User talk:MZMcBride

Common.css revert

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

Question

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

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

O hai

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

Deletion

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

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

Deletion thread # 382

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

New Project

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

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

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

OM and Twinkle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krimpet tried to discuss it, but Orangemarlin rebuffed her as a troll - and used Twinkle to do it: [1] In the meantime, Cla68 has given Orangemarlin a "warning" about Twinkle [2], so this will be a moot point in any future discussions. And my answer to your final question is yes, if you unilaterally began removing Twinkle access from people who use it to revert good-faith edits, you would have my 100% support. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It took me a minute, but I did pull some diffs. [3] [4] [5] — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [6] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

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

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

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

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

Grooveshark

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