Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:18, 5 April 2007

Cyde's talk page        Leave a new message

Archives
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N O
P Q R S T U V W
X Y Z 10 11 12

No more sig categories?

Good idea. But since I invented mine before the rule was inserted, I want mine grandfathered in. :P --tjstrf talk 22:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Misplaced Pages:Introduction

About a year ago, Tawkerbot2 started monitoring Misplaced Pages:Introduction, and it did a great job of keeping the top two lines intact. See my original request explaining the requirements User talk:Tawker/Apr06#Vandalism on Misplaced Pages:Introduction

AntiVandalbot was at one time also monitoring this page, but now it is not. Can you have it start monitoring the page again? Or, if it is not too much trouble, extract out the code for a seperate bot to monitor this page (and possibly Misplaced Pages:Introduction 2 and Misplaced Pages:Introduction 3).

As a reminder the first two lines of Misplaced Pages:Introduction should be:

{{Please leave this line alone}}
<!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. No profanity, please. -->

Thx in adv --Trödel 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin bots

I just wanted to comment on your post to betacommand's ARBCOM case. Last time we had an admin bot up for RFA it almost passed, and I think it would have passed had Werdna not made the mediawiki improvement. The key concerns I saw on that RFA were, one the fact the bot was closed source, and two, it was not made clear on any additional tasks that the bot would run. Should it be one adminbot per task, or multiple tasks to the one bot that gets approved. Personally I would prefer the former rather then the later, but I do think that the community will accept a properly done adminbot. Just make it open source (nobody but sysops can run it anyway), and promise that you will go back again for a new tasking. But again based on that RFA, adminbots should be able to pass it if they are done right. (please comment on my talk) —— Eagle101 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By new tasking I mean if you get community agreement to run task X, don't try to run a new task Y that is totally different then the one that the community accepted, but a task Z that is very similar, (perhaps just a new category or whatever) should be able to go through BAG. —— Eagle101 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I accept. Danny 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to...

...set Cydebot to listify Category:Wikipedians looking for help? I really like the other listified category pages because I can see updates in my watchlist. It would be a convenience if this category were also listified. It only occasionally has a few Wikipedians in it, but response time would be a lot quicker. Would it be possible? And would you be willing to do it? I'd certainly appreciate it. --Iamunknown 01:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. See User:Cyde/List of requests for help. --Cyde Weys 03:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! --Iamunknown 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

I read your statement about adminbots, and I have to say I agree with the gist of it. I have nothing against adminbots, as long as they are approved by the bot approvals process, and cause no harm, and are not a server strain.

By the way, your Cydebot does some good work, I am glad such a bot exists.... it is very helpful. --SunStar Net 18:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to do this?

Did you mean to remove the discussion about whether or not this reference desk question should be there, or were you intending to trim the question itself? Friday (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant to blank what I blanked. It started off as an improper reference desk question, which was removed, and then turned into a meta discussion, which doesn't belong on the main page, but rather the talk page. If you really think anything productive can come out of that, I suppose you could copy it over to the talk page. --Cyde Weys 22:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was on the talk page, but really either way that edit summary was dead nuts.—eric 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh, so it was on the talk page. --Cyde Weys 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

'Dead nuts', 'dead nuts on', 'dead nuts on target', etc. imply accuracy, and are similar to 'dead on', 'bang on', or 'spot on' (if you are British). What i tried to say above is that—although you were aiming for the main page but hit hit the talk page instead—your edit summary of "going nowhere" was a keen and accurate description of the current state of the reference desk discussions.—eric 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're miscommunicating. For what it's worth, the question and responses are still there on the ref desk, see the above link. So, if you meant to remove them, you did not accomplish this. Friday (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're miscommunicating, I think I mistook the talk page for the actual reference desk and then proceeded to blank something under false pretenses. --Cyde Weys 00:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, mistakes happen. I put the stuff back on the talk page, no harm done. If you're interested in helping keep the ref desk on track as a useful resource for verifiable information (and honestly, I have mixed feelings on whether or not I could recommend this activity to anyone else), please do keep an eye out and do similar trims in the future if you see things going off track. I'm certainly willing to give reasonable editors wider latitude on the ref desk than in article space, but there are some contributors there who use it as a platform for off-color jokes and soapboxing. Friday (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How we looking now?

Seems to fit? -M 22:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)