User talk:MZMcBride

Just curious as to why these talk pages were just deleted: Talk:Ajit Hutheesing,Talk:Agapetae, Talk:Advanced Space Propulsion Investigation Committee, Talk:Acuff-Rose Music, Talk:Academy of Military Science, Talk:Absurd humor. The corresponding articles are still there. CSD G6 just says Non-controversial maintenance. I had added citations to these articles and know that I added at least a template from WikiProject: Unreferenced Article Cleanup. There has been no discussions on these talk pages recently. Was there something wrong with these talk pages? Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Each of those talk pages consisted of nothing more than a single edit which added {{talkheader }}. –xeno (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Thanks, Learn something new every day! --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I really should note here when I respond elsewhere... ; - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I'm just wondering why you're taking the time to delete talk pages that have only the talk header template posted to them? What's wrong with that? I noticed it here Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I'm a firm believer that blue links should have content. A talk header (that's only supposed to be on very active talk pages) with no content below it goes against this idea. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Ah yes, sorry for redundantly answering for you MZMc... Talk page stalker, hard at work ;> –xeno (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

OK. This freaked me out, though. I thought maybe the article deletion was next and there was a discussion that I had missed. Whew! :-) Next time, please have the bot describe the edit a bit better. "csd g6" didn't mean anything to me. Thanks and cheers. DavidRF (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Same with me. I spend quite some time trying to figure out what happen and what "csd 6" means until I ended up here. The deletion comment should be definitely more descriptive, something like "This TALK page has been deleted by bot due to..." friendlystar (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I tagged a bunch of image-talk pages for speedy deletion under g6, but no one has deleted them yet - could you take a look as you seem to be examining these lately? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Nevermind - Zzuuzz (talk ·contribs ) raised a query and thought that the image-talk pages should remain, so I removed my speedy deletion tags. If you want to take a look they are the image-talk pages that have zero discussion, in Category:Non-article Scientology pages. Cirt (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I see you deleted the talk page, but as the associated article Hilton Baltimore is still here, I'm puzzled as to why the article shouldn't have a Talk page to discuss article improvement, list project templates, etc., you know, the usual Talk page stuff. JGHowes ^talk - 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

See the section directly above. : - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Please stop deleting talk pages. Although the pages you deleted had little more than a talk header they should be kept, so that it saves other users the hassal of having to create them when they want to start a new discussion. Thank you. Oh by the way I have read the discussions above. JayJ47 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Ditto. I should go DRV but can't be bothered today. I noticed one of my watched pages had the talk page ixnayed, and then I was adding a cat to an associated page and shortly after its talk page was gone. Nice game you're playing? Didn't the Tendring Hundred Show have a wikiproject banner on it? It should have been in one of the England wikiprojects? Or do you delete those too? Oh, and I'm supposed to "courteously invite the admin to take a second look." at Talk:Royal Pigeon Racing Association. Cheers, Sting Buzz Me... 01:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Sorry, what? You're going to go to Deletion_review and say, "MZMcBride deleted a talk page that had one revision. He did so because the template instructions clearly (in bold letters) say not to add the template to empty talk pages. It should be restored." Seriously? : - ) The entire page history for Talk:Tendring Hundred Show was:

(diff) 20:14, 15 July 2008 . . Sting au (Talk | contribs | block) (14 bytes) (Create article talk page with {{talkheader}})

The entire page history of Talk:Royal Pigeon Racing Association is:

(diff) 17:28, 18 June 2008 . . Sting au (Talk | contribs | block) (14 bytes) (Creating article talk page with talkheader template)

Of course I'm not deleting talk pages that contain WikiProject banners. That would be harmful and unproductive. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I'm back :-) I see you've made more friends with your latest career move. I don't need to go to DRV now as the pages are back up with wikiproject banners. Great time wasting effort of yours I must say. From your comments you obviously think you are doing the right thing? The template instructions are NOT policy nor are they even remotely like any policy. I hope you've learned your lesson from all this? If you're planning on deleting any talk pages I've created in future, could you drop me a line on my talk page first please. Then I might be able to find a suitable wikiproject for it. Cheers,--Sting Buzz Me... 12:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

• Just thought I should let you know there is an AN thread (previously AN/I, merged into an earlier AN thread about the general usefulness of deleting talk pages in this manner) that mentions your name here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Merged from ANI. –xeno (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Heh. I was wondering when someone was going to inform me of that thread. Thanks for the (belated) heads-up. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I was actually going to tell you about the first one, but it was technically just general discussion that (at least when I read it) didn't name you. –xeno (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

(e/c)I've been tangentially involved with this (I undeleted one talk page that you deleted by adding two wikiprojects). I'm only wondering (besides the "policy" about the talkheader template) what the purpose is in deleting the talkpages? It isn't saving server space, it isn't improving the encyc, and it is, IMO, making it more prohibitive for other (especially newer) editors to add to the talkpages. What's the urgency? Why the deletions? Again, I've read your entire page here, I'm simply failing to see a good reason for going through the effort you are going through to delete talkpages (regardless of lack of content) of established articles. I'll watchlist your talkpage in anticipation of a reply. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 02:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

The purpose of red links is to indicate that a page is content-less. Blue links indicate that a page has content. I'm a firm believer that pages should have content or they shouldn't exist. (And obviously others agree, thus the template usage instructions.) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for responding, and for explaining, much appreciated! (I mean that, it isn't sarcastic). Another question, why isn't a "template", which is meant as a generic message to guide/instruct/bluelink/help an editor considered content, in your eyes? I'll be frank, and admit I'm seeing this completely the opposite of you. I'm not about to go against consensus, I'll go work on changing the "template usage instructions" if need be. The "talkpageheader" gives editors different options, and explicit instructions, about how, and where, to post any comments. How is that worse than a redlink? I'm still not seeing it. I'm not saying it's any more valuable than a redlink, just simpler. With instructions for newbies. Again, I'm not about to go change every redlink talkpage to bluelinks (good god!), but at the same time, I really don't see the value in changing bluelinks back to red. What am I missing? Keeper ǀ 76 03:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

The original intent of {{talkheader }}, as I understand it, is to serve as a reminder for users on active, busy talk pages. And that is why the usage guidelines explicitly tried to forbid people adding it to every talk page. As others have noted, if it really needs to be seen on every talk page, we should modify the software messages. The reason I personally don't see {{talkheader }} as content is that the talk page is (or was, really) primarily for discussion of an article (or subject-space page). These "reminder" templates, while beneficial in certain cases, aren't really at all necessary on a talk page that is never visited or edited. Some of the pages I deleted were literally years old. It seems rather silly in my mind to explain the purpose and guidelines of a talk page if nobody is using it. Just my personal view. I've stopped the deletions and I'll see how the discussion at Talkheader pans out. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Thank you, once again! I'm sorry to bother you, but where is this discussion happening? I'm hoping you have the time to give me a link, so I can read it and perhaps contribute. Again, I agree with you that a talkpage with "only a talkpageheader" template isn't useful, but it isn't "useless" either, to new users anyway. Where is the discussion happening? Bluelink, pretty please? Keeper ǀ 76 03:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

(unindent) There's a discussion ongoing here and I assumed from your comments that you were going to start one in the next few days at Template talk:Talkheader. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Heh, I'd already commented on your first link, and was wondering if there was a wider discussion happening somewhere :-). I didn't start any posts at your second link, but I'll wathclist it nonetheless. I don't care nearly enough to start a post on my own. cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 04:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I see the discussion above, and I must point out that deleting empty talk pages is disruptive. It's confusing and wastes editors' time trying to chase down what happened and why. Just looking at the contents of this page above shows that it's a net loss to the project. Please desist. --CliffC (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I'm wasting the time of the same editors who spent their time tagging pages with {{talkheader }}? Heh. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Beg pardon? I haven't tagged any pages with {{talkheader }}. Yet you have wasted my time. --CliffC (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I see you deleted this as a temporary Wikipedian userpage. However, it is obvious that it is not. Did you make that deletion yourself, or are you running an adminbot, and there was a false positive? If so, then you should make sure that it is only User and User talk pages. Soxπed93 ^(blag) 03:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Heh. Whoops. It's the only non-User / User_talk: page in my list. Why on Earth is that page in that category.... I'll go fix that page. Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Just a heads up, if you are running an adminbot, the code should be pretty close to faultproof. Making sure that it is User or User talk is indeed the first step. Soxπed93 ^(blag) 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I was wondering why the talk page to station WMNX was deleted. Radio stations normally have templates from the state projects as well as the Radio Station WikiProject. If you could let me know, I would appericate it. Take Care and Have a Good Weekend....NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

The three sections above describe the situation, but I'll paraphrase: "Each of those talk pages consisted of nothing more than a single edit which added {{talkheader }}." Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Would either templates {{Project North Carolina }} or {{RadioStationsProject }} fall under CSD G6? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Nope. Never. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Excellent, just wanted to make sure. I am going to add those two templates to Talk:WMNX (via a drop down menu for increased space). Thanks for your help. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

By the way, if you come across any radio or TV station talk pages with the {{talkheader }} template and nothing else, drop me a message and I will add the respective WikiProject templates. Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I think you should stop deleting talk pages. Although I do believe you're doing this in good faith many editors seem to be against what you're doing. If you continue you may loose certain editing priveleges. Deleting talk pages just because they only have {{talk header}} is very disruptive and as mentioned by many editors above, is a waste of time for users because somtimes they have to find out why the talk page was deleted. Thank you. JayJ47 (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Kindly tell me why the talk page of Mission Netaji was deleted? Part of the clean up process as there wasn't much content on the talk page? -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

See sections 1–4 and section 6 of this talk page. : - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I wonder and can't get: Why did you delete so many talk pages for no reason??? Take Tanuja Chandra for example. First off, how does it help you? How does it help the article? Secondly, what policy or guideline are going according to? The fact that these talk pages only consist of {{talkheader}} is in my opinion not a sufficient reason to do that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Please see sections 1–4 and section 6 of this talk page. : - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

If you see this heading it is because MZMcBride has probably deleted talk page headers you added to articles. It was not personal, he does it to everyone. My suggestion to the reader is that you restore the talk pages with a WikiProject tag as well as the talk header.

Talkheaders should be added to all articles that don't have them. They encourage new editors to contribute and give a very concise idea of the basic rules. There is no policy requiring the first poster to add these tags, nor is there a policy that they should only be added in a set of specific circumstances. Given this, MZMcBride is acting in good faith, but represents no official Wiki policy.

My recommendation to MZMcBride and to everyone is to add WikiProject tags, rather than talk headers in isolation, this would lighten the load for WikiProjects, instantly informing them of new articles within their purview. Removal of WikiProject tags would be clear obstruction of Wiki processes and collaborative editing. Given that I am sure MZMcBride is indeed acting in good faith, I hope he'd support this idea, and I'd congratulate him on virtually single-handedly pushing us all to going that extra mile and connecting articles with WikiProjects, a good thing for everyone.

All's well that ends well. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

• I agree that {{talkheader }} should be on all Talk pages, for the benefit of newbie users and anon IPs unfamiliar with what the Talk page is for. Unfortunately, the documentation says here: "do not add Talkheader to empty Talk pages". The guideline needs to be changed there. JGHowes ^talk - 17:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

If information is needed on every talk page, it should be added to the software messages, not added manually by users (and bots). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I agree with both of you. The policy should be changed and the software should address it. In the meanwhile (possibly forever) bots, or in their absence users, should provide this "welcome" for would be contributors.

It doesn't trouble me enough to address it other than here and now. I will however adopt the practice I describe above, where I obey the letter and the spirit of policy, including WP:IAR, while linking pages to projects and thus being a better team player.

What others choose to do is up to them of course. Best wishes all. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

To MZMcBride,

Would you consider making useful edits to articles rather than deleting scores of talk pages.

Regards,

Francium12 (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Please recognize that I've contributed a great deal to this project and comments like yours are both insensitive and unnecessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Hey. I would just like to say that the issue you report that is now located here will not be acted upon due to the holes that it will create for vandals. Please follow the link for all of the information. If you would like to query me please talk to me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk /_Cont 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I've replied on your talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Hello MZMcBride, you recently speedy deleted Talk:Keitaro Urashima, citing CSD G6 in your edit summary. AFAIK, there was no reason to delete the page - no other page should need its history merged with this talk page, and there shouldn't be any other talk page needing to be moved there - and it is still nonexistant at this point. Could you please tell me for what reason you deleted this page? —Dino guy 1000 16:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

See sections 1–4 and section 6 of this page. : - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Hmm... I thought there was an animanga project banner on it... In any case, though, I need to start paying more attention to my surroundings (would have saved us both some time). --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.22.178 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

See jobsworth 92.8.224.31 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Heh. It's a free online encyclopedia that nearly anyone can edit. It's reasonable to expect that a fair number of pages that users create are pure garbage and unnecessary. It's also reasonable to expect a fraction of the users of this site who see these deletions in their watchlists and in RecentChanges to wonder what's going on. And, obviously, the more deletions, the more inquiries. At this point, the question has been answered, the rationale has been given, and now you're just wasting more of your precious time badgering me. ; - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

That was rather uncalled for, 92.8.224.31... --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.22.178 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Please see (if you haven't already) recent contributions to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Redlinked talk is a barrier to new users. I understand that what you have done appears above board and even reasonable. However the initial (bot-generated?) explanation given was confusing. I won't go into more detail here, most of my reasoning is in the section I just flagged above; besides, look at the datestamp - I don't want an argument with a brick wall (meaning this page, not you) at this hour (GMT+1)! --Peeky44 (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Since User:Maxim is on vacation, and you are listed as the contact, would you mind restoring Image:Scorpions-stilllovingyou1.jpg? I think that it might be okay for use on that article Still Loving You if I add a fair use rationale. If the image doesn't really add anything special to the article, we can delete it again, and I'll remove the reference from the article. Thanks! — OranL (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Sure, done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Thank you! — OranL (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

OK, actually it is. Never mind.

Nice to see someone working against the Protectionist agenda :-) RossPatterson (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Seconded. Templatespace is neglected enough without everything being preemptively locked down. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Dear Sir, I see you are the admin who deleted Trip Lee. 'Sounds like it was lame and un-sourced before. I quickly through together a better version at User:Dimsim da man/Trip Lee and was wondering what else I could do to make it worthy of existence again? Sorry if this is bugging you, but when I went to create the page it said to ask you (the protector) before asking for it to be un-protected. Thanks for any advice in advance, --Aquatiki (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I didn't delete the page.

* 13:49, 25 July 2007 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Trip Lee" ‎ (CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trip Lee) (restore)
* 22:21, 27 June 2007 Coredesat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Trip Lee" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trip Lee) (restore)

Please contact one of those two admins. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Without commenting on the appropriateness of this ubx, don't you think it was rather unwise to delete it under T1 (which doesn't apply) while a legitimate MfD was going on, and then delete the MfD, given the attitude at the DRV? seresin ( ¡? ) 22:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Not particularly. Had it not been for the use of user scripts, my deletion would have beaten MBisanz's MfD. The reverts / deletion of the MfD were merely housekeeping as it seemed rude to have another admin cleanup after me. If you feel the MfD should be restored and closed using the appropriate templates, feel free. As for a DRV, I'm not particularly sure what you're talking about. I assume you mean the other userbox-related one? If so, I wouldn't take that into consideration at all. The specific set of userboxes I deleted under T1 were far different than the ones being discussed at DRV currently.

On a broader note, CSD is almost entirely about the spirit of the policy, not the letter of it. While it's undeniable that the userboxes weren't in the Template: namespace, it shouldn't (and doesn't) matter. For all intents and purposes they were being used as templates, and there is no evidence to suggest that there is a snowball's chance in hell that the userboxes I deleted would be kept if given a broader forum. Process for the sake of process is unproductive and unnecessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I think CSD is one of our more letter-based policies by its very nature, whether or not it should be. I won't restore the MfD; that would be fruitless as the ubx has now been deleted for other reasons. I still consider it unwise to delete a ubx without MfD right now given the DRV, and especially the fact that this ubx was specifically linked in it and therefore the redlink will probably ring particular attention to it (Indeed, that's how I noticed). But, I suppose it's your call. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I was discussing CSD with a few other admins earlier today. Four or five people at WT:CSD can drastically alter the meaning of any particular criterion on any given day. And there seems to be a mini cabal that has formed at WT:CSD, which is also rather worrying. All in all, we choose administrators for their judgment; I really wish we would let them exercise it more often. A userbox that discusses which hand a person masturbates with is divisive and inflammatory, as well as simply inappropriate. Whether or not the current version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion includes a criterion that exactly matches these three pages is entirely irrelevant. The page should not exist on Wikipedia and so it was deleted. At the end of the day, a focus on the results rather than the means can be incredibly important. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

• Can you humor me and tell me how it is divisive and inflammatory? –xeno (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Userpages of contributors represent the community. Users are expected to have a userpage that doesn't embarrass the project. A userbox regarding which hand someone uses to masturbate, along with a picture, isn't appropriate for a userpage on a free online encyclopedia. I find it's best to think of userpages as you would the walls of an office. I doubt many businesses would allow one of their employees to declare which hand they use to masturbate and include an image.

As far as I'm aware, the userbox wasn't being used on any userpages, only on one user subpage. That indicates to me that most people agree that it's not really an appropriate thing to display. Its creation seems to be far more an effort to "push the boundaries" than it does to legitimately express an idea. This issue, in my mind, is over. The box has been deleted and it's time to move on. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I've taken this to DRV, the discussion can be found here. Ryan Postlethwaite ^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I checked back on a user I had previously blocked and found that you had deleted his talk page with the comment "temporary userpage over 1 month old for indefinitely blocked user." Please advise what policy requires or justifies such deletion, as it increases the difficulty of following up when a banned user engages in sockpuppetry, by making his history of warnings and blocks and his edit habits harder to review. Is Wikipedia running out of server space? No, wait, all the deleted edits are still stored in addition to the deletion, so deleting the talk pages of banned users saves no server space. Thanks. Edison (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I have added this to the ongoing discussion at WP:ANI. Edison (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

It's common practice to delete user and user talk pages of indefinitely blocked users (see also: CAT:TEMP). If there's a specific page you need restored, I'd be more than happy to oblige. As for AN/I threads, perhaps you meant AN? I don't see anything on AN/I currently.... Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Yes, AN. I have stricken my complaint there. OK, I now have no problem with your deletion of user pages of indefinitely blocked users after a month of no new posts. That is an aspect of the blocking that I had not run across, since there is nothing about it in the page I use to block, or that I recall from the admin training. One odd aspect is that if someone later deletes an image added by the blocked and deleted user, that admin may recreate the talk page just to inform them, like this instance . Should it then be re-deleted? Thanks. Edison (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

One further question: Do you object to placing {{Template:BLP}} or {{WPBiography|living=yes}} on newly created articles about living persons, when no other comments have been added? It helps to enforce WP:BLP plicy by heading off general unsourced discussion and defamation. See . Thanks. Edison (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Automated scripts and newsletter deliveries and the like don't check if the user is blocked, so quite a few deleted user talk pages are re-created. They can be deleted if you come across them, but at some point, someone will likely generate a list of all indefinitely blocked user and user talk pages and take care of them in one go. As for {{BLP }} or {{WPBiography |living=yes}}, they're fine to add to pages I suppose if the person is covered by the relevant policy. The pages I deleted were ones with only {{talkheader }} on them, so it was a different subset. But, if you feel that people need to be reminded or warned about our BLP policies on the talk page, that seems fine. Though, it would be even better if you (or others) added relevant WikiProject tags while adding {{BLP }} and such; it makes the talk page more useful and keeps edits more productive. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Which MediaWiki governs the pagetitle? Can it change on an administrator's level or does it have to change at developer's level? OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 03:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I hope I'm not butting in too much...the page you want is MediaWiki:Pagetitle-view-mainpage. It can be changed by any administrator. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

No problem at all. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Hi there. I was wondering why you deleted my personal work in progress page ( User:SiGarb (work in progress) )? OK, it is a long time since I did any work on it, or indeed made many contributions to Wikipedia, but I have been extremely busy with other projects. Now that I come to return to it, I find that you removed it – without any consultation or attempting to contact me, as far as I can see – back in April. Is it possible for you to let me have my work back, and explain why you felt it should be deleted? Thank you. SiGarb | Talk 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

It was deleted under CSD U2 as it didn't belong to any particular user. I've restored and moved the page to an appropriate location. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

errm... which is??? SiGarb | Talk 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

User:SiGarb/work in progress. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Hi, just noticed your changing __NOINDEX__ to {{NOINDEX}}. I understand the technical intent, I'm just wondering the reason? Is there a discussion somewhere? Thanks! Take care. user:j (aka justen) 22:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I don't believe there's been too much discussion about the magic word anywhere on-wiki, really. The issue is that there isn't any current mechanism to track the usage of it. No Special: page, no category, nothing. So I wrote the template and I've been converting the uses of it. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

With the pace you are placing it, a protection as high-risk template might be an idea before it gets vandalized and you get blamed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Heh, indeed. Fully protected. It has some outrageous number of transclusions already, something like 35,000. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Your bug was fixed and resolved a few minutes ago. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Thank you very much for the notice (and for posting it in the first place : )

Incidentally, I'm personally having technical issues. If you have a moment, please feel free to check out user talk:Davidgothberg.

Anyway, thanks again : ) - jc37 08:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Did you really block Tundrabuggy for adding a single word? Or did you link to the wrong diff? I'm having trouble even seeing how that could be "the last straw". II | (t - c) 18:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Look at the page history. It wasn't Tundrabuggy's first edit to that page or his first edit ever. It was a deliberate attempt to stir up drama. And I didn't block him from editing everything, I blocked him from editing that particular page and talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

If the word "reported" stirs up drama, then people just need to be less dramatic. II | (t - c) 19:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Hello MZMcBride,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 01:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Thanks! E-mail sent. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

I noticed that you deleted the talk page for this AfD under CSD G6 (author requests deletion). I am a little perplexed: this is an AfD talk page and it is rather unusual for such pages to be deleted, since there could be something relevant and useful there related to the AfD discussion. Could you please give me an idea of what kind of content got deleted? I was the nominator for this AfD and there was in fact a bit of post-AfD trouble with this article. The AfD closure was a non-admin one and the article was redirected rather than deleted plus redirected. As a result, the history log was retained for the original entry. Later on another user undid the redirect and restored the article. Then it was redirected again (and it is still redirected). So I am rather curious as to what was deleted from the talk page and if it might make sense to keep that content for the future, in case the redirect is undone again or the AfD needs to be revisited for another reason. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

The entire page history was:

# (diff) 21:17, 29 July 2008 . . Orlady (Talk | contribs | block) (empty) (oops -- put in wrong place)
# (diff) 21:08, 29 July 2008 . . Orlady (Talk | contribs | block) (91 bytes) (← Created page with '{{oldafdfull | date = 29 July 2008 | result = '''redirect''' | page = Jim David Adkisson }}')

--MZMcBride (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

OK, thanks, nothing there that may ever be needed in the future. Nsk92 (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Hi!

I see you've deleted this banner under G7 as it had been blanked (months ago!). It links to all project talk pages and is used for mass alerts (such as for our six-monthly coordinator elections) and as such will be needed again again in a couple of weeks for the next lot. If you don't mind, I'll restore it and add a hidden notice explaining that it ought not be deleted even if it's empty. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Appreciated :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Reply

Sure, go ahead an unprotect it if you'd like. I'm not around enough to keep watch over it, but if the disruptive editor comes back again there isn't much that can be done beyond what we tried once if you'd like to pursue it, as it's too large of an IP range to block. We replaced the list of players with a template, and had a bot undo every attempt to remove the transcluded template (as the editor replaced the template with his 'revised' version of the player list with the flags that he cared to put in. Unfortunately the bot owner went AWOL and I guess I was too lazy to find another bot owner for such a tiny task. Cowman109 ^Talk 17:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Reply