| Revision as of 11:13, 6 April 2007 editGrafikbot (talk | contribs)18,549 edits BOT: Novels Newletter delivery← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:57, 7 April 2007 edit undoShadowbot3 (talk | contribs)51,520 editsm Automated archival of 6 sections to User talk:Cyde/Archive015Next edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{User talk:Cyde/header}} | {{User talk:Cyde/header}} | ||
| == No more sig categories? == | |||
| Good idea. But since I invented mine before the rule was inserted, I want mine grandfathered in. :P --] <small>]</small> 22:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism on ] == | |||
| About a year ago, Tawkerbot2 started monitoring ], and it did a great job of keeping the top two lines intact. See my original request explaining the requirements ] | |||
| 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 ] and ]). | |||
| As a reminder the first two lines of ] should be: | |||
| <nowiki>{{Please leave this line alone}} | |||
| <!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. No profanity, please. --></nowiki> | |||
| Thx in adv --<font color="#06C">]</font> 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) —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 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. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you== | |||
| I accept. ] 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Would it be possible to... == | |||
| ...set Cydebot to listify ]? 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. --] 01:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| No problem. See ]. --] 03:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks very much! --] 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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 ], 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. --<font color="Red">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 18:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Did you mean to do this? == | == Did you mean to do this? == | ||
Revision as of 15:57, 7 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
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)
- Huh, so it was on the talk page. --Cyde Weys 23:12, 4 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)
Without making any statement on the formatting of the signature, yes, it's much better now that it doesn't have an image. --Cyde Weys 04:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Cydebot category listification bug
Memorandum to the community at large: the functionality of Cydebot that periodically listifies certain maintenance categories is currently experiencing some issues. Unfortunately, I'm very busy at the moment and I don't have the time to debug it right now, so I've simply shut it down. I'm just posting this notice as an proactive explanation. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by Grafikbot 11:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)