Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 8 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)

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)

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with the whole PatPeter thing. I also have no clue what his (is agenda the right word?) agenda is. Skult of Caro (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)