User talk:MBisanz/Archive 3

Fritz Bot

I've discussed a lot of things with User talk:Fritzpoll. Now the proposals have been made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm well I've been nominated many times in the past of course, just a week ago somebody said they would donate $100 to wikipedia if I was elected to the Wikimedia Board. But I;ve always tried to focus entirely on encyclopedic content at times but everybody knows certain tools would help me considerably. Occasionally I get frustrated with even basic tasks I can't perform e.g Category:Cities, towns and villages in Thailand half of the articles are unnecessary under (city). I tried to move them back to the plain names (the provincial equivalents are called ... Province anyway) but of course I was prevented from doing so. I think most people assume I'm an admin anyway. I must admit I'm a bit rusty on certain admin tools and procedures but nothing a bit of examination and homework wouldn't fix. I'll sleep on it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

HI. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I am certain if I was made an admin I would try to ensure I set an exemplary standard to all. However much I have put into wikipedia, there are some editors I find disagreeable on here and they would have a field day of searching my full history to stop me. Given that I am highly passionate some people are extremely difficult to be patient with, particularly if they are preventing me from helping the site. It is a shame as all I ask for is some extra maintenance tools to make my work more efficient. I hope you or anybody else doesn't consider me a lesser editor because I won't accept. Best Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck with the election anyway. I'm sure you would be an excellent asset to wikimedia. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Moar Images

Hi MBisanz, apologies for not replying to your message sooner, I've been on a wikibreak for the past few weeks. The problem images never end, do they :p. I don't have much time to spare at the moment, but I'll fix what I can from AWeenieMan's lists. All the best, Bláthnaid 18:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, good luck in the Board election! Bláthnaid 19:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

History merge

Seriously – why did you just do that history merge? The betacommand threads were completely seperate – we don't merge threads like that. WP:AN/B isn't Betacommands personal complaints board, it was for dealing with his image related concenrs. His sock thread was completely seperate and your move was a very bad idea indeed. This isn't how we deal with AN subpages. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I proposed it at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry in response to a suggestion yesterday. And Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand says its purpose is "This a centralized page of all discussion pertaining to User:Betacommand and his bot User:BetacommandBot." Merging them together makes it easier to see all of the issues related to him in one thread, rather than having multiple, unlinked subpages for each incident. I have not merged the talk pages, since you asked me to stop after I had done the main page move and before I did the talk page move. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's two seperate issues completely – WP:AN/B isn't for every single betacommand thread, when we have a large thread like the sock one, it moves to a seperate subpage so it's documented in one place, not with a lot of other things in there as well. We certainly don't do a history merge – what happens when people start looking for diffs for a future arb case and they suddenly can't find them on the page they edited? History merges are for articles, not threaded discussion like this. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, and per the instructions on ANB, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand has been used for every BC related thread since we started having a lot of threads at the beginning of this year. And the diffs will still appear in people's contribs, since it was a history merge. MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This was a completely different thread, and should have stayed where it was. There are no instructions for AN/B – it's not a recognised noticeboard and no, the diffs won't show up in the place where people think they made the edit because you merged it. Don't do history merges like this again. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll use WP:RM next time, but the message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand should be changed to indicate its either closed or only for image issues and what should I do with the 2 dangling talk pages? MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, don't use RM, just either don't do it, or copy it across, so if someone (like I am) is annoyed about it, you can move it back. I'll sort WP:AN/B out tomorrow. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And East718 using his amazing powers has fixed it. I still think it and the other AN page should be joined more closely, but, o, well, not a lengthy discussion on. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed you the 1st time around!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Did you receive my email?

I sent you a Wikipedia email about a confidential matter. Did you receive it? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I received it, and as the name in question does not link to a real life identity and was confirmed as a sockpuppet, I've restored the tag for those investigating future ban attempts by the user in question. Please consider MFDing the page or asking uninvolved administrators to review the situation. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Before taking up the time of other administrators or going to MfD (the latter could be harmful), I'll send one more brief email. I think I realize, now, what happened. I had actually forgotten about your previous involvement. --Abd (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the email, but am at class, so I'll review it when I'm home later. MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No rush. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

G'day Candidate!

First I thought I'd offer a thank you for being brave / foolish enough to put your hat in the ring as a candidate for election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees! - I wonder if you might have any time, interest, and enthusiasm to record a brief 10 / 15 minute audio interview about yourself / the reasons for your candidature / your wiki philosophy etc. etc. ? - I've been promoting a project on the english wikipedia called NotTheWikipediaWeekly – which is a grassroots effort to promote good communications through (semi) regular 'podcasts'.

If you have a couple of moments free, would you mind taking a look at this page and signing up if you're interested! It'd be great to chat with each and every one of you, and I hope you'll be amenable to this idea! Let me know if you've any questions at all, thought perhaps my english wikipedia talk page is the best spot.

The best of luck, and kind regards,

Privatemusings (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Shapiros10 requesting unblock at WP:ANI

Hi Matt. You placed the block, and now there is a request at ANI to unblock. This editor's request for unblock was already declined at unblock-en-l on May 1st, but that might just have been a reflection of your earlier decision. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll Bot

Hi. Uploading has begun. We are creating an entire directory of missing articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places. However the bot will need approval and I am concerned that few people are acknowledging the importance of it as nobody has posted on the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for days. Remember it was given a 100 article trial first? Well even that has not taken place yet because it needed to be flagged I think. Any thoughts on what to do? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm according to Fritz it still needs to be flagged or something. Apparently a safety feature prevented him from adding an article to the mainspace although it permits him to use it in the workspace. Perhaps you could clear it up with him what the problem is? Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah 4 days. That may have been what the problem is. Well we'll have to see if it works. Thanks for the tip. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify here – the bot made 100 edits in creating the list initially, because I daftly output the list items one at a time. The trial did not specify 100 articles, but 100 edits, so strictly I'd be violating the trial conditions to proceed further. Although I have now fixed the bot to output entire pages of lists, I'd rather not do anything to precipitate a block without clarification from BAG. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey MBisanz. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please attend

Any one who has seen my work on wikipedia, i cordially invite you to attend My latest RFA which i will attend in a short time. Thankyou, cheers

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Here you go! BJ (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA ready

My RFA is ready:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bjaco18 BJ (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:bbblock

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 8#restore. Thanks – Nabla (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA – Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Were getting close but.....

I think that David has pretty well agreed to Johns version so I urge yoo to include Johns version in your list so John wont feel slighted. Jpks version is also very close to what John has proposed as a compromise. I am hoping John will agree to the slight change that Jpk has made so we can continue to move forward. SI still has to weigh in but I do not see him posing much resistance. Anyway do what you think is best and thanks for your participation thus far, :Albion moonlight (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 09:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Renata3

Hi, now that's a walk down the memory lane. I had three noms: one above (rejected by me), second also rejected, and the third that passed. I do not know what's the policy on keeping old rejected RFA noms, and I don't really care. So please do with them whatever you see fit. And good luck in board elections! Renata (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To acknowledge--

Matthew, thank you very much for your help and reference. I wish you all the best for your candidacy. 67.180.135.133 (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Lantana1167.180.135.133 (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

As you may know, you blocked me from editing. After some discussion with other admins, Jimbo and Arb Com, I have been unblocked and openly declared my sockpuppets. I firstly would like to smile and say thanks. It gave me time to think over my actions. Also, if I could, I would vote for you in the board of trustees election, because you are a great admin. Good Luck. SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please and take an Award} 08:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup presentation

Hi, I just want to remind you I've scheduled you to present about Wikipedia:Admin coaching at the meetup this Sunday, consistent with what we talked about before. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Australian Defense AfD...

While I happen to agree with the closure's outcome, I don't know if you're OK with it closing in ~one day. Just wanted to give you a courtesy heads up. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Good luck with the election and it appears from the comment above that I'll see you Sunday. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to worry anymore about that, MBisanz. User:Useight, User:Steve Crossin and I have discussed the matter and my future closing. The problem with the diff above was that I closed it too early, right? Well, I have learned from that from the discussion we had and the pages I read (WP:KEEP, WP:NAC, and WP:SNOW). Comments? -- RyRy (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wtf you did?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ochota_massacre&diff=203321465&oldid=203319961

God, I hate the vandals like you. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (for two things)

Hi MBisanz: Firstly, thank you for supporting my RfA which closed today as successful; thanks for the questions as well. Secondly, thanks again for the Bot permission – I ran it this evening, and seems to have been 99% successful (there was a possible typo in one of the villages in the list which had been overlooked). Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping deletion

Thanks for asking. Please delete the adminship page for me. I appreciated the thought of the person who created it, but I am something of a lightning rod for cranks.--Cberlet (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Thanks MBisanz! I'll be out during the morning (today, the 28th), but should get started on creating that page around 2:00 this afternoon. Thanks again, and good luck in being elected to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 07:23, May 28, 2008 (UTC)

I have analysed my previous RfA, see here for my dissection. As mentioned on the page, there were only three reasons for it failing, so I have only been able to comment on these three. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:56, May 28, 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For keeping an eye on my talk page while I've been out, and protecting me from hordes of block evading socks, I hereby award User:MBisanz the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar along with some hearty thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on things, I really do appreciate it. I don't know how often I'll get connections like this, but it's good to know the people who ignore or don't notice the vacation banner still get their questions answered (not that I am in any way asking anyone do it – if they go ignored, it's their own fault!). Thanks again, and good luck on the Board campaign once again (I probably will miss them, unfortunately). Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of Harambee Hills was racist, sexist and smells of favoritism

Harambee Hills is an important addition to WIKIPEDIA

And another thing, if you continue to omit Harambee Hills, you just may as well delete the whole listing of webcomics, cartoonists, everything related to webcomics, etc Oh, or does the Harambee Hills creator need to be a white, American and male to be includes on Wikipedia? User talk:Milesaurus

Listen this is an important article. I even edited down the characters listing. There are not many African-American cartoonists listed on the Wiki. Also, there are hundreds of Webcomics on the Wiki, New and Old! Are you stated that WIKI is only for White cartoonist? ((User talk:Milesaurus))

we might want to think about salting this due to repeated recreations.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

and the latest incarnation isn't even the same text so I don't feel comfortable A7ing it. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ETA, by that I mean isn't even an article. Is his comments on talk and in article space _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NM, Sarcasticidealist took care of it. Sorry for the orange bar overload! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I really had no idea what was going on, as I'd never edited or deleted the page in question. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nor had you edited his other article, so I was totally confused how he landed here and not on my own. May have seen your name on someone else's talk. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Steward2007

I'm disapointed you did not accept this editors good faith explanation that killing me was a sufficent reason to be un-blocked. Seemed perfectly reasonable IMHO.... :) Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 06:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Coachee added

I added a new coachee. See my talk page, the coach status page, and I also saved the AC questions as a blank slate here: User:Rlevse/AC, so it can be easily copied. Seems you and I started a trend with that one! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A potential impasse

Please read the latest contribution to the Yarrow mediation page and take note of the question that is asked by me below. Hi everybody

I just noticed that the Yarrow article is no longer protected. I am quite willing to add Aletas version to it and ask that it be protected at the 1st sign of an edit war. I will not make this edit until I am certain that it is not a violation of the mediation process. If it is I will move to have the mediation proceess declared unresolved

Albion moonlight (talk) 01

00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bringing in new parties and or polling.

Jpk now wants us to bring in new parties to the mediated discussion space. Is this allowed ? What about polling ? I am not giving up on the mediation process just yet. Arbitration and article bans may be the only real solution now but I am still willing to try and settle this dispute through mediation.

Albion moonlight (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Goatsecx2.jpg

Please explain your reason for deleting the above image, thanks --  Chzz  ►  05:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You uploaded that image as a renamed image to get around the intent of a page salting. You were on IRC at the time and were advised by a number of users and admins to cease uploading such non-free shock images without discussion. You refused, so I deleted the image as a recreation of a deleted image and as an invalid non-free image. MBisanz ^talk 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Great to meet you today

I really enjoyed it. I have to say, your photo with the tag reminds me so much of our badge tags when I lived/worked in Japan. Need to find one of those photos, it will make you chuckle I think. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I like the PPT. I think you did fine without it though. My one aversion to PPT is people reading screens rather than talking -- I think we had talking down pat :) The academy scares me slightly -- very formal and no doubt educational but I have a desire to send in a clown and make them laugh. Have a good day! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Infrogmation

Hi, I believe I have it enabled again. (It was years ago, and I thought it still was. I guess all the emails I've been getting recently have been via Commons.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 06:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Election

Hello, I saw an ad for the election, and after reading over the profiles, I would like to vote for you, but it says that I am not qualified to vote. I believe I meet the criteria (see my userpage for stats) and am hoping you can either tell me whether I don't meet the criteria or who I can contact to find out. Best --Eustress (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks for the support, but yea, your thoughts were right, you don't have 600 edits made before 1 March 2008, so your name isn't on the list of people eligible to vote. Of course, that just means you have to wait till next year to vote (or maybe run yourself) :) MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Wikispace must these edits be in? I have plenty of edits in WikiEnglish, but the voting must be for something different. --Eustress (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Eckerdlogosmall.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Eckerdlogosmall.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. BJBot (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Possibly-unfree-mural

Mind taking a look at {{Possibly-unfree-mural}}. Not sure what is going on with this template. It looks like a deletion template without categorizing into a deletion category. Found it while going through Category:Non-free image copyright tags, and I don't think it belongs there, but I wasn't sure where to put it. Thanks. - AWeenieMan (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your participation in my recent RFA. Feel free to weigh in at my in-depth RFA analysis. There's also some templated RFA spam below for you ;>. best of luck in the board elections! xenocidic (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

Thank you for your support

So...how do I use these things? ;>

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins – please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone – please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it – the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Upload

Since you've been the maintainer of this page, I'm pointing you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Upload MBisanz ^talk 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've left a comment and I am definitely interested in seeing how this will play out. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group (3rd nomination)

There are better ways of resolving problems with the BAG, such as WP:CENT. The current looks of the MFD is a 9-0 tally (excluding the nominators), and I would just speedy keep this one per WP:BOLD and WP:SNOW, but there are multiple requests on the page to let it run longer. Please let me know if you still object to it being closed early. Useight (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of precendent you want set by letting the MFD run its full course. It looks like it's going to end in "Keep" whether it runs 5 days or gets snowed. PS – Good luck on the Board of Trustees vote. Useight (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're going for. Five full days would obviously provide better evidence that the community does not want BAG dissolved, but I don't know if that can be extended to the assumption that the community rejects the method of bot approval. Useight (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting eligibility

I an not sure I am eligible to vote in the trustees election. Can you advise me as to how to find out one way or the other. Is ther a quick way to count ones edits ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight (talk • contribs)

link Enigma ^message 08:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed eligible to vote. Enigma ^message 08:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I could not get through to vote. The computer I use runs on linux. Perhaps that is the problem. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I run Debian linux on Iceweasel, and had no problems. SQL^{Query me!} 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Upload

I've notched it down to semi for a couple (5ish) hours, I'll re-up before going to bed later. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll see what I can do with it. The Transhumanist    23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Too late, I got yelled at a lot on IRC for semi-ing, so I had to reprotect! MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Very sorry about what happened, I tried notching down the protection for a few hours, with me sitting here constantly refreshing the watchlist to catch vandalism, but the noise from other admins screaming about me opening the interface to vandalism was so loud, that I had to re-protect. That page has been a mega gripe to me since I started at wiki, and sadly I'm too technically dumb to fix it. MBisanz ^talk 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. By the way, what do you think is wrong with the page? The Transhumanist    20:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've defined the problem, as best as an idiot can, at User:MBisanz/ImageSystemProposal and bugzilla:12452. But sadly its apparently an insurmountable task for our current dev corp. MBisanz ^talk 20:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot questions

Hi MBisanz, some random questions for you:

1. My understanding of BRFA is that an editor makes a submission and discussion ensues until one member of BAG is satisfied that the bot should be approved for trial, that one member then approves the bot for trial (usually, sometimes just stamps it through). Is that an accurate perception?

   Yes

2. Should the standard bot application questions include "location of source code"? This is not to insist on publication, but would allow a little more transparency and selectivity of approval.

   I like the idea of publishing source code, as far as adding that question, I don't know to what end it would bring. I could answer "The source code is on my laptop" and that would be honest, or I could say "I house it on a secure NASA server". If, as Bot policy currently exists, we do not mandate disclosure to a specific location, I don't see the benefit to knowing where it is located.

3. Is Betacommand a currently active BAG member? Suspended pending reconfirmation? Waiting for the dust to settle? I'm not clear on the exact status between BAG page and talk.

   I consider Betacommand suspended from BAG per community consensus, pending a reconfirmation election to begin on June 20th.

4. Pushing it a little bit now, at WP:BAG we have "Members of the group are experienced in writing and running bots, have programming experience...", then at WT:BAG/DHMO we have "I admit my technical knowledge isn't the greatest", followed by "Consensus reached, adding to WP:BAG". Do the requirements for BAG membership need to be rewritten in light of this?

   We generally require Crats at en.wiki to know how to use the tools, yet I am aware of one crat who recently had to be taught the Rename rules as he had not performed Renames before. If the community feels Giggy is qualified to approve bots, even if he lacks a detailed technical understanding of code, who are we to question the community?

5. And following on that same thread, we see the candidate on 09 May saying "I'm absolutely going to take it slow, no question about that. If you wish, I will refrain from making full approvals for a month", instated on 20 May and then on 30 May we have making a full approval.

   As you note, the closing crat did not stipulate any restrictions on Giggy's membership, nor did there appear to be a consensus among voters that there should be any restrictions, so I would say the community failed to take him up on the offer to refrain from approving for a certain period of time.

I don't necessarily want to open a can of worms, I'm mostly interested in the first two questions, so you can consider the rest optional. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope that answers the questions, I'm willing to elaborate on any or answer other questions if you'd life me to. MBisanz ^talk 06:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good questions, that deserve a full answer. At class right now, but you will have very detailed answers when I get home. I recognize that BAG has had somewhat of a reputation of secrecy and hoped when I joined it to make it more transparent. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am almost certain that I am eligble

Your message seemed to contain typing errors that left me confused. Anyway I have until the 21st and I am sure you are very busy. I will copy the error message word for word at some point after I get a machine that uses windows. I share a computer and it has its own private server that I do not have access to. That has proven to be a source of difficulty pursuant to Wiki in the past and may be the problem now. :Albion moonlight (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I hope to make it to windows operated computer tomorrow. Anyway I appreciate all your help so far and I will get back to you if I am still unable to vote after accessing a windows operated machine.

thanks

Thanks for handling the request on my talk page. Just so you know about the situation, I am planning a fairly busy schedule for my summer break. As has been the case for the past few months, I will sometimes have days when I am very active, while there will also be times like this week when I will be completely inactive or barely active for several days, or perhaps even more than a week.

I see you're doing great work as an administrator. Good luck with your run for the Wikimedia Board! Academic Challenger (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

License templates

Hi, Matthew – I got your note on my talk page. Don't worry about the effect your work has on those pages in my userspace – they're just a scratchpad. As a matter of fact, feel free to edit them as you will if you need to. I plan to go back and clean those up sometime soon; I was working on standardizing licenses between here and Commons, but I put that aside for a while because I'm working on something else (moving Flickr-sourced images to Commons where they're safe from license changes). With respect – Kelly ^hi! 13:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

re: GFDL through deleted edits

Good evening. I saw your recent comment about a developer who committed that Wikipedia will never purge deleted contributions. I was rather surprised to read that since I've heard several developers assert the opposite – that they always reserved the right to purge again if they felt it necessary. Admittedly, that was a few years ago now but it is a rather notable change of position, especially since it changes some of our starting assumptions about the processes we have built up around deletion. Since you spoke with the developer in person, do you think you could convince him/her to make that commitment publicly, perhaps at the Deletion policy page? More people should know about that change. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll send him an email, I also might be seeing him again this weekend, so I should have some answer. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just checking in to see if you'd heard anything yet. Rossami (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

License Templates

I am working on a list of exactly what would need to be done to standardize non-free image license templates (basically, what it would be nice to see your bot do). Might be useful in getting an idea of how big a task we are talking about. - AWeenieMan (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It dawns on me that you might want to update MediaWiki:Licenses before starting your replacement runs. Otherwise people will be using soft redirects as licenses from the upload screen. - AWeenieMan (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Revitalizing WP:ADCO

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to be contacting several coaches on the status page who aren't "full" and suggesting coachees for them. I feel that it's time to revitalize coaching and start to work on the backlog of requests. If there's anything you think I should know, feel free to contact me. Malinaccier (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh well

I presented the best case I could. There's just so much paranoia regarding that page. I don't get it.

The Transhumanist    00:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic.

Your last comment on the mediation page was very timely. There is a lot of reason to be hopeful now. Thanks for that. : Albion moonlight (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Free culture?

I do not think that Skype could be usuable to "spread free culture" while it is censored. I suppose that you were joking. --Snek01 (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I will not vote for you. I hope that you will change your mind in the future. You can still change your statement, because other sections of your statement are good. --Snek01 (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanzBot

I'm not 100% sure of this, but your bot seems to be making some errors: diff. Not really sure why that happened, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Drewcifer (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Drewcifer (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it was picking up the }} wrong on some types of images, I've tightened the regex, so it shouldn't happen again. MBisanz ^talk 08:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Campora San Giovanni

Is good evening to you, an Italian uuser, do I sustain your candidacy on Wikimedia, would you be so kind to be helped to translate me from English into Spanish the voice of my village? thanks --Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. sorry my bad english--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thanks, MBisanz, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am still unable to vote.

I went to a windows run Pc but I still am not being allowed to vote. Can you help ? Albion moonlight (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No I forgot and I just assumed it would work, I will try again tommorrow or the next day and copy the message this time. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the comment on my RFA. While I should have given a little more thought when I did those actions, I am happy you brought them up for me to learn form them. :) Thanks again. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Restricted use

I have nominated Template:Restricted use (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your swift and bold action here. Your work is appreciated. Watchdogb (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion on edit summaries

Could you please explain what you meant by "add" in these two edit summaries, [1] and [2]? Thank you in advance, Aspects (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Template:Non-free-NASA/doc

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Non-free-NASA/doc, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Non-free-NASA/doc is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Non-free-NASA/doc, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange MBisanzBot edit

This edit happened about a month ago, but I've only just discovered it. Your bot made this edit to User talk:203.14.53.45. I guess it thought that the template contained {{sig}} when it actually contained the parameter {{{sig}}}, hence the pair of opening and closing braces enclosing the substitution of Template:Sig. Is there any way to find other instances where the bot made this mistake and correct them? I couldn't find any with this Google search using text from Template:Anonblock. But then, there can't be too many non-proxy IP's that have had to be blocked for two years because of vandalism. I used to be on that IP address, and I like to check on how it's going from time to time. Graham87 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good – thanks for your attention to this matter. Did you catch my ramblings at User talk:MBisanz/Quotes? Graham87 00:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite funny :) MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"substing user templates"

What was the bot trying to do in this edit? --Carnildo (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up

Heads up, you have an email!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Block explanation

User:Gmaxwell is a well-known Wikipedian. I assume he's the legit guy in question, as I know nothing about him, but I see his name around a lot. When I see an account that calls itself a sock of Gmaxwell, I think user/vandal that has an issue with him blowing some steam. User:Misza13 gets or got a lot of that. Basicly an account who's name says 'this is a sockpuppet' and doesn't show in the log as having been created by someone reputable should be a block on sight job. I would have appreciated some forewarning we might get something like that sprung on us out of the blue, but I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it. A misunderstanding occured and was undone, let's move on. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the block

As usual, someone tends to get to the block of a user before i do (idk why). This time it was you, on the revert and block on the user concerning the Palpadin High School page. Good job, and i hope you get the election.

GENIUS(4th power) (i dont feel like typing my sig) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GENIUS(4th power) (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 06:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the unblock

Yea, that's my fault for clicking on the wrong side of the "last" page to tackle vandalism. :-) --MASEM 03:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

File:PD-icon.svg

Hi, you protected this image, but it's on Commons. The local description page should probably stay protected to prevent local uploads with that name, but I just wanted to let you know you didn't protect the image itself. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk)

All good then. :) Rocket000 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:StewieGriffin! Talk

Thanks for your input. Of course, this meets the rules as i was renamed by a crat (like you said).

StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 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. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Are you already a crat? You should most definately nominate yourself. I'll put immediate support (if you tell me) StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If I could vote, I really would vote for you. I've added {{User:MBisanz/Board}} to my userpage. Good luck. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note i've fixed File:Selectedsim.jpg. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure you haven't missed my comments about your nasty block and attack of me to protect another administrator -- a link

[3] You can find the rest, I'm sure. Feel free to carry out your ban threat. After all, that's the normal escalation, isn't it: one warning, then a block, then one warning, then a ban? --Blechnic (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted. MBisanz ^talk 07:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, would you consider taking some time to discuss things with Blechnic. There are some severe misunderstandings here, and I think some friendly overtures from you and/or Ryulong are needed to have any hope of resolving this. I started an ANI thread here, as this was an unresolved bit from a previous thread. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Responded here [4] MBisanz ^talk 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My response

Here you go, here are the diffs, the last two edits I made, the last to the article, and the last to the article's talk page before MBisanz blocked me:

My last edit to the article was at 8:47[5]

My last comment on the talk page,and last edit before the block, the edit that infuriated Mbisanz so much that it called for me being blocked with just a single warning was at 9:09: [6]

Mbisanz blocked me at 9:11 for an edit to a talk page discussing the article 09:11, 4 May 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing

--Blechnic (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I was blocked for discussing the article on the article's talk page after a single warning about putting tags on articles by MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure you have my AN/I response, since you don't seem to have the accurate diffs of what you did to me that would have gotten any editor, new or established, seriously upset about your abuse of power. --Blechnic (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to settle this, you might consider stop trying to provoke me, and stop trying to establish every way you can that I'm a new editor and not worthy of your time. Which is precisely what your suggestion to recall sounds like. "Editor in good standing = 1,500+ edits, 6+ months experience, no blocks in last 6 months." You are not showing good faith in this, you are, instead, showing the desire and willingness to antagonize me, poorly justify your actions, and show other established editors that you can have a little fun. Why don't we not continue this on AN/I or anywhere, now that you've established that I'm not worthy of addressing you? --Blechnic (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I watch Mbsanz's Talk page because of past dispute with him, so I saw this. Blechnic, you are violating a very basic and important policy: Assume Good Faith. It used to be called a Policy, but I see that it was downgraded to a Guideline, probably because it's widely violated, in fact, but when a user consistently violates it in spite of warnings, friendly or otherwise, they do tend to end up banned. AGF isn't important when people agree, it's important when they don't. Wikipedia is not rule-bound. The actual definition of Reliable Source is a matter for editorial consensus, and whether or not to leave material in, pending research, which is not reliably sourced by the guideline, is likewise a matter for consensus. Consensus becomes impossible when editors aren't civil. Don't take this as a threat. If it were a threat, it would take the form of a warning on your Talk page, because then it could be the basis for a block if you continued the behavior. Nor am I an administrator, nor do I unquestioningly support admins in their actions. But neither do I attack them, assuming bad faith, absent clear proof. Lots of things are wrong with Wikipedia, but we are not going to fix them with incivility. Administrators make mistakes, it's practically a necessity. If an administrator made a mistake with you, there is process to address it, and clear your name and record, if you think it important and can find support, which you will if it was clearly a mistake. But you simply rage and blame and show contempt, that process becomes impossible. I've been involved with online communities for longer than the age of some administrators, and I've seen one thing over and over. Some participant is unjustly accused of something -- or thinks he was. Instead of calming addressing it and letting it go, the user becomes incensed and rages, and the rest of the community, from the response, comes to see the user as the problem, and won't even bother to look at the record, which has become irrelevant. If you were a police officer, and you walk into a bar, and someone is raging, whom will you focus on, whom will you take action to stop? The one raging will say it is the fault of the others, they did this or that, etc. But it is not the job of the police to determine and enforce justice, it is their job to maintain order. Administrators are not content judges here, they are process police. Their decisions are ad-hoc and reversible, and if they make too many mistakes, they can lose their privileges, particularly if they defend their errors. Administrators do a huge amount of work, many of them, slogging through the mud, and they do it with little compensation. Cut them some slack, help them to do their job, bear with their mistakes and help the community correct those errors. And if you are not willing to do that, maybe you are barking up the wrong wiki. --Abd (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A replay for MBisanz in the AN/I#Timeline Bidgee (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, if you read my recall, the filer must only be an "Auto-confirmed user not under editing restrictions."; it is the five people who agree with the filer that must "1,500+ edits, 6+ months experience, no blocks in last 6 months." MBisanz ^talk 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What I see here is a poster, not MBisanz, who posts in bold, in the midst of a long paragraph, "Don't take this as a threat," I guarantee, I have never in my life had to tell someone not to take something as a threat, so I won't be reading this page and the threats, and I will take it off my watch list. --preceding comment added by User:Blechnic note added by Abd (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I knew, from what Blechnic was writing elsewhere, that he could be inclined to take my comment as a threat, so I made that statement, and I made it prominently. And the statement essentially contained prima facie evidence that it was not a threat, because Blechnic isn't directly responsible for what is written here about him. Yes, it was a kind of warning, but with no stated or even possible "threat" of punitive or other direct consequence, it was merely advice. Had I intended to set Blechnic up for a block, I'd have warned him on his Talk page, where it could then be presumed that he read it, and I'd have made it very specific, warning that specific behavior, if continued, could result in a block. Now, in fact, because he responded to it as he did, (proving that my expectation was reasonable, as if that was necessary, he'd been writing "threat" here and there with considerable frequency), it could serve as a warning, if some administrator so chose. And there are over 1500 administrators, any one of which might make that decision. And the more the user attacks those who make a decision that is not clearly a violation of policy, the more the user will be perceived as disruptive. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

I don't know whether or not Blechnic will read this, but if he were serious about dealing with problems of alleged administrative abuse, he'd change his behavior and actually do something, pursuing due process. But the behavior itself prevents this, and my conclusion is that he, like many others before him, is one who rails against alleged oppression, but won't lift a finger in any disciplined effort to correct and prevent it. The world ihas many such people, unfortunately. --Abd (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was a bit surprised how she reacted to your comment, given that we rarely see eye-to-eye and even when we don't most people see your comments as straining to assume good faith, not making threats. I offered her my User:MBisanz/Recall page, since that is the fastest way to get lots of eyes on my behavior and call me to heel, so to speak, but she opted not to pursue that. I'm hoping she's move on to other editing and just doesn't like me. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello Matthew, I am not sure if here is appropriate place to ask you this question, if you think is not, please just simply delete my question or move it to an appropriate place.

I would like to know if you become a board member, what action would you take to tackle troubles in cases such as this, where the sole bureaucrat in a less developed wikipedia, grossly abuses his bureaucrat privileges.

Many thanks --Kaaveh (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to ask this question. Of course, him being the founder and sole crat makes this a sticky subject. However, at the end of the day, his crat-ship and the actions that he makes, are community matters, that I, as a board member, could not involve myself in, and still proclaim that the projects operate based on their own consensus. Reviewing the conversation at Meta, I would suggest, in my role as an everyday editor, that a local Request for Comment on his actions be initiated, and if he should prevent this, then an RFC at meta m:RFC should be filed. As a last resort, the Persian community could seek arbitration at Meta m:Cross-wiki arbitration committee if internally it cannot reach a consensus even on an RFC. Thank you again for taking the time to ask this question. MBisanz ^talk 08:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your quick and insightful reply. All the best --Kaaveh (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

PIO again

Matt, bearing in mind this comment a while back [7], I thought you might like to be aware that PIO's been openly editing over at Simple – see simple:Special:Contributions/Pio. Especially given that he's banned now rather than just indef blocked. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Just FYI, if you are going to follow this up, I've opened a thread over there at AN. See simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Pio. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Claim of Wikipedia:Libel at George Thomas Coker

You have recently warned User:Oreo Priest that his edit of George Thomas Coker was defamatory and in violation of Wikipedia:Libel (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oreo_Priest&diff=prev&oldid=219881664 this diff]. Can you explain how the inclusion of the article subject's statements backed by reliably sourced references constitutes defamataion? Can you explain how your accusation of making defamatory statements does not itself violate WP:LEGAL? Alansohn (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I clearly explained my reasoning here as to why the edit violated BLP. Further, I used a standard warning template {{Uw-defamatory3}} that has been vetted by the community at large as an acceptable warning. MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that at no point do you show that the statements made are defamatory. While the community has vetted the template, you have failed to show that it applies here. As such, your use of the template would be improper, at best. Alansohn (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying his remarks were "anti-Vietnamese remarks" when none of the sources use that wording is defamatory to his reputation. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, that was in the edit summary, just so I could clarify exactly what I was adding, and appeared nowhere on the page. It was a good faith edit and was not defamatory, and I thus request again that you formally remove the warning from my talk page as it does not apply. It is preventing me from editing normally and is unwarranted, although I do understand where the confusion arose. Thank you. -Oreo Priest ^talk 05:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Check about midway down this [8], the source you cited for "an anti-Vietnam War film that focused extensively on Coker" doesn't use the term "anti-Vietnam". MBisanz ^talk 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I've already explained how that was a trivial addition and to give Coker the benefit of the doubt. It certainly is not defamation either to say that he appeared in an anti-Vietnam documentary. Now that I reflect, perhaps (although I'm not sure about this) you thought that the documentary was anti-Vietnam as in racist, while in fact it was anti-Vietnam as in against the war, the former was certainly not what was meant. I again request you remove the warning as I have done no wrong. -Oreo Priest ^talk 06:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, lets call if water under a bridge, just double check your sources when adding them and I'll make it a point not to comment on your actions in the future, deal? MBisanz ^talk 06:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Can you please remove the warning from my talk page then, so I can carry on normally? Thanks! -Oreo Priest ^talk 06:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. -Oreo Priest ^talk 06:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but, any user may remove warnings from their userpage, without consequence, it merely indicates that said warning has been read. SQL^{Query me!} 06:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Meatpuppet

I have recreated this as a redirect to Template:Meatpuppet2. I did this because a number of meatpuppets had this template transcluded on their userpage. Just wanted to give you a heads up, since you speedied the previous version. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Block

I realised that shortly after, thank you for the unblock. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Is there any way to delete my block log? I liked being clean. Best, Metagraph comment 09:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the huggle conflict reason, so sorry once again! No harm done, Huggle has its drawbacks and it wasn't your fault at all. I see no reason why to curse at you. Id much rather vote for you infact, as you've been awfully kind. Thank you for everything! Metagraph comment 09:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup Presentation

It's a damn shame you couldn't present this as originally intended, which is quite sleek and simple. Still I think you gamely hit all the points in your talk, which went well. By the way, I have also posted this to Presentations at meta. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI

You're mentioned here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bishzilla, Mädchen für Alles?

Er, MBisanz...Carcharoth seems to think that my scary dino sock is the right admin for alarming all little users into meekly agreeing with whatever I suggest. Please see this note on my page, and my reply on ANI, whereby I have passed on the issue to you (hoping that makes you happy!). Bishonen | talk 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC).

Protection of User talk:Alansohn

May I ask what the reason was for protecting User talk:Alansohn? Does it harm anyone if he creates school articles while he is blocked? It might seem wrong, and maybe you are trying to enforce a break, but is it really going to help if it upsets him? Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been bothered with an e-mail yet, so it obviously doesn't upset him enough. If you don't think it's necessary, remove it. I just was under the impression that the user talk page is only editable during blocks in order for the blocked party to contest his/her block (hence why you can't edit other pages in your userspace that are equally, and perhaps more, trivial). -- tariqabjotu 18:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, under the {{2nd chance}} rules, he was doing what he hope temporarily blocked people do with their user talk while blocked. MBisanz ^talk 20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of {{2nd chance}} here would be incorrect. It's clearly not pertinent for his situation; no one's doubting that he can write articles and his block is only thirty-one hours. -- tariqabjotu 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

joining the ranks of the admins

Thanks for your participation in my successful RfA. Good luck with your own election! Now I’m off to do some fixin'... Pinkville (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn unblocked

Not sure if you noticed, but after some fruitful discussion at WP:AE, Alansohn was unblocked. I'd also like to apologise for a comment I made earlier. Even if I didn't agree with your block, I can see now that it probably did help in the short term. I also struck through the comment and apologised here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's none of my business, but why is this user running deleted articles on his user page? If I have got any of this by the tail, I apologise because I don't understand intricate stuff yet. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked and was using the time while blocked to write new articles to be created when he was unblocked, something I have no issue with. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As you were writing this, I scrolled up to the explanation earlier. Looks like there are other places beside sandboxes, so I learned something. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock message???

You posted something about an unblock on my talk page. I think you got wrong guy. --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

George Thomas Coker

You recently gave me a warning for adding "defamatory" content to the article. It was, however, perfectly well cited and verified in published media, and thus is not libel because it is true. Please explain what I have done wrong and why you have reverted it. -Oreo Priest ^talk 08:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not of undue weight, and it's not making a point. If you're in doubt as to whether racist remarks by a famous person are notable, please compare with James D. Watson#Statement claiming links between race and intelligence, where it has a whole paragraph, and Michael Richards, where it is in the lead. The racist remarks certainly are notable and are not of undue weight, otherwise they would not appear in published media. You'll notice BLP requires that all negative material be properly sourced, not that it be absent. This need not be a hagiography simply because he is still living, and all the controversial material is properly sourced, and thus cannot be removed on BLP concerns, although it is possible that there be other reasons for its removal. Please explain. -Oreo Priest ^talk 08:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out here that quoting what someone has said, using a reliable source, is not defamatory. I was surprised to see MBisanz throwing that quasi-legal word around. I'll repeat what I said elsewhere: if Coker wants to comment on what he said, or how the documentary makers took him out of context or misportrayed him, then he needs to do that on the record with a reliable source. Then we can give balanced coverage. Until then, we can only present one side of the controversy, and to have Coker or those acting on his behalf asking for this content to be removed, is bypassing that process. Carcharoth (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources could be improved, and removing until the sources are improved is valid, but totally excluding the possibility of having this in the article is a heavy-handed approach. And the point about undue weight for quotes in footnotes is a subtle one, and not one that can be addressed with a general wave at a closed arbcom case that didn't really address the issue. Footnoted quotes need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We can remove the claim that it was anti-Vietnam, but that changes little. You, by the way, have mentioned no Arbcom ruling to me. If you wish, I can back up the claim with many other published sources. (here and here for example, furthering the claim that it by no means undue weight) I also request you retract the warning you have given me, as I have done nothing which warrants a block, cf WP:BLP "Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption," which I have not done, as it was well sourced. -Oreo Priest ^talk 09:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned it here and the edit I reverted did include the addition of material whose sources did not back up the statements being made, so it was a proper warning. Remember the lines "We must get the article right." and "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".", your edit, as I described on your talk page, did not "get it right" since it was an unsourced addition to a BLP, subsequent sources don't change that edit. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced? Each and every sentence had an inline citation! That's just unfair. The statements the sources did not back up were trivial: the quote was included, but the benefit of the doubt for Coker: that the movie was anti-Vietnam, was not stated explicitly. Because that content was from an older edit of the page, the google books entry had been changed since last access and is thus blank. Hardly a blockworthy misstep. -Oreo Priest ^talk 05:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So your saying you dredged up an old edit from the page that had removed the material, ostensibly for BLP purposes and reinserted it without checking the sources? MBisanz ^talk 06:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes, I reverted an unfair revert that had an inadequate rationale. I had no initial reason to doubt the sources as doubt was never cast on them, and I had assumed good faith of the contributing editors. You still haven't tried to remove the warning from my talk page, would you care to explain why? -Oreo Priest ^talk 06:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm helping out as an uninvolved admin at the George Thomas Coker article. I noticed that you reverted the article a few days ago, citing BLP, but without making any corresponding comments at the talkpage. Since there is currently a discussion at talk, in an attempt to build consensus on what to include in the article, were you at all interested in participating? If so, your comments would be welcome, to ensure that the addition is a high-quality one, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and best practices. Thanks, --Elonka 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so as long as there's a clear consensus at talk, you're okay on what they come up with? I just want to avoid any situation where there's a discussion between multiple editors to build consensus, followed by another "drive by" revert by someone who is not involved in the discussions. --Elonka 04:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll vote not counting

Thank you for your note. That doesn't seem right. As you are more knowledgeable than I about this, can you please fix it for me? Badagnani (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Before you dismiss me can you please look at the history of my editing and his? They speak for themselves. Look at the example I gave. It's very clear from it that he is undoing my work without even looking because his comment contradicts. It's very clear cut.--Burrburr (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hello fellow Long Islander. I have a question regarding my Admin coach, User:Shyam. As per his contribs, he seems to have left, or be inactive. I'd like to proceed with coaching, and would like to know what I should do. Thank you so much, T^heDJA^tC^lubR^ock :-) ^(T/C) 01:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Still seems inactive. T^heDJA^tC^lubR^ock :-) ^(T/C) 12:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hey, if you you want to block me , fine! I retired anyway, you would be doing me a favour. I deserve it for the comments I made , but please look at the conduct of Fonze4mii. No one else would at his sockpuupet accusations! Jack forbes (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

Hi, that page was not actually supposed to be seen by any of Board's candidate :D It just rank each's presentation and answers to match my thoughts, and turns out that you do. ^^ Thanks for coming, I wish you luck for the candidacy. REX (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP templates

Hi there, sorry for not responding sooner; for some reason my talk page got a little crazy yesterday and I accidentally overlooked your message. I've taken a look at your proposals; the style and formatting is good, but I think the wording needs to be a bit less formal. I'd be happy to draft up some suggestions; would you prefer that I post proposed wordings on the talk page of the individual template, or at some other page where more eyes may see them and comment? I'm open to suggestion. Risker (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Image attribution

Hi MB, maybe you can help here. User asserts ownership of a picture of the user. Other dumb editor (that's me) asks why he doesn't just confirm ownership through official channels. User asks dumb editor how to do that. Dumb editor stumbles over here for help (but promises to learn for next time). See here – your help is appreciated. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Franamax – sorry to butt in. Just have the party send an e-mail with the permission details to permissions AT wikimedia.org. Here is a copy of the type of license release the OTRS folks will be looking for. WP:COPYREQ has more detail on this process – just drop me a note with any questions about this, or images in general. Kelly ^hi! 07:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Kelly's right, that is the right way to do it, although I'd of used photosubmissionwikimedia.org or permissions-enwikimedia.org. MBisanz ^talk 07:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, one of those would probably get a faster response. I'd forgotten about the photosubmission e-mail address, thanks Matthew. Kelly ^hi! 07:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c with MB, who's not sleeping after all – thxboth; e/c with Kelly, now I'm getting pissed off :) Hey, four minutes for a response? You can butt in any time you like! The template link you give is a little confusing (nay, intimidating) since it's commons, not en:wiki – which of course is where free images should go. If the user does go through this process, please ping me with the details, the permissions process is something I need to learn better. Thanks for your help! Franamax (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack warning on Simple English Wikipedia

I just thought you should see this. It might be removed if it was put there for the wrong reason. -- RyRy5 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

vbc\vbc-t merge

As long as you keep the time parameter (Actually, the desired results of such a merge could be accomplished by just getting rid of {{vbc}} ... as far as I'm concerned every blocking template should have a time parameter). Daniel Case (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jack forbes#Warning

Please see the series of diffs I have left there. I believe a block is in order for this user, gathering the vast amounts of personal attacks from the user.

Also, I would like to let you know the user is being nominated for sockpuppetery. Cheers, --Fone4Me 08:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The attacks include calling me an "arsehole", "prick", "dickhead", "wee skinny arsehole", telling me he wants to fight me, and also, calling another admin "incompetent". Do you not agree with a block for the user? Fone4Me 11:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I warned once, other admins are watching the matter and I will revisit later today. MBisanz ^talk 14:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he gave up after Seicer told him to move on. Hopefully its the end of it, if it isn't ping me. MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok cheers --Fone4Me 15:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note; Shalom Yechiel is not an admin, and as far as I know should not have closed Fonez4mii's sockpuppetry case. Further, Fonez4mii's recent sockpuppetry allegation about Jack Forbes himself smacks of a very bad faith nom. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 15:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Image:Imbox content.png

Is there any way you could make File:Imbox content.png an SVG or a larger, clearer PNG? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 08:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was in the process of doing it already, you can expect it soon, I hope. -- penubag  (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Insertion of {{TestTemplatesNotice}} into Template:Sofixit/doc

Hi,

Can you explain the purpose of this addition? The template doesn't look like it belongs there, especially not <includeonly>ed... Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 10:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Template deletions

I notice you've made several TFD nominations for template messages lately. A lot of them could have been better handled by just redirecting them to another, more suitable template if they have been superseded. Many folks remember the old template names and it's more effort to go find the template again if it's deleted than to just redirect it — and anyway, redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I must agree; this inconveniences established editors to no real benefit to the encyclopedia; it doesn't matter what tool we use as long as the job gets done. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from User:Stifle's talk):Yes, many should be redirected, but take {{Bbblock}} for example, I'd of redirected it to one of the other block templates, but Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 8#Template:Bbblock, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 25, and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 5#Template:Bbblock would strongly disagree with that decision, I wouldnt mind if all the TfDs ended up as Redirected but the "for deletion" part of the page name makes that a hard nominating rationale. MBisanz ^talk 14:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirection is less important than leaving it alone; some admin will want to say exactly that, and why not? Templates exist to say things we want to say more than once. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently we have 663 unique warning and blocking templates, down from over 800 when I started this process. Many templates are old and have aged poorly, presenting incorrect instructions today that run counter to current policy, some were created as one-off tests that were never reversed, others are near identical duplicates of better formatted templates, I could tag such things with a CSD template, or delete it outright myself, but I have opt'd to use TFD in order to get more consensus on each template, so far I'm running around a 60-70% deletion rate, so I know I am finding more things that should be deleted than I am nominating things that should not be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 17:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

None of today's nominations make any case that the templates are contrary to policy or are tests. Please confine your nominations to those cases, and redirect the near-duplicates. (Images should count on whether something is a duplicate: one reason I use the test series is that I don't like the uw-series' icons; but I am perfectly willing to let those who do like them use them.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Your conduct approaches the disruptive, and your criterion is mistaken. Deleting one template that is useful (because nobody has noticed the TfD tag on a vandal's talk page) is much more of a cost to WP than letting a unused template sit unused. Since deleted files are still in memory, we aren't even saving memory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, today's run has {{Test4a-n}}(redirect), {{Drmspeedy-n}}(redirect), {{User reply}}(bad duplicate), {{Revert}}(bad fork), {{Autoblock-moves}}(policy), {{Request denied}}(old duplicate), {{Genblock}}(old duplicate), {{Trollblock}}(policy), {{Indefblockedip}}(policy).

And while we're throwing around works like "disruptive" and "mistaken", I'll also note that this program of me TfDing user warning templates was thoroughly reviewed 3 days ago by five users at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive434#User:Mbisanz and found to be "100% appropriate.". MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't say it's inappropriate or seriously disruptive, but you might want to think of just redirecting some of them — if someone doesn't like it, they'll revert. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your oppinion

This user, who appears under different IPs, and refers to himself as "troll" (for other reasons), occurs at discussions on the UK pages. He/she recently left this, which I find very threatening, telling us that if we did not accept his/her decision, it would "end in tears". I wanted to know what course of action you suggest for this user, as this is the 2nd time he/she has reverted, after I replaced it there after another user put it there.

Perhaps a warning? ----fone4me 17:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the IP wasn't threatening anybody; but rather giving a warning, that editors at Scotland prefer a consensus for change, being reached at that article (not at United Kingdom). Merely, that re-adding constituent country at this time, will only result in reverts (thus tears of frustrations). GoodDay (talk 17:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going on here, can this go to WP:ANI maybe? MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for "responding" to Kelly's message on my talk page, that is to protect her pages immediately. It's a pleasure to work with people like you who understand and take care of things when I am away!

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet

Probably not worth filing an SSP, though. link Enigma ^message 07:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jack Forbes

Per the checkuser results above, should User:Jack forbes, User:Joe Deagan, and User:Boilerman be blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and continuing personal attacks using them? --fone4me 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Commons Ambassador Barnstar

		The Commons Ambassador Barnstar
		For beating me to the punch in updating the links to File:L'Oréal logo.svg so that the en-wiki version could be deleted, I hereby award you this barnstar. --jonny-mt 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:No personal headings

I wanted to write and ask you my questions regarding the template on your talk page because I figure they may be detailed and unecessary on the deletion page.

How is the template odd? Templates are simply used for transclusion, and I find it quite useful to have this message on hand rather than rewriting it.

What is the warning system and why or how would this template fit in it? This template currently is simply intended for me to be able to inform users of policy and practice. It is not intended as a warning or a disciplinary action. What's wrong with that?

Lastly, in regards to policy, if you check, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, you will find that personal headings directly contradict that policy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Hyacinth (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It feels odd, only because in reading WP:AN and WP:ANI, all the threads seem to be about people, and at many talk pages, I see this done on a regular basis. Nothing is wrong with it not being in one of the 2 current systems, WP:UTM and Template:TestTemplates, but frequently people oppose a TFD on the grounds that is belongs to one of those systems, so I find it useful to point out when it does or does not belong to them. And I see the talk page policy reflects the templates, still feels odd as a policy I've seen and broken many times, but it appears safe from deletion, my bad for not checking policy closely enough. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

my bot's approval

Thanks for approving my bot. Is there a simple way to tell when the bot is flagged?--Rockfang (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 07:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Input

Can you provide input on this case: User talk:Rlevse#Documentingabuse 2, esp the usename issue? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions about templates

Greetings. I've been running across a lot of templates that are clearly non-encyclopedic (like this, or this, or this, or this), none of which are userboxes and all of which are used exclusively in userspace. I've nominated a few at TfD, but rather than clog that up, I'd like to know if I can just be bold and move them into the user's pages. I've written a notify template here that I would subst/leave on each user's talk page. Let me know what you think. Thanks --Thetrick (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as the back-link shows it isnt being used on other pages, like Special:WhatLinksHere/User talk:MBisanz it should be fine to move, also it would be safer to move the pages of inactive users and ask active users to move them. MBisanz ^talk 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've written another little template here to substitute, this one asking the user to make the move him/herself. Does the wording of both look OK? Thanks. --Thetrick (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, give it a test run with say a dozen pages and see the response. MBisanz ^talk 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I notified 4 users. I'll see what happens in a few weeks. Thanks for the help. --Thetrick (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd chip in here and say that I've been doing similar things (userfying such templates). I usually just move them and then leave a note. I may consider stealing using that template to save typing the same thing out over and over again! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 11:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello MBisanz! How are you? I withdrew my nomination. Most editors who opposed my RfA expressed that I need to argue better in AfDs. I will take care about the concerns raised by them and apply again after sometime. Thanks for supporting my RfA and if you have any suggestion for me, feel free to contact me. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Board Candidacy

I just saw that your campaign did not succeed. i apologize and hope that you continue to work hard. --Meldshal42 (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement, I look forward to continuing to contribute to this great endeavor. MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the results, I know that if you had won, you would have done a great job. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 21:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen the results (link, anyone?) but I'm happy to tell you that I !voted for you. I think you said you'd be starting work down this way soon. Let me know if you'd like to catch up, I enjoyed meeting you at the NYC meet-up. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically it wasn't a "!vote" since you were actually voting... —Giggy 09:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot request for archiving editor review

Since my request at WP:BOTREQ has gone unanswered, I'm going to individual BAG people to ask if anyone can help create an archive bot for Wikipedia:Editor review. Your name was the first that came to mind.

Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 21#Archive bot for Wikipedia:Editor review. If you can do this, wonderful! If not, please outsource this request to one of your colleagues. An archive bot for editor review will save hours of human effort over the long term, so a short investment of time now should pay off in the long run. Thank you. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

Sorry. I didn't read those sections. --Gary0203 (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dammit!

You know, you take a break from blocking people, decide to handle some unblocking requests, and unblock what seems to be a genuinely reformed vandal only to be thanked by this.

Thank you very much for the reblock. Damn kids >.< --jonny-mt 09:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

Thank you, MBisanz, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk – Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Standardizing message boxes

Please stop. Giano's talk page isn't protected anymore, so your box is just confusing, especially with your signature describing someone else's action. Wikipedia is not going to fall apart if message boxes on a user page don't conform to some arbitrary format. It is not necessary. Risker (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi MBisanz

Sorry about the mix up with your name. . .I got confused (similar names, slow connection, and lots of ec's there at WMC's page). Just thought I'd leave a note here, and try to fix it there later. R. Baley (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, its a running joke that people, despite my vanity gallery on my userpage, mistake me as a female. Also, its a joke that I am MZMcBride, despite our constant bickering over technical minutiae. No harm, no foul. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning

The notice accompanying this message box is made by me, in my role as a member of the Arizona WikiProject. It is not made in my roles as a member of the Bot Approvals Group, administrator or as a rollbacker. It may be made in my role as a member of the Bot Approvals Group and if I'm in a bad mood as a member of The Administrator Cabal. If you respond poorly to this message it is also made in my role as a member of the out of process block cabal.

BJ^Talk 02:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

'newbie' question

sorry if this is a rather dumb question, but what is the best (most productive) use of my 'User' page? --JConoco (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for User:Stefanomione

Hi there, - I know you meant well, but the last thing anybody should have done was to reward User:Stefanomione with a Barnstar for his Category edits, of all things. Aye aye aye! I don't know whether to laugh or scream. Please take a look at the comment I just left about that on his talk page -- and then note all of the CFDs for his ill-conceived categories. And be sure to see the very last note that I just left on his page -- a prime example of his handiwork. We'll be cleaning up his messes for months if not years... <sigh> Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Also, the template should be changed. It still says the next meetup is June 1. Enigma ^message 22:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} :) MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Replying on our own pages now, are we? ;) Did we decide on an exact date for the August picnic? I wasn't sure what to enter into the template. Enigma ^message 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask Pharos, I dont think so. MBisanz ^talk 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thank you.

Thanks for the warm welcome!

--DJBobHoskinsGoingMentalInADustbin (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I User: Exanimous

Just an update Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Exanimous. The user has again linked the image without an consensus which in terms is censoring an image. I would be happy for them to get an consensus and if that consensus is to have the image censored I would also be happy to follow the consensus but at the moment there is no consensus. Bidgee (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. User:Neil again has changed it without consensus or discussion (I will not revert since I don't want to be banned for 3RR or edit warring)[9]. Bidgee (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 03:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Songwriter credits error on many songs recorded by Elvis Presley

There are many songs that Elvis Presley recorded, particularly from his movies, that were written by Bill Giant, Bernie Baum, and Florence Kaye. These three worked as a team to produce many popular songs and music for other artists as well. Unfortunately, many of the song credits for this team list Bill Giant as Bill Grant. There may have been a Bill Grant who wrote songs, but if so, he did not write with this trio.

Is there any way besides brute force to change these references? Thank you.

Cscj01 (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome – Brahmachari (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena talks back

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at User talk:Lady Aleena/User namespace templates.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

15:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Admin Coaching

Hi there, I put myself forwards for admin coaching a few days ago (don't worry this isn't a "You've not matched me yet why not!" message). I saw a mention of any editor moving a current request to the "older requests section" if they've not checked up for 6 weeks or older than six weeks, however I wasn't able to find such a section on the requests page or on the main potal. There's probably jyust something I've missed there but since there were quite a few depreceated requests I thought it might be worth asking to make sure? I've also left a message on the other co-ordinator's page so if either of you would like to reply, if you want to check on my talk page and respond there if necessary you might be able to save yourself a message.

Sorry I've I've missed something really obvious and wasted your time. BigHairRef | Talk 23:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

If you would like to start a draft at User:The Evil Spartan/RFA, I will certainly think about moving it into the mainspace. You also might like to have a word with User:Shalom and User:Maxim. However, I have the very ugly baggage of having withdrawn from an RFA once on commons, for reasons which I have no desire to get into now, but which I may have to address during the process. I think there is a quite hot chance it wouldn't pass, however like I said, I will certainly consider it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, gimmie a couple of days, but I am interested. MBisanz ^talk

If you get cold feet, or change your mind, that is all fine. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been reviewing things, and you seem like a good candidate, but sometimes I notice you get a bit hot under the collar, could we try a bit of focused work on that together before you run? MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I seemed to have chosen the worst moment to show my worst side. I was already planning on postponing it at least a month, though it's probably all out the window now. *Shrug* - in any case, applying for adminship is usually something that one needs to do early, or else your worst side will usually come out. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't say it must be done early, I think a month of good editing will make people quickly forget some of your less well placed passion. MBisanz ^talk 08:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My Editor Review

Hi, I noticed that you edited the editor review (took me a few minutes to figure out the correct coding :) I was wondering if you were going to comment? Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just playing for formatting. MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

I just saw that you blocked an IP for 24 hrs after twice pretty obviously putting some nasty vandalism onto Willie Mays. I applaud you!

Over the last few weeks, I have had a problem with one admin who takes a different view on vandals: Vandals must have four warnings .... 'warnings must increase in severity ..... I have been vandal busting for nearly a year, and never once had a problem until this one admin showed up. I reported a serial vandal after posting a second, third, and fourth warning while reverting back obvious vandalism, reported him to AIV. I got lectured on bad faith reporting since I stockpiled the warnings, and then immediately reported him to AIV. The editor got blocked while he was lecturing me, and he went and browbeat the blocking admin into rescinding the block. The editor then waited a few days and got himself an indef as a vandal only account. I have been following this admin, and see that he has this rigid interpretation of warnings and blocks, even though WP policy permits for vandals to be blocked earlier (as you did).

My question: is there a sound way to go about educating this admin? I don't want to report him as yet, but I got really offended when I got accused of bad faith for reporting obvious vandalism. Good day and thanks! LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy agrees with that admin, that said, admins do have some discretion in blocks, I tend to block quicker than others, but AIV and blocking policy do require the whole rigamorale of the warnings, etc. So no way to educate that admin to follow policy when he's already doing it. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Statest.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Statest.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. BJBot (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

NPA warnings for experienced users

I was curious if it was appropriate to warn experienced users about WP:NPA? On a recent TfD discussion, it seemed like OwenX violated this in a clear fashion, and Ned Scott in a lesser fashion. However, it wasn't clear if you three were just old friends (I find it hard to believe strangers would communicate in this way). Would it be better to mention such things to uninvolved administrators?

In case you guys are old friends, you might want to make this clearer in the discussion, since it does create a bit of a chilling effect on the discussion. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have always opined that it is a very very bad idea to template the regulars: it pretty much always makes the situation worse, and is frankly quite childish. I still believe DTTR should be at very least a guideline. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have interacted with Ned Scott before, generally in a neutral and professional manner, I don't think I've ever worked with OwenX before, so I certainly have no ill intentions towards them, nor insight into the comments they made. Sorry I can't be of more help. MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		MBisanz, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Over on the Simple English Wikipedia, the user account Ælison vandalized three user pages with File:Bisanz9.jpg. I found it amusing, somewhat...is that the best shock image they've got? Either that or someone must like you a lot. Just thought I'd let you know. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so loved! :)~ MBisanz ^talk 08:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RTFM pointers for Flag templates

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at 151.200.237.53's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{00:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)}

how?

I was wondering if you can say me how to put images in an article--Shabe0mac 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Shabe0mac

PIO, just FYI

Hi Matt, just FYI, have a look at this simple:User talk:Cassandra#Request. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_3#Template:Asiir_picture

Template:Asiir picture "passed" the deletion vote and is set to be deleted. Please do the bot magic you promised. :) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 3#Template:Asiir picture. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That was fast! Awesome. :) I'll delete the template. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RFA – it has closed successfully, and I now have the buttons! I also appreciate that you supported despite my low edit count. Guilty as charged – I confess that I am not really a very good encyclopedia editor, but I do think I will be a good behind-the-scenes worker. If I ever show myself as otherwise, please let me know! Once again, thanks for your support. StephenBuxton (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocknumbers template.

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 19#Template:Blocknumbers was used to replace pages with dozens of final warnings (most not acted on) and different looking block boxes. Don't you think the template is better than the hodgepodge whack-a-mole user pages? -- Jeandré, 2008-07-13t06:21z

No, as I pointed out I didn't like this template since it shamed a user by listing their block statistics for anyone visiting their talk page. Also, givent hat we have a block log that anyone can view, an administrator would be unwise to base future blocks off of a table anyone can edit, when a more reliable log exists. However, there is WP:DRV if you desire it. MBisanz ^talk 10:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008–2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 08:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass tagging of uncategorized templates

Just so you know, there's over 25,000 uncategorized templates as of the last time I could get a report out of Toolserver (though I've probably reduced that by several thousand). Tagging assorted entries on the specialpages list won't help much, especially since I am probably the only person that is patrolling the uncat. temp. category these days. Poke around my sandbox to see what I am doing on the issue. --Thetrick (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As with everything on WP, anything you can do would be great. FYI, right now I'm working on the letters U-Z from the original list on toolserver, plus uncat. doc pages. --Thetrick (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Related to this, would you be willing to run AWB or a bot on one of my lists? Thanks. --Thetrick (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what AWB can do, but here's what I'd like accomplished:

On uncategorized templates (no need to recat) in User:Thetrick/uncategorisedtemplatesenwiki.txt list, do the following:

• If the template contains the phrase "This user owns a copy", add [[Category:Musician fan user templates]] (example template: Template:User Louder Than Love)
• If the template contains the string "This user plays", add [[Category:Musical instrument user templates]] (example template: Template:User harmonica)
• If the template code contains the string "user instrument", add [[Category:Musical instrument user templates]] (example template: Template:User harmonica-1)
• If the template code contains the string "User label", add [[Category:Keep It Simple user templates]] (example template: Template:User label Latin America)
• Any other pattern you see. I did most of the WikiProject templates by hand, which is the most obvious one.

Now, the one hard part is that I have been hardcoding the sort part instead of using PAGENAME, e.g. [[Category:Musician fan user templates|Louder Than Love]] with "User " stripped out. This needs to be done otherwise everything will end up under "U". For the KIS templates, "User label" should be stripped out. Let me know if this looks doable. Thanks. --Thetrick (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, unfortunate that AWB can't do it. My tfd_helper script can deal with stripping "User ", etc., but I still have to open and look at each and every template. Do you have any suggestions on other ways to automate this? --Thetrick (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me access to AWB. I will give it a whirl in a day or two. --Thetrick (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Another template-related thing: your copy/config of Twinkle is using {{db-t3}} wrong. It needs to include the time (five tildes) and preferably the name of another template. You can see the results here. I've been using G2 for test templates as that applies. --Thetrick (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Etruscan coins

In the Talk:Etruscan coins there is a very interesting overview of the etruscan numismatics from Eckhel up to date. If User:Italo Vecchi is Italo Vecchi a scholar in ancient numismatics (and I suppose he is), the article may be just an overview of his last studies. I'm trying to "translate" in a better form the notes from a tipical specialized form into a "for all readable" form in my sandbox. BTW I'll traslate the whole in Italian and it will be the core of the article "it:Numismatica etrusca (Etruscan numismatics) apart fron Etruscan coins.

Here's some publication of Vecchi (Search results) on American Numismatic Society data base.

Thank you for an answer.

I hope you will excuse my mistakes in your language.

--Carlo Morino aka zi' Carlo 08:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, if you can take his work and do stuff with it, that would be great. MBisanz ^talk 12:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Diamond (lawyer)

You are welcome to comment on the resurrected talk page. Wikidea 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback and AC

I have not used those tools abusively, yes I have civility issues which is why i will never be an admin. Can you please give them back as i do need them, you have my word that they wont be abused.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing down of WP:RFR

Since you've just made the page historical, can I suggest that you fully-protect the page? It'll prevent people from mistakenly posting requests there. Thanks! Acalamari 02:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a redirect would be more appropriate... Ryan Postlethwaite 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I saw you edited a warning made by someone (86.29.134.252) on my page. Just to clarify, you can look at the edit I made that 86.29.134.252 gave me a "last warning" for. It was a clearly accidental comma in the London article, which hardly constitutes vandalism. While I realize you had nothing to do with the warning, I just thought I'd let you know, lest you think I'm defying your administrative powers by reverting his "warning." I appreciate his hawkish stance on those truly attempting to disrupt Wikipedia, but I do not appreciate the sloppy inclusion of those making typoes as vandals, and maybe he--an unregistered user--deserves closer watch from admins, since he does not take the proper time to assess whether an edit is truly vandalism before he attempts to exert his "authority." CinnamonCinder (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

SoxRed

Ugh, I would be online doing it myself...but the computer I am currently at fails. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 02:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry template overhaul discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard

MBisanz, I mentioned you in a posted on the Administrators' noticeboard, linked above. I hope that you do not mind and that you will participate in the discussion. - LA @ 08:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		MBisanz, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU

Hey there MBisanz, myself and a few other users/CU's are a bit confused by this. Seeing as the case is currently a redlink, deleted for privacy reasons and placing the case on the RFCU mainpage... will...get you no where. Are you trying to request a checkuser? If so it may just be better to contact a checkuser via email. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tip, I know it looks weird atm, but I will explain more as soon as class is over (+2 hours), it can be removed from the RFCU page though, I didn't remove it, only because lucas put in the note to keep it there. MBisanz ^talk 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought as much. I will go ahead and take it down for the time being. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 19:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a misunderstanding about IPblock exemption. Since it only applies to the named account, it can not be used to enable sockpuppets to evade autoblocks. IPBE could enable a good hand/bad hand editor to edit from the good account while the bad account is blocked, but it simply does not enable block evasion by sock accounts that do not have the permission. BC's two autoblocks can be most simply explained by editing from two locations (work/home/coffee shop/library/etc). Or, certain dynamic ISPs change frequently without knowledge or control of the user (most famously British Telecom, although I do not know where BC is located). I suppose their could be something shady going on but IPBE is not the cause and its removal is not the solution. Thatcher 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So, last night I saw Betacommand had been blocked, last week he had made a comment in an IRC channel that he had amassed a sock farm, and last month I had noticed that blocks of users usually resulted in a single autoblock log entry when they edited their own talk page, logged in, etc. I decided to check on this by seeing how many autoblocks were active from the Betacommand block. I saw there were two entries, which indicated to me that something was amiss. After doing a test on IRC with another admin, it appeared that a single account, even editing from multiple IPs, cannot trigger multiple autoblock log entries. Also, Betacommand had IP-BE which means that checkusers may perform monitoring checks to ensure they are not abusing the right, a slightly more broad permission than the normal CU request rules. So I approached a checkuser on IRC with the data, the prior IRC conversation, etc. The checkuser did not feel comfortable running a private CU and said to post it on-wiki if I wanted it done.

I wrote it up, posted it, and linked it to WP:RFCU. Betacommand posts to his talk page that he was not socking, but that there is personal data he cannot disclose. He comes on IRC and asks me to delete the page. I remember that back when he was granted IP-BE, there was also private data involved that he submitted to an arbitrator. So, I figure I'd better play it safe, since the thing apparently involves personal data and I delete the page. It was pretty late my time, so I forgot to remove it from RFCU. By the time I woke up this morning, Lucas had already added a comment saying not to remove it, since again it dealt with private data, I figured I'd better not do anything. Also, Gimmietrow had removed Betacommand's IP-BE userright, which to me indicated that the "monitoring" aspect of IP-BE no longer applied, and that therefore my request, if I undeleted it, would probably be denied as {{fishing}}. So I decided that rather than create more drama I'd just let the thing die.

I still think, based on his comments, the autoblock log entries, the odd removal the IP-BE right when a checkuser appeared imminent, and his past history of using undisclosed alternate accounts that Betacommand is using/abusing some form of alternate account, but since I lack explicit proof, I'm just letting the matter die. MBisanz ^talk 22:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the checkuser that wasn't comfortable doing it in private was me. Anyone who wants to accuse him of causing drama, or anything like that, should instead accuse me since I was the one that told him I wasn't comfortable doing this in private. MBisanz had concerns and had the guts to try to fix things up. People should thank him, really. --Deskana (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I should point out that Beta has not abused multiple accounts in the past. The guy has the resources and the intelligence to get past checkuser if he actually wanted to. The slip up with his secondary account does not make sense if he was attempting to sockpuppet. When that whole issue came about I knew it would lead to situations like this one. People would get it stuck in their head that sockpuppets might be involved in a situation that would not normally cause concern.

Beta may have some issues on the wiki, but he's an honest guy who doesn't play those kinds of games. -- Ned Scott 10:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not true, Beta was found to be socking a while ago. He offered an excuse of "right to vanish" which was proven not to be true. This RFCU should not have been deleted to begin with, it was out of process per the process noted on the RFCU page. Just my two cents. KoshVorlon -rm F.U.R -r 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Put your dunce cap on, buddy, because that's the exact situation I was talking about. Nothing was "proven", so I don't know where you came up with that. It's laughably absurd to think that the edit he made with the alt account would have been a tactic at sock puppetry. Everyone knows by now that Beta uses more than one computer, he even has a "Betacommand 2" something account for the sake of some customized monobook or javascript setting. When he made the edit with the wrong account he did so without hiding who he was. He posted under that different account as himself, acting as he was just moments before. Given the way people have been treating him, it's no surprise, whatsoever, that he would have wanted to make a new account to start fresh with.

Just because he might have some problems with how he handled some past situations does not make him a dishonest user. You have no basis to say that he's done anything dishonest. He might be rude sometimes, be might be right or wrong about policy, but what you're accusing of him is completely out of character. You don't even have to like the guy to see this. -- Ned Scott 01:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First, yes, Betacommand and I did argue about an image I placed on my userspace. Yes,I got totally incivil about it, and yes, I got blocked for it. I admitt that freely. I also admitt that I deserved to be blocked. I also draw your attetion to the fact that this is the first post I've posted since the whole drama with Betacommand began.

Your "explanation", on my page, was pretty good, but not entirely accurate. Betacommand has three known accounts, Betacommand, Betacommandbot and Betacommand2. The account he was blocked for (for socking)right here was none of the above, it was a totally different name. In particular, he went to the BOTS group and reverted Locker Cole, who he'd previously reverted under his name as shown here. He got blocked for it and as an explanation stated that he was attempting to start over as a new user.

Starting over is fine, it's allowable, however, when one starts over, don't they normally also allow their old acoounts to vanish ala, right to vanish ? He didn't, he kept he previous three accounts opened. Wouldnt' that strike you as a bit odd, considering he wanted to start over ? Why not just invoke "right to vanish" and start over ?

In addition to this, he's edit-warred on the Bots group see here, has edit warred and used incivil edit summaries, even though he's been warned not to do so as seen here....and the list goes on. YES I know what he does is difficult and he takes a load of shit from people for doing it. However, that doesn't exempt him from following known policy, like Ignore and deny or civil.

Bottom line here is, his hands are far from clean, and his latest attempt to keep his RFCU out of sight, in my opinion, is nothing more than gaming the system.

Thank you.

btw – please be more civil next time.
KoshVorlon -rm F.U.R -r 16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You say I have no basis to say he's done anything dishonest ? Plese re-read my message, socking, edit warring and gaming the system are all dishonest. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is not dishonest. It's bad, but it's not dishonest. Do you understand what the word honesty means? You don't get it, and your ignorance hurts Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ned, I don't know if you really believe that or not. However, common sense will tell you that edit warring, socking & gaming the system are dishonest. My conduct here and throughout wikipedia is proof that I definetly get it, first, I have been civil throughout this whole discussion, second, I post under no other name other than my own, third when I got blocked for incivility, I didn't attempt to evade or otherwise "get around" my block. I accepted the consequences for my bad behavior.

Like I said, I understand Betacommand gets a huge rash of shit for just simply doing his job on the 'pedia. It sucks too, in fact, I'll go as far as saying I suck for giving him a rash of shit about my own image, bottom line, none of that excuses incivil behavior, socking or gaming the system which , as far as I'm concerned, he's done. – THAT – hurts wikipedia, as he has been entrusted to carry out an important function on it. See you around, Ned.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 19:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't "all or nothing". I'm telling you that he was not using sockpuppets, but I'm not saying he's never hurt Wikipedia or never done anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 23:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone reading this is wondering, I stopped reading this part of this discussion a long time ago, other than clicking the orange bar, Ned/Kosh, feel free to continue here though. MBisanz ^talk 23:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ow woops, sorry for the mess, I added the note just to point that the red link was not an error (in case a clerk saw the link and removed it without checking the logs), I didn't expect it would prevent you from delisting it :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of test you ran but it is possible to trigger autoblocks on multiple IP addresses, because I've seen it many times. Thatcher 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Beta indicated he had edited from two IPs, so we blocked a test account and had it try and edit from three different IP addresses and it only triggered one autoblock list entry. MBisanz ^talk 16:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a possibility -- the two autoblock summaries were different -- perhaps they were triggered by the two blocks? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly but I doubted it, mainly because both were triggered several hours after the second block was placed and the first block had been lifted. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The National Conference Center

On 19 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The National Conference Center, 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) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Rights

Hi,

Im just wondering why you removed my rollback rights earlier? Thanks   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well based on your response to a run of the mill civility block, I believed, and still believe you act with too much haste in your editing. Hence I removed a tool that enable users to perform actions at an accelerated rate. The first version of this question you posted to my page leads me to believe I was correct, but since RyanPoss believes you are able to use the tool effectively, I did defer, and will continue to defer to his decision to restore it. MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for raising that old diff, As for many admins think that the removal of rollback was poor judgment and in fact a punitive measure. The civility block (which was controversial in itself) had nothing to do with my use rollback (hence my original message).   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Assistance on Image

As you are an expert on image licencing you may be able to help us out. User-MZMcBride suggested your name. Some concerns have been raised on the image of Adi Shankara on the FAC nomination page of Anekantavada. Can you help to clear some air?--Anish (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the license for that image was processed by ComCom, part of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'll try and track down one of those guys to have them check whatever documentation they got. MBisanz ^talk 10:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Anish (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw your message and thanks for the info.... but can it be used for the article Anekantavada which is currently under FAC nomination? Will it affect its chances?--Anish (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ready

OK, I'm ready for the RFB. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

?

I thought once the candidate accepts the nomination, the election campaign starts from that time. I've also seen that an "admin" voted even before nominee accept the offer. The deletion is a bit harsh and i don't get it. I'm also hurt by such the treatment. I strongly urge that you revert yourself. I also did not find any description on article of RFA or RFB that "untranscluded election page does not accept votes. Even the RFA page of Shalm Yeichel's election had not been transcluded for more than 3 days because of some errors on his past RFAs, but I also people cast their votes during the time --Caspian blue (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Then fix the relevant page on the guideline and you would have been better telling me your worry before rudely deleting it. After it is transclued, you revert your edit. I would not do that. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

advice on your edits

"Actually, I'd probably of blocked Gene Poole for that comment"... Probably have, not of. the 'of' comes from hearing the 've ending seen in would've could've should've, for example. But that's for have, not of. Number one grammar peeve.ThuranX (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, I will attempt to use better grammar. :) MBisanz ^talk 05:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection on Rlevse's RfB

Do you think it should be shortened to extend to July 29th? Rudget (logs) 10:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really make a difference since its only move protected and will expire on its own, but feel free to fiddle around with it. MBisanz ^talk 11:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No big deal as long as it goes to end of rfb ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:William Saturn

You offered this user a {{2nd chance}}; he has written an article and asked for unblock based on that. At first glance it looks pretty good. My personal policy with 2nd chance, though, is to refer it back to the admin that offered it. So you might want to comment. Mangojuice^talk 14:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance...

would appreciate your input on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editing Restriction proposal, so it can be enacted or dismissed soon. Cheers – Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how was I involved in this? MBisanz ^talk 16:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are uninvolved; that's why I wanted your input. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

images for Zero Time and Green now tagged

Dear MBisanz

I have now tagged my images for Zero Time and Green (cover art for a Steve Hillage album). Did I do it right? Are they safe? I didn't quite understand that I needed to add additional informatio to that I already provided. I thought I had it all covered, but obviously not.

I intend to write a few more articles on record albums of note, so I presume I need to do the same in every case?

What about some books that I have (I have one evry old book dating from 1841 that I intend to write an article about, along with a photo I'll make myself. Would such an old book need a tag?

Anyway, I'm sure I'll get the hang of this in due course.

Yours sincerely

--Michealomealoid (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I would like very much to be considered for admin coaching. Although I'm still newly registered, I've lurked for a while and I really enjoy wikipedia. I want to do as much as I can to improve the content of wikipedia and hope that you'll be able to help me achieve that goal. Please reply to me on my talk page. Thanks! Notepad47 (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Soft redirects of templates

Hi, about a month ago you changed a couple redirects for fair use templates (e.g. {{promophoto}} and {{fairusein}}) to soft redirects. This means they cannot be used as substitutes for the corresponding {{Non-free promotional}} and {{Non-free fair use in}} as they don't transclude properly. I was wondering what the reasoning was. I undid {{promophoto}} a few days ago, assuming it to be an anomaly, however I just found {{fairusein}}, and thought that i'd better ask you before i did something stupid. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Undid myself on {{promophoto}}, which was the only one i had changed. Thanks for the quick response! --Storkk (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploading

I need some help if you can. I wanted to upload an image of this videogame character (Devil (Tekken)) but i can't find the right sources, if you could, write me on my talk page and give me some tips. Thanks, Ultron5000 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

So may I ask, if I could: you would still feel comfortable with a nomination, or have actions in the meantime caused you to question whether you would support me as a candidate? I will not feel at all hurt if you say the latter – I would prefer that than to drag you into an RFA that you don't wish to push. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You rang?

I got a message letting me know that you wanted to speak to me, and that it should sound ominous, so I'm just dropping this note. How can I help? Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for running the check to verify that I am not, in fact, Lar. (Lar gave me a heads-up that you had done so.) I'm not sure why anyone would even think that. As others have pointed out, Lar is much more clueful. ;-) Kelly ^hi! 14:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, it was fun to check up on a checkuser, finally I HAZ DA POWER! I was actually checkusered at the simple english wikipedia due to their belief I was grawp, lulz :) MBisanz ^talk 05:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

HAGGER? (I always wanted to say that!) I'm sure I just tripped an anti-vandal filter somewhere. :) Kelly ^hi! 12:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 05:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice job

here. Neat. Enigma ^message 04:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also nice job on the RfB nom. Number-counting here, but it's the third-most supported RfB in history. Not going to get near #2, but that's pretty good. Enigma ^message 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

SSP & RFCU > SSP2 going slow

Dear MBisanz...Since you agreed that the sock puppet process needed an overhaul, I was wondering if you would be somewhat active in making sure that it gets done. Currently, the merging of Suspected sock puppets and Requests for checkuser is going rather slow. I would like to get the templating done soon. To do that the merging needs to be completed first, or at least the proposed process finalized. I ask you to take part in getting this done. You can start by reading SSP2 and then the talk page. I have already written two of the templates, but the rest will take a finalized process to write. Hopefully, you have the time to take part in this. Have a nice day! - LA @ 05:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Got off a plane a little while ago, will try to get to this in the next couple of days. MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a little favor the next time you answer on your talk page instead of mine, please place a {{Talkback}} on my talk page to alert me to the fact that you answered. Thanks! :) – LA (T) 10:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr ...

MBisanz, I saw your name in the edit history at User:Redirect fixer, so I'm hoping you know how one communicates with that page. It's messing up WP:GO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that info; I left him a message. Very strange how a Wiki page that's not a user can change something basic that messes up basic pages, but I'm supposed to figure out how to communicate with the person or file a bug report. The default should be checked off; most strange situation. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard block

FYI – That range doesn't hardblock me (not telling you this to take the piss but as far as I can see, all you've done is block the range for a large number of possible good faith editors). --87.114.36.65 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Thank you for mediating our discussion of the Peter Yarrow article. Who knows when resolution would have occurred had we not undertaken that process. So thank you very much, Aleta ^Sing 19:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rockfangbot

Nichalp asked me to set this flag. Why does it need the flag when the bot has a flag? The bot is the same and yet needs a flag for each task though the bot name is the same? I don't get this. Pls explain. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It only gets 1 flag (there is only 1), ST47 must not have noticed that. MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Range block collateral damage

This is from a rangeblock from a couple of days ago. Details at User talk:87.113.73.89.--chaser – t 23:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked?

Why have you blocked my IP address from editing? Mr A (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If I blocked your IP from editing, how you posting here? MBisanz ^talk 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to log in to post these messages because my login is not blocked, just my IP when I am not logged in. But I would still like to know why you blocked me.Mr A (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well before I can figure out what is going on, I'd need to know your IP address or the Block ID. MBisanz ^talk 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:UnionCarbideHQ.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading File:UnionCarbideHQ.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

Per the two oppose rule, your nomination to become a member of the Mediation Committee has been closed as unsuccessful. Please note that the Committee has a policy which means that a user cannot reapply within three months of their last unsuccessful nomination. However, we recommend that you take this opportunity to use the comments made at your nomination to improve yourself not only as a potential mediator, but as an editor of Wikipedia in general. Thanks again for your interest.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. Your oppose vote was very reasonable, of course, considering my own admissions. Hope to see you around while working on WP! I have appreciated your contribs in the past. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

re my talk page

I can if the task is still open. However it will take me a week or so to catch up to everything going on :) —— nixeagle 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kadaba

Hi!MBisanz, I have substantially added text and also maps for the two towns in two different districts of Karnataka. You may like to wikify.--Nvvchar (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been denied. Please see the request page for details. I'm sorry. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of The Romanians – article needs a cleanup

Hello, I saw that you once protected this article, so i thought that I should ask you the following: Especially in the Arguments for continuity part, there are many false arguments, or some arguments has nothing to do with the article. First, one arguments is talking about that Saint Stephan, founder of the Hungarian state was a Romanian. It lists his ancestor and explains why was he Romanian. That part is totally false! I show you why (please the argument(s) to understand the following):

• We do not know who was/were Árpád's wife(s).
• The Gesta Hungarorum says that Mén-Marót/Menomorut was a khozar (still unknown what people did the author thought abuot), and he was not ruling in Transylvania. In the time when the gesta was written (~1200 AD), the Romanians were called Vlachs, not khozars or anything similar.
• Original text: "Zolta brought wife from the land of the cumans for his son, Taksony" We know it that there were no cumans at that time, but there were the pechenegs and other Turkic tribes. Probably Anonymus wrote this down because in his time cumans do were, in the later Wallachia and Moldova. So the wife cannot be a Vlach, preferably a Pecheneg.
• Just because Mihály(Mihai) and several others were baptised in Orthodox rite, doesn't means that they were Romanians. From Byzantine sources, we know it that after Termacsu and Bulcsu (Hungarian chieftains), the transylvanian Gyula(see this later) also went to Constantinople to be baptised in Orthodox rite, and he took with him a monk named Hierotheos to help spread the Orthodox religion
• Gyula is an old Hungarian/Turkic title (used as a name too) mentioned by several sources, he was definitely not a Romanian.
• The name "Sarolt" is Turkic origin, and it means "white queen".
• Vajk is a Turkic name with the meaning hero/rich. Take a look: Hungarian "vaj" means butter. And butter was a symbol of wealth.

As you can see, this argument is totally false.

And now, let's go on other part of the article. These arguments have nothing to do with the origins of the Romanians, or again they are false.

• Hungarian word Karácsony meaning Christmas does not comes from Romanian "Cracion". It comes from old slavic korchun, korcsun, meaning stepper or turn day. I also searched for cracion karácsony, but i only got one hit, showing this article.

• "Despot Voda wrote in 1561: "we are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents" – This has nothing to do with the article. The despot only says that they are of Roman origin.
• "In the mid 16th century Anton Verancsics wrote: “Transylvania is inhabited by three nations, the Szecklers, the Saxons, and the Hungarians; I would, nevertheless, add the Romanians, who, although they easily equal the number of all the others, do not have any liberties or a nobility, nor any rights of their own…" The same as above. Nothing to do with their origins.
• "Losontzy Istvan writes: “Transylvania, to the East of Hungary, was beforehand called Dacia… the Hungarian kings only ruled this land through Transylvanian voievods" The same.
• "Szilagyi Sandor writes: “Transylvania and Hungary were never together, and were always two different countries… as Transylvania always looked to the Orient, due to the fact that the majority of the population was Orthodox Christian, while Hungary always looked Westward" The same.
• "Iosif Banki (1764) writes: “so great is the number of Romanians that they easily outnumber all the other nations of Transylvania combined" Again, what does this has to do with the origins of the Romanians????
• "Maria Tereza writes in 1748 of Transylvania as “Our Romanian principality" The same.
• "Cserei Mihaly writes in the 17th century: “From Transylvania, people flee en masse to Moldova. I’ve tried everything to stop them, but nothing has worked" I'm almost laughing. What did the writer wanted to prove with this?
• "About the region of Fagaras, Antonio Possevino writes “There are over 70 towns here, almost all of them completely populated by Romanians" ...
• "Kovary Laszlo writes that before the 1848 revolution there were over a million Romanians in Transylvania and only 213,000 Hungarians, affirming that “you can travel for days and not hear a single person speaking Hungarian" ...
• "The Byzantine writer Kendros writes of Vlachs near the river Richios and Slavs attacking Salonika in 667" This is quite a bad argument for the continuty. Richios river is in North Greece.
• "In the great memoirs presented by Hungary at the peace conference in 1920, the texts clearly attest: “The history of Transylvania from the death of Saint Stephen until the reign of Saint Ladislaus is shrowded in darkness" And then? This only means we only have very few sources about that period.
• Pietro Ransano, altul care scrie despre originea valaha a lui Iancu. Legat de Iancu face cercetari despre noi. El vine cu teoria ca valahii sunt italieni care vorbesc o italieneasca stricata. In evul mediu noi eram numiti la egalitate valahi sau italieni de catre straini.[3] Pietro Ransano, a biographer of Iancu de Hunedoara, came to the conclusion that the vlachs are Italians who speak a „broken Italian” The only thing that comes out of this is that Romanians speak a Romance language.

I think that's all for now. As you can see, I don't want to delete the arguments with a reliable antique/early medieval source, or those ones with archaeological content. However, these listed ones look like they were added to make the arguments for the cont. part longer. They have nothing to do with the Romanian origin. Please delete them if you also think the same. XTiTan (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for you answer. I'll try to contact him. XTiTan (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Reinstate it now. Non-admins removing speedy tags is disallowed, and rollbackable. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is an opinion of content, rollback may not be used in contact disputes, I've posted a notice to WP:AN in any event. MBisanz ^talk 15:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You failed to assume good faith that I made a mistake in assuming it was rollbackable (speedy-tag removing has warning templates, albeit I thought they applied to non-admins) and jumped straight to "abuse". As an admin, I would've expected you to know better to use that word. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are an experienced user who has had rollback for quite some time, it is expected you will know and follow things such as Wikipedia:Rollback#When not to use Rollback. A single revert could be taken as a good faith mistake, repeated use of the feature improperly, to further a content issue, is unacceptable. MBisanz ^talk 15:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If by repeated, you meant "two". Rollback shouldn't be used if there is any doubt, and I only started to doubt after the rollbacks. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No Sceptre, it was a misuse of the tool, it is not for quick reverts when you think you are right, it is for uncontroversial reversion of vandalism. MBisanz was correct to remove the tool. I suggest you wait out the 30 days and ask then. Chillum 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBK says it may be used for any unconstructive edit. I thought that Schmucky's removal of the tag was unconstructive because I thought it was disallowed. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not any nonconstructive edit, "blatantly nonproductive" edits. The fact is that instead of going to the talk page, or even typing in an edit summary to talk to the person you were edit warring with you used a tool that does not give an edit summary. I accept that you may have felt the use of rollback was justified, but poor judgment is just as good a reason to remove a tool as ill intent. In 30 days just make a demonstration that you have a firmer understanding of how and when it should be used and you can convince someone to return it. Chillum 20:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That reasoning is bad because it isn't compatible with WP:AGF. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with good or bad faith. It has to do with bad judgment. This is not a punishment, it is a means to prevent further misuse of the tool. Chillum 23:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, thirty days seems awfully punitive, especially for that one mistake. I'll be willing to wait a week, but not thirty days. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's protective Sceptre – this is the second time you've had it removed. You claim this was a mistake – well, your motives don't really matter because the key thing is that you obviously don't know how to use the tool. 30 days is being generous – next time you won't get it back for a long, long time. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of AGF? Thought not. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you have not either, look at this situation from MBisanz's side. Tiptoety ^talk 00:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop it

I don't want to template you, but I must strongly urge you not to throw WP:POINT around at edits which are conducted in good faith. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I do feel the urge to point out I detest the DTTR essay and love templates, maybe I need a template on my user talk to that end. And your edit was an undo, you could have easily removed one part without removing the other, also you've been being disruptive for days now, please stop! MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done anything within any reasonable representation of the realms of disruption since the mass AFD noms. The subsequent accusations are more assumptions of bad faith from the accuser than actual disruption from myself (e.g. the RFC/U MFD nom was only put on MFD because of precedent). I also detest the use of CIVIL as a policy (and would much rather see it as a guideline) because policies tend to be instructional (e.g. "you must be CIVIL"), and in this case, the application as a policy tends to make it used incorrectly (see GTBacchus' posts to the talk page) and causes more grief than it should. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Corporate Center, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock.

Hi Matthew. Why did you block my ip address a few days ago. it was un-necessary and has confused me greatly. it am a law-abiding citizen and in future, come direct to me if you have a complaint. you are completely abusing your right to use wikipedia. you can't go round randomly blocking people. i see you are getting a reputation on this site for un lawfully blocking fellow wikipedians. thankyou, and i look forward to a reply on this site very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.54.111 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What the hell do you think you're doing applying a block to me?!

Kindly read my profile page, and sort your attitude out.

I am a long-serving wikipedian, and I know the rules back to front.

I do not engage in vandalism, and I absolutely object to you applying a block to my IP address – especially without even bothering to contact me.

This is a clear abuse of powers; and not in the spirit of Wikipedia (go to my page to learn more).

Unblock now; I don't want to have to make something of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdaddy (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear I've blocked you, is there a blocked IP or something? I'd need an IP address or block ID to go further. MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Recall clerking

(replied on my talk page. – ABCD✉ 21:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

Admin Coaching Evolution

Just to let you know, I'm still working on a proposal on evolving Admin Coaching, and hope to ahve it ready for perusal in the next few days Hope this helps, Gazimoff 12:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Look MBisanz, someone to take over WP:ADMINCOACH for you! /me grins evilly at Gazimoff. Tiptoety ^talk 20:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

2min of panic

I think I get what happened from your comments in the actions.

What WAS that about?

I was worried there for a moment...

...like, what'd I do?

"The Template:Ownership wasn't meant to be bad or disruptive!!!"

Feel free, though, to let me know if I ever *do* mess something up.

So I can fix it!

Take Care, Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  ^{20:43, 11 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Yea, I clicked the wrong button a little too fast. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You and I both; apologies for talking on your userpage. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  ^{20:49, 11 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Buffalo Scavenger Hunt

I recently posted about this event, which is unique considering the items on the list people were willing to produce to win. I was in the process of gathering items to add to the post, but it has already been deleted. Since this event sold out in the first year, I think it was worthy considering it donated to a charitable cause as well. Please remove the deletion so that I can add additional information to this post and give it the credibility Wikipedia requires. I am fairly new to this, so please bear with me as I update that page.

Thanks for your time. --72.65.9.206 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll restore it and tag it for deletion in five days, right now it does not look notable enough for inclusion to me. MBisanz ^talk 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What sort of items do I need to make this event notable, such as some of the other Scavenger Hunts? --69.95.150.86 (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Look over WP:NOTABILITY for some guidelines on what an article should and should not include. MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Help → Wikipedia?

Your ears are burning: Template talk:Usage of IPA templates#move back to Help space? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

William Hanna FAC preps

I've taken this article from this to this, in preps for filing it for FAC. I could you some help now with:

1. finding a free image of Hanna
2. some good copyediting
3. expanding the lead

and when that's done I'll unlink the repetitive links (things can change during ce, so I don't want to do now), then file for FAC.

Any help is greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking Peter Damian

It looks to me like there is no consensus on WP:AN/I for an indefinite block of User:Peter Damian. Accordingly, I'm requesting that you unblock him. I'd prefer that you do it yourself so that we don't have even an intimation of wheel warring going on. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, there is no consensus that he should be indefinitely blocked. naerii 17:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  23 minutes late [10]. MBisanz ^talk 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  Boo :P Thank you for being agreeable on this matter. I got all indignant and it was far too late :P naerii 17:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for bringing the block to WP:AN. You did the right thing, and I appreciate your responsible action. Even if we disagreed on the original block, I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith. Nandesuka (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Announ.JPG

Thanks for the tip. Image licencing is tricky. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi. Is there any way you can semi protect my talk page? The same guy who was attacking my user page has been de-archiving the page. Thank you for any help. Libro0 (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock question

Hi MB, when you have a moment care to have a gander here? The edits are vaguely making me feel our Nothing buddy, but I can't confirm it. You also worked more closely with him. I could be far off base but wanted your input. Hope all is going well in your world. TravellingCari 17:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see what other mischief he finds. Got a couple ears to the ground on him. He'll stumble, meaning less work for us. :) TravellingCari 04:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)q

Neutral admin

Could you look at this: [11], User talk:Dreadstar#Re-Breast talk, [12], [13], User talk:AGK#Please Tell Dreadstar to back off.

I need a neutral admin input. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

Thanks for the questions. Just to be clear, are you looking for a succession of one-word answers in Q8, or is one word answer, followed by justification OK? --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This will sound silly, but it's your question, so I'll answer it in the way you wish, lol. If anyone wants my rationales they can post their own question. Please see my note – I'll probably take a good while to do justice to the question. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I just flicked this one open. I'm so puzzled you could put me in a box and sell me in a toy shop. I'll have to look into it, but it's made me smile so thanks for that. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah. A bit more investigation and I'm with it now. I actually laughed out loud. I'm going off wiki now. I'll try and work on that list later tonight, otherwise I'll progress it tomorrow. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Silkroad Online

Silkroad Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Per your protection log note, I'm requesting unsalting (or undeletion, if necessary due to the huge # of prior edits) of the Silkroad Online article at DRV. I've got a new stub in my userspace (User:Matt Fitzpatrick/Silkroad Online) that I think would be a good (re)start. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 21

Hi. Unfortunately we have come across a deletionist who seemingly intends to try to delete all of adequate fair use images that we have on wikipedia. For instance File:Yone Minagawa.jpg etc etc. Fully complies with fairuse and it is potentially destructive for this editor to be nominating mass images in this way. I;ve uploaded thousands of images to wikipedia only if they fully comply with general wikipedia policy on irresplaceable imahes and am not going to tolerate having my images drilled at me like is being done.

For instance he has nominated the image in Soe Win because it is non notable? Can you believe this is his criteria? The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 2 Interpretation

You seem to be basing a large number of your deletion criteria on the fact an image comes from a news agency, and therefore harms their economic interests. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news agency, we tag our non-free images as such, therefore, per NFCC 2 "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." our coverage, in and of itself, will not replace the original new agency's market. To this end we limit the number of images per page and require low resolution images, as well as the whole NFCC tagging and categorization scheme. I really would prefer you took this interpretation up at WT:NFCC than continuing to tag compliant images. MBisanz ^talk 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as we use a news agency's image of an event/person to illustrate a text about that event/person, we are replacing the original market role for that image. You may want to take it to WT:NFCC yourself, if you're still unsure. --Damiens.rf 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If your're still unsure? Do you have to be so patronizing? You;ve already tried to make out that some of our most established users including Bisanz, User:Maxim, J Milburn and myself are clueless about what images are acceptable when we all have a lot of experience with dealing with such issues on wikipedia. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bisanz if I am going to have messages drilled at me everytime I log in because somebody disagrees with the rationale I am in for one hell of a future on here because I have uploaded thousands upon thousands of similar images and I am going to get it all thrown back at me and have my talk page spammed with them. I am very concerned about this and I don't want to have to waste all my time on here defending images when I could be getting on with what I do. It is disruptive and not helpful to wikipedia and basically I am going to be punished big time by being drilled images for deletion for trying to help wikipedia,, The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to WP:AN or WP:RFC, there is ample precedent that users such as this who specialize in non-free content review must act with care in their actions. MBisanz ^talk 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The worrying thing is that there are other deletionist editors spurring him on and "very much encouraging" him to delete content. We've seen the images for deletion page completely swamped today to almost record levels, jumping on the band wagon. He is going to make an awful lot of editors unhappy in doing so, particularly those images which have a full rationale which the uploader has spent time adding. Once again there seems to be a different perception of fair use criteria in that in one piece of rationale it clearly is valid and in others it makes it look invalid. If he continues to swamp the images for deletion pages then I will certainyl be reporting him. There is a difference between good faith intentions, and a mass nuke attempt of images which are currently being used of encyclopedic purposes on wikipedia. In my view such a course of action does nothing to improve wikipedias content and is not constructive. I'm sure there are many images which don't qualify for fair use on here, but I for sure am not prepared to see such images as those politicians and deceased bio images deleted. Its put me off editing today to be honest in that you never know what will come of your work and time you put into wikipedia if people invent ways and justify deleting it. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone linked me to a news article off-wiki that seems to indicate that a news image of a dead person is not fair use unless the image itself is the subject of the article, so I'm a bit unsure on how to proceed, since I've always seen death as a good enough ground to go fairuse. This needs further discussion somewhere other than weeklong, image specific IFDs. MBisanz ^talk 21:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the person is dead or not plays no role at all in real-life fair use law. In fact, the moment a prominent person dies it may very well increase the market stakes in existing commercial images, because it opens a whole new temporary market for the news coverage of their death. The only thing about dead or not dead is that death affects the Wikipedia-internal "irreplaceability" condition, which is not a fair use factor but a self-chosen rule that an image has to pass on top of being fair use. That brings into play things like promotional, "non-commercial-only" or "by permission" images provided by the dead person's heirs or organisation, which would otherwise be categorically excluded for living people. But images of dead people still need to pass all other criteria, and any that fail NFCC2 have no chance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It would help certainly but the changing of image policies on here and the difference in views on what is fairuse is undoubtedly an ongoing struggle on here which is one of the most demanding I;ve faced on here. Similarly, limited use of screenshots of films were permitted for identification of a key scene in a film and to illustrate its content but now there is a major effort to remove these images because now images are only permitted to critically analyse a film in a production section not in the actual film contents. I can sort of see why some people might think they are doing the God of Fair Use Imagery's goodwork by removing them, vbt it is kind of a frustrating one that these people aren't spending their time filling out stubs and building the encyclopedia constructively instead. Some images you can see should be deleted a mile off, but it is the ones where there is a clear divide on their acceptability, which if this news agency policy is used as an excuse to delete then we are going to lose a dreadful amount of irreplaceable content, whicb will be a further blow. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for further reference about news agency images, please see WP:NFC#Unacceptable use (item I.6), and also the DRV cases at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 27 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 29 (about File:Serbs burn US embassy in Belgrade.jpg and File:Belgrade Kosovo is serbia protest Obraz flag Karadzic portrait.jpg respectively). Just the first such case that comes to mind. These deletions are extremely routine and all fall squarely under CSD I7. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with your block, i got through it. i just thought you should know a little history between me and Rlevse and Dreadstar

During the first block (my first) and 1/2 The admins wanted me to admit wrong doing before even attempting to listen to me. When they did ask for evidence of others wrong doing they ignored it and told me i was pushing the blame on others. Wasting my time making me look for something they could have looked for themselves. it takes 2+ to edit was and usually 2+ to be uncivil.

It just seems to me that Rlevse and Dreadstar are/were protecting the editors on the breast article who have been there a lot longer then me, and have worked with the two or at least Dreadstar who worked with Rlevse.

I hate digging up a dead horse. beating it or being the one that killed it, but during the first dispute Dreadstar focused on me not indenting on the talk page, "Being uncivil" and edit waring with multiple users.

Yes i edit wared with the lead and possibly the removal of images in the gallery, but these things seem so small yet these editors make a big deal out of it.

I might have got a tone here and there, but getting called this and that (WP:TEND) and being accused of censorship and sexualizing images would rub anyone wrong and put a little venom in them.

But i get zeroed in on by Dreadstar who left the others alone, didn't even ask them a question or comment on their talk page that they might be responsible for something.

Do you know how many images were in the gallery on the breast article when I first arrived? 57 images, and I removed 8 of them. Asher196 reverted it every time and after the second time claimed it was to big of a change and would need consensus. You might be able to see why I accused these editors of WP:OWN. I mean to make a fuss over 8/57 images and a picture of some guy's gal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=prev&oldid=228949811 my removal of the images in the gallery

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228949811 Asher196's revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228950202 My second removal of these image

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228952105 The second revert from Asher196 with a comment asking me not to make "major changes without consensus"

That was one anchor that got attached to my foot when it came to that article. I mean honestly was 8/57 images so horrible or unreasonable to remove? I know i sound like a broken record or something but why was i the only one being focused on in the charge of edit warring?

I mean Dreadstar must have posted 50+ diffs showing some kind of crime i committed, yet he wouldn't even attempt to look for the diffs, which were easier to find back then, that showed Asher's edit waring with me.

Am i so wrong in asking that if a person can take the time to get those diffs against one person, that they can look for some more?

Then I am the only one who gets a noose around my neck when it came to the gallery again.

Asher196 hid the gallery to keep the stretching down. I mean loading 57 images causes the scroll bar to jump around like an idiot. Well here comes Atom to revert it saying it was broke.

I thought it was a honest mistake and i corrected him and told him it wasn't broke but programed to hid to help in navigation of the article. He reverts it again, this time claiming censorship.

I revert his revert and assure him its not censorship.

Well i guess because i reverted twice i am in a edit war? He reverted 3 times. once Asher's edit twice my own.

Asher196 hiding the gallery http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=229168263&oldid=229167936 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229168263 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608

Atom's Reverting it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608

Me correcting him http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229329371

Atom reverting it a 2nd time, this time using the censor card 2RR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229373351

Me correcting him a second time might be considered 2RR but that's a case by case thing I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229633092

I gave Dreadstar all this info, and he still focused on me not indenting, and edit warring. Gave me the old speech "You're responsible for your own actions" That is when i accused him of being bias. I had seen his presence on that article and its talk page, discussing the topic and how to improve it with the others. I felt he was to involved and as far as i knew or still know he could have been friends with Asher196 and Atom.

Well after that little episode of calling Dreadstar bias, Rlevse came into my life. He protected the article which i had no problem at all with. He said take the time to discuss it with the other editors, which is did.

I continued to discuss the lede and gallery with my peers on that article, but somehow and i still don't 100% get how, i got blocked for breaking consensus and edit warring.

Now what was the point of blocking me for edit warring when the article was protected? Also how exactly can i go against consensus with in a article that is blocked?

I get accused of calling a fellow editor a liar, and both me and the editor i was accused of calling a liar told both Dreadstar and Rlevse that it wasn't the case.

I got accused of calling a fellow editor (Atom) disruptive. I had made a survey and he called me making it disruptive. I told him plain as day him saying that was disruptive.

I'm sorry if this seemed like a rant but do you see where i'm coming from?

Am i wrong for accusing the editors on that article of WP:OWN? Or being WP:TEND?

I accused Atom of both because he has said things like "I just want to block you from editing and hurting the article." and a combination of OWN and TEND when he says things like "I only suggest not an illustration because I don't think that it will be acceptable by a consensus as the lede, even though it could gain some support. If you choose not to do that then I will follow up with a new lede proposal so that we can get closure."

If you want i will look for those diffs but its easier to copy past then thumb through the history.

Maybe you can see now why i distrust Dreadstar and Rlevse and wish that they not contact me or get involved with me.

I just thought you should know that little bit of drama in the last month. Keep up the good work cheers.Yami (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Thanks for the nice things you wrote about me on the RfB. My take on dispute resolution is as follows. There's no consensus for the Crats as a team to act in this way. However, many of them are skilled as individuals. I'd humbly say that I have some abilities in this area; as well as the Copa del Rey example listed in the RfB, and a host of little niggles I've solved that aren't worth listing, I've been working on a formal Mediation (currently stalled) on Contras. But I come back to my discomfort over using the Crats as a group. If consensus were that they should have a role, I'd happily go along with it. But I could only interpret the question in the light of current consensus and policy, which I did. Anyway, I owe you a debt of gratitude for that horrendous Q8: I no longer have any reservations at all about whether I can make a good Crat; I know I can do a good job if given the chance, even if not everyone will agree with my decisions. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)