This is an archive of past discussions with User:MBisanz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Cartographers donating their work and a little time and effort to Wikimedia Commons
Dear Matthew
I would like to try and encourage cartographers to donate their maps to Wikimedia Commons.
I have recently donated the Stavanger City Map. I publish a new version on Wikimedia Commons each time there is an important update on the map, including a detailed comment with each new thumbnail. This enables users to have access to the latest material throughout the year. As well as assisting Wikipedia readers and potential travellers with a useful detailed map, there may in the long run be an historical significance here, or some other valuable element that may benefit both Wikimedia Commons, readers and researchers.
Is there any way in which you may be able to help me with this message to other cartographers?
Could the Stavanger City Map image be more prevalent so that it would be easier for other cartographers to see how simple it is to contribute their materiel to Wikimedia Commons and to the benefits of assisting others?
I would be grateful for any assistance or advice that you can offer me.
Thank you for your speedy and helpful reply. If you come across anything else that may be of benifit please feel free to assist.
Good luck with all your projects.
Best wishes,
--Kevinpaulscarrott (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Well a finding of No Consensus means that is no consensus to delete the article and therefore it is being kept. It is slightly less strong than a finding of Keep, but given the few number of participants at the AFD and the large amount of dispute (primarily because of the nominator), I felt the no consensus closing was best since it retained the article while showing there was some amount of dispute that was difficult to parse as a closer. MBisanztalk03:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
GeoGroupTemplate
Thanks for protecting that. I had unwound the anon ip change but was still seeing the manifesto appear. Not sure why. dm (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge of Miley Cyrus song
You recently put a notice on the Breakout disambiguation's talk page regarding the result of a merger of a Miley Cyrus song to Breakout. I think you meant to put that on Breakout (album), which is the actual page that Miley Cyrus song should be merging with. Not a disambiguation page. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, a piped link messed up my close. I managed to fix the afdmergeto template, but missed the afdmergefrom template. Should be right now. Best. MBisanztalk12:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
So how does a lack of any reliable and independent sources, a problem that has been raised in no less than three AFD discussions over a period of more than three years now, and never refuted with actual independent reliable sources, get us a keep? A closing rationale is definitely needed here. Uncle G (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Basically people disagree over the notability of the subject. It split rather evenly and could have been a no consensus but the Keep comments were in good faith as were the Delete comments. I might suggest further stubbifying the whole "jimmy wales" section of the article though as a bit over the top. MBisanztalk03:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
In the closure, not here! ☺ People can, the next time that this comes up (and it inevitably will), find it if it is in the closure. See how the 2nd and 3rd discussions were closed. Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The "election" comment stemmed from a hasty misreading of your userpage. I'll amend it to wish you good luck on getting the ArbCom election results you're seeking, even though we're on opposite sides regarding SirFozzie. :-) He's been far too willing to choose the appeal to emotion over core policies in my experience of him. --SSBohio19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
·Add§hore·Talk/Cont is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
I went on the convincingness of the argument that this non-notable organization was affiliated with a notable entity having an article and could be a plausible search engine term, taking into consideration that 50% of the articles on Wikipedia are redirects to other articles. MBisanztalk23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Articles for deletion/Devon & Somerset Gliding Club
I've not been on Wikipedia for sometime. I've come back to add more information to this article.
Unfortunately for reasons I DO understand it was recently redirected to Broadhembury.
Michellecrisp said "it has no real assertion of notability as a prominent club."
But they didn't expand on their reasoning, I can't see what that descision was based on.
I believe it does have notability as a prominent club, certainly in the South West as it's the largest club in that area with members from Yeovil, Barnstaple and Plymouth (60 miles away).
Totnesmartin said "all I could find on this was a single newpaper article and loads of mentions on directories, tourism sites etc."
There are several articles on the BBC website:
"A bird's eye view of Broadhembury"
"News - England - Glider crash inquiry starts", not a great example :(
There are several articles on the www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk:
"Glider pilot Ron is flying high"
"Still sporty into their 90s"
"Flying free on the wings of dreams"
I'm sure there are more, just more time searching is all that is required!
Peterkingiron said "Merge to Broadhembury where the club is located (and presumably has an airfield for launching gliders). This is usually the best solution for articles of local facilities."
While that seems resonable, it's 2 miles away as the crow flies but by road it's nearer 5!
The club is located on a small airfield and not at Broadhembury
I would like to continue adding to the original article as time allows.
In your opinion, what is the minimum standard the article should meet to ensure it doesn't get deleted again?
Thanks
hrf (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not understanding you here. I closed the AFD as an uninvolved administrator. To have it re-created you would need to re-write it in your userspace and take it to WP:DRV to show teh community it now meets the inclusion standards. My opinion cannot overrule that of the community at AFD. MBisanztalk02:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Flyff
You made Flyff redirect to the fly for fun page, but there is no fly for fun page, meaning you pretty much deleted Flyff...
Just wanted to make sure you didn't miss this. Not very original yes, but it's always good to get concrete confirmation that you are doing your job well. Keep up the great job! Thingg⊕⊗03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I second that. There's nothing more fun than watching a ticked-off vandal make a fool of himself on a worldwide stage. Please do keep up the great job. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
AfD of ACB article
I don't care enough to take this to DRV, but I'd like to point out that the half-completed close of the was both premature (the article is still little more than a random collection of facts) and done incorrectly. You neglected to finish the closure on the article page and dropped in a bunch of unrelated gibberish (something about a blocked user? probably a wrong template) in your closure explanation. You might want to clean it up a bit, MrZaiustalk09:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I went ahead and finished your job at the article in question - Just don't want to edit your closure text in the actual AfD debate. MrZaiustalk09:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. Coincidentally, I sent you an e-mail earlier today about something entirely unrelated; I'd appreciate it if you'd give it a look when you get the chance (if you haven't already). Everyking (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Page deleted yet still in google
Hi,
I recently wrote a page, then ask that this be deleted, which you kindly did. Yet the page still appears on google search. Is there any way to avoid that ?
Thanks,
Regis.
Since I was asleep during your attempt to derail the independent scrutiny of admin actions in relation to the policy guidelines, I'll respond now to the lead you wrote in support of your MfD.
Wikipedia:Attack page - On the other hand, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad that some user ever did" is not constructive or appropriate.
The policy says "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject." Please justify this in the light of the lead text and the process at AdminWatch. I don't think you'll be able to. The fact that it will operate "outside the established dispute resolution (specifically WP:RFC/ADMIN)" is no breach of policy; indeed, provided it is in good faith, such moves are entirely within the policy and pillars of WP: the essence of wikiculture. You have not demonstrated that the process would not be in bad faith aside from what appear to be groundless assertions.
Admins are constructed as anything but enemies on the page. What is your evidence that the process takes this stance? Please cite the text of the page in support of your claim.
"Wikipedia:User_page - Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason."
Examining evidence of possible policy infringement is not "attacking". The process is, if you like, constructed as a "dispute resolution procedure" (see the text in Stage 2). It will be necessary to maintain information on significant infringements of the admin policy, but there is indeed "very good reason" for this. I must point out that negative information on all users, including admins, is kept in public view, in block logs. If there is "very good reason" for that, I'd like to hear your case that there is not "very good reason" for this. While I do not want this to be construed as a tit-for-tat argument; neverthess, the analogy is telling. (The alleged duplication by AdminWatch of current procedures has already been covered: they are significantly different in process and intent, and in the view of many, many users, they do not work satisfactorily.)
Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground - Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.
Did you read this?
"Specific goals of AdminWatch are to:
build the community's respect for the admin system;
bring users and admins closer together in the pursuit of the project's goals; and
prevent the departure of valuable members of the community who might otherwise leave because they believe their grievance is being officially disregarded."
and this?
"Background and comments (keep it brief; no personal comments; be very civil; include only strictly relevant facts; disclose your own breaches of policy during the scenario, such as 3RR, where these have occurred, plus diffs)".
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi#Userspace - They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".
Critically, that judgement concludes:
"Nothing written above is intended to discourage recording support and evidence concerning enforcement of an existing sanction, where there is a real and foreseeable project benefit to sharing information. However such matters should ideally be on a case page rather than userspace, where one exists." (My italics)
If a site-wide policy (i.e., WP:ADMIN) is not "an existing sanction", can you tell me what is? You would need to argue that there is not "a real and foreseeable project benefit to sharing information" in AdminWatch.
Concerning ArbCom's observation that "such matters should ideally be on a case page rather than userspace"—it's hard to argue that project space is not the "ideal" solution in theory, but in practice, such processes are clearly regarded with contempt by many many users, because they are quickly taken over by admins and become a clearing house for sweeping complaints under the carpet. This occurred yesterday at ANI, where there was no acknowledgement of the serious breaches of WP:ADMIN, and so sign that the behaviour will change. The complainant is still aggrieved.
Creating a list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users" is not the stated intention, but rather a record of breaches and non-breaches of policy. Tony(talk)03:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and your actions have, indeed, been very helpful in further working through the issues. Someone else has raised my regrettable "name and shame" phrase, which I guess I used a while ago when trying to justify what "teeth" the process might have. I do not believe such "teeth" are either necessary or sensible, for reasons you raise indirectly here. I've recanted. Whether AW can emerge as a viable, trusted process remains to be seen, but I do believe it's worth trying. In the end, I think it comes down to separating (i) admin compliance with admin policy, and (ii) user compliance with WP policy/guidelines. (i) as a means to enforce (ii) is what concerns AdminWatch.
Clench your jaws that the nastiest, stupidest fly-in WPian might complain of admin non-compliance with WP:ADMIN, with his/her own behaviour irrelevant (except concerning one minor rule, as currently expressed in the policy). The user's own behaviour is what admin powers are for, not AdminWatch. This is what a lot of users—and maybe admins—will find hard to disentangle, but the process will force them to.
When the occasional mistake is made by an admin, I suspect that users will gain a sense of closure by the mere acknowledgement of that mistake (occasionally an apology, but only where warranted). A sense of individual closure and moving on could do a lot to reduce any discontent felt more generally. It's often missing at the moment.
Regarding WP:VPP#New individual access level: editprotected: you know I respect your opinion, and I won't lean on you TOO hard regarding your vote. But when I see things like "Strong Support - I could use this tool now and then, though due to the immense hostility at RFA I'd be unlikely to pass. ~the editorofthewiki", it makes me sad. We don't need all that many admins on Wikipedia, so we can afford to be choosy, and people are choosy at RfA ... nothing wrong with that ... exactly. But this leaves us with a big pile of very earnest people who probably can't pass RfA yet who would like to contribute, who deserve a community "thumbs up" for the work they've done so far, who are left with the feeling that RfA people are hostile and don't appreciate them. In theory, it would be a win-win if we could break off one or two less-dangerous admin tools for these guys. The experience of trying to convince an admin to grant the tools, and trying to use them correctly, could be a very useful baby-step towards adminship. (I think people are leaning towards relying on individual admins to grant the mini-tools, but if so, we need to get medieval on any admin who doesn't train and watch the people they give the tools to.)
Even if you don't buy any of that, we do have a steady stream of people like User:lustiger seth who need to be able to edit something that's protected (in his case, the spam blacklist), who we (in theory) really need to help us, who probably shouldn't be an admin and doesn't even want to be an admin, he just wants to edit the spam blacklist ... but it looks like we're about to hand him the mop, solely because we need him. It would be nice if we didn't have to twist and warp RfA to try to get it to fit this purpose.
To your point: I don't think the supporters are idiots who don't realize that untrustworthy people could do quite a bit of harm editing protected templates, I think the supporters are saying that of all the admin tools, this is the one that people most often ask for when they aren't ready for and don't need all the other tools, and the one tool that we most often want to give people so that they can do us a favor. It seems to me, in theory, we could select out the set of protected pages that wouldn't break the wiki if someone screwed around with them, only give access to these, and, as I say, get medieval with any admin who doesn't pay attention to whether the tool-user is misbehaving or not.
A couple of people have said "Nice idea, but the ability to edit protected pages isn't going to be so incredibly useful that it's worth the extra process and the extra headache." If this idea carries the day, then I think we should throw in one or two other admin tools that aren't going to break the wiki, such as the ability to semi-protect pages. Watching how someone does with that job would be a great way to figure out whether they'll make a good admin or not.
Dan, thanks for your comments. Generally I see this proposal as at best a solution seeking a problem. Rarely if ever is there a long backlog at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests that requires admin attention. On the other hand, I've watched the backlog at Category:Requested edits and Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Before I could be convinced that there is this great mass of semi-trustworthy people who want to help edit protected pages, I would expect to see there be no backlog in these lesser queues.
Also, editing protected pages can be highly controversial. Look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war. Rarely is there a need to edit a protected article so quickly that having many hands would make the work any lighter. Looking at another area where there is some non-admin participation, WP:NAC, there is endless debate, re-opening of AFDs, etc from non-admins improperly closing. Quite frankly, I cannot see a benefit giving out this right that can easily be used to edit war with another editor, while not providing a significant benefit.
Lastly, there are significant technical and legal ramifications to protected pages. For instance, altering MediaWiki:Copyright or MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning could change the license edits are released under and irreversibly corrupt the database with non-compatible edits. Taking it a step further, editing a page like MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist could permit sockpuppetry going undetected, User:Animum/easyblock.js could permit a person to compromise the block or delete functions of an admin account through the alteration of the loading script triggering mass blocks/deletions that the admin did not intend, MediaWiki:Robots.txt could permit the alteration of google values for pages with potentially libelous content on them, and let's not forget MediaWiki:Sitenotice and Template:!. If Grawp got a hold of one of these protected edit accounts, he could image bomb a 2MB vandal edit to those pages, which would require the intervention of a developer to halt the cascade failure that would render the site uneditable and unviewable by any users.
Weighing all of those immense dangers to the site, with the small benefit of either faster response time for protected edits or newbie testing for admin-hopefuls, I just cannot justify such a position. I hope you understand. MBisanztalk03:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the very detailed and excellent argument; I'm going to point Balloonman over here to look at it. I believe some of us are hoping the devs will allow us to pick which kinds of protected pages people these people would be able to edit, so that they can't do too much harm if they go rogue before we can demote them, and that we're not so much looking for people to reduce the queues as people who have specialist skills that require editing protected pages, but who aren't ready for adminship. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
If not "editprotected", which of the admin userrights would be not too dangerous to hand out, useful for reducing backlogs, and good practice for eventual adminship? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Well looking at Special:ListGroupRights, the only ones I could imagine being safe enough to grant would be:
Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol)
Move pages with their subpages (move-subpages)
Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit)
Override files on the shared media repository locally (reupload-shared)
Override the spoofing checks (override-antispoof)
Override the title blacklist (tboverride)
Override the username blacklist (uboverride)
Overwrite an existing file (reupload)
Perform captcha triggering actions without having to go through the captcha (skipcaptcha)
On 20 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ozarka College, 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.
I'd like to bring up a more general concern I have about your closes, Matthew. It appears that you routinely close AfDs before they have reached the five-day mark. The relevant policy tells us the discussions are to last at least five days. Early closures are supposed to be the exception, such as a "snow" close. I know you are not the only one doing this, but I thought I'd begin with you to find out why this is happening, since, as I noted before, I've found you to be quite willing to communicate about your thinking. If you think the discussions do not usually need to last the full five days, why not try to gain consensus at WT:Deletion policy to change it to "at least four days"? Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)17:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul, anytime, my early closes generally fall into 3 categories, each of which I do with a different rationale.
1. Closes on days 1, 2, 3, or 4 - These are generally WP:SNOW closes. If I see a good number of users all saying that a certain outcome is going to be the result (good usually meaning more than 4) and no one saying otherwise, it is highly likely that that AFD will close as that result, if only because the longer an AFD goes on, the fewer people who comment. It runs more of a sliding scale as well. If I see 4 people on day 3, I am more likely to close early since I rarely see an AFD turn direction of days 4 or 5. If it is on day 1, I would usually look for 6 or 7 comments all in the same directions as an indicator.
2. Closes on day 5 - The AFD clock resets 24 hours early for some reason. Meaning that some AFDs I may be closing at 4 days and 5 hours, 4 days and 10 hours, etc. Usually if I see an AFD is contentious (ie. there is active discussion still ongoing), I'll let it sit a bit longer. In most other cases however, it has not been edited for a day or two and it is unlikely anyone else will edit it before the full 120 hours have elapsed.
3. Relists before day 10 - Yesterday, of the 150-180 AFDs due to close, 37 were relisted because of lack of comments. Usually these AFDs had 1-3 comments, including the nominator. If the comments were Delete, Delete, Delete and I relisted, and on the first day of the relist, there are two more Deletes, it is highly likely that by day 10 it will still be 5 Deletes. On the other hand, if the comments at the time of relist are Delete, Keep, and the first two comments in after relisting are Keep, Keep, it is likely that the nominator was mistaken or that the article has been changed over the first five days to a retainable point.
Generally if my close is a type 1 and after closing someone asks me to re-open it to let it run through the full time, I do so since their objection negates the WP:SNOW rationale for closure. In closes of type 2 and type 3 I am less likely to re-open it if only because AFDs are already so undercommented on that closing once a visible consensus has settled in encourages people to comment on those AFDs remaining open. MBisanztalk18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to explain. With all due respect, even with the elucidation I am finding this troubling. There are indeed good reasons at times to ignore policy, but it ought always be made clear at the time. For your type 1 early closes, it is important to say in the close rationale "WP:SNOW". It might be obvious to the regulars at AfD that this is the reason for the early close, but new editors, and even longtime editors who do not often get involved in deletion discussion, might not understand why the discussion is not proceeding as the policy lays out.
Your type 2 closes: these look very much like type 1 closes that occur on day 5. Your rationale appears to be a WP:SNOW rationale—or I am misunderstanding? You are saying essentially (with apologies for putting it strongly for rhetoric's sake), "I am going to ignore our deletion policy because, based on my experience and judgment, this is heading towards an obvious 'delete' (or 'keep')."
I am sure that most of the time the result would be the same (in individual article cases); however, it is appearing to me that these day-five closes have become routine. (Is this based on "the AfD clock" problem? Is mathbot not functioning properly at WP:OAFD?) When discussions are routinely closed at 4.5 days, soon it is not unusual that they are routinely closed at 4.1 days. (In fact, this seems to be what has happened!) There are valid reasons for our policy saying "at least five days"—often time is required to locate sources (which can happen even after multiple people have !voted "delete"), some editors are active only on weekends, etc.
I am also concerned about the effects upon our deletion process as a whole when it is routinely admins who do not follow policy to the letter who are closing the bulk of the AfDs.
Well I can use WP:SNOW more often, as far as the clock problem, it if rather difficult to exactly figure out what is five days for an AFD, since they are all listed on the same page. User:Werdna is working on a software extension that should eliminate this problem by having MediaWiki calculate the time to close. Although I would be interested in your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISS toolbag. I closed it 8 hours early. Could you imagine any circumstance where there would be a different close? How could I better express such a close? Also to elaborate, I usually look at the sixth entry of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current_discussions, which tells me there are 5 days before it. Looking at the fifth entry today, Dec 10th, I am looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canditv. Would that benefit from being open the full 120 hours? Would it be worth having another Keep on that AFD or directing someone to an AFD that has no comments yet? MBisanztalk20:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, glad to hear that you are willing to expand a little when you close as per WP:SNOW. For the clock problem, yes I'm glad to hear that someone is looking to improve this—but is that not already the case at WP:OAFD, where discussions are listed only after the full five days have passed? As for individual cases, yes it is true that the closer you get to the 120-hour mark the less likely it will be that a different consensus will emerge than the one that is already there in a particular discussion. But I would turn this question around: Usually there needs to be some strong reason to disregard policy (diregarding policy is usually an exceptional circumstance, not routine), and the reasons you are presenting are in my view not all that compelling. That is particularly so for cases where a consensus to "delete" has emerged. Because notability usually hinges so much on the presence of sources, it is always possible that a late-hour discussant could present sources that completely turn the consensus around. Here and here and here and here and here and here are a few AfDs that I have been involved in, in which the consensus would have at first been appearing to head for "delete" but turned around once sources were provided. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)05:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Some interesting facts there. Four of the AFDs you managed to turn around in the first day or two and the remaining two you turned on day three, I've actually seen the rare AFD turn only after re-listing or on day 4. The other aspect to all of this is that (hyperbole warning) all admins tend to close early. Last night I was closing the Dec 10th run, which was four hours into the fifth day, and edit conflicted several times with two other admins also doing the closes. I can saw from the names I notice who have already closed AFDs by the time I get to a day's log, that there are probably a good dozen or more admins on a regular basis closing before the full 120 hour count. I understand you concern about policy, but let's flip it another way. If I can tell statistically an an admin will close an AFD early based on seeing the dozen or more names I know, and I also know that I have a rather high degree of accuracy in closing AFDs, why not close early and at least play off that level of accuracy? Yes, that is a bad argument, but I wanted to see the expression on your face when I made it. MBisanztalk13:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Heh-heh. Well done. :) Anyway, it does trouble me that most AfDs are being closed by admins who are willing to operate out of the bounds of strict policy. Admins who believe it is important to follow the letter of the law are not being given the opportunity to close AfDs, as they are pretty much all closed by the 120-hour mark, most of the time! It's tough to know how much of a difference it makes, but there's a possibility (a real possibility, in my view) that things such as how consensus is determined in AfDs could end up being different, if other admins were given more opportunity to close discussions. This comment has stuck with me, for example—the suggestion that admins currently closing AfDs don't follow those guidelines either! I'm not quite sure what to do with my concerns, however. So I started with MBisanz; lucky you. :) Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul it is interesting, as I have proposed a good number of things in my time here, some successful, some unsuccessful. Generally, when I am dealing with a group of people, changing the policy doesn't work, since there are so many people will just continue to ignore the policy. Basically the best change would be an infrastructure change. Possibly setting the AFD logs to half days instead of full days would discourage early closes. Also, pushing Werdna to finish the deletion discussion extension would help things. Finally, contesting closes where you think the extra time would make a difference is a great way to slowly bring things in line. MBisanztalk17:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for hearing me out, and I do sincerely appreciate those suggestions. I think there was a small part of me that was hoping for a response along the lines of, "You are right, Paul. I had not thought through the potential implications of not following policy in this way. I am going to change my AfD behaviour starting now, and try to convince all my fellow AfD-closing admins to do the same!" But the more reasonable part of me knew that was a pretty farfetched possibility. :) I'll see what I can do with your advice. Thank you. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)02:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
(←) Thanks for trying that out. That is pretty much my experience as well. To expand a little on my own experience of this: When I put myself forward for adminship, I emphasized how conservative I would be about closing AfDs: beginning by limiting myself to the least controversial ones. In that same spirit, I have limited myself to adhering to the policy strictly and won't close an AfD earlier than five days. What has happened is that I have closed only one AfD since August (if I recall correctly) because it is now rare that a discussion is open the full time, and usually those are the most complicated ones to close. This might be sounding as if I am miffed that I'm not getting to close AfDs, but I don't mean it that way. It might also be sounding as if I am not appreciative of people who work hard at closing AfDs, but I don't mean it that way either. My point is that it has become apparent that cautious people do not get to close AfDs, and that might be having an effect on our deletion process as a whole. (To follow up on your point, though: if indeed the policy has been deprecated by practice, then the policy needs an update.) Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)16:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
AfD Result
Hi! I wanted to ask about a AfD closure, specifically this one. Just buy majority, the result seems to me to have been to Redirect. The Redirect votes strike me as having better rational than the Keep votes.
Well AFD isn't a vote, despite the appearance of bold votes, in this case it looked like there was an even enough split between Redirect and Keep that neither option had consensus behind it. In that case it closes as No Consensus, meaning the AFD couldn't figure out what to do with the article. Redirection can be handled at the talk page, possibly citing the comments from the AFD. MBisanztalk13:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
If I can be so bold as to chime in, looking at the AfD and your explanation I think you're spot on. Resolving an AfD as no consensus does not preclude further action being taken. Divining consensus when there is none can be problematic as it arbitrarily favors one side of the issue and results in an outcome that isn't widely supported. Thanks to all for enduring the addition of my 2 cents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Davidwr's comments are particularly convincing, especially when weighing the cost of a redirect (near zero) with the possibility of it increasing the usability of the 'pedia with an additional search term. It was weighing that the consensus was for the article to no longer exist on its own, but that people made reasonable arguments for a redirect. MBisanztalk02:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
If that's your target, then deleting the article and creating a protected redirect is preferable. Unprotected redirects invite edit-warring by fans.—Kww(talk) 02:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you closed the said AfD as redirect when there is no consensus on such outcome. If anything, the consensus is tending towards pure deletion. The title is an obvious typographical error and an unlikely search term. LeaveSleavestalk04:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Well there is one merge, 2 deletes mentioning misspelling and 1 delete saying no redirect, with the nom being silent on it. Given that it is a typographical error, a redirect seemed like the best course of action on close, taking into account the arguments to that end. MBisanztalk04:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, in regards to your close of the Curse of Norm Smith AFD as merge. I don't know how it can be done without either ruining the Norm Smith with a list of Melbourne's unusual occurrances in finals that has nothing directly to do with Norm or by deleting most of the curse article - but shouldn't that have been a WP:Smerge? The-Pope (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I've never done a Smerge close, when I close as Merge I mean that editors should review the content and take what they think is editorially appropriate to complete the merge. If that means a one word addition (full deletion of the curse article) or a full copy (large list), that is their choice. MBisanztalk14:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
What happened (re domer)
Mooretwin brought it up on AN, I closed that report as AE is the proper place. I see Mooretwin canvassed David Underwood about the capitalization thing, after his various move requests were closed. SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I would be grateful if SirFozzie retracted the accusation above about canvassing. I did not canvass anyone. The RMs were closed. Mooretwin (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I saw a TLDR leading with his name on AN, so I checked to see if he had been notified, he hadn't so I notified him, then I checked later and the AN was closed. Still later I checked AE and saw the same thing had been pasted there. And again no notification to Domer, so I retargeted the link. MBisanztalk21:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Mooretwin's on my last nerve (he was informed by Jossi before he retired that his next block for disruption would be a MININUM of four weeks), so I'm not going to say anything on the AE request, but generally, Domer's in the right here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Minor userrights
Re: User_talk:Balloonman#Through the noise. I asked for rollback because I misunderstood what it could do. It wasn't nearly as powerful as I thought: I thought I could undo ALL recent edits by a given user across multiple pages in a single step, something that is very useful in IP-vandal-fighting. As it turns out, most IP vandals do 1 edit per page so rollback isn't that useful. I've only found the need to use it rarely.
MBisanz, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk)00:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed many times and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which ones were which!
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
SantaFang (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello MBisanz! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald OneWhite cat11:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from Promethean
O'Hai there MBisanz, Merry Christmas!
MBisanz, I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year. Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future. Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
You closed that AfD as delete because the nominator claimed it violated WP:CRYSTAL, the article itself had very little content and the commentators weren't very good at using Google. It doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL because it was released in June of this year under the name "Sekai wa Atashi de Mawatteru". After the AfD closed I proceeded to recreate the article from scratch using sources and WP's manuals of style and did a great job at doing so, but it was deleted via CSD while I was asleep. Could you restore that article please? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Soramimi. 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. NetRolller3D15:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Woodward Effect
You just closed the AfD Debate for the Woodward effect. I think the last comment summed it up well: "notable crack pottery". But maybe a better summation is in [Bob the Angry Flower]. Would it violate all the principles of Wikipedia to add a link to this cartoon? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably, but that is just from the context of the cartoon, as to whether it is a reliable source or documents a fact, I am not a subject matter expert (thankfully) :~) MBisanztalk05:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Not the answer I wanted, but I suppose I have to accept it. The cartoon, like the article, has little to do with facts. :-( Aymatth2 (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Although no one seems to have removed the semi-protection, it is no longer in place and the IP vandalism has returned. How did that happen? Everyking (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. Dabomb87 and Juliancolton have helped ce this (lead expanded too) after I did the research. I think it's almost ready for FAC. Could you look it over so it gets beat up less at FAC? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:A&P Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:A&P Logo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
[1] You've got a pending bot to handle Main Page uploads in the BAG currently, if I'm not mistaken. Sure would be a good thing for that to go live. :) rootology (C)(T) 00:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike sponsorships, and while I'm not too invested in the discussion (despite my responses which might indicate otherwise), I'm wondering why you decided to close as keep. If we're simply counting !votes, it was 3-2 in favor of keep, which is hardly a consensus and, at least from my POV, the issues I brought up specifically, whether being sponsored by Nike is notable (since Nike isn't all that discriminate in its sponsorships) or the apparent unwillingness/inability by editors to maintain the article, weren't addressed. I guess I'd like to know, for future references, how to better make my points in Afds and what criteria the close decisions are made. --Mosmof (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You did everything right here, not much to improve on at all. What hurt was the lack of participation. If you read my essay on AfD closing, User:MBisanz/AfD, you see that AfDs close on a continuum. At best this close was No Consensus, which default to Keep. Now as the the arguments, you made a good one for deletion, but the only other deletion comment was centered as "better as a category", this is alot like the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement that is generally discouraged since it really doesn't address the article itself. As to the Keep arguments, they were poorly presented, but I got the general feeling they were saying the topic was notable because of its prominent role/coverage in the industry. I suspect your other nominations may have a better chance for deletion if only because Nike is the most famous sponsor and once you remove that claim to notability, it is harder to overcome Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. MBisanztalk03:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I'd hate to come off like I'm trying to "win" these debates, but I'd like to be better prepared in defending my points, and I'm willing to accept that what I think is right isn't necessarily policy or consensus. In any case, I appreciate your taking the time. --Mosmof (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for welcome
Thanks for the welcome. You'll probably have guessed by now that I'm not exactly "new" here, but given the amount of vitriol and bad faith actions that have already been directed at User_talk:Tony1/AdminWatch (up to and including a completely bad-faith MFD attempt), I have decided that I am exercising my rights as per WP:MULTIPLE and WP:SOCK#LEGIT under the Segregation and security clause, part 3 and will only enter that discussion under a separate name (viz: this one). It's not worth the time or possible frustration to be the possible target of harassing emails or even phone calls over this issue, so I simply will not take the risk. This account will never edit any pages save for speaking on that talk page, replying to those who message me directly via this account's talk page - and will never cast a vote in an MFD or other related policy either way. Sorry to sound like a stick in the mud, and my apologies if it comes off as gruff, but that's just the way it has to be until wikipedia's culture sees some real changes. WhoWatches (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Ray Royer
User_talk:HeureusementIci suggested I talk to you about the removal of the Ray Royer page. Basically I'm wondering if you could explain why my argument for keeping the Ray Royer page was rejected. As I understand it WP:MUSIC states that he heeds to have "had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country" and "A Whiter Shade of Pale" has done exactly that. I don't understand the problem?
I also left a question about checking how noteworthy his work in "Freedom" and "Nerosubianco" are. This was important as it showed noteworthiness beyond Procol_Harum (ie linking back to the Procol page was not the right thing to do, IF they are important enough). Do you have any suggestions on checking this?
I'm not seeking to have the decision reversed, just understand why it was made. Thanks.
The album you refer to was done by the band, it was not an individual recording by Ray Royer, therefore it would not qualify him per WP:MUSIC. MBisanztalk19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! knowing that and reading WP:MUSIC again that makes sense. Ok, if you can indulge me, two more questions:
What's the view on checking the noteworthiness of Freedom/Nerosubianco
Is it permitted to keep the Category: Procol Harum members" tag on the redirect page? I'd like to do this because it would mean that the Procol_Harum_members Category page wouldn't be a person short. My original objection was on consistency, With the redirect I think this would work better
I have no idea about Freedom/Nerosubianco, it is totally outside my field of specialty, you might ask User:DGG or User:BlackKite who are rather academically inclined. Also, the redirect rules normally discourage categories_for_redirect_pages, but there are exceptions, so it would be an editing judgment to categorize or not. MBisanztalk19:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your time. I'm going to add the Categories to the redirect page for consistency (or at least completion) in the page. I'll also ask User_talk:DGG about noteworthiness. Stormcloud (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I am notifying you of the above as it concerns an editor you had blocked who seems to be yet again evading a block by using at least two IPs. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the result was keep. There were no standing arguments for deleting it. You're supposed to read the substance, not count bolded word. What a waste of time it is to research and reference an article on Wikipedia. This is, you know, step one, so I can get on to the deletion review. --KP Botany (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I know, I don't count bold words, try reading my essay at User:MBisanz/AfD, in this case the arguments made that the current level of coverage in reliable sources fails to mean the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia were more substantial than the argument that being an NSA sourced concept makes it inherently notable and inherently lacking sources. MBisanztalk23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
No, they were not more substantial, because they were incorrect, as further down is noted by other posters. I'll take this as a no and waste my time on Deletion Review instead of creating redirects from common names and writing new articles on missing plant families and requested plant articles. --KP Botany (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I do believe the consensus was for deletion of the article. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. MBisanztalk00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cryptol. 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. KP Botany (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
A cat to ease all of your troubles
Happy New Year!
Hey there, MBisanz! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)
Thanks for the "no concensus" on the SimSig page. When the appropriate sources open again after new year, I shall endeavour to get the reliable sources that the others so desperately want. Happy New Year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.120.45 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yea, that stays so that people in the future can figure out what has happened in the past with the article. Now if the notice was on the article page, it should be moved, but the talk page is appropriate. MBisanztalk20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Matthew.... I'm relatively new to Wikipedia.... but are you the person that deleted Ecompetitors Inc for a New Year's surprise? If so, I think the article should be put back because it is noteworthy. According to your bio you have a background in business... and perhaps you are aware of Michael E Porter in your business coursesat Hofstra which is down the road from where I grew up in Franklin Square. Do you know of ANY resource in the world that provides industry information at the Porter level? I'm sure the answer is No. There are few seven year projects today because most companies can't afford millions of dollars to build something truly new and noteworthy. Please reconsider and put the article back - it is noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porterfan1 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
An opportunity to do the right thing
Hello Matthew.... I'm relatively new to Wikipedia.... but are you the person that deleted Ecompetitors Inc for a New Year's surprise? If so, I think the article should be put back because it is noteworthy. According to your bio you have a background in business... and perhaps you are aware of Michael E Porter in your business coursesat Hofstra which is down the road from where I grew up in Franklin Square. Do you know of ANY resource in the world that provides industry information at the Porter level? I'm sure the answer is No. There are few seven year projects today because most companies can't afford millions of dollars to build something truly new and noteworthy. Please reconsider and put the article back - it is noteworthy. Porterfan1 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello MBisanz. You protectedWP:NOT on December 30 after me and a user, who was indefinitely blocked until December 9, had a revert war on the page. A month is a long time to protect a policy, and I think it is unfair to other Wikipedia editors that they cannot edit WP:NOT for a month because of a spat between me and a user I requested be added as a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Editors on the talk page of WP:NOT have noted that they cannot currently edit that policy. Could you please unprotect that page? If an admin lifts the current protection on WP:NOT, I promise I will not edit that policy at all during the month of January, possibly longer. If I do edit WP:NOT during January, you or any other admin is free to block me for a year. If you would not be comfortable unprotecting WP:NOT, I can also ask Penwhale, who protected NOT right after you, or I can make a request at WP:RFUP.
The admin who has has reverted the removal of PLOT (the section of policy I and others dispute) the most times has started a user RFC on my behavior, and I am prepared to make several concessions there. Since March 2008, PLOT has been removed from NOT by 4 users, and re-added by 10 users — but I have removed it the most times. Among the removers and adders, many were involved parties of E&C1 or E&C2, although I am the only remover who was a party to either, E&C2. I first removed PLOT from NOT in March 2008. When I removed PLOT from NOT in April 2008, thinking there was no consensus for it to be in NOT, Sceptre, an involved party of E&C1 *and* E&C2, reported me as a vandal to AIV after giving me a level 3 warning on my talk page. I was blocked for vandalism and I left Wikipedia for a week, and during that time, Sceptre told TTN, another involved party of E&C1 *and* E&C2, it was good news that I left. The blocking admin started an AN thread and several users said my edits were not vandalism. If you want, I can tell you more about the history of that section of policy and what I've done since January 30, 2008 to try to change it, although I will offer a summary soon at my user RFC. Thank you for your time. Happy New Year by the way. --Pixelface (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Wowies that is a lot to read. I'd like to ask you take this to WP:RFPP basically for the reason Kylu suggests and because as you admit, there were two parties edit warring, and only one of them (you) has pledged to stay away from that page. Also, should you or anyone return to edit warring there, the odds are incredibly low I will be blocking for that reason, just because it will give the appearance that I care which version of the page exists. That said, I suspect a reviewing admin at WP:RFPP will look favorably on your voluntary abstention from reverting, which you may want to include in your Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pixelface#Response_to_concerns. MBisanztalk01:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I should not have reverted Pixelface a second time; I was in the middle of composing my post to AN/I when he reverted my restoration of the consensus version; I reverted again with a better edit summary pointing out that he was being disruptive. I should not have used 'rvv' as I acknowledged at his RfC. In my AN/I post I said I wanted out (for all the good reasons). I have stated that I will not touch that policy page or the redirect page; User talk:Jack Merridew#Be carefuldiff, so I have no issue with unprotecting the page nor will wp have any issue with me there. I'll clarify further; I will not touch those pages at all for at least January (the time for which the protection is set). Cheers, Jack Merridew04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Sleep Chamber is a major industrial band from the 1980s. Check their discography at Discogs : http://www.discogs.com/artist/Sleep+Chamber
Why did you delete the article made by Brad Miller? This is probably the best informed person about the band.
And this band deserves a wiki entry. Your deletion was abusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.110.250 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Adminship
If you look upwards about five sections on my talk page, you'll see this response I gave to "History of the Arab People" (who was recently banned as a sockpuppet, btw):
I'm truly, honestly flattered that anyone would consider nominating me to become an administrator, but I'm afraid that I spend FAR too much time at Wikipedia as it is. Although I might get involved in some page disputes and am sometimes a vandalism watchdog, my main goal here is to improve existing articles or to create new articles about history. I don't think I will have enough time in my daily life to devote energies to that gigantic, ongoing project AND the various duties that would entail being an administrator. I respectfully decline this nomination. Thanks, and I hope you understand.
Hey Mbiz,
I think you should refactor your last post at WT:RFA. Those people had their RfA's blanked for a reason, now you are highlighting them so that people will go out and look them up. I deliberately didn't mention the one's I knew about because they were requested to be blanked for a reason.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results22:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
User:MBisanz/Archive 6 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as MBisanz/Archive 6's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear MBisanz/Archive 6!
I've asked for a deletion review of Soggy biscuit. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page you might want to participate in the deletion review. I've gone straight to DRV without discussing this with you first as this is a slightly complex case also involving the outcome of another AfD that you did not close. :) DWaterson (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Color corrected USGS images
I did the color-correcting on all the pictures you sent (except the Chrysler building, per request) and left you a link in a mail to the RapidShare. If you have any difficulty with the download, let me know. The .zip came to approx. 61MB. Kylu (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Just to let you know if you ever need the Signpost delivered again due to the normal bot working my bot would be happy to send out the signpost :P ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont10:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the opportunity to continue working on the article. Imagine my surprise when it got snowed as I was improving it. While THIS was not suitable for Wiki and deserved a snow, I was able to turn it into THIS, which now has multiple sources shiowing notability. Sometimes it seems an AfD can move a touch too quickly (chuckle) for my slow fingers, so thanks again. If the improved article survives at AfD, I will make a move from The Cry (film) to The Cry - La Llorna (film) so it will be easier for others to further research. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! If you check the edit history, I was in the process of searching for sources (I usually look for sources and then comment in the discussion). Just to keep things simple, would you be opposed to a merge and redirect then to Strangers with Candy? Best, --A NobodyMy talk01:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article Neighbours 2009 plots was included (towards the end) of the above AfD. Not sure if you are comfortable deleting it as part of your close, although I don't personally have a problem with you performing such a deletion. If you are not comfortable deleting the article under that close, I will restart the deletion process for it. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Kindly reopen. To close after one day is not correct, when many people did not yet have a chance to comment, such as myself. And I see other people are working on sources. In fact, some were added just before you closed. And if you did not mean to close but just redirect in the middle of a debate, then tell me, and I will simply revert the redirection. DGG (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Because I have merged the content already as indicated above, it can't be closed as delete now per WP:Merge and delete, thus this should be pointed out, i.e. that the close can be "keep," "no consensus," or "merge," but because I merged other editors' work, we need to keep the edit history visible per the GFDL. Best, --A NobodyMy talk21:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we can get around that a couple of ways.
History merge the article to be deleted with the remaining article
Copy/paste the history page of the article to be deleted to the talk page of the article being retained
GFDL requires attribution of five principal editors, so a 1-byte edit to the article to be retained listed the top 5 editors of the article being deleted.
If say it closed as a delete, because you were okay with undeleting so I can merge, can we at least keep the edit history intact and still redirect, even if it's a protected redirect? I can't imagine anyone having an issue with that. Best, --A NobodyMy talk01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I'll comment at the AfD. A nobody is right that it probably should be merged oneway or another. DGG (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Relistings
Just a reminder that relisting should only be done when there are only one or two contributors to an AFD besides the author. A no-consensus closure is the correct action when there's more contributors than that but no clear consensus either way. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Normally I agree, however sometimes I relist if the last commentor discovers some important point that seems likely to alter the outcome had it been discovered earlier (like if it is a bio that everyone is saying has no sources, but all of a sudden someone pulls out that the person won an Oscar) would have altered the course of the debate. Thanks though for reminding me about NC. MBisanztalk20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (File:NatlConfCtr.gif)
You've uploaded File:NatlConfCtr.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.
You've uploaded File:RichMountCC.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.
Hi MBisanz, can you help with an opinion here? I created an article which another editor vastly expanded (and DYK'ed at my prompting). We've been having an offline back-and-forth on whether a NF image is allowable for illustration, with me presenting a spirited argument that it's not OK.
Regardless of that precedent though, is this image a fair use compliant with NFCC? It's a single use of an image downgraded from the original, taken from a website solely intended to promote the subject, not readily replaceable with a free image. See also here for more discussion, but your own analysis is appreciated - just asking for a sanity check. Thanks & regards! Franamax (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well you can make the arguement that the prototype is unique and won't be available publicly, so it is a unique non-free image. However, if there are other images, even ugly ones of it, that are available under a free license, then we can't use it. The Lana Lang image is allowed since that is a character in a TV-show and unless there was a convention where she was in-costume, we wouldn't be able to get a free image of "Lana Lang". Also, non-free images cannot be on the mainpage, so even if it passes NFC, it can't be a DYK-image. I'd say just leave your rationale and leave it in the image until you can find a free copy. MBisanztalk03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuff Monks
You closed the vote (and the page), only 15 minutes after User:Fuhghettaboutit made claims during the discussion. I should point out that the author Nichols didn't interpret what was said, as claimed by Fuhghettaboutit, he simply reprinted what was said to him in quotes. I'm disappointed I was never given the chance to respond to that claim by Fuhghettaboutit. JamesBurns (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've re-opened it for another couple hours, but there is no way there will be a consensus to delete that article given the comments already made. MBisanztalk03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right. I don't believe there is enough editors interested in changing the vote, so it's possibly pointless continuing further at this stage. I still believe that it's not a notable subject though and I stand by what I said. JamesBurns (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building a future
Hi,
Could you explain the non-consensus close on this one? It seems to meet WP:N and the !vote appears to be 5 to 2 in favor of a keep, including one person who changed from delete to keep. WP:ORGs local sources standard might be an issue (though debatable as the sources are from two non-adjacent countries in two languages), but it seems to me to be about as clear a keep as you can get... Thanks. Hobit (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well you are missing the nom's !vote, so if we are counting exactly, Atias, Choldofmidnight, and DGG supported deletion, Usrnme h8er, Drmies, Johnfos, and travb supported retention, and the article creator Robfurrball commented twice in favor of retention. That combined with all the vote switching and weak keep/deletes seemed to make it unclear to me at close what the direction was. And of course No Consensus = Keep, so I don't think there is a major issue. MBisanztalk12:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I got the sense that the nom's was procedural. Certainly no reason was given for deletion by the nom. So 6 to 2 (I guess I miscounted the first time) by my count. Just seemed like a clear keep result the the basis of numbers and arguments (both deletes were basically WP:JNN) so I was curious why you closed it as no consensus. (still am really). Thanks, and certainly not a big deal! Hobit (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
No, 5-2 is right, Usrnme h8er is a single person. It was mainly the confusion of so many people changing their comments, even after the relist to both Delete and Keep that made it look like the community was a bit confused as to what to do. MBisanztalk13:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's 6-2 as you left me off the list. (so Usrnme h8er, Drmies, Johnfos, travb, hobit and Robfurrball). Again, not all that important. Just not seeing it the way you are. Thanks for the responses! Hobit (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ongoing Adventures of Rocket Llama
Can you explain the close on this one? It seems to ignore both consensus (the Keep arguments seeming unusually weak) and WP:NOTE. / edg☺☭15:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
They were rather weak, but if you read User:MBisanz/AfD you see I close by both nature and weight of arguments, even if I think the arguments are stupid. So in this case the weight of people screaming "ITS NOTABLE" outweighed the fact they were using rather a rather poor basis for their argument. MBisanztalk15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you mind if I quote that on DRV? This "weight" principle seems to contradict WP:NOTAVOTE, mentioned on your AFD page. / edg☺☭15:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously anything I say on-wiki can be quoted on-wiki. You may want to refer to Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, in this case the strength of the argument that this is notable by a reasonable number of editors outweighed the argument it was non-notable. One side said "This is notable", the other side said "This is not notable". Arguments based on website stats are generally discouraged per WP:POPULARPAGE and were weighed appropriately in determining consensus. MBisanztalk15:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at the article as it stood at the time of discussion closure, then re-read the rationales given in the discussion. Do they actually apply? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I did look at the article and the reasons, and it isn't for me to judge if they apply, it is for me to interpret what the community at large thinks applies. In this case they found OR/SYN to be a reason for deletion by a clear margin of consensus. MBisanztalk02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is for you to judge. You pointed at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus above, but you've missed one important facet of those guidelines. We are not robots. We are meant to read the rationales and look to see whether they actually apply and are in line with the project's policies. And if someone says that an article should be deleted because it lacks citations, not only is that argument not founded at all in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, it isn't even an argument for deleting an article that does cite sources. Uncle G (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for good faith arguments as the deletion guidelines say, and once an argument passes that bar, I'm not going to go to the article and try to second guess it. In the past the community has greatly disagreed with admins who tried to second guess good faith comments and decide which did or did not apply. MBisanztalk22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to go through the proposal category and clean out old proposals. That looked like an informative page that would help someone understand how to use IMDB as a source. So basically it means, this page is useful for people who are trying to understand how the reliable sources policy applies to IMDB. Not a rule on how it must apply, just some helpful guidance. MBisanztalk22:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Jim Fargiano
I see that you deleted my page. Is there any way that I can at least have the source code for a later date when I have gathered more information? Thanks. Jlab2005 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You didn't really think that EuroHistoryTeacher was actually a history teacher did you? I mean, there's no such word as "revolutioned", and most teachers would never refer to America as "america". Maybe it has something to do with keeping the history of the deleted article alive, but I'm surprised at the redirect. I'm adding a disclaimer to the wars of independence article to finish the process. Mandsford (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I humbly beg you to please reinstate a page you deleted on Wikipedia. You deleted the page "List of Hard Rock Cafes": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hard_Rock_Cafes because of the commentary said it was a "store directory" that is found on Hard Rock's website. People also said that precedence was sent and Wikipedia would not list "store directories."
I understand this policy, but this page was much more than a "Store Directory." Whether you are a fan of the restaurant or the food or not, there is a LARGE community of people who make it a hobby to visit multiple Hard Rock Cafe properties and collect their merchandise.
Yes, Hard Rock's website lists restaurants that are currently open. HOWEVER, they do not list restaurants that are scheduled to close, and restaurants that are scheduled to open. That very important information (especially about stores closing) was listed on this Wikipedia page. Also, the Wikipedia page listed restaurants that have already been closed with their date of closure. That is also very valuable historical information in the collector's community and it is not listed on the Hard Rock Cafe website. Additionally, the Wikipedia page kept an easy-to-see chart of dates that restaurants opened. Restaurant anniversary dates are also very important in the collector's community.
Hard Rock Cafe has a very devoted following as well as a large casual following. It's not fair for people who aren't a part of it to say "Who cares?" to this information, when many people do. It's obviously not a "copyright violation" as listed in the deletion discussion. And even though it's a "list of...", would Wikipedia fail to list Disney Worlds? That information is available on Disney.com. Nobody would say that. Would Wikipedia fail to list movies an actor was in? That information is available on imdb.com. Nobody would say that.
There are plenty of restaurants where I would question why Wikipedia would provide a list of locations. However, Hard Rock Cafes are sort of a landmark of sorts. Even looking beyond the collector's community, I know many people who make it a point to visit Hard Rock Cafes when they travel. These people might not always eat the food, or purchase the merchandise, but they visit the restaurant to say they were there or to take a picture. The restaurants are mini rock and roll museums due to the vast number of historical music memorabilia they display. Notably, Hard Rock Cafes are particularly popular with non-American tourists.
I understand why it was thought that this was an unimportant page on Wikipedia that may have just re-listed information found on the Hard Rock Cafe website, but it was much, much more. Again, it had much more information than is on the Hard Rock Cafe website. It had information that was very valuable to the Hard Rock Cafe collector's community. This page brought out the best in Wikipedia as users from all over the globe contributed information about restaurants scheduled to open, and restaurants scheduled to close. This is very valuable information that people in the general public cannot easily find out on their own without time consuming research, and this information is not on the Hard Rock Cafe website.
Thank you deeply for considering this request. This was a very valuable page to the Hard Rock collector's community, and traveling community in general. There is no other page on the Internet that was as comprehensive and continuously updated as this one was. Thank you again.
On a side note, you have my permission to re-post this in the discussion of that page. Thank you.
When there is a strong consensus to delete and I compromise close as redirect, I sometimes have the closing script delete the underlying article (usually if it lacks sources), as it has been reported to me that certain fan groups will go back later and revert the redirect close of the AFD or just link off-site to the old revision. MBisanztalk22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. What about putting full edit protection on the page so it can't be changed from redirect without discussion? Anyway, it's not a big deal. I'm just trying to understand the options and outcomes that result from AfD better. I kind of like the idea of history remaining so what was there can be seen. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks very much for explaining. I imagine dealing with AfDs can be a bit thankless as you usually hear only from people with a complaint or from people like me who have questions or concerns. I wanted to understand the reasoning and process better and now I do. So I want to thank you for your consideration and good work in dealing with AfDs and for being helpful and responsive to my questions. I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Anytime. You might want to read my essay on AfD closing: User:MBisanz/AfD, I should probably add a section on redirect protection/history deletion since it is an interesting and under-developed topic. MBisanztalk04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: the AfD of Cadio
Hi MB. I understand that after 5 days of having the consensus, the AfD would be deleted but I don't understand why my comments were not answered. If we come up with a debate, what's the point of making a defense statement without a response from the one who made the comment? I answered all their comments and proposals but there was no answers to my defense. Please help me and explain to me the reason why the system is like that. Is there a way I cound have my article back? User talk:Andygold7 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Andygold7 (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
AFD is basically a discussion among volunteers about an article. Many times people's statements or arguments go unanswered because people do not revisit the discussion or because the question isn't something they feel like answering, usually approaching them on their talk page is a better way to get an answer to a question. I've moved the page to User:Andygold7/Cadio, but I would ask for more help at the helpdesk on referencing and notability before you should consider remaking the article. Regards. MBisanztalk02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi MB. Thanks for responding. I'll put some more references to my article in my user page and with your advise, I'll try leaving messages to other users who made comments on their talk pages. I appreciate your time. 07:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andygold7 (talk • contribs) Andygold7 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi MBisanz, can you relist this discussion? In my opinion we didn't have a "substantive debate", WP:RELIST. The delete !votes didn't argument why the group didn't meet wp:music. Thanks, --J.Mundo (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It did run 10 days already and was fairly clear, if you read up on this page ADmin Stifle is reminding me that relists should only be used for undercommented AFDs, that already had several coherent comments. MBisanztalk01:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Here we are again... I've presented reliable sources, to which the only response was that they were "subscription-based sites," which was untrue about the Time reference and nevertheless is not a reason to reject them (e.g. newspaper articles are generally availabe at public libraries at no cost). A keep argument based on reliable sources should trump six delete arguments based on subjective opinion, or at least warrant further discussion (thus a relist would be appropriate). Could you at least consider re-opening this and relisting? DHowell (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
A relist is only appropriate if there is a lack of debate or understanding of the topic. It appears everyone understood the topic clearly on this AFD and found the article's topic matter not appropriate for wikipedia. It looks fairly clear cut to me. MBisanztalk02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a lack of sufficient debate about the reliable sources, and the existence of reliable sources are what typically makes a topic appropriate or not for Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
Would you please let me know the resean that the Nankali-post System article was deleted. Is there any chance to revew it or better to ignor the wikipedia.
Regards,
Nankali —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali nankali (talk • contribs) 08:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. What do you mean by third party? The "SVIT – Official publication of Supreme Attestation Commission of Ukraine, No. 3 Verezen, 2004 –P20", which is published by the Highest Scientific Commision about my work is not count as a third party?Thanks, Ali nankali (talk—Preceding undated comment was added at 13:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC).
It actually looks worse than the article I closed on. I suggest a CSD tag and a comment to create-protect. But another admin should do it to avoid the appearance of bias. MBisanztalk17:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiThanks Thank you so much, have a really wonderful weekend :) I appreciate your assistance, now the hard parts begins: seeing if this article is worthy of wikipedia. travb (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy MBisanz's Day!
MBisanz has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, We've officially declared today as MBisanz's day!
For tireless contributions and cleaning up after other users,
enjoy being the Star of the day, MBisanz!
I'm sure you wouldn't like someone to make trumped up and slanderous accusations about you in evidence at a peak judicial process. I'm surprised that you still haven't removed them.
Arbs are the best equipped to weigh and review evidence, and so I shall leave the task to them. And as NYB indicates, it probably won't need to be pursued further, so it sounds like it is a done deal. MBisanztalk01:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course Arbs are the best equipped to weigh and review evidence. As this is not evidence, it will be thrown out. However, the point is that you deliberately put these irrelevant but still harmful diffs there as proof of his incivility. By leaving them there knowing they are irrelevant, I believe you may be acting somewhat in contempt of the process by deliberately clogging up the system. I do not know what your motives are, but that is not my issue with you (yet, anyway). I would strongly urge you to either show further proof of the relevance of said "evidence", or remove it. It's the honourable thing to do. I am certain you couldn't care less, but I would like to state for the record that I have begun to lose faith in you. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I certainly do care about the system, so I've gone back and researched the matter better and given a more informed statement. MBisanztalk02:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
More informed??? I do beg your pardon! I don't see how you are any less contemptuous about the system with that amended post. By all means waste your own good time dredging up red herring diffs of Tonyquotes from 3, 6 or 12 months ago. You have still done nothing to prove the relevance of your "evidence" to the delinking issue in question. I not likely to waste any more of my time here. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
more
You really do have a many issues with Tony! Someone ought to lock you two up together in the same room and not let you guys out until you've sorted your problems out. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
FlipScript page
Hi MBisanz,
How exactly is the consensus to delete the FlipScript page? At best, it is a mixed bag and more votes are needed. I count 4 votes for Delete and 3 votes for Keep. One other Wikipedia editor, a prominent ambigrammist whose name you would recognize, told me via email that he intended to add a Keep vote, but was confused about how to do so (he emailed me asking me how to do it).
The originator of the delete request User:DreamGuy is someone who multiple people have accused of being a griefer. He is in the midst of serving a 4-day block you can read the RfA here (and it's not his first block either). I don't know his full history, but if you look at recent history, you can see that, rather than helping, he seems to attack. You can read details about what he did in the Ambigram article in the RfA.
I wrote the original article on FlipScript. I wrote it because I was surprised it didn't already exist. I also created a page on Robert Petrick for the same reason. I created both pages while spending significant time improving the Ambigram article (over DreamGuy's objections and helter-skelter deletions). I stupidly started from the Zazzle article and copied its structure, resulting in the article looking weak and sounding like it was promoting the company. Read the Zazzle article and you'll get exactly the same feeling, if not moreso.
As you can see at the bottom of the discussion, I recently rewrote the article to focus on the technology, which was the reason I think the company is notable in the first place. Nobody has commented on whether that changes their opinion.
Please explain to me how Delaware and Hudson Canal Museum, a tiny, I would guess pedestrian, museum in a tiny town, (created just a few days ago by one of the Delete voters) is notable when this company which created groundbreaking technology is not. And, no, I would not like to propose that page for deletion (WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point).
I think this page should be undeleted and allowed to grow.
And, no, I don't think that I own the article, but I think that I own Wikipedia just as much as everybody else (and just as little, of course). I created what I knew was a stub and I'm annoyed that, rather than improve it, it's been deleted. Look at my work on the Ambigram article as well as the discussion sections I added to the bottom of the Talk:Ambigram page (after DreamGuy's swath of deletes) and you'll know that I'm acting in good faith.
You may want to read User:MBisanz/AfD for a more detailed understanding of how I close AFDs, but to respond specifically to your concerns. I don't count votes, so a vote count of 4 to 3 (and I'm reading it as 4 delete, 1 keep, and 1 IP comment right now), so I'm not looking for a specific percentage, but a rough consensus among the community. I also am really not interested in DreamGuy's behavior. Articles stand or fall on their own at WP:AFD and editors stand or fall on their own at WP:RFC/U. Bad articles don't harm editors at RFC/U and bad editors don't harm articles at AFD. Despite your best efforts, those individuals commenting felt that there was an insufficient number of reliable sources in existence on the topic to pass Wikipedia's webnotability guidelines. Further, the house is not being knocked down in mid progress, as the AFD ran its full course and it is assumed that if the content is changed, the commentators will return and adjust their comments if there is a change in belief. Since the consensus appears rather strong at the debate, I would suggest WP:DRV if you wish to continue the matter. Thanks and happy editing. MBisanztalk05:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
A few extra points:
If you're counting, there are 4 delete, me to keep, plus 2 others to keep (IP's, but that's irrelevant, and neither appears to be the IP user who originally removed the prod -- they didn't return to vote)
In general, I agree that behavior of someone shouldn't affect things, but, to me, it discounts DreamGuy's vote. He wrote "I prodded article, but an anon user deleted the notice without comment and without addressing any of the problems, so am listing for AfD" and I think that's the gist -- some IP user (not me, I can guess it was someone at the company) removed the prod and he got annoyed.
I rewrote the article, basically from scratch, and you closed it less than 24 hours later, after no additional comments.
You're completely misunderstanding the house analogy. The AfD ran while there was only a foundation, no house yet. Yeah, sure it's ugly and nobody can live in it.
I've wasted way too much time on this. I care a lot more about the Ambigram article than this, but this is sort of thing I hate about Wikipedia.
I will be filing a DRV, but I'm going to gather some more evidence first, like the person who told me they were going to comment and didn't. In the meantime, can you give me a copy of the last copy of the article and the copy before that? You can put the content on my talk page. Please do not move the page to my user space as I think pages should never, ever be moved to user space -- it is antithetical to Wikipedia. Thanks RoyLeban (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to ask another question: How do you justify the existence of this page: List of Hofstra University academic units. It seems to me that this is only of interest to people at Hofstra, is undoubtedly information available to anyone actually at or interested in Hofstra, on the Hofstra web site and/or intranet, and is just the sort of thing that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Why is it here?
And just to clarify, this isn't an attack. But it really seems that, as I said above "notability is in the eye of the beholder" and I'd like to know why your eyes and the eyes of that person who created Delaware and Hudson Canal Museum and voted against this page are supposedly better than mine. Why shouldn't I go and propose those articles for deletion as non-notable?
Well the Hofstra article I wrote when I was new to WP and I would not be surprised or sad if it was deleted (heck I probably wouldn't even de-prod it). And I'll be the first to agree that our practices are highly inconsistent. The number of articles I close as Keep that I think are total nonsense and that I Delete because consensus says to shows that, but I can't act otherwise because of what I think, I can only act as the community requires. Adding page to your usertalk. MBisanztalk04:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough about the Hofstra article. I knew it was your first article. It drives me nuts when I come across articles all the time that I think -- why is this on Wikipedia and then a page I think is deserving gets deleted. One thing that would improve matters is if voters in general gave some indication as to what their qualifications are (and/or people assessing consensus discounted votes without some statement). I so often see "Never heard of this" -- well, if you've never heard of it and you're not willing to do some research, you probably shouldn't be voting! And if you think something is "utter nonsense" (as I've seen in an edit summary) perhaps you should have done a quick Google search to find out if you yourself were full of it :)
Thank you MBisanz for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 19:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you go back and add a deletion reason to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (3rd nomination)? It was awfully close and both sides had reasonable arguments. I wouldn't be surprised if this wound up at DRV and a rationale from the closing admin would help. By the way, not having seen the article, I probably would've suggested keep or userfy, based just on the topic and - taking others' comments at face value - it was referenced. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You might want to read WP:ANI#Violation of free speech, which is where I found out about this. By the way, even though I disagree with your decision, having the reason will make your decision much more likely to survive review if it comes to that. This was not one of the more obvious AFDs I've seen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi MBisanz, I was hoping that this AfD wouldn't be closed so quickly, with only a few votes, really, on a count of two to one (not counting the nominator)(and incidentally, I'm probably a deletionist of the old school...). I think the article had some promise and needed only one or two more references to be on solid ground; I thought there was enough to perhaps squeak by. Listen, I did a pretty significant cleanup job on the article; is there any way that a copy of the final be preserved, like on my user space or something, so we don't have to go through all of it all over again as soon as he gets that one newspaper article or CD review? Thanks for your help, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I have good hopes that it'll be back. Listen, while I have you, how 'notable' in your opinion is Tutl in the context of WP:BAND, which establishes notability for a band with two or more records on "a major label or one of the more important indie labels"? I'm sure you understand that acts from the Faroe Islands have a harder time than lots of other acts... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO it is dangling. It could be notable, but there aren't any outside sources. Even foreign language sources or references to paper sources in the Islands would help it. I suspect it would be deleted at AFD, but don't care enough to nom it myself. MBisanztalk03:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The relevant content of article was properly merged and then redirected. Trying to get an admin to restore this bad article is not going to save your article and you really need to work on your understanding of consensus as you seem to not really understand it. Also, in AfD, consensus is part of the process, along with an admin reading and weighing the arguments based on their actual validity. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look like anything was merged. I'm not sure how a vote of "merge/redirect" is interpreted, but the consensus seemed to me to favor a merge, but the AfD was closed as redirect. On the other hand the history is there so I suppose Dream Focus could just go ahead and do the merge??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The list itself isn't going to be merged. They are covered in the chapter/episode lists (so nothing to merge). While the role of Clow Cards is covered in the main Cardcaptor Sakura article with a summary from the list added to the plot section. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yea, content that should be merged can be gotten from under the redirect, and all that stuff is an editorial discussion for the talk page. MBisanztalk01:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with saving a different article. I believe all such pages are relevant on their own, while you seem determine to nominate all of them for deletion. There is no way to merge that much information into the article, so it seems to me it'd have to be either keep or delete. Perhaps reopen for consensus. I believe if an article is too long, it is recommended that information be moved to a side article, like is commonly done with character pages. Many articles have side pages for weapons, space ships, or other equipment, for their subject. Dream Focus (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what you believe is really irrelevant. What is relevant is Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which you regularly ignore or dismiss as "irrelevant", including consensus (which you dismiss as false when it disagrees with you as not including the entire populace of Wikipedia). This really has nothing to do with the article, but your attempt to get this restored so you can then claim your equipment list, which you inappropriately recreated against consensus, is somehow valid. I honestly don't see why you edit here. You seem to prefer the open editing practices at Wikia versus the more serious policies and guidelines that Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, encompasses. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Assume good faith. You seem to be attacking me. I believe in restoring that article, because I believe pages like that should exist. There is no reason why some weapons/cards/equipment pages should be allowed, and not others. Other than perhaps the ones more active, you don't bother nominating, since there are enough people around to protests, while the ones that have fewer active people editing them, you can take out. The policy only works to eliminate some weapons pages, while not affecting the more active weapons pages. Therefor the policy is nonsense, and a set rule must be established. Dream Focus (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting...you do realize that the anime/manga project participated in all of those discussions, and is fully aware of them? Right? And you do realize that no weapons/cards/etc has been upheld by overwhelming consensus, right? Interesting for the slide in the personal attack yourself, but Dragon Ball has also had such cruft removed (unless you want to call that page inactive too), as have many others. The policy is not nonsense, except to you, and has been fully upheld by overwhelming consensus of dozens of editors. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 03:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Dozens of editors? Overwhelming consensus? I always see the same handful there, which also post on your user page, you friends with them. Just because a small number of people want to eliminate all pages of this nature, doesn't mean it should be done. We need more people giving their opinions, not just a small number we have now. And try to keep this on topic. The Clow Cards page was not voted on to be deleted, by anyone but you, others wishing to preserve the information in one form or another. Dream Focus (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD is a public forum for consensus. And yes, the majority of people who respond to anime/manga articles are people in the project because they can best speak to notability of a topic, however the AfD included views from others as well. However, the policies themselves, which you claim to be disputing, have been approved by dozens of editors and upheld by even more, if not hundreds. And just because people post on my talk page does not make us "friends" but people discussing article issues (and sometimes people issues, like your on-going borderline disruptiveness). People gave their opinions. If you have an issue with the AfD process, go complain there, but quit trying to overturn only the AfDs you disagree with using some false claim that there wasn't consensus. There was. You don't like it, too damn bad, but that is how Wikipedia work. You seem to have some insane idea that every discussion should involve hundreds of editors, which will never happen. Anyway, this is beyond pointless. If you disagree with the AfD results, take it to DRV, but don't be surprised if the result stays the same. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 04:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The only one I'm trying to overturn is Clow Cards, and there was no delete consensus. And just because its how wikipedia works at the moment, doesn't mean it'll continue to be that way. Just as things have changed in the past, they will change again in the future, hopefully for the better. Now, back on topic, could someone please reopen the Clow Cards discussion? The information from the list would not fit on the main article page, nor on the episode list, which currently has no summaries at all. Since most people did not vote to delete it, and there is nowhere to merge it, I believe it only fair to let people discuss it again. Dream Focus (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I am on topic. There was clear consensus and the only reason you are attempting this is because it was brought up by me in the Gantz equipment AfD, the same way you went around and deprodded articles I had prodded and started following other deletion discussions I'd participated in. Again, the discussion is closed, has consensus, and does not need to be reopened at all. Most people didn't vote? Yeah, most did. There is nothing to merge. What is valid has been merged, period. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the Gantz article. I just happen to look at the other articles up for deletion, and post my opinions on them as well, and when you mentioned in the Gantz equipment AFD discussion how you had deleted the Clow Cards, I checked them out, having watched the cartoon when I was younger. I believe the Clow Cards should remain. And it was not consensus, with only one person saying delete. 1 said delete, 2 said merge/redirect, 1 said merge, and 2 said keep. So the keeps seem to outnumber the deletes, and the mergers need time to revote since merging isn't really possible. Dream Focus (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it does, as you had absolutely nothing to do with CCS before that, and never participated in the AfD (or even seemed aware of it until it was mentioned in the Gantz AfD). Consensus said merge/redirect. That does not mean that everything is kept. Go read WP:MERGE sometimes, but you'll probably dismiss it as another "invalid policy" or some other such bunk. Also, we do not operate by voting and merging is not only possible, but has already been done, period. No other actual valid content is left to be merged to the main article. This is NOT a fansite. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 04:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have indeed participated in AFD in the past, on several occassions. Where is the information merged at? Where can I list a list of all the cards and explanation of their abilities? That is a crucial part of the series, and she having to fight each one as her enemy, before being able to use them. Consensus said 2 keep and 2 merge/redirect, no one else voting for redirect, which is all this is. Therefor the debate should be reopened for more opinions. Dream Focus (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Listing every card is really unnecessary. I'd count that as unnecessary plot summary. It's like how you don't list every character in a series. AT least, you're not supposed to. I also doubt reopening the AfD is going to change anything. ~ItzjustdramaC?04:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
If I may butt in.... The AFD consensus was nom said delete, 3 said merge including 2 to explicitly merge/redirect, and 2 said keep including 1 to weak keep, with none to delete. It was close between keep and redirect, but as redirect does not delete the article it's much less destructive than a delete. The old content is in the revision history, the most recent version of which is here. You are free to merge the content into Cardcaptor Sakura. Personally, if it were me, I would merge in only the top 5-10% most notable cards, or maybe fewer if only 1 or 2 cards were notable outside a single episode. For the rest, I would present them as a bulleted list. In the references or external links, I would link to a source that had more details on all of the cards. After I did that, I would open a discussion on Talk:Cardcaptor Sakura for discussion on whether to replace the bulleted list with a 1-sentence line for each card or a full paragraph for each card, then follow the advice from the other editors. As the information for the individual cards is still available at the link above and it's not going anywhere, you can do this process this week or 6 months from now or 2 years from now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A bullet list of 52 cards is unnecessary and nothing but trivial and would be quickly removed from the main article as such. They are/will be covered in their episode/chapter summaries. None of the cards are notable outside of a single episode except arguably the Mirror card which is the only one to have any actual personality. Also, as noted below, the primary focus per the MoS is the manga version, which only has 19 cards. Listing the rest is completely unnecessary.-- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 04:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, some of those cards are not notable in any way. If I remember correctly, some only appear for a handful of episodes. I'm sure some of you know this, but it looks to me like there was no good argument for keeping the article. It also looks as if the article have excessive plot summary, but that's besides the point. It seems to me that the needed information was properly merged into the main article. I also agree with Davidwr above. ~ItzjustdramaC?04:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Correct...in-deed some don't even appear as more than a two second blurb when Sakura goes a little crazy converting a bunch at once. Only 19 actually appear in the original source manga, which should be the primary focus of the main article per WP:MOS-AM. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 04:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
In the extreme case then , I would include only those nineteen. But I doubt a few of those express notability, maybe one or two. Either way, I can't find a good reason to keep the list from where I'm standing. ~ItzjustdramaC?05:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Even that won't save the article. Ah well, I'm out of things to say for this. I still see no need for the SfD to be reopened. ~ItzjustdramaC?05:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest further discussion take place on the article's talk page rather than MBisanz's talk page. The history is there for those who want to hash out what to merge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that if anyone thinks continuing on my talk page will help in any way, I have no problem with it being used. Anything to better Wikipedia. MBisanztalk05:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I was very surprised to see your closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unusual_personal_names_(3rd_nomination) as delete. It seemed to me that the debate was moving towards keep. I know it's not a simple vote, but it was about 50/50 between delete and keep. Can you enlighten me as to why you interpreted it as a delete? I'm not sure if I should request a deletion review. It's not that I have any great love for the page - I'm just surprised. Thanks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
When I closed, I weighted the various comments. So comments citing things like inherent POV and existence of RS got extra weight, and arguments citing the age of the article or just saying delete were down-weighted. In the final examination, it seemed that the argument that the inclusion criterion on the list were impossible to determine to the point that it would not remain as an article. Thanks for asking though. MBisanztalk00:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Further, if I may...
There are some articles that link to the now-deleted one (e.g. Name change). Whose responsibility is it to delete these blind-alley cross-references? Or is there a bot running around somewhere that will get to them in time?
I am certain that some of the article is rescuable, and worth having (e.g., the section on names changed for political purposes could surely form the basis of something useful, either as a standalone article or as a section of Name change). Is there any possibility that you might be able to let me have a copy of the deleted text, so that I can see if I can make something of it?
I am still rather inclined to challenge the deletion. It seemed to me that there were good arguments on both sides, but that the chief reason for deletion (inherent POV) could fairly easily be dealt with by recasting the article and tightening up the inclusion criteria. But I'm not sure if the best approach is what I propose in (2) above, or to go to WP:DRV.
Usually delinking just occurs in the normal course of editing after a deletion, but since you pointed it out, I ran a script and did the delinking automatically. Sure I can provide a deleted copy of the page, is email good? If you think things can be included as a section of another page, I would get consensus at the talk page of the other page for inclusion. Otherwise DRV would probably be the best option. MBisanztalk14:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for quick reply. Could you email me the text? I think I have email enabled from my user page (not sure how it works, though, especially with attachments...). If it doesn't, I can send you my email address. What I'd like to do is take a good look at the content, and see if I can make something of it - which could take a while, however, as I'm pretty busy IRL. Don't worry, I have no intention of forcing or foisting unwanted content on any unsuspecting article! If it comes to it, I assume there is no time limit for DRV. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I am curious as to the basis of your decision on Paul Couvrette's AfD, as you simply closed the debate without giving any reason. What was the basis of your decision? I also wonder why you did not keep the debate open for the standard 5-day debate period, but closed it early. TheMindsEye (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It ran on the standard 5 day cycle, which because of the way Wikipedia's clock works does not always result in a full 120 hours. But based on the comments it was so clearly trending towards keep that it would not change based on one or two more comments, and in my experience very few if any comments are made in the final hours of such an AFD. MBisanztalk16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The discussion lasted just barely over 4 days. The discussion was not "trending" either way. Essentially you had 3 editors for keep and two against. I Keep comment was basically a ditto of another editor, not an independent reasoning, but just a vote. Another Keep comment was self-described as week. My comment was designed to spur additional discussion, but you closed the debate a few hours later, thereby cutting off any further discussion. TheMindsEye (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've done it a couple dozen times so far. SNOW refers to the eventuality of the debate, not the content of the article. MBisanztalk04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Robert's Coffee
Hello! This comment is a about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert's Coffee. I was a little suprised when I found out that english Wikipedia decided to delete the article, which is still in swedish and finnish Wikipedia. As I undertood correctly the article was not is verified by third party sources. Still as I live in Finland, in Helsinki, I see time to time these coffee shops. According to their website [2] they have coffee shops in Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Denmark, Turkey and Singapore. The main owner, Robert Paulig, is very known person in Finland for years. I also found some third party sources [3], [4], [5] and even in a press release by Nokia [6]. So this really a semi-international chain of over 50 coffee shops. --Peltimikko (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could request a copy of the article be moved to your userspace, and then you could try to establish its notability with better sourcing. No one disputed that the chain existed, but the community didn't seem to think it was notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you had closed the above deletion discussion and wanted to ask you to take another look. I disagree that the consensus was to Keep to be honest, and this could do with some more discussion. A number of those recommending keep either used arguments that WP:OSE or ignored the argument that wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. The other discussions about references are, to some extent, irrelevant since that wasn't the reason why I nominated it for deletion. --Deadly∀ssassin04:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand your belief, but in reviewing the AFD, it is quite clear that the community consensus is to retain the article. Arguments were well placed and I did weigh things like the IP comments, etc. MBisanztalk05:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it common to relist the debate thrice? From what I've seen, debates are normally relisted twice and if this still does not attract sufficient interest, the debate is closed as no-consensus. LeaveSleaves06:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Although I disagree with the result leading to deleting page South Australian Defence Basketball I surrender to the discretion of the wikipedia community.
South Australian Defence Basketball is a representative team competing at an elite standard. The organisation is comprised of clubs, from whom are selected candidates to represent the state. This is extremely competitive and by no means social. The individuals are paid to proceed to national championships.
Indeed professionals and semi-professionals have competed at this standard and for SADB in the past.
As I said previously, I surrender to the decision, however as various authors contributed historical facts that are beyond my recollection dating back to 1983, I do sincerely ask that you please provide a text file, or copy or any form of the information that had been collected. As it came from a variety of sources I do not have a copy external myself. I as our members both current, past and deceased, would be hugely grateful as this means quite a bit to many people involved. We will reformat and place on our official site instead, and cease to contribute to Wikipedia.
Hi, this one was on DRV kept delete/endorse. I kind of want to see it brought back in via DRV. I think the sourcing is too light still.[7]rootology (C)(T) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Re Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. –xeno (talk)20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Joking, of course ;p. Can you check the Bugzilla and ensure that I closed it properly? I put it as "WORKSFORME" since I found a workaround. –xeno (talk)20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor 98.218.94.104 [8] has been repeatedly reverting the article Lila (Peanuts) after it was merged per the AFD you closed.
[9] Could you take a look and see what can be done, whether that's talking to the editor or locking the page as a redirect, or whatever? Thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.
Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.
Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you closed the above AfD as "no consensus". Did you notice that the main opponent against deletion, the anonymous IP 58.68.29.162, changed her/his keep vote to delete in the very last comment posted? That leaves only one other anonymous IP voting keep, with arguments that as far as I can see are not really valid. Perhaps you could reconsider your closure? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Even discounting the IP comments, there were still good faith keep comments from several logged in users that would have precluded deletion as an outcome. MBisanztalk02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Hedgewars
This is with regards to Hedgewars. I was not aware the deletion process was so swift, I was intending to add more sources for notability, having just noticed the tag recently.
The most notable one I can think of is this interview/review in "Linux Pratique" Issue n°51 on pages 19-21. Review is in "versus" style and continues with Wormux (which I see had *its* deletion tag removed posthaste) on the next 3 pages.
Archived in low resolution here. If you're familiar with french and squint, you can just about make out the text.
http://www.ed-diamond.com/feuille_lpra51/index.html
There are plenty of online reviews, mostly on free software or game sites of course.
For example (and there are many others), http://www.freewaregenius.com/2008/10/06/hedgewars-a-fun-competent-worms-clone/.
I know my comment is a little late and I wanted to know the main reason you deleted the article. It wasn't actually created by Dr. Pressey. It was created by his granddaughter for him. There seems to be evidence that the CPA fellowship fails but he does have a document stating he was a fellow and it would be recorded in the minutes of the CPA meeting in Victoria, B.C. in the summer of 1973. Another point that I suppose was not listed in the article was that Dr. Pressey went under the name of A W Prysiazniuk until 1965. This does return some more hits on google. Moreover, citation counts are difficult to interpret. They are highly dependent upon area of specialization. Cancer researchers have a large pool of researchers, hence a higher probability that one's work will be cited. Second, some areas such as mine have cycles of popularity. I don't know whether this explanation of information helps at all but I would still like to here back about your reasons for deleting the article. Thanks you for your time. AlpresseyAlpressey (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Jan. 18th 2009
There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander William Pressey where the Wikipedia community found that the individual was not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia because he failed to pass the criteria at WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Wikipedia is rather selective in including biographies and it should not be taken as an insult or detriment to your grandfather that it was deleted. Thanks. MBisanztalk02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Schuym1: No WP:RS, fails WP:N. Even if it was proved that it was the first X, it wouldn't be notable.
Seicer: WP:SELFPUB source used to verify the "this was the first X" claim to notability. This re-created article is just as bad as the deleted article. Notability is important!
SheffieldSteel: A lack of multiple independent WP:RS means this fails both WP:N and WP:V.
Keep:
BenFranske: Why all the haters? It it unfair to ask for sources for "this was the first X". Certainly it was the first X. Concerns about notability are BS. Self-published sources should be allowed to demonstrate notability.
Nuwewsco: It is notable as the first X. Vitriol against this software is from fanboys of the competition.
Raftermast: It is notable as the first X. There are several sources saying it is the first X. The reasons for deleting the original article do not apply here.
Other:
Uncle G: Raftermast does not understand notability. If this were notable, sources would have documented it. The sources cited aren't reliable.
In summary, those who said it was notable also demonstrated that they didn't understand the word. Everyone who does understand WP:N said it wasn't notable. No one addressed my assertion that a verifiable article could not be written on this subject.
I appreciate that looking at the numbers doesn't give a clear consensus to delete, but even if you're not willing to weigh the strength of the arguments, surely either relisting or merging into a parent article would be a better solution. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't close by the numbers, I weight the arguments. In this case both sides held good faith arguments as to the notability of the product. Based on the weight of each side, the only possible outcome was NC. Merging or redirection can of course be discussed at the article talk page. MBisanztalk02:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hedgewars. 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. Prodegotalk22:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
A & M High School Band
Hiya MB. Re: this close, would you mind protecting? I'd do it, but I !voted in the debate. Between that article and the re-direct (which I just wiped out as G8), they've been deleted a couple of times. Zealous creators need a gentle nudge. If you disagree on salting, that's fine, but it came up in the AfD. Thanks! StarM04:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi MB. You placed my article in User:Andygold7/Cadio. I have included additional references such as:
•CADIO McDonald’s [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]].
•CADIOcannedProgram for McDonald's - Played in McDonald's Stores in the Philippines (Made by CADIO Advertising)[[16]].
Also, examine the connection of Cadio to narrowcasting or narrowcast. Narrowcasting is considered a coverage or a place where something can be known. For example, a supermarket is a narrowcast coverage when you play music with commercial using their audio system and ceiling speakers; and it’s being heard by shoppers. Now, the only way to come-up with an interactive way of narrowcasting within the supermarket is by using cadio devise and system. Cadio system is like an FM radio. FM radio uses transmitters to broadcast in an authorized coverage, maybe a big city or a small one. It has two ways to reach its market. One is using a radio station (devise and system) to send sound or information and two is using a radio set (devise and system) to receive it. Likewise, cadio has its devise and system too before music and commercials is played in a supermarket. By using an audio software like adobe audition, cadio can make a canned music and commercial production in an mp3 file format, and play it later in the supermarket using its mp3 player or audio system. On the other hand, cadio can also use a live program by placing a booth with a disc jockey (that sounded like an FM radio program) in a supermarket. In order for the audience to hear the music and commercial, cadio uses a radio software program such as station playlist or ots dj operated by a disc jockey or cadio jock to let the shoppers hear its sound and information (also music with commercial). Again, this is done live. Next, cadio hooks up its audio devise and system to the supermarket’s sound system; then the music and commercial that is being played by the cadiojock from its booth system can be heard in their ceiling speakers by its shoppers and buyers. Cadio has done this devise and system in McDonald’s stores/restaurant in the Philippines. Kindly check its additional references on McDonald’s events. This makes cadio more notable. Having these in mind, can you please check my article again and give comments so I would know my stand and next move. User talk:Andygold7Andygold7 (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC) 08:10AM, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw a smoldering edit war there, but wasn't going to stalk the user contribs, so I didn't see it elsewhere. Try WP:RFPP as I am about to go to bed and don't have time to review all those articles. MBisanztalk09:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, in fact I don't see protecting those articles for editing as solving the problem. The problem is the disruptive editor Nikitn who goes around deleting sourced information and replace it with unsourced ones. S/He has been warned and blocked before but nothing helps. S/He doesn't even try to source his figures, just to push his POV [17]. Often he also use bad language in his edit summaries [18]. He calls well-known scholars idiots [19] and [20]. He also removes pictures without any explanation except that I had put them there [21]. I came across this disruptive editor when I started to go through the articles about the Great Northern War and the Battle of Poltava (300 years ago this year) in an attempt to expand and first of all source those articles that mostly haven't had any. Although it has been impossible to do so because of constant disruptions. Most other editors have sadly left editing these articles because of this editor. He has also vandalized my userpage once and this week he also started to stalk and harrass me outside of Wikipedia by spamming my YouTube page where he calls me "a biased little shit". And if you check his edit history you can see he hasn't contributed with any serious edits at all. Närking (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
And as you can see he continues to remove well-sourced information [22]. And he continues to call all historians "idiots" that don't fit his POV [23]. Närking (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventions in the modern Islamic world]]
I was wondering, if I could know your reasoning for this delete? I don't wish to question the delete, or make any assumptions, but I notice you also deleted Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers, and for my own sake, would just like to know if you balanced the reasoning from both pages? I don't think it was a mistaken delete considering the pure numbers, however, as someone who actually put forward opposing decisions based upon separate merit on each AfD, it'd just be nice to know in what aspect my reasoning was flawed? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I took each as a separate AFD, but in both of them I found the arguments relating to synthesis of material and indiscriminate listing to be the most convincing put forward by the participants. MBisanztalk04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't asking you to judge the content... But it is within process for you to examine the reasoning given in considering a consensus. I wasn't sure whether there was an actual consensus and that alot of the comments weren't simply echoing the belief that the article was indiscriminately attached to Religion, a quite easy mistake to make. I'm not questioning that you probably did everything correctly and that I've simply got a classic case of disliking my judgement being wrong, sorry if i sounded like I was calling you out, and thanks. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello MBisanz, as you closed the above AfD I thought its best to discuss this with you. It is confirmed that Havaldar Gajender Singh will be awarded with the Ashoka chakra tomorrow (26th Jan, India's republic day). I think that makes him notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography. What is the appropriate procedure to follow now, is there a need to start a discussion somewhere for undeletion or should I simply recreate it? (If so, can you provide the deleted text?) Thanks, –Capricorn42 (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You can file an undeletion request at WP:DRV. Given I am unfamiliar with the topic area and the AFD had widespread participation, I cannot judge on my own if he is notable. MBisanztalk09:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Editing frequency statistics show decline in participation
Each side interpreted the WP:NOTLINK rules to either apply or not apply to the article. As the weighting of each side was nearly equal, the only possible resolution was to find that the community does not have a consensus as to the deletion or retention of the article. MBisanztalk04:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Those who supported keeping decided the links were to be though of as references. However, even if we consider (or even make so, not that anyone in the AfD could be bothered to do so) the links to be references, the page becomes a directory of collections, which also violates NOT. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is determined with respect to policy. If you believe NOTLINK was not decisive, it violates NOTDIRECTORY, both of which are policy. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Good hello. You recently closed an Afd as keep. I would like to kindly ask you to reconsider. While the keep votes outnumbered the deletes seven to five, I posit that those arguing to keep were basing their case not on policy but, rather, on anecdotal evidence (once met someone claiming to be a member of the group that is the subject of the article) and briefly skimming the article (there are sources in the article so it must be ok). Please go have a look at the sources yourself, there is not a single reliable source in the article; just a bunch web forums, postings to newsgroups, political propaganda, and tangential or unrelated individual's homebrew websites. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
That was a difficult close since there was a good amount of noise in the discussion. But I'm not judging content, I'm judging consensus. If people held a good faith belief that the sources were reliable, I can't overrule that at close. MBisanztalk04:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and your explanation. Would DRV be appropriate? I am under the impression that DRV is only to be used when the closing admin made a procedural error (which you did not do). Is that correct or can it also be used when an editor is merely unhappy with the result (as is the case here)? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
DRV can be used to re-create an article deleted at AFD when there is new information that comes to light. Usually it is best to re-write the article (I can put it in your userspace), to show how the new version meets policy because of the new information. Would you like me to do that? MBisanztalk01:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
D.B. Cooper IPC
Hello, I was wondering what your rationale behind closing this AfD as "keep" was. the !votes were statistically about even and in my opinion the people who !voted to delete were more likely to have stronger arguments. Themfromspace (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The Keep comments citing the existence of reliable sources (I don't know if they are reliable, I just know there are people with the good faith belief they are) evened out both sides. Which made it a keep (or it could've been no consensus as well, but that wouldn't have changed the outcome) IMO. Granted, any retention decision does not prevent the article from being renamed, merged, or redirected based on talk page discussion. MBisanztalk01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems like your warning didn't help in this case [24]. As you can see at the talkpage he refuse to have any serious discussion. Närking (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to inform you as a closing administrator about this. Perhaps you should watch and intervene if needed. Of course one can create an article about Mikheev, as I just did, but this is a separate subject and article. Please note that User:Igny was listed in Digwuren case (he is currently a subject of editing restictins). Thank you.Biophys (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Matt. I've ben scanning wikipedia for an article about a band called "Papa vs Pretty", and I found that there previously was one, however you deleted it. I wasn't able to find the cause of this deletion, however (assuming it was because it seemed to be a blatant advertisement or it was deleted for its numerous errors) I was hoping you would be able to send me the original text of the article. The band has recently become successful and I'd like to start an article that will no doubt expand in the near future.
Sorry to be a hassle, and I apologise if I seem arrogant or demanding, I'm just hoping to improve the encyclopedia we all know and love. Thanks mate. WCheckers (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! You may not know me, but I have seen you around the Wiki, and you seem like a friendly/helpful person. I am considering standing at RfA and was hoping you could give me some advice. I already stood once here and the result was no consensus. Since then, I have tried to focus on article creation, as that seemed to be the main issue brought up in the oppose section. I have become an active participant in the articles for creation process, helping anonymous users contribute content. I've reviewed more than a hundred submissions and you can see the list of articles I've moved to the mainspace on my user page. So, I guess I have two questions: if I stood for adminship again, do you think I would stand a better chance of passing? And secondly, would you be willing to nominate me? Thank you in advance for your help! TN‑X-Man16:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thx for the welcome. i'm usually editing at de.wikipedia, things shouldn't be so different here. maybe this'll become my stress-relieve account ;) sometimes some nice quiet edits --TobiasKlaus (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
A head's up: I have restored the article Havaldar Gajender Singh as he now qualifies independently under the notability criteria for posthumously receiving the Ashoka Chakra (India's highest civilian honour for bravery) yesterday on the occasion of India's Republic Day.
[Restored per notability criteria: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.] Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=07:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of George Corral. 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. I should just point out that this was no fault of your own - there was a clear consensus to delete and you acted 100% correctly. This review is simply being made in light of new information, which I forget in include in this one but did remember to present on a similar AfD (which you also correctly closed). Have a nice day! Bettia(rawr!)14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a poor close on your part, I was looking at AFDs to participate in, and I noticed this one. You closed it as no consensus even though the three keepers, two of them is clear single purpose accounts, had no policy based reason, while the issue with sourcing wasn't met. Clear-cut delete AFD. Please reconsider your close or I'll take it to DRV. Secretaccount14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I probably phrased that clumsily. They live on the same timezone, but don't edit simultaneously. Given that they've also passed a previous checkuser, they were apparently editing from different locations (hence the gaps between their blocks of editing). Cool HandLuke17:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You said that the result was delete even though you didn't delete it. Did you forget to delete it or did you mean no concensus? Schuym1 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't agree for a second that this should have been closed "no consensus", but ignoring that and given that everyone but one supported a rename can you please add the comment that there was consensus for a rename. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Deletion Jadassohn Students category (Category:Jadassohn_students)
Hi, I'm urging for a reconsideration of the deletion of category; there is a reason I created it, and I think it bears scrutiny. The Leipzig School, of which Jadassohn was a part, was an extremely influential school of European composers, and grouping together its pupils can offer valuable insight into their careers and the development of European classical music. I've adapted the introduction to make the link with the Leipzig_Conservatory clearer. User:Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2009 (GMT +1)
Why delete Jael Rogers? The talk page on the Articles for Deletion section demonstrated several ways in which Jael Rogers met the criteria of notability. No-one rebutted these criteria. How, then, can it be deleted? Do we just ignore Wikipedia's own stated criteria of notability? And people wonder why they're gonna make it harder to edit W/pedia [25]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Toontimesy (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The community consensus was quite clear for deletion based on a lack of notability. I'm sorry there is nothing I can do. MBisanztalk14:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Matthew, this is one that would benefit from a full five days of discussion, in my view. The discussion was active, with the most recent comment added just a few minutes before you closed it. Thanks, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)03:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Matthew. It turns out that this was particularly helpful because soon after you re-opened it, JulesH found a web link for one of the sources that was under discussion as providing evidence of notability. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)13:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
MBisanz, this is the exact same issue that I raised with you on the Paul Couvrette AfD. You closed the debate early, and the most recent comment had come just before your action. I raised this issue with you, but did not get a response from you to my reasoning. Will you now take the same action with that discussion and refrain from being too quick on the draw on future closures? TheMindsEye (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Paul Couvrette was considerably more clear cut than the case Paul cites above. It simply would not have been anything other than retain. I really suggest WP:DRV at this point. MBisanztalk09:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Matthew (not to hound you, but...), this is one in which I think it's important to provide a closing statement, in which you discuss how you weighed the arguments and came to a conclusion that there was a rough consensus to delete. In this case, there appeared to be disagreement as to the interpretation of the relationship between the general notability guideline and one of the subguidelines. Thanks. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)03:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I must say I can not quite follow your decision on deleting the article on the CityEngine. As stated in User:Hiding/What notability is not, statements about not having met the criterions of notability do also need explanations. I can not find any reasonable attempt of anyone doing so, neither could I find any comments from your side why you concluded the article to be lacking notability. May I ask you to do so belatedly?
Further on, WP:N states "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established." Simple 'googling' probably would have been enough for anyone to assure oneself that the CityEngine is not just some minor programming project but a serios and well known high end 3d modeling software playing in the same league as 3dsmax, Lightwave, Massive, Maya, Houdini, Softimage, ZBrush as user StefanGross has already pointed out in the articles for deletion discussion. I therefore kindly ask you to give the deletion of this article a second thought and elucidate your reasonings. Thank you! Virt (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The links provided for sourcing did not discuss the article content itself, therefore there was a lack of reliable sources, which means the article failed notability. Also, given the large number of [{WP:SPA|spa]] accounts at the AFD, I weighted the comments appropriately. MBisanztalk01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Although I respect users with much more experience in administrating wikipedia, the users commenting on the AFD clearly have no background in computer graphics at all, and neither has anyone tried to earnestly do any research about the articles topic. I would therefore like to ask you to seek advice from users having both a background in computergraphics and belonging to the wikipedia community for a longer time, since you obviously (for reasons I very well understand) don't trust the SPA's commenting on the subject. Since I am still convinced that the CityEngine deserves its own article, I would appreciate it very much if the discussion about notability could be reopened and proposed for discussion among users with more experience in the subject. Thank you! Virt (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Since I haven't heard anything from you since my last post, and I don't think the discussion should be closed already, I'm going to post a request for a deletion review if I haven't heard from you by tomorrow evening (UTC). Virt (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Pacheco (2nd nomination). I support your decision and appreciate you explaining your rationale. I am concerned, however, that your rationale includes comments that seem to confuse notable with important. As I'm sure you know, Notability has a particular meaning on Wikipedia that simply means that there are sufficient reliable sources to create a V, NPOV, NOR article; in other words, it has been noted by reliable sources. I am concerned when the misconception that notability means importance gets further broadcast. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I was working primarily off the wording in WP:N that goes "worthy of notice", ie. does the community consider the topic worthy of noting in the encyclopedia. Trust me, I know notability does not equal importance, most of my DYKs concern topics that are so unimportant, yet note-worthy because of outside coverage that they are included. Thank you for your comment. MBisanztalk04:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Ozarka College at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Suntag ☼ 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Done MBisanz talk 06:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
DiverseMentality 02:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Re Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. –xeno (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
--NE2 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
