User talk:MZMcBride

Tools:~mzmcbride/yanker

Hi. Not urgent by any means, but I noticed the checkboxes for namespace selection for this tool are extremely small for Chrome users. Killiondude (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you take a screenshot or something? They look a little bit smaller to me, but not extremely small. I'm not sure what the possible fixes are for something like this.... --MZMcBride (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the fixes would be, either. I suppose Google just has to fix it on their end. But here's Firefox and here's Chrome screenshots. I would say that the Chrome boxes are about 1/4th the size of the Firefox (normal) ones. Killiondude (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Huh, weird. It isn't nearly that extreme for me. I'll look into this. I think it has to do with how the HTML is currently constructed. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Just so I don't lose this info...

<label><input type="checkbox" /></label>

Source: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6293588/how-to-create-an-html-checkbox-with-a-clickable-label

Current code looks like this:

<td style="border:none;"><input id="ns0" type="checkbox" name="namespace" value="0" /></td>
<td style="border:none;"><label for="ns0">(Main)</label></td>

Code needs to be added to the cgi-tools GitHub repo and then cleaned up. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I poked at this on a Windows machine just now. It has nothing to do with how the HTML is constructed (though the HTML should probably be a bit smarter). It has to do with the following CSS directive:

input {
    width:100%;
}

This applies to the checkboxes and for whatever reason makes them unusually small in Google Chrome. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I need to also adjust the <form> action parameter and kill a bunch of http links throughout cgi-tools. Bah. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And how! Killiondude (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Seraphim Shock

I'd like to ask what the reason was for the deletion of the page for Seraphim Shock? As they produced a number of albums and have a registered band history I see no reason why they shouldn't have a band page too?

Jellinator (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Looking at the page's deletion log, it seems it was created once as a very spammy article and created once as a copy-paste from the band's Web site. I have no idea if the band is notable. You probably want to make a subpage in your userspace (at User:Jellinator/Seraphim Shock or wherever) and create a decent draft before trying again. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Database request

Now that toolserver is finally coming on-line, could you do a requested? Could you run some past days worth of Wikipedia:Database reports/Recently created biographies of living people? It would be nice and not nice to do as many days as possible... It was sure wonderful having a break from the daily routine. I'm not looking forward to catching up the on the past days and starting the routine over again. Bgwhite (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This should be running now. Let me know if there are any days missing for which you want the data. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Bgwhite looks at Category:Biography articles without listas parameter that was empty and now has 875 entries. Puts fist into the air and takes MZMcBride's name in vain and all sorts of other ways. He realizes these are only half the names that are on the database reports, crying ensues.
Yea, there will be a few more days needed, but let me catch up on these first. Sniff. Bgwhite (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Court case article

You wrote that Mr. Florence was driving and that his three children were in the car. Where did you get this information? The NYT article of 2011 and the one just out say the wife was driving and there was a son in the back seat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.16.86 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that discrepancy as well. I went with the Christian Science Monitor (which is cite 3 on the article currently). The news article says:
"Albert Florence was riding in the family car with his wife and three children when a police officer pulled the vehicle over. Mr. Florence was arrested for an outstanding warrant issued in Essex County."
I guess a more definitive source would be his original filing, maybe? If it mentions the number of kids in the car.
Tangential: pretty fucked up case, isn't it? Arrested for driving while black in New Jersey, spends nearly a week in jail, two strip searches, and then he ends up losing at the Supreme Court. And now we all lose. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

BernsteinBot

BernsteinBot's count for this week's edits seems very low. I am wondering if (since it missed a week) something might be wrong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe there are several threads on WP:VPT about the Toolserver being kinda broken until recently. This may have played into it. Killiondude (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Toolserver is still not 100%. For example, there is currently a ~25 hour replication lag. This was the last message put out about 16 hours ago. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited MarkMonitor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages AAA and Tablet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Fixed! --MZMcBride (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello MZMcBride. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikimarkup injection attack?!

oh noooooo :( In all seriousness, though, that gadget is a bit messed up. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I like how this introduction to editing Wikipedia resembles nothing like actually editing Wikipedia. "Here's this neat input form... THAT YOU'LL NEVER SEE ANYWHERE ELSE." --MZMcBride (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah...that's kinda the problem with the Wikipedia learning curve, though; the real editing interface isn't user-friendly at all. I still get lost in the maze of Courier New on occasion. Is there a middle ground that can be struck? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It's only a problem if you fail to properly address it. I posted the rest of my thoughts on this particular issue here. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Wikiafication"

ILU

By the way, is there any chance you can fix the annoying parser limit error at the bottom of the montly Commons DR pages? See the bottom of commons:Commons:Deletion requests/2012/02. Thanks. MBisanz talk 17:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to split the page. It's simply too long. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This article combined with the gist of this blog (that schools would have to give up student guality to maintain quantity), is very similar to the problems you and KC seem to be touching on with the TeaHouse. The idea that Wikipedia needs to keep growing like it has before and to tap new bases of editors, many of whom have no idea how to edit (which would include huge numbers of people who probably shouldn't be editing and haven't thus far because it's too hard), is a bit hard for me to accept. Seems like a good way to spoil the soup that made Wikipedia work all along; the no holds barred, impersonal, content matters more than editors, reverting culture. MBisanz talk 17:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If you'll forgive my intrusion, it seems to me that the best thing the Teahouse can provide (and sufficient reason for it to continue) is to make the sheer technical ability hurdle not quite as high. It seems that a lot of people are very afraid of computers (as completely alien as that is to me). Having mucked around with computers for a few years now, I myself have generally discovered that most computer problems can be solved by fiddling with various things and reading help prompts, googled forum posts, man pages, etc. when appropriate, and that's been the paradigm for new editors to become used to Wikipedia. But for computer-illiterates, that's just not enough. I don't think the Teahouse is intended to lower the minimum cluefulness/content competence/whatever standards for editors; for me, it's more intended to remove the purely technical aspect of it. I mean, is "confidence and skill in dealing with computers" really a required trait that editors need to have? And also, a relative outsider's perspective here, so take it as you will: do you think "content matters more than editors" is still true? I'm not so sure... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I would hope the content is still most important, as I joined Wikipedia as an encyclopedia; Facebook serves my needs for valuing friend connections. And, I don't see how the Teahouse having a different UI and different (kinder) editing environment will encourage people to actually read the pages of how to edit the hard way. If they weren't going to do it before the Teahouse, they won't after (at least to balance the resources required to get them editing). Also, the idea that we must recruit every possible editor (instead of those driven to futz around and learn things as you describe), seems like a good way to get a lot of people who are more set on the personalities than the content. I've had to deal with a fairly large number of users over the years who meant well and wanted to edit, were nice, but weren't cut out for editing because they couldn't handle the lack of interest or value assigned to their personal contributions. MBisanz talk 18:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I consider the whole "editors vs. content" question can be a bit of a false dichotomy depending upon how it is used. However: The content is paramount; we are an encyclopedia first, not a social network. We should certainly attempt to make this a collegiate working environment for volunteers. This is why we have behavioral guidelines. But that is providing a decent environment in which to write and maintain the encyclopedia, not social support.
Regarding "confidence and skill in dealing with computers" yes it is absolutely necessary. This is also not a remedial computer training site. In short, we are "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit" not "the welcoming friends-based social support network computer training class where we will be using encyclopedia articles as hands on training." One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
And now that I have read MBisanz's post, I must agree. Teaching them to not learn how to edit correctly seems counter productive to me. Among other objections, I forsee a possible issue with getting people who think more like bloggers or social networkers, rather than competent editors. I would strongly prefer the Tea Room actually teach them how to edit properly if their goal is retention of editors. We have enough problem children. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I could have sworn I helped edit {{Uw-socialnetwork}}, but apparently I did not. I've handled enough Myspacers to know how to handle them, so if there are problem children, let me know where! MBisanz talk 18:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I think perhaps you are recalling {{uw-socialnetwork}}. (Case sensitive coding, wiki is. Were you around when it wa s camelCased? ack.) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It was brackets, not caps! And no, I was a 2004/05 newbie and not active until 2007. I can't wait until I have time to edit articles again. But renames away! MBisanz talk 19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, so it is. (looking helplessly for the "like" button. I guess this really isn't a social network!) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like /me flees. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
LOL MZMcB! KillerChihuahua?!? 20:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

{{uw-3rr}} OohBunnies! Leave a message 19:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DTTR --MZMcBride (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S. If you're going to rudely template the regulars, at least have some sense and use template substitution (the template's "usage" section couldn't be more clear about this). It's bad enough to engage in this type of behavior, but must you do so in the wrong way? Good grief.
It's an edit war template, not exactly a "Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for contribs!" template. Apologies if I've offended you, but you were in an edit war, and if you're above templates you should be above edit wars too, surely? OohBunnies! Leave a message 19:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Not offended, just annoyed. The point has nothing to do with welcome templates (or really templates at all). It has to do with editors being courteous enough to write a note rather than simply drop a template like a mindless drone. If I wanted a bot to drop a template on my talk page every time I'd made three reverts in a day, I could surely write one myself. ;-)
Anyway, you should be focusing on the editors who have instituted a silly (and problematic) input form and who are now tag-teaming to keep it alive. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's getting late where I am so I probably am quite akin to a mindless drone right now. Sorry for annoying you, although I'd rather take the brunt of your annoyance than see you blocked over something like an edit war. Best wishes, OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of fueling the flames further, I wasn't being facetious when I was asking you about the changes. I really was asking you. You said no, so I'm not going to do it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone else has already reverted so it's a moot point. I appreciate you asking me about the changes, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
OohBunnies!: Having just re-read WP:DTTR, I don't see how you came away that it had anything to do with welcome templates. The introductory paragraph is very clear (and even mentions the exact template you unceremoniously dropped on my talk page):

Wikipedia offers many user talk templates to warn users about possible violations of vandalism ({{uw-vandalism}}), the three-revert rule ({{uw-3rr}}), and other policies and guidelines. You should use these templates carefully.

Your response to being told not to template the regulars (with the included link) still leaves me baffled. I'm not sure how you so thoroughly missed the point. Maybe the essay could be clearer? I'm not sure how, though. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Not to play the part of the mind reader, but upon initial read I thought perhaps OohBunnies was talking about the issue of substituting templates (with regard to welcome templates). But it was confusing. Killiondude (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I apologised twice, and I really don't want to get into this. It was just a mistake, and I've said sorry for any upset. WP:DTTR is an essay, not policy, and not everyone has to agree with it. There's an essay called WP:Do template the regulars as well, not that I actively conform to either viewpoint. The DTTR essay also advises assuming good faith and taking the template as a reminder or criticism and moving on. Although, if you don't need a template that explains the policy, then you must have known that you were doing something wrong. I wasn't trying to be "patronising or uncivil", I just thought you should stop edit warring. OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
To clarify for my first comment, I didn't really see how the 3RR template could be taken that way, whereas a template with a welcome message is, to me, patronising. From my point of view, either you knew fine well you were breaking the rules and just doing it anyway or you hadn't realised you were edit warring. OohBunnies! Leave a message 21:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Sorry to see we are crossing swords on this subject again. But I think we both see the points there. I still think that we both want what is the best for this encyclopedia. You bring the drinks to go with these? Dirk Beetstra T C 06:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
:D
Beer works, right? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure, :-), but I'd have to leave this country for it.  :-(. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Public art list

Hi MZMcBride. Just curious how you "updated" the List of public art in Washington, D.C. page. It just looks like you changed the format, but didn't necessarily "update" it. It looks rather laundry list-like now, and I think it might be nice to keep the wards a bit cleaner and separated a bit. Thanks! Sarah (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A diff of the changes I made is available here. The <big> code was unnecessary, the map was overly large and poorly positioned, each list item included superfluous "This ward includes" text, each list item was using a hyphen instead of an en dash, the bold links were unnecessary, and separating list items with spaces changes the HTML output in an undesirable way (each bullet becomes its own unordered list, rather than being constructed as part of a single unordered list). I also bypassed a few redirects, while I was in there. I "updated" the page by fixing all of these things. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Down the rabbit hole

If anyone ever needs an example of a mind-bogglingly stupid level of bureaucracy, he or she need look no further than Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide (and related pages). My goodness. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think my problem with tools:~acc is that it's largely the stupid helping the stupid. So when you gather a bunch of its users together to try to discuss improving it, there's really no hope, is there? That isn't to say that everyone who helps create accounts is stupid or that everyone incapable of creating their own account is stupid, but as a general rule, I think it's rather fair.

Regarding a possible switch from a Toolserver tool at tools:~acc to a MediaWiki extension, some people have literally made comments along the line of "without this tool in its current form, spammers and vandals will be able to get through and create accounts!" Yes, Heaven forfend. What if nearly anyone were able to create their own account without having their IP address checked and their possible username and e-mail address scrutinized? It'd be chaos around here.

Even after all these years, the comments that some people here make during technical discussions still blow my mind. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Note to self, note to others

Russavia is the new Ottava. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

O shit. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
the old one was not sufficient? KillerChihuahua?!? 02:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot

Is the bot generating this page looking for full protection or any protection? The first item on the list template:Sec_link/relative_url is actually already semi-protected and was the last time the bot ran. Just want to make sure I'm reading the page correctly. Thanks,  7  06:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The configuration is here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions/Configuration. It looks for templates with a lot of transclusions (more than 500) where the template is not full-protected from editing (edit=sysop). Template:Sec link/relative url is an edge case, as a template used on so many pages would typically be fully protected from editing, but because of its use on the main page, it receives cascading full protection, so nobody has bothered to tweak its settings. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Got it - thanks.  7  23:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse barnstar

Teahouse Barnstar Hires.png Teahouse Barnstar
For your tireless contributions to the teahouse, you deserve this barnstar. extra999 (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hah, thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Question re: DC meetup invitations

A quick question, if you don't mind:

Katie mentioned that you were the right person to talk to about getting invitations sent out for the upcoming DC meetup. Is that something that you'd be able to do, or, if not, would you happen to know who might be a better person to contact?

Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Many WikiProjects and publications (including The Signpost) use EdwardsBot for such deliveries. I was always kind of surprised Katie didn't use it too, but there's an old adage about developers not trusting others' code, so maybe it's not too surprising. EdwardsBot has done a few of the past D.C. deliveries, I think.
If you'd like to use the bot, you're more than welcome to. Or, if you have a subject/message/target list and would like me to load up and deliver the spam, I can do it as well. It's a fairly quick process. EdwardsBot's instructions and FAQ are at User:EdwardsBot/Instructions and User:EdwardsBot/FAQ, respectively (and creatively). --MZMcBride (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The process looks fairly straightforward, so I think I'll be able to handle it on my own; I'll let you know if I have any questions. Thanks for all your help! Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It's like magic, isn't it? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it is. :-) Kirill [talk] 05:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Watcher proposal

Hi -- I posted a proposal to Village Pump that involves your Watcher tool. Please take a look at WP:VPR#Limit number of watchers to those active in the last ?? days and share your thoughts. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 16:52, 15 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I commented over there. I'll try to keep an eye on the discussion as the days progress and clarify if anyone has questions. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner

Wikimedia DC.svg Please join us for a Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner on Saturday, May 5. This will be a great opportunity to meet other Wikimedians from the DC area, discuss upcoming Wikimedia DC activities and events, and have fun over dinner and drinks. All ages are welcome! Kirill [talk] 04:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Department of Interior link fixes

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=100&target=Department+of+Interior&namespace=0

So much to do, so little time.... --MZMcBride (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding using EdwardsBot for meta:Global message delivery

Hi MZMcBride, I am Subha. I am trying to post a message from my other id User:Subha WMF as part of hand holding newbies from outreaches in India Program. Could you help me to deliver the message to a specific set of usernames? --SubhaUtter2me! 11:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose. I added you to the access list in this edit. Now you just need to update m:Global message delivery/Spam and m:Global message delivery/Status and you'll be all set. :-) There are detailed instructions here: m:Global message delivery/Instructions. Let me know if you have any questions. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, please check the m:Global message delivery/updated spam. I could not understand what to do with the m:Global message delivery/Status. Can you please check my Target list and let me know how do I run the bot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subha WMF (talk • contribs) 10:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the bot spammed every user on this list. As you seem to have figured out, it's simply a matter of updating m:Global message delivery/Status in order to start the bot. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir

Sir, I saw this just now and wondered why you haven't been given a wikiholiday for general usefulness and helpful snark. Thoughts? Killiondude (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's neat!
And every day is a wikiholiday for me. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable life spans

Have to say that this is a useful page; it's always good to know that we've categorised people as thousands of years old or negative years old. I'm impressed to see that you avoided the pitfalls noted in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:People by year/Reports/Youngest and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:People by year/Reports/Oldest. Just one question — could you have the bot ignore articles that are in supercentenarian categories? It's not particularly helpful for Jeanne Calment to appear in the report. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.
I quietly adjusted the limit from "> 115" to "> 122" after reading this thread at Commons. That will eliminate Ms. Calment and a few others when the report next updates.
I gave some thought yesterday to deliberate exclusion of certain results. I'm still of a mixed mind as to whether it's a good idea. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The reason I'm asking about supercentenarians in general (rather than simply adjusting the limit to 122) is people like Hava Rexha, for whom the 123-year distance between the categories is intentional. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm re-running this report now.
The counter-argument in my head was that it makes the code more en.wiki-specific (or at least adds another per-project setting), it manipulates the data in a way that will have to be explained in the intro, and the life spans did seem rather unbelievable to me, so just as a general point of reference I thought it was an interesting report. Not every database report is a utility report, after all.
I wasn't ignoring you re: the category-based exclusion. I took a look at Category:Supercentenarians. It's not a flat category, it has to be recursed to get the members of each subcategory (more annoying and tedious). And it doesn't seem to catch your example (Hava Rexha), though checking Category:Longevity claims might... if a category-based exclusion is added.
The report has already run in the time I was replying! Let's see what the new data shows. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realise that you were running the same code in other projects; I saw the Commons project from the link you gave, but because it's working with categories, I figured that it was different code, and I don't remember seeing something like this in other projects. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I adjusted the code to exclude pages from Category:Longevity claims and Category:Longevity traditions. Still some weird cases popping up, though. They probably need investigation. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

AN notice

A thread has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Interaction_ban_requested, in which you have been named as an involved party. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess the interaction ban you've proposed only goes one way? That's an interesting implementation of the Golden Rule. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. When you recently edited List of abrogated U.S. Supreme Court decisions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abrogation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not unintended in this case. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Category talk:1943 musicals

Hello, I'm part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, and I've been working on sorting musicals into categories and putting the WikiProject Musical Theatre banner on top of the categories' talk pages. When I went to create the talk page for Category:1943 musicals, it says that you previously deleted the talk page on September 24, 2007 under csd g7, and it recommended that I check with you before I recreate the talk page (I simply want to add the project banner to it). MarianWilde (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

stalker It was deleted because the creator just added a tag then changed their mind and blanked the page, there is nothing to stop you creating the page now--Jac16888 Talk 16:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

run a report again

Could you run April 27's new living biography report again. It didn't run today. I finally got the backlog cleared out from when toolserver was down. So, I'll but for a few more days, but will ask for one day at a time. I want to keep it manageable.... and seeing several hundred new names is depressing. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, which report? There are a lot. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you would be cursing my name by now because I bug you enough. It's Wikipedia:Database reports/Recently created biographies of living people. Also, April 29 didn't run, if you could re-run it again too. I've seen reports of toolserver having problems and Wikipedia is slower than dirt... probably makes a mess of your reports. Bgwhite (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, you asked for it... April 27 and April 29. Enjoy. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Waters v. Churchill section renaming

I mostly reverted your recent changes to the section names at Waters v. Churchill. While some of them seem to reflect this discussion a year ago at WT:SCOTUS, that never really achieved much in the way of consensus (and yes, it would be nice if we had been able to reach some conensus. I took some of the points appropriately, and for that same reason didn't revert every change you made. But still ... some of them don't seem to me to make sense:

I hope I am not coming across as being too picky. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I should start off by noting that I'm much more concerned with consistency than particular language, for the most part. The current mix of headings between articles is sloppy and should be addressed. As I've been going through a few lists of cases, I've been trying to standardize the headers (in addition to the categorization or other work I'm there for). I was following WP:SCOTUS, not WT:SCOTUS, for what it's worth, though I probably wrote the relevant parts of WP:SCOTUS.

Background: As I said, and as other editors at that discussion seemed to acknowledge, some cases tie into larger historical or legal issues that ought to be discussed first. For these I've always felt it's appropriate to begin with a "background" section explaining these. This should be distinguished from a section giving the salient facts (to the extent that they exist) that led to the parties going to court in the first place (which, in Waters, is essential because a major issue was the fact that the facts of the case were disputed). Call it "dispute", call it "underlying dispute", but it's not "background", not when it's what the case was about.

Larger historical or legal issues still fits perfectly within any reasonable definition of "background." I'm not sure what the issue is. If you want to subdivide the section into particular parts (as many articles do), I think that makes sense. As I see it, each case should be split into:

I don't how you can say "background isn't what a case was about." Err, that's the whole point of the section. To give background information regarding the case. And then the following section ("Opinion of the Court") discusses the reason that this case has a page on Wikipedia: what the Court held in the case.

Well, I see it as "any reported decision (other than, say, a standard cert den or other routine order) made by the Supreme Court is, as a decision of a top national court, notable so we have an article on it; it doesn't matter what the Court held or didn't hold (cf. Ontario v. Quon)

If you really don't like 'Background," is there some other heading that you feel should be standardized across the cases? "Dispute"

I'm not saying I dislike "background", I just think it has its place if the issue of the case is tied into something larger. Wong Kim Ark has as its background Chinese immigration to the U.S. and the unresolved issues of 14th amendment citizenship. Brown v. Board of Education and Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins could also not be discussed without beginning with their broader historical and legal (respectively) contexts (Maybe that's a better word). But while Waters has an underlying dispute, it doesn't really have a background. There was no great social or legal issue at the time (or now) around nurses having discussions about their work environments on break (I mean, it makes for great fodder for TV hospital shows, but that's not a larger social issue :-)). All there was was a woman who possibly mouthed off too much about her boss, got fired and (as they say) made a federal case out of it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really a major issue, but I've never understood the reason for the spaces between the hed code and the actual words, as they don't make a difference to how the heds look. Is there something in the MOS on this that I've missed?

Doesn't change the output at all, it's a matter of style. They're the software default and I think they make sections easier to spot when scanning the wikitext. Due to the trivial nature of the issue, they're the type of edits that are exempt from being a reason to edit alone, but while I was in there and editing the header text, I figured I'd add the spaces.

Not a problem, then. I sort of figured that was the reason. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Opinion of the Court: See my remarks at the WT:SCOTUS thread we had on this. In a case with opinions all over the place, like Waters, hedding a section thus would make sense to me only if you intended to discuss only the majority or plurality opinion. That's why I much prefer "Decision".

Like the "Background" heading, I'm not really sure what the quibble is here. The case article covers background of the case, what the Court held, and then subsequent developments. It's formulaic.

Is there some alternate wording you'd prefer that can be standardized? I think you suggested "Decision"? Though I'm not sure that will work everywhere. "Opinion of the Court" seems to always work.

I feel that "opinion of the Court" makes sense only where the Court was unanimous, even if there were concurrences (I did this recently in Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd) Given that justices may agree and disagree with different aspects of holdings, a 5–4 split may actually be unanimous on a subissue. Or you can have a case like Memoirs v. Massachusetts, O'Connor v. Ortega or Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States where one group of four justices makes a plurality and a separate concurrence uses a different reason, therefore lower courts can follow either one until a future Court resolves it one way or the other. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Subsequent developments: Since that section covers only later cases that interpret the subject case in some significant way, I think just using "jurisprudence" is more to the point. As postdlf suggested (and as I've been doing since then) any further occurrences in the courts after the Supreme Court heard the case should go under "subsequent proceedings".

I'm not sure why you're making the section so narrow. "That section covers only later cases..." <-- Not really, it covers subsequent developments related to the case. That can be public reaction, analysis, commentary, or follow-up cases. "Subsequent proceedings" sounds as though it would be a sub-section of "Subsequent developments" in this case.

Very few cases have any real "subsequent developments" that aren't either other cases interpreting them or subsequent proceedings in the same case. A non-legal resolution of the issue, like the Scott family being bought and freed, and then Dred Scott himself dying a year later, would be one of the rare examples. I just think "subsequent developments" is too news-y and too broad. A court proceeding is a narrative; when it ends, it ends. Analysis and commentary is not part of the narrative and deserves a separate section.

If we try to make all these things subsections of the same broader heading, we'll end up having to use Level 5 heds.

What was your justification for removing the other two list links under "see also"? Similar links are in other articles, and links to lists seem to be perfectly in line with WP:SEEALSO.

I find them to be useless clutter. I think there is very limited value in being able to find cases in the same volume and for anyone interested, they can click the link from the infobox. (I suppose categorization by volume wouldn't be a terrible idea either.) However, again, I think the value in being able to see the cases like this is horribly limited. What do you care what other cases were decided in the same volume as Roe v. Wade? You almost always want to look by subject matter or perhaps by Court.

The list of all cases is even more absurd for a "see also" section, in my opinion. "See also... every U.S. Supreme Court case ever?" There are like 30,000 cases. This article didn't have that particular link. This article did have the First Amendment list, which is the only link that might be reasonable for the "See also" section, in my opinion. I guess I removed that due to the related category, but I don't have an issue with that particular link.

The "See also" links should be relevant to the specific case, in my opinion. Not drop-ins of marginally related indices.

I see your point; the same thought had sort of struck me on occasion (and I think categorization would be better). I think the volume links are there because somebody created the volume lists a long time ago so we'd know what we had and didn't have for article development purposes; for that purpose I guess they're still useful but, you're right, no one outside of WP:SCOTUS is going to find them that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes: What's wrong with just "notes" like almost any other such document would do? It's a needless distinction. First, they're not strictly footnotes; since they're all at the end of the article they could just as easily be called endnotes. Second, as we have no other notes in the article we have no need to say what type of notes they are.

Mostly a style choice on my part, I guess. Again, I'm looking for standardization more than caring about specific language. We could go with "Notes." I think there may be a Wikipedia preference for "Footnotes" over "Notes," but I'd have to look. I find "Notes" to look a little childish in a reference work, personally. Maybe that's just something I should get over.

Probably, because every other reference work I've ever used uses "Notes". Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also been trying to standardize article leads. So if you have thoughts on those as well, now would be a good time to speak up. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's getting late so I won't say much (although, generally, it looks like you're trying to follow the United States v. Wong Kim Ark format now that that's an FA (All well and good, but just because something done a particular way gets to FA does not mean that all other similar articles should be done that way unless it becomes some sort of project guideline to that effect).
As for ledes ... do you mean the very first graf or the intro section altogether? Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Before I try to reply inline, let's take a step back. I think my goal is fairly clear: standardization of SCOTUS articles. I started working on this years ago with infobox standardization and cleanup. But there are other parts of the article that should be fairly consistent in my opinion, including the section headers used within the article (at a basic level, at least), the article's first sentence, and the infobox.

Do you think standardization is a good goal? If so, how can we come up with a "template" of what a good article looks like (in terms of its infobox, first sentence, headers, and everything else)? Personally, I don't care if all of the headers are == 1 ==, == 2 ==, etc. What bothers me ceaselessly is when one article uses == Facts == and another uses == Facts & Procedural History == and another uses == Background == and another uses == Background of the case == and so on. I don't fault any editors for choosing these particular headings and the nature of a wiki is such that there are going to be inconsistencies, particularly in stage one. But I'd like the articles to move toward stage two, where they stop looking so disjointed and sloppy.

With this in mind, do you have any ideas for how to move forward? :-) Do you think more discussion is needed at WT:SCOTUS? Do you think the current "template" at WP:SCOTUS simply needs a few tweaks? Do you think multiple "templates" ("outlines"?) are needed? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Stripped MediaWiki interface

How did you get the interface up top shortened down, as shown on your image, here? --MuZemike 21:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A whole bunch of javascript and css is my guess. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You can judge whether it's a "whole bunch" by looking below. If they're going to force every page load to include an entire JavaScript library, you may as well use some of it, right? ;-)
You've found most of the secret stash. The other code is at m:User:MZMcBride/global.js. Some of these changes (such as the personal tools shortening) I wanted to have across my wikis. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it neat? I'm liking it a lot better, for the most part.

There are a few things going on in that photo. The logo and the (useless) sidebar sections were killed with the following code:

div#p-logo,
div#p-navigation,
div#p-interaction,
div#p-coll-print_export {
  display:none !important;
}
div#column-one {
  padding-top: 10px;
}

The "personal tools" section was made narrow with this code:

/* Make the personal tools narrower */
$("li#pt-userpage a").text('me');
$("li#pt-mytalk a").text('Talk');
$("li#pt-preferences a").text('Prefs');
$("li#pt-watchlist a").text('Watchlist');
$("li#pt-newmessages a").text('Noise');
$("li#pt-mycontris a").text('Contribs');
$("li#pt-logout a").text('Die');
appendCSS('li#pt-newmessages a, li#pt-newmessages {font-weight:normal !important;}');

Let me know if you have any other questions. There's also the Modern skin as well. Someone pointed out to me that my new interface is similar to Modern's. I've always been fond of Monobook, though. Just without the book in the background and the other useless clutter. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68

You do realize that Balloonman was the one to reopen discussion this last time, right? Just checking since you went to explain your edit to Kosh. Kosh had tried and was already reverted...then the closing admin reopened it. --Onorem♠Dil 15:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Self-doubt is a cruel bitch sometimes. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Was just a bit confused why you singled out one person with added reasoning. I clearly think you're wrong...but there's not a chance in hell that I'm going to get involved with the closing of something that I've been so active in discussing. Guess that's just me. --Onorem♠Dil 16:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Something I never expected to see...

[[1]---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You were right to close the deletion discussion; no shame in saying so. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This talk page has grown far too long...

... so another section can't hurt, right?

I should also archive my talk page at some point. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There are bots that can help with these things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Bots are evil. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Bots that vote, especially. Equazcion (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
  2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law
—Isaac Asimov. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear

If someone announces that they are an old account who is making a Clean Start, you should not do anything to publicly link them to old accounts, regardless of whether you have correctly deduced which old account they were. The only exceptions are when you have reason to believe that the individual in question is in violation of sanctions imposed by the community and/or arbcom.

Many people make Clean Starts. You should not publicly link any of them to any old accounts.

You are a very intelligent person, McBride. I'm disappointed that you've made me have to explain this so bluntly. DS (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. What you've posted here isn't policy or common sense. I don't necessarily have an issue with clean starts. There are certainly legitimate reasons one might need a clean start. But if it's truly a clean start and you've left your old account for being an asshat, it shouldn't be possible for others to figure out who your old account was or want to associate you with it. If it is possible or they do, it's almost certain you're still being an asshat. And that indicates that you need to either leave or start again. If you choose the latter, you have to change your behavior in the next reincarnation so that nobody is able to figure out who your former nasty self was and it's truly a clean start. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Loose lips sink ships. Killiondude (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Football squad

I run a Wikia for my fantasy soccer league and I'd like to use Template:Football squad on said Wikia. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, it just doesn't work due to some issues with the navboxes and I'm not sure what to do. I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask but I've asked elsewhere and I've gotten nowhere. Is there any way you can help? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 02:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to your site? Most issues with copying templates from the English Wikipedia to another wiki involve CSS, ParserFunctions, and/or HTMLTidy. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Right here. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 04:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Right, looks like you deleted the page already. You'll need to re-create "Template:Football squad" with the page contents of Template:Football squad. Then you'll need copy over any other dependent templates (e.g., Template:Navbox). In order for Template:Navbox to work properly, you'll need to copy the relevant code from MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css. The template documentation may explain this. Give that a try and let me know if you still need help. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've added Template:Football squad, in addition to Template:Navbox and Template:Navbar. Which sections of the Common pages do I need to copy? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 18:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
You probably want this older version of MediaWiki:Common.js (pre-jQuery). I think you want the sections that begin with "Collapsible tables" and "Dynamic Navigation Bars (experimental)" from Common.js. From MediaWiki:Common.css, you want the code that's beneath the section titled "Default style for navigation boxes". --MZMcBride (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it seems to be working to some extent but for some reason, everything is aligned vertically. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 19:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
You want to copy the section of code titled "Style for horizontal lists (separator following item)" from MediaWiki:Common.css. You're missing some of the code for horizontal lists. Once you copy over that code and bypass your local cache, the vertical alignment issue should resolve itself. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that fixed it. Two minor questions, though: how do I get the VTE to display to the side instead of in the center? Also, when using the squad template, is there any way I can use hex codes for specific colors? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Monobook makes your site about 1,000 times less painful to view. Good Lord. What have those Wikia folks wrought.
The VTE thing is something CSS-related, I imagine. Probably float:left; or text-align:left; missing somewhere or some possibly some goofy positioning code. I don't really have the time or patience to diagnose it, but it shouldn't be too difficult to adjust if it really bothers you.
I'm sure there's a way in Template:Navbox to specify colors. If not, you have a few options. The colors may be hardcoded in Common.css for consistency's sake, in which case you'll need to split them out, specify them in the template code, and possibly parameterize them, depending on your needs. Or you can just change the defaults, if they're in there. Dunno. Can't really devote too much time to this. (Tangentially, the templates were built for this wiki, obviously, so it's understandable that they'll need some adjustment to work elsewhere.)
Generally, I'd say that Wikia is pretty shitty and if you want your project to last for a sustained period of time, you're better off getting (shared) hosting somewhere and setting up MediaWiki yourself. That allows for high-level control of the site (which, depending on your level of technical expertise, may be a terrible thing!). You could also contribute to established sites instead of creating your own. There's no shortage of Wikipedia football stubs around here that need improvement. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Finding odd redirects

There should be a way to find redirects such as this one in an automatic way. In this case, you had:

It'd be nice to find cases where the case of the redirects is different and the redirect targets are different.

I'm not sure about a report title yet. Mismatched redirects? Confusing redirects? Misleading redirects? Idiosyncratic redirects? Unparalleled redirects? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot opt in

I want to opt in to Edwardsbot.--Deathlaser :  Chat  17:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Are you trying to sign up for a particular newsletter or publication or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon!

S. Dillon Ripley & Uncle Beazley.jpg Please join us for the second Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon! This event will focus on Smithsonian history including the history of the Institution's museums, archives, research centers and the people behind them. This will be a great opportunity to learn about the Archives, work within them & with staff, and learn more about the world's largest museum complex. We hope you'll join us on Friday, May 25. Please sign up here! Sarah (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: You received this message because you were listed here. If you no longer wish to receive messages of this nature, please remove yourself from that list.

Stars on watchlist

How utterly annoying. Killiondude (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

strong.mw-watched a{background:none;padding-left:0;} on your /common.css page will remove them. And now I'll remove myself as a talk page stalker. Didn't realize I'd still had this page on my watchlist from last week (or whenever I came here to talk about Cla). --Onorem♠Dil 21:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Stars? I see no stars. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Count yourself lucky. Maybe they reverted it or something. There were hoards of green stars everywhere. Killiondude (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=491871039&oldid=488663421 and proximate revisions. Star light, star bright, IYKWIM. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Germans

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Click here and read the individual threads discussing this. This is not a new topic. :-) If you want to discuss Germans, you want Talk:Germans. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox SCOTIE case

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Infobox SCOTIE case has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Cherokee

That first edit[2] wasn't a good faith edit, see [3]. The last two were clearly vandalism - note the website in the edit summary. Do you see a reason not to block? Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh, your call on the block.
I was mostly playing around with STiki. Honestly, I wish we wouldn't assign motive to particular edits that are reverted. The distinction between a good faith (but incredibly stupid) user and a vandal is too difficult to make too often. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree - I often see edits revertd as good faith edits that look incredibly like vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Non-free files missing a rationale

Looks like the bot is hiccuping for the past couple of months... I'm pretty sure it's not "0" articles, or there's some wiki-gnome that's gotten really good since February :) Skier Dude (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I poked at this last night very briefly and found myself rather horrified at the current code. The whole report needs a rewrite. I'll see what I can do. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The report broke due to Category:Non-free Wikipedia file copyright tags being renamed to Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. I rewrote the report and it should update in a few minutes. It may make sense to re-evaluate the strings being searched for in the page text of the file description pages at some point. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Disused railway stations in County Monaghan

I believe you deleted this category in 2008. There are now 13 pages which link to this category. Have you any objection to it being created? Andrewrabbott (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No objection. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, MZMcBride, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 STiki logo.png
Oh my. Look at what I've won. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought you'd like it ;) The whole of your time on Wikipedia has built up to this very moment. Savour it. ;) Orphan Wiki (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Things are about to get very sticky. Killiondude (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Corrrrrrr! Orphan Wiki (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I did enjoy it. :-) I don't use anti-vandalism tools very often. I tried to use Huggle, but that requires rollback. Hmmm. Maybe that's why STiki was lagging for me. It kept locking up inexplicably for a minute or two. It got annoying. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
There's usually a bit of lagging when it first starts up, or when it's used for the first time. I like it better than Huggle. It's bloody annoying when you get beaten to a revert on the latter, which makes it tedious and boring. Orphan Wiki (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I follow. I got curious and calculated time between my reverts to an article and the previous revision. I excluded good faith reverts. I think that accurately captures what I'm interested in (or at least it seems to in my rough sampling of the results). The data is here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=492795369>.

The obvious answer to your "beaten to a revert" problem is to simply come in first. :-) How is it possible that all of this vandalism is being missed if so many people are allegedly chomping at the bit? That's the part that's confusing me. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing isn't it? I was very surprised at first when I saw how much was left, especially when you consider we have ClueBot, HG, TW and the others... maybe Lupin's tool if that's still going... Orphan Wiki (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for fixing tables with your trusty hammer. MBisanz talk 04:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Outlines

Outlines are explained in Wikipedia:Outlines.

You have replies waiting for you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines#This is confusing.

I look forward to your further comments. The Transhumanist 07:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Aye, heading over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines#This is confusing now to reply. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Linkless user pages

Perhaps we need a "Linkless user pages" report?

Hmmm. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Request about Special:UnwatchedPages

Hi,

I'm a french administrator and I've a request about Special:UnwatchedPages. I'm trying to reduce the number of the listed articles of this page and I think you could help me, maybe with your tool Watcher.

So, if you accept, could you make a list (or many lists, it's better for maintenance) of the unwatched articles of the French Wikipedia. With it, I'll could regroup the unwatched articles by theme and dispatch it to the different projects.

Best regards. Rémih (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Morrison Waite

Federal Judicial Center, Morrison Waite. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a discrepancy for a few Justices between when their judicial oath was taken and when they actually started serving, I think. For example, Melville Fuller is listed as July 20, 1888, but the U.S. Supreme Court site and Chief Justice of the United States#List of Chief Justices both list October 8, 1888. I believe Morrison Waite has a similar issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
List of United States Chief Justices by age and List of Chief Justices of the United States by time in office also list March 4, by the way. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, fixed Melville Fuller in these edits. Now to investigate Mr. Waite. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Right-o. Nearly identical situation with Mr. Waite. I fixed him up with these edits. Happy editing to you too! --MZMcBride (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How about a nice cup of tea? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Access to Edwardsbot for Wiknic

Can you please add me to Edwardsbot/AccessList so that I may post User:Maximilianklein/Wiknic to Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite? Thanks Maximilianklein (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

^
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This page should be edited: User:EdwardsBot/Access list.
I think someone already spammed about that. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, Wiknic, not the Edit-a-Thon. Right. You're all set now. You probably want to send a test blast before sending the real one. Be sure to use ~~~~ or equivalent so that the messages are properly signed when delivered. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I set up a test blast. I hope it's running. The status page doesn't update immediately. In fact looking the version history for the status page it take a few minutes (~3) for the bot to change it to "Running." I think it might be nice to warn about that in the instructions page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilianklein (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
People who apparently haven't mastered signing talk pages probably shouldn't be making bulk talk page deliveries. You had EdwardsBot sign a bunch of talk pages with "21 May 2012." Not a huge deal, but it makes you look like an idiot.
Regarding instructions, the bot checks the status page every five minutes. This may or may not be noted somewhere. If it's not noted somewhere and you think it should be, fix it. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I still forget to sign on occasion. Don't hate me 'cause you ain't me. Does McBride need some McNugget™ love? Killiondude (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I forgive you. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hem is meh backward

Clean this up at some point? Maybe. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories

I was just looking through some of the Unused categories on this list and noticed a couple things. I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories but in general I do not think the category should be listed there if it contains either the Empty category template or the Category redirect template. Is it possible to factor these 2 groups out of the list? Kumioko (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There are a bunch of category-related database reports already: Wikipedia:Database reports#Categories. I think the one you want is Empty categories? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thats true I was just thinking that adding this logic to the Unused categories special report would make it a little more useful and remove some of the false positives. Kumioko (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Special:UnusedCategories is a dynamic special page that comes with MediaWiki. There isn't much customization of its output that's easily possible currently. The special page has no concept "empty category" templates or "category redirect" templates because those are specific to the English Wikipedia, not part of MediaWiki. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh ok thats good to know thanks. I thought these were generated by a bot or something and linked there. Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Tweak of Wikipedia:Database reports/Non-free files missing a rationale

Hi. If you add uploader to this list then it would be easy to inform the uploader of all his/her uploads. That would be usefull if some users have uploaded 20 or 200 or ??? files and is still active. And perhaps files tagged with {{di-no fair use rationale}} or another speedy tag could be skipped or marked. Just an idea. Take it or leave it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough. This should be done now. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much!!! --MGA73 (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any ideas how many files that would end on the list if you remove the limit of 2000? And would it take too long time to run the query if it was removed? I'm asking because with the limit set we will not get all files uploaded by the user and we may have to imform them more than once. --MGA73 (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays/Assessment/Links

I see this page hasn't been update in a couple of months. Are yee still handling assessments? →AzaToth 19:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

EdwardsBot

I am writing to notify you of a violation of policy. According to WP:BOTACC:

"Contributors should create a separate account in order to operate a bot. The account's name should identify the operator or bot function. Additionally, it should be immediately clear that its edits are made by an automated account; this is usually accomplished by including the word "Bot" at the beginning or end of the username."

So that isn't happening here. You are not Edwards, and the bot is not MZMcBrideBot. The bot's function is not to edward, either. Per policy the name must do that. I actually had a BRFA fail once because I named it wrong. So I renamed it for approval. I do know and appreciate that the name isn't hurting anyone, but the policy is a policy. However if you'd like consensus to change that clause (WP:BOTACC) discuss it at the talkpage.

It comes down to this: change the name. I know I don't have any authority to make you or enforce the rule, but I thought I had better notify you of your breach of policy. If the name is not changed within 28 days, I will take the matter to the appropriate noticeboard. Thank you, Rcsprinter (warn) 11:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I noticed a day or two back that you left a similar message for Jarry1250. The wording is "should", not "must": it is therefore not a requirement. Regarding Edwards: he delivered sermons, this bot delivers messages. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)