User talk:MZMcBride: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:22, 8 October 2009

Page protection of MechScape

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nashville

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

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

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

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

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

RfA

Hi MZMcBride -

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

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

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

Congratulations on your RFA! Sorry I didn't vote. Bwrs (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A gift for you ...

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

Wiki 200

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

Congratulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved to User talk:MZMcBride/watcher § Fewer than 30 watchersThe name "Anne-Marie" came up in my French homeworkTrue story. @harej 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Prove it. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Database reportsHi - I've suggested a change to Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories/Configuration for your consideration. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Implemented (with a slight modification). String functions in MySQL are notoriously slow, as far as I'm aware. I switched the query to use LIKE, which is usually pretty quick. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Es posible?Need an expert for this one. Would it be possible to craft a userright that lets an editor delete pages, and see any material they personally have deleted, but not see other deleted material? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Anything's possible given enough time and energy. :-) It sounds like it would be difficult to implement, though. If you had a page like "Foobarbaz" and it had been deleted multiple times, who would be able to see the deleted revisions and which deleted revisions would they be able to see? Scenarios like that are what get really tricky. The 'delete' right is separate from the 'deletedhistory' right, though (cf. Special:ListGroupRights. That much is easy enough. But making access based on who did the deletion would require quite a bit of effort to implement. (Mr.Z-man is probably a better person to ask about MediaWiki development in general, though I can usually form a plausible-sounding answer.) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] In practice, if someone deleted a page and was asked to reconsider, I think they'd need to be able to see all the deleted versions to come to an intelligent decision. (Alternatively, if we can't do this, they'd have to ask an admin for help.) Okay, I'll go ask the Z-man. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Could you lend your expertiseWRe the grape stems connecting nephew Savita and neice Suhaila to sister & brother-in-law Maya & Konrad on Barack Obama's family tree chart? ↜Just M E here , now 04:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Figured out a fix, of sorts. ↜Just M E here , now 20:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sorry about the delay. I have no idea how to work that template. Your guess is as good as mine. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Carriidk my bff Carri? Carrimb (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]<3 --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]When you get time...You should explain to me more fully what I said incorrectly here, and what the link I gave actually is saying, then... :-//// Killiondude (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]m:Software upgrade process explains how the software is updated. All Wikimedia wikis run the same version of the underlying software. The databases (en.wiki, de.wiki, commons, etc.) are on different master servers. S1 holds only the en.wiki database. S2 holds some of the larger wikis. S4 holds Commons. S3 holds all the others. There can be discrepancies between different sites, but the underlying software (in theory) is always the same version between the servers. See also: m:File:Wikimedia-servers-2009-04-05.svg. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Signpost deliveryThanks for it!--ragesoss (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]No problem. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]MischaracterizationsIn occasions, it appears I have accidentally mischaracterizated other editors behavior as your own, for that I apologize. Ikip (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]No worries. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvalIt is over two weeks, according to the stats, since a BAG member has edited at Bots request for approval. Are you a BAG member? Is this typical, requests for bot approval go unanswered by BAG for weeks? --69.225.3.119 (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]I'm not a BAG member. One of the criticisms of BAG has been that it creates an exclusive club of people who are often focused on their own projects and don't put a lot of time into BAG-related matters. It's not typical for such a long dry spell, though it isn't particularly surprising. I'd try poking some BAG members on their talk pages. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] actually those numbers are wrong, BAGbot has been down since the 7th. β^_command 00:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, MZMcBride. Your name was conveniently in the post above my post on the BAG board, and I'd seen you around bots, and was tired of looking for BAG members by name. It's a well-founded criticism as BAG is a self-designated, self-elected club. Unusual for wikipedia, but anywhere you put humans you get power-mongers. Betacommand, I thought it might be the bot, but, I checked for BAG contributions to bot discussions and there are none recently outside of BAG members commenting on their own bots seeking approval. The numbers may not be correct, but it's been a long time since a BAG member contributed anything to a bot RfA conversation. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mr Zman just cleared a several and commented on some also. there have been comments and questions by other BAG too. β^_command 01:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yes, 28 seconds of editing, apparently a speed reader or didn't bother to read any of the discussions. From the approvals with issues still outstanding appears to be the latter. Thanks for your time, MZMcBride. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Or he spent 2 hours reviewing everything and made a group of edits that summed up several hours of work. please dont judge based on the speed. users have been known to review multiple edits at once and press save in a single grouping. Ive done that myself. (four edits within 20 second) But I spent about 20 before checking my facts. β^_command 01:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]I read seconds, it was minutes. I apologize. I was wrong about the time. However, his actions support that he ignored all outstanding issues. So, red herring aside, spread by me or you, it still stands that his comments suggest he did nothing of the sort of considering the issues. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]simple bot, need feedbackMZMB, can you look at this? User:TedderBot/AOP and User talk:TedderBot/AOP? It's a fairly simple task (come up with a list of all pages created by a project), and it replaces something that has been done by hand for a long time. I have feedback from the project, have asked for more, and am at the point that I'll start making test runs of it. I figure I'll put the initial output in TedderBot's subpages, but I'll want to actually replace /Admin fairly soon. Should I get BRFA before doing so, but after the subpage versions are available? Or wait until I've made a few monitored changes to the actual /Admin page? The goal is for this to run automagically from cron, weekly, so I think it is truly a bot, even though it'll only modify two or three pages. tedder (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Generally speaking, if a bot is only going to be editing its own user subpages, it doesn't ever require a BRFA. Your bot will be editing subpages in the project namespace, but it will be doing so in a very limited fashion. It's not strictly required to get approval for such a trivial task, but it is recommended. It's a pretty painless form to fill out and there shouldn't be any issue getting the request approved. (You may want to consider getting approval for generic report-making to save yourself from future paperwork.) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Thanks. Well, I'll fill out a request after I get the subpage part looking tip-top, then. And yeah, a generic report would be nice, but maybe I'll wait for now- may as well not ask for too much rope to hang myself with. tedder (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]One of your tools on the ToolserverHi! This is about this file on the Toolserver, a ranking of users by upload size (on Commons, I assume). Is it updated on a regular basis? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Yes, that appears to be a list of users on Commons by greatest number of bytes uploaded (of non-deleted media). The query used was:SELECT img_user_text AS user, SUM(img_size) AS total_upload_size FROM image GROUP BY user ORDER BY total_upload_size DESC LIMIT 1000;It was a one-time run, though if you'd like, it could be turned into a Database report of some kind (on Commons or here). --MZMcBride (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] That would be great! I don't know if there's a DBR on Commons, though. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm not inclined to set up Database reports at Commons right now. Updated data is available here, however. It won't presently be automatically updated. If that's something you're interested in, let me know and we may be able to set something up. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Indef full protected talk pagesMZM, I'm interested in working on this as well. I've checked out a few. How do you plan to handle: 1) talk pages of confirmed socks (modify the block I'm guessing) 2) talk pages of retired users who requested protection when they left 3) talk pages of doppleganger/test accounts Just curious. Trying to come up with a plan.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] And do you intend to remove all protection in most cases or just reduce to semi (would that even remove them from the list)?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]For case 1, unless the socks are known for long term talk page disruption, I don't see a real issue with unprotecting completely (though if someone is inclined to reblock too, I don't see an issue with that). In cases 2 and 3, I imagine they should just be left alone (though from my cursory look at the list, most didn't fall into these two categories). If you switch to indefinite semi-protection, they'll just move from one report to another. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Fix it again Tony redirectHow the result of the discussion was Keep, when there was as many delete and keeps? and how is the result determined --Typ932 ^T·C 22:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]I agree that it was a close vote. Generally in cases of close votes, the default response to close as keep (except in certain cases, like BLPs). After reading through the discussion, the strength of the arguments to keep the redirect outweighed the strength of the arguments to delete it. Given that, I closed it as keep. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]The UndertakerThis article has a long but by now quite stale protection log, the last entry being a move protection in October, 2007. The last edit protection action was by you in August, 2007, reducing protection from sysop to autoconfirmed. I'd like to review this to see whether semiprotection is still considered necessary after this long a time, although I'm aware that there are some long term abusers who could (for all I know) still be around. Please see the discussion I started on talk:The Undertaker. --TS 13:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Unprotected the page and left a note on the talk page. Thanks for taking a look at all of these old protections, Tony. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]WikistalkI was wondering if it would be possible for this tool to also pull out the date of the first edit to a given page by the searched parties (or even a diff)? This would greatly assist in spotting stalking. --King Öomie 14:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]You mean expose who is watching the talk page? No, I don't think this is even possible, nor would it be desirable. –xeno^talk 14:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] What? Oh, no, I mean, for example if this result page also had two diff links in every page column, leading to my first edit to that page, and yours, respectively. I'm thinking this would be useful for spotting, say, "Oh, this user only starting editing these five pages after they were reported at ANI", without digging through contrib pages. --King Öomie 14:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sincere apologies, I was mixing up wikistalk with watcher. I didn't know MZM was maintaining wikistalk as well. –xeno^talk 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Heh, no problem. Watcher looks handy, too- though it'd be great if it also showed the number of watchers who'd made an edit in the last 30 days (of course this may just be technically impossible if the database isn't reporting names) --King Öomie 15:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Something like this might be possible, though I'm not sure what the best way to stick it in the output is. I'm thinking about another checkbox (like "Show first timestamps") which would maybe create another column in the output table.... Do you know Python? The code is open source—you could write something up if you were inclined. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]This wouldn't be a small change with the way the code is written. Brandon (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]ehdunno if things changed between then and now, but Don't we usually keep around banned user talk pages, rather than adding to CAT:TEMP? see here. –xeno^talk 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]*shrugs* Looks like I removed the category ('cause I'm smart and realized the page shouldn't be deleted). I think there has been uproar in the past over deleting pages from CAT:TEMP, though personally I don't see the need to keep "User talk:OMG vandal the password to this account is troll Wikipedia sucks" forever.... --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Weird... When I looked at the deleted revision it looked like you had added it, which, as you say, would've been peculiar. Oops! Not sure why it got CAT:TEMP deleted when you removed it from the cat. –xeno^talk 19:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Signpost deliveryAre you available to do the Signpost delivery again? If so, it's all set to go. Thanks in advance! --ragesoss (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]I should be able to do this in a few hours. (And I may be setting up some sort of web UI for people like you to do deliveries like this without my intervention in the future. Stay tuned!) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] :) --ragesoss (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the poke! Running now. This, by the way, is why I was thinking about some sort of semi-automated delivery system that removes the middleman (like me). If you have any thoughts about something like User:EdwardsBot/Spam, I'd be very interested. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Pfft ... damn bots! They're taking over the 'pedia I tell ya! ;) — Ched : ? 01:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]The neew one is ready. And yeah, something where I could just add a job to a queue and have a bot deliver it would be fantastic.--ragesoss (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Done. There were a few skipped pages: User talk:D_climacus — page protected User talk:DougsTech — page protected Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]WSCBotHi, knowing your interest in admin bots I wonder if you'd be interested in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#possible botting of speedy deletes? ϢereSpielChequers 17:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Ted GibsonI'd like to unprotect Ted Gibson. I've created an account for his publicist, who is interested in seeing an article. Ted Gibson, the beauty salon operator and beauty products maker, does seem notable. Fred Talk 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]My protection was simply deprecating the older system of using transclusion of non-existent titles. I don't know the specifics of why it was listed at Protected titles, but it seems like it shouldn't be an issue to create the article. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Wiki-Meetup spamFor the DC Meetup 7, I put my name in the "Nope, and don't let me know about future events" category. Imagine my surprise when I got an invite for DC Meetup 8! Please ensure I don't get another one, please. Kthanks. --MicahBrwn (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Sorry about that. I'm still looking for a clean way to exclude specific users. Is it only these notices you don't want to receive or is it all botspam? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Just the DC Meetup notices, please. I don't mind botspam pertaining to various WikiProjects I belong to, as an example, even when I'm not a rabid project member … but when it comes to meetups for a city I no longer live in (and have no immediate plans to return to), yeah. Excessively annoying. --MicahBrwn (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Draft templateTo accompany the user space template, User:Jennavecia/BLP. Check the edit window, there's a need for some coding that I don't know how to do. Lara 18:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]spamI know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 04:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]bad move dude — Ched : ? 05:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] I moved nothing. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hmmm ... 05:35, October 5, 2009 MZMcBride (talk | contribs | block) deleted "WikiProject:Administrator" ‎ (cross-namespace redirect that's new enough to not cause any lasting damage if deleted now) (view/restore) ... kk ... my bad on the naming and all. Can you help? — Ched : ? 05:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Protection of WestbangI realize this was a looong time ago, but there's a request pending at RFPP to have this un-salted. I'm not sure I'm familiar with the reasoning listed in the protection log, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look and consider unprotecting it. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Not sure what the deal is with that article. Should be fine to unprotect. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Cool, thanks for the reply. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Reverting your editsI notice you tagged a template Template:Districts of the Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia for speedy deletion last year. Are you unaware that the creator of the template reverted your edit? -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 03:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Yes, I was unaware. Not particularly worried about it. The template was tagged for speedy deletion because it was unused. It appears to be used now (see here). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Marc ChavannesCan the article such be relaunched? Yours, Ciciban (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Yep! :-) Feel free to move the page back to the article namespace. Thank you for adding references. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Since you're good with code and such...could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Rhode Island and see if you can come up with a solution for the display issue pointed out by Moondyne? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]For reference, done. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Bands and BLPlink ... thoughts? — Ched : ? 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Syntax Error in Dartmouth College v. WoodwardThere is a syntax error of some sort that makes the infobox display as code instead of as an infobox. Pleeeezzze help with this, no idea how it works. Alexanderaltman (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]There was some vandalism recently in the edit history. An IP user took out a lot of text from the page, including some of the infobox. I've reverted, and it should be fine now. Killiondude (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! Alexanderaltman (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Rita Orlandi-MalaspinaHello MZMcBride. I don't think you should have deleted this article/userfied Rita Orlandi-Malaspina. Notability was clearly asserted here and there was no obviously contentious material to raise serious BLP concerns. Further, your actions seemed a bit hard on the creator of the article who is a new user and just needs some help getting acclimated. Please don't bite the new comers.Singingdaisies (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Hi Singingdaisies. The issue isn't one necessarily about contentiousness, but one about references. Our biographies of living people policy requires that all biographies be referenced. If we're able to look at some brand new unreferenced biographies, catch them while their author is still actively editing, and work to improve them now, I think we'll be in a much better situation than if we simply let them sit. When you talk about biting newcomers, I'm not really sure what you're referring to. The messages left on the user talk page of the author were as clear and kind as I could make them, though if you have suggestions for improving them, please let me know! :-) You did very nice work adding references to the Orlandi-Malaspina article. (Though it seems the history is now split between two places; that might be something to revisit at some point.) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 202: / Line 202: @@
 Hello MZMcBride -- This is a very nice tool indeed.  I edit mostly the English wiktionary and I found that, while the counts of wiktionary User page watchers work just fine, it is not possible to get counts of who's watching wiktionary articles (which we call entries) because (as in all dictionaries) their titles are case sensitive and most do not begin with a capital letter.  Is there any chance you could modify Watcher to work with lower-case wiktionary entries?  -- [[User:WikiPedant|WikiPedant]] ([[User talk:WikiPedant|talk]]) 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
+:Sorry this took so long to get fixed. Should be all better now ([http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiktionary_p&titles=wiki test]). Cheers. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride#top|talk]]) 20:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 == Fewer than 30 watchers ==