User talk:MZMcBride/Archive 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This 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.

Wikipedia portal

I undid your recent change to Www.wikipedia.org template/temp, because it effectively hid the first row of books (and only the first) from every browser but IE. (Its width is set high but is offset by the -500% left value.) I'm not on a Windows PC, so I can't see exactly what's going on in IE, but please test your changes in several browsers whenever making changes to the page's CSS.

Apparently the reason we make the book rows so wide and set them so far to the left is so that, on low resolutions (or when you don't have your browser window maximized), the book rows still appear centered. I attempted setting width: 100%; left: 0%;, but at low resolutions, the left edge of each row is anchored to the left edge of the page, meaning that the numbers can be cut off and each row looks the same length. If you could upload or link to a screenshot of the portal in IE, maybe we can work out a better solution. I'm not really a fan of the current design, though; too many positioning issues so far...

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Forseti's proposed redesign, which I've pushed for for the past two summers...
I'm guessing all we can do for the time being is rework the code a little. I've been in favor of a total redesign for a couple years now, but it never seems like anyone else on Meta is. Perhaps the easiest solution would be to make four images, each with the appropriate number of books, set them as centered backgrounds of divs with 100% width, and call it a day. It should work as long as the user doesn't increase their text size far too much. But I'm not sure if it's an issue that we'd be increasing the portal's total size (already 46 kB without images). I guess we could offset that increase by using GIFs instead of PNGs. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


uploads

Hi, please note, that You can't change the licence of a GNU-licenced picture to public domain, after modifying it. Please read w:GNU Free Documentation License and correct the licence, don't forget to list the former authors, thanks --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, looks ok to me now, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
@wikipedia.org-template, thanks, and thanks for Your work to fix this problem, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Opera screenshot 10 09 07.png

Hello,

I've deleted the image Image:Opera screenshot 10 09 07.png you uploaded because it was a copyvio: the displayed program Opera is copyrighted (please see commons:Commons:Licensing#Screenshots). If you want to post such screenshots, you may use an external host or an online tool such as http://browsershots.org/. For the record, screenshots of the Wikipedia portal can be found at http://browsershots.org/http://www.wikipedia.org/. Best regards, Korg + + 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowball clause

It would be helpful if you could fix all the links on that page. Cheers, Majorly talk 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the import! Looks like somebody beat me to updating some of the links, but I went through the entire thing and tried to make it more relevant to Meta-Wiki. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Policies in English Wikipedia form content pages on Meta

While it is good to meta to have pages on policies on various wikimedia projects, these pages are simply content pages on Meta - they don't carry the Meta: heading and they don't apply on the Meta project itself.

And if you wish to change the policies on Meta, please discuss it first on Meta:Babel. It is not a good idea to unilaterally bring in new rules on a community - it will not work.

Please note that Meta is an international interproject community. Every wikimedia project has its own rules, and they do not always follow the English wikipedia rules.

Happy editing. Hillgentleman 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Where was the Meta discussion when you created Meta:Snowball and declared that the snowball clause doesn't apply to Meta ever? ; - ) I've left notes at the various talk pages where you reverted me. Please feel free to respond there. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That is an essay, not a policy, mate. What I have done was simply recording the point of views from the (then) recent discussions. I didn't have time to cite sources, but I may note that Aphaia has almost always disliked closing early, since she had once had something to say but the discussion was closed early; Cometstyles and some other bureaucrats have objected it, for the same reason as I have recorded on meta:snowball; in one of the discussions Bastique came up and the opinions changed from green to red; in the RFD for How to deal with Poles, the course changed suddenly when Polish speakers came to give their views. Hillgentleman 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
And I have given reasons for every one of the reversions. Would you please be kind enough to address them? Hillgentleman 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. I purposefully didn't revert you anywhere and merely posed questions on the various talk pages for a reason. : - ) --MZMcBride 01:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I commented there (talk), basically my understanding:

  • the spirit of Snowball clause is okay to apply for meta.
  • the current text of w:WP:SNOW is not okay. It reflects only enwiki reality, not meta.

I therefore strongly oppose to have it our own policy or guideline. If we have our own, it is okay but a simply import is not welcome. --Aphaia 01:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The current text of w:WP:SNOW isn't very similar to Meta's version of SNOW. Meta's version is (intended) to be more broad. The import was to preserve any previous history for GFDL reasons. (Why cite your sources when you can bring them along? : - ) And from what I've seen, Meta doesn't like ot follow SNOW at all, in spirit or in practice. Which is partly the reason I'm here. --MZMcBride 01:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • MZMcBride, Instead of having the discussion split over many pages, why don't we discuss it on meta:babel? You will get answers to your questions. Hillgentleman 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds fine. Can you start the discussion? --MZMcBride 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Main page#Lowered main page protection

You may want to comment here since you were the one who requested that the page be unlocked. Cheers, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins

Given a few of our previous issues encountered on-IRC, and given that it's not something either desired nor likely to "go away" (I've used IRC longer than I've been a Wikimedian, for instance, and can tell you which habit I'm likely to kick first...) I suggest we codify some rather straightforward rules for access and behavior.

The three main issues I've seen are:

  1. Lack of a clear, concise definition of who may or may not have access to the channel.
    • My suggestion:
      1. From en.wikipedia: All Arbitrators (regardless of on-wiki rights), Oversighters, Checkusers, Bureaucrats, and Administrators. These are defined (with the exception of Arbitrator) as either having the on-wiki bit set at that moment, or having previously held one of these positions and relinquished them voluntarily and able to have them restored without needing to seek consensus for the action.
      2. From non-en-wikipedia: Members of the Global Staff, Global Steward, or Global Sysadmin groups. If Global Sysop or a similar group is established and they keep these abilities on en-wikipedia, these would be granted access also.
      3. Anyone given special dispensation for technical reasons (specifically, Freenode staff) to be determined in the future.
  2. Lax and/or inconsistently applied behavioral rules.
    • My suggestion: Obvious, blatant character assassination deserves no warning and will effect immediate involuntary (yet temporary) removal. Simple "griping" about someone deserves some warning (at most, three with notice that the next offense is final) that may result in similar removal. Repeated transgressions result in either long term or permanent access removal.
  3. Both misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the rules against disclosure of IRC logs.
    • My suggestion: It is expected that all IRC clients log discussions and users with current access may share these logs with other users with access to the channel. Arbitrators and appropriate staff (both Freenode and Foundation) may be given logs without consultation. People who do not fall under these exceptions may only be given logs with permission from "Channel Staff" (defined, currently, as the channel operators en banc). Publicly posting logs without such permission results solely in on-IRC sanctions, such as access removal, though we should not presume to advise other organizations (ArbCom, CVN, OTRS, etc...) about what sanctions they may feel the need to impose.

If possible, I'd like to request an on-wiki area (Meta is fine, other wikis are possible also, but I'd suggest against enwiki, specifically, as we've got quite enough regarding IRC there already) where we can have discussion between all channel operators without needing on-irc discussion that quite likely a majority of operators will miss. It would be appropriate to inform the entire channel of the discussion. If Meta, it may be advisable to place the discussion in userspace and apply enforceable "soft" editing restrictions to the page to prevent disruption to what might otherwise be a productive discussion.

Hopefully this isn't stepping on anyone's toes, but some of these issues have (in my opinion) not been sufficiently clarified to prevent drama. Kylu 21:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first numbered item, a clarification of the channel access policy is currently ongoing at IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins/Policy ratification.

Regarding your second point, I see a number of potential issues. Currently, the channel is "run" under the guidelines found here. IRC is generally seen as a more "lax" medium in general (certainly not as formal as something like a wiki post or an e-mail). I think a general blanket ban on griping is problematic for two reasons: (1) certain people are true pains in the ass and griping about them is sometimes reasonable in my mind (sockpuppets, vandals, et al.); (2) one of the "features" of the channel is that it allows admins to "blow off steam." Admins can bitch about a certain user or issue, and then move on, rather than holding it in or taking it on-wiki (where it causes drama). Now, perhaps that kind of lax behavior should simply be moved to another channel altogether and #wikipedia-en-admins should be kept "strictly business," but at the moment I'm inclined to stick with the former rather than impose the latter.

I'll also say that kicking or banning from an invite-only channel almost always sends off a red flag in my mind. Any way to avoid that would be a Good Thing in my mind.

While the log release policies could be clarified / enhanced / made more strict / whatever, the entire exercise seems a bit like pissing in the ocean. While certain guidelines perhaps could be laid out, there's no way to enforce that people ask permission of the channel ops before passing logs, for example.

Your last point is a good one and is something we've had a lot of issues with in the past. Some sort of "water cooler" page (perhaps at a subpage of IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins assuming that page is kept) would be incredibly helpful to gain broader consensus of the ops. I don't think anything fancy like a mailing list is needed, but a noticeboard-type thing seems perfectly reasonable. As for "soft editing restrictions," I can't imagine many non-admins (or non-ops) would really want to post to such a noticeboard, but if they do, I don't particularly have an issue with it. Better there than on my talk page or in my inbox. ;-)

Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | Nederlands | português | русский | edit

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades... (our budget is smaller than Commons)

MZMcBride, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Meta. Please take a moment to read the Meta:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat, and Meta:Requests for deletion, but also Talk:Spam blacklist and Talk:Interwiki map), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

A tip: add this page Meta:Administrators' discussion index to your watchlist, it tracks the latest activity to various sections of many of the important pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-admin @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading although it doesn't always completely apply here at Meta.

Please also check or add your entry to Meta:Administrators#List_of_administrators and the Template:List of administrators.


--Mardetanha talk 23:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats :) .. Rjd0060 23:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) --MZMcBride 03:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yay. Daniel (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Heavily indented congratulations! Kylu 20:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Blacklists

Please remember to log your edits to the global blacklist(s).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Bah! --MZMcBride 19:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tidy a design?

Hi. I’m definitely interested. I've only a wee bit of m:experience, so I'm not quite sure where to start looking ... will nose about. There’s likely a history to the design and a whole sandbox. It looks like I’ll be needing a few more fonts; “Bishnupriya Manipuri” probably isn‘t User:Bishonen-speak. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey. The code is loaded from a (fully-protected) page: Www.wikipedia.org template. It has a /temp subpage. (It also appears to have worked with Www.wikipedia.org portal in the past, but that page is now deprecated.) I may be able to make something that allows for live previewing the code, as it has to be in raw HTML. Would that be helpful? And at some point we need to advertise somewhere.... --MZMcBride 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have a look. I've been busy reading the latest en:wp drama; you've posted there, so you'll know the one. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent discussion moved to Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template#Redesigning. --MZMcBride 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

sync wikiquote, please

I've been looking around at the siblings of this and found and fixed an issue with www.wikiquote.org

  • here l/r margin was inadvertently introduced to one of the bookshelves and this results in a slight hscrollbar. No one noticed?
  • here I've fixed it as well as made some of the same tweaks I've made here; just a few.

I'm gonna review all of them; looking for ideas, issues. If we push www.wikipedia.org further the others will have to tag along.

  • I tweaked www.wikinews.org, too, and it should be synced; more minor issues there.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Alexanderps and mxn beat me to it. --MZMcBride 23:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Orbiting links

Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look

      • editor J.delanoy, you can not and DO not remove what I put on someones PERSONAL talk page.

Thought this might interest you, before this aticle was neutral and list all point of views, someone removed all the sources of the article including large amounts of information and references, and turned it into this essay format of their personal beliefs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy I don't know what to call this other than racism and a certain group of admins (who always end up on race topics or bring up races) banding together to abuse their power (manly user Paul Barlow, and Dbachmann) the same editors are the ones on the admin notice boards and if you post a complaint about them or a friend they remove it76.118.238.21 15:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You sound like you need the local wiki's dispute resolution system. Try w:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Sorry I can't be of more assistance (this really isn't my strong area). Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ninja request ;)

Details at:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Above is done; following is needed asap:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell

...is not a reason. Please provide a rationale where people can see it. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was self-evident why blacklisting an entire ccTLD is a poor idea. Clarified now. Love you. --MZMcBride 03:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, nothing personal, but this one should have been discussed first due to the problem with spam links and redirects. Please restore it, or join in the discussion. Thanks. --Ckatz 10:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented on the appropriate page and have it watchlisted now. --MZMcBride 10:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million

Thank you for the unblock, Mr. McBride. You're a man's man. -- Thekohser 20:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks. I thought I had updated that on all the various projects. Must have missed this one. JoshuaZ 02:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Out of curiosity, what's the backstory there? Just taking a break or something? --MZMcBride 02:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Er no. The story is quite dramalicious. I was accused of sockpuppetry which I denied but I resigned since the ArbCom was very convinced. I am I believe one of only two cases where in order to get the tools back I would need to ask ArbCom before a new RfA (for reasons that aren't completely clear to me). I'm surprised you missed all that. How did you know I was a former admin but not know those details? JoshuaZ 02:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've got a script installed that puts user rights next to a user's name on their user and user talk pages (w:User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js). I figured the information from 2006 was accurate. Interesting that you, of all people I guess, are dragging the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee onto Meta, then.... --MZMcBride 02:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, to be blunt, I think they can be a bunch of idiots. But there's a very precise reason that I haven't applied for OTRS tools and that's that ArbCom ruling. I've thought on and off of applying for OTRS access and if I did so, I'd at minimum explicitly say that "hey, there's this issue which is still outstanding." And I'd agree that it would be a strong argument that I shouldn't be given OTRS access. Frankly, your decision to not mention the issue in your OTRS application bugged me about as much as the issue itself. If you had mentioned it I likely would have stayed out. JoshuaZ 03:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Vector page

I'm readding the link to the official FAQ. I'd sure appreciate it if you left it there. While I get your sense of humor, I think it's inappropriate in this case. Please stop. Philippe (WMF) 00:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using a staff account? --MZMcBride 01:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki requests

Thanks for fast accepting my request about wmru interwiki. Maybe you do review for my two other requests: adding Semantic-MediaWiki.org and updating Creative Commons ? --Kaganer 12:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Liquidthreads.labs request

Plese per for request permissions at [1] --minhhuy*= 01:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Decision-making from behind a drawn curtain

There is an underlying issue behind some of Wikimedia's latest actions. It isn't really specific to the recent interlanguage link display dispute, but it's certainly present there.

In short, there's a complete lack of engagement and dialogue between the Wikimedia Foundation and the community. Some of this lack of communication was pointed out in a separate thread on this very list. We're seeing a few labs sites put up and criticism is certainly being voiced (on the blog, on the labs sites, on this list), but it's pretty clear that it's falling on purposefully deaf ears.

Every once in a while, a staffer will emerge from an internal meeting or discussion, proclaim something, and then slip back behind the wall. If the archives were working correctly, this would be easier to demonstrate, though anyone who is subscribed should look at the responses from Howie Fung and Erik Moeller from this past week. You see comments like "we discussed this internally" and this is what we decided. Or you have comments like "the Usability team discussed this issue at length this afternoon," followed by a list of further actions that the Usability team feels entitled to make.

What's missing? Dialogue, discussion, and debate about the recent changes. A healthy exchange of ideas and a reasonable defense of the design decisions that were made. You don't have a dialogue, you have a series of edicts. And that's really unacceptable for an organization like Wikimedia, an organization that should be serving its community.

Part of what we're seeing, played out throughout the course of the Usability team's existence, are the issues that emerge from having too many masters. Receiving directed grant money should not give a group more power in MediaWiki development, but that isn't what is happening in practice. In practice, the people signing the paychecks are the ones who are being listened to; the community that the Wikimedia Foundation is supposed to be serving is being ignored. Not just a few vocal critics on the mailing list, the broader Wikimedia community is being pushed aside.

It is not specific to the Usability team's recent actions, but they are a particularly good example of the larger unacceptable problem.

MZMcBride 19:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Test subject 1

Test message 1. --EdwardsBot 23:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Test subject 2

¡Test message 2! --EdwardsBot (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot block

Okay. I'll leave it blocked for now then; that's prolly easiest, especially if you don't care either way. Thanks for getting in touch. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Enable editnotices

Would you mind enabling editnotices for this wiki, similar to Commons or Enwp?  ono  03:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a page for admin requests somewhere. Use it. --MZMcBride 20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Testing

Test test test. --EdwardsBot 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Talking to ourself, are we? Philippe (WMF) 05:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Lies. --EdwardsBot 05:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot test example

Posting for posterity here as requested. I'll poke you on IRC. Jalexander

Header searched wiki/page userpage links counted
Fundraising Banners! w:cs:Wikipedie:Pod_lípou 1
Fundraising time is around the corner! / Közeleg az idei adománygyűjtő kampány! w:hu:Wikipédia:Kocsmafal_(egyéb) 4
Fundraising_time_is_around_the_corner! w:rw:Wikipedia:Community_Portal 1
2010_Fundraising_Is_Almost_Here w:ca:Viquipèdia:La_taverna/Arxius/Novetats/Recent 5

EdwardsBot

Hi, I saw EdwardsBot active on nl.wikipedia. Since I have a lot of userpages on my watchlist the botedits showed up alot. Could you perhaps request a botflag for EdwardsBot so it won't show in the watchlist anymore? Local botflag requests for nl.wikipedia can be made at w:nl:WP:AB. If you specify that the bot is only used to deliver the Signpost, there will probably be no objections. Kind regards, Taketa 17:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Here you go. --MZMcBride 19:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimmyface

Hey, we're going to be testing some banners the next few days that should have less of the "creepy jimmyface" factor. You've been around long enough to see the various iterations of jimmyface, so I'd like your opinion on the new ones when they come up (if you have the time). You can catch me on IRC or email, or my meta talk page. Thanks! Regards, DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 01:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hello MZMcBride. I am sorry but I've undid your recent addition to MediaWiki:Common.js because since you added it some scripts starting failing, /secure.js was one of them. Regards, --dferg ☎ talk 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Eep. I tried putting the code higher up, which seems to work (the signature button works and so does /secure.js). Let me know if you notice any other problems. --MZMcBride 23:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Still not working for me. Sorry. --dferg ☎ talk 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Make sure you've bypassed your cache? You can also try logging out to see if it's something in your personal JS that's causing an error. --MZMcBride 23:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Logged-out but viewing the pages in the secure server it works, but logged in (and with the caché bypassed) it doesn't. Curious that it started happening since that script was added :-) I'll try to fix it myself. Thanks, --dferg ☎ talk 14:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry for not notifying you about my comment here. I was trying to make the point that we have current admins on the project that would be affected by the strict interpretation of the new requirement, and you just happened to be the first example I found. In retrospect it would have been a better idea to raise that point without naming anyone in particular. Jafeluv 08:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I read the comment with a much more sinister undertone than I think was ever intended. That was my mistake. --MZMcBride 08:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

pl:User:EdwardsBot

I think you should apply for a bot flag on this page. Abronikowski 17:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. Let me know how it turns out. --MZMcBride 21:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
flag granted :) masti <dyskusja> 21:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, that was quick. Thanks. :-) --MZMcBride 21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Scary, McBride with his own robot army. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice blah

Hi. Is there a way to make this work? If you couldn't tell, I was trying to make an edit notice that would show for anyone trying to edit a subpage of IRC office hours (i.e. log pages). Also, I've considered using text from w:wp:editnotice and surrounding pages to create a page to document editnotices on meta and/or mediawikiwiki. That would seem useful especially since enwiki operates differently with editnotices than other wikis do. I couldn't find documentation elsewhere. Killiondude 08:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoi. I fixed that for you. Editnotices automatically display on subpages. True story. If you want to write documentation, write it at mediawiki.org; most MediaWiki documentation on Meta-Wiki has been moved to mediawiki.org (and with good reason!). Thanks, --MZMcBride 15:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I see what you did there (x2). Thanks! Killiondude 17:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Muchas gracias...

...for the redirects. Steven Walling at work 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Steven is speaking in Spanish. Too much time in California!!! Killiondude 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Cálmate, chico. De nada, Steven. --MZMcBride 03:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia_Forum#IRC_office_hours_notification

Wikimedia_Forum#IRC_office_hours_notification - Can you make this happen? Chzz 23:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I already did the difficult part (writing the global delivery system). What more do you need from me? If you want to be on the access list, ask a Meta-Wiki admin to add you (one who's preferably impartial). Then you can deliver globally to your heart's content. --MZMcBride 23:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding an edit

Please dont' remove the signatures from the election committee pages as with this edit. They're there for a reason... it makes it easier for us to tell "at a glance" who confirmed the diff. Yes, we'll check them all later, but please allow us this courtesy. Philippe (WMF) 06:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would a diff need to be confirmed? Or rather, how would a user signature confirm a diff? You're not making any sense. Philippe (WMF) 06:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the witty repartee there with signing my name. Very clever. We are confirming, for instance, that the diff is what it appears to be and that the candidate is in fact the person linked in the diff. Philippe (WMF) 06:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, right. Confirming that the diff is. How existential. Well, okay.
And yes, people would kill for my wit and charm. --MZMcBride 06:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Watcher

Hey MZMcBride, since two days I have a problem with Your watcher tool. I'm not longer logged in, but I can log me in and get the following message:

login

You're now logged in! Proceed to watcher? (Example)

license · bugs

After clicking on watcher? I'm not logged in - see example link above. What's the problem? Best regards --Astrobeamer 22:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Dunno. Try clearing your browser cache or deleting the associated cookies? --MZMcBride 03:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
THX for Your Tips, deleting cookies was the solution. --Astrobeamer 12:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

CentralNotice banner guidelines

Hi,

I noticed that Fundraising 2010/Banner guide is about how to *create* the banners, but the page you created is more about whether they should be created. Perhaps merge both into CentralNotice/Banner guidelines (to keep with CentralNotice: namespace)?

Thanks,

The Helpful One 16:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a merge would be appropriate. They're completely different pages. --MZMcBride 17:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps move the Fundraising one to a more appropriate location though? The Helpful One 17:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think there'd be any issue with putting everything under CentralNotice/. Those two pages in particular, though, are intended for different purposes and different audiences. Feel free to move as you see fit. --MZMcBride 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

instant archive talk page

mr, I want to talk about modifying the link to the "Erik Evrest/Arsip 2011 [at] Indonesian Wikipedia" becomes simply "Erik Evrest [at] Indonesian Wikipedia" in Global message delivery/Targets/Signpost. In part, prior to amendment is actually a link to the archive page so that talks can be directly archived. However I will still look / read through the pages of my watchlist. So it may not revise edits to restore it? because if it stays on the talk page (not the archive page) then I would be tired to move messages that I received as another user --Erik Evrest 07:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The bot doesn't understand magic words such as {{CURRENTYEAR}}. Maybe one day it will. Today it doesn't. --MZMcBride 13:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Change to Toolserver checker?

Has there been a change in the script to Checker? http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/checker/?db=enwikisource_p&title=Index%3AIn+Flanders+Fields+-+1921.djvu isn't giving results for s:Index:In Flanders Fields - 1921.djvu, seeing results for some, but not for others. billinghurst sDrewth 09:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No change, just shitty coding. I fixed it just now.
This code:
clean_title = title.replace(' ','_').lstrip(index_namespace+':')
should be:
clean_title = title.replace(' ','_').split(index_namespace+':', 1)[1]
All better now! --MZMcBride 15:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Watcher again

Hey MZMcBride, what's today going wrong with your tool? After Login (i did not logout) I see this message: Sorry, you're not on the access list. But I am on the list. Deleting cache and cookies did not help. Greetings from --Astrobeamer 18:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Toolserver is broken. --MZMcBride 23:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I hate this Toolserver... Good night from germany to you --Astrobeamer 23:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but here is a new question: Is it possible to fix the problem with the "broken" toolserver? The problem is now existing for more than 24 hours. The tool itself works and there is only a problem for <30 watchers. I think that there should exist a solution for this problem. Sorry for my school english. Best regards from --Astrobeamer 23:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Sucks to be s3. Killiondude 23:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

5864 hours? I think this server has lost the real date. Could somebody inform the admins of the toolserver? I am not fit in doing this. Thanks for the information. --Astrobeamer 23:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This must not be right. The template Toolserver shows wrong values for s3. I talked to one of the toolserver boys, User DaB. If somebody speaks german, he can read this discussion. --Astrobeamer 14:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Toolserver admins are usually quickly aware of problems, but often they can do little to fix them quickly. Defective hardware needs replacements which takes time. There is hardly any stock of all sorts of replacement parts in the computing center. Once hardware is working again, catching up data base replication may again take days. I believe, the toolserver cluster is somewhere near the point where you need to spend ten times the money so as to get a ten percent reduction of downtimes. It's an economic question, and the toolserver lives on donated money. --Purodha Blissenbach 08:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hallo to everybody, perhaps here is a solution: I used my old example link in the section above and could not believe it, but i'm now logged in! Please try it. Greetings --Astrobeamer 17:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=445003959&oldid=444991463 --MZMcBride 18:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, my edit above was no solution, but by pure chance the problem on the toolserver did not longer exist. :-) -- Astrobeamer 19:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: /Spam

Thanks. I shall try to check for such typos in future (I'm hoping to extend my en.wp bot to meta to remove human error entirely, but in the meantime...). Jarry1250 07:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

hideprefix

Thanks! Good idea! Ijon 01:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice of review of adminship

Hello,

In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2011. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before October 10, 2011. Kind regards, vvvt 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Watcher namespace aliases

--- watcher.py  2011-08-15 17:27:55.724710000 +0000
+++ /home/dispenser/watcher_mz.py       2011-10-09 02:46:49.011121000 +0000
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@
       page_is_redirect,
       COUNT(*)
     FROM watchlist
-    JOIN toolserver.namespace
+    JOIN toolserver.namespacenname
     ON dbname = %s
     AND wl_namespace = ns_id
     LEFT JOIN page

toolserver.namespace is deprecated, use toolserver.namespacenname which supports aliases and English namespace identifiers. Dispenser 02:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Making URLs protocol-relative

Sure, make AnankeBot bot + sysop. Do you want me to change URLs only in MediaWiki namespace or everywhere? If everywhere, should I change also magic links (which would need to become normal links with a title) or not? Beware that I don't know anything of JS and similar things, so I'll do only the simple replacements, not JS coding or whatever. :-p Nemo 07:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I made AnankeBot an adminbot and I made you an admin and bureaucrat.
Just the MediaWiki namespace should be fine. I'm just trying to get the insecure (mixed) content warnings to go away. They all seem to be CentralNotice-related. The same simple replacements you did here on Meta-Wiki should be fine there.
Thanks! --MZMcBride 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
OMG, I didn't see this before; and I even checked the talk. :-/ I'm doing it now. Nemo 08:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Should be done, remove the bits if you want. Nemo 09:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Whee, thanks! --MZMcBride 13:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bug 32138

Hello MZMcBride, this must have been the single most constructive contribution to the image filter debate that I've seen in a long while. And the most constructive thing before was pulling the debate on meta (from foundation-l). Thank you so much!

Regarding Bug 32138 (no images (in the content area) are loaded when the rest of the page loads and are instead replaced with placeholder images) I want to ask you about filing the same bug for the mobile frontend too. This would unify the user experience and might have its advantages for development too. See also Bug 32001 - Wikipedia Zero heading banner and Bug 32002 - Add a data access charge warning for Wikipedia Zero within Mobile Frontend. The current frontend version since Bug 29520 - Ability to turn off images on mobile and wap-mobile page views and mediawiki fix for Bug 29520 does not show that it does not show the image. No captions, no placeholder images or text, nothing. This is bad with formulas in the text [2], chess graphics [3] and many other things.

Besides, I proposed on de.wiki a possible solution to this whole image filter conundrum (de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Ein Lösungsvorschlag für das Bildfilter-Problem, german). Basically: Let's test an "all images on-off-function with clickable placeholders" on the new mobile frontend, collect and publish data on that (3 months?), work out a referendum (on meta, in collaboration) and then vote on implementing this on normal Wikipedia. Response was not very negative, nor very positive. I hesitate to put it on the meta-Brainstorming, because I'm afraid the vote/referendum thing might escalate things further. One interesting comment was a slippery slope argument: on-off-image-function -> session cookies -> demand for personal image selection list memory for logged user -> demand for the same for IP user -> infrastructure enabling censorship. Doesn't sound very slippery to me, but I'm not an expert on the tech side. Any thoughts on that? --Atlasowa 11:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bug 32138 is uncontroversial, according to former statements by:
Sue Gardner: "Some ideas, such as a general images on/off switch, seem to have broad general support."
Erik Möller / Eloquence "es handelt sich dabei ganz klar um den "kleinsten gemeinsamen Nenner" in der bisherigen Diskussion auch ueber die deutschsprachige Wikipedia hinaus." (~ this clearly is the minimum consensus of the discussion so far, in the wider community) --Atlasowa 13:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Neitram partially translated the proposal into english on de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Atlasowa#Übersetzungsvorschlag. --Atlasowa 13:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. :-)
Nearly every feature added to MediaWiki has been re-used, misused, and/or abused in one way or another. In particular, if this feature were implemented, you could easily begin to track statistics on which images were clicked-to-show and then make decisions based on that. For example, if 99% of users don't click to see Goatse.jpg, a wiki could decide that Goatse.jpg should be hidden by default for all users. The user preference or toggle option could be attached to particular users, but I doubt it would ever be attached to IP addresses, at least not voluntarily. I'm not sure if there is a slippery slope here, but it's nearly guaranteed that this feature, if implemented, will be used in unexpected ways that may upset some people.
I agree with Sue and Erik that this seems fairly uncontroversial. It also fits in with the "Wikipedia Zero" initiative, which I didn't know about until you mentioned it here. "Wikipedia Zero" is slightly tangential, as it's (apparently) focused on business partnerships, but it's certainly related.
I agree that mobile might be a good platform to do some testing, but I don't see any reason to restrict testing to mobile. This could be opt-in as soon as it's written (as a beta feature) and power-users could start to play with it. There are a lot of edge cases (math formulas, hieroglyphics, etc.) and quite a few technical obstacles to overcome, but I think it's worth the effort. --MZMcBride 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Special:AbuseFilter/42

Well done, thank you for taking care of this. I tried, but I'm not able to understand messages like this (perhaps it's my English). However, I'm sure that I'm seeing mixed-content warnings... Nemo 08:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not your English. Joseph isn't making a bit of sense of there. The content of his message is a direct argument for using protocol-relative URLs, but he made the comment after doing a bunch of reversions. I think he's rather confused. (Hardly the first fundraising person to not really understand the underlying technologies.)
There may be load issues, but I'd like to see someone from ops say so (Roan, Mark, Ryan, et al.). Quite a few people spent quite a bit of time getting the secure site (and related URLs) to function properly, so I'm very skeptical of implicit or explicit support of deliberately causing mixed content warnings. If there are actual load issues, someone should be able to say so definitively (in clear English). --MZMcBride 13:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The abuse filter doesn't seem to work, see [4]. I'll try to add the src. Nemo 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I think it might be helpful to word wmf:Special:DisabledNotice (redirect from the Fundraising Statistics) to show that high volume caused delays. I thought perhaps you'd know how to do this. Cheers! 76.14.142.96 23:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, done. --MZMcBride 01:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Miracle worker. 76.14.177.248 08:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

{{tb|Mdennis (WMF)|Terms of use-Summary}}

Terms of Use and the wiki-way

Hi. :) I've put the notice back at the top of the page and would prefer that we talk to Geoff about it first. The page actually isn't protected right now. Protection expired, and I'm happy that it's been stable. The edits people have done (besides staff and the translation team) have been formatting, and they've been helpful. If people start substantially editing it, it will probably be fully protected again. While it's being hosted on Meta, it's here to facilitate discussion. It isn't actually a "wiki" document in the ordinary sense as it does actually have an "owner". :) (It's a bit more like w:Wikipedia:CCBYSA, a local copy for convenience). Geoff has been marvelously responsive to comments on the talk page. He's put a ton of time and energy into discussing people's ideas and concerns and has made many changes, but he only makes the changes that he agrees to. He is going to present this document to the Board of Trustees at the end of the month for their approval, and he wants to make sure that the community has as much opportunity as possible to weigh in first. If somebody coming to view the document (word is being spread to various communities that the commentary period is closed) sees it as modified by somebody else and thinks they are viewing an official version, they may be misled and we might miss their input on the official document. --Mdennis (WMF) 11:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"If people start substantially editing it, it will probably be fully protected again." ← Um, wtf? This is completely antithetical to Wikimedia's principles and values. We want people to contribute and discuss and debate. We want the wiki process to work as it should. The community weighs in by editing the page, just as they do everywhere else in the wikiverse. I have no idea where you or Geoff or anyone think they get the authority to try to control such a page. Once it's an official document approved by the Board, it's obviously a different matter. But until then, it should be open to editing by all. --MZMcBride 17:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
We do want people to contribute and discuss and debate. Geoff has been reaching out proactively to bring people into the discussion from the beginning. The note that you have again removed clearly invites them to take part and also explained why direct editing was not preferred.
You seem to be taking my statement about protection as some kind of threat; it's not. It's a simple fact that the page was fully protected within four minutes after its placement here: [5]. It was intended to remain fully protected through the entire discussion period, but the discussion period was extended and people have respected the request not to edit the page, so protection was not reapplied. Changes that have been made directly to the page have not constituted any issue. I assume that if they do, protection will be restored in order to preserve the integrity of the document. I'm not the person who protected it before, and I would not (unless directed) be the person protecting it then.
Your reaction to this is quite surprising to me (although not quite as surprising as your misinterpretation of what I said above, as left at my talk page), given that the notice has been on the document since it was created several months ago and has invited no disagreement from anybody. But I'll pass along the word that you disagree. --Mdennis (WMF) 19:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't watch every page and every issue. It was equally problematic a few months ago, whether anyone said so or not. Fundamental wiki principles can't be tossed aside simply because of a banner at the top of the page that nobody sensible has noticed and removed. If the page was ever fully protected, that was wrong as well. But it really doesn't matter what people have done in the past for our purposes, it matters what the current and future situation will be.
This is a reply to the more specific issue at hand. --MZMcBride 22:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

CentralNotice upgrades

Moved to CentralNotice/Future ideas. Thanks for helping clean these up. Kaldari 19:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! --MZMcBride 20:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting stuff done in the UN

Do you think it takes less than a year to convince UNESCO for this? :) I really think this should be restored. The effort it takes to get the word around is far more than that. First of all the needed translations of the slogan and the explanation pages didn't yet happen. -- とある白い猫 chi? 09:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It was fine on Meta-Wiki's main page for a bit. But from what I could tell, the project stagnated and there wasn't any need to continue promoting it. --MZMcBride 18:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the idea needs years of effort to work. We are talking about UN here. I think we should give the idea all the push we can give. I am going to restore it back unless you have strong opposition to the idea. -- とある白い猫 chi? 21:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I think a lot of ideas need years of effort to work. The question is whether using Meta-Wiki's main page (a) is the appropriate venue; and (b) is being used effectively and strategically.
There was a burst of activity on this idea about a year ago, but without some sort of status update or progress report, I don't really think it should go back on the main page. At least not without a broader discussion locally about doing so. --MZMcBride 22:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
No idea will be developed if it remains unheard of. I noticed the existence of a UNESCO effort through meta main page.
a) It is the correct venue because as Meta:About Meta explains:
1. Discussion and formulation of the Wikimedia projects, and in particular policy discussion relevant to all projects, such as open content licensing
3. A place to discuss interlanguage co-ordination issues concerning the Wikimedia projects, including discussion in languages other than English
   Both of which is well within the scope of the banner and associated pages. Is there any part of meta project scope these pages do not fall under?
b) I was in the process of getting more multi-lingual interest to it by getting the slogan translated with the new main page structure. Since the strategy is "involving as many people as possible" it only makes sense to involve more people and the meta main page has the purpose to this end. Meta main page is where everyone looks for their mediawiki news and other events. Can you name any other wiki page that wikipedians on all wikis visit that is not a content wiki?
It's removal should have came with a broader discussion. You made edits removing content and now ask for discussion for the changes to return back to how they were. That somehow feels very strange. What is necessary is re-electrifying people into showing interest on this issue and that is very hard to do without making it known.
I will agree that the advert could have UNESCO-Wikipedia specific news. This is actually something I was planning to add after the standardization of the meta main page.
-- とある白い猫 chi? 10:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Err, where was the discussion for its inclusion? The process is generally bold (editing), reversion, discussion.
I don't really have an objection to the video being featured on the main page if there's a concerted effort behind it and it isn't some indefinite scheme. I don't want the main page to have stale content for the next five years because "things take a long time in the U.N." It also should have some local community consensus for inclusion on the main page among the locals.
You know how Meta-Wiki works: go start a discussion somewhere and get a few outside views. It'd be helpful if, as a preface to said discussion, you could lay out what the process/timeline involved here is. --MZMcBride 18:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Mind you meta decisions are hardly IF EVER follow a discussion process. Wikipedia's guidelines have no bearing here as this isn't a content project.
How about this, I restore the UN banner and leave a note pointing towards the discussion? I am unsure what the note should be so I am open to suggestions... It will take years to achieve such a UNESCO title. The banner will need to stay there for years as a result. The space the banner occupies can be made smaller and I have made edits to that end.
-- とある白い猫 chi? 12:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Open Call for 2012 Wikimedia Fellowship Applicants

Hi. On Polish Wikisource your bot should put announcements on a page s:pl:Wikiźródła:Skryptorium/Pulpit ogólny instead of s:pl:Wikiźródła:Skryptorium, as the latter is not a talk page at all. Thanks, Beau (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Same thing on the Danish Wikipedia. The bot inserted the call, I moved it to a subpage, your bot reinserted the call, which then got deleted, so the bot reinserted it, and now it is commented out in a hope, that the bot won't add it again? --Heb 08:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am the user who started this bot run. Thanks for these bug reports. As noted in the distributed message, the bot selects the pages where it places it from this list, which you are welcome to edit directly. User:Teukros has already fixed the entry for Polish Wikisource there. As for the problem on the Danish Wikipedia, this was partly due to a problem that caused the bot to stop during the run, it had to be restarted more than once. In such a case, it should usually detect whether the message has already been posted on a particular page, but for some reason this didn't work here. In any case, the bot run has now been completed, and the bug which caused it to stop has hopfully been resolved, so the bot certainly won't try to reinsert this message, and the problem also shouldn't happen again in the future.
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) 15:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Distribution list/Global message delivery still lists "Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden" for da.wikipedia.org. If that's incorrect, someone should fix that. The bot was probably posting multiple times to the same page because people kept moving the message to a different page (bot checks old page, doesn't see the message, re-posts to old page). If you update the delivery list, this won't happen again (theoretically). (There's still an edge case where the bot can be restarted between days, but... whatever.) There are some legitimate bugs that cropped up during the most recent run that I'll hopefully have time to look at during the holidays. --MZMcBride 20:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I have just changed it, so that the bot will now insert it on a subpage in the future (on my watchlist so I can copy it to the correct page). Thank you for your assistance. In kind regards Heb 08:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Regarding global message delivery and LiquidThreads

Hi!

No problem about this, since these messages are not delivered very often (we can fix them manually for now).

BTW: I also added the suggestion here. Helder 00:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Translation and call

Hi, MZMcBride. Where is the translation page for this message [6] (Open Call for 2012 Wikimedia Fellowship Applicants )? Kubura 03:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You'll need to ask Tilman if there is a translation page. He was the one to send out the message. I was just helping fix the bot. :-) --MZMcBride 03:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Funny, isn't it? "Please help translate it", but they gave us no guide where to do that :)))) Kubura 04:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Protocol Relative Links

Sorry. I was given 15 minutes to make that banner and copied it from elsewhere. I looked and missed that one. Thanks for fixing. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgehres (WMF) (talk • contribs) .

Question

Hi MZMcBride , may I please ask you in accordance with what policy you deleted my RFC, and where I could ask for undeletion? Thanks.--Mbz1 23:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's outside of Meta-Wiki's project scope. Meta-Wiki occasionally has user RFCs, but only when there's an interwiki problem that has no other central discussion location. This user RFC looks purely English Wikipedia-related. So it should be discussed there (if anywhere).

In any case, I imagine the page will be undeleted shortly.... --MZMcBride 23:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is the case should be this description "Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, can be resolved or discussed." be changed somehow? I mean, should it say something like this: "Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, excluding English wikipedia, can be resolved or discussed." ? Thanks.--Mbz1 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta on Meta

So much tomfoolery at the moment. Killiondude (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! Time to ignore it! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I went to make Meta:Meta a redirect to your user page, but it seems someone else beat me to the title... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
That's never stopped you before. Also, I enjoyed this. Killiondude (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

سكس قربي

Bold text== HInsert non-formatted text here</nowiè$ℳ Ś'''''Bold text'''''ki> === Heading text === eadinسكس قرරයبي #REDIRECT [[Target page name]] g text == ===== Heading text ===== <nowiki>Insert non-formatted # Numbered list item text here