Lotus Eaters that was "I like it." He follows all of my deletion nominations with that keep vote. He made no reference that claimed notability of the subject, other than to quote blogs and forums. Our guidelines specifically state blogs don't count for notability.
 * had a keep vote from Matt, had a laundry list of potential sources, all of which were again, blogs and forums. One reference to linux.com would be notable, but it is one paragraph - a passing mention.  Our guidelines do not count passing mentions for notability.
 * a keep vote from an IP that said the linux.com reference was notable - contrary to guidelines.
 * Noatun
 * a non-vote mentioning linux.com, but the linux.com reference is a single quotation that leads to an offsite reference which is a blog.
 * a keep vote from Matt that says it is accurate. Does not even attempt to address notability.
 * a keep vote from Lulu, who follows all my nominations with a keep vote. Does not even attempt to address notability.

So these closes look like simple vote counting, not any attempt to judge whether the conversation addressed lack of policy and guideline required inclusion criteria. If something is nominated for deletion because for lacking notability, and the commentators cannot show notability, the subject article should be deleted. Miami33139 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Both of those AFDs were relisted for more than the minimum five day period. Both had all participants unanimously supporting retention of the article, one citing several sources they claimed were reliable and the other citing notability.  User conduct issues should be dealt with at WP:RFC/U, the closing admin can't do that.  And as I saw at User:MBisanz/AfD, there is a limit to how far interpretation and comment weighting can go; these users had a good faith belief it met the RS and N guidelines and absent a consensus to delete, the default action at AFD is to retain.  MBisanz  talk 22:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse Mbisanz's actions... while I would have voted delete on them, he did the only thing that he could do based upon the !votes. He kept them open longer than the minimum time.  He couldn't extend the time period and then !vote (that would be border line unethical) so extending the time period is a viable option.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Enjoy

 Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 01:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD closing script: merge
Hi. Do you use a script to close AfDs, and does it place all templates automatically? When you closed Stelephant Colbert as merge, was added to the source article and  was placed on the Talk page of the destination. Your close was the first merge I found in the Old list. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I use.  MBisanz  talk 04:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. By the way, thanks also for your AN/I note regarding Seddon. It saved my critical comment from sitting around unstruck. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions proposal
Hi. I am working on a minimal flagged revisions proposal focused on BLPs. FR may seem dead, but I think we can gain consensus on something small and focused. If you have time, any comments are appreciated. Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

African Americans in Davenport, Iowa
You deleted this the first time, due to the afd. It was undeleted by User:I'm Spartacus!, apparently under his own choosing. Am I missing something in the process?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't see the DRV? Deletion review/Log/2009 March 3 Tothwolf (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

 * Thanks :)  MBisanz  talk 01:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy Birthday kiddo! I'm hoping by the time your next one roles around we will have accomplished some kind of decision as far as the proposal to recall you. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Communitychannel AFD debate "No consensus decision
Hi, I was wondering about your editorial decision on the Communitychannel AFD page.It seemed to me (admittedly new here) that the notability had been established, and the consensus was "keep" or "keep and rename." There were a few delete recommendations, some from very early in the page creation process. Also, I thought that there was precedent in terms of other vloggers and their pages. Anyway, if the decision is "no consensus" then what happens next? Disclosure: I was partially responsible for adding to the page. Thank you.----aaftabj-- (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus came from the number of IPs and single purpose/new accounts commenting. It means the article will be kept since there was no consensus to delete it.  Next is continued discussion at the article talk page.  MBisanz  talk 01:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well deserved award!

 * And Happy birthday too..! :) Dreadstar  †  03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And hey, if you delete this barnstar, you will be immediately faced with one of these.. lawdy...-/ Dreadstar  †  03:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)  MBisanz  talk 08:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/UK Adult Film and Television Awards
Hi, you closed this AfD but forgot to remove the AfD template from the article. Just letting you know, I've boldly done it now :-) - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 06:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, odd, the script should have removed it. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 06:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've come across a few other AFDs that were closed, the article talk page tagged as keep, but that still have the deletion tag on the article. Which script are you using? Perhaps you should contact the creator of the script? Though it's probably something to do with server response times - Twinkle often runs into problems with those (I think that's what the problem is, at least). - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Userfy please
Hi, could you userfy Platinum Blonde (Paris Hilton album) to me so I have when more sources come available, thank you! -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   10:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ at User:Benjiboi/Platinum Blonde (Paris Hilton album).  MBisanz  talk 10:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And happy bday! -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday!
Have a good 'un! cf38 talk  12:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! --Sc straker (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Halloran
You resolved this debate with a "no consensus" result, however, two of the three keeps were using sock puppets by the subject himself. See 162.83.246.129 and Mickey_Johnson. I recommend speedy deletion because this guy fails WP:ENTERTAINER in a big way. If you want me to relist it I will, however, the sock puppet thing chaps my hide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc straker (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted.  MBisanz  talk 19:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I also added a comment about the Mickey Johnson "Keep" statement, since it appears it is also a sock puppet.  --Sc straker (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Melisse
I believe that the subject AfD was improperly closed as a delete due to the fact that the original nomination requested the article be redirected to Édouard Ferlet, not deleted, and should have been WP:SK notwithstanding the fact that the original nominator subsequently changed his/her position to delete. I would like to request that the article be recreated as a redirect to Édouard Ferlet. I would WP:BB and do it myself, but I just want to make sure I'm not running afoul of WP:DEL before doing so. Thanks. KuyaBriBri Talk 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Matt's not around (I don't think), so maybe I can help: provided you just create the page with a redirect, that won't run afoul of the deletion policy, as far as I'm aware.  Provided, that it, that it is a plausible redirect.  Fritzpoll (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a plausible redirect, but I do have one question: I assume the AfD discussion is archived indefinitely. Wouldn't it be odd that an archived AfD that shows a consensus to delete has a blue link to the article? Do the archived AfD discussions of articles that are reinstated (either by the deleting admin or deletion review) get modified to show that the article was recreated in an acceptable manner? Or is that a moot point? KuyaBriBri Talk 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope - redirects after a deletion are not uncommon in my experience. And blue links are often common as articles are deleted, and then achieve notability later on and are created again.  Just go for it :) Fritzpoll (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you! KuyaBriBri Talk 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. If Matt disagrees, he can come trout-slap me in the morning Fritzpoll (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above.  MBisanz  talk 19:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)