User talk:MZMcBride

Tempodivalse [talk]  03:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain?
Care to explain this? I mean... you've got a total of 8 edits, and you're telling us to kill ourselves? That's not cool, and certainly isn't helping the situation. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 22:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Six edits where? And someone from Wikinews is going to seriously try to lecture me about civility and good behavior? The actions of the past week are a complete disgrace. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying "but mom! They did it too!" isn't an excuse for bad behaviour, either on wiki or in real life. Please refrain from further etiquette violations. Thanks:) Gopher65talk 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This project has a pretty skewed view of what constitutes bad behavior.... --MZMcBride (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Depressingly bad methods of communications
Hi. Given the depressing nature of your communication and community input that suggests your tone appears to be counter productive to facilitating communication to further this project and the Movement, can you please consider moderating the tone of your communication to indicate more community support and less contempt for projects outside English Wikipedia? By doing this, you would receive less resistance to goals that further this particular project and the movement on the whole. Perhaps, while you're working on this effort, you can work on creating a new global delivery bot that specifically delivers messages that pertain to and impact projects other than English Wikipedia? That would be a worthwhile goal that would likely engender community support... especially if such a message was presented by a respected community functionary like Philipe. --LauraHale (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have contempt for projects other than the English Wikipedia. I have contempt for the English Wikinews.
 * Let's be clear again: the English Wikinews is the anomaly here. Global message delivery operates on literally hundreds of Wikimedia wikis every single week without issue. This particular (and particularly) hostile and insular community has decided to indefinitely block the bot and then raised a huge and undeserved fuss over a request to have the bot unblocked.
 * God bless America. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Investment advice

 * "Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance."
 * Well, I thought that until I just caught up the discussion on WN:Bots. You could've left well-alone, the bot you operate would've been unblocked and allowed to carry out the functions the WMF needs it to.
 * And, revert or rollback of edits? This is not Wikipedia, that the page here on the subject is virtually untouched from that imported from Wikipedia – including reference to policies Wikinews does not have – makes it somewhat irrelevant. It is not even linked into the set of policy pages.
 * Walking into the kitchen and peeing into your own Cheerios tends to result in your complaints about the cooking being ignored. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like how you're suggesting that Wikinews hasn't imported basic courtesy. I had no idea Help:Reverting existed here. I do know that it's pretty universally agreed upon that using rollback on non-vandalistic edits is poor form. And even if Pi zero had somehow edited Wikimedia wikis for years without realizing this basic principle, I told him explicitly quite recently. And yet he doesn't get it. Oh well.
 * As to whether the bot gets approved or unblocked here, I can only repeat myself so many times. Though I'm considering Wikinews merchandise that uses the phrase "the news site that's unable to receive news." I think it's catchy. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. If anyone ever doubted you're a dick, I'm happy to see you're ready, willing and able to give demonstrations thereof. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Looking at RC: I'd be quite unlikely to take over something operating globally due to my lack of cross-wiki activity.

It looks like there was some dramatizing content you added, including condemning the project goals and even editing other user's comments.

If you see inserting snarky comments rather than giving constructive proposals as a way to "raise awareness of the project fail", I'm sure that you may find Vision interesting. It speaks about what the Wikimedia projects are for. *news sub-projects may aim for popularity, for being comprehensive, or for throwing massive amounts of quick (and possibly short) news at the visitors. Each approach has its cons and pros; different language editions of Wikinews set priorities differently.

Please refrain from disrupting this site; different approaches were tried and some thrown away while others lived during the history, and things are evolving, even if not up to your expectation. This is shaped by community. Shouting won't change things on its own, while constructive delicate proposals aimed at changing things in a way compatible with today way of things could work. --Gryllida?? 10:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't think anyone is disrupting (or shouting). It's pretty much impossible to disrupt the English Wikinews, as it nobody visits it. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)