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.

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 Wikipedia: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 {{BRFA|SoxBot VI|2|Approved|22:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)}} to {{subst:BRFAA|SoxBot VI|2|Flagged|22:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)}} 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)

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

	Scale		Nachricht		Audience		Transparency
Friendly notice	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Öffnen Sie
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Inappropriate canvassing	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Excessive cross-posting		Campaigning		Votestacking		Stealth canvassing

FYI, I've already tried explaining to Mwalla that he's getting rather WP:POINTy about this, but got reverted. Hersfold ^(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)

FlatPress

I would like you to reconsider the deletion of FlatPress article. If you look at the Weblog software article, "Free and open source software" section, three of the first four applications have less content than the FlatPress article. Also, FlatPress is one of the few applications that do not require a database, only a web server and PHP. Alexandrul.ct (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlatPress was open 10 days and had many users supporting deletion. I suggest you find more reliable sources documenting it and then take it to WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but see if this one would help:
Blogging for Dummies
by Brad Hill
ISBN 0471770841
pg 369
I'd think that would handle WP:N and WP:RS...--Tothwolf (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone responded back on this article yet? If not, if you feel like moving it over to a subpage in my userspace I'll see what I can do with it after I wrap up the project I'm currently working on. Its too bad no one did a quick Google books search during the AfD but considering the lack of participants its not too surprising. Based on what I've seen CMS software articles are going though AfD at an alarming rate lately too. Tothwolf (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved to User:Tothwolf/FlatPress. Good luck. MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 13 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.) – 74  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?). – 74  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)

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.

User:Mr Senseless (talk · contribs) and TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) 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!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for all your work in AfD and RfD!!! §hawnpoo 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll second the barnstar and I also would like to let you know that I found your conduct at the recall exemplary. Synergy 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:

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.

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).

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 Wikipedia: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, [1] and I wondered if you might care to shed some counter opinion upon my own. —Dixie Brown (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music on Console, Wikipedia: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

staffwaterboy has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

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, {{afd-mergeto}} was added to the source article and {{afd-mergefrom}} 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 importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js');. 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#Let.27s_see_what_we_can_get --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? CTJF83Talk 19:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't see the DRV? Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 3#African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (closed) Tothwolf (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Just a happy Birthday message to you, MBisanz, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

America69 (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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!

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Awarded for your magnificent skills in negotiating peaceful resolutions to extremely difficult conflicts! Dreadstar † 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

e107 article deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia: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! -- Banjeboi 10:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 Erledigt at User:Benjiboi/Platinum Blonde (Paris Hilton album). MBisanz ^talk 10:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! And happy bday! -- Banjeboi 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

Just a happy Birthday message to you, MBisanz, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

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

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

Wikipedia: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)

Wikipedia: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)

Advice on RfC

I've never done an RfC but have started one at User:Marc_Kupper/sandbox#RfC Granpuff. Could you please take a look to see if I'm on the right track or if there's a better course of action? Thanks. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the moves, most of them look good. Can you list the ones that are problematic? And along those lines, if you go ahead, maybe those are the ones you want to include. An RfC for good moves isn't going to be well received I don't think. My 2 cents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Iridescent is helping you at ANI. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Republican Violence in Northern Ireland

Would you mind deleting this please? The article was moved during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Northern Ireland Revolt, and you have only deleted the redirect. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 Erledigt Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly delete the reposted Paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland too please? It has already been reposted once at the title in the heading and protected from recreation there. Perhaps a stern word with the editor responsible is needed? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 Erledigt again, does it again and I'll either block him or report to WP:AN. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Userify request

Hi, you deleted Heli USA. No worries, but could you please give me a copy? I think it might make a decent article, one day. Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 Erledigt at User:Chzz/Heli USA. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

your assistance please...

I was looking at an {{afd}} of an article that was recently restored. I had forgotten the problems I had asking the nominator to act in a civil and responsible manner. When I checked the talk page of the nominator I saw a note from you that he had retired, and planned to create a new wiki-id.

I vaguely know that policy allows a contributor to adopt a new wiki-id if they abandon their old one. Would you mind pointing me at that policy, so I can understand it better?

What I am particularly curious about is whether there is any support for those of us who had bad experiences with an individual under one of their previous wiki-ids to recognize them when they encounter us using their most recent wiki-id? Last September I got a very abusive comment left on my user page from a brand new contributor. Of course I wondered if they were someone I had encountered before, under a different wiki-id.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I went on record on the village pump to the allegations that new user left.

Couple pages to help you

• Wikipedia:Right to vanish
• Wikipedia:SOCK#Clean_start_under_a_new_name
• WP:OUTING
• meatball:RightToVanish

If you recognize someone you think you know, I would suggest first emailing them using Special:EmailUser/Username your concerns or contacting a checkuser on the Arbitration Committee. You would want to avoid WP:OUTING the old account name unless there is abuse going on with the new account. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Category: Wikipedia Climbers

Was there a reason that this was deleted with no feedback, talk, dialogue. Seems kind of strange I will re-create, and if somthings up, please let me know speednat (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just still confused, G6 states "Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, deleting dated maintenance categories, or performing uncontroversial page moves" and none of those fit, looking at categories even if it was empty, which I don't think it was there was 4 days for me to put at least my name in it. I am in the process of creating a "successful" rock-climber userbox, that automatically puts the wikipedian into this category if they use it. Don't take me the wrong way I just would like to know Why?? speednat (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It was an empty category. If it has a page in it now, it can be re-created. It seemed like the kind of category that would be created by accident since it was not formatted like a normal Category:Wikipedians by interest, so I figured it would be non-controversial to do. MBisanz ^talk 09:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

speednat, I'd suggest naming the category something like "Wikipedians interested in rock climbing" and linking it as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a sport. That would make it easy to tell that its a 'Wikipedians' type category and help prevent it from being accidentally deleted. You might also want to include the userbox on the category page itself as that is often done too. Also, you should include some logic code to make sure only User: pages are categorized. If you need a hand, let me know. Tothwolf (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

your edit on multi.source

Hi, FYI, I reverted your revert [2] - it is the same user. But anyway thanks for your attention. Regards -jkb- (cs.source) 09:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, thanks. I'm a bit out of my element there. MBisanz ^talk 10:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nom

Thanks for the nom, I'll accept it and fill it out, but I'm about to fall asleep on the keyboard, I'll get to it once I wake up :) Q ^{T C} 11:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Abusing article creation"

Glad to note that you feel writing a decent-sized stub, with five references from reliable sources constitutes "abusing article creation", yet an administrator deleting an article based on perhaps 4 or 5 comments, while ignoring the first AfD (which was far lengthier and substantial) is no problem at all. If the intent of yourself and Fritz is to chase off people who write such stubs, consider it accomplished. H₂O Shipper 11:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Decision to delete

You deleted the article on which I was working(7:49 am Mar 13 2009). It was not to be considered for a regular article until I had all the information together.

I am not sure why you deleted it? Perhaps I performed some kind of incorrect maintenance? I am just trying to learn the system and may have done something incorrectly.

Is it possible to get a copy of the material after it is deleted?

Thanks.Philipwsmith (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooops -- Category:Wikipedians who are temprorarily blocked for link-spamming

Thanks for catching this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Chan

I would like to request a review on reversing the deletion of the article on Nicholas Chan. Comments by chase78 appears to be on a witch hunt; references based on cached copies reference links within the article can be clicked on and verified. Nicholas Chan is regularly featured in print in Singapore on issues regarding enterprise, and is known within the entrepreneurial circles at large.

Information about Nicholas Chan as commented by FreeRangeFrog as not meeting WP:BIO is due to compilation of data from publicly available print media sources as referenced so as to provide for information insight not available on online mediums. Addition comment on myself being a SPA (whatever that is) is irrelevant. I write articles that I can clearly gather quantifiable and verifiable data from as I am not a full time wikipedia admin nor writer.

Additional reference with Wikipedia:Notability_(people) with regards to published secondary source data is met, with references made to newspapers such as Today, The Strait Times and Bernama repeatedly on the areas of enterprise.

Meeting the additional criteria of receiving entrepreneurship related awards and nominations such as the Spirit of Enterprise 2005 (with reference) and the Fortis Heros 2008 on the area of Social Entrepreneurship in Singapore (not keyed in, but with PDF article on Fortis website) further reinforces the article.

Appreciate your review and assistance. Thank you. Ncknight (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there was a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Chan, which lasted 9 days. During that time, no one objected to the articles deletion, so that was taken as consensus to delete it. If you have new secondary sources you might consider a WP:Requests for undeletion, but otherwise I can't go back and overturn consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous secondary sources on hand with regards to the series of startups Nicholas Chan was involved in (with reference to the Serial Entrepreneur element) and a few print news articles (with reference to the Venture Capital element) gathered during 2008 and 2009 to be entered, until I found the article deleted yesterday.

Notwithstanding the community discussion on the topic, I would like to bring to attention the manner of which chase78 raised the discussion which appears to be personally motivated as the contribution history of chase78 is skimpy and the request for deletion out of the ordinary. At this moment, appreciated if you can provide guidance on how to perform a proper request for undeletion. Thank you very much. Ncknight (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Best bet is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Instructions. MBisanz ^talk 03:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, it has been done. Added a subst:DRVNote in your talk page on this article already. (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nicholas_Chan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nicholas_Chan. 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. Ncknight (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for PAGE_NAME

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE_NAME. 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. Ncknight (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Question before proposing for deletion review for "Sheree Silver"

A few weeks ago you deleted the article "Sheree Silver," and you told me that if I wanted to bring it back I should submit a deletion review. However, Deletion_Review stated step number 1 as: "discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review." So I thought I'd start here. The original article, when it was marked for AFD, was very short and I think it did meet most of the requirements for deletion at the time it was proposed. In conjunction with the discussion I therefore expanded the article with more information and more independent sources, although it was deleted regardless.

Are these new reasons enough to fulfill WP:Bio now?

http://wfoynews.blogspot.com/2008/10/family-on-wife-swap.html

(local news interview)

http://www.book-of-thoth.com/article1014.html

(reference to criticizing "rumpology")

http://www.myhomelifemag.com/08winter/08winter_basics.aspx

(she gave information to Home Life Magazine which they published)

http://pastguests.edfurbee.com/

(Past guest on local radio)

http://www.folioweekly.com/documents/August12.pdf

(Magazine that serves in the Jacksonville, Fl area: she predicted Obama would win, as well as some guy running in an election)

http://carynday-suarez.com/2009powawards.php

(Proof that her book won an award. It's with an organization that went out of business a few months ago, I called the number for confirmation.)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-monitor8-2009mar08,0,4841840.story

(The LA Times did a piece on how the families in the episode were)

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/life/entertainment/news-article.aspx?storyid=133093&catid=19

(Jacksonville, FL News Broadcast "Good Morning Jacksonville" Interview about the last experience, this one, etc.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpEYXLpreA

(her kids give their side of the story in a YouTube video, to a First Coast News Producer)

http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_11861966

(Wife Swap husband criticizes Dr. Silver)

March 12, 2009 - Variety features "Wife Swap," in several articles and the executive producer names the Silver's first episode among the ten most memorable wife swaps in the show's five years on air. (Digital Variety has it at www.variety.com/article/VR1118001147.html)

http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/goingthroughchannels/2009/03/friday-march-13-2009-wife-swap.php

(Blog on show predictions with a matchup of scientist/psychic)

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/03/12/2009-03-12_desperate_wife_agrees_to_return_visit_to.html

(NY Daily News Interviews Dr. Silver and Richard Heene, the other swap dad. Richard says she introduced him to the "psychic" realm, criticizes, and Dr. Silver admits one reason she did the show was the economy.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/mar/13/will-100th-wife-swap-be-different/

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090313/LIFE/903130336/-1/ENTERTAIN06

(Saying the wife Swap hundredth episode will be more of the same)

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=133615

(Latest Interview with the Jacksonville, Fl Broadcast "Good Morning Jacksonville", explains how she called the first kid an extraterrestrial, how UFOs are in this show, etc. This is on the day the hundredth episode will air).

http://www.coast933.com/cc-common/mediaplayer/player.html?redir=yes&mps=tadbrian.php&mid=http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/30271/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/30271/2016/richmedia/0313WifeSwap.mp3?CCOMRRMID=26390776&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=PROVIDENCE-RI&NG_FORMAT=ac&NG_ID=wsne93fm&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=2016&SERVER_NAME=www.coast933.com&SITE_ID=2016&STATION_ID=WSNE-FM&TRACK=Wife_Swap

(part of a set of interviews in march with a bunch of radio shows in the states, she talks about the rumor of controlling weather, her swap husband, and responds to criticism of her field)

March 13, 2009 8:00 pm - Wife Swap Silver/Heene (Show airs. Message board users label the show as "abusive." http://abc.go.com/primetime/wifeswap/index?pn=mb&cat=71886 One user commented, "It's the worst yet.")

Spring12 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest you present this evidence at WP:DRV, not because I disagree with your evidence, but because I disagree with admins overturning consensus based on their own views. I would prefer the community decide such issues. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Guantanomo Bay attorny afd's

Hi. I respectfully disagree with your decision to redirect the attorneys in the face of a clear consensus to delete. There was no support for these redirects nor does it make sense to redirect a unnotable person to his notable employer. Redirects should only be used when there is a consensus for a redirect or the person is of borderline notability. Some of the attorneys were probably even speedy eligible. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James R. Crisfield is the AFD you are talking about? I see some Keep, some Weak Delete, some Delete, and some Merge/Redierct comments made in good faith. There wasnt a clear consensus to delete, and it seemed like a redirect would fit better to what everyone was looking for. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Truth is, I jumped the gun a bit and wasn't careful. Your closure of the the aforelinked afd caused lots of action on my watchlist because you edited the afd, the article, and the talkpage. Silly me, I for some reason assumed that all the watchlist activity meant that you were closing all the GB attorney afd's as redirects. Unlike the aforelinked afd, the others are clearly not notable and it is so represented at those afd's.

But now that looking over the Crisfield afd more carefully, I still would have closed the afd as a delete instead of a merge. There were 3 deletes + the nom + 1 weak delete (= 4 1/2) vs. 1 keep by a SPA-IP + 1 weak keep (= ?) . There was 1 merge, which was the creator's proposal. I would consider that a consensus not to merge, but whatever. You're the admin, not me :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments for a Designer of Finnish Heraldry

Did you mean to redirect to Finnish heraldry? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed Damn copy paste error. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 04:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)