User talk:MBisanz/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Notability of James M. Shuart
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on James M. Shuart, by DearPrudence, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because James M. Shuart seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting James M. Shuart, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate James M. Shuart itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge Bankruptcy in China into China bankruptcy law
That's my vote. Just make sure that all citations are in the final product. Bearian 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Bankruptcy in China
Hi there, is there a reason Bankruptcy in China is being blanked? Thanks. Spellcast 16:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying that. Using the edit summary would have made it more clear ;) Spellcast 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I was surprised after I realised I sent a warning to someone who is part of the CVU. I don't think I've done that before. Again, apologies for that. Spellcast 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:CVU status
The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Responding to your message
Yes, I would certainly be willing to coach you and give you any help or advice that you may need about contributing to Wikipedia. It seems like you are doing a good job so far. I will take a further look at your contributions when I have time, probably this weekend. Just leave a message on my talk page if you have any particular questions. Academic Challenger 05:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of The Fragments
The Fragments, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that The Fragments satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fragments and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of The Fragments during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, twinkle can't decipher redirects resulting from moves. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Ibend.info AFD nom
First let me say, thanks for the nom; I'm a little surprised that the article was able to last beyond the speedy stage but Ibend is very persistent, so I had to get a little tough with him. If we have to go through the normal AFD process, then I guess that's that, but isn't the deletion issue a little tangled now with the nom and the speedy? BrokenSphereMsg me 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what any procedure to follow might be, but you renominated it for AFD and issued a COI warning, and I issued the final already so he won't delete the warnings. So I'm guessing either an admin can come along and delete along speedy grounds, or it goes through the AFD route instead if it's felt that this has to be discussed further. A similar thing did happen to an article I tried to speedy, which eventually got enough votes for deletion after an admin told me to nom it for AFD as he had issues with speedy grounds. BrokenSphereMsg me 04:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It got speedy deleted. Finally. BrokenSphereMsg me 06:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
High schools
When speedy is declined either WP:AFD or WP:PROD can be appropriate. Speedy is kept for things involving no controversy whatsoever, and that still leaves about one hundred articles a day that ought to get deleted. Use Prod is you think the article will not be defended, otherwise AfD. However, state athletic championships are one of the major elements for the notability of high schools. If they hadn't been stated I would have deleted as no content. The article is a problem--it is clearly of very low quality, but that does not mean something couldn't be done with it. I've posted on the editors talk page suggestions for improving it. You might keep track to see if it gets improved.
- But don't be reluctant to use speedy when appropriate--read WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy. One thing you might watch for is whether the articles are copyright violations as seen by google. that's always a speedy. Keep up the good patrolling. You might try writing something substantial, as well.
- And when you do write articles on educators, give an exact listing of the books they've published--Worldcat is a good source--and try to find book reviews of them to show that they are notable--any librarian can help you find them. DGG (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Armenia
Please visit the Talk: Armenia and Talk: Armenians pages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenia&action=edit§ion=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenians&action=edit§ion=36 please voice your view on the current discussion, there is a small minority that are promoting and point of view that Armenia is geographically in Europe and Armenians are a European people. It is best to serve the factual truth and your support is desperately needed.
Gene Summers albums
I removed all the prods. I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, here. Summers is quite clearly a notable musician. Why is he notable? He wrote songs. Songs are on albums. It is inherently encyclopedic for there to be a spot in Wikipedia where the songs he wrote and the albums they were recorded on are listed. Now, Summers has been recording for half a century, and so merging the album tracks with his biography page would make the page absurdly long and ungainly. So what do we do? We split the album pages off. You've nominated all of them for deletion - not merging, deletion, and I don't think I'm wrong in assuming that you have no intention of restoring the album tracks to the parent page if they are deleted. Adhering to a unnecessarily strict interpretation of WP:N for albums only deprives users of useful, encyclopedic information about musicians, and I do hope that you see fit not to pursue the matter further. (Of course, if you do, you've much fertile ground, for there are tens of thousands of album pages out there with no reviews currently listed.) Chubbles 06:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- (RE:msg on my page; I wrote the above before I got that) Well, I think it's a bit less user-friendly to merge the albums into a single discography page, but if it's a compromise we all can live with, I'll go with it. Chubbles 06:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- The author of those pages sourced his discography to the parent page. (Also, he included a raft of third-party sources at the bottom of the page, which presumably discuss albums but which most people aren't likely to have at the neighborhood public library.) Chubbles 06:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think the author of those pages is still a newbie here, and it would be great to have more context but I don't think he really has the hang of things yet to know to add all of that stuff. I notice that he never uses the preview button; we should tag his page with {{user screw}}. =) Chubbles 06:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Hofstra Academic Units
A tag has been placed on Hofstra Academic Units, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion A1.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.— flamingspinach | (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hofstra Retail Management Institute
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hofstra Retail Management Institute, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. DGG (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see your suggestion on my talk page. Yes, it would be a good idea to combine these articles, but not as List of Centers and Institutes of Hofstra University, but as articles for the various major divisions of the University; for example, this one should be a paragraph of Frank_G._Zarb_School_of_Business. This is the way other university articles are customarily done, and I think it will stand up better. But also organize that main article more clearly--the history, the programs, the special features , the institutes and programs--as separate sections, not one long paragraph.
I also am suggesting the deletion of list of Hofstra University Administrators., which also is not a normal sort of article for other universities. In general , the people should be mentioned in the appropriate article--and as a rule, no one less important than the Provost and Deans of the various colleges would usually be mentioned at all. None of the assistant vice-presidents, etc. Among the good sets of university articles to see the organisation are the ones for Michigan State University--though keep in mind Hofstra perhaps should have somewhat less extensive coverage.
And remember to include references. You need at last one reference from some published non-university source for every article (thats another reason for not doing small articles). If you have trouble finding them, the library there can likely help. I would suggest findingreferencs for the pages you do have before trying to do any more detailed articles.DGG (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, list of MIT academic departments and institutes is about to be deleted at AfD, so i wouldnt try a similar list for Hofstra. I think you would have do put the paragraph of interdisciplinary ones i the main article. After all, how much is there to say that isnt on the web site. A separate list of administrators has never been found acceptable. I cant think of a single one, for any university, institution, or company.
- By the way, consider writing write separate articles on Zarb, and also on Sodano. Their careers are almost certainly notable. Let me know if you have any problems with them. DGG (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Response to your message
It seems like you are doing a lot of great work. Definitely concentrate on both article writing and vandalism. I also recommend patrolling New Pages, and nominating bad pages for speedy deletion, and you should also participate in Articles for Deletion at least occasionally. Also look at WP:AN and related pages sometimes. Contribute if you have anything to say, but at least learn about what's going on there.
Let me know if you have any more questions. Academic Challenger 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
typo fixing
On the minor CTU agents page you have made a worse typo that I did. I accidentally wrote payed instead of played and you changed this to paid. Please read the context before making changes.--Lucy-marie 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The weird bot comment
Sorry about that. The AfD is transcluded onto Betacommandbot's owner's talk page, User talk:Betacommand, and I was leaving him a comment unrelated to the AfD, and my comment somehow got sucked into the AfD through the transclusion. Hopefully I've set things right now. Again, sorry! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Please be more careful when trying to fix typos; your edit to Catalan grammar, for example, was incorrect.
Thanks in advance!
—RuakhTALK 05:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Discover images
Thanks for catching that, Mbisanz. I removed the images from both images. Sorry about that! ʝuѕтɛn 14:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I note your query regarding spliiting the list. Unfortunately, any split would make some of the sorting not work properly. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#List of England international footballers about the future of this list to which you may care to contribute. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Page splitting
Sorry for the delay, I've been busy with visiting family and working on final projects for the end of the college semester. If noone responds in several days, it should be fine to split the article. It can always be undone if there are reasonable objections later. If there is an argument on the talk page with no consensus, it is probably better to wait for a more experienced administrator to deal with it, in my opinion. Academic Challenger (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Unused roads
Hi, thanks for the pointer. Have made my comment.Regan123 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - regarding your two recent edits to Brook Watson using AWB - 'usefull' is in a quotation, and so should not be corrected. Is there any way you can alter AWB (whatever that is - I'm a techno numpty) so that it recognises quotation/speech marks around words and doesn't correct odd spellings within the quotations? Thanks Jasper33 (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
List of registered political parties in Spain
Thanks for spotting my mistake in using the wrong old afd template. I have corrected it now I believe. Davewild 19:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Grading in Australia
Please take a look at Talk:Grading in Australia. Regards, Waldir talk 11:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Notifications
For page moves notifications are not that important unless there is already a controversy. For AFDs, I think that the creator and all major editors should be notified, especially those who are active members of the community. Academic Challenger 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Suggestion
I love your arbcom tool, the sortable feature makes it very useful. Would it make sense to have some colo differentiation at the 90% level. Since 90% is the level for 'crat elections, some people might consider that an important level of acceptance to achieve. Mbisanz 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is no percentage level for ArbCom elections. If there are X seats to fill the top X are selected, last year that was everyone above about 85% – Gurch (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yea I know about the Jimbo selects the top X method. It was just that your cool chart seems to follow RfA color levels and I was wondering if it could merge the RfA and RfB color levels. I'm guessing you included colors since some users will equate Arbcom responsibility with Admin responsibility. Mbisanz 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I included colors to make it look nice. Everyone could get less than 70% and we would still end up with the top few, so a comparison with RfA and its fixed percentage system is irrelevant – Gurch (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thats cool, I understand your reasoning now. To bad Jimbo didn't define exactly how many people he plans to select. Then only the top X would need a different color. Mbisanz 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's either 5 or 6. Or possibly 7. Probably 6, but I'm not sure – Gurch (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
NY congressional delegations
Could you explain to me what is the pattern of current articles established by consensus and where it is to be found. If it is clear, I can remove the split articles as housekeeping. I assume you have gone to the work of cleaning up the large number of redirects that are likely to have been involved. Please respond on my page, not here. 05:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Prosper article edits
Hi,
I saw your edit to the Prosper article, and thought you might be interested to know that there is a pending Mediation Cabal process regarding Hu12's repeated deletions of much of this article. It is located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-11-28_Prosper_%28web_site%29. If you want to take a look and add your comments, it would be appreciated. Ira01 (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Mbisanz: I don't think the Prosper edit matter is settled. Ira may have been banned, but the issue remains that Hu12 is deleting good with the bad. Further, I'm concerned that he may not be doing due diligence on all of his revisions (entirely understandable as it seems this case has been going on for some time and I'm sure he's a bit fed up with it.) Why do I suspect this? I had reverted the last link removal, and he reverted that in turn, stating the following: "20:29, 29 November 2007 Hu12 (Undid trolling by banned user. rvt per policy) (undo)". Now I wasn't logged in at the time, but I'm also not Ira, and afaik, I'm not banned. So why would Hu12 comment that trolling was being done by a banned user. Furthermore, why did he not review the discussion on the page before the next revision? In that discussion, I've pointed out that at least two of the links in question are statistical in nature, derived from data pulled from Prosper's own source feeds.
I've no problem with dropping links that don't conform, but shouldn't the admins who delete said links be checking them first to ensure that the links being deleted really are inappropriate?
Respectfully - chaeberle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaeberle (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- They were checked.--Hu12 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't doubt they were checked. You've worked on that article enough to know to check what your doing. And he's a new user who prob doesn't know your experienced record. Mbisanz (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can we unlock the page now that the dispute has been settled?Chaeberle (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The List issue
For the first three years of Wikipedia, there were no categories. Early on it was decided that even though normal encyclopedias don't have lists, there needed to be a way to categorize things so that people could find things they were interested in easily. The first article I worked on when I came here in September 2003 was List of assassinated people. It was already large when I got here, it got even bigger while it was active there, and now it is huge, probably even with several related pages, and involves lots of categories. When the category system was developed in 2004, it caught on fairly quickly, but some people still felt that the lists were useful as another form of categorization. Lists can, among other things, take extra information to briefly summarize the importance of an article to the topic. I am sure that there have been lots of policy discussions and attempts to delete the lists, but they remain popular, and there is even a Featured List Candidate page as you know from reading the Signpost. I am sure that the lists you mention have related categories which their articles are in. However, I think that people enjoy reading the lists also and they are not harming anything. Perhaps at some point some of them will go, but I would not recommend that you try to start that process now. The most important thing is to add categories to articles that don't have them, which I am starting to work on now after a long time of not concentrating on that area. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Imag restored
Image:1970 SimpsonsSears Logo.gif has been restored as you requested. Please add the source information, if possible. Otherwise, the image will be deleted around the 14th December. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, MBisanz ... what do you make of the edits to Diane Garnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made by the WP:SPA anon 12.30.60.194 (talk · contribs)? Do you think that they need an additional warning by Some Other Editor? Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
High Rock?
What the hell did you do to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Rock. It got smudged into the split article. Bit odd eh?TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
|
The Template Barnstar | |
| For making some useful Recent Changes Newlinecinema (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
Civility issue
Sorry I'm not on here more often, I am busy with visiting family right now. Basically it's better to ignore things like that. I've seen a lot worse comments in Wikipedia discussion. Academic Challenger (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sandstorm Enterprises
I did a cleanup pass on Sandstorm Enterprises; it's substantially smaller. I read the discussion on the page, and the previous AfD, and frankly I'm really disappointed; it looks like the original nom was a casual, exploratory effort.
Do you have either (a) any opinions or advice on the cleanup I did, or (b) an opinion on whether it'd be reasonable to AfD this article again? I'm getting fed up with people spamming WP, especially in computer security.
--- tqbf 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that you did a good job on the cleanup. It was longer than it should have been. Sandstorm seemed more notable back when the original entry was created. Simsong (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for handling it so well, sorry for using the word "spam". It is a problem here, but you're clearly not a part of it. --- tqbf 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
COI, notification
As you can see from the templates, it's actually not disallowed to edit an article where you have COI issues; you may want to cite specific instances of POV edits, instead of telling Garfinkel not to edit at all. Note also, FWIW (in case you don't work in the space), Garfinkel is for better or worse genuinely notable --- though his previous company may not be.
Just a friendly heads-up.
--- tqbf 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input!
Thank you very much for your input on my page, the Sandstorm page, and the Sophal Ear page. I always learn by participating in these Wikipedia discussions. It's very interesting to see how this community is evolving with its norms and practices. Simsong (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Step-
Step-son, step-father etc isn't really a typo, just a variant spelling. I don't think it really warrants "correcting". David Underdown (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is possibly slightly old-fashioned British English, but it's perfectly recognisable. It's probably just something that someone's recently added to the regexes without realsiing the hyphenated version is perfectly acceptable. David Underdown (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
All Olympic athletes are notable
This is a long-established convention. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia by disputing it. Alex Middleton (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
binomial names
please note that the genus of a binomial is always capitalised, and the species never is, so it's Gavia arctica Jimfbleak (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please be somewhat cautious with speedy deletions
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.
Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) (or the applicable related pages) before you nominate articles for deletion. In this case, you tagged an article that met all three minimal criteria of the applicable policy:
- The text of an article included information to explain why the person is notable: She won an international award.
- the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy has been followed
- The person was the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject: With a simple Google check, I found several articles by well-known sources, such as BBC and Straits Times, reporting about this person.
Next time, instead of going through this unnecessary bureaucracy and putting well-intended people under pressure, please assume good faith and help less experienced users, e.g. by doing a Google search and adding references. — Sebastian 21:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up on speedying. My usual google search criteria turned up this [1] which seemed to confirm a lack of notability. I don't speak vietnamese, but I'd expect "some" english coverage of a notable person. And I didn't know how seriously to treat an award from Transparency International (seemed like a rip from Amnesty International). And the phrase "She has been repeatedly threatened by many involved persons but keeps on her actions" seemed to indicate a poor quality (non-neutral) source. Still, you found the sources, so thank you. Mbisanz (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the nice reply! You're right. Now I remember that I got that first, too. I'll create a redirect at Le Hien Duc.
- BTW, it's nothing personal. I was part of the team that created CSD in the first place (I invented the codes like "A7"), but I now find that it often backfires, especially at newbies who come here because they care about an issue, but then get so bitten that they never get a chance to develop into good contributors. It's just sad. — Sebastian 22:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please also remember that A7 is for articles that do not even assert a minimal degree of notability. Saying someone was music director of a significant production is an assertion of notability, even when unproven. When you just doubt the notability, as for Ian McFarland use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. But you are checking google, which is a lot better than many people. DGG (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- since you asked me for advice--only 50% that are eventually deleted means you are tagging way too much. You should aim at at least 90%--and more like 98%. (I scan CSD mainly to try to pick up articles that perhaps should be kept, and even looking at only those where there might be a chance, i delete 9/10 of them.) The idea at WP is not to speedy unless it is absolutely certain--when not, to use a Prod or AfD. Don't assume the original author will place a hangon, since most speedies are deleted within a few minutes before people have a chance to respond. Every time it gets declined means more work for others, and anxiety for the author (many inexperienced authors simply leave when that happens and we lose them & we need all the potentially good people we can get) and if the admin is a little tired or careless, sometime even an unjustified speedy gets deleted.
- Prod is for when you hope the creator wont respond, either because he wont be around, won't care, or will recognize his mistake. (If it is clear there is going to be an argument, it save time to go to AfD directly.) Expect that a good many prods will be removed, often without justification. Don't be bothered when people do that. You are perfectly in the right, when a prod of yours gets removed, to examine if the article is improved enough, and if not to send it to AfD--that's what AfD is there for. You are in fact expected to follow them up, not ignore them. Since there';s no automatic way to do it, most people keep a listAt Afd when a really bad article gets there, there's a quick closing there. It's good to have public attention on anything disputable--that way, you learn what the general feeling is about such articles. DGG (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to bring a computer to the meetup--we talk, not compare edits. anyway, someone from nearby will have one. See you there. DGG (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Single song AfDs
My experiences with mass-nominations have been poor, and, from experience, although all the articles look the same, I often find that there will be one or two songs among them that are notable- maybe one charted, one was a theme song, or one was significant for the band (the first time a certain member did something they became known for, for example) so I prefer to nominate individually so that anything that could be kept is more likely to be. Thanks for the advice! J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion protocols
Hello again, MBisanz ... I would appreciate your comments on my four step deletion warning protocols (such as Warn-bio, Warn-fiction, and others listed on my User page), and the templates I created for talk pages ... a few months ago, User:DGG "raised my consciousness" about choosing PRODs over CSDs (which can sometimes be closed Too Quickly), and the latest versions reflect this new POV ... I had placed {{Warn-article}} tags on the talk pages of some of the articles listed in this AfD for a bunch of fictional soap opera characters.
I know that the template is rather verbose, but it's based on the assumption that it's "new information" to the editor seeing it for the first time, and may change their opinions about the existing procedures and the way they apply them ... besides, if the article is deleted, its size doesn't matter :-) ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.199 (talk · contribs) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: User:Abbie15
The article does seem like copy and paste job. Although it's poorly written, I actually think Conservation security program has potential and that Abbie is doing it in good faith. It's probably better if the editor just made a stub with some references. If the prod is removed without explanation, I'll take it to AfD. It probably deserves an article though if it's better written. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Request for speedy deletion of Public Financial Management
Mbisanz,
I would like to add some constructive criticism to your requesting the speedy deletion of Public Financial Management.
As was noted by the editor who cancelled your request, the page contained a designation of notability by means of the specification of transcation values for PFM. These, as you should be able to see, are quite substantial, and along with the ranking awarded to the company by SDI should be enough to prevent exclusionists like you to add a corp request.
Imagine if the page had been SD'd without someone checking whether your request was valid or not? We would lose another article containing valuable information. Please be more careful in the future when you judge criteria for SD, and make sure you match it up with the wiki guidelines.
Also, I'm not affiliated with the company in any way.
Best regards, Astrochris (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the prod warning on Stephania Bell. I think I've accidentally become the "creator" of this document because I made a dumb mistake -- long story, but I speedied the article then thought better of it and restored it, because it wasn't really copyvio, and when I restored it I forgot to restore the entire history. I'm sure this will all work out, but I'll see if I can track down the article's true creator and inform him/her. In the meantime, thanks for your courtesy in informing me, and I'll take it from here. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I restored the entire history of the article and put the prodwarning on the creator's talk page. Apologies for the confusion and I think everything's on track now. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Stephania Bell
People just need to be aware that the article exists. Ask a bunch of people to go to SportsNation tomorrow and flood messages with it. Try and get it noticed and maybe it'll get some hits. I don't care if it gets deleted, and frankly I'm kinda for it. Just wait 5 days. Thanx. --HPJoker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Nav templates TFD
I pretty much meant to do it the way that I did it. Multiple template TFDs are more manual than the single templates ones as you can't really use the template that is provided on the TFD page. However, I've gone ahead and added {{lt}} for each of the templates. So feel free to head on over there and make a comment in the existing discussion.--Bobblehead (rants) 08:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Alleged 3RR violation
Hello Mbisanz, I know that you are acting in good faith, but you have miscounted the number of my reverts to the Romney article for today. I've made a total of four edits to that article today. The first one was not a revert, but the addition of new information from the NY Times. The other three were reverts, but there was no fourth revert. I am asking that, in good faith, you remove me from the 3RR report. Diffs can sometimes be a tangle to read, but if you go here [2] and count the number of my edits today, you'll see that there are only four, and that the first one was not a revert, but the addition of new information. Thanks very much! Qworty (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Easy to understand the error. That was the second time in two days he had gone up to the limit on his three reverts by adding dubious material to a BLP, apparently viewing three reverts as an entitlement.[3] Cool Hand Luke 08:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hey there! Just a note to say "thanks very much" for your support on my recent successful RfA. I'm humbled by the support I received and hope to live up to it by using the tools with care and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Thanks again! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Response
I think your proposal is a great idea. Of course it's mainly up to the developers, and some of these things take a lot of time. I also responded to your Portuguese question on my talk page. Actually I will start having a lot of free time for winter break right after Christmas. But so far the winter break has been a lot busier than I expected. Families can change plans sometimes. Academic Challenger (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Bone cutter article - PROD declined
I have declined the PROD on Bone cutter that you placed. I do not consider this to be a dictionary definition, but rather a description of instances of a class of instrument. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
User Page
It's not really a blog. A blog would be if I posted my comments on the page, and no it's not a newsletter, while I do write a section in the newsletter. No, my contributions wouldn't be valuable to the newsletter I write because it's a Red Sox newsletter, mine is an MLB newsletter. Notice how it says MLB NEWS AND RED SOX FREE AGENCY NEWS. --HPJoker (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It was a reasonable prod, but I think there's plenty of information out there and the article is worth keeping. I think it's now off to a decent start and have removed the prod template. --Reuben (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I hope somebody who can actually speak Georgian will take an interest! --Reuben (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Neopup PAW-20
Please dont revert my edits and talk down to me. Your source is filled with incorrect statements. Your information on the Neopup PAW-20 is incorrect. Please confirm my edits by refering to the authoritative Janes Infantry Weapons 2007-2008 or, the article published in the November 2006 issue of The European Cartridge Researcher, the journal of the European Cartridge Research Association. This article is written by the well known author of many authoritative books on guns, Anthony G. Williams, who is also the editor of the Janes Ammunition Handbook. The article can be found at [4] T.Neo (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to this as supporting my edits. T.Neo (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted some of your edits. This website supports my edits. T.Neo (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Konan Big
An article that you have been involved in editing, Konan Big, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konan Big (2nd nomination). Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
AMNH tour
We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#AMHN tour sign-up. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb
Hi Mbisanz: I am trying to understand why you nominated the article about the present head of the OU, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb for deletion. It is really troubling and puzzling that you would not have heard of this key rabbi and that you would nominate for deletion the biography about him on such flimsy grounds. Did you think of perhaps contacting some Judaic editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism to voice your concerns. Are you that sure of your knowldege about rabbis and Judaism, especially Orthodox Judaism, to have nominated such an article for deletion? I would be happy to hear your views on this matter and hopefully you will not commit such and obvious blunder again any time soon. Thanks for your attention. IZAK (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
CIA article
I'm glad you asked, but I'm a little confused, as I have been in the process of splitting it into at least 5 geographical sub-articles, about 5 more on transnational issues, and a core article describing the subject. There are some people that are objecting to any changes, possibly on political grounds, but as you might suspect, it becomes almost impossible to edit a single article that long. I suspect that some of the geographical articles will need to split again, as Asia-Pacific is around 160KB.
As you might imagine, this is a controversial topic. While I do have some experience with intelligences, that only helps me know about some of the things that have gone wrong, as well as right. At the same time, I am reluctant to put up an article saying, without sourcing and context, "CIA trained police in XXX". Contrary to the opinion of some, the organization does do things other than overthrow regimes. As an example of what I consider both objective and adequate, see CIA Activities by Region: Asia-Pacific#Indonesia. This is detailed, and still needs more, but shows that there were both analytic/estimate reports and covert action in 1965, but none foresaw the Indonesian military purging the Communists.
I've been trying to get to a proper nested heading format, rather than the bullets for dates some had been using.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we aren't communicating. I expect all of the regional information to come out of the main article. There is an editor (Erxnmedia) who, on the article page, was objecting to any of the regional information coming out of the main article, insisting that he wanted to work on a single article. I think he wants to get "consensus" on the split, but, while it may be the time of the year, the only other people that had been editing are those apparently want the page to be a non-neutral condemnation: for example, they don't want the intelligence analysis, just the covert action.
- While there are 5 regional articles at the moment, I expect there to be more. The disambiguation links should be at the start of the main article (regional and functional), as I believe they now are. I do need to get the article "CIA Activities by region: Americas, Africa, Asia" deleted because that already split into three articles. I'm beginning to think there needs to be one more functional article on global health issues, as there is a surprising amount of CIA analysis on the global economic and stability impact of HIV/AIDS, and a smaller amount on other disease issues. Polio was very close to being eradicated from the planet, like smallpox, until there was some spread among refugees in East Africa (I haven't quite figured out how it jumped from Nigeria to Sudan to Kenya, but that seems to be the case).Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- If I understand you, we want to do the same thing: get the regional content out of the main article.
Romance writers
If they were on the best sellers list, there can be articles. I agree the articles by Taragreen are about as bad as they get, but what they need is rewriting. I will try to get the COI-ridden author to do so. DGG (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Pulley AfD
Yikes. There are definitely some heartstrings there. I'll read over it and put together a response today. On a separate note, I noticed you're on "editor review". Whenever I come into contact with a user with that on their userpage, I usually snoop into contrib, hope you don't mind! (The assumption that I make here is that if you minded, you wouldn't be on review)...cheers. Keeper | 76 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, ...I've responded. We'll see. Keeper | 76 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's only as good of a response as the response it generates from the intended audience, but I appreciate your kind words (and saw your userpage update - very flattered)... We'll see how DonnPulley reacts, I get disturbed when I see a "new user's page", trying to make a legitimate contribution, slapped with template-spam, especially when they haven't even been given a welcome template. Don't take that critically (or "themindseye" for that matter) I've done it quite often myself. Lately though, I've been trying to actually type my thoughts instead of "subst.'ing" them with someone elses. Hope he responds well to a real note. Anyway, I digress. I'm off to check your contribs, any closet stuff to be watching for? :-) Keeper | 76 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
MBisanz, I entered what should be an acceptable reference source for this entry into the "talk" page and wondered if you had reviewed it yet? Will this resolve the issues? DonnPulley (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I entered the information as you requested. Thanks for all of your help on this! DonnPulley (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Mbisanz, I see that the references have now been placed in the article. How do we get rid of the "proposed for deletion" section above the actual article now? DonnPulley (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Mbisanz, after discussing this article and having my father review it for accuracy, I have made a few minor changes and added a more appropriate photo. I don't know how to link the photo to the article but I'm sure that you can help me on this. I have also found an article from the Navy Times dated February 23, 1987 referencing my father's accomplishments, White House letters and Department of the Navy Letters of Commendation if you want me to include that information as well. Just let me know and thanks again for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnPulley (talk • contribs) 18:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
30
Thanks for your comment on Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. in response to the posting in WP:30. I think you are supposed to delete the listing in WP:30 after you have responded. Cheers, --Samiharris (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Letter To God Afd IP Editing
Hello Mbisanz,
It was my editing, I forgot to login, thank you for your concern. Koby —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokoby (talk • contribs) 06:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Further work
Well your proposal went live on the Uploader which is a good thing. I'm still concerned that too many BCB images will get deleted for not having the article= tag in them. Is there some way to make Article= an optional variable in the Image Summary Template? Then the uploader could have it as a visible option, and experienced users would just know that they don't need it for free images. Mbisanz (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that this really isn't a good option. The problem here is mainly that BetacommandBot tags images for deletion rather than fixing them. The bot really ought to be rewritten to automatically add the Article parameter if it has been omitted. —Remember the dot (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
PROD
Just so you know Secta Del Mesias was at the top level of the sport it is currently one of the most promoted angles in Asistensia Asesoria y Administracion one of two of Mexico's major promotions, with their leader being the first champion in the company's history thus a major angle in Mexico, watch out of careless PRODing not because someone doesn't appear on WWE or TNA programming does it mean that it is not notable or "local" just because its not seen in the United States does it mean its "local" the world is a lot bigger that the US. 24.139.163.61 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Their leader is currently wrestling in TNA and has won championships in three different countries, I wouldn't call it "regional" the problem is that the article's wording wasn't the best, that's why you should try a quick google or yahoo! search before PRODing. 24.139.163.61 (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Milwaukee Filmmakers
Thanks for the advice. I think it would work better as a category instead of a list too. It would be great it you could do the category-making leg work, as I don't know how. Thanks for your help! Shatner1 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you have been doing sterling work fixing typos with AWB however in the instance of James Brydges, 1st Duke of Chandos complier was in fact correct - it was a sentence about how compliant he was & as it was a contemporary quote the language used was understandably somewhat archaic. I know how easy it is to get in a rhythm with automated tools and I have reverted your change so no harm done but thought I should drop you a line to let you know. Kind regards, nancy (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Dear MBisanz, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Weinreb
I think I know who the vandal is, but that is not the point. What do we do? Block his IP? Lobojo (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
League of Copyeditors roll call
|
Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors. |
Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Image Proposals
I'm working on two new image system proposals over here User:Mbisanz/ImageSystemProposal and figured you might be interested in them either commenting or if you know coding. Mbisanz (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- What would be better still would be to present the user with links such as "logo", "screenshot", etc. and automatically fill out the use rationale template appropriately. That wouldn't require any new JavaScript or CSS. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- That would be good, but I've seemed to notice that even though everyone re-uses other people's rationales, no one wants to make that a policy that if you put rationale x from a template, your in the clear. Mbisanz (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there are already extensively used templates like Template:Logo fur. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thats an interesting template, and would probably make a great form pre-filler (ie: the form box would say that unless a user tried to edit it.) That might satisfy users who want each user to "author" a rationale. Mbisanz (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for notice me about it. But sorry, your English is harder than what I can understand :D--OsamaK (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Image policy
Because I am almost totally blind, I have generally stayed away from issues of image policy. I'm also not very good at coding either. But from what I can tell your proposals are good. John Broughton, who just commented on it, is a good long-time editor and would be a good person to help you. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
CIA (no, this message will not self-destruct) :-)
If you can improve the titles, I'm very open to suggestions. If possible, I'd like to try to stay with the five functional areas, since those correspond fairly well to the actual intelligence community organization (i.e., not just the CIA). The geographic areas may have to split again.
If you think "transnational" is obscure, and you have a better idea, I'm open to it. It is the term that's used in intelligence (Western, not just US) and a fair bit of political science.
Yes, "problem statement" does have a specific meaning. Essentially, it's the way the analyst confirms to the person making the request "This is what I think you want me to analyze. Tell me if it is not." The eventual report will often start with a rephrase of the problem statement, then a summary of the conclusions, then the detailed discussion.
Maybe we can work out some balance with respect to hierarchy. My concern is that if things are not somewhat hierarchical, it can give the conspiracy theorists the idea that some group just goes off and does something on its own. I won't say that has never happened, especially under Directors Dulles and Casey, but there's usually a pretty fair structure in why things happen -- with due regard to sheer incompetence. Hierarchy did work fairly well for the set of articles on the process of intelligence, starting with intelligence cycle management. That really works well in separating the different aspects of defining what needs to be done, managing the process, and actually doing the process.
Thanks for your help. You are doing what I appreciate as good faith, rather than the couple of cases of "I don't like it so delete it all."
There's still going to be lots of POV problems, both because people have positions, and, in other cases, because they have taken their information from a conspiracy theorist or glib journalist/novelist. The Operation Gladio material seems to have come from one book, and has some really implausible things that I'm not quite sure how to document in a sourced way. For example, I removed a claim that the Swiss had a Gladio operation subordinated to NATO. The Swiss are so focused on neutrality that it took them a number of years to decide to join the UN.
Ganser, the Gladio author, does, for example, cite the FM31-21B forgery as fact. I did delete that, and I suppose there are sources. Unfortunately, disproving it, to people who are looking for James Bond, gets pretty bureaucratic. One of the first warning signs is that the document is supposed to be TOP SECRET. The problem is that US Army Field Manuals are never classified above SECRET; the TS stuff goes into other document series. If that had been claimed to be a European Command Operations Plan, it might have been plausible.
Thanks again. Howard
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Agreed there should not be pro or con forks. Several factors apply here, which might be a bit more evident in my earlier, non-CIA articles, or one that does a fair bit of history (US, UK, some French) about Clandestine HUMINT and Covert Action. AFAIK, no country has ever fully solved the problem of the relationship between the two.
- Coincidentally, I was reading an article tonight by one of the few people who has been both an ambassador and a CIA station chief. He points out that you don't always get to deal with the Little Sisters of the Poor. Also, I'm thinking of William F. Buckley Jr.'s book, which takes a title from TS Eliot, An Infinity of Mirrors. Unfortunately, especially on the covert action side, just as with organized crime law enforcement, there are people that aren't very nice, but those are the ones who have the needed contacts. The US insisting on "unconditional surrender" extended WWII, I believe, by months and perhaps millions of lives. The global stage is not black and white, but shades of gray.
Without getting into the whole question of whether drug prohibition makes sense, let's say you are an operations person in Southeast Asia or Afghanistan, and you need the help of a local warlord to go after an enemy or just collect evidence, be it the Ho Chi Minh trail or al-Qaeda. In certain parts of the world, the real currency is opium. The question may be: can you do what you need to do without local help? If a nice clean satellite can get you all the information you need, you don't need to cut drug deals. If not, then the morality gets very very complicate -- and don't assume all the bad guys are on the other side.
There certainly has been drug involvement, and by more than one country. At some point, there is a question of priorities, and no clear answer. I'd consider it NPOV to observe that such-and-such a mission was given out, local help was needed, and the only currency for that help is drugs. What's the right thing to do? I don't know; I do know it's a lot more ethically complex than a lot of people want to make it. Perhaps the two drug related arguments can merge, and, in specific cases, it comes down to what people up to and including the President ordered, or, more likely, say "do what ya gotta do, and I don't want to know the details."
Unquestionably, there are times when Presidents need to be told NO, but it's hard to do. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- One suggestion on the changes you are making to the introductions: what do you think of making it clear that activities include things in the field, but also analysis and estimates back at headquarters. Saying it's just
"Activities in Africa" runs the danger of implying everything is covert action. Of course, the field activities also include intelligence collection as well as regime change and the like. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- While I'm willing to hear real evidence, I've never heard anything really substantial about the allegations, mostly in California, that CIA personnel, as a part of their duties, were part of cocaine distribution in the US. I have no trouble believing that one group was helping smuggle it out of South America while a different group was trying to stop the trade. That something that controversial managed to stay utterly secret seems implausible. IIRC, one San Jose Mercury-News reporter was at the heart of most of the accusations, and much of what he was saying didn't stand up to criminial investigation.
- Sometimes, the best test for whether something meets the smell test is what the lawyers call cui bono-- "who benefits"? For example, the Swiss have had a strategy, going before WWII, to have their regular military time to give their reserves time to get into the Alps. Why would the Swiss have benefitted from CIA advice on stay-behind networks? Would there have been CIA people that were the experts on mountaineering and high-altitude combat? Switzerland isn't exactly a low-tech company; Hagelin AG is about the only company that ever made money purely on encryption gear, and they are Swiss. The Gladio stuff didn't make sense.
- In like manner, why take the risk of scandal by active participation in retailing drugs, when you might just bribe, or look the other way? Again, if there is real evidence, I'm happy to look at it objectively. Mostly, though, I hear a lot of conspiratorially minded people that have prejudged something stinks and they will look for things that support their idea and ignore things that don't. That certainly isn't limited to the US, if you look at India, or Russia, or any of a number of places. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- For sorry, I'm not a JavaScript programmer. My version is an autosave version of User:Ilmari Karonen/nfurbacklink.js only. I have asked him to apply autosave on his tool, but he didn't yet. Then I have made very minor edit to fix that. I'm ready to help you in anything else.--OsamaK (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Was the above meant for me?
- Apropos the arms control/nonproliferation, I think I did what is a realistic job of answering your source questions. If you like, wordsmith my introductory comment as an introduction, if it isn't too informal.
- Unfortunately, the interactions of treaties, legislation, government agency organizations, government agency reorganization, etc., tend to make for diagrams that would best be described as particularly tangled bowls of spaghetti (if not worms that are still moving). One of the problems with WP:OR is that to follow certain articles at all, some background is needed. Mathematical or pharmacological articles are good examples; you have to have some background.
- In what I'll broadly call the intelligence world, there is a lot that comes from being able to hold relationships and history in your head. Another problem is when the details are classified, and there are several workarounds to that -- the George Washington University National Security Archives are very good at some of those techniques, where you pick up several related redacted documents, and find out that what is censored in document 1 might be in document 2, and vice versa. When the actual documents, with classified material blacked, are available, there can be clues -- certain code words, for example, would appear in certain places and be of a specific length; I don't know why the government assumes that experienced observers won't pick up the pattern. Unfortunately, WP doesn't officially distinguish between OR, and what the patent office tends to call "things that would be apparent to one skilled in the art."
- Anyway, unless I've missed any calls for citations, I think I got all the explicit ones. At least in my insomniac mode, however, I didn't see a straightforward way to source the early bullets, other than to cite lots of agencies, mission statements, legislation, and testimony, which really were the basis. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Taggings
Please be more careful with throwing around notability tags. This morning, you tagged as "non-notable" Robert Tickner, a former Australian federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and one of our more significant federal politicians of the 1980s and early 1990s. Did you even read the article? Rebecca (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this might serve as a lesson to be more careful before tagging based on ignorance and unwarranted assumptions. Rebecca (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Emmanuel schools india, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Bill Majors AfD
Please consider two items that I've added in a new 'references' section at Bill Majors as grounds for removing your AfD tag there. At this site, http://english.seoul.go.kr/gover/cooper/coo_03hon.html you may download an Excel sheet that lists Majors among 473 (since 1972) Honorary Citizens of Seoul--and here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118534385590477350.html is an article of the Wall Street Journal that uses Majors as a source, citing his long-term commitment to Korea as authority for his comment. Davidabram (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Koreans don't hand out honorary citizenship like penny candy, if that's what you mean. Maybe you saw my internal link to honorary citizenship that mentions Korea? Guus Hiddink was cited for leading the Korean national team to the final four of the 2002 World Cup--and Hines Ward (hilariously mispelled as 'Word' in the Excel document--'You hear Hines got MVP?' Word? That's right.' http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=word) who was born in Seoul was cited for his 2006 Super Bowl MVP Award. Davidabram (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, Mbisanz. I don't know about the particular honor, but I do know that a foreigner gaining Korean citizenship is fairly rare. Though gaining citizenship in and of itself is probably not rare enough to satisfy Notability, this particular honorary citizenship might be. (Though, again, I don't know.) I'll drop a line at the talk page of a Korean editor (User talk:Appletrees). Regards, and Happy New Year! Dekkappai (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mbisanz! Per this COI complaint, and your kind offer, if you have time to run AWB to get rid of all the external links to this museum's site, it would be appreciated. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
One of those days
Ever had one of those days when you just want to WP:ABF and WP:BITE someone? :( MBisanz talk 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I assume you're talking about the Bill Majors stuff? Go here for some of the rants I've found here and there. Feel free to add one. I hope you don't think I'm assuming bad faith with your nom, I think your nom was sincere and wellfounded based on the information you had at the time. The parallels with Gerald Pulley/User:DonnPulley are obvious. But this particular newbie, Davidabram, seems to have taken your nom very personally, and with less class than DonnPulley, but really for the same reasons. He (I presume "He") wrote a couple of articles, cited his sources, and was slapped with a speedy on one and an AfD on the other. I really think the article is sufficient as it stands, regardless of the COI issues, which I personally detest (I know lots of people that are notable in my world - I haven't written about one of them...). But the article is balanced, asserts notability, provides links for verifiability - what else can we ask for? Keeper | 76 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I found the nominating criteria here [5] and again, I'm torn ont his one, since it doesn't seem like that notable an award, I skimmed the list of recipients,a nd none of them jumped out as names I'd ever heard of. Is there any way I could just go neutral as the nom? MBisanz talk 20:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I looked there too. To be honest, I don't know what the criteria are for winning that award, or whether that makes a person notable, but IMO, its irrelevant. Icing on the Cake of Notability. That whole section+ref was added after you did the AfD. The article, at the time of the AfD, already had three sources, including one (Joonangdaily) that had Bill Major's picture as the lead (obviously making the article about him directly). In order to avoid systemic bias (read:most WP editors are white young Americans), I feel this article meets are basic requirements (putting aside COI as we are allowed to do and you and I have both recently done so in the past). this article is NPOV. It has sources. It (he) is notable outside of the United States microcosm. I just don't see what the article is missing. BTW, I just sent a message to the speedy delete admin for the other article (IWE) to see what the criteria for deletion was there, and I've also sent a rather lengthy note to the articles' author. I'd appreciate your feedback there, do you think I was out of line? Anyway, I think you're acting in good faith and hope you're not getting too frustrated. My recommendation would be to withdraw the nom in a similar way to the Geral Pulley stuff, but it is certainly up to the closing admin to do as he/she pleases. Whatever happens, the sun will certainly set, and most predictably, rise again with a whole new batch of speedies, prods and AfDs :-). Happy editing, keep up the good fight! Keeper | 76 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Mbisanz for your change to the AfD. Also, (you've probably already noticed) the companion article International Worship in English has also been restored by the deleting admin and sent to AfD. Thanks also for the link to the BradPatrick quote. Interesting, and I actually really agree strongly with his assertions for corporate-y spam. I don't think this particular article, or the IWE, or Gerald Pulley (although all obviously extremely COI) are really in the same strain as something like Grabber Tees, which seems to be more the type of article that the (former) legal counsel was referring to. To me, it's really a core difference between a BLP of someone trying to accomplish something IRL vs. a corporation trying to boost profits. Just my thoughts. Happy editing, Keeper | 76 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I looked there too. To be honest, I don't know what the criteria are for winning that award, or whether that makes a person notable, but IMO, its irrelevant. Icing on the Cake of Notability. That whole section+ref was added after you did the AfD. The article, at the time of the AfD, already had three sources, including one (Joonangdaily) that had Bill Major's picture as the lead (obviously making the article about him directly). In order to avoid systemic bias (read:most WP editors are white young Americans), I feel this article meets are basic requirements (putting aside COI as we are allowed to do and you and I have both recently done so in the past). this article is NPOV. It has sources. It (he) is notable outside of the United States microcosm. I just don't see what the article is missing. BTW, I just sent a message to the speedy delete admin for the other article (IWE) to see what the criteria for deletion was there, and I've also sent a rather lengthy note to the articles' author. I'd appreciate your feedback there, do you think I was out of line? Anyway, I think you're acting in good faith and hope you're not getting too frustrated. My recommendation would be to withdraw the nom in a similar way to the Geral Pulley stuff, but it is certainly up to the closing admin to do as he/she pleases. Whatever happens, the sun will certainly set, and most predictably, rise again with a whole new batch of speedies, prods and AfDs :-). Happy editing, keep up the good fight! Keeper | 76 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I found the nominating criteria here [5] and again, I'm torn ont his one, since it doesn't seem like that notable an award, I skimmed the list of recipients,a nd none of them jumped out as names I'd ever heard of. Is there any way I could just go neutral as the nom? MBisanz talk 20:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and kudos to you for not doing what you said you "felt" like doing at the beginning of this thread. You have done nothing except assume good faith, and you have not bitten anyone. Rare qualities indeed. Cheers, Keeper | 76 17:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Responding to your message
Yes, it does seem that people who just refuse to declare their association with something they've written will then often not get caught having a conflict of interest, and this is an ongoing problem. In this case, it is better to focus on the subject of the article not being notable enough. Academic Challenger (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you expressed interest
For your consideration: WP:TODAY. Lawrence Cohen 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
CIA and confusion
Thanks for the clarification. For the record, I have never been an employee of any US intelligence agency. When I was the network architect at the Library of Congress in 1976-1980, we had some technical collaboration with the CIA and NSA computer centers on some shared problems. These included developing computer workstations that could handle multiple character sets, such as Arabic and Cyrillic; we seemed to have more of a need to do that, at the time, than other organizations. We were all members of the Federal Telecommunications Standards Committee. All of us were dealing with the problem of computer cabling of very large buildings, before local area networking technology was available.
When the Department of Labor shut down its computer center in 1975-6, the system programming staff got jobs elsewhere. I went to the Library of Congress. Two of our lead people went to the CIA computer center. Other people started companies.
I've always been interested in intelligence and security classification, and have written on them in political forums. As a nondegree student in 1967, I attended some classes in intelligence at American University, which probably did have some CIA funding; they officially did before 1962. While at the University, I was an editor and research assistant at CRESS, formerly SORO, which was a Federal Contract Research Center that was primarily funded by the US Army and did work directly relevant to Army operations. Later, I worked at a different Army research center at George Washington University, HumRRO, which worked on training and human factors.
If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Incidentally, my involvement with Wikipedia was first in my main professional area, computer networking. I've written articles on fisheries management and Vessel Monitoring Systems, as my current work is with electronics on fishing vessels. I have published four textbooks in networking and have long been involved in national and international standards and protocol development. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Archiving and such
I'd very much appreciate 30-day archiving. This is a little embarrassing, in that I'm somewhat overloaded in administering so many different automated systems that I haven't really spent the time I should in learning some of the more specialized techniques in Wikipedia. If it does help, I can tell you excruciating details of how to manipulate nautical chart databases for commercial fishermen, that being a priority of the moment (I have done a couple of articles on fisheries management and probably should do more, as, much to my surprise, I'm more and more in a business of computer and electronic systems integration for commercial fishing).
Perhaps you can point me in the right direction for some other things. When I'm creating a complex article or spinning off pieces, I start out in a local word processor for speed, then move to a sandbox so I can work out the wikilinks without edit conflicts. I created several sandboxes, and one user page of archived discussions relevant to computer networks.
It would be most rational if I didn't do what I'm doing now: recycling sandboxes such that the name of the user page has nothing to do with its contents. As I understand, a regular user can create but not delete one's own userpages, but there is a Magic Template that I can set up to have a bot (or admin) delete a userpage -- or perhaps rename the userpage. Can you give me a pointer?
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
(cue Monty Python theme)
I properly knuckle my brow in appreciation of the Yeoman status from your Barony, or something like that. :-) Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hirohito Talk
Thanks for the suggestion on moving my comment. --SirDecius (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit conflict bug
I've begun a draft report at User:Equazcion/Edit conflict bug. Right now it's basically just a copy of my proposal at WP:VPR. If you know anything about what such a proposal should look like, I'd appreciate any feedback -- or just edit the page directly. Thanks! Equazcion •✗/C • 22:59, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holiday season and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 07:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Franklin Pierce
Franklin Pierce 3 just saying hello! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.160.47 (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In re: Proposal
Thank you for the prompt response.
Yes, the 'Nuremberg Defense' is one instance of the use of it. But there is the pre-Nuremberg era, the use of Superior Orders in South America (look up Alfredo Astiz, and Superior Orders after that in places such as Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. :-)
If you're interested, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carboxy's moron (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a lot of sources not available online or only available at JSTOR, and hence not accessible to the average online person. What about that, then? --Carboxy's moron (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help - I'll start typing something out and get back to you. :-)--Carboxy's moron (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: template change
OH, didn't think about that. I'll show you how it looked for me....I'll change it back now though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I cant get an upload right now. But what had happened is I didnt think about the different screen res's, so for me, "Sock" was on one line and "puppets" was on the next line, and I just corrected that and it looked fine. But I've changed it back since there are different resolutions.- Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Vote for a post-meetup restaurant
I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Muayyed Nureddin
Rather than just imposing your idea of a category of NPOV for an article just created within an hour of your imposition, you might consider offering something helpful. Please specify how it is NPOV on the talk page! I fail to see the NPOV nature of the brief info in this starting article and find your "contribution" in this case of no value! . Respectfully, Fremte (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please see the changes to the wording of the page and comment, or remove your category tags! I am considering an entry to your this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_review/Mbisanz - about this. Fremte (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop jumping on my edits on this page as soon as I make them. I do not need you to watch over what I am adding as the page is under early development, at the very time I am adding the info. I no sooner added the 'current tag' and you removed it before I could add the information to show that this is indeed a currently developing news article! If you want to contribute to the article, please do, but not in this way! I am trying to be patient, but you continue with the same behavior. Thank-you. Respectfully, Fremte (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
geez... would you give me some time?
- please give me some! I was just starting the article when you jumped on it! Fremte (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- sorry about that. it appears that Mbisanz is jumping on more than one article before the person who started it has any time at all! Fremte (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I just started the article! --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"Rampaging deletionist"... goodness, there are worse articles on roads in Toronto than that, so I thought that it was pretty safe. But thanks for the tip. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to quite reach the notability bar for sportspeople. He is signed to a club in a fully professional league in Australia but this indicates that he hasn't played for them yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Breathing performance of regulators
Thanks for flagging up the deficiencies in the new page I made: Breathing performance of regulators
I've done my best to meet the points, but as a an editor with 6 days experience, I don't know if I've done enough. Perhaps you would be kind enough to take a look or run the NP tool over it again?
Thanks in advance for any help. RexxS (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Basecamp Colorado, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and transwiki
Transwiki to Wiktionary is now an automated process that is initiated by transcluding the {{Copy to Wiktionary}} template. About a year ago, I think, the transwiki process was converted from manual to automated; transwiki automation is an option that is available in the MediaWiki software, but which is not used by all projects. So, all you need to do is to merge the articles, then affix the 'copy' template to the article that you want to go into Wiktionary. It will be copied into a special 'transwiki' namespace and await human activity to complete the transition into a Wiktionary entry. It can take a couple of days for the bot to pick up the article after it is tagged. After pickup, the bot will write a notice to the article talk page indicating it has been transwikied, and it will replace the 'copy' template with a 'copied' template, which places the article in queue for deletion via the WP:PROD pathway. The PROD can be declined as with any other if it is thought that the article should be retained in Wikipedia in addition to having been transwikied. Does this give you enough information to conduct the merger-and-transwiki yourself? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Salt Point
No idea here either. I first, when I came to the area and heard the name, thought it had something to do with the northern reach of the Hudson's salt front, but since it's not on the river that doesn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Hoebowllogo jpg w180h46.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Hoebowllogo jpg w180h46.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
?
Answer question on my talk page, then we'll start. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am pretty active, you could have seen me in many places on wiki. First step...create User:MBisanz/AC and write a statement about why you want to be an admin, what areas you have worked in -- both admin related and non-admin related, what areas you want to work in for the future -admin wise, what you did coaching wise with AcademicChallenger and what the status thereof is. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching
I'd be honored, you're doing great so far. I've got one other student, but I'm pretty sure I can manage, if you're patient enough to handle waits of a couple of days sometimes. Anything you need to know before we continue? Your coaching's apparently had some rough spots, what with your first coach going on break and your second coach leaving. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in either, my focus is deletion...CSD and AFDs mostly. I also do a fair bit of anti-vandal work; I noticed that you were interested in AFD closes. Have you tried non-admin closes yet? (BTW- do you think my coaching you will work?) Keilana|Parlez ici 04:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds good. :) If you really don't want to close as a non-admin, that's fine, I'll just have you look at some AFDs that aren't closed yet and have you tell me how you would close them. I don't recommend closing anything but very obvious cases as a non-admin, people don't like non-admins doing the really controversial ones, in my experience. Let me know what you think. Is there anything else you'd like to work on? I think you're on the right track, personally. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The purpose of it is to show which pages are more likely to be vandalised because they aren't on anybody's watchlist. I'm looking at the AFDs now, I'll give you comments in a couple of minutes. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, looking good. All but the last one were definitely 'delete' closes, and the last one was 'keep'. Good job, if you want to start on some non-admin closes, that would be great. I'd also recommend CSD tagging, could you review 10 tagged articles for me? It's fine if they're deleted, tell me whether or not you'd delete and what your rationale would be. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The purpose of it is to show which pages are more likely to be vandalised because they aren't on anybody's watchlist. I'm looking at the AFDs now, I'll give you comments in a couple of minutes. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds good. :) If you really don't want to close as a non-admin, that's fine, I'll just have you look at some AFDs that aren't closed yet and have you tell me how you would close them. I don't recommend closing anything but very obvious cases as a non-admin, people don't like non-admins doing the really controversial ones, in my experience. Let me know what you think. Is there anything else you'd like to work on? I think you're on the right track, personally. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, MBisanz! Just a friendly head's up regarding the above MfD. You stated that the user is no longer active, however I believe you may have looked at the dates wrong. It appears the user has only been here 2 days (see the links I provided in the MfD) and I am afraid they might be discouraged by the quick nomination. Unless there is some back-story I am not aware of, or if I am mistaken, I would like to suggest withdrawing the nomination for the time being. Regards. --12 Noon 2¢ 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ping
Updated response is here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Sophal Ear
I can't figure out why you placed a speedy deletion tag on Sophal Ear's page. It's not there anymore, but i have added a {{hangon}} tag just the same.
Re: Cutting (music)
Hello, Mbisanz.
I see that you proposed cutting (music) for deletion and that it has now been deleted. Admittedly, as the original author of the article, I probably shouldn't criticise your edit, but I have a quick comment. WP:AFDP#Tips on dealing with other material suggests to me that dictionary entries needn't be deleted (though deletion was justified, in the sense that there was consensus at the time). Had I been around at the time, I'd have said that I'd prefer expansion or redirection. I should emphasize that although I'd like Wikipedia to cover this subject, I acknowledge that the article was in a sorry state and that it needn't have that name or even a whole article to itself. Perhaps I'll contribute something better when I have time.
Merry Christmas. Tim Ivorson 2007-12-24
Re:Logo images
I'll take a look and see how much I can get through later today. I've just started using User:AWeenieMan's FURME and it really speeds up adding rationales. Kudos for working so hard on those images! Bláthnaid 11:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone through the list from the top to the end of Rs. I didn't add rationales when I couldn't find a source or I thought the image should be deleted anyway. I hope this helps! Bláthnaid 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Returning
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. OK, I had a few days of wikistress. I'm ready to resume if you are. Sorry for the delay. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin coach
User:Keilana and I have worked together often. We'd like to co-admin coach if that's okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad it's OK with you. Keilana|Parlez ici 13:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Your NPWatcher application
Dear MBisanz,
Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.
Jmlk17 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale - Image:WDR Dachmarke.PNG
Maybe I don't get the intention of the two templates right, but the way I understood it was that Template:Logo rationale was for the use of a Logo for xxx in the article xxx, and Template:Logo fur for the use of a Logo in other articles (though it can also be used for the article xxx), and that's how I used them. Lars T. (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, I changed the article to use only the "Logo fur" template for all rationales. Lars T. (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:MEDCAB case
Are you working Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-18 Political positions of John Edwards? I notice you marked up the case page but the case still shows as "needing a mediator" rather than "open". If you are working this case, would you mind if I joined along with you, I've participated in several WP:DR matters before but never a WP:MEDCAB matter and I'm trying to do more work to help people resolve their differences and focus on building the encyclopedia. (If you respond on my talk page, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd move the whole discussion as I prefer unified discussions). TIA. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I am not handling it. Didn't seem like the parties got the idea of mediation (I interpreted that they wanted to change policy on how 'pedia handles political candidates). Also, I'm a huge Hillary Clinton fan and a life-long Conservative (go figure) so that has COI written all over it. I'll help out (fact checking, sourcing, etc) if you want to co-mediate it, but I'd rather not take the lead. MBisanz talk 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, let's do it. I can't stand Hillary, BTW, but I'm a New England "Liberal Republican" so I've got no horse in this race. You'll have to give me some idea though how this all works. I know the suggestions say to just start talking on the talk page for the article. Additionally, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep an eye on me and don't be afraid to whack me, if I do anything silly.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've opened the case, listed us both as mediators and posted a comment on the article talk page. Based on the discussion on the case page it doesn't look like there is much likelihood of them coming together to work on what we're all here for, but we'll give it a try.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Food Channel
Thanks for the work. That bot is doing my head in. ant_ie (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Saint John of God Icon.png
re -You got the rationale right on Image:Saint John of God Icon.png, but you need to remove the orange warning box when your done, or it will still be deleted. MBisanz talk 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the feedback. SeanMack (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Image:A&P Logo.gif
A tag has been placed on Image:A&P Logo.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:A&P Logo.gif|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MBisanz talk 07:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Southern New England School of Law
I have put the page on my watchlist for now and will see about incorporating the controversy. With possibly COI I might wait until the school stops tinkering with the page. Bstone (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: FURME
I'm glad you find Firefox and FURME useful. I've completely stopped using Internet Explorer for anything. I'm going to work through some of the image backlogs this week, so if you would like some help with anything please let me know. Bláthnaid 11:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Help desk
Are you referring to the Tabs twinkle provides or tabs in your internet browser? Earthbendingmaster 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but they managed to fix it by having me do some sort of hard cache clear. MBisanz talk 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Dear MBisanz, thank you so much for responding to those concerns on my talk page. I've posted on the person's talk, if s/he wants my admin actions looked at s/he can always seek input at AN or (God forbid) through recall. You've been a great help recently, and when you're ready for RfA I'd really like to nominate you, if you've got some space for me. :) Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 06:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know I saw your edit to his page right after I saved to yours. I'm trying to work on how I would respond to a user if I did the action you did, so thanks for putting up with my interjections. MBisanz talk 06:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's a great help, actually, you're very sensible and knowledgeable, and I guess it's good practice to watch admins' talk pages and see how you'd deal with complaints like that. It's no problem at all. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Rudget
Thanks for the tip, I don't watch BN. See my response there. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ultraexactzz is now an Administrator
My RfA was successful, and closed with 44 Supports, 6 Opposes, and 1 Neutral. For your support, you have my thanks - I fully intend to live up to the lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility you have granted me. For those who opposed my candidacy, I value your input and advice, and hope that I may prove worthy of your trust. Special thanks to both Rudget and bibliomaniac15 for their expert coaching and guidance. I look forward to serving the project, my fellow editors, the pursuit of higher knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Again, you have my thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Carlos Rafael Uribazo Garrido
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Carlos Rafael Uribazo Garrido, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Oo7565 (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, I have initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Rafael Uribazo Garrido ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 05:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure
I don't mind at all. Cheers, I'm off to bed. I'll be watching for your RfA... Keeper | 76 04:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Award
Just glad to be helpful. --Tom (talk - email) 05:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the recognition. I'm glad to notice your name showing up so often at WP:COIN as well. There is a need for more patrollers to investigate the complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Your Recall Criteria
They look reasonable to me, good job! I've got more liberal policies, but yours aren't draconian by any standard. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete tag
I deleted the user page as you requested, but as an FYI, the correct tag is a WP:CSD#U1. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Signature
Hello. Just letting you know that I was trying to read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and your signature makes it very difficult ∴ AlexSm 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Protect
Yeah, don't know why I did that way Jimfbleak (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Award
User talk:Pairadox#Award Thank you! Pairadox (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Your note
What you did looks good to me, except I'd put the biographies of living persons in the Noticeboard section. But if you prefer it elsewhere, that's fine by me too. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Your signature
Hey MBisanz, there's absolutely nothing wrong with your signature - it's a lot better than other people have and it really doesn't make discussion pages hard to read and it's not too long (which is the only thing that could really make it go against WP:SIG. Personally, I don't like backgrounds - but that's just my personal preference for my own sigs. Just keep on using the sig as you have been and keep up the good work, regards - Ryan Postlethwaite 11:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sears old logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sears old logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
For articles written in a tone such as Benedicte kurzen, just use {{db-spam}}. I belief that the editor who created it was acting in good faith, but it is best just to use speedy deletion for such articles. Best regards, — Thomas H. Larsen 08:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Frank Zarb DYK
It's a little bit short at 1,941 characters. Fleshing out the intro should help. I'd reword to something like "*...that Hofstra University named its business school after former NASDAQ director Frank G. Zarb?" The shorter and punchier you keep a hook, the better chance it has of getting on. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have put this on the next update. Congratulations. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"Cuban artists" checklist
OK, none of these editors
- ArleArt (talk · contribs)
- Callelinea (talk · contribs)
- Dr Gangrene (talk · contribs)
- EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
- Ethicoaestheticist (talk · contribs)
- MBisanz (talk · contribs)
- Pharmboy (talk · contribs)
have contributed to this "Cuban artists" checklist (although there have been limited dialogs on some talk pages) ... some of them either initiated or declined PRODs, and I have asked them politely to record their actions on the checklist (like renaming/merging articles) … I mean, declining a seconded PROD without even an edit summary? What's up with that?
Well, I'm sick of playing Sisyphus and cleaning up after them, so I have deleted these articles from my watchlist, and Some Other Editor can maintain/update it … or not.
In any event, it is time for me to MOVE ON. :-)
Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 03:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Oldprodfull
Hello again, MBisanz ... I just had an epiphany ... I wanted to flag the articles on the "Cuban artists" checklist and realized that I wanted a {{Oldprodfull}} to mirror {{oldafdfull}} ... please see Template:Oldafdfull & Template:Oldprodfull for my first example of it ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Template:Oldprodfull and Seconded PROD ... these are my latest examples ... now my pillow is calling, and although I'm supposed to ignore suggestions from inanimate objects, I think maybe that in itself is an indication that it's time for me to crash. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Gunsmoke!
Just hoped you might be as amused by this as I was. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Frank G. Zarb
|
On 8 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frank G. Zarb, 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. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
From AC
Hi, sorry for the delay. I got back to the US on schedule, but didn't have time for Wikipedia this week because of visiting family. Italy was amazing, I was in Rome mostly but also visited Florence and Assissi. Anyway, your RFA looks great and it looks like you got a lot of good advice from other users. I think you're ready to go. Just tell me when you have submitted the nomination, and I will write a co-nom. I still won't be active as active as I once was for a while, but will hopefully edit a bit on most days. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Tonight would be better. Academic Challenger (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching
I personally think you're ready, I would be honored to write a conom. Keilana|Parlez ici —Preceding comment was added at 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
From AC again
Congratulations on your nomination. I would still have added a co-nom, but I don't think excessive co-noms really do any good, so I added my comments as a regular support vote. And the advice above is definitely true, though my own RFA was three years ago during a time when a lot of them were less controversial. Anyway, good luck. Academic Challenger (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
RFA nom
- Either you or I can add to the RFA page when you accept. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll go add a co-nom, if no one minds. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Go for it Kei. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll go add a co-nom, if no one minds. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Either you or I can add to the RFA page when you accept. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
HEY! You need to explicitly state you accept on the RFA nom page!!! — Rlevse • Talk • 03:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Writing nom now. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've transcluded it to the RFA page, and we're off! — Rlevse • Talk • 03:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Best of luck. I've added my nomination/support, so here's some advice for you. Don't stay up all night refreshing your RfA. Don't freak out if you get an oppose. Work on other things during this week, preferably something relaxing like reverting vandals. Finally, if you start to stress, turn off the computer and take a walk/nap/read a book/something. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's good advice. If an oppose warrants a response (not all will), respond promptly, calmly, and honestly. If you have questions, ask one of us. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice and noms, from what I've seen there will always be some pro forma neutrals or opposes, so I'm not that worried. And I hope I know better than to edit war or violate WP:CIVIL at my own RFA. ;) MBisanz talk 03:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's about time!. Good luck - I know you'll do well. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice and noms, from what I've seen there will always be some pro forma neutrals or opposes, so I'm not that worried. And I hope I know better than to edit war or violate WP:CIVIL at my own RFA. ;) MBisanz talk 03:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's good advice. If an oppose warrants a response (not all will), respond promptly, calmly, and honestly. If you have questions, ask one of us. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, MBisanz! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Commons and FPC
Answered on FPC talk --Janke | Talk 08:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC).
French Wiki
I'll translate your comments for him; I'm Utilisateur:Cricket on fr.wiki if you ever need me over there. It seems to be working though, what's the problem? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, never mind then. It's not working, I'll go translate straight away. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Translated as best I could. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
RFA thanks
RFA thanks 
:.
|
Gente de Zona
Hi,
you send me a message few days ago concerning an article (circuba) that wasn't good for the wikipedia policy. I have created an article for gente de zona and I would like you tell me if it is good or not. Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amagon rosh (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Amboyna Massacre page
Hi, I was just looking at the history of the "Amboyna Massacre" page and got the impression that you acted as the "responsible adult" for the page. So I'd like some advice. I am not happy with certain aspects of the page (it seems to fall into the trap of taking the old English allegations in the matter too much at face value, though it fortunately mentions that there is more to the story). I think that the reference to the Milton book is unfortunate in this respect. But I am hesitant to really start editing the main text. Instead I have added two references to online sources that are relevant to the subject (though still in an anonymous capacity; I am a neophyte). I think the page should put more emphasis on the fact that this was mostly a consequence of the rivalry between the two East India companies that had completely gotten out of hand (where both sides were to blame), and that unfortunately the English government acted as the cats paw of the English company in the matter, whereas the States General at least at first tried to remain above the parties. This is clearly shown in the Resolutions I have added where we see the befuddled Dutch government bending over backwards to please the English ally, giving in to all unreasonable demands, except the summary execution of the "culprits" (it took a war to bring that about). For example, the page now says that "The judges took their time", but omits to mention that this was caused by the fact that for a long time the English refused to produce the witnesses for cross-examination by the defendants. When Sir Henry Vane the Elder finally brought them along with his embassy he immediately made the additional demand that the witnesses (!) must be able to appeal the verdict of the court to an even higher court that would have to be especially constituted in such an eventuality. And to this the States General also agreed. This is just a small example. I think the page would benefit from a less Anglocentric approach in the description of the facts. The standpoints of the two parties could then be added in a more relativistic way. And the aspect of the propagandistic uses of the incident could be given more play. I'd like to add references on that point (there is a joint project of the Dutch and English national libraries covering the pamflet war on the matter). However, I'd like to consult other interested people before doing that. The discussion page only shows links to the Indonesia and Japan projects. I don't think the page really belongs in either project as the "massacre" is only tangential to either Indonesian or Japanese history (certainly in its present form). In any case, I don't see a discussion opportunity limited to this page. So what do you advise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereunetes (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:CaseLogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:CaseLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Category:Declined PRODS
Hello again, MBisanz ...
During the development stage of {{Oldprodfull}}, you suggested that it place things in a Category:DeclinedContested PRODS ... at the time, I was not aware of Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed (I have since used it to "field test" the template), which is populated by {{Prod-2}}.
Anywho, I'm about to enter my "dormant" cycle, so feel free to add support for it when appropriate, i.e., if-and-only-if the PROD has been contested. (That means IFF decline has a value, which would be the user-id.) You don't need to re-categorize 2nd because {{Prod-2}} already does it.
BTW, Some Other Editor expressed the opinion that templates and categories like this project a negative image/attitude that the subject is more contentious than it actually is ... a valid point, but one that I do not share, as I feel it is outweighed by the benefits of the template.
Paradigm shift: Since I found the appropriate links, I have been trying to change all references from "Declined" to "Contested", to match the consensus term for the action ... unfortunately, it's Far Too Late to change the parameter names, because it has become a legacy issue ... (a) too many articles reference it now, and (b) I don't feel like changing the existing documentation and examples. :-)
Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Image:CaseLogo.gif
A tag has been placed on Image:CaseLogo.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:CaseLogo.gif|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MBisanz talk 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Mbisanz. i deleted the image, as it looked to me like you uploaded it and asked for its deletion. Am I wrong? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Won't it be nice to be able to do that yourself? Your RfA is rockin. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Humans
Unlike you, some of us wikipedias still have human minds and find searching for peoples hidden pages fulfilling and fun. We know how to have fun. ROBOT! Oh, and WikiPoints is a way of cheering people up, and it works. --Jay Turner (talk · contribs) 17:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply from my Talk page
As per Wiki guidelines, I was testing the changes on my Sandbox page before publishing them. I have removed the information from my sandbox as I am finished testing. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
 |
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Daniel Malakov affair: New information has been published
Dear MBisanz:
As you will recall about two months ago you & I disagreed on the validity of a Daniel Malakov encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. Many WP:Notability and WP:BLP claims were made by yourself and other gentle administrators. Try as I could, there seemed way to convince you that the murder of Daniel Malakov was a significant event requiring a Wikipedia page. The page was deleted. No discussion on the merits was permitted, IMHO, by the "Administrator echelon."
In view of the above, I wish to direct your attention to a New York Times article as follows:
February 9, 2008
Man Accused of Killing Dentist Exchanged 91 Calls With Dentist’s Wife
By CHRISTINE HAUSER and DARYL KHAN
You are free to go to nytimes.com and read the article, but perhaps the salient details are as follows:
Those details about the killing of Dr. Malakov on Oct. 28, 2007, emerged Friday from an indictment and at a news conference held by police officials and prosecutors.
As the families of both Dr. Malakov and his estranged wife looked on, Dr. Borukhova, 34, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on Friday to charges including first-degree murder and second-degree conspiracy in an emotion-filled hearing in State Supreme Court in Queens. Mr. Mallayev, 50, faces similar charges.
The defendants could each be sentenced to life in prison without parole. They were ordered held without bail until their next court date, Friday.
At the time you folks decided to ditch the article, this information was not available. Now that it is, and more information ostensibly is to come out as the NYPD and AG begin to make their case in court, I want to know whether you will reverse your position and support an article on Daniel Malakov, or alternatively "Murder of Daniel Malakov."
If not, what would you need to see to support such an article? If you demand a conviction, then I plan to hold you to your promise.
Eileivgyrt (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
for adding fair use tag to Image:512px-Hochschule_mannheim.svg.png. Voted for your adminship! Regards Fred Plotz (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi MBisanz. I agree it would be worth keeping an eye on this category, especially since people who enter things here are going to the trouble of following the COI rules explicitly. Do you know if categories can be watched like articles? I know there is a 'watch' tab on the category page but I don't know if it monitors articles added or subtracted from the category. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Truncated
I just ran the cattracker again and yeah, all logos past "Mu" have been either fixed or nuked. There are a lot less lists now too - that's because some entire cats such as promo images, stamps, and screenshots have been entirely fixed. Woohoo! east.718 at 14:18, January 12, 2008
- Wow, another huge DFUI backlog. I'll get the bot on it. east.718 at 07:44, January 19, 2008
MBisanz talk 05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Restored, and I tagged on a bunch of extra days to the due date. east.718 at 14:28, January 14, 2008 MBisanz talk 05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Cross cat
I'll work on this, but will drop it on a subpage of mine. None of my bots are approved, so I don't want to run through a bunch of images and add cats to them. east.718 at 21:33, January 19, 2008
Done - it's at user:east718/DFUI/BOTW. east.718 at 21:59, January 19, 2008
- List one will be located at user:east718/DFUI/Logos/custom - the run'll be done in around 15 minutes. east.718 at 03:47, January 21, 2008
- I've been tracking that one for two days now. :P east.718 at 19:54, January 22, 2008
- This one'll take quite some time - just check for an updtae to /Logos/custom. east.718 at 08:57, January 25, 2008
MBisanz talk 05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Undeletion request
All of their uploads have been indiscriminately undeleted and are listed at user:east718/DFUI/custom. Thanks for continuing to work on the image backlog! east.718 at 04:52, January 27, 2008
- I'll run the undeletion bot when I wake up, and no it doesn't take any effort on my part. Thanks for the concern though! :-) east.718 at 07:48, January 28, 2008
- Bot's running, the dump will be in the same place as before. When you're done with all the images, could you do me a favor and remove the fixed ones from the list while not tagging the rest? Last time you tagged a bunch as G6 which left every CSD admin confused for hours until I showed up. :-D east.718 at 09:27, January 28, 2008
Nah, there's nothing to worry about. Copyvios aren't oversighted, that's reserved only for libelous or private personal information. east.718 at 21:22, January 29, 2008 MBisanz talk 05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
My tom tom page
The Tom Tom Gang comment you put a tag on for speedy deletion I want to talk about that. It was not a band company or anything e;se it was part of the game. I know I've beaten it like ten times so I don't think that was fair. Swampcroc (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Old logs
I should probably do that, yes. I have a simple program to strip the logs of their comments, but I haven't run it on many, as there hasn't been that many people wondering about them. Let me see if I can get it done over the weekend. Ral315 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The edits are still available for any administrator to view, in the deleted edits. The problem was just that the deletion summaries occasionally contained libelous content, and we had a few OTRS complaints about them, if I recall correctly. Ral315 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
I'm going to see if I can challenge it.Swampcroc (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Kakashi
Do you know how Kakashi Hatake got sharingan? If you do let me know how he did it because I don't.Swampcroc (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh man!
Darn I've asked a lot of peple about but haven't heard back. Thanks though.Swampcroc (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are now an administrator
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 03:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- OORAH!! — Rlevse • Talk • 03:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yay, congratulations! (Now, go clear some backlogs...and please don't delete the main page.) Best of luck to you, and don't hesitate to ask if you need help. I've also got a bunch of really helpful scripts for admin work (they were given to me, so I should pass them on), tell me if you want them. Perfect for when you can't remember the protection or AFD templates to save your life. Regards, Keilana|Parlez ici 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Oh, and the developers made it technically impossible to delete the main page. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Damn. There went my weekend plans. *grumble* Keilana|Parlez ici 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Oh, and the developers made it technically impossible to delete the main page. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yay, congratulations! (Now, go clear some backlogs...and please don't delete the main page.) Best of luck to you, and don't hesitate to ask if you need help. I've also got a bunch of really helpful scripts for admin work (they were given to me, so I should pass them on), tell me if you want them. Perfect for when you can't remember the protection or AFD templates to save your life. Regards, Keilana|Parlez ici 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations! - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RfA! Make sure to check out the new admin school. Good luck and feel free to ask me if you have any questions! GlassCobra 04:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! DlohcierekimDeleted? 04:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! MBisanz talk 04:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats my friend!--Hu12 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Doczilla's RfA
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
| Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. |
.svg) MBisanz Thank you for casting the 15th vote in support. AND CONGRATULATIONS YOURSELF! |
reverse.jpg){kind=link}
"The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler
| Doczilla RAWR! 06:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC) |  |
 |
 |
 |
Thank you
- moved from User talk:Alex Smotrov
| Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 04:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC) |  |
- I do not appreciate "RfA thanks" messages. Please do not disturb me again. Thank you. —AlexSm 05:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it works out well that he missed mine. Doczilla RAWR! 06:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad you liked it. I'm just sorry your RfA closed before I could vote. Since you'd already voted for me, I wanted to wait until late in your RfA so it wouldn't just come across as handing you a vote because you gave me one instead of voting on your merit. *sigh* But then I got a monstrous allergy headache and slept through the end of your RfA. Ah, well. Best, Doczilla RAWR! 08:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- MBisanz, congratulations on the successful RFA. :) If you need any help, I'm a few clicks away. By the way, you do know that that image is computer generated, right? :P · AndonicO Hail! 12:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I didn't know it was the day it was on the mainpage, but then I read the description later and realized it took 500 hours to render. Thats just an insane level of detail. MBisanz talk 14:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- MBisanz, congratulations on the successful RFA. :) If you need any help, I'm a few clicks away. By the way, you do know that that image is computer generated, right? :P · AndonicO Hail! 12:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad you liked it. I'm just sorry your RfA closed before I could vote. Since you'd already voted for me, I wanted to wait until late in your RfA so it wouldn't just come across as handing you a vote because you gave me one instead of voting on your merit. *sigh* But then I got a monstrous allergy headache and slept through the end of your RfA. Ah, well. Best, Doczilla RAWR! 08:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it works out well that he missed mine. Doczilla RAWR! 06:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not appreciate "RfA thanks" messages. Please don't disturb me again. </joke>. As if there were any doubt about the success of your candidacy. Great work Mbisanz. Now get back to work and wipe that silly grin off your face. :-). Cheers, fine editor. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just one thing: don't follow the path of the Dark Side. · AndonicO Hail! 22:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
About your RfA
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship! I was going to give you a T-shirt and a link to the new admin school, but it seems you have both already. :) Good luck! Acalamari 17:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a pity I didn't notice your RfA, or I'd've opined on it, per this. I wish you success with your new tools. Great job using FURME to improve Imagespace, by the way. --SSBohio 23:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, while I may express my opinion strongly, I know that the MfD you referenced was so complex that it would've been beyond my abilities to discern consensus. MBisanz talk 02:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Can you delete my article? I userfied it and I don't need the redirect. Austin St. John (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft
|
Hi, MBisanz, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello,  |
Image upload and deletion stats (2007)
If you have time, would you be able to comment on Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance#Weekly uploads and deletions and bot taggings? Discussion should be taking place at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria compliance. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You declined an AFD in progress, but the thing has gone through two relistings, and was going to have to go through another. That's why I listed it; I would delete it myself if I were an admin. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Scripts
Yes, do you want to look through my monobook, or do you want me to give it all to you? There's loads of useful stuff in there. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks
I was away from a computer when my image for the Kuwaiti Navy was tagged for delete. I saw when I got back that you had already added a fair use rationale. Many thanks. Hzoi (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: RfR
Wow, yeah, I'm quite surprised to see that. I'll talk to that admin. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 17:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion tab is read and categories don't show a name for a wiki bio that I added
Hi Matt, I added an article to wiki for Devi Levy (psychologist) and the 'discussion' tab is read. Do I have to edit something there or is it for other users to talk in that page and then the tab turns blue.
Another question: for categories '1954 births' and 'american psychologist' I can't see the name of David Levy using another computer than the one I used when I edited and published the article. I cleared the browser cache and I also cleared the categories cache using 'action=purge'. Any suggestion?
Thanks in advance for help. lavinia --LaviniaVasilache (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for help.
Hi Matt, thanks for replying for my article 'David Levy(psychologist)'. Lavinia —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaviniaVasilache (talk • contribs) 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
SPARX Enterprise Architect and Enterprise Architecture Refernce
I am not sure why the Wikipedia editors keep readding SPARX references in both the Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Architect entries. SPARX sells tools and if you allow one company on this page, all companies should be allowed. Obviously, all commercial listings should be removed. SPARX has a Wikipedia page, but it is all a big advertising page, if you take a look. Please be fair with everyone.
Regards,
Tom Corn (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Request for comment on main page deletion incident
As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)
This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event
Regards --User:Mitrebox talk 2008-02-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.244.78 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you've seen this article, but would you stop by the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SocialPicks to offer your opinion on whether the article subject is notable? Thanks. Dimension31 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Cumulus Clouds
Hi there. I seem to have become a rather large target for Cumulus Clouds since I complained that he'd merged a couple of articles (including one that survived AfD in May 2007) without achieving consensus. He's now going around trying to get articles I created deleted (I'm not that worried, as I try to source all my articles well) and started that COI debate about me, which is cool - I'm all for following policy, and I think that debate will show that I keep neutrality high on my list of requirements when editing. My concern is that it seems to be rather WP:POINTy. Do you know if there is anything I can do about this? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. I don't want to be seen as antagonistic. Maybe I should leave it until after the weekend?-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the Cumulus Clouds RfC; I've never participated in anything like that. How should I contribute, or was that not what you were meaning?-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
New mailing list
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey MBisanz! I appreciate your participation in my RfA, and congrats on your recent success.
- Do you have general thoughts on whether it's fine for COI patrollers to use admin tools in their work? Out of curiosity I checked your log and I did notice one action you took on a COIN issue (which seems very appropriate!). I wonder if those patrollers who think they may need to block should abstain from editing (to fix article problems) or if we need to be so punctilious so long as we don't have a previous dispute with the named editor or on the named article, and didn't originate the COI complaint ourselves. There has already been a small discussion of this with another admin at User talk:EdJohnston#Lite reading. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Image cats
Nope, AWeenieMan is using his own script. I can try and implement this, but it's going to double the runtime and my last run took almost five hours. east.718 at 01:28, February 16, 2008
- Restored. For one-off stuff like this, you can reverse my actions at your pleasure - I have enough trust in other admins' judgement. :-) east.718 at 11:36, February 16, 2008
MBisanz talk 07:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WARNING: you filed an SSP report possibly creating a security risk.
You have filed an SSP report with no evidence of abusive editing, and I have responded to it. From WP:SOCK, "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account in order to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area." For this reason, linking suspected sock accounts without necessity (i.e., abuse or contentious editing), is offensive and possibly harassment. If there is abuse, with the evidence you found, you would have grounds to treat all three accounts (2 named and one IP) as one, and act accordingly, without filing an SSP report. Because of the possible security risk to the holder of the accounts, the report and user page notices regarding it should be deleted. Please do so. Do not file SSP reports unless there is abuse or there is suspicion of a sock of a blocked user.--Abd (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Research on the RFA process
Hello, I am an anthropology student researching the Wikipedia Requests for adminship procedure. As you recently voted in this process, I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a few quick questions.
- Do you believe that the current RFA process is an effective way of selecting admins?
- Do you notice a difference between users who are nominated vs selfnoms?
- Is a week an appropriate length for process? Should it perhaps be longer or shorter?
- Do you think the user's status in the community changes while the user is undergoing the RFA process? How about after the RFA process is over?
- Was the candidate Q&A beneficial in helping you choose to support the candidate?
If you are willing, please leave your answers on my talk page or e-mail them to me.
This research will not be published academically, as this research is primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of doing online ethnography in online only communities such as Wikipedia, though I intend to make my findings available on Wiki. Your name will not be associated with any information you provide in any published work. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you. --Cspurrier (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted SSP
I just wanted to mention that I only deleted the SSP as a courtesy to the user. You were spot on and, I imagine, can see my closing comment in the deleted page. Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- MBisanz was spot on identifying a new account for an old user, though this one left clues lying all over the place. Where he was not spot on was in filing an SSP report based merely on evidence (no matter how conclusive) that one account had gone dormant and a new one had started up. That one user creates an article, drops the usage of that account, then returns later to edit the same page with the same POV, no back-and-forth puppet show, no multiple voting, no block evasion, not even any contentious editing, personal attacks, or other problems other than a strange sense of humor, is not abusive at all, and it is disturbing that Mbisanz thought this was worth taking up the community's time to investigate. Now, if there was abuse, that's another story. But no account was abusive, as far as I've seen, and if all the accounts were considered as one, there was no abuse.--Abd (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a shame you decided to plaster this around ANI instead of doing what you should have done in the first place, which was to discuss it with MBisanz on their talk page. Have you ever made a mistake? Spartaz Humbug! 19:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)I was mistaken about the prior warning. Sorry. Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)- Frequently. And you? See above, where I ask Mbisanz to delete the report,[6] an action which you ultimately took. Now, what mistake did I make here? I'd truly like to know. I try to learn from my mistakes, and if I don't know what they are, I can't. I took this to ANI because it was possibly urgent. I did consider other possible responses which might have been better. Oversight. Personal email to another administrator or Mbisanz. Email to some administrators. Mbisanz was not on-line when I discovered the situation. I first responded to the SSP, but probably should have directly requested deletion. What would you have recommended, and why, given that I did do what you say I "should have done in the first place."--Abd (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct and I was mistaken. I apologise. Spartaz Humbug! 20:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I saw the post to my userpage, after Abd had posted to ANI (and actually after several others had responded to different threads on ANI), and responded there within about 5 minutes of seeing it here. Now I've re-read SSP and SOCK and still am not seeing where I did something wrong in filing a report. "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively." covers a very wide range of behaviors, and I don't see what having posted to a page with the purpose of "The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia's policy on sock puppets." causes a problem. Can you point me to the policy that prohibits identifying a user who switches accounts? The only section that seems to apply is "Alternative account notification" and it doesn't say "Don't connect the dots if there hasn't been outright abuse". Maybe I should've used the term "inappropriate alternative accounts" somewhere in the report, but since I wasn't proposing or taking action against the user, I'm still not seeing the problem. To answer the question "But no account was abusive, as far as I've seen, and if all the accounts were considered as one, there was no abuse." I'm not saying they were abusive, just somewhat deceptive from an outsiders view, and of course, without parsing all those diffs, how would an outsider know all those accounts should be treated as one. MBisanz talk 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Frequently. And you? See above, where I ask Mbisanz to delete the report,[6] an action which you ultimately took. Now, what mistake did I make here? I'd truly like to know. I try to learn from my mistakes, and if I don't know what they are, I can't. I took this to ANI because it was possibly urgent. I did consider other possible responses which might have been better. Oversight. Personal email to another administrator or Mbisanz. Email to some administrators. Mbisanz was not on-line when I discovered the situation. I first responded to the SSP, but probably should have directly requested deletion. What would you have recommended, and why, given that I did do what you say I "should have done in the first place."--Abd (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisting AfDs
Hi, when relisting AfDs, please remember to move the AfD from the original log to a new log, see example diffs [7] [8]. If you don't, the debates are not really relisted. Thanks, --PeaceNT (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching etc.
I think it would be OK, but he's not likely to pass an RfA for awhile, frankly. I have no problem with coaching, as that's productive, personally. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
Thank you for leaving the message for me about the admin coaching. I am currently undergoing coaching with Bibliomaniac. I asked him some time ago and he agreed to help me. I have also undergone an editor review. I appreciate you thinking about me and hopefully I will be ableto join the ranks of administration real soon! Thank you again. Canyouhearmenow 13:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Also about admin coaching. I'm currently not taking any new coachees, I'm too busy. You may remove me from the list. When I find myself more time for that kind of task then I'll re-add myself. Thanks. Best regards, Húsönd 15:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for your message to me. I am interested in being an Admin, have contacted an Admin for possible coaching, but am on a mountaintop right now at a retreat center, without space to immediatly address my desire to be an admin. Thank you rkmlai (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
Thank you for making the process streamlined. Thank you! Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Contribution tool
Hi. Sorry for the waiting but I corrected my tool now. It runs again. Enjoy! Escaladix (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ping
I have answered you on my talk, in case you were not aware... (I try to keep threads together per my policy :) ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching
I am already a candidate to be an administrator, but I am willing to give it up to get more experienced and have admin coaching. --Nothing444 (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You've won an award!
You win an award for having the most section headers titled the exact same thing (that being "admin coaching". Good work! (BTW, I recently added myself to the list -- we'll see what happens) Cheers and good night, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
RE: Name
Unintentionally, to boot. Too bad there's no username barnstar... Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand noticeboard
All noticeboards should be linked from the navbar, to avoid the impression that issues are being swept under the carpet. Also, Betacommand's abuse is a site-wide issue. AtidrideBot (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
For pointing out that Diane Garnick's award was already in there. She works at my company and we're all talking about it. Guess i got carried away. : - ) 208.54.95.73 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wilt the stilt
Here's how I see it...
- Too many footnotes in the lead. A proper lead, if a true summary, will need few if any fn's; which should be in the body with the details.
- Lead needs to be a better summary of the article
- Too big IMHO, the page size script says "File size: 235 kB, Prose size (HTML): 112 kB, References (HTML): 58 kB, Wiki text: null, Prose size (text only): 72 kB (12273 words), References (text only): 7 kB"
- Can some detail be cut or sub articles made? When you open in edit mode, it says 100K, at FAC, unless there're compelling reasons, articles that size often get pinged on this; but then some make it at that size
- very well ref'd — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Request
After my this edit AlasdairGreen27 and Ashwinosoft insist on edit warring in national sport. I posted comments in talks of both these editors but they ignore consensus and mediation!!!! AlasdairGreen27 removes statement, citing 3 sports considered Australian national sports, proposed by himself and voted by me too in mediation: is it a provocation or vandalism? I request your edit in this article or your action against this form of vandalism!!!! Regards,--PIO (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching
It's okay. User:Scarian has already started coaching me so I won't relist myself. Thanks.--Urban Rose 16:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Your VandalSniper Application
|
Good day, and thank you for applying to use the counter-vandalism tool VandalSniper. I am pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted, and you are now approved to use the tool. You are now welcome to download the program - and be sure to read the features guide, if you have not already done so.
Please bear in mind that VandalSniper is a powerful program, and that misuse may result in your access being withdrawn by a moderator. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions, and once again welcome to VandalSniper! Kind regards, |
Re:Admin coaching
Sure, that'd be great, thank you :-) ScarianCall me Pat 21:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching project
Thanks for being a project coordinator. I feel bad that I don't have the time to put into Wikipedia anymore, but now that you are sort of taking over, I feel a bit better. :) Good luck to you. --Fang Aili talk 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines on fair-use images in articles
Since yopu previously discussed some of the issues involved, you might want to participate in this discussion. — AjaxSmack 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing444 Admin Coaching
You've referred me to admin coaching, right?--Nothing444 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I guess I could wait. But still, I can't wait to become a coachee! I'll talk to you when I have more experienced. --Nothing444 talk to me 00:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
RFB poke
I think this User_talk:The_Rambling_Man#Formal request would make for a far more convincing poke :) MBisanz talk 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nicely done : )
- As for Carcharoth, to be honest, based on his recent (and previous) comments, and knowing how we had to nearly pull teeth to get him to go for adminship, I don't hold out a lot of hope at the moment. But that doesn't prevent me from asking : ) - jc37 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Finding people
If your looking for people who deserve the hat, you might look at the most active people at User:ST47/Stats#Bureaucrats_by_number_of_promotions MBisanz talk 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't actually. These are all people whom I've thought about in the past. My regret is that a.) So many are "away" and b.) that I fear that I'll have neglected someone worthy. (I'm doing this rather stream-of-consciousness...)
- Note that I've been rather shocked at a few who weren't already bureaucrats, and even more so at a few who aren't even admins! - jc37 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
While I realise that the reason that my edit count is so low is entirely my fault, I have been editing for about half a year or so — recently, however, I have had study, and other commitments which make it impossible for me to edit actively. I feel that even if I had been accepted, I would have had to decline because it would be impossible for my to actively engage myself in an activity which is, at the moment, very low on my list of priorities. Thanks for responding, I'm glad to see that admin coaching is up again. Jame§ugrono 09:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
THUGCHILDz again
I rerported him for second time. You know my patience!!!! Regards,--PIO (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz, I want your opinion. Am I the one at fault. For I have tried my best to communicate with this user. But nothing has come out of that. Just leave a note on my talk page.--THUGCHILDz 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this user? Do their contributions seem familiar at all? Mangojuicetalk 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Delegable proxy. He's sticking up for himself from a new account. From the edits, he's clearly trying to avoid coming right out and espousing the positions he held under previous accounts: he participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delegable proxy, didn't make a new bolded recommendation (Absidy already !voted), but he's trying to debate the case; he didn't endorse the DP proposal, but did defend its supporters (namely, himself). I think, even beyond the block evasion, he's been violating WP:SOCK in other ways. Mangojuicetalk 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, kind of figured. Mangojuicetalk 02:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
My RfB
Thanks. I felt it was best to withdraw it this time around. While I clearly had more support than opposition, the reasons in the oppose section would have led to further opposition. We'll see what happens next time. Acalamari 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.
The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching pairings
Hi, I noticed that you paired me with Belinrahs. I have no trouble with accepting them as a coachee, but I would much rather like to select coachees by myself. I know that there are some who stay on the list for a very large amount of time, and I don't want to be viewed as selfish, but please allow me some flexibility in this. When it comes to coaching, I'm not Yoda, I'm more of a Qui-Gon Jinn, if a Star Wars metaphor can be used. Regards, bibliomaniac15 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering how you were handling the matching... personally, I think we should contact the coach via email and ask them to accept the match and then make first contact.Balloonman (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Movie Images
Hi, User:Acalamari said that you may be able to help me with something. I was wondering if you are allowed to upload images of blu-ray covers for movies ? I know there is a DVD licensing template but does this apply to blu-ray covers aswell ? Thanks - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the help, I'll use the DVD template then - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for adding the fair-use rationale to Celebration logo.gif!
Atlant (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Advice
I advice you for 2 vandaling edits in my user page by same user:this one and other one. Also vandalism is this edit against valid and correct editor. You are admin and you know rules. Regards,--PIO (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- This time I have initiated a request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Advice_advice for an uninvolved admin to review the diffs and take appropriate action per policy. Thank you for providing diffs MBisanz talk 02:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please Sign Up for I'm proud to be a wikipedian
Hello, MBisanz! You might want to write an essay for The I'm Proud to be A Wikipedian Essay Contest. The deadline is May 1. Signed, Nothing444 17:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I have also made WikiProject Long Island but now, it is kind of bad. I know you have written stuff on Hofstra University on wikipedia. Your user box says you hail from Long Island so I figured you'd be good with it. Signed, Nothing444 18:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Offer
If that offer from the other day is still valid, I think I'm interested... BTW I see you added my template about the big4 ... which one do you work for? I work for PwC.Balloonman (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
RFB questions
Hey MBisanz, thanks for your interest and questions at my current RfB. I just wanted to let you know that I've responded to them, but probably didn't give you the answers you were looking for! I'm no bot expert but hoping that with some guidance of the experienced BAGers I could be of use. All the best The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto matie. Hope that helps you make your decision... or just confuses you! :P ~ Riana ⁂ 11:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Likewise, thanks for participating in the process! -- Avi (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationales
Thank you very much for adding fair use rationales to several images which I uploaded in the past. Due to other priorities I am not always able to get to these images before the 7-day deadline. For this underappreciated effort, I award you:
|
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| I, DHowell, award you this Working Man's Barnstar for your work in adding appropriate fair use rationales to hundreds of images and keeping these validly used images from being deleted. |
DHowell (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Undeletion
All done. :-)
- Just a corrupt image, it happens from time to time. east.718 at 07:43, March 3, 2008 07:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Youth Times.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Youth Times.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching: I have a question
I have been recently putting articles with {{hangon}} into AFD because I thought it was mandatory. I've already got a few articles with opposed speedies sorted out in this way. The first and only real opposition that has been brought to my actions was here. Do you have input? Am I doing the right thing? --Belinrahs (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just a comment, people seem to have mixed ideas about whether this is right or not. I've gotten yes's and no's about this. --Belinrahs (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just realized that my admin coach was bibliomaniac15... because of my talk page I saw your name and immediately flew to your talk page and asked a question as though you were my coach. Sorry, and thanks for the valuable input. --Belinrahs (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You are invited!
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Huggle
I saw you mention that you use Huggle. I've been trying to get it for some time, but it seems the author is MIA. Do you think you could send it to me? If so let me know and I'll email you. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:23, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Admin scouting
Hi MBisanz,
the idea evolved from my tracking list of the users I contacted offering nominations. My idea was to work along with other users who actively search for rfa candidates to share ideas, methods and knowledge. It, however, never materialized and remained substantially the tracking list for my nominations. It is indeed up to date and active, it's just that I'm not much active in nominating in the last times. As for merging with the coaching project: bibliomaniac15's already there, many other users listed there aren't admin (which in my opinion is a requisite for coaching). Myself, well, you caught me on wikibreak, so right now no. In future? Maybe. But I prefer a more "spontaneous" approach, so I won't list myself there. Good luck with the project, Snowolf How can I help? 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)