Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:39, 24 May 2008

May 2005 – July 2006 August 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 June 2007 – August 2007 September 2007 – October 2007 November 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – February 2008 March 2008 – April 2008

Common.css revert

Why did you change back all values, instead of only those that raided issues? That was a panick revert, and I would appriciate you changing back .infobox.sisterproject and .infobox.geography, as they had no complaints. — Edokter • Talk • 11:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I am curious as to why this was deleted, and not being an admin, I am unable to see the original page (there was no cache version). I am someone who may be interested on writing on the individual, but I would need to know in advance what the previous version's problem was. If you could e-mail the original contents or if there was really nothing there, just note that. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good, thanks. I wanted to make sure that there wasn't some other reason for deletion in case someone asked later on. I hadn't checked on the page in quite a while, so I was unable to tell if anything changed (some of the other links redirected to the deleted/userfied page were filled in). Thanks for the quick reply. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

O hai

You can has in channel alurt? kthxbai. Lara❤Love 03:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I was surprised to find my page User:Huldra\Newstuff deleted, without even being notified. Then I noticed that the reason given was "(csd u2)" which I -finally- decoded to be that there was no owner. However; I am (or was) the owner. Undelete, please? Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• You deleted "Seraj" without informing me. This is not acceptable. Regards, Marashie 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC).

Deletion thread # 382

zomg... - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Misplaced Pages namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What does csd c1 mean? SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OM and Twinkle

Re:this- I think you should reconsider this. OM was clearly in the right, and (having talked with Krimpet on IRC) the person he reverted now agrees he was right. Raul654 (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More to the point - who are you, and under what authority are you acting to edit another users monobook without prior discussion? And, quite frankly, what is your basis for threatening to protect his monobook page if he disagrees with your pronouncement?

Why not try to discuss things in a civil manner? Maybe warn before you threaten? Maybe try discussing things? Guettarda (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, lets drag this out further! Baegis (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I like to know when someone calls me a troll. McBride is welcome to ignore it if s/he feels otherwise. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

When did I even call you a troll? If you would actually read the talk page, I was referring to the warning I received from someone trying to eliminate the "denialism" part of the AIDS denialism article. But sure, read into that as calling you a troll. I won't even go into speculating why you chose this particular admin. Baegis (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the section on that talkpage as it stands currently (perhaps something was excised?) looks like you're referring to McBride, not me or any other troll - which is why I was here. Whatever, I'm sure you'd never call anyone a troll randomly. Sorry if I misunderstood. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand, now that Relata hopefully has his misunderstanding cleared up, what the heck? Please explain why you removed Twinkle from OM's monobook. Also, regardless of your reasoning, I strongly suggest you not treat long-time contributors in good standing in such a peremptory manner. Your post to him was less than civil, and your threat - especially given the circumstances (your removal of his Twinkle with no explanation beyond a vague and unhelpful "misuse" accusation without any discussion) - is, pardon me, nonsense. Perhaps you acted in haste. This happens to everyone from time to time. I eagerly await your rephrasing and clear explanation of what you were trying to achieve. KillerChihuahua 12:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OM was reverting good-faith edits using Twinkle, which is strongly discouraged, and looking at this contributions it looks like he does so very often. If he continues to do that, I think next time his .js files will be protected to keep it turned off. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no discussion with OM about his useage thus. Please link the difs where such discussion occurred, as I am certain no responsible administrator would remove his twinkle and threaten protection unless all other, more civil and collaborative, methods had been completely exhausted. Given that, I especially wish to see the link to the final dif which convinced MZMcBride that further discussion with OM was pointless. I am surprised OM would have been so closed to discussion, but I trust that was the case. Please link the relevant difs below, thanks. KillerChihuahua 12:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that MZMcBride discussed the removal first; but removal of Twinkle is not a like a block, and the misuse of the tool is clear enough.

There is an ANI thead about OM's edits visible in the TOC there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Are you referring to "BLP tag-teaming by User:Orangemarlin"? That section is A) closed, and B), certainly does not have a consensus that OM should not be using Twinkle. Further, I am still waiting for where anyone discussed this with OM at all. Has anyone even bothered to DISCUSS this with him? Perhaps I should suddenly declare I am also an arbiter of twinkle use, and go around summarily removing it at my whim, without any attempt at discussion. Would I receive your support and defense regarding such action? KillerChihuahua 13:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Krimpet tried to discuss it, but Orangemarlin rebuffed her as a troll - and used Twinkle to do it: In the meantime, Cla68 has given Orangemarlin a "warning" about Twinkle , so this will be a moot point in any future discussions. And my answer to your final question is yes, if you unilaterally began removing Twinkle access from people who use it to revert good-faith edits, you would have my 100% support. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside that OM never called Krimpet a troll, at least not in the dif you link to - what policy would you suggest I cite when I remove content from other editors' pages? KillerChihuahua 13:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree about the edit summary in that edit then. It's well established that administrative rollback, and automated tools that simulate it, shouldn't be used in content disagreements, only to revert clear vandalism. The argument "it isn't specifically against policy, therefore he can do it" isn't very compelling given that we don't make any effort for our policies to cover every possible behavior. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Its well established that it is discouraged, yes. Multiple times attempts have been made to make it against policy, those attempts fail.

My concern is that you are stating clearly you would support my breaking a policy by vandalizing a userspace page, without any over-riding policy to justify such an action. Your focus on "just because there is no policy" misses the point - you're supporting vandalism. Please consider your position on this issue, taking into account the full impact. KillerChihuahua 14:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing Twinkle from the javascript page of someone who is abusing it is not "vandalism". The theory that user space pages cannot be edited by others is simply incorrect; in particular, it isn't uncommon for Twinkle to be disabled in cases of more extreme abuse.

In any case, Orangemarlin is on notice now, and it's up to him to change his editing practices. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I must disagree. Page blanking, editing other editor's userspace pages, is and has been held to be vandalism unless there is some over-riding reason - such as removing attack pages, etc. You have failed to provide such a rationale here. Secondly, you state "Orangemarlin is on notice now, and it's up to him to change his editing practices." Please make a note of this, as you seem to be convinced of your own rightousness sans any community discussion: I will consider editing OM's userspace pages to be vandalism, per clear policy. You are on notice now, its up to you to change your editing practices. Puppy has spoken; puppy is rather revolted by your arrogance. KillerChihuahua 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't I who put him on notice; I'm referring to MZMcBride and Cla68's messages on Orangemarlin's talk page as well as several editors' comments on ANI. But, for the record, I'm not planning to edit Orangemarlin's javascript page myself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware it was not you in the first instance; one hopes that MZMcBride, who has yet to weigh in on this thread, will also reconsider his actions. However, I still am less than impressed at your statements that you would support vandalism of an editor's userspace. KillerChihuahua 14:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It took me a minute, but I did pull some diffs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

All of those difs are from the ANI thread, named above; none are discussing the issue with Orangemarlin; and the ANI discussion was primarily about something else and only mentioned twinkle useage tangentially. No consensus was reached that OM had been abusing twinkle; indeed, I see nowhere that anyone suggested that removing his access was even being considered. I fail to see what your difs are intended to illustrate or convey to me. KillerChihuahua 14:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the unclarity. I was putting up some diffs that a reasonable editor would interpret as a reason to think about his or her editing patterns, if those comments we made about him or her. Arbitration finding such as this and this should also be taken into account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Those findings seem to be at least as applicable to people summarily removing twinkle without discussion or consensus as to possible (and mind you, I do not necessarily agree with that opinion!) misuse of the application itself. I fail to see where MZMcBride or yourself, or Cla98, or any of the parties, attempted to work with Orangemarlin. I see no "polite discussion" or "consensus building", as suggested in the first dif, nor do I see an "atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect", as mentioned in the second link - indeed, Orangemarlin was treated so disrespectfully that his userpages were edited and he was threatened with a page protect to prevent him from editing his own tools, without any attempts at discussion at all, and without community consensus that this was even remotely appropriate. I fear your examples are worse than the pot calling the kettle black; this is even a case of it being far more applicable to McBride than Orangemarlin. KillerChihuahua 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cla98 and I didn't edit Orangemarlin's pages at all (except Cla98 made a warning later as an uninvolved editor), so it's hard to fault us for not discussing with Orangemarlin first. As I pointed out, Krimpet did try to discuss the situation with Orangemarlin, and he reverted her with an edit summary which appears to call her a troll. So the argument that no discussion was attempted isn't compelling. I think your argument is that MZMcBride should have discussed the removal first, but I don't see a need for that. The diffs above show that other editors also had concerns with Orangemarlin's editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to demand polite discussion from other editors, I suggest you try it first. I find it laughable that you can talk about an "atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect" only a few posts after calling MZMcBride a vandal, implying a bad faith attempt to damage the project. Mr.Z-man 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Z-man: please read the discussion carefully before adding your input - while appreciated, your comment makes no sense at all, leading me to believe you have merely scanned, and mis-read, the above. Thanks. KillerChihuahua 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the above, thank you very much. You called MZMcBride a vandal at least twice, as well as saying Carl supports vandalism. There is absolutely no excuse for that. How Carl has managed to stay civil through all of your shouting and rhetoric, I have no idea. I tried to stay out of this whole thing, but the behavior of so many people in response to the whole incident has been absolutely disgusting. Mr.Z-man 18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're just so wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start, Z. KillerChihuahua 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever I did to lose all your good faith in advance I am terribly sorry, I won't bother you again. Mr.Z-man 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua: If there are specific issues you'd like to discuss with me, please feel free to start a new thread on this page. However, I currently can't make heads or tails of this discussion. Apologies in advance for any inconvenience. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do so later - I am interested in your reasoning and whether it has changed, but if my posts can come out 180 off of what I mean, as it seems Z has managed, I'd best take my time and phrase very clearly indeed. KillerChihuahua 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel like giving my unsolicited opinion here :) Dear MZMcBride, I've had disputes with Filll and I've been reverted by Orangemarlin; and as much as I don't like certain aspects of that attitude, I have to admit that if OM stopped reverting, Misplaced Pages would be much worse off. I'm not saying their behaviour is perfect, but I don't see how else they could deal with all the POV-pushing either. We need to find out what the real problems are, and I'm convinced that OM's use of Twinkle is not it. If there is a way to make the controversial articles somehow manageable and avoid the need to fight wars to keep them clean, then that would help. Personally, I'm hoping that revision flagging could serve to decrease the stress-level...

Anyway, I guess I just interrupted because I hate to see conflicts between editors, who all have Misplaced Pages's best interest in mind; and even Misplaced Pages is not more important than how we relate to each other as human beings, so with that perspective, feel free to continue ;) Merzul (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering why you deleted Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jinxmchue? FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your "fix redirect" edit at WP:MOS-FR

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:MOS-FR&diff=210494829&oldid=206994251, why is that not an R from shortcut? Is it because the shortcut pointed to a talk page? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Grooveshark

During December of last year you protected the page Grooveshark which had been deleted twice before due to the site not being notable enough. Now that its notoriety has increased, particularly after having been mentioned by Duncan Riley on highly popular blog TechCrunch in his post: "Signing Off, And What Does A TechCrunch Writer Actually Use?" I would like to request that it be recreated and opened to editing. Do you think it has reached the required stage? Thanks, Dolphonia (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Wendy Peirce

Hiya, I noticed that you deleted Wendy Peirce, as it was a redirect to Pettingill family which had been speedy-deleted. However, I disputed that the Pettingill Family article should have been deleted, and so that's been reversed and the article is now, instead, listed in Articles For Deletion. The AFD discussion isn't over yet, but I thought you may want to know :) Xmoogle (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Odd Fellows

Hi! Could you tell me what was on "Talk:Odd Fellows", why you deleted it, and what "csd g2" means?
Better still, could you tell me if, and if so, how, I can determine this information for myself without bothering you?
Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Eric Sanders

Hi -- please advise on a page ("Eric Sanders" ) that's been deleted but I can't figure out by whom, or find an archive or any other direct way to find out the reasoning. Page appears to be simply gone, as if it never existed, within the past three weeks. No reason to think it was you; you're just the first admin I came across who works with the deletion process. Thanks for any guidance you can give as to how to get it undeleted and why it was deleted in the first place. Thirdbeach (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting me in touch with the appropriate admin.63.229.62.199 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Andover Musical and Operatic Society

Hello. You deleted my explanation as to why a page for the Andover Musical and Operatic Society should be allowed. I presume that this means that you have decided that it shouldn't have one but I don't understand why Salisbury Amateur Operatic Society are allowed one and we aren't. I would greatly appreciate an explanation. Many thanks. Pmars100 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Pmars100 (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete Viewaskewniverse Motifs?

There's no reason stated, and I'd like to know why it was deleted. Thanks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=View_Askewniverse_Motifs)

KnatLouie (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but do you know why the other admin deleted that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnatLouie (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of non-orphaned redirect pages

Your recent deletion of orphaned redirect pages was incorrect. (Talk:YOUNG YOU, Talk:Techno Police 21c, Talk:Shō Hayami, Talk:Shintō, Talk:Shide (Shintō), Talk:Ryūhō (aircraft carrier), Talk:Route 2 (Japan), Talk:Route 16 (Japan), Talk:Pilot Pen Corporation, Talk:Fūma no Kojirō, Talk:Furuichi Station (Ōsaka)) All of them are valid redirects, even if they are not currently linked from anywhere. Please do not delete these redirects again. Redirects are cheap, and since the associated articles are redirects, it makes sense to have the talk pages be the same. ···日本穣 16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Arb pages not orphaned

These pages of the arb case Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia, are NOT orphaned, they have project pages with them. I Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Proposed decision. I've restored them. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Sorry, I can't understand what the following was about:

(Deletion log); 17:10 . . MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) deleted "Misplaced Pages talk:Wikiproject Shakespeare" (orphaned talk page redirect) 

Can you clarify? (You can reply here, I'm watching your talk page). AndyJones (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as part of routine housekeeping. It was a talk page of a redirect that had no incoming links and had only one revision and was older than 30 days. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

If an article/project has is a redirect, it's perfectly ok for its talk page to have a redirect. Please stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a talk page and article/page being a redirect. In the case of the two arb cases you changed and the Scouting pages, those were all old names of pages that left a redir in place for people who had links to them. Also, you said they were orphaned talk pages and to me that means there's no main page that goes with it, whether a redir or otherwise. If the main page redir is there, I think the talk page redir should be there, and they all were in the ones I saw. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

DANKOO MULTIPASS

Thanks for fixing my attempted betterment of Alexander Haig‎. First time I've messed with named reftags in a while, but I think I see what I did wrong. Bravo! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm Confused

I found the following comment on my watchlist

"10 May 2008 (Deletion log); 19:34 . . MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) deleted "Misplaced Pages talk:A Source of Goodness, Not Evil" (orphaned talk page redirect)"

What does it mean? What are you trying to delete? How can i save it?--Kiwiboy121 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the confusion, and for helping my article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiboy121 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist-notice and sitenotice

Hi MZMcBride. I have left several messages that involve you at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Page top issues.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting project banners from redirects

Recently you modified Talk:Penmanshiel Tunnel collapse and the other redirects present in Category:NA-importance UK Railways articles with the edit summary: 'fix redirect'. Now I had already alerted the project to the fact that these redirects were not working, and my understanding was that a fellow project member had resolved the others. I had already modified the one mentioned to 'fix' it, by the simple expedient of exchanging the project banner template and the redirect statement. You then removed the banner, so that the redirect no longer appeared within the project's scope.

It is worthwhile for a project to monitor related redirect pages in case any are re-created as stand-alone articles.

Can you explain your actions, please?

EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

diabeetus

Would it be a bad idea to redirect diabeetus to diabetes? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Again with the orphaned talk page redirect deletions..

Really? -- Ned Scott 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I am new to all this but received the message from Ryan Foster about reinstating my page My Film Blog once I cleared rights with them. However, by the time they contacted me not only my page is gone but My Talk page as well. I did post on that page that I sent a message to the administration and cleared GFDL license. Can it be reinstated or I should start building it again from scratch? Thanks and if I posted this in the wrong place, my apologies as I am not used to the UI.

Sasha

(----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilfordbw (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

An empty category deletion

I notice you've deleted Category:Noachis quadrangle twice now. The category is currently empty, but it's a geographic category that's part of a comprehensive category set for Mars's surface and that is assigned to articles about landforms automatically by infobox templates so it won't stay empty forever. Could you please leave it until then? Bryan Derksen (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of J. E. Macdonnell page

Hi,

I'm interested in gaining access to the J. E. Macdonnell page that was deleted according to the following process:

  * 12:38, 7 April 2007 JLaTondre (Talk | contribs) deleted "J. E. Macdonnell" ‎ (db-rediruser)
  * 23:02, 28 March 2007 GarrieIrons (Talk | contribs) moved J. E. Macdonnell to User:Arhog/J. E. Macdonnell ‎ (not written in style of an encyclopedia article)

in order to review and correct it. Is that possible and, if so, could you advise the appropriate procedure, please?

Thanks. MacMac9 (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Astronomy

Sorry about that... I'll make sure to fix that. Captain panda 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason should have been deleted. Updates occurred and information was being used. Please fix.

Personal Page

There is no reason this page DuaneHamacher should have been deleted. Updates occurred and information was being used. Please fix.

Deleting talk pages

Why do you keep doing this? Why not help tag the pages for the wikiprojects instead? I don;t know who has deleted more pages in the history of wikipedia, you or User:Maxim ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 11:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Misza13 has. I'm in sixth place. :-p See WP:ADMINSTATS. Maxim_(talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw your name in the page deletion log many times when I was tagging some Libyan geo articles earlier ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 16:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as you don't try to delete valid encyclopedia articles or my own - no worries. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages for Bus stop and Silver City

Just curious why the talk pages were deleted when the pages themselves remain. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just blank them out? The deletion log doesn't provide much information about why. Does a blank entry take up much in resources? Not a big deal. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bold watchlist items

Hi! Do you know anything about why this feature was suddenly enabled and disabled? (An error, perhaps?) —David Levy 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See here, specifically Brion's three bullets.

Also, using &nbsp; usually causes unsightly space, so I prefer <p></p>. I just filed bugzilla:14176 for a consistent way to disable MediaWiki messages. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I found the thread right after I posted here. And thanks for the tip and bug link! I'll add my vote, of course.  :-) —David Levy 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That was pretty odd, I agree. Enigma 04:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and User:Betacommand

I've been trying to track down exactly how Betacommand managed to get his own user account (as opposed to BetacommandBot) registered as a 'bot' account on the AWB check-page, which as you'll be aware allows him to use the 'bot' pane of AWB when logged in as his main account. I have discovered that you added Betacommand to the relevant list late last year. I wondered if you would mind explaining why you did so. Happy‑melon 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Exif-make-value

Is Template:Exif-make-value needed anymore? I see that MediaWiki:Exif-make-value apparently works with #switch now... --- RockMFR 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Steven Zenith's User Page

Perhaps you can explain why you deleted my User Page. I understand the coded explanation but that it is invalid. There is a indeed a user associated with the page, that it was a redirection from Stevenzenith to StevenZenith is no excuse. Please recover it immediately. --Steven Zenith (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill2Phone proposed deletion

Ldevin2 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Please visit my talk page as this has been discussed by Golbez (another editor) and me. You can see my deletion questions to him at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Golbez

Ray Foley

I know you've been asked to unprotect this page before but the deleting admin hasn't been active since January so I figured I'd ask you. The article was deleted because of lack of notability which is no longer the case as he's won a major award and has high listener figures. Thanks Alib999 (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride

I thought that perhaps seeing the substantial support for the block on ANI would have dissuaded you from wheel warring on this issue. As I said there, I don't care whether the block is on or not, but the bot needs to be fixed before it resumes operation. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no requirement to use a template for formatting the rationale, or to link to the article where fair use is being claimed. The fact that the bot incorrectly tags such pages as not having valid rationales, seems to me to be an error that would usually be corrected by blocking the bot, fixing the problem, and then unblocking. However if ST47 petulently insists on keeping the bot broken, it shouldn't be permitted to operate. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that templates would assist with machine readability, but the guidelines/policies currently in place do not require templates. The limit of machine readability requirements at the moment is the mandatory use of an appropriate non-free content copyright tag. Since templated rationales are not required, bots should not be tagging rationales as invalid for not using the templates. A link to the title is also not required, and so a bot should not be tagging rationales as invalid for not containing one. If ST47 feels these ought to be requirements he can raise the issue at the policy pages; but his bot edits should reflect the policy as it stands, not as he would like it to be. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation requirement is that non-free content be identified in a machine readable way. ("Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.") That is why non-free images are required to have an acceptable non-free copyright tag. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletions of redirects regarding Akademisches Gymnasium Danzig

I noticed you deleted various redirects which I had created to collect all existing mentions of the Academic Gymnasium Danzig in order to translate de:Akademisches Gymnasium Danzig from de-Wiki. This affects Danziger Akademikum, Danzig Gymnasium, Danzig Academy, Gymnasium Danzig, Academic Gymnasium.-- Matthead  Discuß   20:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Stub created at Academic Gymnasium Danzig. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Talk:The weather in London

Good evening. You recently deleted Talk:The weather in London citing speedy-deletion criterion G8. That particular page has already been through an XfD discussion (where the decision was to keep it). As such, it is no longer eligible for speedy-deletion. If you really believe it ought to be deleted, it must be nominated to RfD. If you do, please try to address the concerns that have already been raised and documented in the deletion log. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This bureaucratic and silly. The policy is clear. Opening the DRV now. Rossami (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting paragraph to hear quoted from an admin attempting to unilaterally delete a page less than a week after an MfD discussion that ended in a unanimous "keep" decision. I'll be interested in reading your defense of your decision in the DRV discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's agree: I'll refrain from unbecoming deletion debate comments if you, in fact, agree to limit yourself to wheel warring on only one issue per day? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

STBotI

I object rather strongly to your decision to unblock STBotI. Were you aware that there was an ongoing discussion on WP:AN/I in which many users expressed concerns about the bot's behavior? There were, if anything, more users supporting the continued block than opposing it. I would like to urge you to reverse your decision, reblock the bot, and join that discussion. To avoid continued wheel-warring, I will not reblock the bot — unless it appears to be malfunctioning again. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)