User talk:MZMcBride: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:32, 17 February 2009

Protection of H7

[H7]], was protected for admin only editing. i do happen to have the CORRECT info for the page, and would like the page to be unlocked so it may be restarted, im new to this whole wiki thing so, sorry if im not doing this right :/ any help would be great :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Underlined777 (talk • contribs)

Make the article here: User:Underlined777/H7. If you can create a properly-sourced, notable article, an admin will be happy to move it to the article space for you. Cheers. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H-7 should be at H7, to be consistent with H1, H2, H3 and others, so a disambiguated title would probably be needed for an article. —Snigbrook 13:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy

I just listend to an interview with the author of the above book and wanted more information. Why has this been deleted?? I found a copy of the deleted Wikipedia page on Google's cache. It was a good article so put it back!! If you have a problem with the contents of the article corect it - don't delete it. Also. Why is the page on Stoicism locked? I was going to at least make mention of the book there and perhaps a link to the interview. Thanks 172.130.237.178 (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy was not deleted by me.
Stoicism has been unprotected now. Happy editing.

--MZMcBride (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESBS

Hei,

you deleted in April 2008 the article about my university (ESBS). I was wondering why, and what the reason "csd r1" means. User:sol777 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

See CSD R1. :-) (It was a broken redirect.) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Hi. I think you forgot to give the reason for closing it as a delete. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see a reason there. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to WP:NOT, which includes some 30-odd policies. Did you mean WP:GAMEGUIDE?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. I was speaking broadly about our inclusion policy, which is embodied in the WP:NOT policy. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic. I guess you don't knew me. But seriously, which specific part of WP:NOT applies to this case? You deleted the article in the face of consensus to the contrary and didn't give much of a reason for the deletion, only saying that "it's clear that this article does not belong on this project". It's obviously not that clear; a majority of long-time editors did not think so. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title alone gives a pretty strong indication of ... something. As I said, I wasn't speaking about specific parts of WP:NOT, but more broadly about our inclusion policy. (Apologies if the link has thrown you off.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a place for synthesized research. "Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to..."? Come on. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, WP:SYN is not even part of WP:NOT :-) I do understand why the name of the article would give you the impression that it's a bunch of OR synthesis. However, the "allegations" were only allegations because the reliable sources said so. In most of these attacks, the reasons of the attackers are unknown. Most of the reliable sources said that they assume if was cuz of the Gaza conflict or it's probably due to the Gaza conflict. There is no synthesis going on. The article was just reporting exactly what the reliable sources said. Please take another look at the article and how the sources are being used. Thanks,--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcrewer, the info can still be included in an article split off from the main reactions article to cover all kinds of racially motivated incidents. I don't see it as a particularly controversial decision. You don't have to lose any info. It can just be presented in a broader context. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I laud your bold decision, in the face of what appeared to be a majority of editors endorsing the contrary, to delete this scurrilous attempt to further politicize the Wikipedia. As I said in my comment, this and others like it exist only to get hate words into article titles. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Ravpapa, this article was originally named something else, minus the "hateword". MZMcBride: The title "Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to..." was given by the nominator. You may have noticed that the actual page was called: "Antisemitic incidents occuring during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". I suggested "Antisemitic backlash to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". I now suggest something along the lines of what Sean.hoyland suggested. You may not grasp the notability of the subject. Jews in Turkey are afraid to venture out into the street, etc..... Chesdovi (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McBride, your deletion of this page was, to put it mildly, difficult to understand. I assume your comment that "This is one of those cases when we're reminded that AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion" was an acknowledgement that most of the participants in the discussion did not support deletion. This is true, but what is more important is that WP policy was vigorously argued by all sides, with no consensus being reached. Following such a discussion, a deletion by an administrator simply linking to a policy page without even bothering to argue why he believes the policies on that page support the deletion, makes a mockery of the deletion discussion and of all other deletion discussions. I therefore request that you undelete the page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Since you haven't responded to my comment or my request to undelete, and since you have not adequately explained your deletion decision to the other editors on this page, I'm putting your deletion up for review. I have the utmost respect for the time and effort you spend on Wikipedia maintenance, but I think that in this particular case you made a bad decision. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

attack-filled nonsense

May I ask why my question on the USA talk page asking what someone was trying to say deleted as attack filled nonsense?[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Not yours, the comment you were responding to. I would have left your comment there, but then it would have made no sense. In general, if you see comments like that on article talk pages, either remove them or at the very least do not respond to them. It serves no one to do so. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Don't be a whiny bitch

Wikipedia:Don't be a whiny bitch, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be a whiny bitch (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Don't be a whiny bitch during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –xeno (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of talk log

on my talk page it say u deleted it, but i dont get it?? can u even delete someone's talk page?? Lalalala1212 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)swim28.44[reply]

The user talk page was deleted because it didn't belong to a registered user (CSD U2). You've now registered the account, so I can restore the page history if you'd like. Just let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the Proposed deletion of Zeca Scheffer

Zeca Scheffer was an important citizen of Southern Brazil having made intense and notable contributions to the surf life saving activities and to outdoor/ocean sports on this region. The article will be expanded in order to fill the exigencies listed on Wikipedia applicable rules. I kindly ask for some patience until this edits are complete. Sincerely yours, (talk) 03 February 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have a link or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your move log summaries

The wording you used in your move log summaries for your essay and its talk page ("to appease the idiots, of course") is not acceptable. Please display decorum appropriate to an administrator and do not make these kinds of comments again. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of history majors

Hi. You deleted "List of history majors" just earlier for CSD G8. Sorry if this is stupid of me, but I am not quite sure how the page fits the description "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page." If there was a link to a non-existent or deleted page, there were certainly many, many more working links to existing pages. Could you spare a second to explain this a bit to me? (Sorry if I'm being dense.) Thanks. Sjbodell (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not sure which page you're talking about. List of history majors was deleted by someone else. You're probably talking about a broken redirect to the page? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes yes. Sorry, I see the progression now and CSD G8 makes sense for your action to me now. Hah, sorry! Thank you! Sjbodell (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gynodioecy,a new article that needs content

Hello MZMcBride,could you please take a look at a new article Gynodioecy and see if you can contribute more reliable contents to it. Thank you. It is a biology stub and you can also reach out to other wikipedians and invite them to make their own contributions also. Thank you.Ochawhite (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community

Wikipedia is a community. It is poor form to nominate an article or page for deletion (like Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians) without notifying the person who originally created that page. This was probably an oversight, but I wanted to bring it to you attention.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely notify, especially when doing it manually and when dealing with project-space pages. But point taken. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some work for your admin bot

perhaps you could set it to unprotect all the pages that Nawlin leaves indefinitely semi-protected after they are victims of page-move vandalism? –xeno (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you know about Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely semi-protected articles? I'll take a look at the current situation, but it would probably be better to stop this at the source.... --MZMcBride (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's where I noticed how widespread it actually was... –xeno (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the list. The problem is that some of them were previously semi-protected for other issues, while others weren't. And some should probably stay semi-protected regardless of what their previous state was. Quite the mess indeed. But I think it's gonna require manual review. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

surely the ones that have been semi'd for 3 months or longer, weren't semi'd before and have the commentary "rm semi when you think it's appropriate" are good candidates for unprotection? –xeno (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Though there's also the question of what to do with move protection. It seems rather silly for a lot of them to be move-protected, as it doesn't really prevent any harm. I mean, 99/100 times Special:Random is going to give you an unprotected article.... --MZMcBride (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sure a good number of them fall into the category of "very unlikely to ever be moved anyway" (such as Love, Communism, etc.). At this point, what I'm more concerned about is that with every page move vandalism the encyclopedia is becoming less and less of one that "anyone can edit". –xeno (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I've been thinking this over, the only fairly foolproof way I can think of to "semi-protected longer than X months, first protection, indefinite protection". Otherwise it would be a "NawlinFollowingBot", which is just a bad idea on so many levels. BJ^Talk 04:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is indefinitely semi-protecting articles just because of some childish vandalism. The good news is that NW seems to be using expiries for at least the edit part nowadays. But those parameters would be fine for an auto run followed up by manual review. –xeno (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased Wikipedians

Hi, I think you used the wrong mfd template on this page - it should have been {{mfdx|2nd}} DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had to fix the link manually. Is there some sort of problem? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wondering why you would use the wrong template and not include a link to the previous debate at the head of the new debate. DuncanHill (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:MFD#How to list pages for deletion. They don't mention special instructions for subsequent deletion discussions. Perhaps they should? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see they don't mention {{mfdx|2nd}} but they do mention what to do when creating the discussion page when there has been a prior discussion. They are not very clear, however, so I do understand that it is unlikely that most editors would find them hard to follow. DuncanHill (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most users use scripts these days; I don't do MfDs enough to warrant installing scripts. But, yeah, it would be nice if somebody made renomination procedures a bit clearer. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the {{priorxfd|Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians}} template to the discussion page, this produces links to all previous XfD discussions. Most of Wikipedia's "how to" pages confuse the hell out of me. God knows what effect they have on new editors. DuncanHill (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who died...

...and made you king of what's notable and what isn't? -- 3 Good 1 Comment (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride? BJ^Talk 04:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the term emperor. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 15

Hi

On this page, the case of the schooner "The George" (15 U.S. 278, 1817) links at the moment to a disambiguation page about public houses. I looked at the relevant bit of the page, which looks like this:

{{SCOTUSRow | case name = The George | page = 278 | decision date = | decision year = 1817 }}

but couldn't see a way of resolving this. pablo_hablo. 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want:

{{SCOTUSRow
| case name = The George
| case link = The George (1817)
| page = 278
| decision date =
| decision year = 1817
}}

Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! pablo_hablo. 07:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of List of Forever Knight episodes

A tag has been placed on List of Forever Knight episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What an ugly wall of text. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...sorry...particularly when you just did the break out from the main article and someone else added the crud. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I hear you like deleting things...

Take a look at these:

I was halfway tempted to point the kids at pogo or someplace where they can make such pages and enjoy them, but alas they're gone now. Kylu (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed

There is a problem with User:128.189.238.222. He has undone all of my edits, with no reason why, sometimes reverting back to vandalized versions. He should be reverted and blocked. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[::User:Bobak|Bobak]] ([[::User talk:Bobak|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Bobak|contribs]]) has blocked the IP for 168 hours. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But could you use your rollback to undo his edits? 24.64.165.129 (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But you might need to look at Special:Contributions/24.80.127.179, who re-vandalized a user talk page after this anon's changes had been undone. It may be the same user with a different IP address. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pages I've edited are still being targetted for vandalism. [1] I think protection is the way to go now. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Administrators' noticeboard. I don't generally handle user or content disputes. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list I want

You once created a very helpful list of articles for me, and I wanted to ask whether my new fantasy list is possible (within reason). Is it possible to get a list of all articles whose talk pages are in either Category:High-importance medicine articles or Category:Mid-importance medicine articles and that have words that start with capital letters (other than the first letter in the title)?

The list would, for example, include 2007 Bernard Matthews H5N1 outbreak. The point is to rename inappropriately capitalized pages, and also to weed out articles like this bio of a novelist, which tend to creep into the wrong assessment ranges. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make the lists if you deal with that rollback request in the section directly above. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a rollbacker, but that looks easy enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long; I forgot to hit the case sensitive button, which kept giving me bad results. :-P List is here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I love my new list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Ip's

What is the log you use to classify IP's as old? --Readopedia (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, what is your source for old IP's talk pages, like if it has been X number of months since it has been welcomed/warned? Is this what makes an IP old? And where do you find out that the ones you delete are old? --Readopedia (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original list was generated from the Toolserver using a database query. I subsequently use a script to check each page for about five criteria, all listed here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Benpadiah

Hello. I'm acting as a third opinion on User talk:Benpadiah and would appreciate your input. Regards. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to explain that you had full right to delete the account, but did you explain to the user the reason why? Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is sufficiently resolved. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Kingsley

I've created her page on a subpage and now I would really appreciate it if you would unlock it and move my subpage to the mainspace. Showtime2009 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Though I really wish we would establish actual notability standards rather than this pure shit we have now. Bah. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, AN/I is nicer today than usual

However, here is a thread that is an example, with the absolutely, 100%, cheap shot, personal attack unnecessary admin pot shot bullshit bolded by me.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#User:Godvia

Okay, I had two options here - the one I was suggesting to you; ignore it and get on with more fun stuff, or two raise the ante by responding. I shall follow the course that most appeals to you; I have in the past two days received 3 sets of postings to my talkpage regarding blocks I have enacted. One called me an "ass-wipe" and was ignored, one laboured some point about my blocking creating a biased (ie not their pov) article which I attempted to address before withdrawing, and the last one who called me an "Asswhole" (presumably being a complete mule is a vile insult in some parts of the world, although I would be more affronted by being referred to as only 73% of a mule personally) and who I responded on their talkpage - they being blocked on account of the attacks on my page - in a fairly humorous manner. So, really, I actually do know what I am talking about and my advice to you (and I shall write it more slowly and in shorter words this time) is "do not let it get to you - or you will end up getting angry to no effect." Now, does this help or do you now think it would have been best if I had let this pass following the good advice already given to you here? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing but a cheap pot shot at an editor who is upset that a blocked user is calling them a racist on the blocked user's talk page. What is the big deal here? Wikipedia isn't a place for editors to have a free web page where they can vent and attack other editors. The user:talk page isn't for venting, isn't for calling other editors racists. Yet, the person who complains at AN/I is the one who has their intelligence attacked by an administrator on AN/I.

Do you really think this does anything but inflame someone who is already being treated harshly by a banned user being given free room and board on Wikipedia to rant against them?

This isn't a problem to you? I bet it's a problem to the vast majority of editors who've had legitimate complaints and been called stupid by administrators for posting on AN/I. And others, potential editors,, considering whether or not to edit, hear about this, and, the smart ones know not to come here and edit. Apparently the dumb ones post on AN/I so the administrators can feel smarter than them. This is more often than not what Wikipedia and AN/I feels like to outsiders, i.e., folks here who really would just like to build an encyclopedia. --KP Botany (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not watchlist AN/I and post to it as little as humanly possible. That's my suggestion. I've long been in favor of getting rid of the noticeboard altogether. But do you have examples from places that aren't AN/I? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll be glad to provide them as I find the time. But, I think your comment that AN/I should simple be done away with in response to my example of an uncivil admin says more than a thousand pictures about the general civility level of administrators on Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take It!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		When you are the only person deleting old IP talk pages, you need this! K50 Dude R♥CKS! 21:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion

Hello, can you undelete my old subpage User:Moe Epsilon/Barnstars for me please? — Moe ε 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Moe ε 22:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Ello again, was wondering if you could undelete all the old revisions of my main user page User:Moe Epsilon for me. — Moe ε 01:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again mate, your most helpful :) — Moe ε 02:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steward Vote Notice Box

Why was the "Steward Vote Notice Box" thread moved from a high traffic page to an extremely low traffic page where no one will see it? If I wanted that to happen, I would have stuck it on my userpage. Could you please revert your changes or move it to a board where it will be seen not ignored. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 04:37

See WP:AN for the rationale. WP:AN/I is entirely the wrong venue. And that page (MediaWiki talk:Common.css) is heavily watched. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you point me to where on AN the rationale is? There is ALOT on AN. From what I seen, the previous post on the MediaWiki talk page was from January. It might be heavily watched, but not a high traffic page like AN/I or AN...even AN would have been a better choice. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 04:45

See the AN thread about abolishing WP:AN/I. And that talk page was edited February 8. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK...seen that on my Watchlist (don't think that is ever gonna happen) but that doesn't mean that you need to start removing things from AN/I before the fact. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 05:21

Deleted talk page

Hi MZMcBride,

Was it really necessary to delete Talk:Uses of fungicides? If I recall correctly, CPRI04 had expressed an intention to re-make the page, and another editor had provided advice on how to go about doing so. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and tagged appropriately. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moving AN-AN/I threads

Hey there MZ, hope this evening finds you well. I just wanted to applaud your efforts on moving AN or AN/I threads to their proper boards. I know - I shouldn't bother myself with reading them, but I enjoy some light reading at times. The ~~fiction~~, ~~fantasy~~, ~~suspense~~, ~~thriller~~, OK, I admit - it's a virtual "soap opera" most of the time. And hey, I've never started a thread, and I've never been brought to the principle's office (knock wood), and in fact (ok, my opinion) I don't even post there very often. But I'm getting off topic here - I just wanted to say that I noticed that you were taking the bull by the horns and making a serious effort to make wiki "not suck", and I appreciate that. I hope other admins follow your lead. (and you probably thought that "New Messages" banner was gonna be another "why did you" wiki-drama -- huh?). cheers my friend — Ched (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. Very appreciated. :-) Though I imagine when I eventually get sick of moving threads, the same mess will just takeover again. Perhaps that's just the cynic in me. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ban request

Hi! Please, block this vandal: Special:Contributions/82.118.122.162 Thanks in advance, Patrol110 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA move...

Thanks for moving that one over, it seemed more apropo as WQA. Did you want to field this one, or do you want me to see if I can get this ball down the field? Edit Centric (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all you. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your new code broke the template when it was in use, so I reverted. Feel free to unrevert! :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 13:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Can't use relative template names in editnotices. The joys of MediaWiki. All fixed now. Thanks for the note. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help me ban this user

149.254.56.221 thanks gross vand --Zaharous (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC),[reply]

never mind the Ip stopped vandalizing, I do believe admins can ban right thanks anyways --Zaharous (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your excellent work cleaning up the AnI

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for all the work you have done making Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents easier to follow. L0b0t (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And of course any help from others is always welcome. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZ, i'd like to point out that as much as i appreciate how you move some sections on AN/I into their correct sections, but i don't think it's nesscecary, such as when you moved a section to AIV it was deleted by a bot. The thing is, when people post sections on the page, sometimes it's responded to better than anywhere else, requests for protections and edit-warring sometimes takes forever to get a response. In general, if you're going to move something into it's correct section, make sure it's transcibed right (unlike this edit). Elbutler (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are bots that are clearing threads before they're resolved properly, please contact the bot ops. If there are ways to improve Template:Noticeboard key, be bold. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

empty categories report

Thanks. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OLDIP

Thanks for taking this on. Seeing these old IP talk page's deletions on my watchlist has been a great way for me to track down which ones I can safely un-watch. My watchlist is now down below 3000 for the first time since before I was an admin. Kudos to you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind note. Much appreciated. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You may want to blank or <nowiki> the following pages as they might affect your deletions:

I haven't done myself as they are other peoples user pages.--Otterathome (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. For the moment, I plan to do a broad sweep; in the future, I may exclude certain namespaces or even certain pages from the backlinks check depending on consensus at WT:USER. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)#Neutral

I have created a Neutral section for those who agree with the premise but not the method, or some other aspect, which may be altered following talkpage discussion. Perhaps you would wish to review your !vote under the changed circumstances? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

emperor tetra

The page emperor tetra was deleted, I would like to recreate it, is it a good idea? Why was it deleted? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to re-create it if it meets the notability requirements. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because the author blanked it, prior to that, it was up for deletion because the author copied and pasted it from another web page. I don't think notability applies to species of animals so go for it. –xeno (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future albums/singles/movie sequels

A while back (last week), you moved my item from AN/I to SPI[2]. After sitting there for a bit, it is now being closed with no further action[3]. I'm not sure where to go with this. SPI would only show that the IPs are the IPs. What would you suggest? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue isn't resolved, I would either un-archive the thread (revert) or talk to the user who did archive on their talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something. What good will a sockpuppet case do when dealing with an ever-growing list of IPs? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tivedshambo/Archives/2009-02

Ok, technically, it meets G8 I admit, but the talk page it redirects to will be created automatically in the next few days when Miszabot next archives my talk page. Until then it's merely a placeholder. I've restored it back. Hope this isn't a problem. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 00:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally creating a broken redirect is a rather silly thing to do. I've created the page it points to. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it's in my own user space, and nothing external links to it, I don't see a temporarily broken redirect being a problem. I'm surprised you even found it. Anyway, I've commented it out for the time being. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Congratulations for all the contributions you make, thank you and keep up the good work. South Bay (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 344: / Line 344: @@
 :Intentionally creating a broken redirect is a rather silly thing to do. I've created the page it points to. :-)  --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride#top|talk]]) 00:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 ::As it's in my own user space, and nothing external links to it, I don't see a temporarily broken redirect being a problem. I'm surprised you even found it. Anyway, I've commented it out for the time being.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Tivedshambo|<span style="color:#7F0000">'''&nbsp;Tivedshambo&nbsp;'''</span>]]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
+== Congrats ==
+{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
+|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar_of_Reversion2.png|80px]]
+|rowspan="2" |
+|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
+|-
+|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Congratulations for all the contributions you make, thank you and keep up the good work. [[User:South Bay|South Bay]] ([[User talk:South Bay|talk]]) 14:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
+|}