User talk:Cyde/Archive003

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

SPUI

has started mass page moves again. See his contrib log. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalmia

By the way, would you take a look at User:Kalmia's userpage? It seems to be a bit problematic. JoshuaZ 22:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Can you do something about 172.168.89.206. His actions on Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev and Category:Macedonian revolutionaries speak for themselves. Also note that a bunch of the same edits were made recently by similar IPs from a dynamic IP pool sugesting very strongly that it's the same person. Finaly can you revert him on Goce Delchev coz I did 3 times already. Regards --Realek 01:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Channel

Yes, as usual. My irc client sounds an alarm when block conflicts occur. — Mar. 27, '06 [05:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>

/stalk "block conflict" or something like it? --Cyde Weys 05:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools

Just to let everyone know, I've been planning on a big April Fools gag. I actually started programming it at the beginning of March, so, a bit of work has gone into it by now :-) Unfortunately I'm not going to reveal what it is until the day arrives. Some of you lucky people out there in the cabal know what it is, though, because I've done a limited prerelease. --Cyde Weys 05:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oooooh aaaaaah.JohnnyBGood 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More like ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, deeeeeeeeear. :P KillerChihuahua?!? 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua is one of the few people who've been privileged to see it prerelease. --Cyde Weys 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That userbox thing on TfD was the "big April Fools gag", right? --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wives aboard the Ark

Hi! I removed the NPOV tag you added to the article Wives aboard the Ark. In the comment section for your change, you commented "This doesn't at all discuss the possibility that these names are simply made up, because in reality, the Ark is scientifically impossible)." I removed your tag because there is no need for such a declaration in this article. The article in on people appearing in the story of Noah's Ark. It mentions that the names of these women come from certain texts and that is truely all that it needs mention. A discussion of whether or not Noah's Ark took place, would be better suited to the article on Noah's Ark (where the discussion already exists at least in part). Additionally, please add a comment to the article's talk page when adding NPOV as well. In a freqently edited article, the edit that added the tag can be pushed back and it can often take time to find it. Adding comments to the talk page is a good practice that allows other users to quickly find related information. - Kuzain 18:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking

In this edit, it looks like one incomplete date (February 2, 1848) got repaired (February 2, 1848), but another one later in the same paragraph was skipped (May 30, 1848). Also, it might be a good enhancement to remove the ", " between linked month/day and year combinations, since the software will add them to the display by default. (May 301948). Regards. Neier 23:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, no, that's not the JavaScript doing the date correcting, that's me. So that's a case of simple human error there. I missed it. The JavaScript puts in the edit summary of "Revising date links", but I go over each one by hand and make sure all of its edits are correct, and if I happen to see something that should be linked but isn't, I fix that too. --Cyde Weys 23:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

I'm getting very sick of this User: Never mind. Whopper 23:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's already been taken care of. --Cyde Weys 23:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks But No Thanks

I’m not entirely sure why you redirected my user page to my talk page Bach in January. It caused some considerable confusion on my part. I had just become a member back in January and I wanted to put some things about myself on my User Page a few weeks back because I had inadvertently put it on my talk page. Before that I could not even get to my user page because of your redirect. Contrary to your belief I certainly did not want the info on my talk page and your redirect kept me form realizing my mistake. I did not realize until I looked at the history how the redirect came to be there. I can’t think of any logical reason for wanting all of my information on my talk page. Instead of arbitrary Editing my User page you could have informed me of my mistake or asked me what my intentions had been .I would ask you to please refrain form making changes on my User page in the future. Any way this is just a diversion form a message I must give you that is critically vital to our national security there are forces at work darker than you can possibly imagine. It is more important than any of the top secret messages you normally receive through Wikipedia and I can’t trust even your CIA level encryption codes to send you a message over the internet. I’ll meet you in your local park at 0930 tomorrow at the 2nd bench from the Northeast corner of the park. I’ll be disguised as an obese midget with a peg leg, a member’s only jacket over an orange suite, rainbow suspenders, sunglasses, and a scar on my left cheek. I will ask you if “rainbow suspenders bring out my eyes” to which you will respond by macing me in the face. In the resulting confusion you will grab the package which will disguised as a McDonalds Happy Meal and make your escape before the rogue NSA agents that have been chasing me arrive. I then will… What’s that sound?...I have to go their here… Nothing matters not even my life the world must know the truth and you are our only hope --Ian 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

........ --Cyde Weys 00:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic conversions

Seems to me your automatic footnote-converter could use a bit of work. When it converted Medal of Honor over to the new style, it left the references section looking a bit awkward. --Carnildo 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a real reference. It actually wasn't referenced in the main article text. So it was more of an external link. Anyway, my program doesn't touch external links. My thing is not fully automatic — it does need human intervention to clear up stuff like this. --Cyde Weys 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bot's also got limits in what it can do, so when it detects a situation that needs human intervention, it logs a message. That's part of the reason User talk:OrphanBot has been edited almost five thousand times. --Carnildo 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this isn't a bot. It's a Perl script whose output has to be manually copied back into Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 05:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the principles still apply, though. For example, any steps that can be automated, such as routine mistake-detection, should be. --Carnildo 06:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews

Hey Cyde, I have recently become entangled in a dispute on this article. The most recent area of contention is the inclusion of the following quote:

"In the time of Bahram II (276-293 CE), a Zoroastrian priest went so far as to declare that under Sassanid rule the "false doctrines of Ahriman and of the idols suffered great blows and lost credibility. The Jews (Yahud), Buddhists (Shaman), Hindus (Brahman), Nazarenes (Nasara), Christians (Kristiyan), Baptists (Makdag) and Manichaeans (Zandik) were smashed in the empire, their idols destroyed, and the habitations of the idols annihilated and turned into abodes and seats of the gods".[1] (see esp para. 23)"

I feel that it is inappropriate hyperbole, the editors justification is that it is neccessary to show the relgious intolerance of Sassanid Empire, but I feel that is silly because the article already adaquately explains this in a much more encyclopedic fashion. The other editor and I have agreed to accept the opinion of a neutral administrator and I was hoping you would give your thoughts, Thanks.-

Also a couple of seperate editors insist on writing the names of the authors that some of the passages come from at least once every paragraph, even though they are reputable and reliable sources and are referenced correctly.Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider blocking this user

Hello Cyde, I have come to you again with a suggestion regarding a vandal to block. They have been warned 6 times, including a "last warning," and are targeting the same pages repeatedly. Please use your discretion, but if you think a block is in order, I would appreciate it. Thanks.Debivort 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. --Cyde Weys 21:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Admin word with Elvey

If you could have an Admin word with User:Elvey about these edits: [2] [3][4] and [5]. Elvey doesn't seem to understand the difference between user pages and user talk pages. I would explain but I don't think she wants to hear from me given this comment. [6]. JoshuaZ 03:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Itake's behavior

See Itake (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)s recent behavior, which includes this[7] in an AfD and [8]. Not to mention how Jason Gastrich fits into this [9]. Arbusto 22:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edits

Bad move, Cyde. I'll leave it at that. --72.160.81.239 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from the guy who's used three sockpuppets and anonymous IP addresses to evade a well-deserved block. --Cyde Weys 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit...


So who are you really?

Its pretty obvious that you sold your account. Nobody is that abusive the instant that they get made admin. You put Snowspinner to shame. So who are you? Are you a good guy trying to get in to the cabal? Or are you just someone who is power mad, that had sat in wait for ages before you finally got the P-O-W-E-R. I hope you enjoy the power trip while it lasts, whoever you are. You could be a bit less obvious next time you buy an admin account though. They cost quite a bit of money, and you've just wasted it in a snap.

WE ARE TEH JEWISHES AND WE HAVE ALL TEH POWARRRRRRRR

Vandalism warning

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --DanielCD 02:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're a big boy, I went ahead and moved up to the second level vandal warning regarding your recent addition of trash to my userpage. --DanielCD 02:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three and four. Add some more, and you might score. Try me. --DanielCD 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

APRIL FREAKING FOOLS!!!--DanielCD 02:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User: Curps

You think I can prank his page for April Fools without getting banned? --GorillazFanAdam 02:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaranda/April Fools 2006

I've already messaged him regarding this, so your vandal warning is sans warrant. --DanielCD 02:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I reverted some of your weeniisms. You for one expertly fooled the dogshit out of me, so enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling while it lasts. I didn't recognize you at first as I am used to seeing your username in a different format and ... got confused. Whatever you are drinking, save some for me. --DanielCD 02:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde is officially the coolest admin on this site, I didn't know admins had a sense of humor...or any other emotion for that matter. --GorillazFanAdam 02:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some GPLer you are.

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /cgi-bin/wikirefs.txt on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Oh, and nice work on the userboxen, I left a few around too... it seemed the thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shoulda read the bottom of the page more carefully. It says this: This software will be released under the GPL on 2006-04-02. --Cyde Weys 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude... YOU should read more of what I pasted in more carefully! You just THINK I am referring to boxen... I'm actually referring to wikirefs which does not have such a disclaimer... [10] it just says This software is released under the GPL, see the source here. If you have any questions or comments, contact cydeweys AT gmail.com So... where's the code man! You're holding out on us... Smile. More seriously, if it's not releasable that's cool. I like your style in any case. ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, lots of good jokes from you today. ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that just an apache misconfiguration error on my part. The source is available now. --Cyde Weys 17:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I copied it for my own nefarious purposes, mwhahaha (credit will be given of course!)... some examples of how to parse out/regex common wikitext constructions in it are just what I am looking for... (see User:Lar/Sandbox2 to see what I am up to) thanks! One Q, why do you have to fake out the agent in the UA constructor call ( $ua->agent('Mozilla/5.0'); ) ? Pearlbot doesn't seem to need to do that, and my derived code to fetch pages seems to work OK... perhaps your approach is different though since pearlebot fetches pages while they are in edit mode... ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Communist

FYI (not an April Fools Joke) someone has removed the Tfd tag from User:UBX/Communist. Does that end the nomination process somehow? Gosh, that's easy. I'm sorry, but is that box immune from nominations for Tfd, while so many others are not, and have been speedy deleted (rightly so, I believe?) Guess so. I get more educated about Wikipedia bias every day. Nhprman UserLists 04:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blu Aardvark

Noting both that I'm not entirely in accord with your actions vis-à-vis Blu Aardvark (although surely think you and others to be much more in the right than he) but also that you are surely one of my favorite admins here, both for the quality of your contributions and for the jocular, irreverent attitude with which you often make them, I thought perhaps you might want to append his apology from the noticeboard to his talk page; the page is protected and so I can't do it myself (I surely understand the reasons for which you might elect not to, but I thought that perhaps such appending would provide the opportunity for contrition to a Wikipedian who has been, at least for a good part of his Wikilife, a good contributor). Joe 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user wants to free Cyde Weys.

Unfortunately I can't help you because I'm blocked right now :-O --Cyde Weys 05:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banning critics looks bad. Can we agree to a compromise and free everyone?

RfA Results and Thanks

Cyde/Archive003, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path.

--- joturner 05:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Your new user page is briliant, I wonder how many people will get what document you are referencing? JoshuaZ 06:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no idea. You're welcome to edit it to make it more appropriate to Wikipedia though :-) Cyde Weys 06:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I suppose I won't give it away. Unless you want me to? joturner 06:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Guettarda 06:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is the verdict on my modification good or bad? JoshuaZ 06:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring more to editing the actual text of the screed itself, making it more relevant to Wikipedia (it has a lot of humanism/science still left in it), rather than the addition of another section. --Cyde Weys 06:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hmm, let me try my hand at that. One moment. JoshuaZ 06:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how's that? If you don't like you'll have to change it back yourself, because I'm headed to bed. G'night. JoshuaZ 07:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you been ?

This is a message for you:
Have a happy April Fools Day. Martial Law 06:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]
Why are you blocked ? Is that a April Fools joke ? Martial Law 07:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]
Nope, the block was very, very, real. --Cyde Weys 07:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored,

but I think the RNG doesn't like me... the only really funny one I got was "This user is paranoid because of trees." So true... there's always one, watching, always watching... Melchoir 08:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

official approval

OFFICIAL APPROVAL
This page has been approved by The Ministry of Silly Walks


Sorry about being so uptight earlier today, hope there aren't any hard feelings. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Cyde,

I didn't really mean to be offensive. Of course you spent your valuable time for us and I may have been in a bad mood when I was writing that comment. I got your message ;) I think you spend much time selecting the pictures. Maybe I am as you said. Who knows? Since I can not observe myself from outside, I may sometimes make great mistakes. Anyway, I would like to apologize if I wrote offensive. I have posted my comments on the talk page of the mediation which we can discuss. Please have a look at that. Also, honestly I tried a lot to interpret your message (maybe much more than the time you spent on sending that message). --Aminz 13:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-moderation

I found you comment to be orginal, insightful flamebait, and ranks it appropriately. What am I getting wrong? Guettarda 17:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I should have read the headers. Guettarda 17:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

→outback>you - Moderation

-) Bah, I needed a smile after all that venom. FreplySpang (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools

I have blocked you until 0:01 April 2, 2006. Your April Fool's jokes have gone far over the line, and you've been warned repeatedly by at least a dozen others. Making changes to Mediawiki namespace pages is never something to be done on a whim, and certainly shouldn't be done as a joke. You really should have listened to us when we told you to knock it off. Essjay Talk • Contact 20:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well folks, that's the end of April Fool's for me. --Cyde Weys 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:( Guettarda 20:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone revert my user page to this please? Also, I'm going to need an admin to revert to this as it's protected. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 20:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guettarda. I'll just sit over here in the corner for three and a half more hours. --Cyde Weys 20:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know how you feel. I nearly got spanked over my April Fool's contribution, and I included it as part of an actual announcement. But it still didn't fly. Go figure. --Go for it! 20:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out, for those who think I'm being a spoil-sport here, that Cyde has been blocked three times today for his antics, and that quite a few of us have talked to him about it on IRC and have been suggesting since this morning that he stop. A few pranks here and there are one thing, but that is not what Cyde has been doing. Essjay Talk • Contact 20:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of those blocks was an April Fool's :-/ Cyde Weys 20:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly you are unoriginal. Messing around with the mediawiki namespace is soo last year.Geni 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For some extremely creative pranks pulled on April Fool's Day 2006, I hereby award you this OVERSIZED-AND-FREAKIN'-COLO(U)RED BARNSTAR-OF-GOOD-HUMOR-IN-A-USERBOX, 'cause I know how you love them! (Da userboxen that is.)
Misza13 T C 21:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalked pages (copied from Talk:Main Page)

LOL! Just realized that tiny little april fool's stuff. __earth (Talk) 19:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated. I'm all for the jokes, I've participated. But if this layout is a joke, it's not funny and very disruptive to every monobook out there. Not cool man, not cool. T K E 19:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sick and tired of this annual April Foolishness. Will someone who knows where to fix it please correct the link to "my watchlist"? This is not funny anymore. Rossami (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Stalking other people's actions is never funny. Please repair the Main Page to return "Stalked Pages" to "My Watchlist". Wdfarmer 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been fixed by Naconkantari. The admin that made the change, User:Cyde, has been blocked for a year until tomorrow by Essjay. Canderson7 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay blocked Cyde (very sensibly, imo) until 0001 April 2 2006. Until there is no longer any excuse to clown around like Cyde has been doing for the best part of 24 hours. -Splashtalk 20:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for misreading the timestamp, thanks for clearing that up. I too agree with the block. Canderson7 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

For going beyond the call of duty for alleviating wikistress for some (those users with a sense of humor), and creating it for others (those with none), through the orchestration of a steady stream of creative shennanigans on April Fool's Day, I hereby award you this BARNSTAR-OF-WICKED-FUN
--Go for it! 22:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I got hit again by that same userbox prank you hit me with earlier. So I recorded it for prosperity at the end of my user page.  ;-) --Go for it! 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pranked you, lol. --GorillazFanAdam 22:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Barnstar

This user has been awarded the Userbox Award for their contributions to WikiProject Userboxes.

Congratualations! Your work with userboxes is to be praised! Truly, you are the man, the myth, AND the legend! --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 21:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFools note

Minor note, I'm renaming the WikiFools project the Wiki Userbox Generator and releasing it under the GPL. Have fun. --Cyde Weys 00:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

More mess with the roads... could you please take a look at WP:ANI? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what is going on here.

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Funkastophales, Joshuaz (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)} 67.183.90.139 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and 67.160.36.12 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Can you maybe talk to 67.160.36.12 and use your magic admin abilities to figure out what is going on? It doesn't take much to see that words in the supposed screen shots don't resemble stuff I would say at all. Right now I'm guessing this is some sort of stunt from Benapgar (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) or an anon who is just really annoyed that I prodded his article. JoshuaZ 03:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's just massive AfD sockpuppetry. Nothing to see here, move along :-P Cyde Weys 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, so you think the screen shots are just faked? JoshuaZ 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care one way or the other; those posts are not on Wikipedia, and are thus inadmissible as evidence in any Wikipedia dispute. I must say, if someone went to all that trouble to impersonate you on a forum, you must have attracted some A-grade troll attention. --Cyde Weys 03:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion (Excellent to my mind :D )

I think RFC is not a good idea since we are not sure both articles may have some problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? --Aminz 03:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, although finding the unbiased, experienced editors is gonna be the hard part. If you can get them lined up then this could work. --Cyde Weys 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. My opinion is that everybody (or every party) should have the opportunity to propose one (or two) administrators (I think the editor committee are better to be all administrators rather than just experienced editors since 1. administrators are more wise than other editors 2. definition of experienced editor is problematic unless all of us agree that someone is an experienced editor); I think you and Tom should check the neutrality of the committee members at the end and should be a member of committee if you want. Could you possible please post your opinion on the mediation page? Then we can all discuss the details there. Thank you so much--Aminz 04:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde, I have made an slot for all people involved in the articles on the mediation page.[11] I am gathering their opinions there. Thanks for your support of the idea in its general form. --Aminz 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April is here

and I was unable to log on all day yesterday - thanks for decorating my userpage with the (very amusing) boxes. Wonderful April fool's joke. Pity I wasn't here to keep them on all day, but they lasted a few hours. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reference converter

i was messing around with your reference converter. i never would have attempted those edits manually. This is an excellent tool. Thanks. David D. (Talk) 18:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see any issues with it please let me know. I already did a lot of debugging on it, but judging by the pace I was discovering errors at, I'm sure there's a lot more to go! --Cyde Weys 18:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll keep my eyes open. i didn't notice any problem on this first page. Although, since it was not my original work, i could easily have missed something. David D. (Talk) 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did notice that it didn't format the multiple references properly, and you had to go back and fix it by hand. I think that's something that could be improved. --Cyde Weys 19:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that was a problem with the program. The original author had not set up the correct format for mutliple references. If you look at the original version you will note that all the mutliple references are treated as individual cites. You would have to write an extra part of the program to check for repeated references that are incorrectly formated. David D. (Talk) 19:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, my program doesn't know anything about multiple references. Even if they had been properly formatted my script would have messed them up. --Cyde Weys 19:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll keep my open for that in the future. David D. (Talk) 19:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfAs

I seem to be developing a habit of asking a lot of questions to RfA candidates. Do you think I'm being a dick? JoshuaZ 00:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Hi Cyde! Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 13:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

The Community Portal was recently reverted to a version that appeared months ago. Therefore, I've called for a vote to restore to the Community Portal the version that had developed there up until that reversion. There are three drafts competing for the privilege, each representing entirely different approaches, including the current revert version. To show your support for which design should be displayed as the Community Portal, VOTE HERE. Sincerely, --Go for it! 18:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]