User talk:MZMcBride

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 178

You deleted this as a creation of a banned user, but Openjurist isn't banned, and the deletion discussion resulted in a keep. --NE2 03:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I was looking at G5. Never mind. --NE2 03:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this deleted? A consensus was reached that it should have been kept here?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content was "transwiki"ed to Wikisource. There was an unclear consensus at the first AfD. A new AfD was brought forward at which point I speedily closed it sort of and deleted the indices from Wikipedia. Wikisource contains all of the information now (which was pretty much the consensus I saw). If you disagree, feel free to go to Deletion review, though in all honesty, having indices for the lower courts seems rather silly, but that's obviously just my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Where was the second AfD? I was under the impression that there was a firm consensus that the pages not be deleted.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one, this one, and this one were the three that were created after the initial AfD, I believe. See also: User talk:Openjurist#Enough is enough and related discussion on Openjurist's talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights in the Islamic Republican of Iran

The tag's supporters are no longer participating in the discussion. I sent CreazySuit a message asking for a response, but I'm not expecting one. I think if we don't get a response in a day or two, this qualifies for WP:SILENCE. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creazy has started pointing out specific examples and the people formerly opposing the tags are now favoring their inclusion while we work on the issues he lists. At this point we're all basically waiting for the protection to be lifted so we can address his issues. Unprotect please? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Thanks for your recent "editprotected" help. Did you know of {{done}} ? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 06:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do know of {{done}}. I use a substituted version of it to avoid having my comments on talk pages change when the template changes. It's a pretty good practice to substitute any template left on talk pages, as, at times, the template can be changed and context can be lost or functionality can break badly. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your decision to delete/protect the word "Angharradh"

I can provide verifiable documentation that Angharradh is a fictional deity in the Forgotten Realms setting of Dungeons and Dragons. Please reconsider your decision to delete her wiki entry. Dutch206 (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Dutch206[reply]

It was protection from creation following this debate. Please use Deletion review if you wish to create the page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page redesign

Hello, MZMcBride! Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal was recently cleared of all design entries. You may want to re-enter your design(s), based on the details here. (You can see the old list of designs here). NOTE: A survey was conducted on what users wanted to see in the new main page, you can see the results here. Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEADHORSE. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the *.js category redirects. With regard to your note, I had been advised (on my talk page) by other admins that I should put the {{editprotected}} request on the bot's subpage. I'm trying to do the right thing, but not sure what the right thing is here.... --Russ (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. So there's no winning, eh? Welcome to Wikipedia. :-) I guess using {{editprotected}} is fine, but usually a long list requires a fair bit more time than a standard request, which can interrupt the workflow.... --MZMcBride (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Person

As you have recently added a requested field to this template could you please add the field which has been requested by myself. Many thanks Lucy-marie (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the second request, so I left it alone. It looked like it was trying to over-write an already-existing parameter or something? I was worried it was going to break things, so I left it for another admin. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is designed to slot in as a new field and not be a replacement field. So in effect it would push the numbering of all the other fields down one. I would have done this my self but do not have the necessary privileges to so have to ask around.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use a sandbox. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that dosn't get the information into the main template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs)

Yes, but I can sync the changes if you use a sandbox. And it will reduce the likelihood of breaking thousands and thousands of pages with a syntax error if the code is tested first. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ill give that a shot.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The necessary text for the addition can be found here, just copy and paste the lot.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin protection

You might care to weigh in at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Should_this_article_be_semi-protected.3F --ragesoss (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hidden begin

I've used this template here, and for some reason, the bars that were used on the page have turned white, when they used to be red. I looked in the edit history, and there isn't any evidince of a change being made to the section, which only left me with the explination that a template was changed that was used within the section, and therefore somehow made it turn white. You were the last person to have edited the hidden begin template used within the section, and quite recently too. I'd ask that you make sure nothing is wrong with the template, as I have no other ideas how the color is off. Thanks, ~ Bella Swan^? 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me. I've reverted the change and I left a note on the template talk page. Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and sorry I couldn't do more to help. I'm kind of useless when it comes to intense coding. :) ~ Bella Swan^? 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Chris Dunn

Hi, can you unprotect the Chris Dunn article so I can create the page for the football who plays for Northampton Town. He meets the notability at WP:ATHLETE as he has made two appearances in a fully-professional league. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 15:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

WP:UCFD

If you have the time or inclination : ) - jc37 21:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comments

Please stop removing my comment and reinserting the hat hab. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MZMcBride ... OpenJurist Here...

Hi there,

I wanted to know if you would be interested in my help to update 1-178 of the USSC cases to include links to the cases? Openjurist (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any help would be appreciated. Almost all of the volumes need to be changed to the template format. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you links added to the existing format or would you like the current format updated to the format that you created in Volume 95? Openjurist (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is 4-203 that are not done. Openjurist (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 95 is the model. Volumes 4–203 don't have links or templates. Volumes 203–545 have links, but don't use templates. So nearly all of the pages need to be templated. Something like:

{{SCOTUSTable | data = 
{{SCOTUSRow
| case name = 
| page = 
| decision date = 
| decision year = 
}}
...
}}

(No {{{url}}} parameter is used.) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin (TV series) talk page

You deleted this a month ago with a reason of CSD G6. So, was it archived somewhere? There seems to be no other reason for the speedy deletion of this page. -Dewelar (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as part of general housekeeping as it only contained a {{talkheader}} template. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I thought I had seen discussion there...my mistake, I guess. Thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hidden begin (2)

Hi. Thanks for handling the above. So I may try setting up and implementing the update again, would you mind downgrading the protection to "semi-protected" for a day or two? It should make a clean deployment much easier to achieve. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a range where it could probably be safely downgraded for a day or two, but really, no testing should be going on on the live template, and I don't want to be blamed if it is vandalized. So... just use a sandbox. :-) I'll try to keep an eye out for any new {{editprotected}} requests. If you get impatient, just ping me here and I'll deploy the new (tested) code. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't for the sake of testing but to make the transition from the old to the new parameter setup as seemless and instantaneous as possible. Unless there's something clever I've overlooked..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a one-time update, no? So just use an editprotected request on the talk page and an admin will update the code. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except I'd like to try to make the time between implementing the simpler parameters and updating them on pages as brief as possible (to minimize any possible disruption on userpages) so I'd need to be able to edit the template. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be any breakage at all, at any time. Implement a tracking mechanism and add the ability to use both the old and new parameters, update the parameters on the various pages, and then remove the tracking mechanism and the unneeded parameters. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Thanks. I wasn't thinking straight. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

I asked you this on IRC and want to make sure neither of us forget. :-) Why did you do this action? (Please respond on my talk page or poke me on IRC, I don't use my enwiki watchlist.) Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh btw, this is really cool. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in taking part in the discussion on the Sarah Palin full protect

There is a thread on the administration enforcement noticeboard you may want to peruse. Just a friendly FYI. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

Please be aware of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#MZMcBride. MBisanz ^talk 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for three hours for protection warring over Sarah Palin after numerous warnings had been issued everywhere that warring over the status was not acceptable. Please pay attention and give due thoughts to your actions in the future. WilyD 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incredibly bad block, as I'm sure you're aware. But no matter. I'll be out for a few hours anyway – I have a few errands to attend to. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that block was uncalled for and in fact calls into question the aptitude of the blocking administrator to edit wikipedia effectively in a non-biased manner. The Sarah Palin page may be a hot potato right now, but blocking MZMcBride for his edits there does not show a cool head.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MZM knew about the discussion at AE that supported the protection, he knew about the arbcom ruling. Nothing has changed to lead me to believe he would not just do it again. This block seems preventative. Chillum 17:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the arbcom ruling?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPBAN. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that looks like a guideline to me. I don't see a ruling regarding the issue of what level level or protection is appropriate for Sarah Palin. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? I'm a man of my word. Nonetheless, Moreschi seems to feel admins haven't been overturning each other enough recently and so has unblocked. Given the state of things, you should probably expect to be reblocked and reunblocked several times before you return. *sigh*. Ah well, we can hang out at the ArbCom case, as I'll mostly likely be a party soon enough. WilyD 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the merit of the unblock aside for the moment, I would say the reblocking at this point would serve no purpose unless MZM continues to act in the manner that lead to the first block. Chillum 18:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also discourage anyone from re-instating it. We don't need to overturn any more admin actions today. WilyD 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore User talk:Jagz?

An editor requesting unblock is claimed to be a sock of Jagz. For reference I want to restore User talk:Jagz, which you deleted On August 2 as a temporary userpage. Would you have any objections? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to undelete it. Though if you do, please remove the "Temp" category so it isn't re-deleted in the future. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my ArbCom statement

My ArbCom statement will be forthcoming. A number of issues have arisen (including limited Internet access) and so I ask you all to don your cloaks of patience. And, obviously, as more is written on the "Requests for arbitration" page, there is a greater amount to which I must respond. My statement should be posted in the next 12 hours, possibly sooner, depending on circumstances beyond my control. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I'm still not able to connect to the Internet regularly, but I was able to draft and post my statement (all 10,000 bytes!). --MZMcBride (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, which lists you as a party, has been opened.

Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
Your contributions are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

If you have any queries, please drop me a note and I'll try and assist you.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, joy. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template query

Hello. It appears that I may have (accidentally?) received a message [1] meant for you regarding an issue with {{Infobox person}}. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like [[::User:Trevor MacInnis|Trevor MacInnis]] ([[::User talk:Trevor MacInnis|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Trevor MacInnis|contribs]]) already fixed it. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done.

You did well to close this discussion of a humour page "speedy keep". The consensus was very clear. Coppertwig (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC logs & RFAR

Hi MZM! Would you be willing to have your alluded-to comments from IRC about the Palin protection posted as evidence?[2]. rootology (C)(T) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. -en-admins is a private channel. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I wanted to ask. Individual users always have the option to release their own comments. Would you mind sending your whole log if you have it to arbcom-l? rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact that FT2 and James both have logs. I assume they've forwarded them to the full committee. Though if you really wanted, I suppose I could send my copy of the logs as well.... --MZMcBride (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if they have it, thats cool. I just didn't want to leave it hanging out there that you did such-and-such on IRC with just innuendo if possible. rootology (C)(T) 18:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcometest template suggested amendment

Thanks for your response to my question at Template talk:Welcometest. I've followed your advice and would appreciate your feedback now I have a working example to show and a full explanation of my rationale. Thanks, Ka renjc 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd re-activate the {{editprotected}} request and wait for another admin to take a look. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Archives

Why did you delete my talk archives without contacting me first? If there was a problem with them I could've fixed it.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted them after I moved them to the appropriate namespace (they were in Talk: when they should've been in User_talk:). The full list of subpages is available here. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for getting punchy.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag deletion at Bach

I'm trying to include a NPOV tag for the lead at Johann Sebastian Bach. It is being deleted without even addressing the issues I've raised. Can you add your two cents here? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I try to avoid content disputes as much as humanly possible. Try AN? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have fooled me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military Acronyms

I have noticed that ALL of the acronyms have been deleted? Could you explain why?

An example: List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions

was delelted?

So it was a talk page? Can't you see that it had important information on it and links to other pages? If you see that it has important content why don't you change it to another page so we can use the information?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Offrdk5 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted broken redirects to the page List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions under CSD R1. The actual page content was debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Common.js

I understand there was a problem previously, but I was also informed that Gmaxwell would be reactivating it for Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/September 8, 2008. It appears there has been some miscommunication or something, because there is no new geonotice, and so I've self-reverted. If you could help get this up and running again for the future that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's User:Gmaxwell's baby. It needs to be moved from tools.wikimedia.de to the updated server / address and simply hasn't been done yet. I'll see what I can do, or you can try pinging him on his talk page (Commons is probably best). --MZMcBride (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts

Any thoughts? [3] --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Maybe an {{editprotected}} request on the appropriate page? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

skull fuck

would you unprotect skull fuck so that it may be redirected to Irrumatio?Chuletadechancho (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

restore user talk

Please would you restore User talk:CBMIBM. I have reason to think he's back, and socking. Availability of his old talk page would be useful. Mayalld (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mayalld (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Cite press release

I have good code to add the archive function to press releases. See :Template talk: Cite press release#Request for Archive Function--Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German photography in America

Why would you delete German photography in America? By what right? On what intellectual basis? This page represents an immense amount of shared knowledge and refinement. It is being maintained conscientously, connecting many threads which already exist within Wikipedia. Every fact has been checked and referenced. This information is useful to anyone concerned with photography or with cultural anthropology. I do believe your arbitrary deletion deprives Wikipedia users of a valuable intellectual tool. I will try to find the path to appeal this deletion, if you do not reverse yourself. Guaranteed, if the German photography in America page remains deleted, Wikipedia as a university concept has no future.Solo Zone (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]