User talk:MZMcBride: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:02, 24 September 2009

Page protection of MechScape

You protected the article MechScape from creation in 2007, and since then Jagex has taken part in multiple interviews on the game and officially announced it. An article is already written for it on a talk page, so could you unprotect it? Sorry if I'm not supposed to do this; the protection log said not to contact you, and the requests for page protection page say to contact you. Logical Gentleman (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've allowed myself to unprotect it: It's been close to two years, there are reliable sources on this now, and the reasoning from the previous AfD no longer holds, and it would need a new one.
However: I haven't checked the sources thoroughly, I'm not sure if there's enough in-depth coverage yet to pass WP:N. The draft also has a number of fan sites in its references, which aren't reliable, and need to be replaced. I suggest you try and look into both issues before moving it into article namespace, to prevent a new nomination for deletion.
Amalthea 13:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling this, Amalthea. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Cheers, Amalthea 18:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know fansites aren't notable, but things like TechRadar is, and the citations in my draft that are from fansites/forums are facts about the game. They're not supposed to be reliable. Jeremjay24 _msg 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Jeremjay24/MechScape. --Amalthea 18:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Very impressive turn-out. It's been an interesting discussion I think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an interesting discussion (and it's not over yet). There's been far more participation than I would have ever imagined. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ... at this rate, you'll hit WP:200 support before long. ;) — Ched : ? 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 'crat should close it right now just to deny him that milestone. muwaha! –xeno^talk 22:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bah. –xeno^talk 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lulz ... wonder if all my noms will turn out this .... ahhh ..... popular? — Ched : ? 22:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville

Don't forget to pack your bathrobe. Lara 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eep! But it's so big and I have a small, cute carry-on. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wear it on the plane, if you must. If you come without it, though, I beat you mercilessly. Lara 18:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that's what she said. Lara 18:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She did? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi MZMcBride -

I note you've participated at WP:BN in the section below a discussion I started about your RFA. You may have seen my remark there, which was misinterpreted - perhaps understandably - as a partisan attempt to fight your promotion. It's true I have !voted "Oppose" on the RFA and that I am not quite comfortable with you getting the bit back at this time. However, if consensus supports your readminship, I will - with the limited amount of participation I admittedly have - certainly support your mopping once the mop is issued. This must be a trying time for you, and I hope you're able to let it all flow by as much as possible. But in the event I'm adding to the stress, let me apologize and note that I have no personal grievance against you and wish you all the best. Martinp (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Really. I think this is a nearly perfect example of why Assume good faith exists. A lot of things can be stressful—divorce, sick (and dying) relatives and friends, etc. When I compare an adminship request on the English Wikipedia to some of the other stresses in my life from the past year, this simply pales in comparison. ;-)

I never suspected for a moment that you have or had bad intentions, though I will say that I think you're not giving enough weight to some of the opposes (or maybe you're giving too much weight to some). I believe this is the first time I've ever been called Napoleonic; and two other opposes are simply vindictive ("I don't like you"). But, then again, I likely carry the most bias in this particular discussion. With regard to the outcome of the RFA, que sera, sera. :-) Thank you for the kind note. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A gift for you ...

I wasn't sure if you had one ... thought you may be in need of a device to watch the hours pass by. ;P — Ched : ? 22:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki 200

Thanks to the speed at which Wikipedia operates, your Rfa has over 200 supports. Welcome to the Wikipedia:200 club! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I've closed your RfA and granted you the rights once more. There were substantial concerns raised and you did address them, but do continue to be mindful of them. Stop and reflect before editing, and if something seems like it may be controversial, consider not doing it or finding a better method. If you continue to grow as you have been you'll be fine. Keep up the good work. - Taxman ^Talk 01:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

echo taxman... I fully supported (although with concerns)... I am optimistic that my support won't be regretted... please prove me right ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. Here is the admin T-shirt for you! I'm glad that you passed, and hopefully you will use the admin tools to ameliorate en.wikipedia. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go forth, and do good unto the wiki! –xeno^talk 01:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't get any closer than that. Enjoy your moment, you've more than earned it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"User talk:MZMcBride [user,abusefilter,sysop]" \o/ –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! :) — neuro^(talk) 06:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Congratulations, use the tools well. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Congrats man. Really glad you got the tools back. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 13:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Congrats on getting the tools back now its time to start putting them to good use! :). Best, Mifter (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]As you may have already known, adminship actually is a trophy. Here's yours. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]I missed this completely! Well, I see the community has acted sensibly without my assistance. Congrats, of course, and you know where I am if you need anything. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Welcome back to the gilded cage. My condolences. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]/me snuggles you. Congrats. Lara 15:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Thanks again all for the kind words. The community has really impressed me for the first time in a long time. By the way, I moved those annoying delete / protect tabs to the sidebar—makes a world of difference to not have them staring at you all day long. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]What they said. --Bastique ^demandez 18:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]re: Wikipedia:Database reports/Redirects containing red linksSounds like fun :). I'll try and fix a few. I've already done ~23 with one edit! ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Why did you delete this?I just noticed that you removed the entry for Dr. Lloyd Jacobs. He is currently the president of the University of Toledo and merits inclusion in Wikipedia, I would think. why was this deleted? 76.236.95.47 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Dr. Lloyd Jacobs doesn't appear to have a deletion log entry and Lloyd Jacobs appears to have been deleted by another administrator ([[::User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] (talk · contribs)). --MZMcBride (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think he means Dr. Lloyd A. Jacobs, which, since you did last summer, you must remember immediately. --Bastique ^demandez 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Barnstar!The da Vinci Barnstar For your most excellent work at Wikipedia:Database reports, I hereby award you this barnstar! Your speedy response to requests for new reports is much appreciated. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]And congrats on the re-adminship. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Thanks. :-) The response time has actually been a bit slower than I usually like, but real life and all that. If there's anything else you need, feel free to leave a note here or at WT:DBR. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]ClueBot VIStill causing trouble. I've blocked it for the time being. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Forget about it. It turns out that a page element was causing trouble, not the bot. I've unblocked it. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bots are evil. Glad to hear everything worked out, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Prettytable templatesHi! If you have the time, would you mind taking a look at the pages in Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Prettytable? Two are currently up for deletion ("100center" and "95"), but I can't figure out whether the rest serve any purpose. Template:Prettytable and Template:Prettytable-R have some transclusions, but the rest do not; however, I did notice that they are listed as templates that should always be substituted, so the lack of transclusions probably doesn't mean much. I wanted to tag the orphaned templates with {{deprecated}}, but hesitated because I'm not sure whether they are still useful. Congratulations on the successful RfA, by the way; it's too bad I missed it, but I'm happy to see that you've got the tools back. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]None of them are still useful really. {{prettytable}} is kept around for historical reasons, I believe. All the others can probably be deleted (which would stop people from using them going forward) or marked as deprecated, if you prefer. It might be nice to put the {{deprecated}} tag outside the <noinclude> so that people will notice it and fix their pages, rather than relying on others to do so.... --MZMcBride (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor HamiltonHello MZMcBride Would you consider redirecting this article to Lifford right now? The article is obviously fails, one event, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]The target page doesn't seem to mention Hamilton at all, and I doubt he's notable enough for a mention in the city article. Outright deletion seems best. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your response. Ikip (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Cool!I like it. –xeno^talk 20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Oh my. Word travels fast around here. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Even more than you'd think. However I'm not sure it works that well on other languages, as the French community portal is said to have 0 followers (which is not true to the extent that I, for one, follow it). Could it have something to do with the presence of special caracters ("é")? Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 06:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hopefully all the Unicode issues have been resolved. This link should work appropriately. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]It's nice but doesn't handle Unicode very well. For example for "Интранет" at bgwiki I get http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=bgwiki_p&titles=%26%231048%3B%26%231085%3B%26%231090%3B%26%231088%3B%26%231072%3B%26%231085%3B%26%231077%3B%26%231090%3B instead of http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=bgwiki_p&titles=%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82. Probably needs an urlencode (or whatever you have in python :)) somewhere. --Nk (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Yup. I think it was partially related to the Content-Type not explcitly specifying utf-8. Should input / output correctly now. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]WatcherHi, watcher does not seem to be able to handle anything with accents in it. By the way, is the an under the radar thing :) or a shift in the approach to watchlist data? Requests to show number of watching users on various MediaWiki interfaces were usually shot down with saying it would create opportunities for vandals. It would be nice if that position would change. --Tgr (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Am I right that the script actually "lies" if a page has zero watchers, and returns "1" in this case ? (this is what I noticed based on a few tests with entries from Special:Unwatchedpages) Schutz (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Special:UnwatchedPages is cached. I imagine you're seeing a lot of 1s 'cause some admin put them on his or her watchlist. The code should definitely be returning 0 if the page is truly unwatched. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hum... I made sure the cached version was quite recent, and picked quite a few entries, all along the list, and they all returned 1 (which I though was quite unlikely to be obtained by chance). I'll try again once the cache has been refreshed. Schutz (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Historically, watchlist data has been considered private. The watchlist table was previously completely restricted for Toolserver users. Very recently, the wl_namespace / wl_title columns were made visible, allowing people to see how many people are watching a title (or if the title isn't watched at all), but specifics (like who is a watching a page or all the pages on a user's watchlist) are still restricted. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]I also noticed a problem with unicode characters. Hopefully it is fixed :) and thank you for the great tool! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Took far more time than it should have, but I believe it's all fixed now (or at least I hope so). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Watcher is nifty (and a potential huge timewaster :) ). Is the code open source? Many tools authors link to their code archives from their front page (if I had any code I would, I guess) or from the tool itself. Thanks for making it available. ++Lar: t/c 23:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's pretty awful code (I can basically do various forms of print in Python), but the source is available here: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/139314/ If you have a Toolserver account, just $ cat /home/mzmcbride/public_html/cgi-bin/watcher.py I've been meaning to put some of these scripts in github and cleanup my user page. Maybe on a(nother) rainy day. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. I do have a toolserver account (~lar) but I thought usually each other's home dirs are not world readable. ++Lar: t/c 08:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unix permissions confuse the shit out of me, but I'm fairly sure everything in public_html/ has to be at least readable by the web server. I think that if it's readable by the web server, it's also readable by other users on the server, at least if they know the exact location of the file. (I've encountered directories where you couldn't ls, but you could cat if you knew the exact file name you were after.) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Watchlist count for articles with names in CyrillicI tried your tool for article Організація Українських Націоналістів and result that it worked out is seemingly wrong - zero, what is unbelievable for this article plus I know that it's present in watching list at least of one person (me :) ). I suspect Cyrillic letters as comparative try with same article in English gives reasonable 25 without any problem. --pavlosh (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Hopefully the Unicode errors have all been resolved. Try this link instead? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] No, that doesn't seem to be it. Same problem occurs with http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=ukwiki_p&titles=Roger_Boscovich. — Sebastian 22:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] ukwiki_p refers to w:uk:Roger Boscovich, which doesn't appear to exist (thus I doubt it's watched much). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oops, I meant http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles=Roger+Boscovich, of course. — Sebastian 23:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)[reply] The script doesn't follow redirects (I should probably note that in the software or mark them somehow...). I think http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles=Roger+Joseph+Boscovich is what you're after. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I see! Thank you for checking into this. To be honest, I didn't even realize that I had entered the name of a redirect. And thanks for the helpful tool! Of course, it would be cool if the tool told a user when they enter a redirect, but I think your time is better spent with other challenging programming tasks. This is the expected behavior, after all. Maybe you could create some wiki page where we users can add tips. In this case, e.g., I could add some wording to make users aware to check if the page name is really that of the article. — Sebastian 00:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yes, it works perfectly well now (I tried on several pages, all having Cyrillic letters, sometimes in mixture with Latin). Thank you very much, I appreciate your swift action a lot. --pavlosh (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]UTF-8Yup, works fine by us now. Any chance it could at some point check when the last contribution of the watchers happened ('coz if it's being watched by an account abandoned 3 yrs ago, the numbers aren't that meaningful anymore)? just asking, the tool is already too good to be true. Thanks again, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 22:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply](copying from above) Historically, watchlist data has been considered private. The watchlist table was previously completely restricted for Toolserver users. Very recently, the wl_namespace / wl_title columns were made visible, allowing people to see how many people are watching a title (or if the title isn't watched at all), but specifics (like who is a watching a page or all the pages on a user's watchlist) are still restricted.Now, if you can get people to vote on Meta or somewhere saying they don't care about letting people know what they put on their watchlist, we could get some really neat data. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]"Unreferenced bio" on Petra ReskiHi there, LaraBot, a bot operated by you, has contacted me on my discussion page leaving me this following message:== Petra Reski ==Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Petra Reski. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Yesterday, 11 september 2009, in the revision history for the creation of the Petra Reski english wikipedia article I have motivated the creation of a new article writing:"Created a new article freely translated from the german one de:Petra Reski.If you think that internal translations from different wikipedia languages can't be considered "reliable enough" please feel free to cancel the partial translation I have created. Thank you for your attention. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]It's fine to translate articles from other projects (assuming the people meet our notability guidelines). However, new articles, especially ones related to living people, must contain sources. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]MfD of WMC's pageRegarding this close [1] ... I have concerns about it, since in looking at the page I see good reason to nom it. Will you have a problem if I reopen this? Because, while the user that opened this looks like a sock to me too (I'd formally confirm it if asked to do so, I just ran some checks), the actual page, in my view, DOES contain what some would construe as personal attacks (heading "Fools", listing people's ids, for example). IIRC CHL recently reopened a page like this, taking it on himself as the listing party. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]I've decided to go ahead and "re"-list it, that is, I unclosed it, leaving your remarks, and hat-ing the sock's original reason, exactly as CHL did for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination). If you think I did it wrong or haven't given sufficient emphasis to your remarks, or whatever, please fix it, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Looks good to me. It was a weird case. Normally, I'm not a processwonk, but the nomination seems to have been clearly made in bad faith. But, as you note, the page also has some arguably undesirable aspects to it. I actually meant to note in the closing that I had no objection to someone refiling. I also debated blocking that account, but I didn't because I knew I wouldn't be around for any possible fallout. I may actually vote in the MFD now.... Thanks for the heads-up. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I believe the account (and several others) are blocked, so no worries there. I reran some of the checks the original CU did, and I agree with their findings. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]WatcherThis is a nice new tool, but it would be very helpful tool, if it could output sites with nearly no watchers after entering a category. Would this be developable? --Geiserich77 (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]That seems like a reasonable feature request. I'll need a few days to think about the best way to implement it. I imagine it would be limited to querying one category at a time (and would also be limited to 1500 pages or so to not crash anyone's browser). Though, I imagine this feature could cause controversy if used with Category:Living people.... --MZMcBride (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] No doubt! But any such page (a BLP with no watchers or nearly none) is a candidate for increased focus, or if there are significant vandalisms in the past, then considering semi protection, flagged protection, flagged revisions, whatever might be helpful, might be a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]See note below about Toolserver admins and the 30 limit. This request is indefinitely put on hold. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]While we are on feature requests I'd like a way to intersect, tell me how many watchers in common two pages have (without revealing their identities of course) ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Grep this talk page for "historically." :P It might be something you could get implemented into MediaWiki for CheckUsers, but there are privacy (policy) implications, I imagine. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I read that part before (about what data was available) but forgot to remember it before making that suggestion, the available data doesn't support it. Toolserver based tools aren't secure enough for CU specific functions, I don't think, so yep, have to get implemented into MW. There are far higher priority things I think. :) Ah well. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Using Watcher to watch WiktionaryHello MZMcBride -- This is a very nice tool indeed. I edit mostly the English wiktionary and I found that, while the counts of wiktionary User page watchers work just fine, it is not possible to get counts of who's watching wiktionary articles (which we call entries) because (as in all dictionaries) their titles are case sensitive and most do not begin with a capital letter. Is there any chance you could modify Watcher to work with lower-case wiktionary entries? -- WikiPedant (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Fewer than 30 watchers(This was a reply to WikiPedant's post above. Headline inserted to mark different topic.) Well, it seems that in the last couple of hours someone has modified Watcher so that it no longer provides a count if a page has fewer than 30 watchers. That probably pretty much eliminates most of wiktionary. So, never mind. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]I'm kind of finding that to be an unfortunate change as well. I added a few pages to my watchlist yesterday after getting counts of 2, 4, and 6, but I won't be anywhere near as likely to do so if the page might be being watched by 29 people. I had been considering it a better version of unwatchedpages, but that function is mostly gone now. Was it necessary? Dekimasuよ! 11:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Toolserver administrators said that allowing people to find unwatched pages bypassed MediaWiki's security (Special:UnwatchedPages). The 30 limit was put in place as a compromise. I agree that it sucks for smaller projects. I'm not sure if there's a better compromise solution. You're of course free to contact the Toolserver admins if you'd like, though (ts-adminstoolserver.org). --MZMcBride (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] This is certainly something I would like to lobby for, too, but can't we coordinate this on a wiki? Maybe you could create a page like User talk:MZMcBride/watcher for that. That would also square well with my suggestion above to keep a page for tips and tricks for the tool, for which User:MZMcBride/watcher would lend itself. — Sebastian 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Eh, reasonable enough. Page created. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! Of course, the tip that I wanted to add about redirects isn't needed anymore, since you already implemented that. You're too fast, man! I guess instead I'll use the time to copy the above conversation there. — Sebastian 18:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:MZMcBride/watcher § Fewer than 30 watchersThe name "Anne-Marie" came up in my French homeworkTrue story. @harej 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Prove it. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Database reportsHi - I've suggested a change to Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories/Configuration for your consideration. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Implemented (with a slight modification). String functions in MySQL are notoriously slow, as far as I'm aware. I switched the query to use LIKE, which is usually pretty quick. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Es posible?Need an expert for this one. Would it be possible to craft a userright that lets an editor delete pages, and see any material they personally have deleted, but not see other deleted material? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Anything's possible given enough time and energy. :-) It sounds like it would be difficult to implement, though. If you had a page like "Foobarbaz" and it had been deleted multiple times, who would be able to see the deleted revisions and which deleted revisions would they be able to see? Scenarios like that are what get really tricky. The 'delete' right is separate from the 'deletedhistory' right, though (cf. Special:ListGroupRights. That much is easy enough. But making access based on who did the deletion would require quite a bit of effort to implement. (Mr.Z-man is probably a better person to ask about MediaWiki development in general, though I can usually form a plausible-sounding answer.) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] In practice, if someone deleted a page and was asked to reconsider, I think they'd need to be able to see all the deleted versions to come to an intelligent decision. (Alternatively, if we can't do this, they'd have to ask an admin for help.) Okay, I'll go ask the Z-man. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Could you lend your expertiseWRe the grape stems connecting nephew Savita and neice Suhaila to sister & brother-in-law Maya & Konrad on Barack Obama's family tree chart? ↜Just M E here , now 04:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Figured out a fix, of sorts. ↜Just M E here , now 20:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sorry about the delay. I have no idea how to work that template. Your guess is as good as mine. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Carriidk my bff Carri? Carrimb (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]<3 --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]When you get time...You should explain to me more fully what I said incorrectly here, and what the link I gave actually is saying, then... :-//// Killiondude (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]m:Software upgrade process explains how the software is updated. All Wikimedia wikis run the same version of the underlying software. The databases (en.wiki, de.wiki, commons, etc.) are on different master servers. S1 holds only the en.wiki database. S2 holds some of the larger wikis. S4 holds Commons. S3 holds all the others. There can be discrepancies between different sites, but the underlying software (in theory) is always the same version between the servers. See also: m:File:Wikimedia-servers-2009-04-05.svg. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Signpost deliveryThanks for it!--ragesoss (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]No problem. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]MischaracterizationsIn occasions, it appears I have accidentally mischaracterizated other editors behavior as your own, for that I apologize. Ikip (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]No worries. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvalIt is over two weeks, according to the stats, since a BAG member has edited at Bots request for approval. Are you a BAG member? Is this typical, requests for bot approval go unanswered by BAG for weeks? --69.225.3.119 (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]I'm not a BAG member. One of the criticisms of BAG has been that it creates an exclusive club of people who are often focused on their own projects and don't put a lot of time into BAG-related matters. It's not typical for such a long dry spell, though it isn't particularly surprising. I'd try poking some BAG members on their talk pages. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] actually those numbers are wrong, BAGbot has been down since the 7th. β^_command 00:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, MZMcBride. Your name was conveniently in the post above my post on the BAG board, and I'd seen you around bots, and was tired of looking for BAG members by name. It's a well-founded criticism as BAG is a self-designated, self-elected club. Unusual for wikipedia, but anywhere you put humans you get power-mongers. Betacommand, I thought it might be the bot, but, I checked for BAG contributions to bot discussions and there are none recently outside of BAG members commenting on their own bots seeking approval. The numbers may not be correct, but it's been a long time since a BAG member contributed anything to a bot RfA conversation. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 257: / Line 257: @@
 :I'm not a BAG member. One of the criticisms of BAG has been that it creates an exclusive club of people who are often focused on their own projects and don't put a lot of time into BAG-related matters. It's not typical for such a long dry spell, though it isn't particularly surprising. I'd try poking some BAG members on their talk pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride#top|talk]]) 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 :actually those numbers are wrong, BAGbot has been down since the 7th. [[User talk:Betacommand|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 00:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
+::Thanks, MZMcBride. Your name was conveniently in the post above my post on the BAG board, and I'd seen you around bots, and was tired of looking for BAG members by name. It's a well-founded criticism as BAG is a self-designated, self-elected club. Unusual for wikipedia, but anywhere you put humans you get power-mongers.
+::Betacommand, I thought it might be the bot, but, I checked for BAG contributions to bot discussions and there are none recently outside of BAG members commenting on their own bots seeking approval. The numbers may not be correct, but it's been a long time since a BAG member contributed anything to a bot RfA conversation. --[[Special:Contributions/69.225.3.119|69.225.3.119]] ([[User talk:69.225.3.119|talk]]) 01:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)