Gundam

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

Admin bots

Hello, I have recently had an encounter with an unapproved admin bot, and despite an extremely clear dictate by policy that these bots should be blocked, have been discouraged from doing so. Depending how this situation resolves, I will likely file an arbitration request to hopefully resolve this issue once and for all. You commented on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Adminbots, stating that you ran an admin bot. To help get an idea of how widespread admin bots are, as well as get a uniform decision, I would like to ask: Do you still operate this bot, and does it operate when you are not present? Please reply on my talk page, thanks, Prodego ^talk 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

“Encyclopedia. Say it with me: en-cy-klo-pe-di-a. Now, go work on it.” – Android79

--MZMcBride (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that's golden. —Миша13 10:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Something funny? Majorly ^talk 20:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stand not in judgment, lest ye be judged. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

An Arbitration request has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration regarding your running of an unapproved bot. Prodego ^talk 19:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Media Works,Inc"

CSD 1 says: "Redirects to deleted, nonexistent or invalid targets, including redirect loops that do not end with a valid target."

But "Media Works,Inc," according to the deletion log, redirected to MediaWorks (publisher), a valid target. Therefore the speedy was not appropriate. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Works,Inc pointed to MediaWorks (publisher), which was deleted:

* 26 August 2008 Cobaltbluetony (Talk | contribs | block) restored "MediaWorks (publisher)" ‎ (198 revisions restored: history review reflects vandalism by MadMadMaxx)
* 26 August 2008 Cobaltbluetony (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "MediaWorks (publisher)" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising) (restore)

It just so happens that I was deleting broken redirects during this gap. Feel free to re-create the redirect, if appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright - thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it!

Your work that you just uploaded. Something i believe in very much and something everyone should use. I know you have come under intense criticism over time, especially recently but i think you do a great job. All the best 211.30.111.205 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I'm hoping to re-render, fix, and add some more in the next few days. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archives for Novak Djokovic

Hi: Accoding to this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3ANovak+Djokovic%2FArchive+1
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Novak_Djokovic/Archive_2&action=edit&redlink=1

you have deleted the archives of the talk page! This must be mistake. How can this be fixed? --HJensen, talk 23:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Gah. Why must people use bad links.... The issue is that the actual archives (were) located at Talk:Novak Đoković (version 2)/Archive 1 and Talk:Novak Đoković (version 2)/Archive 2. But the parent page, Talk:Novak Đoković (version 2), was deleted, making it appear to be an orphaned subpage. And due to a good amount of page moves, the WhatLinksHere function didn't indicate that the archives were still linked anywhere. I've restored the pages and fixed their titles and links. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Great!! Thanks for your time.--HJensen, talk 09:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A reaction

to the user page noms is available here. -- Suntag ☼ 07:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Regions bordering other regions

On March 12 you deleted the talkpage for List of regions bordering other regions. Did you mean to delete the article too? maxsch (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was just done as part of housekeeping. Feel free to re-create the page if appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I will recreate it, if only to suggest that the article is poorly named or poorly conceived. But I'm curious now, I have never seen a deleted talkpage before with the article kept. For my education would you mind telling me why that is appropriate? Why not just blank it? I don't know what was in there before, was the history not worth keeping? maxsch (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The page was vandalized and then later blanked. Following the wiki philosophy that blue links should always lead to content, rather than to a blank page, I deleted the page to return it to its red state (a true tabula rasa, if you will). In general, any page that has been speedily deleted can be re-created if it is appropriate to do (article, talk page, etc.). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of talk pages with WikiProject headers, class "needed"

You recently deleted the page Talk:Solent & Wightline Cruises citing CSD#G8. This talk page does not have an associated article. However, it did have a WP:WikiProject Wight header marking it as Needed-class, which is excluded in CSD G8 "This excludes any talk page which is useful to the project". I have restored the page - Please check next time. Thank you. --Peeky44 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you're creating pages that fall directly under a CSD criterion and could confuse other admins as well, please kindly tag the pages with {{go away}} to avoid future deletion of the pages. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there any documentation on what your bot interprets as signals not to delete a page? You've mentioned {{go away}} in several places, but is there an equivalent that doesn't produce that silly box? And how about the various existing templates, such as {{deletion discussion}} and {{rtd}}, which contain a human-readable (but presumably not bot-readable) request not the delete the page? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The only real documentation is at Template:Go away, as far as I'm aware (which I guess means there isn't any documentation). As for the other similar templates, I've personally not run across those previously. Why people are using talk pages as a forum for deletion discussion is a bit confusing to me, though. If you'd like to standardize and clean up the current (rather ad-hoc) system, I'll obviously have no objection. Just let me know what you choose so that I (or a script) can look for it when speedying pages. :-) I have a nifty JS script that changes the background color of pages that have no transclusions for example. Quite helpful when dealing with T3s. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Deletion discussion}} sort of was my attempt at standardizing this, at least as far as talk pages with deletion discussions are concerned, but it doesn't appear to have seen much use yet. {{Rtd}} is quite old (from 2006) and has been used more, probably because {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} says to do so. Incidentally, you have run into {{rtd}} before, but probably just didn't notice: Category:Talk pages of deleted replaceable fair use images, which it populates, used to contain a lot more pages, but you've deleted most of them. I've been grepping the deletion log and restoring some of them, but the reviewing and undeletion is really slow and tedious work and I really should write some better scripts of my own to speed it up. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The easiest solution would seem to be a category (possibly hidden) that can encompass all of them. That's sort of what {{do not delete}} did for User: and User_talk: pages, except it used an invisible template instead of a category. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How about, say, {{not g8}}, with or without an accompanying (hidden) category? Or maybe {{g8-exempt}}? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

About deletion discussions, wasn't there a template used to tag the very old deletion discussions when the switch from VfD to AfD took place in around 2004? Wikipedia:Archived delete discussions has some details. I see that Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/2003 still contains redlinks despite something being done a year or so ago. Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/Jan to Apr 2004 has lots of redlinks as well. The might be redirects that got deleted after a move, but possibly not. <has a look> Yeah. Talk:The Best Page in the Universe/Delete (a deleted redirect) eventually, after a few deletion logs, leads to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best Page in the Universe. Talk:Stellated earflaps is a bit depressing though. Debate took place back in 2004, it was deleted in 2006, restored in July 2007, and deleted again in December 2007, even though a "do not delete" message had been clearly placed on it. I just encountered the admin in question over at the ban discussion for Kurt, so I won't tap him on the shoulder right now. The success of the archive message in question can still be seen here. User:Fuhghettaboutit left the message on eight pages, only one of which has survived (Paul Bouche), though that is only because it is an article now. I see that East718, Maxim, Mr Z.man and you (MZMcBride) were the deleting admins, running scripts or bots no doubt (ahem!). :-) I'll point Fuhghettaboutit here so some more permanent solution can be thrashed out. I can help as well if help is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Ilmari: Sounds great. Either of those will do. With regard to a visible message, it would certain be helpful to people who don't use scripts to have a visual cue, but perhaps a category at the bottom is sufficient?

Carcharoth: As far as I'm aware, we (other users) moved all /Delete discussions to an appropriate AfD or MfD or RfD subpage. It appears that the redirects were deleted using CSD#R3 in some cases. I imagine some of those redirects still exist, though. What I'm having difficult understanding is why any current instructions anywhere are telling users to use a talk page years after we abandoned that practice. As for who has been deleting the orphaned (no corresponding subject-space page) pages, yes, it's mostly been me and Maxim for the past few months, with other users occasionally helping. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the "redirect-after-moves-to-XfD-pages" cases, if the redirects were deleted, it would have been polite to update the redlinks on project pages such as Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/Jan to Apr 2004 to point to the new location. Or just leave the redirects in place (it is what redirects are for, after all). But there are some where the deletion discussions were not moved. See: Talk:Michal Arkusz, Talk:Simpson v. Savoie, Talk:Torah Cosmos, Talk:Stellated earflaps, Talk:Fair market, Talk:List of heterosexuals, and Talk:Eberite/Delete. Compare with: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Arkusz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simpson v. Savoie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torah Cosmos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellated earflaps, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fair market, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heterosexuals, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eberite. Two of those are certainly lost pages that East718 rescued. Not sure what happened with the others. Carcharoth (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, things certainly could've been done better. That much is obvious. I think a large part of the problem stems from the fact that we lay down absolutes and then when our query results don't match that, we try to rectify the wrong problem. What I mean by that: we created CSD#G8 that says no orphaned talk pages. So we expect that when we query for orphaned talk pages, we won't find any. But when queries list pages like Talk:Tivoli Theatre (London), which are intentionally orphaned, we try to fix it so that we don't run into the page any more. I've run into this problem on a number of occasions with various CSDs. People intentionally creating broken redirects, etc. For broken redirects, I allow a 'grace period' of four days. For orphaned talk pages, I just ask that people tag the page with {{go away}}. But as has been pointed out, these systems are not perfect and were created rather ad-hoc. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Well, I'm rather pleased to see old pages being undeleted by bots and scripts. Very pleased in fact! ;-) Thanks for explaining some of what happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(belated ec, forgot to save) You know, I don't think the CSDs were ever meant to be absolutes. In fact, the lead to WP:CSD explicitly says (emphasis original) that "deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria." G8, in particular, has also for quite some time included the words "this excludes any talk page which is useful to the project" or something to that effect, which I at least have always assumed to imply a general obligation to read (or at least skim over) the page and see if it contains anything worth keeping before speedying it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A contradiction in terms, I suppose, as the entire point of creating speedy deletion criteria was to create a subset of pages that were so uncontroversial as to not require any debate whatsoever. However, as we've seen with G8s, there's plenty to debate about. And an ambiguous clause about "usefulness to the project" doesn't help matters in the slightest. ;-) There are a variety of cases for orphaned talk pages: pages left behind after the subject-space page was deleted (fairly common); test pages (fairly common); pages where new or confused users have posted material that should be an article (mostly uncommon); pages where people plan articles that have not yet been created (rare); and lastly, the 'other' category. Perhaps that means admins should review each page individually. Or, perhaps that means we should build better scripts. Personally, the one I use gives a grace period of four days. If someone hasn't de-orphaned the page or marked it with {{go away}}, they should probably move it to their userspace or a subpage of a WikiProject, in my personal opinion. But obviously there are those who disagree with me. The current system we've been using (deleting almost all orphaned pages) has been working relatively well for a while, but it could likely stand improvement. The one scenario I would like to avoid is one in which people tag pages and they are left for months. With pages like Talk:Tivoli Theatre (London), I personally have a shit-or-get-off-the-pot outlook, where if you can't create even a stub after months, then it's really time to move the talk page content somewhere else besides the Talk: namespace.... --MZMcBride (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Hate to drag this up again, but this is still happening even after adding Template:Go away. MZMcBride, it's not your bot but X!'s (see conversation on that talk page). Please can those running these CSD deletion bots get their heads together to standardize the rules for what is ignored and then publicise them. In an ideal world, any talk page with a WikiProject header declaring it as Needed-class ought to be automatically ignored for a period of (say) 2 months. If there is a better place to be discussing this than your talk page, please point me to it. --Peeky44 (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Okay is there ANY reason why you have deleted Impact Pro Wrestling (NZ) wiki-page? As there is no reason why it should be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IPWwikiMod (talk • contribs) 08:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Impact Pro Wrestling, which was a broken redirect to Impact Pro Wrestling (New Zealand). Impact Pro Wrestling (New Zealand) was deleted by [[::User:Philosopher|Philosopher]] ([[::User talk:Philosopher|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Philosopher|contribs]]). --MZMcBride (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Philippine municipality

Hey, was wondering if you could take a look at this for me. A User:Dooglius added {{Cleanup-infobox}} to the template itself, making it show up on all the articles in which the template is transcluded. Any chance you can remedy the problem with the template so that the cleanup note can be removed? GlassCobra 13:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Pigsonthewing beat me to it. :-) In the future, the simplest solution is just adding a set of <noinclude> tags around the cleanup tag. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. :) GlassCobra 13:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BFJA Awards

could you please add BFJA Awards in incert list in Template:Infobox Actor.--Jayanta Nath (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please place an {{editprotected}} request on the template talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Remediation of one of your speedies

In the course of starting (for the second time) Talk:Lara, i reviewed several matters related to your G6 speedy of it. I'm vague about how the view-and-restore page will change when it is undeleted, so here are the actions doc'd there:
Deletion log

• 08:32, 12 March 2008 MZMcBride (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Talk:Lara" ‎ (csd g6) (restore)

Page history

• (diff) 08:40, 1 September 2007 . . 68.125.225.76 (Talk | block) (empty) (←Blanked the page)
• (diff) 12:01, 19 December 2006 . . Satyadasa (Talk | contribs | block) (baby name book etymology)

That review satisfies me that

1. The deletion of this page was in no way comparable to the three examples G6 gives, nor would a reasonable examination of it have made "uncontroversial" seem applicable, nor "technical" in nature.
2. The fact that G7 would not be needed as a separate case, if G6 justified this deletion, is a positive indication that G6 is not intended to extend to pages that have been blanked, even in good faith, by other than the sole previous editor.
3. No other CSD was applicable.
4. The effect of your action was to further hide Satyadasa (talk · contribs)'s contrib (explaining an edit on the accompanying Dab), which 68.125.225.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blanked two minutes before their only undeleted edit; that 2nd edit inserted material similar to that which (in the only other edit of the blanked page, most of a year earlier) Satyadasa described removing. (This clearly creates, BTW, an overwhelming presumption that the blanking was done in bad faith.)

I conclude on the basis of 1 & 2 above (and reinforced by 3) that the page should be undeleted as an out-of-process speedy, its harmfulness aside, and i can't imagine you will find that controversial. Should you disagree, i of course stand ready to discuss it further & work out how to proceed, tho for efficiency and a clearer record, i am moving forward.
--Jerzy•t 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Err... sounds good to me. Thanks for the note. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

IndustryPlayer deletion on 6/6/2008

IndustryPlayer deletion on 6/6/2008 Hi - can you assist please - you are recorded as deleting the IndustryPlayer page on 6/6/2008 at 18:32 with a code csd r1. Apparently this means "Redirect to non-existent page#". Could you explain what the problem was - this page was a valid page for some time and we don't understand why you took it down. I am willing to rewrite or edit the page if need be to make it good again - I undesratynd the copy still exists somewhere in your system Sunshinebr (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

IndustryPlayer was deleted by [[::User:Mallanox|Mallanox]] ([[::User talk:Mallanox|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Mallanox|contribs]]). It was deleted under the Proposed deletion guidelines. If you have further questions, Mallanox should be able to help you out. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

IndustryPlayer deletion on 6/6/2008

Thanks for your help here - I have left a note on Mallanox page but response time is not as fast as yours was! Is there any other way I can get to this information or get a review and re-posting of the article ? I would like to re-write this article correctly at the earliest oppportunity, but without any response from Mallanox I am stuck for now. Sorry to impose on your page Sunshinebr (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I undeleted the page and moved it your user-space. See User:Sunshinebr/IndustryPlayer. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your hep - fantastic - I'll go look for it now Sunshinebr (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi MZM. I selectively restored pages including Talk:List of heterosexuals, Talk:Md. Ahiduzzaman Liton and Talk:List of multiracial people#deletion, and you deleted them citing CSD#G8. Please note G8 specifically "excludes any page which is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere".

I am working on preserving old deletion discussions from 2003 (see Wikipedia:Archived_delete_debates/2003; please do not delete these again - if you are doing so via some automated process, is there a tag I can put on the pages to stop the pages being deleted? Thanks. fish&karate 13:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've stopped doing G8s for the moment while we work out how exactly to stop deletions of purposefully-orphaned pages (see discussion above with Ilmari and Carcharoth). For the moment, you could tag them with {{go away}} which is built into some scripts and also leaves a visual cue for admins who do the deletions manually. I'll see what we can do about avoiding this issue in the future, though. It's certainly not an ideal situation right now. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

{{go away}} is a start, and I'll use it, although it doesn't really explain why the page is there (retaining old deletion discussions isn't quirky!) - a better template might help. Out of curiosity, could the bot/script check the logs of a page, and if it has been restored at some point in the past, list it on a log page for manual review instead of deleting it? It could perhaps even leave a note on the talk page of the restoring admin, and on the restored, orphaned talk page itself ("this orphaned talk page is under review and may be deleted in 14 days - if it is not to be deleted, as it has a use to the project, please remove its entry from ..."). The bot could remember pages it has found before that have had their entry removed, and not touch them again. Is all that technically feasible? That would probably avert 90% of the problems; I know I don't mind restoring a useful orphaned talk page once, but having to restore it multiple times gets a bit tedious, and I would imagine most other people would feel the same. fish&karate 12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, having deletion discussions on the talk page is a bit quirky. ;-) Especially if they haven't been moved to a _fD subpage. Yes, a script could certainly check for past deletions and list them for skip them in the future. My hope is that someone will write a better script when this adminbot dust settles and life will be better with someone else behind the wheel. All of these are excellent points that hopefully will be brought up should a BRFA be filed in the future. As I said, I've stopped running my script until we work out just how to stop these deletions (likely it will be a generic {{g8-exempt}} tag). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Diabeetus

I'm just curious, do you really think that Diabeetus is a likely search term for diabetes, even given the way Wilford Brimley says it? It does seem to be a bit of a meme, but I can't really see anyone searching for it other than for fun. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Phonetically it's similar, and people may have seen it written as such in forums or other boards. So having it (appropriately) redirect seems reasonable to me. In August 2008, it was viewed 757 times, if that means anything. I suppose it could be redirected elsewhere or possibly expanded into an article on the meme itself, but for the moment, keeping it as a redirect seems reasonable. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I doubt there's much you can say about the meme, though, because this and this are funny but not reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible unblock for proxy IP?

Although I have been using wikipedia for a long time I have only recently started editing and familiarising myself with WP policies. In my school virtually all computers, apart from the newest ones (in use since the start of the school year) have been blocked from editing. Since I have only started editing WP recently I'm not too sure how long this has been in effect. The reason why they were blocked was something about open proxy and zombie computers. I perfectly understand that this is because it is a school and is using the same IP range; I am not surprised that there are people in my school who would vandalise. But referring to the policy page on appealing a block they do say that although revoking the block is probably not feasible it could be changed to only blocking anonymous users. It's a pity they say users in good standing too, which I'm not sure I'm qualified for. If there is vandalism I am assuming that sysops have the ability to only let only autoconfirmed users edit? Even though my school does have a de facto ban on wikipedia it is also the de facto number one source for students. I also know many people who would edit a page if there was an error on it although many do not have accounts. I know that you might not be able to do much because I cannot remember the IP address although as soon as I can I will find it, but that might be a problem since for the next few days we have a local public holiday. --Stinkypie (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinkypie (talk • contribs)

E-mail east718 with your block range and IP address and he should be able to resolve your issue. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Fred.e/Wilgie Sketching Club

Hi,

Fred.e was a user in good standing, who decided to start again under a new account, and had his old accout blocked at his request. He recently went looking for his old subspace notes on threatened ecological communities, and found you had deleted them as an "‎orphaned subpage for indefinitely blocked user". I've restored them for him, so there's no harm done, other than the offense caused. I do realise this would have been part of one of your script runs, and I do realise that that script would have done much more good than harm. I'm just letting you know because you will probably have a very angry user here if you were to delete it again.

Hesperian 01:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A move of yours

Regarding this move, would it be possible to drop me a not on my talkpage if you're going to be moving stuff in my userspace (or in my pseudo-userspace, in this case)? It's kinda confusing, at first, to have seen this move. Thanks in advance, Maxim_(talk) 12:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

--MZMcBride (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*huggles* Maxim_(talk) 22:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to edit protect the ones you moved into talk namespace. -- User:Docu

I considered it, but I don't see the pages as any more high-risk than any others. Obviously if there are attacks or issues, the pages can be protected individually, but I see no reason to preemptively protect this subset of pages. This is a wiki, after all. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And my geez that has gotten you into trouble in the past hasn't it? :P Don't worry, i support you :) 137.154.16.30 (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

Hi, a few days you closed the AfD for Kaveh Farrokh as no consensus, even though you were obviously unhappy with that yourself. Since then, the main "keep" proponent in that discussion (User:CreazySuit) has been blocked indefinitely for disrupting editing (see WP:AN/I#Disruption of Battle of Opis). I wonder whether it would be possible/appropriate to re-open that AfD in the light of the latter decision, especially since many arguments brought forward by this user were plain bogus (like amazon.com "reviews"). Thanks for your input. --Crusio (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When to start a new AfD is a balance between courtesy and common sense. If there are strong arguments for deleting the page (and it seems there are), starting a new AfD in a week or so seems perfectly appropriate. I would just note the reason for a new AfD so soon after the last one in your AfD statement and present a strong case for deletion. (As for re-opening the old AfD, that really can't be done.) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack WIlls

Why did you delete the Jack Wills page. From what I can recall it was a good page, and there was no reason to remove it MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 14:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack Wills was not deleted by me. It was deleted by [[::User:Orangemike|Orangemike]] ([[::User talk:Orangemike|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Orangemike|contribs]]). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Magpul

Why did you delete the Magpul page?--Davidwiz (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Magpul was a broken redirect to Magpul Industries. You'll have to ask [[::User:Hersfold|Hersfold]] ([[::User talk:Hersfold|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Hersfold|contribs]]) about the deletion of Magpul Industries. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting A Talk Page

Just wanting to know why you deleted the Food Network Canada personalities talk page. Isn't it a bit redundent to delete a talk page? Mr. C.C. (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Repopulating Category:Talk pages of deleted replaceable fair use images

Hi again. I've just finished compiling a list of image talk pages that were deleted while containing Template:Rtd: see User:Ilmari Karonen/Rtd. Since most of them were deleted by your G8 deletion bot, and since some people tend to frown upon reversing admin actions without asking the original admin, I thought I should ask first whether you'd have any objections to me undeleting the lot of them? Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No objection whatsoever. I always really respected your philosophy toward reversing admin actions, actually.

On the same-ish topic, not sure if you noticed, but I created {{g8-exempt}}. It's not yet used anywhere or documented, but it's a start. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I just added it to {{rtd}} and {{deletion discussion}}, which are the only existing templates for that purpose that I know of (except for {{go away}} — I wonder if it should be added to that too, maybe with something like {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{TALKSPACE}}|{{G8-exempt}}}}). Still does need some documentation —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

blp

Do you have a reference for your statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dennis Daniels]] that BLP applies to the non-living?DGG (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Orissa violence

I saw your note [here]. You deleted my edit protect request. However, I took this step at the advise of the admin who protected it. See [here]. You removed it but did not give any options either. Would appreciate your help. Recordfreenow (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Try AN or somewhere? I don't deal with content issues if I can avoid it. Posts almost always go to the bottom of a talk page (so I moved yours) and you forgot to sign it. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You arent much help but thanks anyway. Recordfreenow (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured sounds

Can you please explain why you promoted two files to which there was considerable opposition. These are:

• {{Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Le trompeur trompé}}
• {{Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Hunters' Chorus from ''The Lily of Killarney''}}

Thanks. --Kleinzach 07:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The objections were rather merit-less. One of them focused entirely on the usage of dashes. One of yours seemed to be focused on the notability of the sound candidate, which, to my knowledge, is not a factor when determining featured-ness. (See also: Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.) --MZMcBride (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the 'Hunters' Chorus from The Lily of Killarney' then:

You will see that I, Michael Bednarek, and Eusebeus all opposed. Can you explain why our opinions are "merit-less". --Kleinzach 08:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this file has already been removed with agreement from the The Lily of Killarney article. --Kleinzach 08:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the performance is top-rate. The music is ordinary, but saved by the performance. Dashes are important and easy to fix: they should hold up a promotion if not consistent with the Manual of Style. Tony (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the text on Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates: "If a nomination is listed here for at least 14 days with three or more supporting declarations and the general consensus is in its favor, it can be added to a Wikipedia:Featured sounds list."

Hunters' Chorus from The Lily of Killarney had 3 opposes and 4 supports (if we include the nominator), so there was no consensus in its favour. --Kleinzach 09:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you haven't responded about the 'Hunters' Chorus from The Lily of Killarney', so let's look at the other file you promoted: Le trompeur trompé. Here it is:

Le trompeur trompé

A thoroughly professional recording of a fine, if obscure opera. Lyrics are provided. They translate pretty easily, I'll do that tomorrow.

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Question How do we know this is a 'fine' opera? Has it been performed in the last 100 years? Is there a recording? Has any music survived other than this aria? I've been looking and I can't find anything. --Kleinzach 04:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You're the one who owns Grove and is the head of the Opera project. I'd have thought you had more resources to hand on 17th century (the 18th centuryt starts in 1801) French opera than I did - almost all my sources are on Victorian English opera. I suspect the music does survive - why would one aria alone survive? but suspect it would be far easier to find information in France. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thousands and thousands of operas have been written, performed or not performed, lost and forgotten. Sometimes the music is preserved in libraries but often not. Grove is the largest work on opera in the English language but it only covers the 2,000 most notable works. Grove covers Pierre Gaveaux - because of his importance as a singer and the connection with Fidelio - but the biography doesn't mention Le trompeur trompé. Nevertheless you decided to write an article on it - hence my questions. --Kleinzach 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
        • At the very least, this aria was professionally recorded. The composer is reasonably notable, andd I found information on the opera fairly easy to find. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
          • And yet you don't know whether any music has survived, other than this aria! I'm underwhelmed. --Kleinzach 05:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Notability not established. --Kleinzach 05:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support If it is notable for the encyclopedia and improves the artilces it is in it is notable enough to be featured. Zginder 2008-09-16T13:03Z (UTC)
• Oppose. So thus far, there's one functional support, isnt' there. Can we work out how the policy of notability applies to sound files, please? I'm confused. This is a good performance, although it's a pity the clarinet is so closely miked—the chalumeau isn't flattering, and there are a few breathy phrases; odd, since the tone elsewhere is beautiful. If this work was an opera (again, no link), surely this is some strange kind of reduction of the orchestral parts for piano and clarinet; the info page says nothing. Again, we all need to read WP:DASH to get it right for year ranges. Spaced or unspaced? Hyphen or en dash? You tell me. Surely Levine should be linked; and doesn't the composer have a dedicated article? Tony (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe it's an early form of what would later be known as a chamber opera, done with only a few instruments. Anyway, we have a good recording of an opera by a reasonably notable composer. I think that it compellingly illustrates his article, it was a commercial release on historical instruments, and I think it should pass. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Given the continuo it's almost certainly a scaled-down arrangement. The opera is an opéra comique, there's a short article, also Category:opéras comiques with 65 examples including Carmen. Nothing to do with chamber opera. It's pleasantly sung and very enjoyable . . . but that's not the point, is it? --Kleinzach 09:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know. It could be the point. I mean, it certtainly illustrates Pierre Gaveaux well, and that's probably all it needs to. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
        • No, no, it doesn't illustrate Pierre Gaveaux well! That's the point. It's not one of his notable works! We should have something from Léonore or Sophie et Moncars - though even these don't have articles. --Kleinzach 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Good recording, has potential to be used well inside other parts of the project. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Pierre Gaveaux - Polacca from the opera Le Trompeur Trompé.ogg. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you promoted it? --Kleinzach 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

GroupSwim Deletion

Greetings - I saw that you deleted the GroupSwim entry I submitted/created because it was advertising. My company, a publicly traded investment firm, is piloting GroupSwim and it shows a lot of promise. GroupSwim has a unique and effective approach to helping us gauge client sentiment. Note that GroupSwim was my second Wikipedia post. My first post, Balsamiq, was also deleted because it lacked "significance" (Balsamiq is a groundbreaking tool for allowing non-technical users easily create mockups). How do you evaluate advertising versus significance? I also see posts on other software applications (e.g. Apple Mail) so is significance based on widespread adoption or something genuinely unique? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkingbking (talk • contribs) 11:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The logs for GroupSwim indicate you may be contacting the wrong administrator. However, focusing on your broader questions, try reading Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Notability. Both of those pages document how to write an article and what should and should not be included in our ever-expanding encyclopedia. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cite journal error

This edit you made to {{Cite journal}} removed support for the month parameter. Pagrashtak 16:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And removed the COinS markup. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can something be done about coauthors? It looks odd to have a citation that now reads "Howard, M. & Fine, L.; and Howard, C." Ideally, that field should just be left as it was. I am not fancying the idea of finding every single reference I ever made with multiple coauthors and fixing them. J. Spencer (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When I ask people on the talk page if they've tested their code and they say yes, it'd be nice if it were actually true. ;-) The template was switched to use {{Citation/core}}. I don't know if this switch has COinS support. And I don't know what the situation is with the month parameter. I would suggest posting to the template talk page or to User talk:Smith609 (the person who wrote the new code). If he's unable to resolve the issue, let me know and I can revert the changes. Also, please, please, please try to use the sandbox (Template:Cite journal/sandbox). It makes life 1000x easier when updating these templates. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:HPAFD/base

In view of this, should this be deleted, too? -- Suntag ☼ 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not while it's actively used. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Missed that. Thanks. I found a link on Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter. It might need renaming. I'll post a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter. Thanks for taking a look. -- Suntag ☼ 13:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

your assistance please...

The record shows you deleted Talk:Northern Alliance. I was going to add a note to the page, saw it had been deleted. Could you restore it? Geo Swan (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, done. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm an undergraduate student currently doing a project on Wikipedia for my public sector economic module. I came across your list of wikipedians by number of edits and was wondering if you would have the list with just the bots removed leaving all the human editors in? Thanks so much!Jacolin (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See my recent post here. Let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it safe to say that bots in the list can be identified by having 'bot' in their usernames? Cheers=)Jacolin (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, yes, that's probably a safe assumption. Though I should also note that, for example, I have an edit count above 50,000 though 22,000 of those edits were automated. Some people are just lazy and don't get a separate bot account. :-) Most bot promotions and demotions are logged at Special:Log/makebot if you're interested. And, obviously, if filtering the list for names that contain 'bot', you'd want to avoid names like User:Botteville. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh rightz.. thanks for the help! By the way, is there a total edit count of wikipedians up to the time of this list, or the percentage the top 4000 editors constitute? Hope u have a great day ahead=)Jacolin (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Special:Statistics has a rough number of edits to the project ever (it's currently 1,221,088,660). To sum the list that I posted a few days ago, paste it into Excel and use the SUM feature. I can't give you the exact number of edits from the date that I generated the list, though if you were really interested, you could look at the per day trends and subtract, I suppose. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding FlaggedRevs

Please, please, please do not start a giant RfC regarding FlaggedRevs. There is a fair bit of discussion that taken place over years and a giant RfC would be disastrous. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest instead to get things moving on it? Cla68 (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, have you read the past (and ongoing) discussions as a starting point? Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/straw poll, Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions, Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions (and archives 1, 2, 3, and 4), Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions, Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Quality versions, Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/reliable revisions, Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/reliable revisions, Wikipedia:FlaggedRevs fact sheet, and Wikipedia talk:FlaggedRevs fact sheet.

At the moment, I would suggest waiting to hear back from Brion or one of the other sysadmins. But if the rollback drama taught us anything it was that a large RfC-type discussion will only lead to drama and pain. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of those discussions. I'll read through them. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted my page, 10 April 08 at 04:08

My page was deleted on 10 April with the code "csd u2", as was my user account, for reasons that I do not really understand. Since I am back and have been for some time, would it be possible to please have my page restored? DarinCowan (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, done. Though the account you were contributing to previously was User:Dcowan38. You registered "DarinCowan" a few months after I deleted the user page under CSD U2 (it was a user page that didn't belong to anyone). This log may make matters a bit clearer. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much DarinCowan (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

deletion of the power creep article

Hi, I'm trying to understand why the article on Power Creep (Powercreep, power-creep) was deleted.

I could not find any talk page or deletion discussion. I can see that it was you who did this, on 20:44, 20 April 2008. The only reason given is "‎(csd r1)". Okay, so I looked this up on the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page.

However, the only entry for R1 redirects to something called G8: "Pages dependent on a non-existent page". This has me completely stumped - I can't even begin to understand what you mean by that?

Luckily, the actual text of the page can still be googled fairly easily. I've now recreated the page. Feel free to voice your opinion if you believe the page could be improved somehow, but could I ask you to be a bit more verbose, for the benefits of relative newcomers to Wikipedia like me? :-)

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I deleted some broken redirects to Power creep. Power creep's deletion log is available here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

requesting “legal” advice....

How much work is needed to get this U.S. Supreme Court case article to Good Article status? I understand that it is desirable, for example, to expand upon the mention of the case in third-party sources such as law reviews, and to compare the legal rule established in the case with the laws of other countries, but how much of this is strictly necessary? Finally, would you please recommend an editor who might be qualified to fact-check the article and verify that it is free from legal error? (I am speaking more from a WP:GA? perspective than a legal perspective, but still, if a wiki article were to misstate the law, it ought not to make WP:GA.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would take a look at the current featured article for guidance: Roe v. Wade. There are no real specific guidelines on how a case should be laid out, though glancing at the current version of Heath v. Alabama points a few things out. (1) Headers shouldn't start with the word 'the'; (2) in-line citations should use <ref>s; (3) the lead should be a bit longer and explain the significance of the case a bit more; (4) a "Conclusion" section is simply unnecessary (i.e., remove that header altogether and re-work its content; (5) unless the text of the Fifth Amendment is really important, quoting it seems unnecessary.

The SCOTUS WikiProject (WP:SCOTUS) has a talk page where you can request further input. Most of the people who are either lawyers or work with U.S. Supreme Court cases watchlist that page. To have your particular article checked, I would probably ask [[::User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[::User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Cdogsimmons|contribs]]), though it may be a good idea to post to the WikiProject talk page first before asking specific people.

On the matter of a global perspective, obviously certain topics aren't going to be as globally relevant as other ones. But with this particular case, it's surely been referenced in other countries or had an impact on how judges elsewhere view double jeopardy. Adding such information would be nice, but probably isn't necessary.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! My preference is to ignore (5). Other than that, seems that a lot of work needs to be done! I have asked for a broader discussion on which things are of the highest priority. Thanks again. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh AFD closing

MZMcBride, this is an innocent question, which I decided to take up with you before asking a more general question about "consensus" in deletion discussions at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. I recently revisited the Kaveh Farrokh AFD and wondered exactly what you meant by your closing statement:

• "The result was No consensus. While I personally don't agree with the outcome, there's no obvious consensus here."

What type of "consensus" were you looking for? I'm aware that point #1 of the applicable guideline states -- Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below). I also know that the meaning of "consensus" in this context is elaborated further -- Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). When I read your comment it implies to me that you did not see a strong argument based on policy from at least one side of the debate (hence why you "personally don't agree") but that you determined a lack of "consensus" regardless. When reading the guideline I assume that a lack of consensus means one of two things: 1) There is no valid argument on either side or 2) both sides have put forth valid policy based arguments and there is a lack of consensus between them. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong in which case I would love to know what I'm missing. Basically my lack of understanding in this particular case makes me wonder how universal of an interpretation there is amongst admins regarding this guideline, and if perhaps it needs further elaboration. Your answers/explanations would be much appreciated before I go ahead and raise any general questions/concerns. Thanks a ton.PelleSmith (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing AfDs is no science, that much we can be certain of. :-) Looking at that particular AfD, both sides argued essentially over one issue, whether or not Kaveh Farrokh falls within our notability guidelines. Both those voting keep and those voting delete cited the same policies and guidelines as justification, which makes the closing a bit more difficult. Looking at raw numbers (which in cases like this really is the best method to determine the outcome), it's pretty well split between deletes and keeps (my count puts it at about 18 deletes and 20 keeps). That's a pretty textbook example of "no consensus." The comment I made was that, personally, I would have voted to delete the article. I hope that clarifies matters a bit. If not, let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty much what I was thinking and how I assume many other closing admins would handle the close. I wonder, though if falling back on the counting of heads should be part of the process at all or if it should be discouraged completely, at least if the closing admin seems him/herself to agree with the policy basis of one side of the discussion. Unless a closing admin expressly agrees with one side and also consciously knows this agreement is not based on policy but on bias (which I don't think was the case here), I see an unresolved dilemma. The guidelines clearly try to prevent outcomes that pander to recommendations not based on policy -- whether these be without a policy argument or a faulty policy argument. I find it difficult to imagine, again unless there is a conscious bias, that someone can agree with one side and not the other without thinking one side has the stronger argument from policy. Unless of course that side never made the particular policy based argument that the admin secretly thinks is strongest -- e.g. "well if you had made this argument I came up with I would have closed delete but you actually didn't." In other words I guess I think that if an admin admits openly to agreeing with one side and not the other he/she should always close in that manner, barring some rather remote exceptions. If those exceptions apply it is probably best not to mention any such agreement in the first place, since, in my mind at least, it will always seem that the wrong type of consensus was sought -- the kind that is determined simply by raw number. Does that makes sense at all. You may or may not agree. I'd love to hear your opinion and then I'll stop bugging you. Thanks again.PelleSmith (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Falling back on a head count as always been seen as an option when closing close votes, though I have no idea if that's ever been written down anywhere.

You said, "I think that if an admin admits openly to agreeing with one side and not the other he/she should always close in that manner, barring some rather remote exceptions."

That particular line of thought is anathema to a lot of people. Admins are supposed to not inject their personal opinion into the decision-making process. The wiki process is the maker of decisions with regard to content, see also: m:Foundation issues. The reason I included a statement that I personally didn't agree with the outcome was to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Other admins might have simply closed the discussion as 'keep' or 'delete' basing the final decision on their own personal ideology or view. But to have so many people engage in a dialogue and then suddenly ignore all of it seems both rude and anti-wiki. And so I closed with a 'no consensus' because it was clear (in my mind, at least) that the community was split with regard to this particular person. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just to clarify I wasn't suggesting that an admin's "opinion" should be injected into the decision making process but instead his/her "judgment" of the policy basis of various arguments. I see "I don't agree" injected into a discussion that is meant to consist of various arguments to be a reflection upon the arguments (judgment) and not simply to consist of a "preference" in outcome or be a matter of taste (opinion). I will also add that I think there should be no assumption of impropriety and no reason to deflect any such hypothetical assumption. The admin's opinion should have no bearing on the close, but his judgment should ... hence making any statements like that can only confuse those of us who take them the wrong way, as if they reflect a judgment as opposed to an opinion. OK as I promised I'll stop bugging you. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your bot account

Please see Wikipedia:Bots#Bot_accounts. Per this policy, I was wondering if you'd consider submitting your bot for approval, separating it from your admin account, and adding 'bot' to its name. We've talked to all the other admins with bots and they're working on this already too. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)