User talk:Cyde: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:03, 26 August 2007 editCyde (talk \| contribs)28,155 edits →Who knew?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:00, 10 September 2024 edit undoZinnober9 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers52,455 edits →duck or goose: Explanation of edit
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{not around\|date=27 November 2022}}
	{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Cyde/Archive018 -->

	{{User talk:Cyde/header}}		{{User talk:Cyde/header}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{User talk:Cyde/header}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 50K
			\|counter = 38
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(7d)
			\|archive = User talk:Cyde/Archive%(counter)03d
			}}
			{{-}}{{cent}}

			== Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==
	== ] ==
			]

			Established ] provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions have been removed.
	You were the original creator of this page, and I thought I should let you know that I have nominated it for deletion at AFD. -]<sup>]</sup> 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

	Thank you for informing me, but I shall not be protesting its deletion. I created that article way back in 2003, before I knew a tenth the things about Misplaced Pages that I know now. --] 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Curious About Your Bot ==

	He made to this and some other images I have uploaded. Is there something wrong with the images or where I got them? -] 01:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	Click the link in the edit summary of the diff you just linked to. --] 02:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	== exxon valdez ==

	why did you fully protect the exxon valdez oil spill article? ] 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	It was mentioned on The Colbert Report and history seems to indicate that anything mentioned on that show is heavily vandalized. Don't worry, the protection will end soon. --] 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Why didn't you just say this in the edit summary? It would seem appropriate to mention why, rather than "here we go again" and "you know why", the summaries you left for Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and ExxonMobil, respectively. Not everyone owns a TV. As there was a broken link on ], I've had to do a protected edit request to get around this, and I'm a little annoyed. ] 06:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: In fairness, I think all admins are more than a little jaded of Colbert's antics & the whole silly memes thing. It's just a lot of hard work for us & it really ''is'' a case of "here we go again" - ] ] 06:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	I'm sorry if you were inconvenienced from editing for a few days, but as Alison says, it really is a case of "here we go again" (and I nearly used that as one of the protection messages). Since I protected within 10 seconds of said segment airing, there's no real way to know whether I actually did prevent a good bit of vandalism, or if it was unnecessary. Oh well. Just remember, Misplaced Pages has no deadline, so you have all the time you need to fix up the article now. --] 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Category deletion ==

	Ummm... how come you're using ] as justification for deleting a ]. Isn't there supposed to be a vote or discussion or something before you can do that? Or am I misconstruing something?--] 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	Also, practically speaking, what effect does deleting a category before actually emptying it have? Doesn't it just change the font color of the Category name from blue to red?--] 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	How come you're so vandal-obsessed? That category was deleted awhile ago by consensus and its recreation was a mistake. --] 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	Can you point me to the deletion discussion? I don't doubt you; I'm just having trouble finding it myself.--] 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Someone restored the category (it wasn't me, I swear). Better show them what's what. Did you ever find that past discussion, btw?--] 12:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Animal births ==

	Thanks for letting me know about that. What I think I'll do is put them under the year category. That was I thought of doing first, but looking at animal deaths I saw that most of those had been placed under <year> deaths. Those will need to be moved too, as for example all I had done was sort the category rather than put in the 2007 deaths. ] 06:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I've moved those which were still in the human deaths category into the year category and left a comment on each one so noone makes the same mistake :) ] 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	Thanks a lot! --] 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Yo! ==

	What's Up! Cyde ] 23:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	Hey, not bad, what's up? Who are you, by the way? This seems slightly random. --] 23:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Slim Virgin talk page... ==

	What on earth is all about??? ] 00:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	Keep your eyes pealed on ], I'm preparing a post. --] 00:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	:I've gone through the edit histories for all the claimed abuses that Bagley called out. The only violation of WP:SOCK, assuming that the two accounts are related, is the dual votes on ]. All the other edits were innocuous, even if they're socks. They weren't really 3RR, supporting each other to create false consensus, etc. For the most part they were all unrelated editing.
	:I am assuming here that there weren't more edits in there which were later oversighted, but the dual voting seems to be the only actual ] violation to stand up to examination. ] 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Did you accidentally undo someone's AN/I edit? ==

	Cyde, with reference to , did you unintentionally undo someone else's unrelated edit? I was going to revert because you didn't mention anything in your edit comment about reverting that other unrelated comment, and it appears to be a botched edit conflict (or something), but I wanted to check with you first. ] 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Nevermind, the editor who originally posted it reposted. ] 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	Wow, that's bizarre. I have no idea how that happened. And yeah, obviously, that was goof. If I'm ever meaning to remove someone else's comments in an edit, I state an explanation for it in the edit summary. --] 14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Yeah, I figured it was a glitch or you would have mentioned it in the edit comment. I think I've seen this once before, so maybe it's a bug in the software. In any case, no harm done. ] 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Attack site ==

	:Cyde, if you persist posting links to attack sites, you will be blocked. Please stop. Thanks, ] 00:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	::He's posting important evidence for a case that quite frankly, could make the Essjay controversy look like a tempest in a teacup. Respectfully, I see no problem with what he is doing. ] 00:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	:::I agree and reposted the link. A block over this would frankly be out of order. ''']''' ('']'') 00:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	::::He can provide evidence without linking to an attack site. ] 00:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	:::::I agree that a block would be wildly inappropriate here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	::::::Evidence ≠ attack site. If the page said "SlimVirgin sucks" (in more explicit terms), I'm sure Cyde wouldn't have linked it. Please drop it Crum375. ] ] ] 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	Just because it says something critical about a Wikipedian does not automatically make it an attack site. It's not. You need to get over this naive view that everything can always be solved simply by sweeping it under the rug, pretending it didn't happen, and then threatening to block whoever brought it up. These revelations of SlimVirgin are ''hugely'' important and you can't simply make that go away by trying to suppress the link. --] 12:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Protection of ] ==
	Hi Cyde, it looks like you've protected ExxonMobil with the reason "you know why". Actually, I don't, and I've been the most active editor there the past few days, and there have been no reverts to my edits. I've been reducing redundancy and reorganizing, I don't think it's anything contentious. So, um, what's up? Did you mean to do it? I'm going to request that it be unprotected as I see nothing untoward happening. ] 04:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:{{RFPP\|nu}} - Please give Cyde an opportunity to reply - ] ] 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: Ok, will do, Alison. One possibility is that ExxonMobil just appealed to the Supreme Court, which is no surprise there as the 90 day deadline was today. It doesn't seem to be a good reason to protect the page to me, as this isn't a big news event, just another chapter in a 14 year legal battle. ] 05:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	Thanks for asking me. It was mentioned on The Colbert Report, and sometimes when that's happened in the past, pages become a target for vandalism. My cryptic protection message was a form of ]. I've removed the protection now. --] 12:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm pretty sure Mr. Colbert doesn't care (and will never know) if you acknowledge him or not in your edit summary. I could agree with semi-protection to avoid the anons, but full protection still seems unjustified. Whatever. ] 13:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Very disappointed ==
	So, based on your comment , your subsequent post at AN/I indicates that "springing" this, well incredible evidence (pun) of sockpuppet activity by SlimVirgin, (what 2 to 3 years ago!!!!) seems to have been done for malicious purposes. We are talking about edits made a long time ago..and there are pretty few as well, no? So, you post that to discredit someone that you have had numerous disagreements with. I see...I am very disappointed, but frankly, I am not surprised...the longer I watch the noticeboards, the more they start to look like WR and ED, thanks in no small part to your latest contribution.--] 05:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	: Likewise. That you were crowing about it in advance, can't help but lead one to ponder the motivation behind your choice of forum for this "expose". SV isn't perfect, but knowing fine well the unhealthy interest others take in her, she of all people deserves the courtesy of an email to check this isn't a huge misunderstanding before hanging her out to dry. You have done yourself, and our project, no favors here. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 08:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	My first comment on her talk page was utter disgust at learning what she had been up to. Then, realizing what I had learned, I couldn't keep it quiet, and decided it would eventually be brought to community discussion anyway, so why not centralize it. "SV isn't perfect" is a freaking understatement. I guess you don't know what happens to editors who get in her way, but I've tasted it. It typically involves an intimidation campaign, both on-wiki and through email, coming from her and her friends. It didn't work on me, but it has worked on many others. You've seen it happening, admit it. We don't have to put up with it any more, especially now that ''even more'' wrongdoing by SV has been revealed. At some point you need to ask yourself: are you going to support her, or the site? No one deserves your infinite, unwavering loyalty, especially as more and more misdeeds come to light. --] 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Sure seems like you're justifying an attack, rather than providing evidence of wrongdoing, like you have an axe to grind no matter the issue. For a single case of apparent sockpuppeting, there are dozens of plausible situations I can think of having to do with shared computers. If there's more than that, show your cards. (btw, I'm completely uninvolved in this, and ]) .] 13:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	::His message on SV's page aside, the posting on AN/I was not an attack at all. He was obviously dismayed at the charge (which seems to be true) but he just put it out there for others to judge. In my case, I was pretty shocked when I saw clear evidence of a double vote, so I can't say I blame Cyde for reacting the way he did. Now, with perspective and lots of discussion, it appears the overall transgression was not as serious as it initially appeared to be (though an explanation from SV would be nice), but I don't think we should make the mistake of blaming Cyde for bringing this to everyone's attention. ] 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Bringing it to everybody's attention was fine but I would prefer to have seen evidence that you had discussed it with SV first. --] 18:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::This has already extensively been discussed in private. --] 19:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	==ANI discussion==
	] is discussion your actions. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup></font> 13:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	Thanks for the heads up. Isn't it fun that we get to go through this one ''again''? --] 14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Cyde, there's been a discussion on ] about your bot, and Deskana says that an RfA should be filed. I'd love to do the honors, but I'd rather see what you think about it. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Per WP:HARASS, I am entitled to change my username and not have my real name mentioned on Misplaced Pages. Please respect that policy. ] 18:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	What you are requesting is impossible. It's like trying to shatter a vase that's been broken into a million pieces. If you do value anonymity, you'll need to start over from a new user account. But you can't just make everyone go "la la la la we don't know who you are" — it's absurd. We all do. And there's something very fishy about a Federalist Society lawyer wanting to go undercover so he can continue perverting Michael Moore's articles. Your best course of action would just be to stay away from articles where you have a clear conflict of interest. --] 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	:I do not have a COI. See ]. And you are violating Misplaced Pages polciies by repeatedly posting my identity on Misplaced Pages. Are you go to abide by the policy, or do I need to go to Arbcom? ] 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	:What the hell? You say it's fishy for him to go undercover, but that's what you're demanding him to do. Don't you think it's much easier to monitor his COI on the THF account? Do you actually want him to get a new one? Incidentally, how does he have a COI with Michael Moore? Wouldn't almost all published conservatives have a COI by your reasoning—any one who has written and unkind word about Moore? ] '']'' 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	You're a lawyer, so let me use a legal analogy. Surely you're familiar with the law regarding trade secrets? The only way trade secrets are protected is by keeping them secret. Once they are made available publicly, they are no longer trade secrets, and do not enjoy any protections. To protect trade secrets, they must be kept secret. Similarly, you have lost your anonymity by giving away who you are. It's not like you were outed by Michael Moore; you said very explicitly, who you are. It's even . You only keep your anonymity by — surprise surprise — remaining anonymous. Now that your conflict of interest has been pointed out and you see the value of remaining anonymous, you'd like to be anonymous, but that opportunity is gone.

	And yeah, threaten to go to ArbCom to put the genie back into the bottle. ArbCom can't do the impossible. --] 19:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	:] expressly forbids Misplaced Pages users from doing what you're doing '''even if the genie is out of the bottle'''. Just like you can't post SlimVirgin's real name on Misplaced Pages, you can't post mine. This has nothing to do with offsite. It has to do with your on-site behavior. ] 19:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	::You're being utterly illogical, and I don't take illogical requests seriously. And the huge difference between SlimVirgin and you is that she never gave away who she was. --] 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== British English: "connexion" ==

	Dear ], I wish that you had looked at the discussion page for ] - because, if you had, you would have noticed that ] had already dealt with the spelling "connexion". It's not inventive, it's (standard) British English. (It also has the advantage, along with words such as "inflexion", "reflexion", ''etc''., that it has one less letter to write ('''or''', indeed, type). Since the article started in, and continues to be in, British English, I've simply changed it back. ''Please'': "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ... ] 20:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	I've never heard of these words being spelled with xs in them, and I asked around before making that edit too, and nobody else had heard of it, either. Are you really sure that it's "standard" British English? We've all heard of "colour" etc., but not "connexion". --] 20:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== THF's name ==

	Regardless of whether he's revealed it before, you should not be using it now. This is clearly stated in WP:HARASS. Please refrain from doing it in the future. ] 20:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I endorse that request. To keep doing so is a clear violation of ]:
	::''Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This . . . '''also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.''''' (emphasis added)
	:He changed name. He removed personal information from his user page. Some time later, he asked an administrator to delete the history of his page. It's very inappropriate to have people constantly pointing out where to find his old name, or posting links to the rename logs. Please stop doing it. ] ] 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Even without WP:HARASS, it should seem uncivil. I would do not appreciate, for example, being called a Mormon in threads as a way of disparaging edits that comply with policy. ] '']'' 20:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	::Once he's made the revelation, the information is out there. More than one person has been bitten by their previous personal revelations on WP; we've even lost an administrator after someone scraped together a dozen personal comments she made over a two-year period, deduced her true identity, and threatened her. Mr Frank is out of luck. ] 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	:::Mmmhmm. No one will forget who he is, but it would be nice if admins were exemplars of civility. ] '']'' 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Huh? I really don't see anything uncivil in Dragonfly's comment. --] 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I think most decent people would find it uncivil to unnecessarily use someone's surname after he has made it clear that he wishes people to refer to him by his user name. It's not as if editors normally go round referring to each other as Mr and Mrs. That gratuitous reference to a surname was certainly not a model of ideal behaviour from an administrator. ] ] 23:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::If you think that's uncivil, don't go near a television ... ] 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::You're behaving in a way that you know annoys him for no conceivable encyclopedia-building purpose. ], this is uncivil. ] '']'' 01:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
	You guys (except for Dragonfly) aren't seeing the forest for the trees. "THF" has no anonymity on Misplaced Pages. He never did. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. And trying to forbid people from that have a ''direct'' bearing on how "neutral" he can be while editing anything related to Michael Moore simply won't work. What's important here is considering how Misplaced Pages should deal with his editing of articles that he has a direct conflict of interest over. --] 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:THF doesn't fit the usual reason we don't allow real names to be used on-wiki after renames. The usual scenario is that someone has used their real name and wants to change it because they fear consequences in real life for their editing off-wiki. We have been forceful in defending this right, and I think we should continue to uphold that. But this situation is very different. THF doesn't fear off-wiki reprisals if his name is made known, he objects to the on-wiki consequences of his name being made known. I am not sure how we should respond to that, but it isn't a clear case of ]. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 21:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I would like to point out that THF merely editing Michael Moore is not in itself a COI - there must also be evidence that he is editing abusively. It's not POV pushing if you are making the article more neutral via citation requests and well-sourced edits, and I've yet to see a single piece of evidence that THF has been abusive in any way. If he had registered anonymously, nobody would question his edits, so I fail to see why we should be criticising him for admitting who he is. ] 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	You've been asked several times by several people, including admins, not to violate ]. There is certainly no consensus that you can do so. Yet you ]ed me and did so with an edit-war edit to reveal personal information, presumably in violation of ]. I have opened a thread on ]. ] 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Check again, there was no edit warring. Nice mis-characterization though. And citing random inapplicable pages like ] isn't helping your case. I can do it too, see? By saying "presumably in violation of ]", you are yourself violating ]. --] 23:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Civility ==

	Please avoid saying thinks to other editors like "lying out your ass." You'll do much better if you maintain civility. All it takes is waiting a few moments before hitting "save page." - ] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	Thanks, but if someone is lying out their ass and accusing me of terrible things that I've never done, then I'm going to call it as I see it. Instead of whining at me, why don't you go tell him to stop making false accusations? --] 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

			Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at ].
	Yet strangely here you are still trying to force a users name out in the open again, you are violating ] stop! '''YOU can't publish private info of a wikipedian who wants to remain private'''.] 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

			Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin 2 -->— ] <sup>]</sup> 02:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
	He's not a private individual, that's the thing. He identified himself ''and'' he's notable enough to have an article about him. Quit harassing ''me'' with false accusations of harassment. --] 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
			:Yes indeed, mighty thanks for all that you and your mighty bot have contributed here. – ] ] 10:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
			== Nomination for merger of ] ==
			]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ] on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> &zwj;—&zwj;]<sub>]]</sub> 22:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

			== A kitten for you! ==
	:As you well know he changed his User name to get anonimity back. Re-read ]. ] 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

			]
	::You can't "get anonymity back", and changing one's username still doesn't change the fact that he is a published, public person. If nothing else, the disclaimer at the top of ] needs to remain to prevent potential violations of ]. --] 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
			a kitten for you!

			] (]) 23:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
	== Who knew? ==
			<br style="clear: both;"/>

			== duck or goose ==
	I'm sure it wasn't your main intent but your stock is going through the roof at WR. What a turnaround, it's nice to see your work appreciated! ] 04:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

			re ], that looks like a greylag goose, not a duck. —] (]) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
	Yeah, that wasn't my intention. I'm just doing what I think is good for Misplaced Pages, and for once, maybe we are seeing eye-to-eye. --] 04:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
			:Cyde, I've commented out the tests on this test page due to Misza13's random number generator creating negative values when it should not be. These negative values for image sizes are causing invalid image parameter errors (tracked ] errors that have otherwise been cleaned up here on en.wiki). If you, Cyde, still want these tests, consider using a different randomizer. Thanks, ] (]) 04:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
	*Well, it reminds me a little of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"....it's all a little mercenary for me. But another couple weeks and it won't matter. ] 05:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
	**Wheee, what happens in another couple weeks? I can confirm that nothing will be changing with my situation in a couple weeks. Maybe you know something I don't? --] 05:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
	***In two weeks? Same thing that always happens, the bad blood will still be here but everyone will have moved on to the next outrage. ] 05:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
	****Oh, of course, but that's a given. Dare I say Misplaced Pages has grown too much? It's not nearly as tight-knit and cohesive as it used to be. Give us a few more years at this rate and we'll be no better than real world politics. And you know how ugly that gets. It's a shame. Misplaced Pages was special there, for awhile. But ] is an utter joke. --] 05:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
	*****I'll tell you what's an utter joke, ]. It's been ground into dust and otherwise well intentioned editors get drawn into disputes that are just quagmires. Real world disputes involving politics, conspiracy theories, ethnic and nationalistic factions are becoming way more disruptive than even a year ago. It was happening then but not to this level of intensity or frequency. And it's only going to get worse. As far as ] goes, we've slowly redefined it as not actually calling someone a . Wanna be snide, sarcastic or poisonous to someone, go right ahead. It's dying the death of a thousand cuts. And to be honest, you've put more than a few of them in yourself. But, as you say Misplaced Pages is a victim of it's own success. It's gotten too big and the center is starting to break apart. ] 15:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
	******Real world politics is a battleground, and thus, that's what Misplaced Pages is becoming. We don't have a two-party system, but there are very obviously factions who are warring with one another. I'm not as pessimistic as you are though. I don't think Misplaced Pages will collapse, it will merely morph into a different form of governance that is more like real world governments. Optimistic (and perhaps naive) policies like ], ], ], etc., will die out, and one can easily argue that they are already mostly dead. It will be a battleground, but it will not stop running. It won't really even affect how the site is viewed by outsiders, either. Nobody cares about internal politics. Just trying to find out about internal politics is overwhelming. There are so many pages that need reading. --] 16:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:00, 10 September 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Cyde has not edited Misplaced Pages since 27 November 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

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

Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux 02:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed, mighty thanks for all that you and your mighty bot have contributed here. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Mop

Template:Mop has been nominated for merging with Template:Icon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ‍—‍a smart kitten 22:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

a kitten for you!

Alex pizzagalli1990 (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

duck or goose

re User:Cyde/test, that looks like a greylag goose, not a duck. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Cyde, I've commented out the tests on this test page due to Misza13's random number generator creating negative values when it should not be. These negative values for image sizes are causing invalid image parameter errors (tracked WP:LINT errors that have otherwise been cleaned up here on en.wiki). If you, Cyde, still want these tests, consider using a different randomizer. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: