User talk:Misza13

Use Misza13's public key for PGP or GPG encrypted communication
Archives
Archive Map Special RfA-thanks Year 2005 Year 2006 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2007 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2008 I II III IV V VI

[edit] Could I have my page back?

Unless, of course, it is annoying anyone... I consider the page perfectly harmless. It is part of a game, and not a left-over of any moves; it is not even a proper redirect. The trick is to edit it—not many were meant to notice it, but I certainly did not expect this. :-D Perhaps I ought to make it a little easier. Waltham, The Duke of 02:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

First things first, when I saw your page on my "secret suspects" report flagged as a redirect, I figure that it was (as many redirects there) a left-over from a user rename. If you badly miss it, I can restore it (the recent MfD ruled some leniency for established contributors, but also decided on deleting all "fake" secret pages - yours suggests to be one) if only because it's smart. Finally, regarding harmlessness and games, WP:NOTMYSPACE - they are a waste of resources that should be expended into building a free encyclopedia. Миша13 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if you check my contributions you will see that I have offered much to this encyclopaedia, and intend to offer even more. Although I want my personal pages to look nice, I do not spend much time on them—that is, unless you count WP:SBS as an extension of my personal domain :-D. I'd like to have a couple of toys in my userspace for the sake of fun, and if one of my pages is to be deleted, I'd like to be the one who decides it (I am generally rather careful not to break policy). I do agree that certain things on Wikipedia are a regretful waste of resources, but I also believe that many of them are actually assets because they keep editors going and actually help in keeping the community thriving and its members away from burn-out (they are volunteers, after all). I realise that there is a thin line, but I think in my case the decision is not very difficult, given that only two people have found the page so far despite its shameless promotion in every secret page I have found (back, in happier and less busy times). I believe you would have little motive to delete my secret page and the two teasers (it would only result in frustrating a useful editor), but even if you decided it, you'd have to find the page first. :-)

And it isn't just a page to be found, mind you; it's got humour in it. If you want a taste of my humour, check my user page. I believe a lot in the power of humour, and that it is a prime motivator for people, here and elsewhere.

PS: I remember the discussion at ANI on April Fool's but didn't know that a MfD actually started at that moment, although I should have suspected it. Nice to know. Waltham, The Duke of 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You said that if I really wanted it back you would restore my page, and I believe you, so don't mistake his for a bargain. It's just that I felt a pang of guilt with what you said about "fake" pages, and I also read all these discussions and the relevant material. Therefore, I have decided to get rid of my other teaser, User:The Duck of Waltham/Most Secret Page, which is not really necessary. As a gesture of good will and respect to Wikipedia, I officially authorise you to delete it. You would probably do that anyway, given that it is near the top of the report, but I think that my requesting the deletion (a voluntary action) carries a different meaning. Minimum userspace luggage for me from now on—I only get to the "clever" humour—and a light conscience. Waltham, The Duke of 03:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Fellow penguin-cabalist, are you there? Waltham, The Duke of 23:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya, just that your lengthy comment got me occupied for a bit. The problem with "harmless fun" pages is that, however little resources they use, it's always too much, because if all of the 7mil+ accounts were to have one, that would start to matter a lot. Regarding "fake" pages - a general consensus of the MfD was that, while we might allow some leniency, the "no, it's not my real secret page, keep looking" pages were to go.

Finally, don't get me wrong on this - I love humo(u)r on Wikipedia myself, but not at the expense of resources paid-for by volunteers - rather a subtle situational and contextual humor. Миша13 17:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Occupied for four days? And I thought I read slowly... :-)

Although I understand your rationale, I am also a little disappointed in what initially looked like a promise. I now realise that this is, to an extent, a result of misinterpretation on my part, but it changes little. Still, I have yet another proposal. (I am sorry if this conversation is turning into a time sink; however things go, however, it will probably end here, so there is no need for alarm.)

If you restore the page, I shall convert it to a preparation page for articles on which I might want to work (I already have a first candidate in mind—a brand-new stand-alone article for Westminster Hall). "Secret page" works well here, because I naturally don't want people to steal my ideas. I shall retain the existing elements (redirect and a message at the top) so that the page can work both as a hidden message for those actually looking for my secret page and a safe-house for my drafts. It would be a legitimate way to manage my userspace, and would not be redundant because I do not have a page for drafts. That's killing two birds with one stone, I believe, not to mention the (relative? who knows) originality of the concept. Would such an arrangement be an acceptable compromise for you? Waltham, The Duke of 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable (and smart too). Page restored. :-) Cheers, Миша13 19:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sir. I have already started compiling material, and I hope to produce an article of acceptable quality within the week.

On the other hand, there are so many distractions... :-) Waltham, The Duke of 04:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: Accurate as it may be, your "7300+" edit-count userbox appears to need an update; "15,000+" would be much closer, in my not-so-humble opinion. Just a thought. Waltham, The Duke of 04:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note the difference: all edits versus article space edits. Cheers, Миша13 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Four-letter word, starts with oo, ends with ps. You have one shot. Waltham, The Duke of 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page not being archived

Can you see why my talk page is not being archived? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, man.

Could you please whitelist my alt. account or something? See [1]. I'm trying to help train an AV bot, and, getting blocked for it every couple mins is starting to get annoying :) (tho, at least I do get to do the rogue unblocks!) SQL^{Query me!} 05:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the bot doesn't have a whitelist infrastructure, so I'm afraid you'll have to bear with it for a while until I write one (this weekend at earliest). Миша13 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I got all the testing done, don't worry :) SQL^{Query me!} 02:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted image

Hi, is their anyway I can view this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Dirtykuffar2.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1 thanks User:Arthur Warrington Thomas (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. Although I could probably email it if you wanted. Do you want to see the image or the image description page? Миша13 19:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Misza, the reason why Grawp is able to move so many pages so quickly - and tends to go for archives these days - is that there's now a "Move all subpages, if applicable" tickbox for moving pages. So it's one click to get a page (and all its subpages) moved at the same time. WjBscribe 13:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that (as commented on the AN/I thread) - I also recommended an idea of giving admins a "delete resulting redirects" box as well (provided that the "move subpages" remains). I'm afraid Grawp was the first one to notice and exploit this new feature... Миша13 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MiszaBot II

MiszaBot II has an error. It doesn't occur often, but there have been examples in Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources where the <pre> tag has been used to enclose example code - see for example here - here the example code contains a section heading == Notes ==. MiszaBot II seems to read this as a real section heading. It makes a mess of its archiving of the section as a result. MiszaBot II logic needs to be changed so as not to treat section headings contained within <pre> tags as real. Thank you. --SallyScot (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but thanks anyway. The problem is about as rare as difficult to bypass. What if the pre tags are within HTML comments or a nowiki environment (as in your own example above)? Then they should be ignored. You're thinking "you need a wikitext parser"? You're thinking correctly, and the pywikipedia framework might have a reliable one someday... Миша13 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War archiving of discussion

I'd like to request that Miszabot II change the archiving schedule from 30 days to 60 or 90 days--the discussion page isn't getting the traffic it used to so there's less of a need for such frequent archiving. Thanks Publicus 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)