| Revision as of 23:23, 2 June 2008 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,641 editsm Signing comment by 119.95.148.20 - "→AUB talk deletion: new section"← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:25, 3 June 2008 edit undoMZMcBride (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users190,645 edits archiving talkNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| </poem> | </poem> | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == Information displayed below the edit window == | |||
| I've been told you might be able to help answer the questions I have at ]. Would you have time to have a look? ] (]) 09:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == User:24.22.227.53 == | |||
| * You could've simply asked the deleting admin... --] (]) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ok, I'm asking you then. Will you undelete my old user page, or email me the content? --] (]) 17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I re-created this talk page, which you had deleted. It had been vandalized and blanked, then deleted by you two months ago. ] (]) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == StEP == | |||
| Hello! Sorry, for being a bit late, but I just noticed, that you deleted the Entry on StEP (Solving the e-waste Problem), saying, that it is infringing on copyrights. I am not certain, which parts of this are concerned, so, should you have the time, I would like to go over this, and change the parts, that you think are illegal. I was really trying, to refer to the website, whenever I quoted it. | |||
| Thank you | |||
| ] (]) 09:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)] | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Yesterday you deleted this talkpage under CSD G8. G8 specifically excludes any talk page useful to the project, and a cursory glance at the page would make it obvious that this was one of them, being used to plan an article before creating it. Now, in this case all three editors involved in the discussion are admins who can undelete when required, but as it was one of 34 you deleted in the same minute, I am concerned that you might be deleting pages without looking at them first, and hence deleting some valid ones. ] (]) 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deletion of Great Stuff== | |||
| Just curious; the deletion log for ] shows that you deleted in at 20:08 on 23 May 2008, yet it doesn't show up on your list of contributions. How is that possible?] (]) 16:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks for the reply. I see that you deleted ], not ]. ] (]) 19:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bot approved: dabbing help needed== | |||
| Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at ] for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with ] to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. PLease also pass on the message to anybody else who you may think might be willing to help. Thankyou ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 12:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==LA SALLE HIGH SCHOOL== | |||
| Are you Miss McBride? Teacher of History? | |||
| ] (]) 15:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Mebbe. --] (]) 17:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Talk redirs== | |||
| Why do you keep deleting talk pages that redir to a talk page? We had this chat before. I'm aware of no policy calling for a deleting a talk page when the main page is an intact redir. Please cease.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| If one editor starts the article X, and the X article has a paragraph where most of the information comes from Y reference (the semantics has been changed greatly and massively reworded), then will the X article be a copyvio of Y reference? ''']''' (]) 17:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Will you answer to my question? ''']''' (]) 18:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you think ] is copyvio of ? No other reference available for this information. ''']''' (]) 18:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] talk page dealetion. == | |||
| Why did you delete the ] talk page and orphan the redirect? I really would like a reason for that! You can give me one on my talk page just click ''']'''. Deleting a talk page for no good reason is ''']''' if you need to no more about ]'s policy on ] then click ''']'''.] (]) 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == deleted "Talk:Dalles Dam" (orphaned talk page redirect) == | |||
| This page should have been moved, not deleted. Was there anything on it? ~ ] (]) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==FYI== | |||
| Others are complaining about this too, deleting talk redirs. See above. Since you are not responding to this issue, we'll have to seek other means of addressing this if you continiue.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Your script deleted ]. Seeing other complaints, I blocked it for a minute to get it to stop, but I see you've also stopped it. ] 23:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Irony indeed. I saw your logs were consistenly every 5 seconds, 12 a minute. By the time I had undeleted the page and logged a block, you had stopped yourself. ] 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Re your talk on my talk page. OK, now we can chat. It's good you hit my page because I'd just posted an AN thread, but I've now removed it. As for "do no harm", that cuts the other way too. It does no harm to leave it there to help people find where something went. It is mute whether something points to it or not IMHO. Keep in mind I brought this up two weeks ago. Also, it seems consensus is way against this action, so you may want to cease on that ground, totally. At least leaving out the Scouting ones will keep me happy. ;-) I'm sure you had no ill intent, but I do ask you leave the Scouting ones alone and seriously consider ceasing this action due to the many other comments on your talk page. Take care.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :PS please also leave arbitration case pages and talk pages alone. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages talk:List of missing journals == | |||
| When I split ] I did not split the talk page. I've recreated the redirects you deleted. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 23:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == talk page deletion? == | |||
| Hi! Can you clarify , please? The deletion sorting is still at that location and I see no reason to delete the talk page. Am I missing something> Thanks! <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :ETA, I see above that it may have been a script gone wrong, now stopped but please see ], which is still there. Thanks! <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::thanks so much! <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 00:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ...and more talk page deletion problems... any reason why you deleted the 16 talk page redirects to the stub list (e.g., ])? The listed reason is that they were orphaned; none of them are. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not what "orphaned" means when talking about talk pages! Orphaned talk pages are ones where the project page (e.g., article) has been deleted and the talk page has accidentally been left behind. Talk pages that have been turned into redirects aren't deleted, even if they have no incoming links - in exactly the same way that most article redirects are left even if they have no incoming links. A talk page redirect is still useful even if it has no incoming links, since it is most likely that it will be clicked from the project page itself. If it is removed, that will create a redlink and also create the likelihood that a separate talk page will eventually be created, even where a redirected, centralised discussion is more useful. Please stop deleting these redirects! ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Redirect deletions == | |||
| I'm a little mystified - I have a lot of license templates on my watchlist, and I noticed that you deleted the talk pages of the documentation. An example would be ], which formerly was a redirect to ] - there were a whole bunch of others. It's normal practice to redirect the doc talk pages to the template talk pages so conversations about the template are kept in one place. Why are you deleting all these redirects? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :FYI, the instructions for users to redirect those doc talkpages is found in the last part of the paragraph. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The point of having those redirects is in the how-to guide I linked above. If they haven't been used yet, so what? What was the point of deleting them? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| After East718, it's reasonably clear people don't want that admin script being run anymore. I find talk page redirects useful for navigation myself. ]<sup>]</sup> <span title="User talk:MZMcBride">§</span> 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The primary purpose of redirecting the talk page of a subpage to the talk page of its parent is to keep conversations centralized. I still would like to see some explanation of what good is accomplished by doing these deletions. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Indiscriminate deletion of redirects does do harm == | |||
| In ] you claim that deleting redirects that have no incoming links and only one revision does no harm. This is an incorrect assumption. Redirects serve at least three purposes other than page renames and incoming wikilinks: Incoming links from outside of Misplaced Pages, users who type in XYZ in the search box on the left side of the screen and click "Go," and users who type in http://en.wikipedia.org/XYZ in their web browsers. Before deleting any redirect, you need to ask yourself if any of these three things are plausible. If they are even remotely plausible, and there isn't another good reason to delete that particular redirect, such as to create a disambig page or make way for a page move, then '''do no harm''' and discuss it before deleting it. '''Talk page redirects''' should almost always redirect to the same page as the article redirect. If it doesn't, look at it and see why - there is probably a good reason. | |||
| There are some times when deleting a talk page redirect is a no-brainer: | |||
| *When the talk page redirects to something completely unrelated to what the article is, or if the article is a redirect, what the article is redirected to. If John Smith redirects to John Smith (author) and Talk:John Smith redirects to Talk:John Smith (politician), for example. | |||
| *When the talk page redirects to a talk page that itself is a candidate for speedy deletion, such as a talk page whose article has been deleted. Be careful with this one: If the Talk:X redirects to Talk:Y, and Y: redirects to Z, Talk X and Talk Y should both be made to point to Talk:Z. Talk:X should not be summarily deleted unless there is a good reason, like an implausable typo. Rather, if X does not exist, X should also be made to redirect to Z. | |||
| Robo- or quickly-deleting redirects on the order of tens per minute indicates a lack of individual attention and has a very high risk of doing harm. Robo-deleting is only appropriate in obvious cases or when the list has been pre-screened by a human, and each entry given individual attention. | |||
| ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 01:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestion: undo the recent mass deletions == | |||
| Except for deleted talk page redirects that you can quickly identify as proper deletions, please restore everything your bot deleted that hasn't already been recreated. You have a nice list of candidate pages to look through. A well-written computer program can sort these pages into 3 groups: Obvious candidates for deletion, not obvious, and obvious candidates to keep. Once that is done, the "obvious" list can be spot-checked then mass-deleted by ], and the not-obvious ones can be looked at by hand and deleted if appropriate. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 01:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your talk page deletion spree == | |||
| Tonight you again went around deleting a whole bunch of talk page redirects from among others: | |||
| * The {{tl|nowrap begin}} helper template's talk pages. | |||
| * The talk pages of the {{tl|main talk other}} related templates. | |||
| * The talk pages of {{tl|tlc}} related templates. | |||
| * The /doc talk pages of {{tn|·}} and related templates. | |||
| And many other. | |||
| You used the deletion summary "orphaned talk page redirect" which is wrong since the templates for those talk pages do exist and the talk pages they redirect to also do exist, thus they are very much ''not'' orphaned. And if you had bothered to check the edit history of those redirect pages or the page head of the pages they redirect to you would have seen the reason why those redirects were created. | |||
| Also, many of the redirect pages you deleted were redirects from template /doc talk pages to the talk page of the template itself. That is in accordance with ]. | |||
| All those redirects were created to keep related talk on the same page. That is, it is convenient to discuss a template, its /doc page and its helper templates on the same talk page. If you want to change this tradition then you should bring it up for discussion at for instance the Village pump, instead of deleting a lot of pages. | |||
| You have done the same kind of deletes many times before and I have explained this to you before. You should stop this, it is highly unprofessional. Since you keep doing this I now feel I have to call the attention of other admins to your behaviour. Thus I will report this at the ]. | |||
| --] (]) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI:ANI == | |||
| , since it doesn't appear you were notified. <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk page archive redirects == | |||
| You deleted a ton of talk page archive redirects that were a result of a page move. Talk page redirects almost never have a project page attached to them. Please stop doing this. There's no reason to do so, and you've been asked before to not do it. -- ] 03:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You even deleted ]? WTF? -- ] 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::However, I'm not here to lynch you for this. Please know that I won't hold a grudge over such a thing, or let it effect our interactions on other matters. Cheers. -- ] 04:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deletion review for ]== | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --<font color="green">]</font> <small>(] - ])</small> 04:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Election box tempate talk page deletions == | |||
| Just wondering why you deleted the talk pages for these templates: | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| I believe that those talk pages were all redirects to ], which is used as a common talk page for all of the election templates. There are a variety of election templates, and one might have to use 3 or 4 of these election templates in order to make pages like this:]. Having all of these templates redirected to a unified talk page for all election templates allows for easier use. --] (]) 06:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have re-created these Template talk pages. --] (]) 05:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Redirects deletions, another matter == | |||
| Hi, you have deleted the redirects ], ], ]. These redirects were not orphaned as you wrote, but are considered useful per ]. The purpose of such redirects is to prevent splitting discussions accidentally between a template's talk page and its documentation dubpage's talk page. Please restore, thank you. --] (]) 08:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Orphaned talk page redirect? == | |||
| The redirect from ] to ] was a useful redirect, but you deleted it saying it was an "orphaned talk page redirect". I've restored it. | |||
| You seem to be doing this semi-automatically, and I see that other people have reported similar problems to you. You should stop making this kind of edit until you find a way to do it more accurately. ] / ] 10:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This set of redirects was installed to make sure it was easy to get from the project's individual pages to the one talk page for the entire project. They're not dead; I've restored them. --] (]) 10:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == From ] == | |||
| "''Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around.''" | |||
| :Some of the redirects you are deleting (the ones I've seen) were useful for keeping discussion centralized where projects had subpages for project-management reasons. I'm sure you meant well, but please stop! ] ] 12:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree. Talk pages for document, sandbox, testcase and other subpages are not watched by most of the editors who may watch the main page, thus redirecting the talk subpages to the main talk page is useful. I'm restoring some of the redirects that were deleted, but I am going to add {{tl|R to documentation}} to note the purpose. --—<i><b>— ]<font color = "darkblue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b> - </i> 16:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == IIPM Edit Warring Resumed == | |||
| Please re-lock the ] page. Edit-warring had resumed there, with certain users trying their best to make it look like an advertisement. ] (]) 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 2022 FIFA World Cup == | |||
| Since FIFA will name the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup at the same time, could you redirect ] to ]. I'm asking you since you were the one to protect it. -<small>]</small><small><small>(] • ])</small></small> 16:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == erroneous deletions == | |||
| Please, '''do not''' delete the talk pages redirecting to ] and ]. It is the third time they had to be reinstalled now! --] (]) 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I see, you have already commented on that. But please note: deleting talk page redirects that have no incoming links and only one revision '''does''' do harm. The talk page button by the article ''is an incoming link'' but not listed as such. Therefore, please limit your deletions to talk pages of articles that do not exist. --] (]) 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Warnings == | |||
| === May 2008 === | |||
| # ] This is the '''last warning''' you will receive for your disruptive edits. <br> The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages{{#if:|, as you did to ]}}, you '''will''' be ] from editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-delete4 --> | |||
| :You have been deleting redirected talk pages of existing templates and their /doc pages for months or perhaps years now. I have checked the logs and I see that lots and lots of experienced editors considers this to be disruptive edits and have asked you to stop for a long time now, but you refuse to understand. | |||
| :Even if you don't understand why your edits are considered disruptive, if lots of people tell you they are disruptive and ask you to stop you should stop. Failure to stop is vandalism and will be handled as such, no matter if you happen to be an admin. Even admins should obey consensus. | |||
| :This is your last warning. | |||
| :--] (]) 21:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Might I go on record as thinking that a "straight-to-last-warning" is excessive in this case… ] ] 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Physchim62: Lots of editors have asked MZMcBride lots of times for many months now to stop his disruptive deletes of template talk pages. He has shown no intention of understanding or stopping. How many times should we have to tell someone to stop? 100, 200, 300? Or do we have to warn him 1000 times first since he is an admin? I think the opposite, since he is an admin he should know better and only need a single official templated warning. He knows what it means, or at least he is supposed to know what it means. Why should we let him continue do his disruptive edits a couple of times more? It is time he stops doing disruptive deletions and focus on his productive editing (yes, some of the other stuff he does seems to be good stuff), or he will be blocked since he is damaging the Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :--] (]) 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please give ] before stating that "lots of editors have asked lots of times for many months now": words are cheap, evidence takes time. Given your apparent views on this matter, I would urge you to take your disagreements to some sort of ] if you cannot come to an accord with this user. ] ] 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is indisputable that this round of deletions has caused a large furore. I count 16 (sixteen) independent sections currently on this talk page as a result of the recent set of deletions. I've never seen that amount of reaction before, not even on Betacommand's talk page. It is clear that multiple people found these redirects useful. I can dig out the diffs for past stuff if anyone really wants them, though it is complicated because some complaints were justified and some were not. A good start is . ] (]) 17:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've no dispute about the furore that these deletions have caused, nor to fact that (as far as I'm aware) the redirects deleted in "the last round" were ''useful'' redirects. However, I object to the treatment of this particular volunteer on the project, as I have objected to similar treatments in the past. Misplaced Pages exists to promote knowledge, not to tar and feather those who try to work towards that goal. ] ] 18:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Physchim62: You know very well that this matter is being discussed over at ] (WP:ANI) since you have been taking part in the discussion there. And that discussion has been repetedly linked from this talkpage. So don't pretend you don't know that both this talk page and WP:ANI is full of links to diffs and affected pages and explanations of why MZMcBride's deletions are disruptive and links to what he has responded when people asked him to stop. | |||
| ::::--] (]) 18:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And so? You want to fight this editor? Please don't do so. Please use ] instead. You tell me that there are "repeated links": well give them to me. You tell me that this editors' deletions are "disruptive": well to whom? To ordinary users, or simply to those devote their time to Misplaced Pages? If your views are so strong, why have you not tried other forms of dispute resolution? ] ] 18:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Physchim, what advice would you give MZMcBride? There has to be a response from him before dispute resolution can be considered. Going from the date of the first complaint above about this set of deletions (23:03, 31 May 2008), and the following were MZMcBride's responses to this issue: (23:56, 31 May 2008), , , , , , , , (01:35, 1 June 2008). So over a period of about 90 minutes, there was a great deal of responsiveness (well, he had just been blocked for aone second to stop the bot/script), but only towards the end of that period of talking about the deletions was there a sign of realisation that he might actually have got this wrong: ''"I'm a bit torn as to whether to restore those redirects or not."''. What I don't like about that is that he seems to be reserving to himself the right to delete or undelete, regardless of the opinions or arguments of others. There is a time and a place for "convince me and I'll undelete", and this wasn't it. I suspect one of the reasons why he is torn about whether to undelete or not is that he would have to rewrite whatever script it is that detects the criteria about whether to delete something or not. Actually detecting the difference between a "centralising discussion redirect" and a normal "redirect created by using the page move function" should be fairly simple. The former "redirects from the talk namespace" should have their "corresponding page" (ie. the front page of a talk page) existing and not redirected anywhere. The latter should have their "corresponding page" be a redirect. I don't think either should be deleted, but it should be trivially easy to reprogram the script or whatever to avoid deleting these "centralising redirects". Instead, MZMcBride argues on a single user talk page for why deleting them was the right thing to do. I have several rebuttals to those arguments, but I think the discussion should take somewhere else, more public, like ], ], ], or, as it turned out in this case, ]. I do actually sympathise with people who find ANI a bit of a bear pit, but sometimes you do have to just say something in public when a sufficient number of people come clamouring to the front door. I recently suffered downtime due to a broken internet connection, so I won't say any more as I know there are many reasons for not posting (including being busy with other stuff), but I hope that on his return, MZMcBride will try and answer the questions that were posed in his absence, and that others (including you and me and David Göthberg) will have the good grace to wait until then. We've all said more than enough. ] (]) 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion of ] == | |||
| I restored ] as a redirect to ]. Peer reviews are available on two pages: ] and ]. The content is the same, so there should only be one talk page for both. Thanks, ] ''']''' 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == AUB talk deletion == | == AUB talk deletion == | ||
Revision as of 00:25, 3 June 2008
AUB talk deletion
Why is my talk page for Asia United bank deleted? User:Daxdigital —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.148.20 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)