User talk:Scyrme

Could you please take a look at these revisions? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uncle_Max&oldid=1335547559 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Jam:_A_New_Legacy&oldid=1335547817 I think these may fit under "positive contributions" that can be kept. I can't access my temporary account anymore. ~2026-67021-7 (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Im asking in regards to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1335733375 ~2026-67021-7 (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with everything you're saying regarding Archive.today, but we might be approaching the point where repeating the same argument in different replies doesn't help too much. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding these edits: note you introduced blank lines between list items in the same list. This results in the wikitext parser treating the list as multiple lists in the resulting HTML markup. Screen readers announce the start and end of each list, so this means there will be extra list end/start announcements. For more details, you can refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists, or User:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup. In future, if you could consider the guidance on formatting talk page comments, it would be appreciated! isaacl (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this, thanks. – Scyrme (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I removed a few more blank lines; should be all of them now. If I knew they made a difference, I wouldn't have left them in. – Scyrme (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks; I must have missed some. It kind of sucks that such small things in the wikitext source can have an outsized effect on accessibility, but unfortunately for the foreseeable future, there isn't anything else that can be done other than copyediting the source. isaacl (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme Just FYI, as I'm not about to re-edit it, I removed the link to Tissue (biology) under the guideline at MOS:OVERLINK, not MOS:LINKONCE. My rule of thumb for linking is to ask myself, if this was a newspaper or general-interest magazine article, would the reader understand it? The answer in this case is almost 100% yes. Cheers 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 22:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Junglenut: I don't know if I agree. I think a general audience would be familiar with "cell" or "organ", but less so with "tissue", especially as the tissue here isn't fleshy. If I called bone a "tissue" (which, biologically speaking, is a correct description), would a general newspaper audience understand what I mean? I don't think so. I think the same applies to the woody tissue here. Of-course, I could be wrong. Maybe most readers are familiar with the full breadth of what biologists call "tissue", but even if so it's a relevant topic (as I noted in my edit summary) and with the other links you pruned, there's not much risk of overlinking by leaving this one in.

Regardless, thanks for the cleanup/copyedits. – Scyrme (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Template:Deobandism. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted to explain a bit about the Talk:Scientology page. There was an editor who got topic-banned in early December for behaviors that dragged out discussions into meta-debates ...resulting in those enormously long threads and ballooning the talk page in a very short period of time. Afterwards, the participants were so drained and exhausted (me included) that we have taken a long break from fixing the article. Some of those threads represent things that haven't yet been fixed. I archived a select bunch of them that are moot or stale enough to be archived anyway.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for handling it! – Scyrme (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TonySt. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to On (company) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. tony 03:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@TonySt: Take a closer look. I was reverting an edit test or vandalism where the entire article's content was copied and pasted multiple times over. – Scyrme (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme: Sorry about that! I changed it back to your version. Thank you for letting me know :) --tony 03:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. – Scyrme (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, it seems I've accidentally undone your edit due to an edit conflict. are you able to re-do the edit you made manually? Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: Ah, sorry, I didn't know you were still editing. I think I've restored it without cutting what you added. I'll leave it alone for now. – Scyrme (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Since this isn't related to Talk header, I thought to ask here instead:

Over at Talk:Talk header you said

Just to be sure, when I talk about |minarchthreads= for ClueBot III, I don't have aliases or Lowercase Sigmabot III in mind. All the documentation for ClueBot III says that the parameter that controls how many talk sections need to be archivable before the bot takes action is named "minarchthreads" and nothing else. The corresponding parameter for Lowercase Sigmabot is "minthreadstoarchive".

See User:ClueBot_III#How_your_page_is_archived and Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Automated_archiving etc.

Hope that clears up any confusion. (Please note: as long as everything works correctly, you don't have to do anything and I don't require a response)

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Might be {{Th/abp}} is coded wrong then. I've asked for clarification. If it turns out that {{Th/abp}} is wrong, then it will need to fixed for the tooltip to work as intended on all pages. However, the tooltip code which I've requested by implemented won't actually need to be changed, only {{Th/abp}}. – Scyrme (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Is this talk page really only for EC-users? If so, why can non-EC-users edit the talk page? Shouldn’t it just be protected? Yavneh (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The notice at the top of the Talk page states:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)

Protecting the page to prevent non-EC users from posting anything would also block edit requests, which I assume is why it hasn't been done. Non-EC users are still allowed to make edit requests via the button that appears when a non-EC user tries to edit the page. You raised a reasonable point though, so when I saw someone else remove your message I raised the same point again. If no-one objects, I'll remove the "part of... American expansionism" from the infobox. – Scyrme (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

You wrote Update: A bot just removed the rfc template with the reason "Removing expired RFC template". Probably safe to request a closure at this point.

Did you? Request a closure? Because I think SilkTork and Mathglot aren't - in fact, they would be happy to just let it fizzle out, thus successfully stopping the improvement. I think the entire reason SilkTork started the RfC when he realized he didn't get any traction for his opposition to the button was to try to shift the burden of proving consensus, from him opposing the change, instead onto us advocating it, which I consider an abuse to the RfC process - don't hold RfCs just to try to stop change you personally don't agree with. And he got ample help with this by Mathglot, who - despite being politely asked directly to not complicate the question - insisted on adding more options to the poll, thus directly or indirectly making it easier for a closer to miss the larger picture and close as "inconclusive, change nothing". They wouldn't even allow the change to remain active throughout the RfC process (which would be super visible and absolutely have brought more editors to the discussion). But whatever, I'm done trying to help institute the change. Just a few thousand words and a month completely down the drain, nothing to see here. Posting this because it is unclear if your post was written as a reply to me or just a general heads up. Ng No need to reply CapnZapp (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: I know you said no need to reply, but I thought I'd at least answer your questions: No, I did not request a closure, I only posted an update. It wasn't a direct reply to you specifically, it was just a general notice, however I assumed that you would want to make the closure request after seeing it as you seemed very keen to close the RfC. If you would like me to request a closure instead, let me know. – Scyrme (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for your contributions to the English Wikipedia since 2021, especially those related to the 2026 Iran war. Pachu Kannan (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank-you. I'm glad my contributions have been helpful. – Scyrme (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran–United States war. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 05:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)