User talk:MZMcBride/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

West Wing episodes

Are you planning to add content to these stubs you have created? I am currently wondering whether I should delete them under WP:CSD#A3 as having no content, but wanted to ask you first what you will do with them. Kusma (討論) 03:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please post on my talk page, not my user page. And I would suggest you quickly fill these articles before somebody else deletes them. Generally it is a good idea not to create a new page before you have anything to write. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 03:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

hello, check it please and read answer: Talk:List of The West Wing episodes. Thanks. Nyikita 19:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Created articles

Are you sure you are meant to be creating articles (List of United States Supreme Court cases...) like that? --Thorpe | talk 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You made a recent edit to the BDSM entry, changing the correct "behaviour" to the correct "behavior". The former being the British spelling,and the latter the American spelling.

As I am from the U.S., that's fine by me, however, keep in mind that many people contribute to these articles, and people in the U.K. may object to changing their spellings. Atom 13:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Prison Break

I noticed that you moved various Prison Break television episodes so that the end of the article name is "(Prison Break episode)". I was under the assumption that if there is no article under the name of the episode title, then there was no need to add the brackets at the end. See: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Episode_articles. Given that, I feel it would be better to move the episodes back to their original pages. Tntnnbltn 05:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I don't believe you just updated the table! I spent hours working on List of Prison Break episodes/Draft and was going to announce it on the talk page when I noticed you stole my thunder. I was thinking of replacing the current mess of a page with my table (individual articles could be created for the stuff below the table). I've already uploaded all the pictures and summarised all the episodes. Take a look at my Draft (Edit: now on the main page) and we can figure out one together. Thanks, Tntnnbltn 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

After looking at yours and made some small changes to my table (picture size, etc). I also copied your synopses for "Tonight" and "Go", although I did not read them in the process (avoiding spoilers). (The entry for "Go" is about twice as long as all the others. I'd really appreciate it if you could edit it down a little bit for me so people aren't encouraged to add details to the other entries and start inflating their size again.) The only difference between our tables structure is that you included the UK Airdate (see Talk:List_of_Prison_Break_episodes#Makeover), and that I chose to use the production number over the episode number. Tntnnbltn 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

looking for you to teach me

Could you explain your edit of my attempt to create a redirect for tjmd? I don't want to make the same mistake again, and don't know what I did wrong. Please respond here, as I have your page on my watchlist. Thank you.pat8722 21:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

To create a redirect, you don't need to use the "R alternate" tag. Anything other than the redirect code will stop the page from redirecting. All you have to do is place #REDIRECT [[Page name]] as the content. Using the redirect button above the text box is also an easy way to create a redirect. --MZMcBride 21:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Where should I be putting the "R alternate" tag? pat8722 22:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to use the "R alternate" tag at all for redirects. --MZMcBride 22:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

When is the "R alternate" tag used? pat8722 22:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The templates were created to categorize redirects. They survived a vote for deletion [1], but when creating redirects, they are neither necessary nor used frequently. I've never seen it used, other than today, on a redirect page. --MZMcBride 01:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving A.M. Rosenthal

You are not allowed to copy-paste the content of an article to another page, because it breaks the GFDL rules (since you can not see the revision history). Please use the "move" button. If it is not technically possible, ask a sysop to do it for you. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 22:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of my discussion here

Why did you remove what I posted here? ⌠Yellow up⌡ 09:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Beth Meacham CSD

Hi -- I've posted a justification at the talk page for Beth Meacham; would you let me know if you think this is sufficient? Thanks. Mike Christie 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Showoff.... disambiguation

MZMcBride - let me know what i did wrong with the Showoff disambiguation page. I posted a reason in the talk section. Check it out.. also User:Philip_Gronowski did a google search on the band Showoff and found it to "definitely meet the criteria for band pages."" This page will help direct people who are searching for the band and not a way to describe a person. Thanks - user:xsxex

Thanks - comprende.. - user:xsxex

Witold Rudzinski

I'm sorry... I thought by referencing it as a direct quote it wouldn't be a violation of copyright. My apologies for any hassle. I wrote a quick temp page that would do as a substitute stub on account'a I don't have time to write the full article now. The stub can be found on the temp page. Do you approve? Ben Tibbetts 01:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

Hi there. Can you consider using specific tags for articles you nominate for speedy deletion? It's been unclear in some cases which of the speedy criteria you thought they fit with, if any. Thanks, SCZenz 02:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If they don't fit into any one category, then pick one of the possibilities, or use {{db-reason}} and list all of them. If you can't point to the article fitting a specific deletion criterion, you should be using the proposed deletion process instead. Speedy deletion is only for specific cases that occur so frequently that the community has degreed that they can all be deleted; if there's even the slightest possibility of controversy or disagreement, it's no longer suitable. -- SCZenz 02:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

External link as opposed to Link

Thank for you the tip. You should know that I borrowed that template from another page, so while it was my mistake, it wasn't ... my mistake. Per se. Again, thanks. --3finger 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning Up

Awesome work so far. Yanksox 20:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate articles(State Road 50A (Florida))

My apologies for the duplicate article. I didn't realize I should've added the data to the State Road 50A (Florida) page, instead of the Florida State Road 50A page, until after I added it to the first one. I also didn't know about the redirect code. As you can probably tell I'm new at submitting data to Wikipedia. ----DanTD 23:04, 24 May 2006 (EST)

Syed ahmed page

hey, i saw you made an edit on the Syed Ahmed page and i was wondering if you think it should be kept because there was an old Syed Ahmed page but someone deleted it Bobo6balde66 23:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

NFLD Stubs

I know I know, but I have a 100 page manuscript of all the settlements and villages and town in NFLD and I like to go one step ata time, first the miniscule to larger information, then the listing of the map coordinates which i also have, the references and then the wikification and stub messages, all in good time. Thanks for reminding me though, WayneRay 03:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Red linked dates

Thanks for your edit to John Dunn (bushranger) but redlinks are OK in the wikipedia and there is currently a project going to complete years in Australia in the nineteenth century.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox US Associate Justice

Is this meant to replace the succession boxes at the bottom of every article or run parallel to them? I noticed you just added this to Henry Baldwin (judge) but didn't remove the succession box. I think the succession box is actually preferable, because there are a number of justices who have held other significant government positions. The succession boxes can coexist with other succession boxes, but this kind of template demands that its information define the entire article to the exclusion of all other considerations. Postdlf 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bot

Hi there, sorry for the delay in replying to you. I'm afraid my bot isn't particularly easy to use at the moment. With some handholding, it does more or less what I want, but I doubt it's fit for general consumption.

Obviously many people using my bot is preferable to just me using it; and I would like to release it a some point. However I really need to take a look at tidying up some of the code a bit and making the guts of the bot and the user interface more robust and approachable before that can happen.

Thanks for the interest, and I'll keep you posted if there are any changes in status. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 23:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - U.S. FAC

Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 _t 15:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode list for She Spies

Hi MZ. I see you dismembered the She Spies article, creating a separete List of She Spies episodes. The thing is, we don't usually set up a separate list for this small a number of episodes. I mean, it's just two seasons, with 20 episodes each (only 40 episodes in total). This doesn't seem to merit a separate article. Notice that the separate episode lists that we have are for shows that had multiple seasons, normally with the number of episodes in triple digits. The other possibility that would justify a separate entry is something like this, but the list for She Spies is far simpler, and doesn't seem to justify the separate article. I'm thinking it would be better to restore the list at the main She Spies article, and turn the entry you created into a redirect to it. Thoughts? Cheers, Redux 21:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. Well, the case of the Entourage list is different in two essential aspects: 1) the show is still in production (more episodes will be produced), whereas She Spies has been cancelled, so 40 is all there's ever going to be; 2) And perhaps most importantly, the Entourage list is closer to the example I mentioned, for Lost: it is a much more developed list, whereas the list for She Spies is far simpler. I'm thinking that, for the specific context, the separate list becomes a far too poor an entry — even though it may be a slightly big section of another article, I believe it turns out better. Redux 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On a related note (and this is also in reference to the Omega Factor episode list we were talking about), I have in fact started a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject List of Television Episodes (I didn't even realize there was a WikiProject for this) asking if there is in fact a minimum number of episodes before an episode list article is allowed. While I personally think there are enough episodes of She Spies to justify a separate list, I still don't really think Omega Factor deserves one. In theory someone could create a list article for shows that only ran 5 episodes, which might spark AFD attention (and I know there are factions among editors who don't like any sort of list articles, particularly episode guides). Anyway, I invite you to add your comments to the discussion. I'm not losing sleep over this either way, but it would be nice to find out if there is in fact a standard criteria. Cheers! 23skidoo 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Pediatrics

What logic did you use when you moved the image from left to right? On the right side, the image looks off the page. This violates some very basic principles in page formatting. Rklawton 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Images have a focus - usually left or right. Following basic page layout principles, we place images so the focus goes into and not out of the article. In this case, the image focus is right, so we put the image on the left side of the article. Rklawton 05:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's all about Graphic Design 101. I've got a masters degree in marketing, so I'm rather hoping you'll take my word for it. Rklawton 05:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the manual of style reference for pictures. You'll see it discusses focus. Rklawton 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm well familiar with the manual of style. If flipping the image was a good idea, I would have done it.Rklawton 06:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Switch to SCOTUSCase3

While I was updating the Infobox in Eisenstadt v. Baird, it seems that you decided to do the same at the same time, which I noticed from the "edit conflict" message I received when saving. I noticed that you left out Douglas's separate concurrence from his majority joining, which you wouldn't have seen unless you looked at the opinion. Not a huge deal, but instead of going back over all these articles, maybe we could fact check the infobox along the way, especially in the Opinions section and 'Reargued' dates, for those items which the old Infobox couldn't really handle. Let me know if this sounds good to you. --Assawyer 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to you about the changes for the Template, but you are right there are two cases that were combined and are known by "Booker" because that is the first one listed. --Assawyer 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Left Booker as is for now. I know they were two separate cases with sequential SCOTUS docket numbers, but ended up at some point joined. Will research it, and hopefully find something to put in the PriorHistory. I think that is the most appropriate thing to do, given the article is technically about the one SCOTUS decision. --Assawyer 06:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dick Van Dyke Show

The article for The Dick Van Dyke Show is definitely in need of the type of episode article you've been creating as there's a huge, hard-to-read and unformatted episode list in the middle of the article. Feel free! 23skidoo 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done moving the episode list. I've been meaning to get to that for months, which probably means I never would have. Good job. - DavidWBrooks 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Template Barnstar

		The Template Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject on SCOTUS cases, I hereby award you this Template Barnstar for your hard work on the new infobox template. Thank you! Kchase02 T 18:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Help

Yes, thanks I do need help. This is what I get for not testing out new things before trying to impement them. I think I have come up with a solution to the multiple-cases-but-one-opinion problem. You can probably see from my meger attempts what I was trying to do. If you need a futher explination I would be happy to provide one. Hopefully you can fix my errors! Thanks in advance for you help. I think next time I will just come to you. Since seemingly easy changes are not so easy. --Assawyer 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

hopwood

I see from your page that you do a lot of work on court cases, so whatever you determine. I just saw the 3rd sentence of the article intro and the information near the end of the article where abrogated is again mentioned, saying the Court decided differently in another case. Maybe the article is using 'abrogated' wrongly? Or maybe another category would be necessary (how useful??) to handle cases which the Court did not actually hear but the outcome was changed by a different case the Court did decide. Anyway, good work. Thanks Hmains 16:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

They gave me a headache

I'm glad to find out that people already are aware of the conditions of those Supreme Court links. I think that it will be necessary to employ several different extensions to the titles because adding the year will not work for some of them, such as The Eagle. I had accidentally accessed those cases (somehow), probably while checking lists. I hadn't viewed anything so confounding in two years, since I saw an article about the mountains of South America. Good Luck. Superslum 18:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

An article you created has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to participate in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35. -- Fan-1967 02:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And within nine hours of opening, it's a snowball keep. Credit Postdlf, among others. Cheers!--Kchase T 10:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives