User talk:MBisanz
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "User_talk:MBisanz".

Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions to request their removal.

content

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.

Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived here. An archive index is available here.
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4
About archives • Edit this box


Contents

Request for blacklisting

Hi! I need to ask a favor! I went spam hunting today and found some 150 links to http://viddigger.blogspot.com which is a blog that makes money by embedding copyvios from Youtube and then invite the user to purchase the song on another site and some 10 links to http://www.quickfilepost.com which is a filesharing site used to provide illegal downloads of MP3 songs. Is it possible to blacklist those external links locally or do I need to ask on Meta? Thanks!! EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh crap! There is one link to the latter site that seems to indicate some usefulness as an external link[1]. The blog still needs to be dealt with though. Here is an example of the problem. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have no clue how to do that, but I will find someone who does. MBisanz talk 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a good call, on copyright grounds if nothing else. The regexp for it is: \bviddigger\.blogspot\.com\b (where \b indicates a word separator, and \ escapes the . which would otherwise refer to any character). I'll add it locally later if you like. However viddigger.blogspot.com has spread to several other wikipedias,[2] so it would probably be better on the meta blacklist. I am unfortunately not an admin there. The request section is at meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Proposed_additions. If neither of you makes a request there I'll add one when I get round to it. Same for quickfilepost.com. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
If you could do that, thanks. Their forms look scary and I wouldn't want to post the wrong code string. MBisanz talk 16:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot to both of you. I have no idea how to get links blacklisted other than asking so this is very much appreciated. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your work on the Trilobyte logo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Logotbyte.jpg Coolgamer (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Image talk deletion

could you explain deletion of my edit here: (Deletion log); 17:47 . . MBisanz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image talk:DCNG-levrette.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G2), was a test page. using TW) That wasn't a "test page" and I'm curious why you would choose to delete it with such a description. In what way was my comment a "test page"? By your definition? How so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiehead (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was scanning through all the image talk pages and that page appeared to be a random comment on Wikipedia in general. I could have deleted it as something else, but given that no one will ever read that page and it did not appear related to any topic, I did not see a reason to not delete it. I'll restore it if you wish. MBisanz talk 02:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you read the comment then. It was very specific. Please restore it, and thanks for your consideration for a relatively trivial matter that perplexed me why anyone would do such a thing, but I see you were very busy deleting things that day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiehead (talk • contribs) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done at Image talk:DCNG-levrette.jpg. MBisanz talk 23:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy's RfA

Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. GlassCobra 10:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Bell Labs Holmdel Complex

Updated DYK query On 3 October 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bell Labs Holmdel Complex, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Older Requests section

Regarding the discussion on the talk page of the coaching request page, I would just like to clarify that I am indeed still interested.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Troubles

Since you commented: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Modified_remedies_proposal — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback permissions

Thanks. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale at Image:SLCSeal.JPG

You added a fair use rationale for using this non-free logo image in Sarah Lawrence College campus. I don't see the basis for this. This is the logo for the college, not for the college's campus. It identifies the college, but is not necessary for identification of the college's campus, particularly considering that there are numerous images of the campus available on EN and in Commons. With more images than can be reasonably fit into one article, I think there is no reasonable justification to use a non-free logo in this article. Can you explain? --Orlady (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okey, makes sense, I saw it was in the article and one face value it looked like it could belong, but I do see that we have plenty of other images to complement the text. MBisanz talk 23:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've removed the fair use rationale for the campus article. --Orlady (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion request

I wish to make some comments about the deletion of the pages British National Party election results and British National Front election results, which I understand you deleted as administrator.

1. As originator and major contributor to the pages I was not notified that they were up for deletion and, as far as I am aware, neither were other contriburors to the page. I appreciate that this is a courtesy and not a requirement, but nevertheless feel that some attempt should have been made to do so.

2. The original nominator, Lucy-Marie has a history of disagreement with me on a personal level and has on several occasions complained unsuccessfully that I have made personal attacks on her, without foundation, as the admins who have dealt with her complaints have held. I suspect, and only suspect, that this may be part of her real motive for having these pages deleted.

3. Her complaint that the pages were unreferenced/unsourced is correct. These were amongst the earliest pages I created for Wikipedia and I confess my ignorance then in thinking that election results being publicly published would need references. However, this in itself is not a reason to delete and a request for the refs to be supplied would have been more appropriate. If reinstated, it would be no more than a 5 minute job to give the references.

4. Her second complaint was that pages were potential BLP violations. This is palpable nonsense. If it is accepted that being noted as a parliamentary candidate is a BLP issue then we have to delete every other article that names a candidate in any election!!

5. The BLP issue was also referred to by Ruhrfisch, who comments that this is a party which many people view negatively. So what? Is he suggesting that someone's name might be added to the page as some way of attacking them? Or just that being a candidate for the BNP - a public declaration - is somehow placing oneself beyond the pale? Candidacy in elections is a matter of public record, nothing more or less. It is a simple matter for editors who watch the page to ensure that vandalistic spurious entries are reverted.

6. Ruhrfisch continues that "there is no way to verify that these were indeed the names of the candidates" which is also nonsense (and, incidentally, is an argument to be used to delete every article on an election, as mentioned previously). Firstly, as I have said, I can provide sources in a matter of minutes and, secondly, all of these details are in officially published records. Verification is so simple that I'm surprised it's even mentioned.

7. Lucy-Marie complains that there are not parallel articles for other parties. A moment's reflection will explain why this is so. The major parties (Labour, Conservative, etc) - generally contest every single parliamentary constituency. If you want to know which constituencies the Labour Party contested in the Feb 1974 general election, the answer is all of them. On the other hand, if you want to know which constituencies the NF contested, you have a massive task on your hands trawling through over 600 different contests to find the 10 that apply. I would suggest that articles such as these deleted are useful in helping readers to find information which is very difficult to get otherwise. (The same would apply to other smaller parties' results, but I have not written pages on them.)

8. Jasynnash2 suggests weak delete and comments that "The information should already be in the relevant election articles anyway." It isn't of course, and cannot fit there sensibly. Jasynnash2 also says that "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't meant to be a reason for keeping or deleting but, at the moment I can't think of what criteria this breaks" and "I've got to go with WP:IAR until some other people way in". My impression is that this user was so undecided that he is neutral, but, of course, no one did join in with a further argument.

Sorry to go on at such length. I am asking that you reinstate the two articles on the basis that the original discussion was not wide enough and failed to provide relistic and sustainablegrounds for deletion. I make the solemn promise that the only real objection - lack of sources - will be addressed at the first opportunity. I note from your User page that you are a graduate in political science - so am I. As one political scientist to another, I ask that you accept my good faith in this matter and my belief that these two pages are of interest and relevance to any reader seeking background information on the parties. Emeraude (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1. it is not required that the article creator be notified; 2. three people other than Lucy commented so her motives are not really an issue; 3-6. content issues that the commenting parties weighed in voicing their views; 7-8. yes I weighed those concepts in deciding the close. AFAIK, the original discussion followed all of our policies and I can't just go around overturning what four people thought on the basis of a single request. You might look at WP:DRV as an option, either now or after you re-create the article in your userspace with citations. MBisanz talk 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration. I can't say that I agree with you, but.... Anyway, I will take your advice and re-create the articles with sources, and consider the WP:DRV process, but how do I get the articles to be able to do that? (I would like to have the data even if the pages are not recreated.) Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The articles are still shown on the mirror at [3] and [4] so you should be able to get the data you need from there. MBisanz talk 12:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Not much use, since, as I said, I want to work on the pages with a view to resubmitting them with sources etc. Since the mirror sites are uneditable - it's not just the data but the table layout I need (and history would be useful too) - these are of no use. How can I get the pages into my workspace to be able to make the edits? Emeraude (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll put some stuff in your userspace later tonight. MBisanz talk 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Emeraude (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Done at User:Emeraude/British National Party election results and User:Emeraude/British National Front election results MBisanz talk 21:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Haskore AFD

If you could move an undeleted copy into my userspace, I'd be much obliged. --Gwern (contribs) 14:52 5 October 2008 (GMT)

Done at User:Gwern/Haskore MBisanz talk 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Oxyman42

Oxyman has done another unblock request - on the 20 Sept. 2008. I suggest you protect the page like you said. Rory (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. Love the icon! MBisanz talk 21:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Oxyman (someone else, I think a sockpuppet) has blanked the page. Please, we anti-vandals need help! Rory (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Yea, based on the last comments on his page, I'm gonna avoid tagging or doing anything that might further annoy him. Trust me, there is a good reason. MBisanz talk 23:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/The National Conference Center/archive1

Hello, I made some comments on the above peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a thank you card!

Deletion of 'Marriage Strike' Article

May I ask why you did this? Could you please explain? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.157.154 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage Strike, after interpreting the consensus of the community that the article should be deleted, I deleted it. MBisanz talk 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any consensus there at all! In fact on the page there was even a comment by one poster wondering why there were so few people posting; how is this consensus? In fact I counted and as far as I can tell there were eight comments nominally in favor of keeping the article and only seven in favor of deleting it.

Again, how is this consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.157.154 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I based my interpretation judging the nature of the votes. Feel free to request a review of my action at WP:DRV. MBisanz talk 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Marriage Strike' Article

You should not have deleted this, I could repeat what was said above, it appears you have political motivations. I will request of a review of your actions and a review of your motivations, you should not be allowed to delete entries based on your own political leanings. You should be ashamed of yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.151.251 (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well, as I said above WP:DRV is the place to go. Oddly enough, I find the topic mildly interesting and would hope that someday we would be able to produce an article the community would consider worthy of inclusion. MBisanz talk 17:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nadia Nyce

Hello. I would like to get the old Nadia Nyce article that was deleted while I was on extended Wikibreak. I would like to get all the content (that I spent considerable time over the last few years) placed on to my user page. I can get the article back up to significance and I do have many 3rd party articles, sources and links. What do I need to do to in order to finish the job I spent so much time on. Thank you. Web Warlock (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like the formating codes though as well. Web Warlock (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Got it! Thanks so much! Web Warlock (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Marco and Cyclone Tracy

Sorry to bring you into this and know that you may not have as much knowledge in weather then myself but I'm asking you to look over is since you're not an Australian which some editors may dislike if I ask just an Aussie edit (which I will) to look it over.

Now no one has a source to the fact the Marco was a Hurricane/Tropical Cyclone strength system other then sourcing a warning from the NOAA and a source about Cyclone Tracy which states nothing about Marco. I've had editors trting to use the Tropical Cyclone article as a source that a Tropical Storm is a Hurricane/Tropical Cyclone when they can't explain anything why they think that it is when I have here. The only source I could find was an NOAA warning that said it could be the smallest system but it's no longer available and could be doesn't make it fact anyway and the only other sources are forums which are not classed as reliable. I feel the anything in the article stating that it's the smallest should be left out until it can be proven with verifiable and reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well I do know nothing about the topic. It would appear that this is an issue of reliable sources. If I am reading it correctly, you say there is no source for a particular meteorological definition. Other people are saying it can be sourced to a Wikipedia article. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so an external source would be needed. I see some google links at that discussion, but can't judge their reliability off-hand. You might try asking for help at the Sources Noticeboard since they deal with more general things like this. You also might try seeing if there is a non-web source like a university database or print journal that could provide a better definition to this event(say a newspaper clip from that era). MBisanz talk 03:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. :) I've found one reliable source which states could be and not it was but issue is it's clearly OR being added to the articles.

According to the National Hurricane Center Marco "could be the smallest tropical cyclone on record." It may briefly reach hurricane intensity before coming ashore on the southeast coast of Mexico later today.[5]

Bidgee (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm way out of my league at this point, and very sleepy. If you want to wait for me to wake up and look at it, that's fine, but you are probably better off at WP:RSN or WP:NORN. MBisanz talk 04:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)`

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006-2008 Southern Oregon Raiders football teams

Just letting you know that WP:RELIST has recently been updated to say that AFDs with more than one or two contributors should generally not be relisted. There's no point changing this one but you might take a moment to read over the new process for future reference. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)
Hey there MBisanz! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!
  • Notice delivery by xenobot 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comedy

Genius Pedro :  Chat  15:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Game

Hello, i understand the deletion of this article but is it possible to still get it userfied? I'm sure in the coming months it will have sufficient secondary sources and certain items that are considered advertisment removed, so i want to keep working on it out of the full wikipedia, but in my user space. Thanks for any of your help MikelZap (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done MBisanz talk 17:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, when we get more items for it i'll add and have some of the gaming crew look at it to make sure it is wikipedia ready.MikelZap (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

New User: Free to good home

Hello. I am a new user seeking to be adopted. I have used sites similar to this one, but this one is a bit more complex and I don't know where to begin. Thanks Macrowave (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paper Sky (magazine) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mammoth (magazine)

You closed both of these as delete. I wish that the other people who commented in the discussion had read the articles after I edited them. I tried really hard to make both articles neutral and to establish the notability of both publications. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. One method I have seen is to contact users favoring deletion after the article has been improved asking them to change their votes. That can sometimes significantly shift the consensus towards a Keep. MBisanz talk 20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cell

I don't agree, but can you please add this to the main review page, for some reason it is not there...JJJ999 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see it on WP:DRV. MBisanz talk 02:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't... has it been set to mod only view or something? I seriously only see it when I click on the October 9th part...JJJ999 (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    It is clearly Wikipedia:DRV#Cell_.28Dragon_Ball.29 here on that page. MBisanz talk 03:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Hi. Last month, you'd declined an unblock request of G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). He is now the subject of a community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_sanctions_proposals. I'd like to formally request for your input at that discussion. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

AN/BLP

Mostly now at User:MBisanz/ANL + sub pages. We need to duplicate Template:AN3 for WP:AN/BLP - you're good with MediaWiki, right? I'm lefting this to you. Otherwise, things are at User:MBisanz/ANLHeader/Administrator instructions as well, the report template at User:MBisanz/ANL/Example. I think the need for repeated problematic behaviour needs to be emphasized a lot (i.e. one or two incidents of single insertions should just be remove + warn). WilyD 18:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it looks pretty solid, I'll tidy it up tonight, add in any templates/coding, and then start figuring out a way to propose it. Excellent idea I should add. MBisanz talk 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Goes On (The Article)

Hi MBisanz, in regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Goes On (The Article), this has been closed off as "no concensus". I believe this is an incorrect closure, and would ask you to revisit the closure for me. What we have here is an article which was printed and then retracted by the publisher. This is a common occurrence in the media world. The supposed notability comes from a date which was mentioned in the article, and which was the reason for it being publicly retracted and reprinted with correct dates. Whilst the article itself may be a source for 2008 South Ossetia War, the article itself is not notable in terms of what wikipedia is. We are not a newswire, nor are we a webhost (which is in regards to the images of the article (which are a very possible copyright violation mind you). We have the article creator himself declaring on the 2008 South Ossetia War talk page that the article is now on WP, due to it no longer being available on the website or via Google cache. WP is not an archive. There were a couple of keep votes calling for further expansion of the article. The only further expansion of the article that would be possible would be to use it as a WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK to prove a view that is not widely held. Regardless, this belongs on 2008 South Ossetia War and related articles, it does not require an article of its own. If you refer to Wikipedia:News articles, which is an essay not policy, but still a firm basis upon which to use, it states:

Note: Where a single news wire story or press release has been used by several news publications, this should only be counted as a single source in all notability discussions. Likewise, when reporters base their information off other news coverage (for example, "AP reported that ..."), the coverage is only a single source. Such derivative reports are not independent of each other and can not be used to verify each other. However, if multiple mainstream news outlets do independent reporting on a single event, this is independent coverage.

As the sources quoted merely mentioned this article, this is derivative reporting, and if we follow that essay, they are not independent of each other and can't be used to verify each other. There has been no independent reporting of this article, and where it has been mentioned, it has been done so in the context of 2008 South Ossetia War. Media outlets quote other media outlets on a regular basis, this is what media outlets do.

WP:NOT#NEWS is a very firm policy, and the AfD needs to be looked at upon that basis. Not upon the basis of editors who have basically stated opinion only with no policy. So I would ask for this to be looked at again, and please advise me accordingly. Cheers --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've re-reviewed my close and still cannot see a consensus in any direction with regard to what should be done with that article. It seems several editors differed in their interpretation of the notability guidelines and voiced their opinion accordingly. MBisanz talk 19:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GEOBOT

Hi Bisanz. Fritzpoll and I would like to rename the bot from User:FritzpollBot to User:GEOBOT as a bot for the project and would also take away some pressure directly on him being responsible. COuld you take care of this and sort it out with BAG and request, or move it yourself? The Bald One White cat 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

BAG doesn't do bot renames, only bureaucrats do those at WP:CHU. Any approvals he had as FrizpollBot would carry over to a new name without any need for BAG (or me) to do anything. MBisanz talk 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of List of Standalone OBD-II Scan Tools

Hi, may I please courteously invite you to take a second look at the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Standalone OBD-II Scan Tools to delete the article List of Standalone OBD-II Scan Tools and related articles? The deletion debate amounted to just one question: "Is this article a link farm or a stand alone list?". Link farms look like this: [6]. Lists look like this: [7]. Hence the articles you deleted are not, imo, link farms. It is true that they have external links, but that is inevitable in such a list.

If there was advertising involved in some of the items on the list it should, of course, be removed - but the lists themselves are (were) valuable.

Perhaps I should clarify that my interest is purely as a user of OBD-II to keep my car running - I have no connection with any program writer, and only wish there was more open source OBD-II software.

Regards

Springnuts (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Springnuts, I've re-reviewed the AFD close and still believe it was a proper deletion. You may contest the deletion at WP:DRV, alternatively, you may want to look at http://cars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page as another wiki site that is better suited towards auto-related items. MBisanz talk 06:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the close, sorry you did not agree with me. I don't want to do the whole WP:DRV thing since I am not interested in the other articles - so could you please put a copy of the List of OBD-II Cables & Scanning Software article into my workspace and I will have a look to see if a good article can be salvaged from it. Thanks, Springnuts (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Y Done at User:Springnuts/List of OBD-II Cables & Scanning Software MBisanz talk 22:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. Springnuts (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello MBisanz. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 23:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/ANGEL Learning (2nd nomination)

I'm at a loss to understand why you closed this deletion discussion as no consensus. There are three !votes for deletion from established editors, and one !vote for keeping it. One additonal delete !vote is from an IP, and two "Don't Delete" !votes are from SPA's. Can you share your reasoning? I'm not thinking I disagree sufficiently to take this to DRV, but it seems like a case of a clearly self-promotional article getting an undeserved reprieve. BTW, the AfD tag is still on the ANGEL Learning page. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I did read this carefully before closing. You commented to delete based on notability, Quartermaster commented to delete based on advertising, MichaelQSchmidt said delete unless it was trimmed, TheFezOn (a spa) argued it was notable citing several facts, the IP said it was not notable and to delete, Dcapitald said keep based on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Tan said there was some notability. This did not appear to me to create a clear consensus in any direction, although if it had been voiced by someone at the debate, I might have closed it as a redirect to eLearning. I hope that explains my reasoning. MBisanz talk 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt and thorough explanation. Out of curiosity, what would have prompted a relisting, instead of a no consensus close? Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
If Tan hadn't commented at the end, I wouldn't have felt enough comments from established users to make a clear call. MBisanz talk 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks again for your explanations. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 72

AfD discussion is here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qantas_Flight_72 Buckethed (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you have deleted the article Qantas Flight 72 following an AfD debate. Could you please comment on your reasons? There were many arguments on both sides, and I suspect more than "The result was delete" is needed. I'm surprised the result was not "no consensus". Thanks, WWGB (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Okey, to expand the read each comment and weighted it based on how well it cited to policy and guidelines. I found the deletion votes citing notability and NotNews to be more convincing than the keep arguments that cited OtherStuffExists. Also I discounted the keep vote by the random IP and noted that one of the keep votes even stated that the article probably failed the notability criteria. MBisanz talk 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, did you note, when reviewing whether to delete the article, that most of the votes for 'Delete' stated that it should be 'Deleted' because 'It Was Clear Air Turbulence'? This argument was actually speculation, and every Delete vote bar 1 or 2 used this argument. In fact the latest reports from the investigation (added to the article *after* the AfD votes...) state a computer failure causing the plane to take two seperate nose-dives - causing 14 serious injuries, and 70 total injuries (maybe 1/4 of all the people on the plane had an injury, and nearly 10% were seriously injured). Buckethed (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that (the subsequent addition of information) and weighed the responses to it in interpreting consensus; no I did not review or make a judgment on whether or not it met the notability guide, just whether or not consensus pointed towards the article meeting it or not. MBisanz talk 08:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
OK! The consensus was 'Delete it, because it was caused by Clear Air Turbulence, and 'it was not Qantas' fault'. From skimming the AfD / looking at what was said, I fully understand why you deleted it, the problem was that the 'Delete' votes cited original research (as no-one knows what caused the event, which is an 'Aviation Accident' according to the ATSB), and also had a degree of Qantas apologism particularly on stating that the article should be deleted because it wasn't Qantas' fault. The final issue is that the AfD was out-of-date (as it was a premature AfD) so even if it had been borderline notable when the votes were 'cast' it was actually fully notable by the time it got deleted. No harm is done though; I have a copy on my computer and will look back at the topic in a few weeks and see if notability has changed :) Buckethed (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
"'Delete' votes cited original research" Really? I take offense from that as you're saying myself (Including others) cited OR. So the media reports on clear air turbulence can't be used? As I said in the AFD we can come back to it when the ATSB releases it's report in 30 or so days time to see if it's notable in terms of the cause. Media has also stated the injuries was caused due to people not wearing a seat belts. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, feel free to ping me if you need any help with stuff like formatting, etc. MBisanz talk 08:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The ATSB has just had a media conference (with an accompanying release here) to "coincide with the release of an Operators Information Telex/Flight Operations Telex, which is being sent by Airbus to operators of all Airbus aircraft". The crux of the situation is that they have confirmed a fault occurred within the Number-1 Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU 1). The release goes on to note the significant consequences of the fault and notes that the Airbus Operators Infomration Telex "foreshadows the issue of Operational Engineering Bulletins and provides information relating to operational recommendations to operators of A330 and A340 aircraft fitted with the type of ADIRU fitted to the accident aircraft. Those recommended practices are aimed at minimising risk in the unlikely event of a similar occurrence. That includes guidance and checklists for crew response in the event of an Inertial Reference System failure." The notability of this accident I'm guessing should now be beyond question. Would you reconsider your deletion of the article or should this go through the Deletion Review process? It would be very much easier to establish a detailed article based on the deleted article rather than starting from scratch, particularly with a view to trying to focus on NPOV and avoid any hype that may exist in media reports. -- Rob.au (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would now support a weak keep (I'm waiting for the full report before I change to support a Strong Keep) in light of what has come out and think a section in both the Qantas and Airbus article. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

criteria for deletion

I'm just wondering, what is the criteria for deleting an article put up for discussion for deletion. Is it the majority vote? Or is it judging the article for its own worth? (Masculinity (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

When an article is put up for deletion and discussed, the participants in the deletion debate judge the article on its worth/merits. When an uninvolved administrator closes a deletion discussion, they weigh the merits of the comments put forward, giving weight to factors such as the number of users basing their !vote on a particular factor, etc. MBisanz talk 07:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

terraserver-usa.com

If you have a chance, please comment here, where I reference an image that you uploaded. If confirmed, I think I just found my new favorite website. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 14:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

DRV notification

Don't think you've been notified. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 12. Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, see below, thanks! MBisanz talk 21:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The DFenders

Hi... I just wanted to let you know that I've listed this article in the deletion review section, because I feel editors are blatantly ignoring Wikipedia's own criteria for notability when deciding whether or not to keep this article, simply because they have not personally heard of this band. It is very disappointing that regardless of how many criteria an article satisfies, it is still denied posting simply because personal bias is getting in the way of actual guidelines. It would be amazing to see Wikipedia actually follow its own rules and post articles that satisfy their guidelines, rather than just seeing a select few of administrators abusing their power and monopolosing the content. Dogma inc (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Crashed

My program crashed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rootology/Pike_Place_Market is the one to merge. rootology (C)(T) 22:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done MBisanz talk 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion here?

On my talk? I'm just curious if I should or shouldn't be doing clean up like this. rootology (C)(T) 13:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD for List of private-use airports in California

Hi. I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of private-use airports in California with the comments "The result was delete." However, by my count six users voted to keep (Squidfryerchef, Paul McDonald, Coccyx Bloccyx, Gateman1997, Ecoleetage, Will Beback) but only four voted to delete (Ikluft, Zyxw, Stifle, SheffieldSteel). Therefore it seems to me the result should have been either keep or no consensus. I'm not inclined to request a deletion review since I voted to delete it; I'm just trying to understand how you made your determination. Thanks. -- Zyxw (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well firstly I didn't notice Ikluft had voted twice, so I was going on a 5/6 vote count. Speaking to detail, I was swayed by the policy cites by the delete votes and the discussion over the relative lack of notable material in the article. The keep votes said the article met list criteria but seemed unable to produce policy cites to back up their position. It was on the border of No Consensus/Delete, but I felt it was far enough in the delete range based on the weight of the arguments. MBisanz talk 14:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thank you for giving me rollback rights. I promise to use them carefully. Ollie Fury Contribs 20:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Drat!

I wanted to write 195 Broadway for a DYK! Can I at least infobox it? MBisanz talk 20:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I often end up writing strings of new articles, one leading to the next. I had made a significant expansion to the article for the Sony Building which led me to realize that there was none for 195 Broadway. It meets DYK minimums, but it still has room for expansion. It would be my privilege to accord you the honor of adding an infobox. I know you have written articles for other AT&T facilities, and I'm still shocked that this most gorgeous building -- both the exterior and the lobby -- had never been the subject of an article. Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a book the describes the board room of the building, I might dig it up tonight. MBisanz talk 20:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much!!

Thanks for granting me rollback rights, I promise to use them for good purposes. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Billy Mays reversion

I noticed you just reverted some vandalism on the Billy Mays page. I think you missed that it was a case of double vandalism, and the page you reverted to is itself loaded with vandalism. Unfortunately I do not yet have the vandalism reversion tool, so I can only revert to the previous edit. There is too much vandalism in the current page for me to do it by hand. So if you get a chance could you check it out again? Thanks! Mantisia (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done MBisanz talk 03:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just some advice

Hi there Matthew, this has got nothing to do with wikipedia but i need some advice in dealing with presentations at my university. Since you have a wide variety of real life qualifications i thought it would be best to ask you and also given that in the image caption "Presenting my senior thesis on appellate court structure at CAA 2007" you are demonstrating your skills. When you stand up there in front of however many people, do you still get nervous? How is it that you cope with the fears and all those eyes looking at you? At your presentations, how hard is it for you to remember all the things you have to say? I can only assume at your level, reading directly will lead to loss of marks, knowing your subject is awfully important so as to not have palm cards or what have you. As per the username i created, hopefully you can offer some friendly advice. Thanks, much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am awfully nervous right now (talk • contribs) 07:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
© jGames.co.uk 2007 (some content from Wikipedia under GDL ) !-- ValueClick Media 468x60 and 728x90 Banner CODE for jgames.co.uk -->
Your Ad Here