User talk:MBisanz
 | This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/MBisanz. |
Hi, This is just my page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits
| This is MBisanz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Prosper article edits
Hi,
I saw your edit to the Prosper article, and thought you might be interested to know that there is a pending Mediation Cabal process regarding Hu12's repeated deletions of much of this article. It is located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-11-28_Prosper_%28web_site%29. If you want to take a look and add your comments, it would be appreciated. Ira01 (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Mbisanz: I don't think the Prosper edit matter is settled. Ira may have been banned, but the issue remains that Hu12 is deleting good with the bad. Further, I'm concerned that he may not be doing due diligence on all of his revisions (entirely understandable as it seems this case has been going on for some time and I'm sure he's a bit fed up with it.) Why do I suspect this? I had reverted the last link removal, and he reverted that in turn, stating the following: "20:29, 29 November 2007 Hu12 (Undid trolling by banned user. rvt per policy) (undo)". Now I wasn't logged in at the time, but I'm also not Ira, and afaik, I'm not banned. So why would Hu12 comment that trolling was being done by a banned user. Furthermore, why did he not review the discussion on the page before the next revision? In that discussion, I've pointed out that at least two of the links in question are statistical in nature, derived from data pulled from Prosper's own source feeds.
I've no problem with dropping links that don't conform, but shouldn't the admins who delete said links be checking them first to ensure that the links being deleted really are inappropriate?
Respectfully - chaeberle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaeberle (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- They were checked.--Hu12 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't doubt they were checked. You've worked on that article enough to know to check what your doing. And he's a new user who prob doesn't know your experienced record. Mbisanz (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can we unlock the page now that the dispute has been settled?Chaeberle (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
List of registered political parties in Spain
Thanks for spotting my mistake in using the wrong old afd template. I have corrected it now I believe. Davewild 19:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Grading in Australia
Please take a look at Talk:Grading in Australia. Regards, Waldir talk 11:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Notifications
For page moves notifications are not that important unless there is already a controversy. For AFDs, I think that the creator and all major editors should be notified, especially those who are active members of the community. Academic Challenger 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Suggestion
I love your arbcom tool, the sortable feature makes it very useful. Would it make sense to have some colo differentiation at the 90% level. Since 90% is the level for 'crat elections, some people might consider that an important level of acceptance to achieve. Mbisanz 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is no percentage level for ArbCom elections. If there are X seats to fill the top X are selected, last year that was everyone above about 85% – Gurch (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yea I know about the Jimbo selects the top X method. It was just that your cool chart seems to follow RfA color levels and I was wondering if it could merge the RfA and RfB color levels. I'm guessing you included colors since some users will equate Arbcom responsibility with Admin responsibility. Mbisanz 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I included colors to make it look nice. Everyone could get less than 70% and we would still end up with the top few, so a comparison with RfA and its fixed percentage system is irrelevant – Gurch (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thats cool, I understand your reasoning now. To bad Jimbo didn't define exactly how many people he plans to select. Then only the top X would need a different color. Mbisanz 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's either 5 or 6. Or possibly 7. Probably 6, but I'm not sure – Gurch (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
NY congressional delegations
Could you explain to me what is the pattern of current articles established by consensus and where it is to be found. If it is clear, I can remove the split articles as housekeeping. I assume you have gone to the work of cleaning up the large number of redirects that are likely to have been involved. Please respond on my page, not here. 05:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The List issue
For the first three years of Wikipedia, there were no categories. Early on it was decided that even though normal encyclopedias don't have lists, there needed to be a way to categorize things so that people could find things they were interested in easily. The first article I worked on when I came here in September 2003 was List of assassinated people. It was already large when I got here, it got even bigger while it was active there, and now it is huge, probably even with several related pages, and involves lots of categories. When the category system was developed in 2004, it caught on fairly quickly, but some people still felt that the lists were useful as another form of categorization. Lists can, among other things, take extra information to briefly summarize the importance of an article to the topic. I am sure that there have been lots of policy discussions and attempts to delete the lists, but they remain popular, and there is even a Featured List Candidate page as you know from reading the Signpost. I am sure that the lists you mention have related categories which their articles are in. However, I think that people enjoy reading the lists also and they are not harming anything. Perhaps at some point some of them will go, but I would not recommend that you try to start that process now. The most important thing is to add categories to articles that don't have them, which I am starting to work on now after a long time of not concentrating on that area. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Imag restored
Image:1970 SimpsonsSears Logo.gif has been restored as you requested. Please add the source information, if possible. Otherwise, the image will be deleted around the 14th December. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, MBisanz ... what do you make of the edits to Diane Garnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made by the WP:SPA anon 12.30.60.194 (talk · contribs)? Do you think that they need an additional warning by Some Other Editor? Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)