User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close

I just [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Theopolisme#Tracker pinged] user:Theopolisme for help on a small technical item, but then realized he/she hasn't been on much, so I was wondering if you could chime in. I don't know if you remember, but about one year ago there was consensus at Proposals for a trial run of automatically adding :Template:COI editnotice to the talk page of articles about companies to alert the article-subject of WP:COI. A tracker was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACOI_editnotice&diff=567885117&oldid=567863938 added] as a form of performance measurement for the trial, to see how many article-subjects saw the template, read it, and hit the "click here" button. It's been a year now and it is an ideal time to see how many clicks the template got, but I have no idea how to use the tracker code in it to see how many clicks. Do you know how to see? CorporateM (Talk) 03:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|CorporateM}} Unfortunately, that tracking was set up rather poorly (it should have used a tracking category, but it didn't), so actually seeing its results would require searching a database dump for the text at the bottom of Template:COI editnotice/preloadtracker. {{tps}} Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

:* I agree with Jack, that's a horribly implemented tracker. I'll DL the latest database file and do a dump for it to see what I can find. It likely won't be until next week if you want to look for someone to do it sooner. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

::Given that it's waited a year, another week won't hurt ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 04:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

::* Actually... Might not even have to do that... {{WLH|User:Theo's Little Bot/coi_tracker/bot|ns=all}} might give you what you need even though not exactly the best way to do it... It theoretically technically works... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

:::::That should do it! Looks like we got 10 clicks out of 700 articles in a one-year span, or 1.5%. Not exactly inspiring. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, T13. Do you have time to help me with some wiki-coding issues? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Depends on what the coding issues are. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

:*Mostly simple stuff, like to trying squeeze specific formatting functions out of wikitable, infobox tweaks, etc. Simple stuff I expect, but it takes too long for me to figure it out -- I'm a writer-editor, not a wiki-coder. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

:** LOL... Okay, let me try wording this another way... Give me a list of the things you would like me to poke at, and I will do what I can in my gaps of free time. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• T13, can you figure out how to make :Template:Infobox college football player display a royal blue background with white text reversed out for Florida Gators players? The University of Florida's primary colors are royal blue and orange, but white is used as a secondary color when necessary. We have changed all of the University of Florida and Florida Gators navboxes and infoboxes to white text reversed out of a royal blue background, with orange used as a highlight color when the wiki-coding permits it. For an example of this particular infobox in use, and the illegibility of orange text reversed out of a royal blue background, please see the Charlie LaPradd article. Please let me know if your proposed solution affects other infoboxes, navboxes, etc., before implementing it. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Let me make sure I understand the question: You want to be able to have two different color schemes for one school or you want to change the color scheme for this school?
•  Florida Gators  vs.  Florida Gators 
• : Would you be interested in going a whole new direction using some kind of text shadow?
• :*  Florida Gators 
• :*  Florida Gators 
• :*  Florida Gators 
• : We can do pretty much anything. Do you have a specific look you wanted? Maybe the same way some of the text is formatted on the official site? Let me know. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

::*LOL@T13. Keep it simple, Show Off! White text reversed out of royal blue background, please. Here's the second issue: is the scheme used in this template (orange text reversed out of royal blue background) somehow tied to the color schemes for other templates, etc.? If so, we need to know that before making any changes with unanticipated consequences.

:::After we figure this out, I would like you to examine how we could use white text for all instances of this particular template, and find a way to use the secondary color (i.e. the color previously used for the text) as a stripe or other highlight to the primary color -- but we can talk about that later.

:::FYI, for an example of the color scheme of a typical Florida Gators navbox, please see :Template:Florida Gators football coach navbox; for white text reversed out blue in a Florida Gators-related article, please see List of University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame members; for white text reversed out of blue in a Florida Gators-related infobox, please see Florida Gators men's basketball. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:::* Okay. So, {{Tl|CollegePrimaryHex}} is where your background colors for that template are stored by team name and {{Tl|CollegeSecondaryHex}} are where your font colors are per team name. All you need to do to change the text color for all {{Tl|Infobox college football player}} infoboxes is change the line {{Para|Florida Gators|FF4A00}} (from orange) in {{Tl|CollegeSecondaryHex}} to {{Para|Florida Gators|FFFFFF}} (for white). If you want to add more formatting like some of my above examples, I'll have to add optional parameters and whatnot to accommodate that. You can actually do the first one fairly easily yourself if you like, while the second one would take someone that actually understands CSS and templates to properly add the code. Let me know. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}} T13, are the team colors for this template independent of all other templates, or does it share a common color scheme with any others? Frietjes created a common color scheme for the navboxes used by the NFL and CFB WikiProjects, and I don't want to screw any of that up . . . . I know nothing about wiki-coding, and I avoid it like the plague. That's why I'm seeking you out for help. If you can execute the text color change without impacting other templates, do it and let's see how it looks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:Hey, we left this hanging on Friday -- can you execute the white reversed out of royal blue for articles about Florida Gators football players that utilize this particular infobox template? If so, I have a follow-up question/request about how we might utilize orange as a third highlight color. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

:* Yeah, sorry about that, had to go out of town for the weekend for my daughter's 3rd birthday party. All college sports use the same to color templates. If you want to change it for just one sport, then parameters will have to be added to the template to allow you to override the default color specified by the sub-templates. This is certainly doable. I'd be happy to whip this up in the template sandbox, but would like to hear your idea about orange as a third color so I can do it all in one shot. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

::*Follow-up: please execute the color change for this one template. Most other templates have a built-in option where white can be used for the text color. Also can you list the templates that are impacted by the uniform Florida Gators color scheme?

::** It's gooing to take me a little time and mental capacity to remember exactly what I needed to do for this, but will try to remember it in the next few days, feel free to poke me again on it if I seem to have forgotten or am taking too long. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

::*New request: Can you figure out how to replace "gold," "silver" and "bronze" with "first," "second" and "third" in the results tables for 2008 United States Olympic Trials (swimming)? Medals are not awarded at the Olympic Trials. Before implementing, please determine if any other uses are impacted -- such as actual Olympic Games results where medals are awarded. Thanks, T13. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

::** {{Done}}. I added a parameter ({{Param|ordinal}}) to the template that makes the table headers for such tables so that when {{Para|ordinal|yes}} it changes from the metal awards to an ordinal type. Are there are types or color schemes you'd like added? If so, maybe I should change the parameter name to "award" or something else and make it a switch statement instead of the ifeq it currently is. Let me know. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

:::*Thanks, T13. That's why I asked you: hard for me, easy as Pi for you! As for header colors, I would stick with some lighter screen of neutral gray. Clearly, gold, silver and bronze colors are not appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

:::** Currently "metal" types are gold, silver, bronze, and "ordinal" types are blue, red, yellow. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

:::::*Yup. I saw that. I suggest we don't guild the lily. Let's stick withe standard wikitable gray screen for the headers. The Trials are qualifying races to see who makes the U.S. Olympic team; no medals, no ribbons. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

:::::::That's a misspelling of a misquotation... see wikt:gild the lily or q:List of misquotations#Unsourced, unverified, or other best guesses, and King John, Act IV, scene ii. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}} Hey, T13. I have another small coding problem. Please take a look at World record progression 4 × 100 metres freestyle relay: flag icons are improperly built into the template for the geographic locations of the swim meets. I would ask that you remove this built-in function, so that only the flag icons for the swimmers remain. Please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hey there {{U|Dirtlawyer1}}. Can you be more specific of what you want removed? It looks like all of the flags are added directly into the table on the page itself using the {{Tl|Flagicon}} template. I looked around, and it doesn't appear there are any alternate similar templates that only give a link with not flag (there are ones that give flags with no links), but they could probably just be replaced with regular links I would think if there is consensus to do away with those flags. Which column exactly did you have in mind for removing flags in which section(s)? I could do a mock up (and revert or in a sandbox) that would show the alternative for a discussion if helpful. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:*{{Ping|Technical 13}} Got this one handled already. I still need to deal with the college football player infobox discussed above. And if you have time over the weekend, I've got a couple other small coding issues with which I could use help. Got time over the next five days? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

What do you think of adding a few other rules to your CSS? http://dpaste.com/2HASHME Helder 21:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder {{U|He7d3r|Helder}}, I've just been really busy with schoolwork and getting caught up on assigments after being bedridden for the first three weeks of class with a 103°F temperature and haven't had time to applying your suggestion and interact with it. I haven't forgotten though. :) Happy wikiing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

:Ok :-) Helder 17:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

:* I've added all except the "border=" for now as it is technically still not "bad" to use persay and it is very difficult to replicate exactly with css. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Technical, I highly strongly suggest that you don't cite WP:CIR as a comment on other editors actions. It can be viewed as a personal attack. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I call em as I see em. Suggesting that someone read WP:CIR (or the never finished WP:C!R) is hardly a personal attack and after a few years here on Wikipedia, most should know I mean very little personally and take nothing as such. Happy editing. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 05:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The article alleges the subject has written two hit songs. Please send this to WP:AfD if you feel strongly about it. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi there Technical 13. I got the most of the data for pass rates etc from User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month. The data for attrition is mainly from User:WereSpielChequers/Admin_attrition. In my table where I couldn't get the attrition figure direct, I used:

Attrition (actual, not net) = '(No of active admins previous year' - 'No of active admins current year') + 'promotions current year'.

For an up to data count of current active admins I used List_of_administrators (2nd line at top.)

For my little prediction, I didn't use any defensive wording as I was only looking two months ahead. If you're going to look further ahead, please word it carefully otherwise there might be massive attacks if you predict anything too confidently. (Sorry if you don't need this advise, it's just I haven't seen you around much so Im not sure if you know how cynical some in the community can be.) Im not too good at visuals, but I know how important they can be to a strong case. So please if you create anything you thing will help, just add it direct to whatever part of the page you think is best. Thanks very much for the possible help! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|FeydHuxtable}}, I've created the first chart based on the data I have found so far... Still need to find a historic database of active users per month... It shows that based on the current decline of successful RfAs compared to total number of RfAs submitted, by the middle of 2018, RfAs will no longer result in successful new admins.

File:Percent of successful RfAs (projected through 2020).png

: There are a lot of other interesting trends that my spreadsheet shows, but I need more data and need to find a way to put the whole spreadsheet on wiki. Anyways... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

:::If one doesn't assume a straight line best fit, the data could also slow a decline from 2004 (70%) to 2010/2011 (40%), and stability thereafter. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:::* That line isn't a linear function, it is a logarithmic function that happens to show a straight line because that is what is reflected by the data. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 09:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

• {{U|FeydHuxtable}}, I'm still working on collecting more data. At this time, however, what I've collected so far for number of admins : active editors seems fairly balanced at the moment. It's a visual that might not support the goal, but I still have more data to collect, so I don't want to say for sure at this time... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

:: This is the only link Im aware of for [https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm active editors] . I think what you've done already is great, it's much easier to take in a good graph than raw numbers. But including the ones already on RfA talk, we have quite a good range of different graphs now you've added your projections. So it might not strengthen the case much to have more. Just saying as it would be a lot of data to crunch. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

::* I just created an image of what I have for data so far. I've gotten most of it from WP: pages or stats.wikimedia.org. I've color coded it all with a 3-tone scale except for the last column which is percent of active editors that are administrators. Some of my data isn't lining up properly and I have some gaps in data I need to research and fix. I'm guessing that a 10% of active editors being administrators is about what the proportion should be, although I'm sure that there are many that would disagree with me and without some kind of community consensus on what the target % should be, I had to go with my gut. That said, the last column is a three color scale with the upper and lower limits both being red as you get further from the target 10%. The part I know you've been waiting for:

File:RfA data table.png

:: Anyways, I'll update that table as I gather more data and figure out which data set is correct in all the places I have conflicts (most conflicts are marked with little red triangles in the cell corner where I have comments). Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

::: N is certainly an interesting stat. Myself and WSC think every cluefull longterm editor should have the chance to be an admin if they want to, but you're right most would probably prefer something closer to 10%. Can't believe how fast you've built all this up. Happy editing to you too. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

::I notice this seems to show stable % since 2006. The problem is then the overall decline in new editors, which is then reflected by the editors active as admins -- and in every area. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am really sorry for disrupting you on an unnecessary topic, but this aspect concerns me strongly.

A great majority of the references I link to the page List of tallest buildings in Cyprus, which, as I have checked many times, meet all criteria on reliability, get deleted. I will be really thankful if you could explain why.

Regards

Oldstone_James

• {{U|Oldstone James|OJ}}, I'd be happy to explain. Sources for articles need to be INDEPENDENT, RELIABLE, SOURCES that are VERIFIABLE and not PRIMARY, OR, or CIRCULAR and follow the GOLDENRULE. (Each one of those blue links is a different page that explains what proper sources need to be. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  
• Thank you for explaining the general requirements for a source to be published in Wikipedia articles, though I still don't understand why particular references such as [http://www.cybarco.com/news/the-oval-launch this], [http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/Article/114/language/en-US/view.aspx this], and [http://skyscrapercenter.com/building/leventis-art-gallery/17992 this] get deleted. Those three references are INDEPENDENT, RELIABLE, SOURCES, that are VERIFIABLE and neither PRIMARY nor CIRCULAR or OR, and all follow the GOLDENRULE. Could you please explain what criteria they don't follow, so that next time I list the references, I will be aware of what sources I must not publish? - Oldstone_James
• Sure, I have a moment to explain...
• # http://www.cybarco.com/news/the-oval-launch is a PRIMARY source for "The Oval" because it is from the company itself.
• # http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/Article/114/language/en-US/view.aspx just shows a greyed out screen with an X for an advertisement (that doesn't show). When that X is clicked, it leaves me with http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/language/en-US/Default.aspx which tells me nothing about any of the buildings.
• # http://skyscrapercenter.com/building/leventis-art-gallery/17992 has never been deleted by me but only offers inclusion for one building. That said, you can't have a list of tall buildings with only one building.
• : I hope this help explain why these URLs are being removed. Happy editing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you very much for explaining everything in detail and for the time, though it's a shame one of the links doesn't work for you. Still thank you!

By the way, why do you delete items in the list that don't have references? There are several (actually more than just that) articles that don't have references at all, one of them being List of tallest buildings in Norway (two of the three references tell us nothing about the buildings and the other one cannot be opened due to a '500 Feil ved nedlasting av fil' error. Also, in the sentence above ,'http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/Article/114/language/en-US/view.aspx just shows a greyed out screen with an X for an advertisement (that doesn't show). When that X is clicked, it leaves me with http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/language/en-US/Default.aspx which tells me nothing about any of the buildings', you have just stated that the link http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/Article/114/language/en-US/view.aspx doesn't open for YOU, and not for other users (like me).

Another area which is unclear to me is the deletion of the source http://www.cybarco.com/news/the-oval-launch. Even though Cybarco is a company, the NEWS section on the website allows to only publish news, which doesn't just make it more reliable, but it makes it a secondary source. Also, even if I am wrong, the page that describes Primary and Secondary sources provides us with information that a secondary source may be a 'drawn on' primary source. This means that, as I understand it (please correct me if I have interpreted it incorrectly), two pages may be combined to form a secondary source. In our case, the two pages are http://www.cybarco.com/news/the-oval-launch and http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/Article/114/language/en-US/view.aspx, which can ideally form a reliable secondary source.

There also is one more topic that seems unclear to me: 'Upon doing some research, in order for an item to be in a list, it needs to have its own page on Wikipedia'. Most, if not all, articles on Wikipedia categorized as lists, such as List of tallest buildings in Panama City, List of tallest buildings in Finland, and many others, have half (or more) of their list items unlinked to any Wikipedia pages. However, in the article List of tallest buildings in Cyprus,(which I am sure is just one of a kind), whenever a list item without a Wikipedia link to it is spotted, it gets deleted. Is there any explanation for it (sorry for the excessive curiosity)?

• TL;DR but I'm guessing you are in need of some help understanding the purpose of lists. You may also be interested to read Source list, STANDALONE, and NOTDIR. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Someone had to do it... lol While I was at it, I also fixed half the preload system that was missing and brought everything I could find up to HTML5 standards. :) Thanks for your unofficial support here. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It is simple ;) - don't read too much, our time is precious. You have a nice substantial infobox, mine is simpler, - nice to meet you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

: Thank you for sleeping over ;) - Do you watch the pages of other arbs also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:* I haven't typically, although I was planning on adding all the Q&A pages for the other candidates (when there are some other candidates) to my watchlist to see what I can learn from others thoughts and ideas. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::: I like kafkaesque, so I enjoy the combination of "happy editing" and my present work Klag-Lied. If you follow the link above you see that our day of national remembrance is 16 November this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi Technical 13, I hope you don't mind me pointing out a discrepancy. In your arb com election nomination, you stated that you are father of three children. But in your userpage you have listed three daughters and one son.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Vigyani}}, I can certainly see how that would be confusing. I have a cat, my userpage is a more casual environment than a candidate's statement page for ArbCom, and I love my cat like a daughter, so I counted her as a daughter at the time. I've {{Diff|User:Technical 13|633681969|633483582|adjusted}} the count on my userpage to be clear. Of my other children, My son is 17, my older daughter is 16, and my youngest just turned 3. I believe you can see images of my children (and my cat) on my FaceBook page if you so desired. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

:* Thanks :). Yeah I navigated to your facebook page and saw the photos. :) . Good luck with the ArbCom election. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

Messing with somebody else's signature on purpose is not okay, ever, under any circumstances. Next time please let the editor who made the error fix it himself. I wanted to hear an explanation from Kudpung, not from you. I understand that ArbCom elections can cause editors to get a little weird. Please try to be more restrained. This will serve you well during the election season. Jehochman ^Talk 09:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Technical13, just because you're unlikely to get feedback from others on something this unimportant, thought I'd say that you're 100% right about this, and Jehochman is 100% wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Floquenbeam, do you really know another editors intentions with such 100% certainty? What I know is that another editor replaced my username in my signature with a snark to make a point. It's up to that editor to excuse himself and say if it was a mistake or not. Until then, I am going on appearances. Why don't you go say something to him since you seem to want to help. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

::I'm talking to Technical13, not you. If you want to talk to me, I have a talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Floquenbeam, you're talking about me, so I am going to answer you here. If you don't want to hear from me, don't talk about me, and don't jump into a conversation that I've started. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Oh, fine, hopefully T13 doesn't mind me hijacking his talk page too much. Don't lecture me about not knowing 100% what another editor was thinking, and then tell me you did what you did because you know what they were thinking. It's hypocritical. Or at least if you're going to do that, try to be right about it. {{ping|Kudpung}} and I disagree about a lot of things, but I am confident he/she is not vandalizing your signature, I'm sure the cursor went somewhere they didn't mean it to. That happens to people all the time. You embarrass yourself assuming they did it on purpose, are violating a policy you appear to hold dear when it is applied to other editors, and needlessly escalating it into a whole thing, to the detriment of everyone involved. T13 tried to handle this with a minimum of fuss, which should be encouraged, not whined about. You are in the wrong here, and owe T13 and Kudpung an apology. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• {{Ec|2}} Hey guys! Thanks for stopping by!
• : {{U|Jehochman}}, disrupting a discussion over something that was almost certainly an unfortunate chain of events that resulted in one of the links to your userspace being broken was simply unacceptable to me. I understand you wanted to hear an explanation from {{U|Kudpung}} saying what happened, assuming he knows how it happened, but a more appropriate course of action would have been to fix the link to your user page and start a new section on his talk page asking him. It certainly wouldn't have been appropriate for him to give you an explanation in an edit summary which extremely limits the number of characters allowed and doesn't allow for pinging.
• : {{U|Floquenbeam}}, thank you very much for stopping by, and I appreciate your comments here. I don't see it as a "who's right or wrong" but more of a "what's done is done, how can we move forward in a productive manner".
• : Anyways, I think that this topic on this talk page has reached a point where it is concluded (as I have no interest in pursuing it any further) and I would suggest that follow up discussions take place on whomsoever's talk page is appropriate. Thank you and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• :: Thank you, Technical 13. Of course I will honor your request. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

hi I noticed you once answered at the Village Pump, ( but recently, last 4 days, I haven't gotten anywhere there) , the "revision history statistics " link is down,its at "External tools" in page histories at the English Wikipedia for users with en or en-gb as language. It's made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Histlegend and goes to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec/.. I would fix or help fix it , I need it to see how the page edits and bytes added are going on the article I work on thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{user|Ozzie10aaaa}} is referring to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#revision history statistics; answers have been posted there and in the following section, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#So.... --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Punjabi language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see {{section link|Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Suggestions for responding}}. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

Hello! Technical 13, earlier, at my very early age in wikipedia, someone has created a multipla sandbox header for my en.wikipedia. Latterly I get understand that, it was you. Obliged. Hence, in recent days, I am feeling necessity of such a multiple header sandbox once again but not for en.wikipedia but bn.wikipedia. Please, this time let me understand how to create such a multiple header sandbox. My user page in Bengali is: https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%80:Sufidisciple. May I... Sufidisciple (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Hst|reason=DENYing comment from IP SOCK of {{Noping|Allen2}}.}}

Technical 13, this is Allen!

You have to believe me because I'm dangerously angry on Wikipedia right now! I will be happy again and be your friend if you email me at this date: 23:59:59, January 23rd, 2015! And also this is my last edit that I have to address you, then I will not make any more replies or edits if you just reply to this message what I said! You clear?!

If I were unblocked, then I give an alicorn barnstar to Jonny Manz and Lucas Thoms for such a good editor! —50.171.50.81 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Hsb}}

{{Clear}}

Image:Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at :2015 Formula One season, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you did this out of bad faith. You probably removed Readrose's comment by accident. Just be careful when an edit conflict arises that you haven't removed another editor(or administrator in this case)'s comment. The best solution if you are faced with a series of edit conflicts is not to save your contributions, but to leave the editing window entirely and start all over again. You can easily copy your entire contribution before leaving and the paste it back in your new attempt. Regards, Tvx1 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's a matter of balance {{U|Tvx1}}. Like I said, I was in the process of restoring any lost comments caused by the technical glitch. I'm not sure who told you it is always better to abandon your changes and start over, but that is simply not the case. In a case such as this one, where my change was a multiple line change that was over 12K bytes in size, it was certainly not better to abandon it and start over to protect a couple one line comments or typo fixes that were less than 800 bytes. As long as the end result is that no comments are lost, then it doesn't matter how that goal is achieved. The best thing to do, when you see something like that happen is to give the editor who's edit caused the issue a reasonable amount of time to correct the issue, especially when they acknowledge they expect there to be an issue based on past experiences and/or the sequence of events. I generally, as a rule of thumb, give other editors 10 minutes for a single {{Ec}} issue and five minutes for each additional {{Ec}}. In this case, {{Ec|5}} would have been 30 minutes (10+5+5+5+5=30). Anyways, what is done is done. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::I don't know what your problem is with my edit on my own talk page. I just made it readable for myself. With a part of it in italics, following another part without a break it's just a mess. And regarding the edit conflicts, I found out through trial and error what is the most efficient way of dealing with a series of edit-conflicts without making a mess of it. Tvx1 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::* The only problem I had with your edit on your OWN talk page was that it broke the formatting and made my signature italic (and left an open {{Tag|i|open}} tag, which would have caused ALL subsequent posts to be entirely italicized). As for dealing with edit conflicts, everyone has the right to deal with them in their own way as long as it is not unreasonably disruptive. Making the edit through the conflict and going back to the diff of the edit to fix whatever was accidentally changed is my method when I've added multiple kilobytes to a discussion and those kilobytes take up many lines since there is no way to simply copy those lines to my clipboard and re-add them at the end. Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

::{{tps|b}} I believe I would have to ditto that. :>) – Paine  21:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the [https://archive.org/web/ Wayback Machine] is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Fuhghettaboutit}}, I really wish you would have gotten a hold of me before sending out this mass message. I actually have a userscript (User:Technical 13/Scripts/CVD.js) that is extremely useful in making it easy to detect copyvios. I've asked multiple times for suggestions for improvement, and have gotten little back. At this point, I'm guessing the best thing to do to get the word out is to send out a follow-up MMs before too long so letting people know about the script and how to set it up and use it, and then see if any replies come in. I've got some more features I want to add and then we can work-up a new MMs newsletter together. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::OK, I';ve looked at your script, and judging by the code, it suffers from the same basic problems as all other scripts: one on hand, it can only detect what is open to search engines on the internet, which is a very limited set of the material that might be copied. On the other, it doesn't seem to distinguish copying of fragments or invariable material, and I don't think it catches reverse copyvio. I have yet to test it: it makes use of other good scripts, so it might have the benefits of all of them and do better than any of the other ones devised so far; if it's substantially better or even easier or faster , we might want to use it. But the real point is that all script based searches are intrinsically limited. They're just dumb regular expressions at heart, not actual self-learning AI. We need them, but they're just tools to gather partial data conveniently, not by themselves a remedy or a decision mechanism. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::* {{U|DGG}}, you've kind of lost me with this comment. All the script was intended to do was to scan the article for URLs used as references and then open new tabs in {{Noping|The Earwig}}'s Copyvios FAQ and {{Noping|Dcoetzee}}'s Duplication detector. It has no real AI of it's own. Since CopyVios now does it's own scan of the article for URLs (took over a year to get that feature added), it now only opens one tab using that tool and, if toggled on, all of the dupdet tabs. If nothing else, it is still a useful sidebar link to access the toollab tools. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 05:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::That's what I thought you were doing, and, as I just said a better interface would be a good thing; it would be nice to have one combined place to look. But I also thought you were gettting more ambitious and stretching the limits of what can be expected fro m these tools . I'm glad we understand things the same way. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::* My next planned step, {{U|DGG}}, is to make use of the toollabs:copyvios/api.json to add an idea of what that tool thinks is the likelyhood of the article being a CV. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 09:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Great--I was planning to X-check against our actions, and see if wide discrepancies were possibly a mistake. Tho I do not think a number is necessarily useful in judging submission, it will be interesting to see if it might be. I'd be very willing to help by running checks against a sample of deleted items, tho of course there are non-WP dbs where they can be found by anyone. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Thanks for swinging by my talk page! I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Genealogy. I am curious, have you seen [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_genealogy_project tho discussion]? You might consider sharing your thought and/or encouraging other members of WP Genealogy to give feedback. The more people participate in the conversation, the better. Thanks for your consideration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Another Believer|AB}}, thanks for stopping by and notifying me of that discussion. Has anyone in the project considered sending out a mass message to the members of the project to improve the level of discussion? Before that is done though, I will say that visiting the page and reading the sections above the support/oppose/neutral sections, I have no clue what is being proposed or asked for. While those members of the project that may have contributed to the previous discussions on the topic may know exactly what is going on, this is the first real discussion I've ever seen the project have. Perhaps the "proposal" / "problem statement" should be expanded to give some more details of exactly what the problem, history, and desired outcome(s) are? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't believe mass messages have been sent out, though I do vaguely recall posting a notification on the WP Genealogy talk page. The Meta-Wiki page I linked above really just [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_genealogy_project&oldid=7650193 began] as a place to centralize discussion related to a potential Wikimedia genealogy project. Discussions have taken place before, but stalled. This was an opportunity to discuss options, voice support or concerns, etc. There is more on the talk page. If you can think of ways to frame the discussion better, either on the project page itself or its talk page, please feel free to make improvements or galvanize brainstorming. Thus far, there are not specific proposals, but more votes on the concept. The talk page is where people are starting to go further into detail. It would also be nice to get people from existing genealogy projects to join the discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hiya Technical13, Hope you're fine and well :),

I wanted to come here as I know it may seem disheartening you changing all the HTML to HTML5 and then I revert it - I 100% appreciate your efforts and it's very very much appreciated but I hate people changing everything of mine (it's just the way I am), I know all the CSS/HTML 5 it's just real life as well as laziness that's stopped me from updating it

Don't worry I will change everything this year that's most definitely a promise but just didn't want you to be disheartened or upset that's all :),

Have a nice day and again thanks for your hardwork with updating everything to HTML5 - This entire project would be screwed without your knowledge! :),

Anyway thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Davey2010|Davey}}, no worries. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

File:Bunny in zoo.jpg

A nice bunny being given to you, and maybe not for the first or last time. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Talkback|Gene93k|del-sort|ts=18:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)}}

{{Clear}}

File:Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading :File:Spaceship One in flight 1.jpg, which you've attributed to Scaled Composites. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{tl|OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{tl|non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=upload&user=Technical_13}} your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hello. As previously requested, please do not close protected or template-protected edit requests. You may comment on the request, but do not mark it as answered. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:Hello {{U|MSGJ|Martin}}, as I responded, there is no policy, guideline, or topic ban that forbids me from doing so. To embellish on that, point number 20px on ANRFC reads {{Xt|Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.}}. If you disagree with this, feel free to open a discussion at the appropriate venue and gain a consensus against (non-admin closure)s. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::I'm sorry you don't understand why this is inappropriate. Let me give you an example to try and explain again. In the past I've seen you post comments on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor about whether you feel an editor meets the guidelines for this user right. This is fine, and your input is often valuable. However you have never, as far as I am aware, marked a request as {{done}} (because you lack the technical right to implement this) or {{notdone}} (because you recognise that this is inappropriate for a non-admin). The situation is analogous here. While there may or may not be an explicit rule forbidding this, I nonetheless submit that it is common sense. As you are not able to make the changes requested, the only outcome you are technical able to perform is to decline the edit. The effect of this is likely to be a bias you towards declining requests. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::: That is a really poor example. Although I didn't mark the requests with the template (for various reasons like I didn't know at the time that it was required to use a template and which templates should be used. I have marked requests on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor as not done, see: {{Diff|Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor|580017017|580008825|User:Smuconlaw}}, {{Diff|Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor|591271985|591251307|User:Imzogelmo}}, and {{Diff|Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor|595742618|595735554|User:Oashi}}. Anyways, you're still going to need a community consensus to do away with NACs. I'm no more disposed towards decline than any other editor, including administrators. If I find that a request is appropriate, I either leave it alone if it is clear enough, I attempt to clarify the request to make sure it is clear to whomever comes around that can carry it out, or I ping someone I know can carry it out that has been active recently if it has been sitting for some time in the queue. I do appreciate your concern. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::::On those requests you have made useful and insightful comments, but you have not attempted to formally close them off, which is the point I am making. I will take this to another venue (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) if you persist in making these closures, but I thought I would make a few more comments which may or may not change your mind:

::::*Although there may not be an explicit rule against what you are doing, there are various passages in various pages which show that it is not common or expected practice. For example, Wikipedia:Edit requests contains "Administrators routinely check this category for protected edit requests to process." :Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests contains the sentence "Protected pages can only be edited by administrators, some of whom monitor this category and respond to requests."

::::*I think you would meet a backlash if you started closing requests on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or :Category:Requests for unblock. Protected edit requests are of the same nature as these boards - editors are making a request to an administrator, and are expecting it to be answered by an administrator.

::::*One of the reasons your template editor right was revoked, was due to concerns about your ability to judge consensus and act neutrally.

::::In conclusion I would reiterate that you are welcome to continue patrolling :Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests and :Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests and making helpful comments. It's just formally marking them as answered that is problematic. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

::::* {{U|MSGJ|Martin}}, please, feel free to start a discussion on WP:AN/I as you see fit, but I still don't understand why you seem to have a problem with me closing requests like {{Diff|Wikipedia_talk:Introduction/Tab3|636467987|636462281|this one}}. I only close requests that are clear cut cases of nothing can happen (without more discussion, which may (not) be due to the fact that I object to the request) either because it is a blank request, on the wrong page, would be highly controversial, or lacks one of the other requirements of WP:PER. Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Most appreciated! It definitely lets me do a first pass quickly, although I still am going to find it necessary to try Google myself, of the first couple I found, it missed a pretty easy one at Draft:Jillana. Still, a big help, most appreciated. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I don't quite see the consensus for keep on this one. Perhaps it's inevitable(?) but the last few !votes had no argumentative strength. I thought it needed more time, which is why I said what I did a few hours ago. Eh? czar ⨹ 04:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Czar}}, I see only two deletes (and one was proposer) and five keeps. The delete !votes lack the weight required to say delete and the keep !votes have the required weight in the reasons to say keep as opposed to no consensus to me. My first thought was to actually relist the discussion, but I reread all of the comments and saw there was consensus to keep. You are more than welcome to renominate it (if it's going to be part of a batch, it should all be in one nomination) or take it to DRV and I'd be happy recuse myself and let process take its course. :) Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

:: We (say that we) don't count !votes, so I'm not sure the number matters—those last several keep !votes "per GNG" should mean close to nothing towards consensus, especially as no one endeavored to say how it met the GNG and with what sources. If it does revert to numbers, I didn't vote but would think that casting doubt on the soundness of the last few would be enough to at least relist until my questions were answered. Anyway, something to keep in mind—not planning to take it to delrev or anything czar ⨹ 04:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

::* It's not about the number of !votes, it's about the lack of weighted arguments from those suggesting deletion resulting in no consensus and the little bit of argument from those suggesting keeping swaying it from NC to K. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

That's a very nifty template you have made there! Very nice. All the best, w.carter-Talk 15:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi, when closing threads at WP:AN/RFC, why are you using italicised boldface? It's not a one-off: all of {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure|636332556|636314604|these closes}} exhibit the problem. It's also been going on for some time - such as {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure|prev|635603496|this edit}} from 27 Nov. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I italicize the verbatim close I used in the actual discussion. I'm technically quoting myself, and find it appropriate to italicize that. The bolding is as-is from the actual close that shows the consensus (or lack thereof) without my additional notes and comments. Was there a discussion somewhere that I missed that shows a preferred formatting for this? If so, I'd be happy to read it over and adjust appropriately. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

::When I look at requests that were closed by somebody else, e.g. those at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 15, I don't see anybody else using italics and bold to that extent. In most cases, the only bolding is to the word "Closed", and there is no italicisation at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

::* I don't see any of those that quote what was in the close on the discussion either, heck, most are just the close template and sometimes a request for an admin to finish the action if needed. Those kinds of comments that aren't quoted from the close aren't italicized or bold from me either (example of a close where there are non-bold/italic comments for things not quoted from closure, and another where there is a comment I put in the bullet above move close that wasn't quoting the close). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Thanks for your help at the Village Pump and I wanted to let you know I've updated my signature and my common.js per your suggestions. Cheers, Contact Basemetal here 20:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

You may want to update the documentation at User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver at some point, to include new features and any changes you made that might affect use. equazcion → 21:53, 3 Dec 2014 (UTC)

: +1 : Wbm1058 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi, You recently added (automatized, I guess) a Royal Society for Chemistry navbox to a bunch of articles;. Two remarks on that: 1/ The box was also added to redirects, which cannot have been your intention. 2/ When adding a huge navbox like this to articles that mostly are only stubs, adding "state=collapsed" is hugely preferable. Perhaps these things can be corrected? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hello {{U|Randykitty}}! Thanks for stopping by and asking! It was a set of semi-automated tasks I did with AWB per Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks/Archive 7#Royal Society of Chemistry navbox.
• # When I hit the first redirect page, I thought about it, and since redirect pages are intended to be nothing more than navigational tools to help readers get from one topic to another, navboxes are intended to be a navigational tool to help readers get from one topic to a related one, and since Phabricator:T53791 (Parse redirect pages before sending to target to allow target to be chosen with parser functions) was completed, I see no harm in putting these navboxs on the bottom of redirect pages. I would love to see a discussion on it somewhere, maybe on Template talk:Navbox or WT:Redirect or even WP:VPP with appropriate links from the others to the discussion?
• # Navboxes are suppose to be autocollapse, which means they collapse unless they are the only navbox on the page; please see Template talk:Navbox#"Autocollapse" state is not pretty good for a recent discussion about this which says that navboxes should not be set to {{Para|state|collapsed}} by default unless there is consensus on the navbox template's talk page, so if you wish to change the behavior of that navbox you will need to discuss it on the talk page of the navbox template talk page or each article that it is a specific problem. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

::ad 1/ Nobody is ever going to see them, because any link to such a redirect (or even a direct search for the name of that redirect) will get you... redirected. It's just unnecessary bandwidth clutter.

::ad 2/ That's a rather rudimentary discussion and it does not take into account the size of the uncollapsed navbox relative to the size of the article. On some of the articles where you added this navbox, it's now half or more of the contents, which seems a bit excessive to say the least. Common sense should apply, I think.

:::Anyway, I don't care enough to make a hassle out of this. If I edit an article with such a navbox, I'll change it to collapsed and if I don't have any reason to edit it, then it'll stay. --Randykitty (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I have moved your question from Cobi's talk page to User talk:ClueBot Commons. Cobi's talk page isn't used for the bots unless it's an emergency, besides Cobi hasn't been active for a couple of weeks so you will probably get a quicker response on ClueBot Common's talk page :)--5 albert square (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|5 albert square}}, I consider an archiving bot that is archiving section it is not suppose to archive as an emergency. That's why I put it on {{U|Cobi}}'s talk page. I saw that you moved the post, but since he should get notifications and see it was posted on his talk page, shouldn't be too much of an issue. Thanks for stopping by and notifying me though, I do appreciate the extra little effort you put in to it. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hello, Technical 13. I am Nahnah4, you can call me Dew Adrenaline. I noticed that you reverted my edit at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing, with the edit summary stating that "it should be moved to Host breakroom". However, the Host breakroom is no longer in use. {{U|NickGibson3900}} left abruptly but undisputed, and moving it to the breakroom won't do any good either. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 07:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Due to the congestion on the host landing page, I requested the operator of {{U|HostBot}} restart that task to bring it up to date nearly a week ago now. There is really no reason to remove anyone from the page until the host landing is going again... It was only shut down due to issues with the bot, which I have a little more knowledge about the coding language used for the bot and hope to be able to make any necessary pull requests to get it fixed and active again. Thanks for stopping by though! Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Hst|reason=Agreed, this is done.}}

{{Archive top|status=resolved|result=Agreed, this is done. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)}}

Hello. I was curious how you choose people to notify about the section at AN about HW. He claimed it was canvasing of those he's had conflict with in the past. I assume that wasn't the criteria. Could you explain what was? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Since I've already explained it twice, {{U|Hobit}}, and it is apparent that people aren't understanding my explanation, let me try a different way and see if it makes any more sense.
• # {{Diff|User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|372392792|372320109|RHaworth}} for {{GENDER:RHaworth|his|her|his or her}} request of HW to archive on July 8, 2010
• # {{Diff|User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|381781271|381780793|The-Pope}} for {{GENDER:The-Pope|his|her|his or her}} request of HW to archive on August 29, 2010
• # {{Diff|User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|394623741|394460131|Lerdthenerd}} for {{GENDER:Lerdthenerd|his|her|his or her}} request of HW to archive on November 3, 2010
• # {{Diff|User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|416123109|416110691|82.41.20.82}} for {{GENDER:82.41.20.82|his|her|his or her}} request of HW to archive on February 26, 2011
• # {{Diff|User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|480622590|475740521|George Ho}} for {{GENDER:George Ho|his|her|his or her}} request of HW to archive on March 7, 2012
• # {{Diff|User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|533312923|532702329|Hahc21}} for {{GENDER:Hahc21|his|her|his or her}} request of HW to archive on January 15, 2013
• # {{Diff|User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|533642591|533641262|Status}} for {{GENDER:Status|his|her|his or her}} request of HW to archive on January 17, 2013
• # Hullaballoo Wolfowitz because it was {{GENDER:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|his|her|his or her}} talk page that was a matter of discussion.

: That was the sole basis for me sending out the notifications that I sent out on the matter. Happy editing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

::Which makes it inappropriate canvassing per WP:VOTESTACKING. NE Ent 20:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

::* {{U|NE Ent}}, I believe there is a policy that says that it is mandatory to notify all individuals involved in a dispute that is reported to any AN. This is what I did. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

::: Oh right, I found it... Right on the header for all AN boards where user issues are discussed:

::: Since I started a discussion that directly involved those editors, I was required to notify them. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

:::: By, WP:VOTESTACKING as explains: " selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion." It's also not clear to me where the dispute was before you opened the AN thread. The discussion was about HW -- that's who you had to notify. NE Ent 21:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

::::: This matter is for the moment resolved. I don't think it is necessary to dig into every participant and audit all of them. It is not a good use of time that could be better spent improving the encyclopedia. Perhaps we could sum this up to dispel any innocent misconception, "It's not necessary, and probably not a good idea, to notify every editor who authored each diff that you present as evidence. That could create a very non-representative pool of editors commenting on a thread, which would not produce a valid consensus." When I looked over the conversation I primarily looked at what the uninvolved said (e.g. Davey2010, FreeRangeFrog, Salvadrim!, Mendaliv, David Levy, Sam Walton) though I discounted Squinge because his statement was roundly refuted. GeorgeHo said, "Wolfowitz is always this way" which pretty quickly caused me to ignore the rest of what he said. RHayworth said, "This has gone on for too long" which also sounded conclusory and involved, not especially convincing. Lerdthenerd made a very nicely transparent statement, so I wasn't misled about his involvement. If all agree with my summation, perhaps we can move along to other matters. Jehochman ^Talk 21:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::* {{Ec}} That seems entirely reasonable {{U|Jehochman}}. Would it be unfairinappropriate for me to modify the red box on the header of the ANs as such:

:::::: If you think it's too wordy, I'm open to revision of it to prevent this from happening again. I simply misunderstood the wording, and I'm based on that I'll assume others have or could in the future as well. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

::::* {{Ec|2}} Then there is an assumption of bad faith that my reason for selecting them was because I {{Xt|thought [them] to have a predetermined point of view or opinion}} instead of my reasoning given above that they were selected simply as protocol for being an editor involved in the dispute that has been ongoing for years with no resolution. The dispute was in the page's edit history and the edit summary given. I'm unable to pull up his exact wording, but it was something to the nature of, "again, no; I'm never archiving my talk page", which indicated to me that I needed to start a discussion on AN to see if that was a user issue or an issue that I needed to take to another forum to see if I could find consensus to set some kind of limits or a requirement for user talk page archiving. The community (not just administrators for what it's worth as AN is not an "restricted to administrators only and the community at large is not welcome" noticeboard)decided it was reasonable to discuss it there and apparently it was a user issue. HW compounded that issue all on his own and if he hadn't tried to make a big deal out of it thinking he owned his talk page and just archived it in a manner which he wanted it archived it would have been done and over with. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::* I don't think you did anything wrong at all. (1) You don't need to notify every editor who's diff you present, unless you are complaining about that editor. (2) You are entitled to notify people that an issue they are concerned about is being discussed. If HW ignored requests from 8 people to archive his talk page, it's not unexpected that <=8 of those people might show up in the discussion. They should clearly identify their past interaction so that the reviewing admin can see who's "involved" and who's new to the situation. That said, Wikipedia process isn't always simple or clear and we definitely don't criticize editors merely for failing to understand all of our arcane procedures. Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'd not seen your previous answers (still haven't actually). Sorry that I missed them. I would say that you probably shouldn't have contacted them all. I realize it's a call between vote stacking issues and notifying all involved, but going back a year for everyone who raised the issue is a bit much and has a votestacking problem. Sounds like you did it in good faith, but I disagree with Jehochman that it's a good idea. Thanks for the explanation.Hobit (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

:: Hobit, you might have misread my two statements above or I might not have been clear. I don't think it's a good idea to notify every editor because it's just creating a lot of work, but I understand that somebody could read the AN/ANI edit message and get the idea that they should do exactly that. There is no issue of votes stacking if the prior involvement of those editors is disclosed so that the person closing the discussion can take that into account. What I don't want is somebody to get the impression that Technical13 did something wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, the real problem with the way you did it is that you ended up with a strongly opinionated group at AN that ended up moving far too quickly (there was no reason this couldn't have been discussed for a while) and ended in a block. The same thing might have happened had random passers-by been the only people involved. But as it is, it feels a lot like bullying. I realize that wasn't your intention, but it was the effect. And I'd argue it should have been foreseeable. We all make mistakes (this week I may be a world-record holder for that in fact), but I'm hopeful you understand how your actions had the same effect as canvassing and that created a bad situation. Hobit (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• In response to Jehochman, I agree it wasn't wrong. But I think it was poor judgement. As I wrote above (edit conflict) I think the outcome was suboptimal and reasonably foreseeable. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Definitely not. Technical13 is simply unfamiliar with our drama boards (unlike you, NE and I who are more experienced). He followed the instructions literally as computer tech folk like to do. Technical13 has done incredibly good work for Wikipedia. You should immediately stop busting his/her chops over this very minor issue. Jehochman ^Talk 02:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• OK, I'll go with "But I think it shows a lack of experience". I'd thought I'd seen T13 around AN/ANI a lot, but I'm fine with being mistaken about that. Just as long as T13 understands the issues now, I'm happy. And yes, I'm well aware how helpful T13 has been in the last year or so! Very grateful for that in fact. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• With another view, I am concerned that you chose to mark all your notifications as minor edits. This had the effect of making the canvassing - and yes I do consider it as such - far more stealthy then it should have been. Seeing the notification come up on watchlists would definately have increased independant participation in the discussion and reduced the likelihood of the frankly misjudged and poorly concieved block from happening. As such you do share responsibility for the near lynching that took place. I would urge you to stop marking notififcations as minor edits and would also suggest that you took a less defensive line when your actions are challenged. If you intend to participate in drama fests then you have to expect to be judged in the same way that you were seeking to have {{ping|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} judged. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Except that I didn't choose to mark all of the notifications as minor edits, Twinkle apparently does it that automatically. If you oppose such notifications being marked as minor using that tool, I suggest you head over to WT:Twinkle and raise the issue. Unfortunately, I was away most of the day while the near lynching was going on, but as soon as I noticed what was going on, I {{Diff|Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard|637789862|637786605|supported Floq's position}} saying {{Xt|that I'm with flow that if HW is willing to agree with, then any means to deescalate the situation is good}} because my intentions where in no way to have HW blocked over this issue. I do agree that the block wasn't entirely inappropriate because HW decided to be combative and caused that upon himself. The discussion on AN could have gone 24-36 hours before the forced archiving was done to make sure that HW had plenty of an opportunity to reply. All that said, what is done is done, and I've already sincerely apologized to HW for things getting way out of hand way too quick despite his inability to AGF and take my word at face value, which I'm not particularly surprised about nor am I offended by. I've posted my final comment on his talk page about the issues and have unwatched it, so I have no idea where it has gone from there. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Twinkle is configurable, see Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. NE Ent 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• There is no separation in the ability to mark a "please see" or a generic TB as minor from marking an "AN/ANI" as minor. I send way more of the other kinds of TBs so it isn't reasonable for me to mark no TBs as minor. Twinkle would need to offer the ability to change the setting for just those kinds of TBs. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• perhaps then you shouldn't be using twinkle to spam your canvassing. Your disregard for legitimate concern is really troubling. Stop looking for excuses and try to listen when people are offering helpful advice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• There was no spamming or canvasing. The only disregard for a legitimate concern that I see is yours for insisting on attacking a single editor for using a tool that is available for use by all autoconfirmed editors. I strongly advise taking your concern to the proper forum and requesting the proper fix, of which I will strongly support at that forum. As for suggesting a single user should be singled out for using a tool that is used by many, that just seems preposterous. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I recommend ending this discussion. Wikipedia is for writing articles. Whatever happened is done. Please let it be. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

{{Hsb}}

{{Clear}}

It displays the whole whole documentation part, see for example in the article Sweden. I don't know what's wrong but you have the last edit in it. --Pudeo' 19:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it seems to happen with all lang-templates. --Pudeo' 19:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Pudeo}}, I've reverted my changes on it and asked the editor who requested the changes to track down the issue and resolve it. If you can give me more details, I'll happily dig deeper. Links to 3 or 4 pages with the issue would be good. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• :It seems to have been resolved (checking the first sentence of Swedish language for example). But I think it was a metaissue with all lang-templates because it happened on other languages than Swedish when I checked it prior to messaging you. Someone probably fixed it then. --Pudeo' 19:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:::{{diff|Template:Lang-sv|prev|638387525|This edit}} by {{u|Salvidrim!}} broke it by removing the {{tag|noinclude|o}}; and {{diff|Template:Lang-sv|prev|638395331|this edit}} also by Salvidrim! fixed it by restoring the {{tag|noinclude|o}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

::::Aaaaand that's why, despite being admin, I generally try to avoid messing with template code. ^_^ ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

File:Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at :Stuart Rattle. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. An article accusing a living person of murder without valid references is a gross BLP violation. Nonspecific links to news sites are not valid references. Moving a gross BLP violation to draftspace is not an appropriate action. WP:BLP is quite clear: it applies to all namespaces: BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts. Your action plainly evidences your understanding of policy is gravely deficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• There are references there on the page, you are just choosing to ignore them. That is not an attack page, the citations are just not in-line. It is simply a formatting error. I'm not sure what reversion you have done, as I have not looked, but your insistence on charging at me like a flaming meteor is not acceptable. Please read CALM and come back here and discuss it, in the mean time, that page is not eligible for deletion and blanking it is against policy. You have three hours to reply, then I intend to request assistance from an administrator on the matter. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• T13, those sources were not adequate for the claims made in the article. They were only links to news websites, not to actual articles. If you want, I'll email you a copy of the deleted draft, and if better sources are found, it can easily be reinstated. meanwhile, I've a few minutes to look for some myself, I'll restore the draft if I find them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• {{Ec}} Oh good {{U|Floquenbeam}}, I'm glad you're here! I was actually working my way over to {{U|Jehochman}}'s talk page to ask for advice on what should be done to deal with {{U|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo}}'s disruptive battleground behavior on this topic. I still don't consider that an attack page, drafts at AfC have some leeway there. The closing reason for a blp that isn't properly sourced is worded as {{Xt|BLP contains unsourced, possibly defamatory claims (AGF and wait for sources)}}. AGF is especially true in cases where websites are listed as references but the exact page name of the supporting document is missing. Based on the AfC workflow, I'm requesting that you restore the draft and allow the page creator to supply the missing pieces. I'd be more than happy to tag it for deletion in seven days time if that does not happen and sources can not be found. That is only fair to the new editor trying to create the page. As for the other part of it, please see User talk:Dusti#Revert your NAC porn closures immediately.. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• well, it looks like one of you is following the other around (I got involved because this page is on my watchlist, and I saw "User:Technical 13", and "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" and "December 2014" on my watchlist and said to myself "uh-oh"). I'd wager that this going to end in wailing and gnashing of teeth on ANI or something, but I'm not going to get involved to figure out who's following who. But no, I can't imagine we have so much leeway at AFC that you can write an article accusing someone of murder with zero sources, and leave it laying around for 7 days. I'm afraid BLP doesn't work that way. WP:CSD#G10 specifically says it applies to all namespaces, including DRAFT:. Like I said, I'll provide the text by email to anyone who asks for it, but without a reliable source for these accusations, I won't restore it, not even to draft space. I don't know that I have time to look at Dusti's issue, but if I do I'll look tonight if someone else hasn't looked already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Feel free to email it to me then. I'll clean it up and restore the draft. edit: As for who's following who, I've been watching Dusti's page ever since I started on the ACC team and talked with him frequently on IRC (which I haven't really been on much until recently). I'll also point out that WP:CSD says that {{Xt|Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.}} and having multiple editors objecting to the deletion which has incomplete URLs to sources doesn't seem like it falls into the obvious case scenario. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Emailed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Links to 10 reliable sources have been added. Please merge the histories before I start working the references into the text to make them inline to meet the requirements for inline citations. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) ***There are no references on the page. There is a "References" heading, followed by four generic links to news sites. None of the linked pages mentions either the article subject or the living person the article accuses of murdering him. Without any genuine references, just clutter that amounts to no more than "go find out about it by reading newspapers", it's an obvious BLP violation, to which the policy direction for "immediate" removal applies. As Jimbo Wales himself commented, BLP violations should not be kept in hopes they might be fixable; zero information is preferred. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• {{ping|Floquenbeam}} I put the attack tag on there, but then did a quick google search and found that it's actually entirely accurate. I reverted myself and somehow {{ping|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} discovered the page (probably going through my contributions looking at NAC AFD's) and did what I did, thinking it was an attack page. At the time, I was on my cell phone and sent Technical 13 a Facebook message asking him if he could check out the NAC's that HW were disputing. I got an email that an edit was reverted by HW, and sent that to T13 thinking that would help him identify the NAC's that HW was disputing. What's now transpired are allegations of bad faith and me going "Woah!" and reverting the NAC's as politely demanded. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks for the background, Dusti. It may very well be true, but that kind of claim must have reliable sourcing. I've emailed it to T13 and if he can reference it, I won't dispute a sourced draft space article (I still have other issues with the page, but they aren't speedy-able). And if it turns out HW is following Dusti, that's a bad idea too. Nobody should be following anybody, IMHO. Not a policy violation, yet, but a bad idea likely to end in much unhappiness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I see you've restored this with references, so I've undeleted the version I previously deleted, to preserve the editing history. Also, for some reason you restored to article space and moved to draft, I assume that was a mistake? I've re-deleted the resulting redirect from Stuart Rattle to Draft:Stuart Rattle; we can't have those. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:*Hey Floq, would you mind taking a look at Jayden and Ms. Skye if you get two seconds? They're all unanimous supports, but disputed by HW for a NAC close. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:::(sorry, threading is getting a bit messy) Dusti, I don't really do AFD, and I don't really do porn, so it'll have to wait for someone else. If nothing else, it sounds like HW wanted to comment, so I wouldn't suggest anyone reclosing those in the next couple of hours, once the 7 day clock chimes. Just wait a little bit. No need to go in search of someone to close it, it will get handled in the fullness of time.

:::I'm reminded of a conversation I saw somewhere sometime (sorry, no more information than that) which says that doing things at AFD a little early seems like it's following NOTBURO and IAR, but really it often makes things worse because it so often causes a meta-discussion to break out about whether it was too early or not. I think the result of that discussion is that early closes of AFD's, even apparently non-contentious ones, even when it is't that early, should probably be avoided, and just wait for 7 days to pass. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:* {{U|Floquenbeam}}, it was and I was going to ask for an CSD:R3 on it, but got caught up in reading other responses to comments of mine in other discussions. Thank you. I would happily do it {{U|Dusti}}, as my comments on your talk page and via our discussions, however, I agree that someone else should do it (perhaps even ask for a neutral party who hasn't previous interacted with HW) to prevent any additional unneeded drama. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:::That's what I figured. I've asked about this at the help desk, but you're a technical sort, maybe you'll know. Is there a way for a non-bot person, with no AWB, who doesn't even know what API actually is, to find all article space pages that redirect to draft space? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:::* To answer your specific question, no. There is a way to do it with the API (I could write you a script, but not soon) or with AWB (which I could probably do now) and tag each one of them someway to make them easy for you to find. How would you want them tagged? Is there a CSD criterion for that? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

::::*Instead of tagging and making a batch of edits, maybe you could simply parse a list of them to some user subpage? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:::* {{U|Floquenbeam|Floq}},I see you found a tool for what you want Wikipedia:Help_desk#Redirects_from_main_space_to_draft_space. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

::::*Yes, I did. I left you a note here to that effect, but it isn't in the history; I may have previewed it without ever saving. Anyway, what it said was basically "thanks anyway, but I found a tool that does what I want". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi Technical 13. In reply to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FRequests_for_closure&diff=635325802&oldid=635325393 this edit summary], yes, that was an edit conflict. Sorry for accidentally removing your comment. Thank you for your carefully explained WP:ANRFC closes! Cunard (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Cunard}}, no problem, as many times as I've accidentally removed comments from others due to {{Ec}} notification failures (or even times when it works right but my edit is so comprehensive it is easier to just fix the other user's comment after the fact (which never happens of course except in theory)). I expect that I'll be closing a few more in the next few days as well. I actually quite enjoy reading all of the arguments back and forth and determining consensus, when consensus exists. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

:*That is great to hear! ANRFC could use many more thoughtful closers who are willing to explain their closes in detail. I've heard in the past that closing discussions was a thankless task ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cunard&oldid=634473928#Requests_for_closure link]), but I am glad to hear that you, like {{user|I JethroBT}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I_JethroBT&oldid=576947111#Roundup_closure here], find it fun and rewarding. On the few occasions that I've closed discussions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oathkeeper&oldid=633047806#RfC:_Is_Westeros.org_a_suitable_source_for_this_content.3F one example]), I've enjoyed doing them too. It is rewarding to help resolve disputes. Cunard (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

:** {{U|Cunard|C}}, is there a userscript available to make the technical component of closing these discussions easier? I know there are scripts for XfD discussions, and I'm wondering if you know if there is one available for this. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

:***I don't know of a userscript for closing these RfC discussion, sorry! Cunard (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I will consider it as soon as possible. Best regards.--Ma15pxGa 20:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{U|Dirtlawyer1}}, I am actually fairly busy until after Christmas. I'd be more than happy to help you out with some more stuff then. :) BTW, I decided to start a new section down here as the one up top was getting kind of long. Happy editing until then! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

:43px Thank you for your help with my signature and thank you for my Christmas greeting. It was welcome and muchly appreciated no matter how it was delivered. ツ All the best. Fylbecatulous talk 13:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

You created "mark for uncategorized" script on Commons earlier this year, but mediawiki continously said your script line 19 or so had problem, so I had to remove it from common.js. Can you fix it? — Revi 12:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, {{U|-revi}}, I was unaware there was an issue with the script. It's been awhile, can you refresh my memory on exactly what it was suppose to do? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

::Yeah, long time no see... :)

::The script was supposed to put {{code|{{Uncategorized}}}}. (Uncategorized template has year/month/day parameters, and js automatically filled it.) — Revi 15:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

::* {{U|-revi}}, I'm confused. I'm seeing no errors when I run it, and it seems to be working perfectly based on two quick test uses ({{Plain link|url=//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:EduWiki_2013_Day_2_%2837%29.jpg&diff=141884273&oldid=112115420|name=diff 1}} and {{Plain link|url=//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Berlin,_Schoeneberg,_Motzstrasse_22,_Mietshaus.jpg&diff=141884337&oldid=101251018|name=diff 2}}). What is your [http://whatismyuseragent.com useragent string]? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

:::: UserAgent I am now won't be that helpful; I'm phone now. Also, error messages were shown below the Search box (on Vector). I can provide you screenshot if you need. (PS. No further ping is needed, as I have watchlisted here.) — Revi 15:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

:::: script itself has no problem when running; problem is that bubble error box created below the box. — Revi 15:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

:::* The userAgent of which ever device returns the error would be useful :) Yes, a screenshot may be helpful, as I'm not able to reproduce the error in Firefox or Internet Explorer ({{Plain link|url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:People_tougher_than_Chuck_Norris.png&diff=141886313&oldid=115981073|name=Logged out using IE}}). Thanks. What do you mean "bubble"? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

::::: I only use {{s|Evil}} Google's Chrome :P I'll take a screenshot tomorrow. (Note that I couldn't take screenshot tomorrow; I have a exams until Friday. {{s|Yeah, I'm a WikiHolic!}} — Revi 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::* I couldn't get any errors or bubbles on Goggle Chrome from my laptop either ({{Plain link|url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:People_tougher_than_Chuck_Norris.png&diff=141888746&oldid=141888656|name=diff}}). Screenshot would be great. Thanks. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_genealogy_project this discussion]. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Moved|Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#NAC_Deletes}}

{{Clear}}

{{Hst}}

{{Archive top|status=closed|result=The reason I assessed the consensus that I did was simple. I've explained this in the body of this section, and since that doesn't seem acceptable to some who still don't understand my reasoning, I'm going to attempt to break the discussion into a simple list as I saw it.

{{Hst|reason=Break down of events as perceived by closer}}

1. {{Green|+1}} {{U|Darkness Shines}} proposed to merge
2. * Rape in Jammu and Kashmir → Rape in India
3. {{Green|+1}} {{U|OccultZone}} supported as redundant
4. {{Green|+1}} {{U|DBigXray}} supported
5. {{Red|-1}} {{U|Samee}} opposed
6. * {{Red|-1}} human right abuse != rape
7. {{Green|+1}} {{U|Dharmadhyaksha}} supported
8. {{Red|-1}} {{U|Mar4d}} opposed
9. * {{Red|-1}} {{Tq|subject is notable in its own right}}
10. * {{Orange|0}} {{Tq|if ... expanded ... breakaway}}
11. {{Orange|0}} {{U|Davidwr}} commented
12. * {{Green|+1}} {{Tq|de facto closed by the proposer ... turning this into a redirect}}
13. {{Red|-1}} {{U|Faizan}} opposed
14. {{Green|+1}} {{U|Jyoti}} supported
15. {{Red|-1}} {{U|Justice007}} opposed
16. {{Red|-1}} {{U|regentspark}} reluctantly opposed
17. * {{Green|+1}} changed proposal to instead merge
18. ** Rape in Jammu and Kashmir → Human rights abuses in Kashmir
19. {{Green|+1}} OccultZone supported
20. {{Green|+1}} Justice007 supported
21. {{Green|{{Abbr|+1|support above transfers down}}}} Dharmadhyaksha neutral
22. {{Orange|0}} Mar4d no consensus
23. {{Green|+1}} {{U|RaviC}} supported
24. {{Red|-1}} {{U|Wamiq}} opposed
25. {{Red|-1}} {{U|TopGun}} opposed

{{Hsb}}

Tally of arguments:

• To merge with something:
• {{Green|+9}} {{Red|-6}} = {{Green|+3}}
• to merge with Rape in India:
• {{Green|+6}} {{Red|-7}} = {{Red|-1}}
• to merge with Human rights abuses in Kashmir:
• {{Green|{{Abbr|+5|explicitly declared}} {{Abbr|+4|implied from above support}}}} {{Red|{{Abbr|-2|explicitly declared}} {{Abbr|-1|WP:SOCK struck}} {{Abbr|-4|implied from above oppose}}}} = {{Green|+2}}

If you don't agree with my assessment, please request a review at the proper forum, thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

}}

I wonder how you reached to a merge conclusion after so many 'oppose' arguments and editors? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARape_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir&diff=637648564&oldid=635617720] Also, NAC isn't usually for controversial discussions unless the consensus is WP:SNOW. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Its not a vote, so there being so many 'oppose' arguments/editors matters less since they all said roughly the same thing. My decision was based on the fact that the end of the discussion leaned towards merging with that article (instead of the originally proposed one) and I saw no arguments that outweighed the consensus for it to be merged. Thanks for stopping by though! You are welcome to request a review if you like. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

::I know it isn't a vote that's why I mentioned "arguments" and not just editors and it kind of appeared like a WP:SUPERVOTE so I just thought I'd ask you if there was something I was missing... I wasn't originally the part of the merge discussion, so I'll let the initial participants decide if they want a review. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

{{u|Technical 13}}, where the heck do you find consensus to merge Rape in Jammu and Kashmir to Human rights abuses in Kashmir

when the proposal on the table was a merge to Rape in India. Jammu and Kashmir is is a state in northern India. Perhaps it's reasonable to suggest merging an article about rape in a specific Indian state into a general article about rape in the entire country, particularly if this state is not more notable for rape incidents than any other Indian state. But you seem to have taken it upon yourself to supervote a proposal, which albeit limited in scope, did not seem to have a clear consensus, and further broaden the proposal by extending the merge to an article about Human rights abuses, not simply rape, in Kashmir, the northwestern region of South Asia that includes the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir (which consists of Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, and Ladakh), the Pakistan-administered autonomous territories of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit–Baltistan, and the Chinese-administered regions of Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract. Where is the basis for that in the discussion and in the WP:summary style guideline? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC) I note also that there is an article Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, so by merging to the Kashmir region you've completely bypassed that article about the Indian state. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

:{{yo|Wbm1058}} I have removed the header because it was providing special weight to your opinion. There is no way this article had to remain since it had some allegations and unfounded reports. Justice007, RegentsPark, Me, and few others had already agreed for a merge and provided a few valid reasons. Therefore the consensus was to merge it into Human rights in Jammu and Kashmir. Rape in India would hardly even recognize the unfounded reports. Article concerned Jammu and Kashmir not just Kashmir. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

::But his close said merge to Human rights abuses in Kashmir, not Human rights in Jammu and Kashmir. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

:::Cause Human rights in Jammu and Kashmir is a redirect to Human rights in Kashmir. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

::::{{no redirect|Human rights in Jammu and Kashmir}} is a redirect to Human rights abuses in Kashmir – what happened to Jammu? While there is an article about Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::Not enough material, that is why it is a redirect. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

{{Hsb}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

Re {{diff|Template:Bar percent|prev|638367077|this edit}} which was under discussion at Template talk:Bar percent#Template-protected edit request on 4 December 2014: please see WP:TOOLMISUSE, which applies to TEs as much as to admins. Your recent re-acquisition of the template-editor bit does not give you the right to drive a steamroller through contentious changes. Please restore the colour names that you altered today. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{Done|{{Diff|Template:Bar_percent|638403544|638367077|Done}}}} - {{U|Redrose64}}, that discussion died out over a week and a half ago and I didn't realize there was any contention about what format the colors are. Seems quite BIKESHEDish to me and I'm not going to argue with you over it. The only thing that I will say is that use hex triplets over named colors is a MOS:COMMONALITY issue and the more generalize term is the hex triplet. I would appreciate it if you could show me how using a named color in an ambiguous template, which is the less used format amongst web coding professions, is appropriate because the template has strong national ties to those named colors. I've reverted that part of the change and restored the named colors, and am awaiting your reply. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

::As I said at Template talk:Bar percent#Template-protected edit request on 4 December 2014, it's an unnecessary change. There are no browsers that do not support the colour value silver, and none that do not support gray (some do not support grey, but that spelling was not used here). If you're going to make changes for the sake of HTML 5 compliance, you need to be sure that any other changes made at the same time are not influenced by personal preference, since others may well prefer the version as it was. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:::I also personally prefer using hex colors rather than word-based, for the sake of standardization/consistency as well as flexibility, to make it non-language-dependent, and because, as you said, some word-based color codes (such as gray grey) are not supported across all browsers, while hex colors are. While status quo may hold some sway, I am unclear why one editor's personal preference for word-based colors should have priority over another editor's personal preference for hex-based colors, and I am not sure how much of it is personal preference, and how much of it is really just coding standards. But I agree with both of you that this is totally a "bike shed" issue. Maybe a broader discussion about standardizing to hex codes could be opened at WP:VPT at some point if necessary, since that seems to be the superior option. {{u|Redrose64}}, for my own enlightenment, what are the technical disadvantages of using hex-based color codes? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

::::It's grey, not gray, that is not fully supported. There is no technical reason not to use six-digit hex codes (three-digit hex codes like #F00 for red are a different matter, since they are not recognised by earlier versions of IE). The main problem with hex codes is that they are meaningless for the non-technical (what is the difference between #FF0000 and #FFFF00), whereas any English speaker with normal vision understands red, yellow etc.

::::What I'm getting at here is that any change to how a template works should be justifiable. Altering align=right to style="text-align:right;" is justified by "HTML5 A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML W3C Recommendation 28 October 2014" section [http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features 11.2 Non-conforming features], since recent new browsers written to interpret HTML5 strictly may ignore the align= attribute - several are known to ignore the bgcolor= attribute that is similarly shown as obsolete. Although the latter attribute is obsolete, there's nothing in that section concerning the way that a colour is specified; indeed an example halfway through section [http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/introduction.html#a-quick-introduction-to-html 1.9 A quick introduction to HTML] gives two colour values thus: background: navy; color: yellow;, so named colours are most emphatically valid HTML5. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::That's a legitimately good point: a word-based color code is easy to mentally associate with the end result, while a hex-based color code is a bit more abstract and not immediately obvious. However, my point of view is this: it is very reasonable to assume that, in the future, there may be a change to the colors chosen for this template (or another). It's also reasonable to assume that the person editing it will see the current "system" (hex or word), and is likely to follow the same scheme. If it is already hex, we know that whatever new colors are chosen will maintain the same level of total compatibility. If we instead use word, then the new colors may lower compatibility and cause issues because, as you said, not all word-based color codes are compatible with all browsers, and not all colors may correspond to a functioning color code. For that reason, I believe we must promote the use of hex-based color codes over word-based color codes whenever possible, across the entire project. It also provides a much higher level of flexibility and nuance in the actual choice of the colors we use. Of course, that's my opinion, but I'd be more than happy to take it to a broader discussion to see if the community reaches consensus and "formalize" what scheme we should use in templates, whether we should favor hex-based or word-based color codes (or status quo, for reasons similar to WP:RETAIN). I think {{u|Technical 13}} may be particularly interested in such a discussion if he intends to continue "updating" templates to use hex-based color codes over word-based color codes. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::* {{U|Salvidrim!}}, if you do end up starting a discussion on the topic, I'd think it might be worth mentioning that our editing tools such as Remember the dot/Syntax highlighter, wikEd, Extension:CodeEditor, and VE don't support named colors and I know that wikEd does support hex codes. VE-doesn't support colors at all, CodeEditor shows all named colors as green (kind of confusing when you type red and get green styled text) and all hex codes are blue, and highlighter doesn't do anything special with colors at all and treats them simply as parameters. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

:I notice that {{diff|User:Technical 13|638430600|633681969|your userpage}} implies that the TE bit was restored to you at 09:34, December 12, 2014. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ATechnical+13 The logs] do not bear this out: they say 14:34, 16 December 2014, which adjusting for EST gives 09:34, December 16, 2014 - four days later than your claim. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

:* Thanks for pointing that out {{U|Redrose64}}. I didn't reach far enough across my number pad when typing I suppose when I typed it. You say that my time there is EST, are they all EST or are some UTC? I'd actually prefer them to be all UTC, so I'll change them all today based on that info. Thanks again. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

:::In the Wikimedia databases, dates and times of edits and loggable actions are stored as Unix times, and converted to human-readable format when pages like your watchlist, your contribs, a page history or a page log are visited. The conversion on these pages is always adjusted for the time zone set at {{myprefs|Appearance|Time offset}}. By contrast, dates and times in the wikitext of pages - such as in user signatures - are always in the Wiki's default time zone (which for the English Wikipedia, Commons and Meta is UTC) and stored as plain text, with no time zone conversion. If you view the history of a discussion page (such as this one), and the times listed there are different from those in the page text, and the difference is always the same amount - such as five hours - that's a giveaway for your user pref time zone being different from the Wiki's default time zone.

:::I have deliberately set my time zone on all wikis to whichever option begins "Use wiki default" - on English Wikipedia and several others, that's "Use wiki default (UTC)"; on the French Wikipedia, it's "Use wiki default (Europe/Paris)", which is UTC+1; and so on. This means that for me, the times in text always correspond to the times in page histories, but does mean that I occasionally need to do a mental calculation when I read a recently-posted reply and think "What? That's half an hour in the future". What I suggest is that you set your time zone to "Use wiki default (UTC)", check your user rights log and amend your user page where necessary, and then you can either leave your time zone as UTC, or set it back to "America/New York" or whatever you prefer. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

:::* I could do that (and it would probably be easier), but I was just going to get the info from Special:ApiSandbox using {{Plain link|url=//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ApiSandbox#action=query&list=logevents&format=json&leprop=timestamp{{!}}details&letype=rights&letitle=User%3ATechnical%2013&rawcontinue={{!}}details&letype=rights&letitle=User%3ATechnical%2013&rawcontinue=|name=this query}}. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I left you some feedback here. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

This is the participant list so can you mark people active/inactive without showing it? As in hide all of the other text, as it is very confusing the way it currently is. Itmakes everybody look in active. Thank you,

STJMLCC (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not very good with LUA, which is why {{U|Jackmcbarn}} has been the module coder and updater. I'll take a look at it later and see what I can do if he doesn't just do it after seeing this post. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• In that case how do I make people active? Thanks, STJMLCC (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• {{ping|STJMLCC}} The "inactive" parameter is optional. If someone is active, omit it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• {{ping|Jackmcbarn}} Omit The Entire Section Regarding Inactive Or Just The One Word? Thanks, STJMLCC (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• {{ping|STJMLCC}} The entire parameter. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks, STJMLCC (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• {{ping|Jackmcbarn}} Like This: #{{y}} {{Mailing list member|user=STJMLCC}} (Current Coordinator)?
• It's optional, but I don't recommend omitting it if you want the module to mark editors who haven't edited in quite some time as inactive. That said, you do need to update the last edit dates about once a year or so, which shouldn't be too much trouble. This is because there is no way that I know of to get that information from the parser or via Lua, but that may be coming. I also intend to write a script at some point that will update the dates for you with one click. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• What you could do is just wait for the module to be updated by Jack or I or another capable editor (you can probably request it on WT:Lua if you are impatient, and then wait for a response which may or may not be faster). Next, looking at the result of the module, you can see that the active ones are green and the inactive ones (as determined by date or blocked status) are red (toggled inactive currently doesn't do this, yet). Your only other option is to spend some time and learn how to script in lua, which may interest you (I know enough about other coding languages to poke at it and know I won't blow things up, but usually defer important things to others). I hope you find this at least slightly helpful. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Ok Works For Me! I Will Use The First Suggestion. Thanks Again, STJMLCC (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi Technical 13, On January 2014 you have expanded Template:Country data Ottoman Empire. Can you source your additions ? Thanks Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Nedim Ardoğa}}, I'm afraid you'll have to ask {{U|Ithinkicahn}} for help with that as the edit to the template was made on his behalf per this edit request. Good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I fixed up some of your French on your userpage, but now it says "Salvidrim! VANDALIZED!" . :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• LMAO! I love it! Yes, that is a fairly deeply coded trap I embedded into my template scheme for my user page. I see you changed my wording for the très très petite quantité de Français I know... I'll fix it. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

::It's a nifty trick, I'll give you that. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hey there; while I don't personally mind too much, it's probably not appropriate to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FRequests_for_closure&diff=638672221&oldid=638670545 post something and sign it as someone else], even if I understand the reason in this case. I'm sure if you keep this up, someone will give you shit for it. I recommend sticking to the usual ANRFC habits and post something like "{{tq|{{already done}} by {{u|Salvidrim!}}.}}" and signing it yourself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I made sure to disclose that I copied the signature to prevent any WP:SIGFORGE concern. I will be more careful in the future. Thank you for stopping by. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• {{U|Salvidrim!}}, I tweaked the line a little and added my signature on the end. I hope that resolves any concerns others may have. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester%27s_signature_tutorial&curid=4041461&diff=638731894&oldid=638731606 your revert], if we're going to do that it would make sense to say something about it at the beginning of the examples section. I wouldn't mind doing that myself, but I think you're better qualified to say it correctly. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Mandruss}}, for reasons I care not to get into, I'd rather you did it based on my response on the talk page. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

::{{done}} I think. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi T13. I've already pinged you at the Teahouse, but I wondered whether you could take a look at User:Yunshui/portal test when you have a moment. Basically, the idea (not mine!) is to float an image behind the portal - I was able to make the table transparent and add an image with no problems, but I'm not sure how to get the rest of the page visible; the height of the image cuts off everything below. Any ideas? Yunshui ^雲_水 09:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I was surprised to see that you had closed this discussion. Your only stated reason for your closing that there is consensus they these lists are non-encyclopedic. I'm having trouble discerning any level of consensus here. After the proponent posted the (non neutral) RfC, three people weighed in to say they are not encyclopedic and two people weighed in to say they are. I don't see the consensus there. If this RfC needed to be closed, it seems like a no consensus close to me.

And did you at all consider the argument that the wikipedians at WP:FOOTY — a much wider community — are fine with these sections? Do you envision that a small number of contributors to an RfC posted on WP:RU should override the standards acceptable to a much larger community? Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Barryjjoyce|Barry}}, it's not a vote, and even if it was, it was 4/2 in favor of excluding them. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 2#Recent fixture, and Upcoming fixtures lists showed complete support of removing them nearly eight years ago and I didn't see anything in the new discussion suggesting the consensus had changed. Further, the discussion was reaffirming Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Style#Upcoming and recent fixtures and there wasn't enough of an argument to overturn the guideline. As far as your second paragraph, WP:FOOTY is more than welcome to use them in their articles but that has no jurisdiction to dictate what is appropriate for or has consensus in WP:RU articles. I do appreciate you stopping by to ask me about it if it was unclear to you, I would be happy to elaborate a little further if you have specific questions, and you can always request a review if you still don't think my closing reasonably reflects the consensus. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining further the reasons behind your decision to close the RfC. It seems from your explanation above that your reasoning was based in significant part on your view that WP:RU had previously reached consensus on this issue on two occasions. I don't share the view that WP:RU had or has reached the consensus you describe; rather, what you see reflects the views of one highly-motivated editor (Shudde):

1. The 2007 discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 2#Recent fixture, and Upcoming fixtures lists reflects a proposal from one editor that they be removed, a second proposal from another editor regarding a different way of presenting the information, and then further discussion about the second proposal with no meaningful discussion of the original proposal regarding removal. You'll notice that Shudde tried repeatedly to return the discussion to the original topic but received no support — see his three unanswered messages at the bottom of the discussion — and then declared "consensus."
   But don't take my word for it that this discussion reflects a lack of consensus. Other WP:RU editors have interpreted this discussion to mean that "It is fine to have [these sections] on other national team articles" and have minimized the weight of the 2007 discussion as a "7-year old discussion that few participated in."
2. The guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Style#Upcoming and recent fixtures is something that Shudde wrote. The only other WP:RU member who has commented on this guideline is me describing my opposition. See this talk page. Two people expressing opposing viewpoints does not reflect consensus.
3. Several WP:RU national team articles currently have these sections, which reflects a lack of consensus across WP:RU. Several editors have have added these sections to articles or restored sections that Shudde had tried to delete. See this Canada talk page discussion and the page's edit history from October 2014 where Shudde was edit warring with two other editors over this and he ended up losing the discussion. I am not aware of anyone other than Shudde trying to remove these sections from articles.

In looking back at the recent RfC, I still don't see any consensus that emerged from that discussion or from this preceding discussion on the WP:RU talk page. Some WP:RU editors are fine with these sections, others are opposed, both sides have dug in. Some editors said they opposed including these sections because they are unencyclopedic — a circular argument. I gave up discussing the issue there based on my perception that further debate was unlikely to change what I viewed as a lack of consensus. I had tried in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Rugby_union&diff=629504765&oldid=629502666 this edit] to explore whether we could build consensus for a compromise position, but it became clear that were was no interest in doing so.

Thanks. Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Barryjjoyce|Barry}}. I agree that the nearly eight year old discussion had few participants, but I saw little resistance to it at the time. The only objections seemed to "okay" or at least "whatever" by the end of it, so I considered it a unanimous support for the proposal. That verbiage seems to have been added around that time seven plus years ago, and there were no links to other discussions that had happened in protest of that in the RfC or that I could quickly find (I really didn't look that hard, I feel that if another user familiar with the project doesn't know multiple other objections exist or doesn't care to bring them up, then they probably don't weigh all that much on my final assessment).

: What I'd suggest doing, since you seem to feel somewhat strongly about this, is to start a new RfC with the sole purpose of eliminating that section of the guideline. In your description of the problem, make sure that you include links to any and all discussions on the topic so that the new reviewer will have all of the evidence at their disposal (I won't be closing the next discussion on the topic, as I feel it is inappropriate to close consecutive discussions on the same basic topic). Make sure that when you are listing all of the previous discussions that you include a sub-section with all of the sources and things you can find that oppose the use of these fixture sections and all of the ones that support the use. The purpose of doing this in the description is to make sure that your description is as neutral and fair to both sides right up front.

: That said, you are more than welcome to add your "personal" feelings, thoughts and objections to the current wording in the discussion section of the RfC. I would be more than happy to review a draft for such and RfC if you want to work it up in your user space. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and for the further explanation. I'm thinking about your idea of starting another RfC. If I do, I'll certainly think about your offer of reviewing a draft in advance. Barryjjoyce (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi, re {{diff|File talk:Padlock-skyblue.svg|next|638739712|this reply}}: people who submit empty edit requests like that are playing "what happens if I press this button?" and never come back with any more information. When all there is is a heading and the contents of Template:Submit an edit request/preload but no clue as to their true intent, it's usually easiest to simply revert with an edit summary like rv empty request, see WP:PER for correct usage of {{edit protected}} --Redrose64 (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Redrose64}}, per {{Noping|Jackmcbarn}}'s Edit Protected Helper script ({{Github|https://github.com/jackmcbarn/editprotectedhelper/blob/master/editProtectedHelper.js#L198|specifically}}} when I hit the button to remove a section, confirm('Are you sure you want to completely remove this edit request from the page? In general, this should not be done to good-faith requests, even if they are blank, unless they are duplicates of other requests by the same user, etc.');. You are welcome to ask {{U|Jackmcbarn}} about that if you wish. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Redrose64}} My logic is that if you remove the request, the requester will probably have no idea why it's gone. If you respond with {{tlsp|ESp|xy}} (and they see the response), hopefully they'll make their next edit request correctly. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I knew there had to be a simpler way to sic Earwig on an article, and discovering CVD was an "aha!" moment for me. Thanks so much for your work, and a safe and happy holidays to you! Cheers, Basie (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Clear}}

Hello T13, your AFD closing script is not working. Look at this! I didn't find any "close" tab. Although no such "close" tab appears but I noticed that the script is actually loading (See this). I think there is a problem with the script. Jim Carter 12:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Jim Cartar||Jim}}, that script currently only gives the close and relist tabs when in edit (action=edit) mode. Your screenshot show that you were expecting to see them when in read (action=view) mode. Please click on the edit link/tab and see if the links appear when the script completes loading. :) {{Noping|Mr.Z-man}}'s script offers tabs and results in read mode currently. :) In a month or so I plan on rebuilding the CloseAFD script to handle all kinds of common discussions and offer links in both read and edit mode and add a bunch of other features like the ability to tag the talk pages of discussions closed as anything other than delete. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks, T13. I think you should use some codes of Mr.Zman's CloseAFD2 script. I mean an ultimate version of Closing AfD script that will be used by everyone. I have also seen some other CloseAFD scripts which are not well know. Jim Carter 16:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• That's the plan. :)— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• If that's the plan then I would request you to merge some codes of WP:FWDS to your script. It will be a standalone script for all AFD related work. Cheers, Jim Carter 13:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

:BTW, Merry Christmas! Jim Carter 13:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Post-Standard. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see {{section link|Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Suggestions for responding}}. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I heard you're good at coding stuff. I summoned you on my talk page bug got no response. I was wondering if you could fix the background image, because apparently it doesn't fill the border in wider monitors. Portal:Cosmology. If you like to help "people who cry", help me out there. I personally would leave it that way but SuperHamster was removing the background and adding a boring solid black. Tetra quark (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, {{U|Tetra quark}}, I took a look at that and don't have time to get the background image right... I've done a few and they are a real pain to do on here. If you check the sandbox for that page, I did make it HTML5compliant, and you should at least update it to that. When I have some more time, I'll happily go back and see if I can't make the image work. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Ok, my sandbox has your edit. Tetra quark (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi! I was pondering, after the discussion on Jimbo's talk, whether statistics would tell something about the editors that did vote last year, and not this year (did they lose interest, did they all forget to vote, hide under a rock, left, or are all banned?), as well as the 'new' voters (who did not vote last year or ever). I can't escape the feeling that most people simply found nothing to support, and therefore did not vote. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that some statistics for established first time voters/established editors who chose not to vote/etc might be interesting. I'll keep that in mind when I'm compiling data. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 05:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Reference discussion at User_talk:Doug/closemfd.js. Please see JohnCD's comment at User_talk:Doug#Update_broke_closemfd_script. Thoughts?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Doug}}, I'm the one in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 133#Scripts stopped working that said reverting them would be a good idea. I'm leaving tonight for a few days for the holidays, I'll figure it out and fix it when I get back with a fully tested version. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

When changing align=right to a style, as in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Progress_line_3&diff=638366740&oldid=592815183 this edit], it should be changed to style="text-align:right;" rather than style="align:right;" -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|WOSlinker}}, yes, I'm aware of that. I just overlooked it on that case. Thank you for fixing it. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Your recent mass message contained double section headers and a broken template in the footnote. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know {{U|Xaosflux}}. I saw the double header once I sent it out, and wasn't impressed. I didn't see the double header when I clicked preview, and am not impressed. I didn't see a broken template, and still don't. Might be in the section that is scrolled off my screen, I'll have to check it when I get home in a couple days and have a computer. I'll decide if it's worth going through with AWB and fix then or not. Anyways, I really do appreciate you letting me know and I hope you have a happy holiday season. :D — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 05:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

::On second review, the template is OK (it was your signature)--If you have any suggestions for improving the prompt for mass message, drop an editrequest over at MediaWiki talk:Massmessage-form-header, feel free to ping me on there too. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

::Happy holiday to you as well! — xaosflux ^Talk 06:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Resolved}}

User:Equazcion/userinfo.js for edit count statistics still links to Tparis' tool at toolserver. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Fauzan}}, that part of the script has been updated. There some other parts that will need updating at some point, but for now they are stable. While you are here, I'll note that I'm working on a project trying to bring most of the coding on Wikipedia up to the most current standards (HTML5), and I noticed that your signature is using {{Tag|font}} tags which were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, marked as invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5 at all. I'd love to help you update your signature to use newer code, and if you're interested, I suggest replacing:

{{#tag:syntaxhighlight|--Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail}|lang="html5"}}

:with:

{{#tag:syntaxhighlight|--Fauzan^{✆ talk_{✉ mail}|lang="html5"}}}

:which will result in a 241 character long signature (9 characters shorter) with an appearance of: --Fauzan^{✆ talk_{✉ mail}}

:compared to your existing 250 character long signature of: --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail}

:— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks a lot, and a happy editing year as well! --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 19:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remove your subjective bias from the closure you did at WT:ICONS. Its not the job of an RFC closer to offer opinions on whether concerns raised are "valid" or not. Community consensus determines whether they're valid, it's the closer job simply to note that they were raised (or not - mentioning such complaints at all is highly unusual in a close). If the community determined that the concerns raised, that MOS:ICONS is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, were valid, then it would not longer be a guideline. You're actually misunderstanding LOCALCONSENSUS. It simply isn't possible for MOS:ICONS to be one, because it's a site-wide guideline. Our site-wide policies and guidelines are, by definition, that which is not a LOCALCONSNSUS, and are the bar against which local consensuses (most often formed in topical wikiprojects like the ones that most frequently vent about MOS:ICONS and MOS in general) are measured. So your comment, that the concerns that part of MOS are a local consensus are valid, is a two-fold close error.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• First, since all concerns are valid, stating that there was an obvious concern about a specific argument was entirely appropriate. Second, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is defined as a {{Xt|consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time}}, so I'm not buying your claim that a guideline that affects {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} active registered editors and an uncountable number of unregistered ones that was {{Oldid|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons|164787227#Guideline_time|established by four users}} is anything except a LOCALCONSENSUS. Since, consensus can change, the fact that something was established as a site-wide policy or guideline does not make it set in stone. Any consensus that is achieved by a group of editors that has a greater number of participants will supersede the consensus achieved by a smaller group of editors. Perhaps, as such, this is no longer a guideline any more since it was the consensus of 28 participants, {{Noping|Bladeboy1889|Bobrayner|Bretonbanquet|DH85868993|Dirtlawyer1|Drmies|Falcadore|Fyunck(click)|GyaroMaguus|HiLo48|Ian Dalziel|Isaacl|JohnMcButts|John|Jojhutton|Kaldari|Masem|Nigej|Number 57|Prisonermonkeys|Pyrope|QueenCake|Resolute|Sillyfolkboy|Speedy Question Mark|Tvx1|Walter Görlitz|Wolbo}}, which far exceeds the 4 that originally made it a guideline, and as such should be downgraded back to an essay until consensus can be achieved otherwise at a proper forum such as WP:VPR. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

You failed to spot {{purple|(TW)}} in the edit summary :-) There tends to be dozens, even hundreds of image to delete. So I use a combination of Twinkle and AWB at the same time. Twinkle's deli-batch to delete images (which have just been quickly checked one by one to ensure that permission has not been provided), also Twinkle kindly adds the "commented" out code to every page that every image appeared (which you noted), and AWB takes care of the orphaned image talk pages. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• No worries. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

In a world where everyone working here is volunteering, it would be wise to remember that yelling about shitty code every time someone quickly solves a problem due to a request in -en-help because it wasn't a 100% optimal solution is a pretty damn good way to just get everyone to leave the project, instead. I'm sorry that my edit wasn't up to your absolutely perfect code standards. But at least I actually checked all test cases first, instead of just doing it blindly on a widely used template. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Shirik}}, I'll respond on IRC. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi T13! A while back, you agreed to have your name attached to some of the daily Teahouse invites sent by HostBot. Are you still interested in having your name included in some of these invites? If not, I'm happy to remove your name from the list. Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Jtmorgan}}, I certainly do. :) Thanks for asking. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

. . . set up a mock-up infobox template in my own user space sandbox? And by that I mean a sandbox mock-up that shows how the infobox would appear if it were "live" in article space. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds like you need WP:TESTCASES#How to create /sandbox and /testcases subpages. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

You are breaking the links in the Close review, and if it's reopened people can still comment on it until we get a new close. Alsee (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Alsee}}, that discussion should be on its own subpage, Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (scroll down) shows this is the proper way to deal with such large proposals. So, there are two ways to fix the issue you are having. Give me a link to the broken links so I can fix them, or you can just fix them yourself. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• : {{U|Alsee}}, I've found the discussion, {{Diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|640261943|640249413|and fixed the links}} for you. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{tl|YGM}} Mlpearc (open channel) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

The thread is "Is Christmas spam an appropiate use of mass messaging?" Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

File:User_talk-The_C_of_E.png

In response, I have just archived a large chunk of it. However, the flag is not interfering with the links or disrupting anything. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, {{U|The C of E}}, it does, see screenshot. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• It doesn't do that on mine, on mine it is behind the globe. Maybe there is something different with your settings? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• It is very likely just a difference in browsers. Either way, it can't stay like that. You could probably set a negative offset to the top parameter and move it up. You may be better off just having it placed in the bottom corner like I do with the link box for my sandbox. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• I've worked it out, it's the coding. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

::::Browsers may not be the principal factor. It's also one of those things that varies between skins - what's right for one isn't necessarily right for another. Y-offsets in particular seem to be calculated using a different origin; compare the appearance in [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_C_of_E?useskin=vector Vector skin] (for me, the middle of the flag is level with the top edge of the word "Wikipedia" below the puzzleball) against that in [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_C_of_E Monobook] (for me, the middle of the flag is just below the top edge of the screen, so a little less than half the flag is offscreen). The flag doesn't seem to show at all in either [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_C_of_E?useskin=cologneblue Cologne Blue] or [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_C_of_E?useskin=modern Modern] skins. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|The C of E}}, while you are here, I'm working on a project trying to bring most of the coding on Wikipedia up to the most current standards (HTML5), and I noticed that your signature is using {{Tag|font}} tags which were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, marked as invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5 at all. I'd love to help you update your signature to use newer code, and if you're interested, I suggest replacing:

{{#tag:syntaxhighlight| The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)|lang="html5"}}

:with:

{{#tag:syntaxhighlight|The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)|lang="html5"}}

:which will result in a 224 character long signature (5 characters shorter) with an appearance of: The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)

:compared to your existing 229 character long signature of: The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)

:— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_goose&oldid=640362801 Really?] Because this is the same form of template that I have used on the talk pages for peafowl and anti-aircraft warfare to request editnotices for the use of British English within an article. Did I do that wrong too?? If so please tell me! I do so hate stumbling around and I could have sworn that I was following the correct protocol (my editnotices in both earlier instances produced the intended result, at least). I shall await further instruction. Thank you! KDS4444^Talk 10:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|KDS4444}}, really. :) Please see the page on editnotices for the correct procedure. While you are here, I'll note that I'm working on a project trying to bring most of the coding on Wikipedia up to the most current standards (HTML5), and I noticed that your signature is using {{Tag|font}} tags which were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, marked as invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5 at all. I'd love to help you update your signature to use newer code, and if you're interested, I suggest replacing:

{{#tag:syntaxhighlight|KDS4444^Talk|lang="html5"}}

:with:

{{#tag:syntaxhighlight|KDS4444^Talk|lang="html5"}}

:which will result in a 191 character long signature (28 characters shorter) with an appearance of: KDS4444^Talk

:compared to your existing 219 character long signature of: KDS4444^Talk

:— Either way. Happy editing! Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 10:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Just to let you know that I have reverted your close to this discussion as I regard it as premature. It may not end up actually moving, but I found your swift "SNOW" close inappropriate. There is no harm in letting it run, and some other alternatives may be brought up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|MSGJ}}, did you find it inappropriate because you think there is a chance that a template that is currently employed on 120,392 pages and is tied to that page name by both Twinkle and AWB might actually move, or do you find it inappropriate because it was a NAC close? While I'd really like to AGF and assume the first, the later seems to be the much more likely reason for both reasons of previous interactions where you have opposed my actions because I don't have the admin bit (like when I respond to PER requests that are empty or say stupid things like "I am awesome") and the fact that COMMONSENSE makes it pretty clear that this proposal doesn't have a SNOWBALLs chance in hell of being carried out. That being said, I'd love to clarify for me which reason is why you oppose my close. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

hi, the "revision history statistics " Revision history statistics link for Wikipedia en is kinda down, if you have a chance to look at it,,,,,,,,,,,BTW Happy Holidays--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|Cyberpower678}}, is this an issue with the tool or an issue with labs? Can we get Ozzie reporting this to whomever needs to be involved in fixing the issue every time it goes down, I am at a point that I don't want to hear about it anymore. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• :Neither do I. I'll have a look.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 20:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

:::thanks , sorry for the issue, it just happens--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

::::Try it now. It looks like it just simply is being hammered with a lot of requests.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 20:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

::::* {{U|Cyberpower678}}, do we need to petition {{U|Coren}} to give you more resources for the tool? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

::::its perfect, Happy New year--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please help me become a template editor, as I want to learn.NetworkOP (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• The first step to being a good template editor is to learn exactly what templates are and how transclusion works. Please read the links on User:Technical_13/Guides/TemplateMaking#Lesson_1. While I won't promise that you'll gain the {{TE}} bit, I can say that you'll have a better understanding and appreciation for templates and have the resources to do what you need to do to get the bit. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Technical 13! I saw you added me as a subscriber to {{phab|20670}}. It's an interesting topic, but could you please help me understand why you did so? Thanks, and hope you're enjoying the holiday break! GoingBatty (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|GoingBatty}}, I added you to the ticket because I thought it was something you might be interested in. It would be a way for AWB to tag edits as "made with AWB" without taking up valuable edit summary characters. I see you constantly commenting on the AWB bugs page and figured you had some pull and interest of development. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

::Ah, that makes sense - thanks! The AWB developers Rjwilmsi and Magioladitis might wish to subscribe as well. Thanks for the heads up, and happy editing in the new year! GoingBatty (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

::* I don't see either of them on Phabricator. If you'd like to let them know, that would be great. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Reedy proposed that we move the bug reports in Phabricator just yesterday! We might. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)