User talk:MZMcBride

From the Wikimedia Foundation
Revision as of 21:36, 25 March 2013 by Thehelpfulone (talk | contribs) (Question: re)

Jump to: navigation, search

Prod that you left for me

I have no objection, and have deleted it myself. Thanks for calling my attention to it; I'd quite frankly forgotten that page existed. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Well the page isn't mine so is better go talk with Jay, but I have no problems with you deleting it :) Beria (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been notifying anyone I notice in the page history. The talk page section can be re-used for future deletion notifications, which is nice. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Margins on homepage

Hi. You seem to be the wikicode whiz-kid for this site, so I'll float my idea to you. Do you think the Homepage of this site would look better with a negative top-margin, similar to the English Wikipedia's Main Page? I reckon it'd look a little less, well, amateur than it does now. AGK (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure what you mean. "margin" usually refers to a CSS attribute. As far as I can tell, the current version of en.wiki's Main Page doesn't use a negative margin anywhere. It does, however, have a hidden <h1> (page title). This is not done with margin hackery, but instead is done via w:en:MediaWiki:Vector.css and w:en:MediaWiki:Monobook.css. Is this what you meant?

Related: Talk:Home#Recent and upcoming changes to Home (March 2013). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, then yes, using a hidden level-1 header is what I meant. (I'm sure that Enwiki's Main Page used negative margin at some point, perhaps years ago.) I'll make my proposal at the Home talk page. Thanks, AGK (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead

And delete all you wish. As the name suggest, /temp it was :). notafish }<';> 11:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

I just noticed the more than one thousand pages in Category:Proposed Deletions. Can I ask why? I get the urge to clean-up, but it seems like in deleting pages such as Donaciones/EUR we may be removing history that we could need later. That sort of page was enormously helpful to me when I ran the fundraiser, in piecing together some of the history that I needed. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi.
They're old and unneeded pages. What about <https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Donaciones/EUR&oldid=8078> was helpful to you? It looks like a standard credit card input form. It's got two edits, both of which are trivial.
Generally, here's what I see:
  • not much, if any, historical value in most of these templates and pages: they're mostly unoriginal text and designs that are duplicated a zillion times for every country and currency and that haven't been touched since they were used in a particular campaign (or test);
  • anything valuable hasn't been marked for deletion and is available on Meta-Wiki or in the template namespace here;
  • a massive store of pages (we've built up donation pages from 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011);
  • a lot of broken or partially broken pages (notice the extra </div> here: Ecwårlaedje);
  • more worryingly, a lot of pages still present what appear to be working input forms (or make your check payable to this random address in Florida that nobody has used for donations since 2005); and
  • this wiki still allows raw HTML, so not being able to figure out what in this uncategorized, unlinked, pile of pages is legitimate and what was legitimate eight years ago (in terms of where these forms submit, what addresses are used, etc.) can actually be problematic, if you know what I mean.
And, of course, I believe most of the live infrastructure has been quietly moved to payments.wikimedia.org at this point. And with all of this, which should really just amount to me being able to say "housekeeping," there's a 30-day wait period and everyone is getting notified of the impending deletions via talk page note (which should trigger an e-mail), including the former staff who made hundreds of user subpages during their short time with the Wikimedia Foundation and can no longer login here, much less clean up their mess. Some of us are still here.
For a better picture of the scope, click here and keep clicking "next 500" till you understand what we're dealing with... and these are only the completely uncategorized pages (in the article namespace only, I think). Some pages there I've been categorizing. A lot of it is old junk, though. For the various reasons listed above, it's time to clean.
Relatedly, if you could give (the other) Ryan admin powers here, that would be great. Please don't make me wake the dead. ;-)
You're welcome. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. As I told Ryan, I'm in conversations with Comms right now about how to move forward with userrights here. I hope that we'll have something soon. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Update: Comms (specifically Jay) has requested that I not issue any further userrights here until a conversation has been had about the direction of the wiki and its management. I know that Jay intends to reach out to you on this and to make sure you're an active player in that conversation. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Philippe, does this also apply to temporary flood flags for maintenance related tasks such as User talk:Thehelpfulone#Links (which is now complete)? Thehelpfulone 20:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No. I thought that would be self-evident (it says "sysop and above" on the userrights page), but I can spell out that it doesn't apply to flood if necessary. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I did see that but then you wrote "not issue any further userrights here" above so wanted to confirm. Thehelpfulone 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Jay seems to only attempt to take ownership of this wiki whenever someone else tries to get active here. I say "attempt" as the notion that this wiki is owned or operated by the Wikimedia Foundation communications department is rather novel, given the wiki's history and primary active membership/community. At this point, I believe we've been in discussions for years without any action. I don't find this acceptable.

I hope you can feel me rolling my eyes at MediaWiki:Userrights-summary. And as though we needed further evidence of a mess having been left behind here, I'll just cross-reference this insightful post from yesterday: <https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=90216&oldid=90171>. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)