This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I know it was simple and easy, but I wanted to thank you quickly for deleting those TOC pages. That saves me a lot of AWB work, and simplifies the overall scheme of things. Robert Skyhawk So sue me! ( You'll lose) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 01:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I've asked a question about your bot at WP:EF#Filter 58 and Mr.Z-Bot. You may wish to comment there. And thanks for the bot, by the way. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Mr.Z-man has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I notice Z bot has been quiet at TB2 for a while. Everything okay? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for adding WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats. There is a small hitch which results in the last ten articles in the current list displaying with zero counts. -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 05:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies.
Manning (
talk) 08:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier
ArbCom secret ballot RFC.
Hot. ^ Also, you're a popular page. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 10:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Journals/Popular_pages; one is enough ;-) thanks for pulling this info together. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Bot failed to update Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Popular_pages page again this month. I'm thinking it's not going to happen? noticed it's not the only project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Popular_pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Antarctica/Popular_pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada/Popular_pages SunCreator ( talk) 14:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I realize that it isn't a wikiproject, but could you create a popular pages list for FLs (if it helps, the cleanup listing has also been adapted for FL use here)? This is the category. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I beg a moment of your time, please? I signed up to the Popular Pages tool on behalf of WP:OXFORD in July, but Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oxford/Popular pages has never been touched. Did I do something wrong when I filed the request? Regards, Bencherlite Talk 20:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man. Quick query: How does the popular pages tool pull the assessment across? I ask because it seems to lag the pages themselves, for example the assessment changed to a B at Talk:Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 on the 28th October but the toolserver list has it at a C, here. Just trying to work out if this is a feature or a bug. ;) Hiding T 13:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Z, I removed the template saying article needed references/citations. Hopefully this is OK. I am still learning the intricacies of Wiki. I added citations as requested.Thank you for your time. JoyDiamond ( talk) 06:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for oversighting the above IP entry to allow me to assign proper credit to it! I didn't want to just do it, as it would easily link the IP with my user name!
I have now done a null edit (a HTML comment explaining the situation) on the AfD to put my user name with the closure.
Thanks again, -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
...appears to be dead. FYI. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 19:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
At least so I assume, on the basis of my less than a year of admin experience. Note that it will be one year, I believe the day after the polls close and certainly a year by the time I would take office. Best,-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I got a message saying that "The "WikiProject Scotland" project is already in the list of projects. To request a change to the configuration, use the bottom form", however I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Popular pages is a redlink.
Am I missing something obvious?
You will find our Talk page discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Popular_pages. Thanks. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 16:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This tool is very interesting: http://toolserver.org/~alexz/coord/. Have you thought about making it available for more languages, and improving the number of geotagged articles using Google Maps API? emijrp ( talk) 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I went too far, and I certainly did not use appropriate tone. I regret the lack of good faith I showed. I should prefer if you undeleted your ACE2009 page, since other people may have differing views on the validity of your rationales. I am unconcerned if the talkpage remains deleted. Again, I am sorry for the language I used. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Having looked through a number of popular page lists, I assume that they are restricted to pages with a "standard" assessment grade, i.e. FA/A/GA/B/C/Start/Stub/FL/List/NA/Unassessed? If so, would it be possible to include a number of specialised assessment grades used by a minority of projects, specifically (off the top of my head) Bplus/Current/Deferred/Future/SL? PC78 ( talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
Class|Deferred}}
, if you can use that. I thought (for some reason) you might need these templates to be used within WikiProject banners, but I guess you just need them for the lists? Assuming the intention for these listings is to use them for articles only, is NA-Class something you want to be including? To be fair, though, I've only seen it appear the once.
PC78 (
talk) 14:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Custome importance ratings too, {{ Bottom-importance}} and {{ No-importance}}? PC78 ( talk) 14:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Bye. Do you like to intervine again here: Wikipedia talk:Blocking_policy#Administrator's errors and abuses in the blocking policy ? -- Mashra ( talk) 16:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Is Mr.Z-bot ( talk · contribs) no longer editing AIV/TB2? Wknight94 talk 21:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
When will the popular pages listing be created for the above project? I submitted the request in October so I figured the November data would be collected and posted in December. However, I see a lot of the December popular pages listings have been updated for other projects but not the ones I submitted in October. Thanks.— NMajdan• talk 16:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Mr.Z-Man This page told me that you are one of the admins that is certified to grant rollback priveleges. I was wondering if I could have those. If you could help me out with that I would be very thankful.
Thanks! Radmanovk ( talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Possible problem with the stated end time of the election on-wiki and on the SecurePoll. Do you have access to edit the SecurePoll ending time? Skomorokh 11:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man
I just reviewed the "Mechanics at the close of the election" section, and noted your comment about postal/supplementary voting. Is it clear yet whether this will be implemented for this election? If it's a yes, I might add something to the Signpost Election Report, which has only just been published. Tony (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
... coming your way about the closing time: it's becoming urgent. Tony (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Given your comments, you might want to sign: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_semiprotection_petition Best, S B H arris 19:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 07:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you know why Wikipedia:Version_0.7/Popular_pages is empty? It's from this list. Here's the category. Category:Vital articles by quality Regards, Mahanga Talk 04:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
|
Hi Mr. Z-Man, I was looking at the article statistics for the Crusades task force, and I was wondering why there are only 278 pages listed. Why were those 278 chosen? There are almost 2000 articles linked to the task force, so was it just a random sample? Thanks, Adam Bishop ( talk) 15:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed a recent edit you made to
Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy, and I wonder if you would support a WikiProject that would patrol for similar improprieties on talk pages across the site. If so, your support for
my proposal would be appreciated.
-
Garrett W. {
☎
✍} 09:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Z,
At AN/i there is currently a discussion about user:Rdm2376's mass deletions of unsourced WP:BLPs, which you participated in. There was a complaint that the mass deletions were out of process and going too fast, even though these were ancient BLP vios. Several users recommending using the PROD process to remove them; but you stated, "If someone PRODs 1000 articles in a day, someone will start an ANI thread about them abusing the PROD process. Additionally, PROD fails miserably for articles like this. A few months ago I tried PROD-ing about a dozen of the oldest unsourced BLPs (longest time without sourcing). Around 3 were actually deleted, about half just had the tag removed with no improvements made."
Last night/early this morning, I PRODDED a few dozen unreferenced BLPs which had been tagged as unreferenced since April 2007; I didn't PROD anything with actual references, even if there was an "unreferenced" tag on it. As you (correctly) predicted, I am receiving flack for "out of process PRODding", but not for PRODding 1000s, just for a little fewer than 40 articles, some of which were immediately mass-de-prodded. No references have been added to the de-prodded articles to improve them, either. I don't know what can be done about the BLP problem, but PROD won't work and mass removal won't help. These processes are opposed by users who don't appear at all interested in removing the violations and who just seem to want to retain the status quo. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man. Is there, I wonder, any possibility of using your useful closeAFD script in beta? I know basically nothing about how the latter works so I don't know what that would involve. Olaf Davis ( talk) 21:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Mr.Z-bot tagged the page Commerce minister as an unreferenced BLP. The page is an unreferenced stub, but it is not a BLP. It defines the role of such ministers in general; it does not mention any living person. I don't know how Mr.Z-bot determines what to tag as unreferenced BLP, but the criteria appear to yield at least occasional false-positives. Happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Estemshorn ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kyle_McCarter&action=historysubmit&diff=328349556&oldid=327978732 shows the bot changing an {{ unreferenced}} to a {{ BLP unsourced}} - the thing is, the {{ unreferenced}} was placed erroneously; doesn't the bot check for <ref> tags or a References section? Why would you trust the humans on this one? Josh Parris 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed a discrepancy between what the bot generates for listings in the popular pages of the ARW task force. I updated the assessments of a significant number of articles (mostly from Stub to Start) in this task force in January (many during the first two weeks). I do not see these updated assessments in the listing the bot generated at the end of January. (To pick one example: African Americans in the Revolutionary War is listed in the popular pages as a Stub, while I updated its assessment to Start on January 13.) Is this expected behavior? Magic ♪piano 14:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your popular pages list for the rugby league project. I was trying to request a similar one for the rugby union project but can't make head or tail of what is required in the categories field. Can you help? Thanks. GordyB ( talk) 12:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man, I contribute on the basque (eu) Wikipedia. I've made a version of Apoc2400s' refToolbar so that is possible to use it in our Wikipedia. You can see it here: eu:Lankide:Inorbez/refToolbar.js. My only work has been to translate and move some code because I don't know JavaScript. Thanks to you and User:Apoc2400. It's a great tool; simple and usefull. -- Inorbez ( talk) 09:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems you don't understand what that means; it means tending to inflame or provoke somebody. Where no consideration is given when that happens, I'm at a loss to understand how you could with a straight face say that the provoked person should be punished - do you think that's the way the real world works too? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man,
you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) How to help:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,
Matt Lewis ( talk) 10:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
RE: [4]
Please don't. We can move this discussion on the main page, if you prefer.
I understand your main concern, that you feel that I am quoting you out of context. That said, we both agree what phase II was. You state that what I said was out of context, which you have ample ability to explain. If you have changed your mind, you are welcome to state that.
We both know editors should not delete other editors comments. I think you would feel the same way if I tried to delete your comments. Those rules are there to avoid edit wars. If every editor was allowed to delete every comment they did not agree with on the talk page, we would have ten times the edit wars we do now.
Indeed, this is not a petition, at least in the petition comments were removed to another page, here the comments are simply being deleted.
I want to avoid an edit war here. I was planning on letting this calm down, but removing my comments simply reignites tensions.
I hope we can continue to discuss this, or let this die, without reverting each others comments. Thank you :) Okip BLP Contest 15:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork * YES! 10:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mr.Z-man. I wanted to apologize for the tone of some of my comments on the BLP RfC. I am going to strike some of what I wrote which borders on a personal attack as it was inappropriate. I can see that you are a reasonable person, and although we appear to disagree on how to solve the unreferenced BLP backlog, I shouldn't have let things get personal. Best regards. 16:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
May I propose that User:Mr.Z-bot also monitor filter 285 as a "vandalism" filter? I created this filter recently and have been monitoring it and have been very surprised at how powerful it is. As of yet I haven't seen any false positives, so I thought maybe you'd like to have your bot monitor it. Just an idea, feel free to pose questions/comments! -- Shirik ♥♥ 05:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of unblocking this account as they have admitted to the sock account and seem to now understand that this sort of thing is not kosher. It seems best to me to give them a chance to prove it but I'm checking in with you as blocking admin first. Beeblebrox ( talk) 10:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think your bot has done really great work in changing {{ unreferenced}} tags to {{ unreferencedBLP}}. But because it doesn't change the date, I fear it is giving people a false sense of the rate at which unreferenced BLPs are fixed or deleted after they've been identified. Would it be possible to change it so that we "freeze" the unreferenced BLP categories of Jan 2010 and earlier, and in future when it changes {{ unreferenced}} tags to {{ unreferencedBLP}}s have it change the date to the current month and year? Otherwise we will continue to underestimate both the amount of work going on in fixing BLPs, and the numbers of unreferenced BLPs still being detected. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Will your AfD closer work on vector skin? CTJF83 GoUSA 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for providing this information. Its very interesting and also helpful to the Project. We Project-onians will appreciate using it to see where effort can best be applied. Thanks very much! -- Mdukas ( talk) 15:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't submit because my request is non-standard. Books are located in Category:Wikipedia books (community books) and the results should be uploaded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books/Popular pages. Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to go be going through the book namespace. See this report. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In the "popular pages" tables, the "assessment" and "importance" columns are sorted in alphabetical order. Would it be technically possible to get them to sort in the correct "assessment" or "importance" order? Help:Sorting seems to suggest this might be possible using m:Template:sms ( backlinks ). -- Dr Greg talk 00:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I won't revert your revert, because I, along with many others, am totally confused and dissappointed in the way this BLP discussion is going, and will admit to some errors in my attempts to correctly structure - without changing the content - of the format. I will however just point out that a significant contribution to the extraordinary confusion on both the RfC page and it companion talk page are partly due to many good faith contributors completley ignoring the guideleines for debate and discussion formats and mixing them up. Bullet points are for Support; Oppose; Comment, which should be in bold. Doscussions on the other hand are held in indent thread format, each entry indented preceded by an incremental number of colons. While it is of course obvious that a short discussion can take place within a debate structure, it wold help all round if the contributors - most of whom consider themselves to be seasoned editors - would give some consideration to the accepted formats. Some of the most valued contributors are now withdrawing from the the BLP discussions, among others, for this very reason. I'm not sure if this is really what we want.
Another major complaint from many is the
WP:TLDR in this discussion. The excercise in formatting, also ensures that I have read what I am formatting, which means that I have formatted what I have read, even if it took three hours.--
Kudpung (
talk) 03:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to be granted rollback permission? In particular, I'd like to rollback the article on Olvera Street to the (second) 15:55 7 February 2010 revision. There were several subsequent revisions, notably the 22:09 16 February 2010 revision, that made a hash out of portions of this article. After rolling back, I'd reapply the subsequent sensible revisions. I realize I could do this with a series of undos, but I think the intent would be clearer if a single rollback were used. G Sisson ( talk) 00:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mr.Z. I read that you are into AWB or Python. Could you add the {{ WikiProject_Industrial_design}} banner to 97 talk pages BASED on their article having a Category:Computer-aided design (no subcategories please) tag. Is that something you do?... ZooFari began our project tagging, but then he retired suddenly. Thanks, -- AlainR345 Techno-Wiki-Geek 01:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
stats.grok.se does not combine redirects in general when making page counts. All three of these lead to the same article: [5] [6] [7]. You can see the numbers are all different. I am aware of this because I had to write my own code to take care of combining hitcounts of redirects for the WP 1.0 system. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you see to it that this script does not delete user talk pages? (See [8]) Thanks, – xeno talk 20:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The user:Gantlet is again edit warring with the article Kochi. He is reverting the article to an older version. Please block him again. He is even having some sock usernames as well. Also, please dont include me also in the same category. I was just trying to prevent him from his wierd revisions. Please see the history here: [9] Thank you, -- Dewatchdog ( talk) 16:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man/Archive 11 ! The template workshop has now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that policy can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and we hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 06:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Just curious, why isn't it completing the relists? I didn't get any errors or anything. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Please edit the link of Friuli – Venezia Giulia in the template, which moved to current name space according to WP:Dash. Matthew_hk t c 15:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
On Safari 4, when I click Templates->cite * I get the error "TypeError: Result of expression 's' [undefined] is not an object." and an empty dialog window is presented. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way I can change it so your AfD tool links to WP:NACD instead of the essay WP:NAC? CTJF83 chat 03:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Popular pages I wonder why many of the articles are listed as "Unassessed" when they aren't. E.g. the very first in the list, Plastic Beach, which is assessed as B-class. Could it be related to the move of {{ Album}} to {{ WikiProject Albums}} on 15 March? – Ib Leo (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw you added WPNJ to the list of projects, but no page was created when the bot ran yesterday. I wasn't sure if there was an error or just a delay in running the page for the first time. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 14:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you point me to where the RfC consensus clearly agrees that mandatory creator notification is neither required nor wanted? I thought I was familiar with practically everything since the start of Phase 2, but I may have missed something. Thanks.-- Kudpung ( talk) 22:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I found by random that when the bot made this edit [10], it changed the date from 2008 to 2010. This could be confusing to people who assume the date is somehow related to when the article was created. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
<CIA-66> wikitools: MrZmanwiki * r327 /trunk/wikitools/wiki.py: modify login for the extra step added due to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23076
I was just about to SVN up and look at a live hack for this. Thanks for the quick fix. <3 -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For all the long hours you put into Wikipedia. Keep it up, The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
There's a section on his user page called The facts about shoveing things up your butt. So far, his only edit was to his own userpage, but even then it might warrant some help. mechamind 9 0 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I've posted an RfC about a controversial topic. I believe that you've participated in discussions about this before. Please participate dispassionately. NYCRuss ☎ 12:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Tisane has given you a
sunflower plant! Sunflowers are given in recognition of valuable contributions to the
MediaWiki codebase. These plants are easy to grow, requiring only full sun and moist, well-drained,
mulchy soil, and can be processed into delicious
sunbutter! If you forget an important anniversary or birthday, your sunflower can also be hastily plucked and presented as a thoughtful gift. If you run out of food for your pet parrot and don't feel like going to the store, your sunflower's seeds will surely come in handy. If, on the other hand, you presently lack a
pet bird, no doubt the seeds can help you lure one onto your property. Possessing extensive
root systems, sunflowers are able to reach deep into sources of polluted water and extract large amounts of
toxic metals, including
uranium; the roots of floating rafts of sunflowers were able to extract 95% of the radioactivity in the water following the
Chernobyl disaster. Truly it is the plant of 1,000 uses. Little wonder, then, that enclosed in double brackets, it becomes the symbol for the software on which runs our wiki of belovedly versatile usefulness.
Tisane ( talk) 06:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Sole Soul ( talk) 00:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Please comment here. MisterE2123Five3 ( talk) 07:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there are 11 projects pending approval (I added Cats and Dogs). I was hoping you can review them in time for the May data collection. Thanks.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 03:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I know it was simple and easy, but I wanted to thank you quickly for deleting those TOC pages. That saves me a lot of AWB work, and simplifies the overall scheme of things. Robert Skyhawk So sue me! ( You'll lose) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 01:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I've asked a question about your bot at WP:EF#Filter 58 and Mr.Z-Bot. You may wish to comment there. And thanks for the bot, by the way. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Mr.Z-man has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I notice Z bot has been quiet at TB2 for a while. Everything okay? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for adding WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats. There is a small hitch which results in the last ten articles in the current list displaying with zero counts. -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 05:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies.
Manning (
talk) 08:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier
ArbCom secret ballot RFC.
Hot. ^ Also, you're a popular page. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 10:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Journals/Popular_pages; one is enough ;-) thanks for pulling this info together. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Bot failed to update Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Popular_pages page again this month. I'm thinking it's not going to happen? noticed it's not the only project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Popular_pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Antarctica/Popular_pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada/Popular_pages SunCreator ( talk) 14:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I realize that it isn't a wikiproject, but could you create a popular pages list for FLs (if it helps, the cleanup listing has also been adapted for FL use here)? This is the category. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I beg a moment of your time, please? I signed up to the Popular Pages tool on behalf of WP:OXFORD in July, but Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oxford/Popular pages has never been touched. Did I do something wrong when I filed the request? Regards, Bencherlite Talk 20:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man. Quick query: How does the popular pages tool pull the assessment across? I ask because it seems to lag the pages themselves, for example the assessment changed to a B at Talk:Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 on the 28th October but the toolserver list has it at a C, here. Just trying to work out if this is a feature or a bug. ;) Hiding T 13:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Z, I removed the template saying article needed references/citations. Hopefully this is OK. I am still learning the intricacies of Wiki. I added citations as requested.Thank you for your time. JoyDiamond ( talk) 06:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for oversighting the above IP entry to allow me to assign proper credit to it! I didn't want to just do it, as it would easily link the IP with my user name!
I have now done a null edit (a HTML comment explaining the situation) on the AfD to put my user name with the closure.
Thanks again, -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
...appears to be dead. FYI. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 19:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
At least so I assume, on the basis of my less than a year of admin experience. Note that it will be one year, I believe the day after the polls close and certainly a year by the time I would take office. Best,-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I got a message saying that "The "WikiProject Scotland" project is already in the list of projects. To request a change to the configuration, use the bottom form", however I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Popular pages is a redlink.
Am I missing something obvious?
You will find our Talk page discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Popular_pages. Thanks. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 16:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This tool is very interesting: http://toolserver.org/~alexz/coord/. Have you thought about making it available for more languages, and improving the number of geotagged articles using Google Maps API? emijrp ( talk) 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I went too far, and I certainly did not use appropriate tone. I regret the lack of good faith I showed. I should prefer if you undeleted your ACE2009 page, since other people may have differing views on the validity of your rationales. I am unconcerned if the talkpage remains deleted. Again, I am sorry for the language I used. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Having looked through a number of popular page lists, I assume that they are restricted to pages with a "standard" assessment grade, i.e. FA/A/GA/B/C/Start/Stub/FL/List/NA/Unassessed? If so, would it be possible to include a number of specialised assessment grades used by a minority of projects, specifically (off the top of my head) Bplus/Current/Deferred/Future/SL? PC78 ( talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
Class|Deferred}}
, if you can use that. I thought (for some reason) you might need these templates to be used within WikiProject banners, but I guess you just need them for the lists? Assuming the intention for these listings is to use them for articles only, is NA-Class something you want to be including? To be fair, though, I've only seen it appear the once.
PC78 (
talk) 14:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Custome importance ratings too, {{ Bottom-importance}} and {{ No-importance}}? PC78 ( talk) 14:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Bye. Do you like to intervine again here: Wikipedia talk:Blocking_policy#Administrator's errors and abuses in the blocking policy ? -- Mashra ( talk) 16:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Is Mr.Z-bot ( talk · contribs) no longer editing AIV/TB2? Wknight94 talk 21:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
When will the popular pages listing be created for the above project? I submitted the request in October so I figured the November data would be collected and posted in December. However, I see a lot of the December popular pages listings have been updated for other projects but not the ones I submitted in October. Thanks.— NMajdan• talk 16:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Mr.Z-Man This page told me that you are one of the admins that is certified to grant rollback priveleges. I was wondering if I could have those. If you could help me out with that I would be very thankful.
Thanks! Radmanovk ( talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Possible problem with the stated end time of the election on-wiki and on the SecurePoll. Do you have access to edit the SecurePoll ending time? Skomorokh 11:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man
I just reviewed the "Mechanics at the close of the election" section, and noted your comment about postal/supplementary voting. Is it clear yet whether this will be implemented for this election? If it's a yes, I might add something to the Signpost Election Report, which has only just been published. Tony (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
... coming your way about the closing time: it's becoming urgent. Tony (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Given your comments, you might want to sign: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_semiprotection_petition Best, S B H arris 19:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 07:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you know why Wikipedia:Version_0.7/Popular_pages is empty? It's from this list. Here's the category. Category:Vital articles by quality Regards, Mahanga Talk 04:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
|
Hi Mr. Z-Man, I was looking at the article statistics for the Crusades task force, and I was wondering why there are only 278 pages listed. Why were those 278 chosen? There are almost 2000 articles linked to the task force, so was it just a random sample? Thanks, Adam Bishop ( talk) 15:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed a recent edit you made to
Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy, and I wonder if you would support a WikiProject that would patrol for similar improprieties on talk pages across the site. If so, your support for
my proposal would be appreciated.
-
Garrett W. {
☎
✍} 09:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Z,
At AN/i there is currently a discussion about user:Rdm2376's mass deletions of unsourced WP:BLPs, which you participated in. There was a complaint that the mass deletions were out of process and going too fast, even though these were ancient BLP vios. Several users recommending using the PROD process to remove them; but you stated, "If someone PRODs 1000 articles in a day, someone will start an ANI thread about them abusing the PROD process. Additionally, PROD fails miserably for articles like this. A few months ago I tried PROD-ing about a dozen of the oldest unsourced BLPs (longest time without sourcing). Around 3 were actually deleted, about half just had the tag removed with no improvements made."
Last night/early this morning, I PRODDED a few dozen unreferenced BLPs which had been tagged as unreferenced since April 2007; I didn't PROD anything with actual references, even if there was an "unreferenced" tag on it. As you (correctly) predicted, I am receiving flack for "out of process PRODding", but not for PRODding 1000s, just for a little fewer than 40 articles, some of which were immediately mass-de-prodded. No references have been added to the de-prodded articles to improve them, either. I don't know what can be done about the BLP problem, but PROD won't work and mass removal won't help. These processes are opposed by users who don't appear at all interested in removing the violations and who just seem to want to retain the status quo. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man. Is there, I wonder, any possibility of using your useful closeAFD script in beta? I know basically nothing about how the latter works so I don't know what that would involve. Olaf Davis ( talk) 21:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Mr.Z-bot tagged the page Commerce minister as an unreferenced BLP. The page is an unreferenced stub, but it is not a BLP. It defines the role of such ministers in general; it does not mention any living person. I don't know how Mr.Z-bot determines what to tag as unreferenced BLP, but the criteria appear to yield at least occasional false-positives. Happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Estemshorn ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kyle_McCarter&action=historysubmit&diff=328349556&oldid=327978732 shows the bot changing an {{ unreferenced}} to a {{ BLP unsourced}} - the thing is, the {{ unreferenced}} was placed erroneously; doesn't the bot check for <ref> tags or a References section? Why would you trust the humans on this one? Josh Parris 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed a discrepancy between what the bot generates for listings in the popular pages of the ARW task force. I updated the assessments of a significant number of articles (mostly from Stub to Start) in this task force in January (many during the first two weeks). I do not see these updated assessments in the listing the bot generated at the end of January. (To pick one example: African Americans in the Revolutionary War is listed in the popular pages as a Stub, while I updated its assessment to Start on January 13.) Is this expected behavior? Magic ♪piano 14:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your popular pages list for the rugby league project. I was trying to request a similar one for the rugby union project but can't make head or tail of what is required in the categories field. Can you help? Thanks. GordyB ( talk) 12:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man, I contribute on the basque (eu) Wikipedia. I've made a version of Apoc2400s' refToolbar so that is possible to use it in our Wikipedia. You can see it here: eu:Lankide:Inorbez/refToolbar.js. My only work has been to translate and move some code because I don't know JavaScript. Thanks to you and User:Apoc2400. It's a great tool; simple and usefull. -- Inorbez ( talk) 09:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems you don't understand what that means; it means tending to inflame or provoke somebody. Where no consideration is given when that happens, I'm at a loss to understand how you could with a straight face say that the provoked person should be punished - do you think that's the way the real world works too? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man,
you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) How to help:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,
Matt Lewis ( talk) 10:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
RE: [4]
Please don't. We can move this discussion on the main page, if you prefer.
I understand your main concern, that you feel that I am quoting you out of context. That said, we both agree what phase II was. You state that what I said was out of context, which you have ample ability to explain. If you have changed your mind, you are welcome to state that.
We both know editors should not delete other editors comments. I think you would feel the same way if I tried to delete your comments. Those rules are there to avoid edit wars. If every editor was allowed to delete every comment they did not agree with on the talk page, we would have ten times the edit wars we do now.
Indeed, this is not a petition, at least in the petition comments were removed to another page, here the comments are simply being deleted.
I want to avoid an edit war here. I was planning on letting this calm down, but removing my comments simply reignites tensions.
I hope we can continue to discuss this, or let this die, without reverting each others comments. Thank you :) Okip BLP Contest 15:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork * YES! 10:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mr.Z-man. I wanted to apologize for the tone of some of my comments on the BLP RfC. I am going to strike some of what I wrote which borders on a personal attack as it was inappropriate. I can see that you are a reasonable person, and although we appear to disagree on how to solve the unreferenced BLP backlog, I shouldn't have let things get personal. Best regards. 16:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
May I propose that User:Mr.Z-bot also monitor filter 285 as a "vandalism" filter? I created this filter recently and have been monitoring it and have been very surprised at how powerful it is. As of yet I haven't seen any false positives, so I thought maybe you'd like to have your bot monitor it. Just an idea, feel free to pose questions/comments! -- Shirik ♥♥ 05:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of unblocking this account as they have admitted to the sock account and seem to now understand that this sort of thing is not kosher. It seems best to me to give them a chance to prove it but I'm checking in with you as blocking admin first. Beeblebrox ( talk) 10:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think your bot has done really great work in changing {{ unreferenced}} tags to {{ unreferencedBLP}}. But because it doesn't change the date, I fear it is giving people a false sense of the rate at which unreferenced BLPs are fixed or deleted after they've been identified. Would it be possible to change it so that we "freeze" the unreferenced BLP categories of Jan 2010 and earlier, and in future when it changes {{ unreferenced}} tags to {{ unreferencedBLP}}s have it change the date to the current month and year? Otherwise we will continue to underestimate both the amount of work going on in fixing BLPs, and the numbers of unreferenced BLPs still being detected. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Will your AfD closer work on vector skin? CTJF83 GoUSA 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for providing this information. Its very interesting and also helpful to the Project. We Project-onians will appreciate using it to see where effort can best be applied. Thanks very much! -- Mdukas ( talk) 15:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't submit because my request is non-standard. Books are located in Category:Wikipedia books (community books) and the results should be uploaded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books/Popular pages. Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to go be going through the book namespace. See this report. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In the "popular pages" tables, the "assessment" and "importance" columns are sorted in alphabetical order. Would it be technically possible to get them to sort in the correct "assessment" or "importance" order? Help:Sorting seems to suggest this might be possible using m:Template:sms ( backlinks ). -- Dr Greg talk 00:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I won't revert your revert, because I, along with many others, am totally confused and dissappointed in the way this BLP discussion is going, and will admit to some errors in my attempts to correctly structure - without changing the content - of the format. I will however just point out that a significant contribution to the extraordinary confusion on both the RfC page and it companion talk page are partly due to many good faith contributors completley ignoring the guideleines for debate and discussion formats and mixing them up. Bullet points are for Support; Oppose; Comment, which should be in bold. Doscussions on the other hand are held in indent thread format, each entry indented preceded by an incremental number of colons. While it is of course obvious that a short discussion can take place within a debate structure, it wold help all round if the contributors - most of whom consider themselves to be seasoned editors - would give some consideration to the accepted formats. Some of the most valued contributors are now withdrawing from the the BLP discussions, among others, for this very reason. I'm not sure if this is really what we want.
Another major complaint from many is the
WP:TLDR in this discussion. The excercise in formatting, also ensures that I have read what I am formatting, which means that I have formatted what I have read, even if it took three hours.--
Kudpung (
talk) 03:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to be granted rollback permission? In particular, I'd like to rollback the article on Olvera Street to the (second) 15:55 7 February 2010 revision. There were several subsequent revisions, notably the 22:09 16 February 2010 revision, that made a hash out of portions of this article. After rolling back, I'd reapply the subsequent sensible revisions. I realize I could do this with a series of undos, but I think the intent would be clearer if a single rollback were used. G Sisson ( talk) 00:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mr.Z. I read that you are into AWB or Python. Could you add the {{ WikiProject_Industrial_design}} banner to 97 talk pages BASED on their article having a Category:Computer-aided design (no subcategories please) tag. Is that something you do?... ZooFari began our project tagging, but then he retired suddenly. Thanks, -- AlainR345 Techno-Wiki-Geek 01:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
stats.grok.se does not combine redirects in general when making page counts. All three of these lead to the same article: [5] [6] [7]. You can see the numbers are all different. I am aware of this because I had to write my own code to take care of combining hitcounts of redirects for the WP 1.0 system. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you see to it that this script does not delete user talk pages? (See [8]) Thanks, – xeno talk 20:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The user:Gantlet is again edit warring with the article Kochi. He is reverting the article to an older version. Please block him again. He is even having some sock usernames as well. Also, please dont include me also in the same category. I was just trying to prevent him from his wierd revisions. Please see the history here: [9] Thank you, -- Dewatchdog ( talk) 16:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man/Archive 11 ! The template workshop has now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that policy can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and we hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 06:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Just curious, why isn't it completing the relists? I didn't get any errors or anything. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Please edit the link of Friuli – Venezia Giulia in the template, which moved to current name space according to WP:Dash. Matthew_hk t c 15:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
On Safari 4, when I click Templates->cite * I get the error "TypeError: Result of expression 's' [undefined] is not an object." and an empty dialog window is presented. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way I can change it so your AfD tool links to WP:NACD instead of the essay WP:NAC? CTJF83 chat 03:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Popular pages I wonder why many of the articles are listed as "Unassessed" when they aren't. E.g. the very first in the list, Plastic Beach, which is assessed as B-class. Could it be related to the move of {{ Album}} to {{ WikiProject Albums}} on 15 March? – Ib Leo (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw you added WPNJ to the list of projects, but no page was created when the bot ran yesterday. I wasn't sure if there was an error or just a delay in running the page for the first time. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 14:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you point me to where the RfC consensus clearly agrees that mandatory creator notification is neither required nor wanted? I thought I was familiar with practically everything since the start of Phase 2, but I may have missed something. Thanks.-- Kudpung ( talk) 22:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I found by random that when the bot made this edit [10], it changed the date from 2008 to 2010. This could be confusing to people who assume the date is somehow related to when the article was created. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
<CIA-66> wikitools: MrZmanwiki * r327 /trunk/wikitools/wiki.py: modify login for the extra step added due to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23076
I was just about to SVN up and look at a live hack for this. Thanks for the quick fix. <3 -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For all the long hours you put into Wikipedia. Keep it up, The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
There's a section on his user page called The facts about shoveing things up your butt. So far, his only edit was to his own userpage, but even then it might warrant some help. mechamind 9 0 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I've posted an RfC about a controversial topic. I believe that you've participated in discussions about this before. Please participate dispassionately. NYCRuss ☎ 12:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Tisane has given you a
sunflower plant! Sunflowers are given in recognition of valuable contributions to the
MediaWiki codebase. These plants are easy to grow, requiring only full sun and moist, well-drained,
mulchy soil, and can be processed into delicious
sunbutter! If you forget an important anniversary or birthday, your sunflower can also be hastily plucked and presented as a thoughtful gift. If you run out of food for your pet parrot and don't feel like going to the store, your sunflower's seeds will surely come in handy. If, on the other hand, you presently lack a
pet bird, no doubt the seeds can help you lure one onto your property. Possessing extensive
root systems, sunflowers are able to reach deep into sources of polluted water and extract large amounts of
toxic metals, including
uranium; the roots of floating rafts of sunflowers were able to extract 95% of the radioactivity in the water following the
Chernobyl disaster. Truly it is the plant of 1,000 uses. Little wonder, then, that enclosed in double brackets, it becomes the symbol for the software on which runs our wiki of belovedly versatile usefulness.
Tisane ( talk) 06:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Sole Soul ( talk) 00:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Please comment here. MisterE2123Five3 ( talk) 07:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there are 11 projects pending approval (I added Cats and Dogs). I was hoping you can review them in time for the May data collection. Thanks.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 03:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)