User talk:M

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Try Reword to make direct in-article edits of short phrases, in three steps: 1) Highlight 2) Reword 3) Submit. To find out how, click here.

I'm not currently active.   M  


The Killers discography vandalism[edit]

Thanks. It's probably too early to say, but it seems to have quietened down. --JD554 (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


To be frank I think it's a lost cause. Either I'm naive or most of the detractors of this idea are overly paranoid. To suggest that a vandal (who I assume is normally a 13-year old kid who is bored with his homework) would register, make the requisite ten edits, wait 10 days, then vandalize a page about 16th century pianists seems far fetched, but what do I know? Your idea is well thought out and makes sense but I don't see anyone changing their minds, sorry. J04n(talk page) 08:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I used my example of the registered kid to demonstrate my suggestion of giving access to only autoconfirmed users; which was quickly shot down. Let me know when you are going to re-propose it and I'll support you because I do think it's a good idea. J04n(talk page) 08:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Timeline of file sharing. Thank you.
-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / Email) 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Though edit summaries help some people (those who trust them to be accurate), they also deter others from editing a page at all (everyone trying to make a casual edit). I have never found them to be useful as summaries, since I always check diffs using history. I have trouble following the benefits listed in the page you linked, so if you could explain them better I would appreciate it. Keep in mind that when reverting or making controversial changes, you should provide an explanation in the summary - a generic 'not constructive' is usually not sufficient, and a lack of edit summary is never a good reason to revert changes. Don't forget to provide meaningful titles on new talk sections. I appreciate your concerns. –MT 21:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the title on this talk section: I didn't write it; Twinkle generated it (thus the "(TW)" appended to the end of my corresponding edit summary).
I don't leave user warnings (like the one I left you) every single time someone doesn't provide a summary; I do it only when the purpose of an edit isn't readily apparent from viewing the diff.
You may not find edit summaries to be of much help, but I'm not going to argue with Help:Edit summary. Note how it says:

An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit.

... as is the case here.
-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / Email) 21:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ohhh, sorry. Just took another look at the diffs there, and realized that only one of your edits removed anything. My bad.
-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / Email) 21:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem. –MT 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/List - this looks like a useful thing to do (though I'm not clear what exactly you're proposing we do with the list - perhaps it depends on what you find?). Sorry, I don't have time for IRC at the moment, maybe in a week or two; but if you discuss on the talk page I can drive by and see/comment if I have time. So could you link the list from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines (and possibly list yourself as a participant)? cheers, Rd232 talk 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Many thanks for the advice about where to leave requests to bots, following my proposal at Wikipedia: Village Pump. All the best, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lack of formalized policy[edit]

Hi. I saw you post, "This isn't just my opinion - the recent usability study results back this up." This sounds very interesting; can you tell me where I can find this study? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC) , I'm having trouble loading it right now but it's at [google cache]. A relevant part, bolding added:
There were a variety of things that left our participants feeling overwhelmed, but articles that started with infoboxes, thick wiki syntax, help docs, and any attempts to find concise answers on rules or guidelines left participants feeling lost. Some explained "If [I] can't read it in five seconds, you've lost me," while others exclaimed "It may take a whole night to do this", and another spent the majority of their time with us searching and digging, explaining "If I really wanted to put it on there, I'd find a way to do it." While their thresholds varied, the results were strikingly similar - lots of information, not a lot of guidance; more questions, less answers.
There is also a video where participants express concern about etiquette, doing things correctly, respecting the wiki, what kind of writing style should be used, and so on. I don't think that "find a bad article that should get deleted, and see to it that it gets deleted" was one of the tasks assigned, but I get the feeling that it would have been nearly impossible. –MT 06:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you; I'll meditate on this. I tend to think of our lack of formalized policies as a Good Thing, and I can sometimes be found haunting Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules, reassuring people that making a cornerstone out of uncertainty is somehow appropriate. Like I said, though, I'll read this study, and think about it. Thanks again. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Policy is necessarily both descriptive and normative. It explains what the standards are, and in doing so urges you to comply. The urging gets in the way of confident editors, but for newcomers policy is an explanation of what can be expected, a guideline for how things should be done. So we scorn policy, we make it informal and vague, and meanwhile newcomers can't get a foothold, and leave. –MT 06:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, some newcomers leave. Others seem to do alright. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, as I said, I'm not partaking in that discussion any further with you. I'm given confidence by Melodia's "trolling" comment a few paragraphs above my latest contribution, that I'm not alone in my opinions, and that the proposal is likely to be resolved-defeated quite shortly (from looking at the numbers, and the weight of the respective arguments, and WP:SNOW) without any further input from me.

For the record, I find your attitude a frustrating (perfectly plausibly, you're not trying to irritate, but you do nonetheless, and while you're trying to help Wikipedia, I'm concerned that you're not), and do urge you, for the good of the project, to consider what other people are saying to you, even those who don't agree with some of your views. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 08:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean this exchange. You were misrepresenting my position, and I told you as much (for the Nth time now). It seems you were persistently trying to interview me for adminship: half of your messages were "what would you do if", not what the proposal would do. The other half were "you're wrong because people disagree [with your other proposal]". I read through your messages there three times now and (aside from the 'would you use asterisks on this proposal?' question which I thought was going somewhere but which you didn't follow up on) you simply weren't saying anything about the proposal itself. I'm sorry that by informing you of this I upset you, but I don't feel like arguing with you about my motives (yes, I am secretly plotting to shut down all of the proposals on that page once I've tricked them all into giving me asterisks, mwahaha) and learning about how bad I'm being in disagreeing with other people. So I don't feel too bad, and I entirely disagree with your evaluation though I praise you for assuming good faith.  M  09:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: file sharing[edit]

You'll probably want to also take a close look at file sharing as some of the same info reverted from Timeline of file sharing has creeped in over there. Since you appear to be active on that page as well, I'll leave it to you decide what is appropriate to delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been keeping up with it, but since I'm one of the only active editors there, I'm concerned about 3RR. I've reverted a few times already, though it's hard to keep track of where given the similarity of both articles. I'll revert it again now.  M  18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Lol May is not active, i am the only active editor who has been there for over two years. Deathmolor (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at the articles tomorrow and see if I can help end this dispute. I don't think you've reached the level of edit warring yet, but I would advise against making any more reverts for the time being. If this does keep up, you'll probably have to file an RfC, like you said, but if Deathmolor decides to start undoing my changes too, he could easily get into 3RR territory fast. there is also the possibility of bringing this to ANI if he is clearly being disruptive, but I wouldn't recommend it at this time as it is currently basically just a content dispute with some minor uncivility. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

re: threat of legal action[edit]

I just left Deathmolor I very stern warning about his legal threats and in general disruptive behavior. (and another user also did at virtually the same time). If he continues this behavior he will certainly be blocked (although not by me since I'm not actually an admin). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That was not intended as a legal threat and everyone knows it. You make an issue of it because it is something that can be fit in as a rule and force feed it to people to make them think whatever you want. Call a spade a spade, he got personal and i did not. He should not be getting personal. The issue of getting personal was eclipsed by the word legal. Deathmolor (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of comments[edit]

FYI: Users are perfectly within their rights to blank most comments from their talkpages. —Travistalk 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of article talk page commentary of other editors[edit]

Please be advised that the removal of other editors' comments on article talk page is against WP policy and generally considered vandalism if it occurs repeatedly and intentionally, as you have demonstrated. Kbrose (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal is compliant with WP:TALK#Others.27_comments, and I've informed you of this several times now.  M  03:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

I really like it. I'd go as far to say as it's the most visually appealing signature I've ever seen on the project. However, it's a little large, and it disrupts the flow of text (leaving extra space between the line above and the line including the sig). This could be solved by just making it a little smaller. hmwithτ 13:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I do use Firefox. It looks fine to me now, spacing-wise (which was the only issue). I was just giving you a heads up. :) Thanks for changing it so quickly. hmwithτ 20:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC tag[edit]

In response to your undoing of my RFC tag correction on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Simplify_policy_RfC. In order for it to be properly listed, it needs to be formatted the way I have formatted it. As a result of changes in the mechanisms of the bot, instead of a sentence being entered as the one being sent to the RFC listings, the sentence is inferred based on the location of the tag. If there is no sentence with datestamp underneath the tag, then no description can get sent to the RFC listings. If I can find a way to get around this for the few situations that warrant it, then I will try to implement it. —harej 05:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to terminate with a period. It just has to be some block of text that ends with a timestamp. Ideally the text is useful, since it's what ends up on the listing. —harej 06:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: CSD[edit]

I should have listed that under G4. A series of sockpuppets have been recreating this article over a period of weeks. Thanks! Fribbler (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning that one:
  1. M, you've removed the CSD tag without any comment in the edit summary. That's not particularly helpful.
  2. I have to conclude though that you don't think this is a blatant hoax? Considering the high profile actors supposedly affiliated this, and the nonsense in that article, do you find any indication that this thing might exist?
  3. Fribbler, has this one been deleted at AfD? If not then it's not a G4.
Amalthea 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought it had been AFD'd under it's original title: Martinez & Caldwell. I've checked and it wasn't, so I've switched to G3, the reason it was firstly deleted. I'm not on the ball today ;-) Fribbler (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did check there as well. It was G4ed at Martinez & Caldwell a couple times, but I found no hint at where it was discussed. Anyway, gone now. M if you're still not convinced and want to check it again I'll happily e-mail you the old content. Please make sure to always add an appropriate edit summary though with things like these.
Cheers, Amalthea 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I should have put something in the edit summary. Per Wikipedia:Hoax#Dealing_with_hoaxes, I don't think that crazy made up movies qualify (which this almost certainly was). This could have easily been handled at XfD, only as a matter of proper procedure. I don't mind that it's deleted.  M  17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, this one sure counts as "extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes". From a glance, similar versions were created by at least 4 other (now blocked) SPAs, since mid 2008. And there's lots more at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard.
And generally, yes, crazy made-up movies with, as I said, numerous high-profile actors do cross the line to blatant hoaxes and can be properly G3ed, no need for a forum there. Amalthea 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have access to the article, so I can't comment on your point. I would strongly prefer that this sort of content be deleted under G4 or G5.  M  18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The author isn't banned (effectively banned, maybe), and best I can tell no significantly identical article was ever at AfD. However, similar ones have been G3ed over 30 times. It is the criterion that fits. To quote WP:VANDALISM: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." That is true in this case, and was true before I realized the extent of the issue.
Whether an apparent hoax is a blatant hoax (i.e. vandalism) is, of course, a judgment call. But that blatant hoaxes are considered vandalism is pretty well established, both in current practice and in policy. Amalthea 18:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your sig[edit]

Hiya M, I like your signature & was wondering whether you minded if I borrowed it? Is this too similar or not? Cheers! dottydotdot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

I wouldn't mind at all, and am glad you like it. My signature is as free for your use as my other contributions are. Have a look, though, at the notes I've written for you and any other interested parties, since there are a few problems with getting it to work correctly.  M  21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh darn! My name is too long. Thanks though! Dottydotdot (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your signature and Opera[edit]

Hello. I see people like your signature, and it does look nice, but there is a problem causing Opera 9.64 (latest version) to add large chunks of whitespace both to the right and to the bottom of the content on all pages where it's used—it seems both the width and height are exactly doubled. I can't quite penetrate the intricacies of the syntax, but do you know what might cause this? IE, Firefox and Chrome don't have this problem. —JAOTC 12:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you scroll down to the bottom (or bottom right) and refresh, the spacing is mostly removed (due to js dom modification), so I think this is a bug. (The borders/margins of all the elements are in the right places.) I think I got around it, though. Thank you for letting me know.  M  01:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


Little notice: Template talk:File sharing protocols

Greetings, Old Death (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks   M   20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars[edit]

Please refrain from further attempts to instigate edit wars or tempting other editors to simply keep reverting edits you have a bias against, such as you did here. Kbrose (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Relax, I could have (should have) reverted you myself, but instead I chose to inform the contributor about your reverts and the situation at the article. This has led to some good discussion (finally) below and at your talk page. I know you would prefer to just edit as you please and avoid discussion when problems arise, but it's tiresome to put up with. Edit warring is reverting without first making a genuine and novel effort to reach consensus. You often fail to provide even a 3-word reason in an edit summary for your reverts. As I said on that talk page, I don't have a problem with your editing, just with the way you handle disputes.   M   04:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
yes this is very common behavior for this user, he historically starts edit wars, not only that a year later from my edit war he is still making comments in some forums about me which show on a google search. M just can't just keep his mouth shut and let sleeping dogs lay. He will even go so far as to try and discover a contributors real idenity and remove them from the vale of anonymity that he himself enjoys. Deathmolor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

peer to peer stuff[edit]

Hey, thanks a lot for the notice and for trying to restore my edits :) I must say, however, that those were just one of those random edits I make wherever I find something that I feel I can improve; not something I care deeply about, so I'd rather not start a discussion on the subject. Besides, I wasn't entirely sure of the technical correctness of my edits. I do feel there are some categories the article should belong to -- perhaps not the specific ones I added, but something more than what it currently belongs to. For example, Kbrose wrote that P2P is not a network architecture, but an application architecture; well, first of all, the category is called "network architecture", not "network architectures", so I still feel it might belong there; On the other hand, perhaps a "application architectures" category could be added, or something similar. Feel free to suggest these edits or make them yourself, but once again I'd rather not do it myself (I have been lately too busy to even check my watchlist, so you see why I am not willing to expand my attention span even further :) ) Anyway, thanks again for your attention :) Cheers, Waldir talk 09:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for spending some extra time on a random edit, it really was helpful.   M   04:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You objected to David Levy's ad hominem remarks. FWIW, I have asked for input: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Personal remarks. --Una Smith (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


The criteria for speedy deletion:

  • specify the limited cases in which administrators may, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. These criteria describe the only cases where there is broad consensus supporting summary deletion of articles and other content. [redundancy in italics]
  • specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media.

end sandbox   M   18:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Grumpy old-timers ;-)[edit]

So the other day I had something of a confrontation with a grumpy old timer at the office where I work. He was with the company for as long as I have lived! He was going like "yeah yeah, you want to do this and that, but I've seen it all, and guess who gets to pick up the pieces once you leave/get fired/etc. so many years down the road? There's no way I'm going to let you just do your job!"

He was being all agressive and intimidating about it too.

And, well, in my discussion with you, I feel like we're getting into a similar situation, with myself in the role of that guy, and I don't WANT to be like that guy. :-P

So let's see what I can do about that.

First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate your patient attitude and diplomatic approach to discussing your changes with myself and others. That should help a bit, at least.

Second - as I think we have to cover a lot of ground - it might be handy to talk using some real time communications system, so that we can go back and forth. Would you have access to (in order of preference) irc, skype, msn or aim?

I hope to hear back from you soon!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kim. I'd be happy to talk through some anonymous (ip included) system, but only on the subject of cleaning up the policy. I don't want to get into a one-on-one debate about the purpose of policy. Keep in mind that I might actually agree with you on certain fundamental issues, but if the cleanup was indeed non-substantive (as I claim), but you say "it changed" (when it really didn't) and convince me that policy should be such and such therefore it didn't change (which is fallacious), and then we change it ("back" to what it wasn't), and we will have ended up slipping a substantive change in under the guise of 'cleanup correction'. This would be dishonest. So first I want to make sure that nothing substantial changed, and then we can see what we can do about the policy.   M   20:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah. You're still in refactor (cleanup) mode; I just want to go to the next step (because refactor or no refactor, the page is still b0rked, although now it's borked with more clarity ;-) ). Can we just agree to end the refactor step and continue? I would like to bring the page in-line with best practice. Either that or I can just wait for you to finish whatever it is you're trying to achieve. When do you expect that will be?--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm stuck until I can find what actually changed. I've been going through history to see under what conditions phrases were added. The 'closely related to the five pillars' bit, for example, was added non-substantively as a means to clarify, though it seems to have a more substantive feel than intended. I plan to get rid of it as soon as we can settle the discussion (since it was in fact there before cleanup started). The history stuff is somewhat accurate, but yeah, we should probably note that way way back they were essentially authoritative essays composed by single individuals (some of the (poor) wording has even survived since then!)   M   21:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to just move forward. :-) And if by "single individuals" you mean "many tens or hundreds of people using the wiki process", then your characterization of policy is accurate. The wiki-process is still the single most used process for maintaining policy pages, even today. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure, the above message is outdated now. As for the history, a fair bit of the initial policy was written up by Larry, though I'm sure he had consensus. And a lot of what he wrote is still around. I could be mistaken, though.   M   22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Pay it forward barnstar[edit]

This is a bad idea. Yes, this causes more people to give barnstars. Unfortunately, it will soon become a pain in the ass if editors start giving out batches of these. Barnstars should not ask more from an editor. They are an award, not an invitation to a game.   M   21:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, You are an exprienced editor and I excepted that you at least discuss it with author (Me!) or on WikiProject Wikipedia Awards talk page before any action, and if the community decision was that this award is a bad idea then I'll make another image for it. I hope you don't mind that I temporary reverted your edit in template page, but I'll not add it to Barnstars page until the final decision by community.
Now about the award: The Pay it forward barnstar was made to promote WikiLove. to make users friendly with each other, same as all other Wikilove templates, If you think the template's image should not be a barnstar, well that is discussable. Why this a bad idea if more people give barnstars to each other? we have many Barnstars, general ones, topicals and wikipedia-space barnstars, all of them are different in shape, mean and value. Barnstars are not just an award, they are for making an stronger and friendlier community, and the one I made will specially designed for this aim (making an stronger and friendlier community). Regards.   ■ MMXXtalk  04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. The reason I didn't discuss it with you before making the changes was that this has the potential to be severely disruptive. I sympathize with your good intentions, but this uses the same mechanism as one of those "paste this to 10 people in 10 minutes or the ghost of christmas past will eat your brains!" messages. More barnstars would be great, but I strongly oppose the explicitly viral mechanism. The image is really good, and I have no problems with it at all!   M   04:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all I must say you have very intresting username and also nice signature :) You are right about those "paste this to 10 people ..." or "forward this email to ... people" they are really anoying but I think the Pay it forward barnstar is totally different, please take a look at these templates: Template:Cookie, Template:GivePie and Template:Balloons. the only different between these templates and the one I designed is that I set a minimum number of five for users and time limit of five days (maybe we should just remove the time limit). BTW I didn't mention that I take this idea from Pay it forward philosophy, also when i said the template's image is discussable, I meant to design another image for a "Pay it forward" award. I made this award to promote WikiLove and it fits Kindness Campaign. A question: are you totally oppose any kind of Pay it forward friendly template?   ■ MMXXtalk  05:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) No, I'm not opposed, but I worry about people giving out barnstars as part of a WikiLove game, rather than as an achievement for something that took a lot of work. Perhaps if the message said something like "Spread the WikiLove by finding other hard-working editors, and thank them using this or [[WP:BARNSTARS|some other Barnstar]!" - the idea being to not make this explicitly exponential, and to make sure that barnstars are still awarded for effort. I'm sure that the wording could be a bit better though. What do you think?   M   05:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comment in template page right now: "VIRUS"!!! I don't think this award damage the value of other barnstars, there is a big different in receiving this award or receive a "Working Man's Barnstar", "Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" or an "Anti-Vandalism Barnstar", of course these awards always have higher value.
I agree about changing the message, but we should come to an agreement about the message itself, here is my proposed messages:
1. USERNAME has given you a Pay it forward barnstar! Pay it forward barnstar promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. When you receive a Pay it forward barnstar, you should give a barnstar to five other Wikipedians by adding {{subst:Pay it forward barnstar}} or any other barnstar to their talk page with a friendly message!
2. USERNAME has given you a Pay it forward barnstar! Pay it forward barnstar promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove and thank users for their contribution by giving five other users a barnstar by adding {{subst:Pay it forward barnstar}} or any other barnstar to their talk page with a friendly message!
3. USERNAME has given you a Pay it forward barnstar! Pay it forward barnstar promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove and recognize hard-working editors for their contribution by giving five other users a barnstar by adding {{subst:Pay it forward barnstar}} or any other barnstar to their talk page with a friendly message!

  ■ MMXXtalk  06:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I regret putting that in the edit summary, where I can't change it to be more tactful. The explicit 'five editors' seems a bit commanding, and finding 5 others is a lot of work. Perhaps it could be the wording in 2 or 3, but with something like I wrote above, or an encouragement to do what people usually do when spreading wikilove - basically, go out and give one to editors that you know have been working hard. Perhaps we could continue this discussion at the barnstars talk page?   M   06:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I forget to say that five small stars are represent five users, also I think finding five other users force Wikipedians to know each other and make an stronger and friendlier community, anyway I started a discussion at WikiProject Wikipedia Awards talk page, we can continue this discussion there.   ■ MMXXtalk  04:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

re: CSD G1[edit]

Personally, I think the clause would be better off without the qualifier at all. That is, stop at "This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, coherent non-English material, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes". You're right that the "sometimes we do" language is really a reference to G3 and is unnecessary to the G1 clause.

My concern was based on the assumption that the clause has to stay in (just because changing anything on that page is hard) and if it must stay in, then it needs to clearly mirror the "blatant" language below. I'll try pulling it out and let's see if we get reverted. Rossami (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are very brave.   M   04:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that isn't as controversial as one might think.   M   04:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Section numbering at CSD[edit]

Despite our dustup over G9, I just wanted to stop by and tell you I think your changing of the descriptions to list the criteria section and number in the same form as we use them is a great idea!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! and I'm enjoying that discussion as well :)   M   18:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Info pages[edit]

Hello. At Template_talk:Policy#RfC:_Changes_made_should_reflect_consensus you stated that

: Just now I removed a deletion of a CSD by someone who seemed to have a good contribution record, a few hours ago someone added "info pages" as being neutral and having strong "tie-in" or somesuch. This does nothing to stop reckless editors from trying to change policy page. The only ones it seems to stop are the careful ones, as clearly evidenced by how carelessly our policies are written.


I wanted to know why you removed the infopages from the policy page. I took the text directly from {{infopage}}. Smallman12q (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't reallly remove them, but I did 'merge' them into the community process page (removed a linebreak, cleaned up some wording). You'll see that one of my big concerns in that debate is that people are trying to use the infobox to define policy, when all they do is inform. Boxes aren't supposed to be authoritative, and they definitely should not imply some sort of broad consensus. Most people don't even care that much about an infobox RfC, but if you tell them you're changing policy... Well, the infopages infobox is not policy, so adding it to policy as if it is might be a bad thing to do. I think that in a short time, we're going to be discussing the non-p/g parts of types anyway on that talk page, so you should join in.   M   18:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with you in that infopages are designed to inform and not regulate and hence I have written an info page explanation at User:Smallman12q/Infopage. Could you please comment at User_talk:Smallman12q/Infopage#What_do_you_think.3F. In addition, I noticed that you also had some problems with primary topic...would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#What_is_defines_a_topic_as_being_the_.22Primary_Topic.22. Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Haha - actually I managed to post a rant over at the primary topic thing just moment before I saw your message. I probably need to make clearer points over there.   M   20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day[edit]

Bronzewiki 2.png
Congratulations, M! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, August 5, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :D   M   00:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

An apology[edit]

M, I want to apologize to you for the way I behaved the other day, when I asked you not to post about the policy template on my talk page. I was irritated by something else that day, something unconnected to you or the policies, and it made me short with you, which I very much regret. It's clear that you're doing good work, trying to create a structure within which the policies and guidelines can be consistent and coherent, which is a mammoth task, and one you're to be congratulated for taking on. I won't always agree with you on specific points, but I do very much respect the overall effort, and I don't want to make it harder than it needs to be. I'm very sorry I reacted the way I did. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that means a lot to me :) Apology accepted, of course. I hope whatever was bothering you is going more favorably. I apologize if I didn't respond very well. I also realize that I'm being something of a jerk over at the policy template RfC, but I think it's something that seems innocuous but which may set a precedent for including tacit endorsements of certain favored policies, rather than just the plainest of descriptions. Anyway - thanks, and I'm sorry too.   M   12:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No, you're fine, it was my fault, but thank you for saying sorry anyway. What you're doing at the policy template is okay too. We're all bound to disagree at times about changes to policy or the way they're represented; people come to rely on certain things and don't like change. The way you're arguing your case is perfectly legitimate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs


I noticed you are now edit warring on WP:NOT while there is an RFC about the edit in question underway. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This isn't edit warring - the wording that is backed by consensus belongs on a policy page until consensus overturns it. The wording in question is backed by rather rigorous consensus. Did you have a look at the RfC yet?   M   13:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi M! I have to admit that I am very impressed by your "Reword" script, which I believe has the potential to completely alter the way we edit wiki pages. (Dare I use the phrase "paradigm shift"?) I have unfortunately found that it is too disruptive to have it constantly enabled, as I often select text for different reasons than to paraphraze it, especially outside of mainspace. I was wondering if you have considered adding functionality to either: automatically disable the script outside of mainspace, or some other way to quickly disable/enable it without updating monobook.js. Anyway, great work! Regards, decltype (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it! Yes... I've found this to be a problem too, copy-pasting is a pain but I'm much too lazy to turn it off (usually triggering the box elsewhere and then copy-pasting does the trick...). What did you think of the alertbox that popped up to confirm your edit? That was the interface I used before, rather than the fancier box (which is a bit buggy sometimes). The fancy box is nice, but might be too obtrusive, and I like simple things. I was thinking of doing one of the following:

  1. select some text, release, alertbox pops up
  2. select some text, release, a little pen-paper icon pops up a half-inch away, click it, alertbox pops up
  3. push a button to enable each time; select some text and have it chopped while you drag (the fancy box chops it at ? characters, so that things fit into the edit summary), edit, press enter
  4. same thing, with a button to enable/disable it in general

Or some combination of these. Which would you prefer to use? Is the as-you-select word-chopping useful? And may I ask which browser you're using?   M   15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'd prefer to just use the alert box for editing. I too find the dynamic thing slightly intrusive, but the word-chopping is useful. It would be nice to have a way to disable/enable it, both 3 and 4 seem like reasonable solutions. I am also curious to why it doesn't allow changes across punctuation.
I have tested it on IE7 and Firefox 3. On both browsers, the dynamic box does get stuck on the page some times. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fixed - you now have to hold down control while releasing to have an alertbox pop up, otherwise nothing will happen. It reloads the page after you're done. I don't know what happens if you select too many words, I think it just chops the summary off. Also, there's no feedback that you actually selected editable text (it can't yet edit refs, or I think bold, and that sort of thing). The changes across punctuation are due to people putting two spaces after their periods - html ignores anything over one consecutive regular space, so it can't to find the singlespaced version in the source wiki text, to allow for replacing.   M   20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been messing around with it quite a bit now. It takes a bit getting used to, because of a few quirks, but it is a joy to use. I also retract what I said about it only being usable in article space. Clearly, there's a much bigger potential for typos elsewhere. It can also be "abused" like this (not really rewording, see history). decltype (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What are the quirks? I'm very open to criticism and suggestions here; the more information I have, the easier it is to find effective ways to improve this. The small details are especially important. By the way, if instead of click-dragging to select characters, you doubleclick-drag to select words, things may be a bit easier (I just looked this up, myself). I was actually thinking of having it mark insertions and deletions with del. and ins. - especially deletions, which are often left with an arrow pointing to nothing.   M   01:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that the dynamic box is gone, there is no way to determine whether your selection will be accepted when you click CTRL. The most common cases are if you happen to select some bolded text or a bluelink. The bolded text should be easily fixable since it's just <b>text</b>, right? Also, if you happen to select text that appears in many places, it won't work, and you won't know until you've tried, so you have to select more and more text until it's unique. I do not have a good suggestion for a fix, though. It would of course be wonderful if it could deal with bluelinks, but if the script functions roughly as I think it does, I realize it may be complicated to implement, (and would make it generally slower). decltype (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work on adding a little hover, or maybe a changing cursor or something to indicate that the selection is good or bad. I think you should be able to select this or also this or also this just fine, as long as you select the entire word (or not - I'll check why this is). Usually it's the bluelinks in the form of [Alphabet|abc] that trip it up, due to capitalization (though a bunch of those should work too).   M   01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the links (capitals are broken). Now I'll peruse some cursors.   M   02:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, testing... decltype (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
(testing) The cursor was unchangable during drag; color changes are now used.   M   22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

I have tested the latest version a bit on IE7. I made a small adjustment to some code that was causing the script to fail (complaining that 'console is undefined'). If you know why this is, perhaps you can make a better fix. I tried it on links and formatted text and it worked just as expected, except failing, as you indicated above, on capitalized links (not just piped links). The coloring of the page is a nice indicator for whether it will fail or not. Finally, I found a subtle bug while testing it on the article Goran Svilanović, in that it won't accept any selection except the article title itself. decltype (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have since self-reverted because I only got it work in my own monobook. Could be because reword.js was cached or something. decltype (talk)
I have also added some rudimentary functionality, that you may or may not want to adapt into your version, namely the ability to add newlines and custom edit summaries, as demonstrated by this edit. decltype (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (was it a bug that caused my sig to get chopped off?)
I threw in a cross-browser logger. Here's the diff of the two branches, merge, diff with yours. There's a map now that through rewordReplace("\\n","\n\n"); (erm, I realize now that this is bad for breaking lists) can have values added. The default commenting sequence, rewordComment="---";, which is easy to type and is a bit similar to signatures. And I believe that only one import is needed now, since I removed the jQuery onload.   M   21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I was going to write "<---" and triggered the signature. Anyway, I was writing this with your version. Couple of questions: Why did you change "\n" to two newlines instead of one? But IIUC it's customizable. As for the summary, I don't want the default summary when I'm (ab)using the script to reply to messages, as it clutters the history. All I want is, say, "re (using REWORD)", when there's a custom edsum. What do you think? (I suppose that could be made customizable with a flag) decltype (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha - I was thinking it would take longer to find an exception to the ---, but, uh, that'll teach ya'. Yes, it's customizable by setting rewordComment. Great point about the clutter, though I wonder how to best incorporate it, since it should also be used to describe rewordings. Perhaps ~~~~ (and ----) can be used to... maybe if the edit contains ~~~~, then don't diff?   M   00:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, will test tomorrow. I wouldn't always want the diff even if I didn't sign, though. And yeah, I'll stick with "¤" for signatures, It is very easy to type with a Norwegian keyboard layout (Shift+4, same as $ on US), and otherwise very rarely used. decltype (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
----~~~~ might work, though the text would be inaccurate. I'll work on making that clickable icon thing as an alternative to the standard featureless control-drag. Then you can select +-diff +-comment.   M   01:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Additional comments by decltype

Hi again, some more comments: I can't get it to recognize "¤" for summaries. This is how I am importing it into my monobook:

rewordComment = "¤";

Any ideas? Another, more serious problem, is that it seems to be marking every edit as minor. This needs to be changed, since the script is powerful enough to perform many non-controversial tasks, including tagging pages for speedy deletion. Regards, decltype (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll hardcode the fixes in for now.   M   02:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Great. I am using it quite extensively now. A few more comments: When using a custom summary, the script seems to append the string " --" and nothing else. That's fine with me, but I'm not sure it was intended. It seems also that some editors find it disruptive to have the script link at the beginning of the summary. You may possibly want to consider appending " (using Reword)" or similar instead, but that's not up to me, of course. decltype (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The custom summary thing might be broken until I make those little icons. Oops, I'll change the link to the end, thanks.   M   18:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, well I changed it to lowercase - it should probably be noted what sort of edit the edit is (deletion, insertion, move, rewording), so the link might serve better at the front for that (or perhaps any note or link is superflous - well, no, it should be linked so that issues and questions are directed to the right place). Yeah, I don't know - I'll change it to the end, I think.   M   18:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Testing code on wp is terrible. If I broke it, feel free to fix the error or revert me. If you want to toss some code in there for user=you, feel free, I can always merge or make it customizable. And yeah, this is seriously abusable for making comments. Perhaps I should try to figure out a way to make it more automatic... like making the mouse detect when it's over dates. Hmmmm.   M   18:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


Your reward script doesn't seem to work in IE8 --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 11:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I don't have a copy of IE8, so I can't test it at the moment. If you check the console/javascript console or something similar, probably under tools, and paste the error message, I might be able to fix it based on that. Sorry about that.   M   13:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Works on IE8 here. Just have to add to the trusted sites, otherwise the alert box might get blocked
Pressing ctrl and dragging across the required words does nothing. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't work with the better "beta" version of wikipedia. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 19:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
There should be a console in tools, which spits out error messages when something goes wrong. If you can paste one in here, then this would help fix the problem, I think...   M   02:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Try the Wikipedia Beta version by clicking try beta in the top right corner. Then you can see it JUST won't work. No error messages, nothing. If you get it to work, you can tell me how and what I probably did wrong. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 11:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yeah. The Beta loads scripts out of , it seems. Why it was designed like this is way beyond me. Should have a single user script area.   M   18:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
So??? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 12:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Does it work now? And if not, does it also fail to work in monobook?   M   17:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It works now. It failed to work in the "beta version" until I copied the code to Special:MyPage/vectar.js. Maybe you should include this in your instructions! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 09:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Great - if you have any problems or suggestions, let me know. Thanks for updating the instructions. It's actually pretty strange that users don't have a global.js or something similar for this...   M   18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


I am going to re-order your hit list so I hope you don't mind. No wording is being changed at this point. The order is important because someday, your list may be an official WP policy list. User F203 (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure :) I don't have such high hopes for it - keep in mind that there's already a WP:List of policies.   M   15:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP policies and guidelines are all scattered. They are also not clearly indicated by name if they are a policy or guideline. One has to go to the exact page to see it. For example: WP:BLP1E. There is no indication in the abbreviation if it is a policy or not.

One way to fix this is to codify everything like laws. For example, the abbreviation for WP:NOTNEWS could be optionally written WP:NOTNEWS G3.12. G would be guideline. 3 would be section 3. In section 3, there would be several subsections, number 12 being notnews.

However, this would run into some opposition. If there is no consensus, disorder is the consensus. So I think I will not even propose this idea. The best we can do is to put the guidelines and policies in one place.

This is not bureaucracy. For example, user names that resemble companies are often suddenly blocked. This is bad treatment of people. According to the rules, a user name such as Microsoft is not allowed. However, the rules are scattered all over the place that even I don't know where they all are. Putting them in one place (but not numbering them) is a great idea. User F203 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. So, some comments: the shortcuts thing you propose would break down as soon as a demotion or promotion happened. It would imply that being a policy had something to do with having a certain type of shortcut. It would clutter the shortcuts. I'm also confused by the G/P thing - are you saying we should have guideline sections within policies? You might want to check out WP:Nutshell, something I started when I was just getting into this, for a more legal codification.
Note that there have been efforts before to merge or clean up or take care of policies, or long discussions on what to do with them. I have not seen one so far that has succeeded. I firmly believe that specific tactics should not be discussed. General strategy ("reduce size, wordcount, statement-count, number, etc. of policies") is fine. "We should do it like this" is less interesting, unless you're actually doing it. The best thing to do is to go find a policy (WP:Naming conventions would be a good one) and start cleaning it up. Post the diffs of the changes that have gone through on that page, and sign your name (just to keep it separate, since I use it to keep track of what I personally have done).   M   20:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

You have accused other editors of "repeated personal attacks[1] I have requested difs[2] which as you have not yet responded, in spite of having subsequently posted on that page, I believe you may have missed. Please provide the difs asked for, or strike your accusation. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the history and did not see that I subsequently posted. As for the attacks, they are in the message that I am responding to. Please read WP:NPA.   M   17:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin's deleting under CSD[edit]

In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#NFT_Straw_Poll you mentioned:

"as a recent RfC has made very clear, the only things admins may delete without discussion must fall explicitly under existing criteria"

Have you got a link to that Rfc? It would be very helpful to another discussion I'm having at the moment. Thanks! AndrewRT(Talk) 22:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Simplify_policy_RfC The summary cites the sections, which you should glance through. Note that some admins do not care, and take the position that until someone raises an objection, they can use IAR as they see fit. Others take the position that certain CSD rules can be stretched.   M   22:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Hello Barnstar
This is to say hello to a fellow Wikipedian User F203 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

OTRS page poll needs to go to Village Pump[edit]

The OTRS policy poll you've started should properly be held on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page. At the very least, it needs to be notified there and on WP:AN.

Please move it to the Village Pump.

Continuing to try and force discussion only on the policy talk page, after multiple warnings that it's the wrong venue, is approaching disruptive. I really don't want to shut down discussion on this topic but you HAVE to notify properly and really, really should make sure that it is in the right place (Village Pump).

Please take appropriate corrective actions.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of a policy belongs on that policy's talk page. The ongoing RfC there is already linked from multiple places. If you'd like to advertise the poll as well, you are free to do that yourself. Your message suggests pointless, complicated restrictions on where I can and cannot ask for the input of participants. Such restrictions do not exist.   M   23:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For the improvements at the WP:CSD page[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your great improvements to the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page. Thanks to you, the page is far more readable and concise than what it previously was. MuZemike 02:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm happy to hear this! :D   M   02:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


You got new messages under the section reword. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 09:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

E-mail fear?[edit]

That should not be an issue. Do what many of us have done, register a free anonymous gmail account. That's what i use; not my ISP based e-mail :) -- Avi (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's actually what I did :) I brought it up there because I still have the concern that registering for a new email, as well as everything else, would pose a challenge.   M   18:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


Hey, just wanted to let you know that I'm in the process of moving from Indiana to California and that's going to put me out of commission for about a week. I'm sorry that this is going to stagnate our discussion. :-( Thanks for your patience on these things, and I'll try to stay up to date as much as I can. causa sui× 04:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion can surely wait. I hope you have a great move!   M   06:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD notification templates[edit]

Noticed WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36#Single user page warning template too late:
You can already use say {{subst:db-a7-notice}} for {{db-a7}}, all those redirects with the criterion abbreviation should exist. If you're manually tagging something for SD with, say, {{db-foo}}, and {{db-foo-notice}} doesn't exist, just create a redirect and you're set.
Cheers, Amalthea 22:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That seems much more memorable, too. I'll add those to the page.   M   22:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


I have requested your editing be reviewed here. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your editing of policy[edit]

M, as I said earlier, I very much appreciate your efforts to streamline and copy edit the policies. But this can't extent to making substantive changes over multiple objections. You saw in the template RfC that people do not want editors rushing in to change policy without discussion, yet still you are arguing that they do, and adding that to policy pages (or removing the advice to be cautious). Please start another RfC if you feel the first RfC wasn't representative, but you shouldn't simply ignore the mutiple objections. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Slim, I didn't remove anything substantial - I've even moved the disputed wording to a higher status policy page as a token of good faith.   M   20:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec; this was written in response to the post you removed) A tendentious editing complaint has been filed against you over the OTRS thing, and I'm afraid these are going to increase if you don't change your style a little. I agree that it would be good if each policy referred only to issues within its remit, but there is, as a matter of fact, overlap, and it's going to be quite hard to get rid of it. What we do need to do is make sure there are no contradictions, but you haven't yet pointed any out.
We also need to make sure that, in streamlining and copy editing, we don't force in substantive changes without consensus, which I fear is what you're doing. It is pointless to do this anyway, because people will simply ignore them. One way to make a policy page irrelevant is to add advice that people aren't likely to follow. That is one of the reasons BOLD in policy editing is not a good idea; it makes policy pages unstable and unreflective of consensus, which means you may as well delete the policy because it will be ignored. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
You help set a rather bad precedent for the removal of other entrenched policies - if you meant that you were supporting that OTRS complaint. What do you think of that wording being added only a couple of months ago? Your position is that drastic changes require consensus, yet that was a drastic change that you now seem to support.   M   20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That change has strong consensus on that policy page. I tried to tweak it to discourage reverts, rather than outright disallow them, but I was reverted. As we have said all along, there is a descriptive as well as prescriptive aspect to policies. It is as a matter of fact correct that experienced editors won't revert an OTRS volunteer without discussion. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't dispute this, but the wording should be clear and unambiguous "experienced editors tend to not revert OTRS edits" rather than "Don't revert them".   M   20:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Descriptive and prescriptive: experienced editors don't do it; ergo, you shouldn't do it either. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance.   M   21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Notifying Editors[edit]

When you mention another editors contributions in an unfavourable way on a public noticeboard as you did here & here, you must notify the editor so they can comment if they wish. Failing to do so is both extremely discourteous and undermines any assertion of acting in good faith that you may wish to make. I have notified David on your behalf for these instances but I suggest you let them know of anywhere else that you have listed this. Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realize this was an issue. The link was first posted by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) here at the village pump (in the same light), so I assumed it was already handled. I'll do a better job of making sure the relevant parties are notified next time. You may want to relay your message to SlimVirgin as well.   M   14:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

References for Language fragment[edit]

I note that you added a link to Google Scholar in the 'References' section of Language fragment. Was this your intention, or did you have a specific paper or book in mind? I skimmed the first ten results on that page, but none of them seem to support the notion that "A language fragment is a subset of the group of proper sentences of a language." Cnilep (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It shows that the term 'language fragment' is used in the literature, and therefore that the topic is notable. It's a stub, someone will do the work to fill in more information later. If you think more sources are needed, you can add a 'this article lacks references' tag, but that's not usually appropriate for stubs.   M   19:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I see; thank you for your reply. What would you think of moving the link to the talk page, since as it stands it doesn't actually support anything on the main page? (At least the first ten hits appear to be false-positives.) Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason why not, though it could just as well be left on the page to annoy passers-by into finding some proper references ;)   M   19:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing inappropriate to wikipedia[edit]

Statements such as "I also don't attribute the same weight to the !votes of OTRS users…" indicates a refutation of wikipedia's consensus-based editing and a likely tendency to disruptive editing. For a while now you have been in the distinct minority, and now you are attempting to dilute the value of people who disagree with you in some Orwellian fashion. I would suggest you take a step back and see how your involvement in this discussion has so narrowed your focus that you seem to have lost site of core wikipedia policies and guidelines. Otherwise, I fear that a wider discussion of these statements may be necessary. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See Wikipedia:NOTVOTE#Policy_and_guidelines, which should clarify some of the misunderstandings you have. It is widely accepted that Consensus among a limited group of editors (in this case, the OTRS group) is not as important as consensus among the entire group. Therefore, my disagreement with the way that you (a highly involved party) have determined consensus by counting OTRS user opposition - seemingly not just by headcount, but by volume of words - is entirely in line with policy. Please stop accusing me of various violations and help everyone at that dispute work together to figure things out, instead.   M   18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: File sharing (2)[edit]

No, I just figured that it was unnecessary to continuously archive the page when it receives so little traffic. I could understand to have it automatically archive if there were ten new sections a day like some talk pages do, but Talk:File sharing gets about one section a month. Gary King (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it varies. I think it was added when there was more activity there.   M   18:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD discussion for G9[edit]

I thought what you said there seemed very reasonable but I don't know if the discussion has rather died and I am resurrecting a dead horse for you to flog some more :) At any rate I left a comment there. TheGrappler (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know   M   23:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

E-mail addresses and such[edit]

Hey there. You don't seem to have an e-mail address set. Also, there's some interesting discussion happening at WP:5P that I thought you might enjoy. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And I added an email, hopefully forwarding works correctly.   M   02:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reword on Macs[edit]

Has Reword been tested on Macs? I can't seem to get it to work in either Safari or Firefox. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It has now! (by you), and unfortunately it appears to be broken. Perhaps the issue is that you do not have a control key?   M   19:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I have a control key, it's just that control-clicking on Macs emits a right-click; and for some reason Command-click (Command is used like Ctrl on Macs) doesn't activate Reword. Is there any way to change the key reword is bound to? --Cybercobra (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If you have admin status and know javascript, you can edit the code directly to also include the alt key. I've been planning to make it a bit easier, with a sort of highlight then you get an icon to click thing, but you know...   M   23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I am on a mac, too, and can't use the script. I don't know JS well enough to do this myself, but I would love to be able to take advantage of this. — Jake Wartenberg 06:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflict[edit]

Shrug. Do state your position on the suggested positions, which is most of what I've been doing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; Xandar talking about actual compromise, even if surrounded by opinion, seemed worth encouraging; do you know what he means? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what he means. I'm very open to working towards consensus, but consensus isn't a compromise where we agree to half-change policy every time some local dispute erupts. He agreed to remove several of the examples and wordings much earlier in the page, but blew up and and reverted everything when editors started pouring in against his position. This, and his canvassing, leads me to think that he isn't working towards consensus, but towards preventing some sort of 'renaming' of the Catholic Church article, which he is very involved in. When he starts acting in good faith, we can pay attention. I think he's best left ignored for now, since nobody is really agreeing with his position anyway.   M   21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That much seems clear. This is as much an effort to write guidelines in service to the True Cause as any of the Macedonian nationalisms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That;s rich - since the people attempting to re-write the stable guidelines are you two. And seemingly in the interests of pushing an agenda. You have a very thin grip on reality M, as can be seen from the consistent criticism you have had for your high-handed and incivil behaviour from other editors. Xandar 05:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you choose to go to ANI about this matter, do quote Xandar's canvassing - and this edit, by an admin, calling it an invitation to meatpuppetry. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


The redirect is unused and a natural place for the policy. The policy page itself has become a general chat about admins. As for the Smith and Jones in OR, it's primarily seeing the wood for the trees. I seem to remember when we had a handful of policies and they were all very short and succinct. Rich Farmbrough, 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC).


changing the sections further down the policy is one thing, but changing the first key policy is quite another think. You gave no indication that you were going to change the top sections, and I do not agree with changing them for the reasons I have outlined. There is no fire with this stuff, and for much of it there is a very good reason it is structured as it is. Please discuss the changes you wish to make, explain why you wish to make a specific change and wait and see if anyone objects, as for most of the policy this has been discussed in detail several times before and the positioning of most of it is as it is for specific reasons. --PBS (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with our WP:PG policy? Please become familiar with it before reverting me again.   M   00:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you edit up until this one, but that edit and the ones that followed are unacceptable.

I am now putting on my Admin hat. Editing a policy page to make a point is unacceptable Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). WP:NC is a working policy which you disrupted with these edits 1 2. In all the WP:NC policy page was made deliberately incorrect by you for 20 minutes. If you edit the NC policy page like that again to make a point, I will block you account for a time. --PBS (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is editing to make a point. I suggest you leave this to an uninvolved admin.   M   01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E --Rockstone (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!   M   01:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

Hi M, in the interests of dispute resolution, I'm writing again to ask you to stop making fundamental changes to policies. I am seeing objections to your changes all over the place, yet you're reverting when challenged, and filibustering on talk.

I do very much support your efforts to copy edit, and to make sure that guidelines don't contradict policies, or each other, but making substantive changes over prolonged, multiple objections risks causing the policy or guideline you're changing to be ignored in future. There is a strong descriptive element to policies; indeed, some people argue the policies should only be descriptive. I'm therefore asking you again to stop what you're doing, and perhaps to gain more experience editing articles so that you can see how the policies affect content in practice. That will help you to copy edit without removing sentences or sections that people regard as important. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Slim. I understand that you don't entirely approve of the version that editors at WP:POLICY, but hanging around waiting for a dispute to flare up on some unrelated issue, and taking that opportunity to undo the stable work of a number of editors is inappropriate. You are the only person objecting to this version, and the way that you're objecting is inappropriate.   M   03:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am objecting here to all the changes you're making to policies and guidelines, including the changes I personally agree with, and the way you're making them. For several weeks, you've been ignoring people's objections on multiple pages. I'm asking you to stop, except for basic copy-editing, and to start listening to the people who rely on these policies to be stable. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you're accusing me of ignoring objections, I ask you to provide diffs, or have this treated as a personal attack (discrediting work I've done, or making misleading statements about what I am or have been doing). Do not make such statements anymore until you have provided the diffs. I'll be more careful in making 'substantial' changes to policy pages. Getting you to discuss your very major changes to stable policy on the talk page, however, is excluded from this.   M   03:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It would take me a while to collect diffs, and there's really no need, because you know people are objecting, including here on your talk page. Here is one, [3] and Philip objected, [4] then warned you, [5] and that's just today.

Regardless, I see you're agreeing to be more careful in making substantive changes, and I thank you for that.SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're accusing me of ignoring objections. I have not ignored the objection PBS has made. And I can't imagine that you're serious about Xandar. Do you have diffs to objections that I have ignored, specifically on the WP:POLICY page?   M   03:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You ignored Xandar, and of course I'm serious about him; why wouldn't I be? You must have ignored Philip's point or he wouldn't have come back to warn you. You kept the template discussion going long after it was clear consensus was against you. You were asked by several people at the OTRS policy to stop trying to change it, then were further asked to stop posting on multiple pages about it, yet you continued. Those are just a few examples. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Xandar left that message as direct response to my leaving a similar message at his talk page. I read it carefully. Given the opposition to his edits at that page (opposition which included you, if I'm not mistaken), and the fact that I made just two edits in the past week or so (and very few before that) both reverting him and both endorsed by others, I concluded that his 'warning' were not legitimate. In the OTRS page, my only change to that policy was the inclusion of disputed/discussion tags, which is normal during an RfC.
You seem to be taking any conflict that I've been involved with in the WP space as evidence that I'm 'ignoring objections to the changes I'm making to them and the way I'm making them, for several weeks now', which is frustrating. I made two (endorsed) reverts of Xandar but otherwise stayed almost entirely out of the edit war on that page; I made essentially no changes to OTRS, besides adding discussion labels during an RfC. Are these the really the changes that "you and many others" object to?   M   18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


You said "Because it seems that the only valid changes to policy ..."; is there supposed to be a "you're saying that" in there somewhere? - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I should have been more clear. It's probably past the time that that needs changing, though.   M   21:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed for Timeline of file sharing[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to wikippedia. You had requested for Citation on the technologies used for file transfer prior to 1970. This info is found in each of the linked the Wikipedia article. All these media are similar to storage in floppy disks. For example, punched cards of Fortran programs (files) were stored and shared with others by physically carrying it to office/home. --Pinecar (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The CN is for the relation to filesharing. "...this isn't a timeline of data storage, it's a timeline of file sharing" was my edit summary. Though the cassette tape (like the floppy disk) is probably a fine precursor, with readily available sources, I don't think that there will be a source that says "media files were shared using core memory". Including those technologies on the timeline stretches the definition of file sharing into 'any information encoding and transfer system'.   M   21:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


No one agreed to your removal of the subheadings at Naming conventions. Please reverse that when you get a moment. cygnis insignis 19:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone disagree, and provide good reasons for disagreement which were not addressed?   M   21:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.[edit]

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reword bug report[edit]

Sometimes it removes other edits; see [6]. I believe this may have happened to me one other time before that, too. Best,  Sandstein  13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reword doesn't seem to work[edit]

I have Firefox and have followed all the instructions, but it doesn't seem to work. Any suggestions? Apologies if this is a vague description. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Serious bug issue with Reword[edit]

ArbCom clerk notice - Your tool appears to ignore edit conflicts. This is a serious matter, as the tool has now overwritten a vote by an Arbtirator (see this diff). An arbitrator managed to catch this, but the overwrite went unnoticed for two days and could have altered a case outcome.

As a result ArbCom have now instructed the clerks to examine all edits made to all ArbCom pages in order to identify any other such problems. While this instruction is reasonable given the circumstances, it is a major task and we (the clerks) do NOT appreciate having to do it. Manning (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Manning is correct, that's really serious. I had not noticed it myself either. Please fix this soon. Regards SoWhy 07:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems like a similar problem was reported by Sandstein (talk · contribs) a couple of sections up. Since M hasn't edited for 57 days, it is unlikely that he will be online to address this issue for some time. Until then, the tool needs to be used very judiciously, if at all, in WP and Talk namespaces where edit conflicts are likely to occur. decltype (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I know what the problem is - after deciding that a change is possible, the script reloads the text and makes the changes, then requests an edit token - and passes the time the edit token was requested as the time of the last revision to the API. So if the text was changed between the refresh and the edit token request, the API won't know it. I have a (hopefully) fixed version at User:Tim Song/reword.js, if anyone wants to test it out. Tim Song (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I implemented the same change at my local copy, but the page is still saved, despite there being intermediate revisions.[7] This could be because you can't

edit conflict with yourself, but I've edit conflicted with myself many times in the past. auto / decltype (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, weird - I verified that the timestamp was correctly passed to the API, even. Tim Song (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
It apparently is the edit conflict with self problem - I used my alternate acct (User:Tim Song II) at User:Tim Song/Sandbox3 and got the edit conflict message. Tim Song (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 Confirmed. I initiated a reword in the WP:Sandbox, kept the script prompt open and waited for someone else to edit it. The delayed call to updateData() should also greatly reduce the chance of edit conflicts occuring at all (the intermediate save has to occur between the call to updateData() and the POST request). But in the unlikely event that it were to happen, the page won't be saved. decltype (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think calling updateData() right before getting the edit token - as in the original - is a good idea. It reduces the chance of EC even further. The original has a pretty low EC rate already. Anyway, can we call this Fixed? Tim Song (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict), lol <--- Hmm...If I'm not mistaken I just said that? :) But the original did not call updateData() prior to saving, I made that change when I heard of this bug.[8] So the chance of an EC was fairly large, actually. decltype (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I see - you changed it - thought it was in the original. That explains it. Tim Song (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, consider:

Bob decides to Reword his !vote to "Keep". In the meantime, Alice switches to "Delete". The script loads the most recent revision, which is:

and replaces the first instance of "Delete" with "Keep". The result is:

Even with the change, this could still happen. decltype (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
How about changing it to report an error if it finds the same text twice or multiple times in the most recent revision? Regards SoWhy 09:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a possible solution. An even more defensive approach would be to report an error in the event that the page has been changed after it was loaded (Reword currently stores the text of every page that is loaded). decltype (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
This should hopefully be an rare occurrence, but an extra check before the replace() call shouldn't be hard - there is already such a check, after all. Tim Song (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we find who is using it? Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have implemented the change as discussed. If the page has been revised since you loaded it, you won't be able to Reword it. decltype (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had thought it would fail on conflict by default, as it would now if in writing this I had an edit conflict. Or maybe I set an override flag somewhere, or omitted the previous revision date. If I didn't, then this should be filed as an API bug. Something this dangerous shouldn't be so easy, and the workaround shouldn't be so extensive.

I don't think I'll be around to take care of this script. I was going to add a couple of things to it today. (First, the alert box needs to be replaced with a proper textarea. Second, by comparing leftwards and rightwards on the selected text until it fails to match the loaded wikimarkup, you likely end up with two unique left and right ends that do match. You search for those in the markup, and anything between and including them is what you're editing. This would allow reword to edit arbitrary markup.) Unfortunately, the usability initiative borked up jQuery so I had to spend time fixing that instead.   M   08:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


You have mail... Or will have, in a few moments. decltype (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 6b00207ccb8c24d2646889d7552fb886[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nnote[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Nnote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Nnote[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Nnote requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Moved search box6423.png missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)