User talk:Technical 13/2014/1

Um, yes, there is a big ugly placeholder, for example, at

Maybe Baby (2000 film). Can't it be removed or commented-out of display for readers, so it can be shown in code for editors but not for readers, until the bot updates it the first time? — Cirt (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Yes, you simply add the review manually... {{
  U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Okay, I've gone ahead and removed the ugly placeholder text from

Maybe Baby (2000 film), until someone manually does that. Anyways, I really think the format should be to not display that ugly placeholder text in main article space for readers, can you please modify so it won't do that? — Cirt (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Placeholder text that sits there for days without any updates being made is not helpful. There's got to be a way to have this info commented-out, and not appear on the page itself as "placeholder text" for our readers. What's next? What if the whole page was coded "placeholder text" waiting for bots to do something? Please, allow the text to be removed from main article space without objection, until such time as you can properly figure out how to fix it without using "placeholder text", thank you. — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put a {{
  U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It is inappropriate to modify comments by other users without their permission. Please don't do this again. Thanks. — Cirt (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've not modified your comments at all... I simply closed the discussion as it was incomplete and moot. — {{
  U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, that is modifying my comments, please stop doing that. The discussion is not moot. None of my points were addressed. You are ignoring my request to have the coding be commented-out or not appear in main article space! — Cirt (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no coding in the main article space.
  U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Again, you are ignoring my request, why? There was coding in main article space for one week. — Cirt (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any coding there now? No... So, there is no issue. The bot was missing this request for whatever reason, and the template usage on the page has been updated. I'm currently working on a fix for the template so this won't happen again, but keep having to deal with your impatience and it is slowing me down. There was an issue, you reported it, now give me and the bot coder some time to fix it. The immediate issue has already been resolved, there are no pages with the default placeholder on them right now, so there is
  U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

— Cirt (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is a way, and I not only told you about it a half dozen times above, I went to the article and did it for you to show you how it could be done.
2. That is what it already, and always has, done.
3. There are no fixes that need to be made. There is one minor change in the display that I'm willing to make in cases where the API or bot fails all else. And I'm working on it, please... be... patient... — {{
   U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

So if the bot is supposed to make a first edit, how come it never did so at Man of Steel (film), the page heralded as the example of how the template works? — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the history page for the Rotten Tomatoes data, it has been updated 56 times... Apparently you need to read up on how
  U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Update: I requested for the deletion discussion to be withdrawn. My thanks to Favre1fan93 and Theopolisme, for their most helpful explanations. — Cirt (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with me, I really appreciate it, a lot!

I'm beginning to see how this Template:Rotten Tomatoes score can be useful, thanks to the helpful comments of Favre1fan93 and Theopolisme.

Please check over Template:Rotten Tomatoes score/0486585 to make sure I created it properly.

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks fine. I'm sure the bot will re-do it before long anyways because the page isn't in its internal database yet even though the page onwiki exists. No worries. Good job. :) — {{
  U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you. Thanks again for your patience. And your help! :) Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch: I just saw the -- and thought, oh no. Little did I realise it was a jungle of ems and ens elsewhere. Best not to teach the newbies bad habits. Tony (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blackthorn Winter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douglas Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:)

Koenw (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you already have an invite. I saw this discussion and thought of you as I was mulling it over. Just came here to invite you. Fiddle Faddle 12:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see article modification and template creation at Template:Rotten Tomatoes score/0988849.

Did I implement that correctly?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article modification is perfect, and you don't need to create the template sub-pages, the bot will do it. The "ugly" placeholder won't show when you add in a custom on in the article itself. :) — {{
  U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 03:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ah, I see, thank you! Glad to know I did it correctly. — Cirt (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix it so it shows UK formatting for dates for that article? — Cirt (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13, any ideas on a fix for UK dates for this display? — Cirt (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks  Done, thanks very much!!! :) — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Technical 13

I just spotted your signature, and thought I should draw your attention to

Strangely enough, he already knows that. IIRC his April indefinite block was in part due to his insistence that he could do what he wanted with his signature, regardless of policy. The unblock was on the clear "this is your last chance" condition" ES&L 11:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think the appearance of your signature is generally fine, Technical 13, except that I don't think you should be linking to a template in it. There's no formal proscription of doing it, it's just a bit odd. Actually, come to think of it, it will ruin the point of

talk 16:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• That's a reasonable answer
  Scott, I hadn't thought about the WLH aspect of it. I've removed the link. That still doesn't answer my question as to the original poster's complaint however. I want to make sure that is cleared up and there is no confusion left there. BHG, when you have a moment to respond, I would appreciate that. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oh, I see. You were giving the appearance of using a template, but were actually just linking to it.

Thanks for removing the link, by why are you still using a sig which adopts the syntax of a template call? How exactly is that supposed to help anyone?

Why not just list your name in whatever colours you like, as nearly everyone else does? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I really hate dislike {{Talkback}}s on my user page, and thought what is the easiest way to promote using the notifications system to get my attention? Then one day I was on one of the help boards and I saw someone that had a signature that looked like a template and Give the shortest bit of code needed to "mention" me in a post as part of my signature so that people only have to copy and paste it to "ping" me so to speak. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, BHG, T13 is far from the first person to do that sort of thing. As playful signatures go, it's pretty run of the mill. I don't think it's going to do anyone any harm - certainly there are any number of other people with signatures that are more difficult to understand (or even read). —

talk 17:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe not the only one, but it's silly and distracting. T13's justification that it is to allow ppl to cut and paste to ping him doesn't add up, because typing the 5 characters for a ping using {{

U}} is hardly a burden. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• It's 18 characters, and every character is a burden when editing from a mobile device (at least it is for me) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can ping you simply by copying the link from the raw text your sig, like this [[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]]. When I am replying to you, the rendered version is off-screen anyway, so the raw code is more accessible. That makes the brackets pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's more convenient for you perhaps, it's not for me. Anyways, this is circular discussion at this point, and since I'm not breaking any policies, I think we are done here. I wish you well and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, FYI, I just went through the code and it does exclude certain hidden categories, such as Category:Redirects to Wiktionary, and didn't have an entry for Category:Redirects to Wikisource. I've now added it, so the problem should go away with tomorrow's run (but not with a user-triggered update). Please let me know if you still see the problem tomorrow! Thanks, --JaGa^talk 00:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At

I was just wandering around some of my usual pages today and saw your comments (PERM, the PC2 RfC) ... good work. Btw, I don't want to give you too much and I can ask someone else, but as soon as your part is done, there's one more feature I need in the script: I want it to work well with the popups gadget (on the preferences/gadget page), that is, the (display-only, not saved) page that shows the red boxes should also give the appearance that there's a link to (for now) User:Dank/Highlighter/list#(word or phrase), so that when a user hovers over the link, they get a popup with some explanatory text stored in that section on that page. Is that possible, and do you want to do that bit too? - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any news? I'll ask for help tomorrow at VPT. - Dank (push to talk) 01:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry I haven't responded here. I've been supper busy with real life and I have like 20 different simultaneous projects going on here on wp... I did manage to start throwing some code together on User:Technical 13/SandBox/Gadget-wordHighlighter.js and I should be able to finish it up in the next couple days. It'll be easier for me to code the feature in if you can give me some more details about it now. What exactly do you want it to do? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, thanks for helping. There are 3 parts, feel free to do any or all. First, I want something that does exactly the same thing as duplinks ... except, instead of drawing a box around duplicate links, I want it to draw a box around any expression that matches a regex list. Second, I'd like to break the regex list up into subsections, and let the user configure which subsections of the list they want to use when they're looking for a match. Third, it would be nice if something explanatory would pop up when a user hovers over the highlighted text ... lupin wrote a popup tool that got adopted at preferences/gadgets, so it's possible that simply creating the appearance of a link will allow the popup gadget to do the trick (although maybe not, because the duplinks script only gives a page a new appearance ... it doesn't actually create or save links, and maybe the popup tool needs actual links to work. In that case, maybe something from User:Lupin/popups.js can be adapted). - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to sleep now, but I just saw that Wnt left a helpful comment at

WP:Vpt#Highlighting within an article from a list of regex expressions. - Dank (push to talk) 05:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The "tipsy" code that Kipod suggested is exactly what I needed ... for now. As the size of the page that checks for common errors grows, there may or may not be performance issues ... if so, I'll check back and see if you have any thoughts. Thanks much for your help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Technical 13, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

• WP:AFCH#Developers), but why would you leave a Teahouse invite? It doesn't seem appropriate. As I think about the process, the tool currently doesn't inform you of existing Teahouse invites or contributions (I'm a developer there as well), and that should probably be improved. I actually am grateful for the decline to see what it looks like coming through on my page (I'm more of the template tweaker). I've also added a notice to the sandbox explicitly declaring it a development sandbox. Do you have any comment, suggestions, or questions I can answer? Are there ideas you have for improving the tool that you've not mentioned or seem to have been overlooked? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This week's

article for improvement

(week 7, 2014)

This staircase is an impossible object Hello, Technical 13. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Impossible object Previous selections: Life sciences • Low Countries Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Good work

Thanks for noticing the disruption earlier. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you are doing well. I see that you've had a "health issues" template up since the end of January, hope it's nothing serious. In case you haven't noticed yet, I've come up with a solution to the {{

• It's a temporary maintenance category that I'll be removing myself in a few weeks. if these editors are really retired, they shouldn't be using that template per the docs and there's no reason for anonymous or unconfirmed users to be using it. the purpose of the temporary cat is to find these misuses and clean them up. I'm in bed about to pass out, feel free to add __HIDDENCAT__ to the category if it maks you feel better and I'll just get it deleted when I'm done. no worries. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 03:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. That's fine. Just was confused at first. And there is no reason to make the template.

• Your forgot to sign... :p — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a quick look at {{

• First... You should be using Template:TFAIMAGE/sandbox and Template:TFAIMAGE/testcases.

Second... Why is that template fully protected instead of  Template editor protected?

Then... |{{#if:{{{border}}}|border|}} should be something like {{#ifeq:{{{border|}}}|||border: {{{border}}};}} but it shouldn't be in the [[File:...]] it should be in the <div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">...</div> surrounding it like <div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em; {{#ifeq:{{{border|}}}|||border: {{{border}}};}}">...</div>

• Let me know if that does what you want (you should revert what you have as it is broken and try it in the sandbox), and if not I'll play with the sandbox version to get it right (should be just minor adjustments from there). Good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did use the sandbox, and it did what I wanted on an image (added a border). I then checked something else and realised I appeared to have a border without asking for one! It's fully protected because... well, because it's a main-page template and it was protected before TEs were invented, and nobody's sought to edit it since. I don't know what the current thinking is about TE-editing of main page templates. I'll try your suggested fix now and see what happens. Thanks,

Bencherlite^Talk 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• (edit conflict) If it is on the main page, then it is cascade protected anyways (through all of: ) and the individual protection level (templateeditor) is insignificant. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've followed your instructions at the sandbox but I can't get it to work at the /testcases - could you make a minor adjustment there, please? Significant levels of gratitude in your general directions,

Bencherlite^Talk 20:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'll look. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've looked at your testcases (and added some of my own). The way I had you set it up allows you to specify any border style that you want. If you ONLY want the default [[File:..|border]] style, then there are two ways we can do it. We can either change the border code to {{#ifeq:{{{border|}}}||||border: 1px solid #DDD;}} or we can scrap that all together (and remove it from the div tag) and instead put {{#ifeq:{{{border|}}}||||{{!}}border}} in the File: call directly (which is a less optimal idea). There is also another option that will allow you to have your simple on/off trigger or a specific border by changing our existing {{#ifeq:{{{border|}}}|||border: {{{border}}};}} into {{#switch:{{lc:{{{border|}}}}}|=|yes|border=border: 1px solid #DDD;|#default=border: {{{border}}};}} — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous. That last version works. I can't imagine situations when we might want to have an all-singing, all-dancing border round a TFA image, but you never know. Thank you very much for your help. Best wishes,

Bencherlite^Talk 20:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address one or more redirects you have created. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done

Any chance you could help out with {{External peer review}} implementation at Talk:Fuck (film)? :)

Specifically, the revision id reviewed by the publication was 594024364 -- but when I put that id into the template, it links to the wrong article, Fuck.

Any ideas on how to fix it?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed {{External peer review}} and added the revision id to Talk:Fuck (film). Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a 2nd query, it'd be nice to somehow modify {{External peer review}} to allow for multiple comments from multiple sources, kind of like how {{Press}} allows for multiple sources. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that can be done but I need to get some coffee and food. I'll come back around to it later. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

post-expand include size and cause lots of issues on pages it is used on very quickly. Is that a reasonable starting point (it can easily be expanded if there is a need and no issues)? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you so much for all you've done so far! I'll defer to your wise judgment and expertise, whatever you think is best! Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making edits like this, you should use the template sandbox to see it on other pages without saving it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Clickable button 2}} relies on code stored in MediaWiki:Common.js and does not work from the sandbox page and I've had little luck getting that extension to work because it doesn't parse everything (it has issues with substitution and other things, so I just don't use it at all). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Are you using the special page with it, or the box at the bottom of edit pages? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried both, and the Special page seems to work better than the box at the bottom, but neither is complete. I don't think it is much of a big deal as long as there are clear edit summaries and the changes are minutes apart. That prevents it from adding any load to the job queue which is the bigger concern. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The load is added to the job queue as soon as you make the edit. Reverting it a few minutes later doesn't remove the load. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re {{c-pl}}, thanks, but that only partly addressed the problem; as a half-fix, it made things worse. (See talk.) — kwami (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For fixing User:EuroCarGT/RfA Advice & Criteria, the new buttons look pretty cool! Best, ///EuroCarGT 16:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks very much for helping me with template fixes on Wikipedia, most appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Model of a German SAR-Lupe reconnaissance satellite inside a Cosmos-3M rocket Hello, Technical 13. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Reconnaissance satellite Previous selections: Life sciences Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

• Amalthea, this is the same code, on all of these templates that has been tested multiple times in multiple sandboxes with proven results on testcases pages. These welcome templates should always include a signature, even when no script or tool is used to place them on the page and without waiting for AnomieBOT to come around and subst the template. This means that the users should be subst:ing the templates.

I've notified the Twinkle developers that I had added the signature as a core part of the template, per the request in to documentation, so that Twinkle could be updated. I also added my full plan for a consistent set of parameters for all Welcome! templates, and you chose to remove the code in the template to make it inconsistent with many of the other templates that I have already updated instead of simply update Twinkle to properly transclude the template with the proper parameters. You have fully protected the template for what reason I'm not exactly sure as I would never revert without discussion.

As far as my discussions with

AGF

.

So, I ask you to restore the protection level on the template back to  Template editor as there is no reason for the template to be fully protected, make the adjustments to Twinkle to not post a double signature and use the right parameters (this consistency pass should be making it easier for Twinkle to post these as the code is becoming more static and you don't have to have a whole bunch of extra parameters (like |sig= that I replaced with |nosig= and REVISIONUSER in one template, |signature= that I replaced with |nosig= and REVISIONUSER in another template, multiple different uses for |1= that I've seen, and a few other things I've cleaned up)), and then restore the |1=, |notalk=, and |nosig=. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am really confused. Now, the "welcome" template seems to just delete itself. I added it here, but then it disappeared from subsequent versions of the talk page despite the fact that there is no record of another user removing the template. Previously, it was adding ~~~~ without converting it to my username and talk page links. Neelix (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (
  edit conflict which there have been issues with or because they did not want the template on their page and removed it while adding their note to the previous section. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sorry for not paying more attention to my talk page; I thought you had simply reproduced the template on my talk page without comment, but I see the beginning of your message now. Why is subst required? It never was before. Neelix (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• subst: is required because the template should automatically sign it for you (unless specifically told not to with |nosig=yes). All (well most all) Welcome templates are suppose to do this as all are designed to be substituted, all scripts that I am aware of (such as Twinkle and User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/teahouseUtility.js and User:Technical 13/Scripts/ACC WikiLove.js) substitute the templates, and AnomieBOT usually goes around and fixes the few that are left which were posted incorrectly (such as in this edit fixing the one you left on my talk page). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My main concern is the approach you've shown on this template, and on at least one other template before. Restoring changes after a revert without discussing and gaining a consensus first is problematic. Making significant, breaking changes to a range of templates without any discussion and consensus is problematic as well. And doing so on protected templates certainly goes against the written guideline at
  WP:TPED. Leaving a comment after the re-revert to your preferred version is not sufficient.
  Is there, for example, a consensus that welcome templates "should always include a signature"? I'm not aware of that. User messages generally don't include one, welcome templates have always been mixed. And even though user messages should be substed thus far I think we've usually tried to make them work both ways. Is this really a change for the better? I don't know. I'm not sure I even have an opinion, but like with every mass-change it should be talked about in advance.
  And really, you thought that Neelix, a very established editor, was vandalizing your talk page with a welcome template?
  Amalthea 16:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• SIGNHERE which says, "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed." (bolding added for emphasis). Being this is the case, any welcome template that does not sign, is in violation of policy. So, please explain how my approach of attempting to enforce this policy is problematic. As far as Neelix goes, I was unsure what their intent was, and like I said, although it appeared to be a trollish action to just plop a welcome template on my talk page as I am far from a "new" editor with no explanation or comment (not even an edit summary) I choose to AGF and didn't make a big deal of it and simply removed it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "You have fully protected the template for what reason I'm not exactly sure as I would never revert without discussion." -- The very reason I'm here is because you have done exactly that, re-reverted without prior discussion. Amalthea 16:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've already linked to the discussion, and since I was enforcing policy that all talk page posts must be signed, I feel that my re-revert was justified. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That discussion was started after the re-revert. If everyone handles it like this you have an edit war, see
  WP:BRD.
  And the signature does of course not need to be part of the template but can be added by the user, as was the case before, and as is the case with all user warning templates like e.g. {{Uw-vandalism1}}.
  If this is really your understanding, that welcome templates "must" contain a signature per policy, then it is a case in point why discussion before a mass change or a re-revert is important: to resolve misunderstandings like this without an edit war.
  Amalthea 19:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, I'm aware of
  SIGNHERE. Anyways, I have no intent to further edit {{Welcome}} until all discussion is closed and there is a clear agreement one way or the other, and I respectfully request you set the protection level back to  Template editor as there is no justification for it to be fully protected, if I hadn't already made that clear. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

]

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum . A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thanks for catching this error, technical. Hopefully it's just an image issue and the code still works (posting this as a test). Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 22:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the code still works, it's just an error with the custom Badges image. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ocaasi, yeah, it is just a visual bug. It seems to still apply all of templates properly. I'll ping you as soon as I figure out what change caused the issue.  :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T13. :) Just curious: why do you always indent your comments with bullets rather than colons? It's been puzzling me for a while now. Is there a reason that I haven't thought of? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say I do 95% of the time. It makes it easier to see where the previous person's comment ends and mine starts is why I do it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)}

Otherwise it gets really difficult to see where one comment ends and another one starts. This is especially true on multiple really long comments in response to the same tier answer by multiple users. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)}

This reason is amplified when people break their conversations up into multiple paragraphs (with no blank line feeds in between). I actually really wish that it was made into the standard, and am somewhat befuddled by the number of times I get asked about it or told that it is prohibited and I'm not allowed to use bullets. Which, in fact, is not the case at all. I can dig out a few examples from my talk page history if you like... ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, T13. On this point we agree. Whatever works. I get a little annoyed when people complain about this. Not that Mr. S was complaining Wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He wasn't, but I was trying to make sure I was clear in my response. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, indentation is pretty much a free-for-all in my experience, as long as you don't alter the meaning of other people's comments, although I think most people tend to stick to

WP:INDENT most of the time. I do remember Graham87 saying that screen readers have trouble with indentation starting with colons and ending in a bullet (like :::*), but I don't really know anything about screen readers, and I can't really object to something on aesthetics alone. So yes, just curious. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes I am looking for a solution. List of high schools in Orange County, California is transcluded on List of high schools in California. includeonly is included in the mainspace. I'm trying to find a way to hide the wikicommand. Trackinfo (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you are talking about, I don't see any "wikicommand"s render on the page. Do you mean in the edit window on List of high schools in California all you see is {{:List of high schools in Orange County, California}}? If so, that is how it is suppose to work. If you can take some screenshots and upload them showing me exactly what you mean or if you can be a little more exact about what you are seeing, I am sure I can help you figure out what you need to know. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doubt it will be deleted. I'm fine with having the reason field as free text if you prefer it that way.

• Nick-D, since I have no idea about any outing of anyone or what you are talking about in the least, do you think you could send me an email explaining what you are talking about? I certainly did not mean to out anyone, and apologize to whomever I may have inadvertently outed. Without this email/information, it will be hard for me to not do again what I did not know I did in the first place. In any case, I give you great thanks for finding it and brining it to my attention. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You copied and pasted a message from the AfD's talk page posted by someone else which revealed the (supposed) real-life identity of an editor. I imagine that you did this in good faith, but it could have led to you being blocked given the context in which the post was originally made (I needed to delete all the various pages where this was posted). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick-D, ahh... I actually didn't even read the post, just moved it from the talk to the actual discussion. Guess I should read those things in the future... "/me trouts self"... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Nice job on the teahouse! Sta13ths17 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

An example of the human skeleton Hello, Technical 13. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Human skeleton Previous selections: Reconnaissance satellite • Impossible object Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Hello Technical 13, I had observed that you are one of the most active editiors working on AfC. Let me tell you why I'm typing this message. You know every day more than 155 new drafts were submitted for review. About half of them are declined, the most possible reasons are either notability, very few or unverifiable sources, else articles written in a advertisment format. It is also known to us that most of the drafts were created by new and somewhat unexperienced editors. I have seen drafts submitted by new users. We can easily find minor, major, copyvios and other issues in them. As because they are new they face this type of problems frequently. After they found that drafts submitted by them were declined, they again start working on it trying to improve. Some times an article gets multiple declines before it finally moves to mainspace. In this decline-improve proccess a huge amount of time suffers loss for both "Reviewer" and "Creator". Not only this, declined drafts were resubmitted again and again which sometimes create a backlog between new drafts and old drafts. You can easily find more or less half a dozen of resubmitted drafts each day. Do you know why they resubmit? The most possible answer maybe because the author thinks that the draft is about a notable subject (some times the subject of the declined drafts are actually notable) but they are helpless, they sometimes even don't know how to tag references. For this problem I have started helping this editors but you know one editor cannot make much change. I can hardly improve one or two drafts each day.

What reviewers do- Reviewers take a draft to its conclusion i.e. If the article is going to move to mainspace or not (Sometimes they may also comment on a draft). They only accept drafts after they find that the draft is complete. But what about those drafts which may have some good materials or encyclopedic informations but still missing something (This drafts were not even improved by someone after the creator lose their faith) There are dozens of articles which meets criteria as above mentioned. After some time (i.e.6 months) they were deleted as per G13. To stop this I have an idea. We should create another group of editors, similar to the reviewers but they maybe called improvers. The main work they are intend to do is to:

• Reduce the work load on reviewers. But not actually by reviewing drafts but improving drafts so that reviewers don't face any problem while reviewing.
• They will help the new creators to complete the draft.
• They will decide if the draft is complete or not and if the author should submit it for review or not.
• They must help with copyedit, introducing references, decide notability and suggest authors how to create the draft more perfectly.
• Whenever a new user creates a draft. A welcome message along with a link to a page which has a list of experienced improvers (so that if he/she face any problem creating that draft, he/she may ask an editor from the list for assistance.) will be send to the creator.

AfC draft improvers are very much needed to reduce time consumption and workload on reviewers. See, I am also trying to improve this drafts and I got some good results and feedbacks from the authors.

I'm explaining all this to you (instead of taking this matter to community discussion) because I personally feel that you could understand the problem and you are one of the most experienced editors here and you are quite involved in AfCs. So If you agree to what I am trying to explain, then only I will take this matter on a community discussion. I know you are more experienced editor than me and will surely try to understand what I am trying to explain. Many thanks-

• I'll be totally honest
  TL;DR and I have an exam in 35 minutes I'm cramming for last minute. What I can say from what I read is this, as part of the move to using the new Draft: space for AfC, I'm working on creating a new Article Creation Wizard which will be intended to catch most of the quick fail submissions and prevent them from being submitted while offering the page creator some helpful tips or ideas on how to improve and resolve the issue. I plan on doing this using JavaScript through the GuidedTour extension, so I'm expecting it to be pretty comprehensive. I think that this, which I'm already developing (call me old fashioned, I'm drawing the flow charts and initial design idea on paper (poor trees)). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Your idea is pretty good (Not old fashioned some people still do develop like this). But I'm talking about something else. Please read the total message and then you will know what actually I mean. I know it was a bit

talk) 21:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Technical 13. I noticed this which brought back bad memories for me. I am glad to see you editing more productively now and would hate to see you go back to commenting on people's signatures. --John (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I simply couldn't help myself. The guy with the big blue flashy box expressing himself saying this isn't the place for self expression kind of led to a "Say whut!?" moment... I didn't want to make too big a point of pointing out the oxymoron, which is why I wrapped it in <small>...</small>. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a friendly reminder, please remember to set the answered=no parameter to "yes" once you've answered a request or are awaiting user input, so the submissions aren't needlessly listed at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. The user can then change it to "no" when they reply. Thank you! --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You even have a nice script that can do it for you :P Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• BZTMPS, I do set |ans=y when answering edit requests (and often go through and add the parameter for others that fix it). Can you point me to the request in which I missed this, as I am using User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper to answer requests (often using the one click answers) and if there is a bug in the script not adding it, I would like to know about it (and I'm guessing Jack probably would too). Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a side-note, an easier way to mention this is to add a note directly to the request using {{

U|Technical 13}} (or if it was someone else substitute their username) and I'll find it quickly. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops, I thought I saw this happen a few times but after further investigation, most of them were just users setting them to "no" and not following up. Sorry! I did find one though: 1, I feel like I'm scrutinising you now haha, my apologies --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• BZTMPS, that was because I intended to leave it open. "Not done for now: Can you provide a link to that patent that verifies this?" Was my comment, and I left an open question hoping the OP would respond and since I was heading to bed, I left it open so as soon as they responded it could get taken care of by whomever happened upon it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template does state to change the parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input but I can see your reasoning here. No worries, cheers for helping! -BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry for editing it. But I have to do this to contact others since I am a new here. Can you suggest me a link how to discuss thing here. Thank. And sorry for irritating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beraak bama (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll respond on your talk page and give you some links / new user help boxes. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Technical 13:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our

AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation[reply

]

Hi! Thank you for your help. Best wishes! --Sailefan (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted years ago for only having marginal notability at the time, and based on my research the agency appears to have increased coverage by

I'd love to help,

WP:AN. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thanks for the reply
  WP:DRV with my request, which in itself is not really a big deal. I'll give it a few hours (watching movies at the moment) so those stalkers will have a chance to look over the request. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep me posted if you want me to comment at DRV or somewhere. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job

None of what that user did falls under any definition of

Really, what this looks like to me is that you got upset that this guy was clogging up the backlog at User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable and tried to get him whacked for it. Congratulations, you got your wish! You can return to minding your tech-fixations safe in the knowledge that nobody is gonna make those backlogs too long on your watch. Meanwhile, some poor sap probably halfway across the world is left frustratedly wondering why the hell he's totally lost the ability to edit.

For someone who seems to take a lot of pride in his own helpfulness and Wiki-savvy, you sure took one hell of a fall here. ~~

(

WP:BOLDly split the talk pages apart, to prevent further confusion.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

A little circumspection and cluefulness, maybe? The sorts of character traits that a wannabe admin should have? And you don't see how personally attacking a newbie who clearly has difficulties with English by proclaiming them a "vandal" (see

talk) 20:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Personal attack? Not sure how you are coming up with that, and I'm not going to bother to read your
  TL;DR
  rant above. Nothing in those requests indicated that the requests were for another page (and I'm not convinced that they are), and making the exact same request over and over and over in indicative of the account being a bot. Also, after I warned the user that making the same request after I declined the first five telling them they could edit it themselves and a future duplicate request would be considered vandalism should have set off an alarm to maybe change there request and not submit a duplicate non-explanatory request.

Lothar's speculation that the request is not for that page but instead a page redirected there has me wondering Jackmcbarn if there is any way we can pass a parameter to the preload template so that it can properly indicate which page the edit request is for. I know there is a ticket in on Bugzilla to be able to pass a parameter directly in the URL bar, but that request has been sitting there quite some time with no progress. So, I started wondering if the parameter was in the URL bar, could we retrieve it with Lua (since that template actually calls a module anyways), but Legoktm said that wasn't possible on IRC. Do you have any other ideas or suggestions (or maybe you could write a patch to be merged to close the BZ ticket)? Thanks for any ideas. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your head is really rammed that far up your rear, kindly keep off pages that require you to actually see what you are editing. ~~

talk) 01:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• assuming good faith of other editors, I maintain that the only way that the edit requests could have been interpreted as for that non-indicated template would be if you put the template on enwp yourself, as you clearly did. Have a nice day. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'll try to work on a patch. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(

♪ talk ♪ 00:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You might feel that the Arabic-language edits giving reports of an ongoing civil war were vandalism, but arguably your edits

WP:3RR violation, if that rule were loosely extended to cover certain talk-page editing. You should take the above comments to heart, as well as the comments at #Protected templates above. In my opinion, we should look for the same traits in admins as Google looks for in employees. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• No, I feel that multiple requests to edit an unprotected page when you've been told multiple times the page is not protected and you can edit yourself is vandalism. Also, there were 0RR there as I never
  Reverted any of the requests, they were left on the page for all to see, so it doesn't matter how loosely you want to interpret 3RR, I didn't revert. I do take all comments on my talk page into consideration, that does not make them gold or law or worth anything. If there are valid points, I adopt those points and the rest isn't really worth anything. I offered the user who kept making the requests a welcome on their talk page, I offered them an invite to the Teahouse to ask why their request kept getting rejected, they ignored the warnings and multiple other options for getting help, and they were blocked because of it. All of that being said, I think I am done discussing it at this point. Have a nice day and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

note on your comment

Hello Technical 13, Technical 13 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

hey, thanks for your comment at my section at Village Pump Idea LAb. your idea sounds like a nice idea as well. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha... Which one? I put lots of ideas and comments out there. {{
  WP:Thanks are useful for this type of thing. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

thanks! I meant, this one. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Idea_for_new_article_namespace:_.22workspace.22 --Sm8900 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This week's

article for improvement

(week 10, 2014)

Because it is so vast, there are a large number of different cultures involved in Prehistoric Asia Hello, Technical 13. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Prehistoric Asia Previous selections: Human skeleton • Reconnaissance satellite Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Thanks!

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		For your recent assistance responding to the request I left on someone else's talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making new userboxes on tropical storms or hurricanes, figure skating, living in Iowa City, long hair and sobbing

Can someone please make new Wikipedia Userboxes regarding

talk) 15:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Angela, I'd be happy to make you some custom userboxes for these things, but I'm going to need much more detail for each one. I need to know what you want for colors, images, wording, etc... for each separate one. If it is easier for you, feel free to create an image in ms-paint or something and upload it to commons (using a PD license like Template:Cc-zero). Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In regard to
  talk) 19:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

IRC

Can you hop on IRC? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just about to head to class in 10 minutes, but I suppose... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at

Nancy Buchanan

(March 5)

Articles for Creation

has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at
  Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nancy Buchanan
  .
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to
  link
  to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Samuel Eto&

Hi there. After replying to your discussion I tagged the page for speedy deletion and it was in fact erased almost immediately by NawlinWiki. So in case you didn't read my answer, here's a copy:

I've compared this original request to the existing article at Samuel Eto'o. Actually the IP wants some statistical table entries to be changed, namely "La Liga 2004-2005": 37||25||6||1||0||0||7||4||0||45||29||6 → 37||24||6||1||0||0||7||4||0||45||28||6 and "Barcelona Total": !145!!108!!26!!15!!3!!0!!41!!18!!9!!201!!129!!35 → !145!!108!!26!!15!!3!!0!!41!!18!!9!!201!!128!!35 (bold font by me). But as there are no references for the League entries at all, I'm not going to change it. I think we can have this page speedied. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw it was deleted, and that is just fine by me... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Accountcreator topicon

Resolved

Hello. I take concern to your last two revisions to Template:Accountcreator topicon. You replaced the image with File:HSWikimedia.svg, a Wikimedia logo, which I see no connection to the account creator right, File:Wikipedia Accountcreators v2.svg was the appropriate image. Also, you changed the offset formula, which works on your user page, but you have many top icons, and all the ones on my user page are intended to be the same size. Could you please explain these changes to help me better understand them? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• request an account process. While, yes I know that the ACC process isn't the only to use this userright, it is the only use that I could find with a different enough icon that could be distinguished. As far as the offset formula goes, I had to change that because the different icon had a slightly different size and I had to compensate for that. I checked what it looked like on many different computer systems (with carious resolutions and screen sizes) as a single icon, one of 2/3/4/5, and one of many icons and all looked reasonable to me. If you have a better icon that doesn't just look like a globe and can be distinguished and understood what it means at a glance, I'm certainly willing to help incorporate a different image instead. If you can modify File:Wikipedia Accountcreators v2.svg so the people are bigger, or maybe add a third person, or put some people on both sides so they can be seen somehow at that tiny 24px size, then I would be happy to restore that as well. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think the people are clear enough, but there is . 117Avenue (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed the icon and adjusted the formula per your suggestion. Happy editing (or account creating)!!!! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see there's a svg version . 117Avenue (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mop reserved in your name

You are an exemplary editor—indeed remarkable. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and you are qualified! You personify an Administrator without tools , and have gained my support; already!

While it is true, saying this comment comes from a non-admin, it is equally true that you have shown yourself to be well suited for the role; if it was something you were willing to pursue. Having seen your contributions over time, I believe you would gain the community's support if you did put your candidacy forward. In any regard, I think you deserve to be told that your efforts are known, and well appreciated.—

John Cline (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• John, I suppose in that case, I should take some time to finish preparing my answers to the first three questions on User:Technical 13/Requests for adminship/ and prepare my acceptance statement. I've actually considered adminship for multiple reasons on multiple occasions, and have been hesitant to pursue it because I know there are at least a half dozen opposes before I even get started. The reasons I have considered it are because I enjoy doing technical work, and I've often been shut-down by my inability to edit in the MediaWiki namespace, my inability to edit fully protected or cascade protected pages, and I'm also prevented from tackling the perpetual state of backlog in the CheckUser queue on the ACC tools (and getting CheckUser requires adminship). Thank you for your support, and I'll ping you again when I've completed that. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You can count on my support; in the time I have interacted with you you have been a model editor. Thanks, Matty.007 18:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My advice: you shouldn't run just yet. Things like
      WP:AN#User:Scott and your exchange with Lothar von Richthofen below are going to put people off supporting an RfA. One of the most important things that voters look for at RfA is that you can handle disputes with other users well, and I would guess that those two interactions (and maybe there are some others too?) are a little too dramatic for most people. I recommend that you buy yourself a nice flame-proof suit and run after you've spent a suitably long period drama-free. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Query

What were you trying to do here? --John (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well...

On Nine Inch Nails in the lede is the text: "(abbreviated as NIИ)"

On Korn in the lede is the text: "(stylized as KoЯn)"

F★CK

shows the title of the movie stylized as F★CK, so I was trying to introduce some consistency by adding: "(stylized F★CK)"

Hopefully that explains it in better detail (you only get so much room in an edit summary and it sucks editing from a touchscreen on a little mobile phone). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{

RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters

. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't

Don't ping me again. Don't send me "thanks". I'm not interested in seeing your name when I open my email. — Scott • talk 09:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R from alternative capitalisation

Mr. Stradivarius,

Moved to Template talk:Redirect template § Recent disposal of Incorrect redirect template

to prevent fragmentation of discussion. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Dashboard

This page has ceased to work User:Ronhjones/Adminship - the template is not transcluding properly - it's probably got too big to work - too many embedded templates. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that's how it was when I found it. I've made a bunch of modifications, and added some parameters which will allow you to filter out sections that you don't want to see. See the documentation on the Template:Admin dashboard about these parameters. I'm still working on reducing the footprint of the overall template package, but it may take me a while. Also, reducing the backlogs, will reduce the inclusion size as well. Not much I can do there. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still does not transclude  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The templates seem to be too big - if I click edit on may page and go for preview I get ""Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This was reported as a problem eight hours ago at
  WP:PROD are getting larger counteracting me making the actual footprint of the template smaller.  ;) I'll keep poking at it. Are there any specific things that you don't participate much in like RFP or AIV? I can chop those sections out of your template call and it should tranclude for you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hey ho - fixed User:Ronhjones/Adminship - I just used the seven templates from the Dec13 version directly onto my page. Wikipedia and it's post-include expand size can be a right pain. Maybe trying to keep it all within one template is just too much.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the NavBox at the end - I've had no end of issues with NavBoxes in the past causing memory to run out - so not saying that's the issue, but I wonder how many admins actually scroll down to the bottom? Not me.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've actually already chopped out both of the bottom two navboxs... The ones with links to policies and the one for new admins. (they only show up if explicitly asked for with |newadmin=yes). Big problem seems to be the {{
  WP:PERM are another big chunk. I'm thinking they could probably be Luafied... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just playing around - the "rfarfp" causes the most memory issues. On my page "Post‐expand include size: 360913/2048000 bytes without it", and almost at the limit of 2048000 with it.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the page I'm working on. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it helps - I tend to try to remove as many non-dynamic templates as possible - there was a fad for using {{·}} some time ago - that resolves to a nonbreaking space, a dot and a space - thus a template of size 1 went to 3 - does not sound much, but when there were a couple of hundred in NavBoxes, the pages went over to top (they were big pages to start with!) changing all to "&nbps;· " with AWB fixed the problem, although some editors did say it was not so neat... Keep at it :-)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your mass message

Hey, just a small thing, but your recent RfC mass message should read "its", not "it's", in case you plan on sending more in the future. Best, It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 19:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, It Is Me Here, you are correct. About your signature, did you know that the <font> tags that you are using are deprecated? A good replacement for your signature might be '''[[User:It Is Me Here|<span style="color:#060">It Is Me Here</span>]]''' <sup>'''[[User_talk:It Is Me Here|<span style="color:#C60">t</span>]] / [[Special:Contribs/It Is Me Here|<span style="color:#C60">c</span>]]'''</sup> which will produce: It Is Me Here ^{t / c}. Anyways, thanks for stopping by, I'm usually somewhat of a grammar Nazi as well.  ;) Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're the boss It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 19:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    its & it's

    This user understands the difference between its and it's. So should you.

    Wbm1058 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, yes...  Self-trout — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Hello technical, Do you have any bot which can help me organize a wiki meetup in kolkata. Actually I need to send messages about this event to users from multiple categories. I need it to work for me. So, I'm here to ask if you can help me. As I know, you are good at technical works. If you don't have any bots then you can help me creating a bot. I have some basic programming knowledge in Java (BlueJ). Please let me know if you can help. Thanks. –

talk) 08:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Occasions where it's best to contact oversight

Hi Technical13. Thanks for your attempts to encourage sense on

WP:AN

(a generally thankless task!)

As a very minor note, contacting oversight is only generally appropriate for material on Wikipedia that needs to be removed from view.

Thus, someone who believes an administrator is sending them harassing emails, should not contact oversight. There's nothing that the oversight team can do about this as part of their role.

Instead, as far as I can see, contacting arbcom by email is the appropriate course of action. I don't, however, believe your closure needs revisiting; it will suffice :)

Things are confused here by the fact that contacting the oversight list does in fact also contact most members of arbcom plus some other functionaries; thus it's not a complete waste of time. It is however not a good use of people's time - in my view, which is open to correction from oversighty peoples.

There's some level of privilege that allows one to check whether someone has used the Wikipedia Email function to contact an editor (which may or may not have been alleged in this case), but I can't remember whether oversight is the permission in question. --

talk) 20:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Demiurge1000, oversight actually wasn't my idea. My part of the closure was "This is not the place for any discussion. Wikipedia:Threats of violence says; If you feel there is a real world threat against your physical well-being, email your complaint to emergencywikimedia.org." Guy Macon is actually the one that suggested contacting oversight, and I was trying to not be "no Guy, you're wrong" since I knew it would end up with the same basic result and included it in my closure summary. Trying to keep some peace and not step on Guy's toes since they answered first. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ...which was a total brain fart on my part. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding article Traita

Thanks for your views about my article on traita, i had tried my level best to get it approved but i failed and so i m sad :( because its really important to create an article on such a great philosophy which is very scientific. I didn't understand that what you meant by context regarding article, pls let me know what more can be done in the article to publish it. --Sandeep (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandeep, it means that after reading the draft, I had no idea of what the article was suppose to be about, or why it is important enough to be part of the encyclopedia.

my ffriend i can understand that you were unable to article but disagree on on your point that weather its imp or not further i will tray to explain the concept more clearly but give it a chance to get published so that more contriibutors can contribute — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

As a regular clearer of the "SPERTable" I note you have refused several requests for additions to the

Talk:Nudity in music videos#Inclusion criteria for specific inclusion criteria for that article, which, I hope, will reduce the size of the table and the number of requests for additions. I would welcome any comments/observations/counter proposals you may wish to make. Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

A Dobos torte for you!

Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Youri Raffi Djorkaeff

sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Youri Raffi Djorkaeff during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Template help needed (not urgent)

A question for my favorite template expert.

I'm now a clerk for Arbcom.

One of the tasks is monitoring whether a case has been accepted or rejected. This sounds trivial, but is surprisingly complex. On any given case an arb may be active or inactive. If active, may choose to accept, decline, recuse, or make a comment without a vote. We also may have created a contingent decline option, although that may change.

The current process is to keep track of the results as a four-tuple, so, for example <0/8/1/3> means zero have accepted, 8 have declined, one has recused and 3 have commented without voting.

It is my opinion that we should be a bit more formal. I'm not confident my proposal will succeed, but I'd like to mock up something as part of a proposal. What I would like to do is create a template that has each arbs name, and their vote, and have the template do the totals. The math is trivial, but I do not know how to do math in a template. I know it can be done, but I do not know how.

I have a crude mockup in User:Sphilbrick/sandbox

I think I can figure out how to do most of it, but can you point me to someplace where it tells me how to do a sum?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Sphilbrick: Sums of arbitrary data aren't exactly easy in wikitext. Anyway, mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##expr is what you're looking for. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sphilbrick that looks like "just" a table in your sandbox... Although what I'm thinking you want "could" be done with a template (I have most of the code in my head), it would be extremely complicated code for such a simple result. This is one of those things that would much (much much much) better be handled by a lua module and my (talk page stalker) there could help you with that. The "template code would be something like:

...
|- style="font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: bottom;"
| width="10" height="42" |  
| width="116" |  
| width="20" | Inactive
| width="20" | Accept
| width="20" | Decline
| width="20" | Recuse
| width="20" | Other
|- style="font-size: 11pt" vertical-align: bottom;"
| height="15" | 1
| AGK
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{AGK|i}}}}}|i|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{AGK|i}}}}}|a|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{AGK|i}}}}}|d|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{AGK|i}}}}}|r|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{AGK|i}}}}}|o|1| }}
|- style="font-size: 11pt" vertical-align: bottom;"
| height="15" | 2
| Beeblebrox
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Beeblebrox|i}}}}}|i|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Beeblebrox|i}}}}}|a|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Beeblebrox|i}}}}}|d|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Beeblebrox|i}}}}}|r|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Beeblebrox|i}}}}}|o|1| }}
|- style="font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: bottom;"
| height="15" | 3 ... 14
| The rest of them, same as above...
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Arb|i}}}}}|i|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Arb|i}}}}}|a|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Arb|i}}}}}|d|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Arb|i}}}}}|r|1| }}
| {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Arb|i}}}}}|o|1| }}
|- style="font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: bottom;"
| height="15" |  
|  
| {{#expr:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{AGK|i}}}}}|i=1|#default=0}}+{{#switch:{{lc:{{{Beeblebrox|i}}}}}|i=1|#default=0}}+{{#switch:{{lc:{{{Arb|i}}}}}|i=1|#default=0}}}}
| {{#expr:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{AGK|i}}}}}|a=1|#default=0}}+{{#switch:{{lc:{{{Beeblebrox|i}}}}}|a=1|#default=0}}+{{#switch:{{lc:{{{Arb|i}}}}}|a=1|#default=0}}}}
| {{#expr:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{AGK|i}}}}}|d=1|#default=0}}+{{#switch:{{lc:{{{Beeblebrox|i}}}}}|d=1|#default=0}}+{{#switch:{{lc:{{{Arb|i}}}}}|d=1|#default=0}}}}
| {{#expr:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{AGK|i}}}}}|r=1|#default=0}}+{{#switch:{{lc:{{{Beeblebrox|i}}}}}|r=1|#default=0}}+{{#switch:{{lc:{{{Arb|i}}}}}|r=1|#default=0}}}}
| {{#expr:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{AGK|i}}}}}|o=1|#default=0}}+{{#switch:{{lc:{{{Beeblebrox|i}}}}}|o=1|#default=0}}+{{#switch:{{lc:{{{Arb|i}}}}}|o=1|#default=0}}}}
|}

And the template would be called as: {{ArbCount|AGK=a|Beeblebrox=d|Arb=i}} keeping in mind that none of the Arbs can have an empty value (they could, but it adds a level of nesting like {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Arb|{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Arb}}}}}||i|{{{Arb}}}}}}}}}}|i|1| }} which would have to be done to every parameter check so that if it is empty and defined it passes an "i" through to note "inactive" since they haven't responded yet unless "no comment" is a desired option in which case could be done but would need to twist the code the other way a little. Due to this complexity, I think a Lua script could give you the same result much easier... (I'm assuming you would also want to be able to collapse this table showing only the result column at the bottom as well, no?) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created it as a table, just to show you how it might look. Thanks for the detailed responses, I'll have to look at this in more detail later. --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFCH buddy missed a chunk..

Hey there Excirial,

Template:AFC statistics wasn't updating during that time (which caused me to quit reviewing because I couldn't get a fresh list) due to server issues for Earwigbot. Not sure how those issues affected your script, if at all. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The short answer would be "The reviews were not done using the

AFCH

script and therefore are not be detected". The long answer is that AFCBuddy scans a users contributions for edit summaries left bij the AFCH script. These always have a fixed format for both accepts and declines, and due to this it is easy to determine if a user made a review using the script, and if the review was an accepted or declined page.

The review script you use refers to "WP:AFCHRW" and uses a text including a version number instead of a reference to "Wikipedia:AFCH" and the text "AFCH Beta". I can see if i can update the regex to include this variety as well, but i am not to keen on adding multiple version of the script to the detection routine. Adding multiple formats only increases the change something is missed or errors out due to some cross-script-version inconsistency in summaries that were never accounted for when building AFCBuddy's regular expressions. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Excirial, that makes sense. I'm not sure of what the workflow for the script I'm using is exactly, although I'm inclined to believe that it is intended and will likely be the replacement for the existing script. Theopolisme, what is the chance of moving the re-write script into the actual developer slot for the reviewer script and adjusting the edit summary so that reviews using it will be counted by AFCBuddy? Excirial, if I was to log those reviews on my page manually, and include the diff (using the same syntax that AFCBuddy uses), would AFCBuddy remove them or leave them (I'm assuming it creates a whole new page every time that runs? I don't feel I'm being clear about what I'm asking, but I'm not sure how else to word it, so please bear with me and ask whatever questions to make it clear. Thanks guys. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request deleted

Can you tell me why you deleted edit request on

ASU Politehnica Timișoara? There is a double redirect that needs to be fixed. Coderzombie (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Coderzombie Rose, I didn't remove it. I consolidated two separate requests to fix redirects to the same page into a single request to fix them both. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hadn't noticed that. When I saw the page, it wasn't yet fixed. Thanks. Coderzombie (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. Rose thought I had removed the request too... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VPT

Only warning. Stop now. Discuss before making your edit again, or be blocked. It's

bold, revert, discuss. Oh, and plse don't use Twinkle to edit-war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• HJ Mitchell, I do hope that you intend to leave the same message for Redrose64 as the chain of events was bold (her), revert (me), revert (her), revert AGF (me)... hopefully she will come to my talk page and discuss it... While you are here on my talk page, are you aware that the <font> tags that you are using in your signature are deprecated? A good replacement for your signature might be [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal;font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ Mitchell'''</span>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy;font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] which would look like → HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? ← — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HJ. @

MOS:ACCESS#Indentation applies too. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• definition lists." which include, <dl>, <dt>, <dd>, <ol>, <ul>, and the sub tag of <li> for ol and ul (which is a bulleted list). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

CfD or anything related; there is neither a consensus poll nor a request for comment

on that page. There is therefore no call to use bullets.

"Whitespace is also not necessary between any lines within an indented or bulleted list" does not imply that either colons or bullets are acceptable for indenting - what it says is that when colons or bullets are used (for whatever purpose), there is no necessity to interpose blank lines between the entries.

MOS:ACCESS#Indentation is very much relevant: it begins with "Colons at the start of a line indent the line. This is used, for example, to indicate replies in a threaded discussion on Talk pages." Although it does go on to state "This indentation is achieved by using HTML definition lists.", it says nothing about the actual HTML tags used, and certainly doesn't mention "<ol>, <ul>, and the sub tag of <li>", which are used in ordered lists and unordered lists, but not in HTML definition lists (these comprise the <dt>...</dt> and <dd>...</dd> elements, enclosed in a <dl>...</dl> element). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• definition list which is to what this refers? Plain and simple, messages that are not delimited by some mean, whether it be bullet, number, letter, image, or some other method render materials difficult to read. Not having delimiters is an accessibility issue for me. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, I did. The link to

definition list links to a section which is not specific to definition lists. It is headed simply "Lists", and describes the elements used in constructing four types of HTML list. Notice that only three of these elements - the first three - actually use the term "definition list" in their descriptions. That was the normal name for the <dl>...</dl> structure in HTML 4.01, but which in HTML 5 is now known as an "association list". Neither of these specifications suggests that <ol> <ul> or <li> (HTML 4.01, HTML 5) is anything to do with a definition (or association) list. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• I can see the fine line that you feel is concrete, however, reading the existing policy, and taking the logical steps still ends up with <ol> <ul> or <li> are encouraged by
  WP:TPO#fixformat as it renders the page more difficult to read. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Actually, "Examples include ... removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC)" seems abundantly clear. And if anything, a mix of bulleted and non-bulleted posts is harder to read than all posts being non-bulleted. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." seems even clearer and I've always objected to removing my bullets. I don't find the mix harder to read. In most cases it is my post that is directly following another's post at the same indention level that causes the need for the bullet and delimitation. The bigger issue I see in most cases is that people do not know how to properly thread a discussion. There are at very least who do understand that their post should be exactly one level deeper than the post they are replying to and not necessarily the post directly above theirs. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're selectively ignoring text. The full text of the third paragraph is:

Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

You quoted the first two sentences, but chose not to quote the third. I contend that my removal of those bullets was an "example of appropriately editing others' comments", since it is explicitly described in the list of examples which follows. I quote the relevant entry in full:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.

I removed bullets from a discussion that was neither a consensus poll nor a request for comment; I also restricted my edits to formatting changes only, and I preserved the content - not merely "as much as possible" which is the minimum requirement, but in toto. My edits were therefore entirely within this guideline.

Let me demonstrate in a simple way how correct indenting yields HTML definition lists using only the <dl>...</dl> structure. Take any discussion page where the indenting solely uses colons. Take, for example, Talk:Nishant. View the page, and observe that it has two threads: one with two posts to an indent depth of 1; the second with four posts, to an indent depth of 3. Now use your browser's "view source" feature to examine the HTML; look for some of the text that is indented in the original, for example, the text "I have created the page and, in view of the long deletion log, restored the full protection to prevent inappropriate additions." in the first thread on the page, which is indented to a depth of 1. Observe the HTML used for that: it is

<dl>
<dd>I have created the page and, in view of the long deletion log, restored the full protection to prevent inappropriate additions. —&#160;Martin <small>(<a href="/wiki/User:MSGJ" title="User:MSGJ">MSGJ</a>&#160;·&#160;<a href="/wiki/User_talk:MSGJ" title="User talk:MSGJ">talk</a>)</small> 11:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)</dd>
</dl>

There are five elements here: discounting the three inline elements (one <small>...</small> and two <a>...</a>) that are part of MSGJ's signature, what we have is a <dd>...</dd> element enclosed in a <dl>...</dl> element - a definition list. Now consider the HTML that represents the second thread on the same page, from your own comment onward:

<dl>
<dd><img alt=""  width="20" height="20"  /> <b>Question:</b> Wouldn't <code>[[Nishant (film)|''Nishant'']]</code> be more appropriate? — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 15:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
<dl>
<dd>No, per <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:DABPIPE" title="Wikipedia:DABPIPE" class="mw-redirect">WP:DABPIPE</a>. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
<dl>
<dd><img alt=""  width="20" height="20"  /> <b>Done</b> --Redrose64 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>

I have omitted the src= and srcset= attributes of the <img /> elements for clarity, they are not relevant to this discussion. Similarly, I have omitted the markup (but not the text) of the signatures. What we have is thus: one <a>...</a> element; two <b>...</b> elements; one <code>...</code> element; three <dd>...</dd> elements; three <dl>...</dl> elements; and two <img>...</img> elements. Notice that the <dd>...</dd> and <dl>...</dl> elements nest inside one another. Notice also the complete absence of <ol> <ul> or <li>, so the correct use of colons for indentation most definitely does yield a <dl>...</dl> structure, each and every time. As soon as you use a bullet, you're then introducing a <ul>...</ul> element, the unordered list, which is not a definition list. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit at

Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages#Bullet points in an attempt to bring it into line with the Talk page guidelines, not realising this discussion existed at the time. T13 reverted my edit. Discussion regarding my edit and the subsequent revert is proceeding at Wikipedia talk:Tutorial/Talk pages#Reverted edit. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Please comment on

Talk:Yelp, Inc.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Talk:Yelp, Inc.. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Drug2Gene submission rejected

Hi. I can not understand why you reject the submission of Drug2Gene page. It has publication in popular scientific journal (BMC Bioinformatics). Also there is already another wikipedia article that mentioned Drug2Gene as specialized database (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biological_databases) and it will be good for the users to get more information on Drug2gene in separate wikipedia article. Ivobio (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I did not accept your draft is that it is inadequately cited with reliable sources. Please read
  WP:SOURCE and improve the citations and number of references for your draft before resubmitting. Good luck and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

List of PlayStation 3 games

Hi Donald. I fulfilled an edit request and noticed that the table is a mess. Revision as of 06:56, 7 November 2013 looks like the first recent where the problem is showing up ... argh, dang, selftrout, had I spend 10 seconds looking at the article talk page I would have seen it is a server side size limitation,

Talk:List of PlayStation 3 games#Templates not showing. Are you the man for proposing a sensible way of splitting? Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'm away from home for the next 9-10 hours but will look at it when I get back. The ways to fix that are reducing the transclusion size of the templates used, reducing the number of templates used, or splitting the page as a last resort. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll clean up the templates that are causing the problem. It should be fixed soon. No need to split up the article or anything like that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jackmcbarn, not quite... "Viking: Battle for Asgard[805] The Creative Assembly Template:Vgrtbl Template:Color Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:No Template:No" is what I still see... Going to trim it a little more myself now... :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you sure? Purge the page. I don't see that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did purge before I saw that... I just went through and subst: all of the {{Yes}} and {{No}} and now the page is down to Post‐expand include size: 1367462/2048000 bytes so it should be fine. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think substing the yes/no just makes a big mess and will confuse new editors. Can you upload a screenshot of what you're seeing, since I don't see it even with that edit undone? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • (edit conflict) Not sure what that EC was I just got, but it seems to be working fine now. I don't think it will confuse anyone to figure out based on the hundereds of examples on the page that no is background-color:#F99... |No and yes is background-color:#9F9... |Yes. However if you still think so, as soon as the RPP request to lower yes and no to  Template editor goes through, I'll chop a few bits from each one (like there is no need to specify color: #000 in either one) and restore it to using the templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Seriously, PLEASE don't subst yes/no/partial. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is you guys do, it's pretty amazing for one who does not know how to do it. :) Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 00:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sam, Jack: Okay, so {{Yes}} and {{No}} were lowered to  Template editor and I trimmed 23 bits from each, restored this list to use those templates, and the new report is we're at Post‐expand include size: 1519401/2048000 bytes which should be good for quite some time. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archived {{request edit}}

When edit requests show up on User:AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable but are archived, here and here, what is best procedure? To delete them or set a parametre? Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because they are archived doesn't mean you can't answer them... Answer them like any other request (which is more likely than not declined due to a lack of consensus or the request wouldn't have gotten so stale it was archive). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Age in years, months and days redirects discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirects Template:For year month day/Exp and Template:Age in years, months and days/Exp. Since you had some involvement with these redirects, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Latin America broken

Hi. This edit put over 1500 pages into both Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors and Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates, so I've fixed it up per the documentation at Template:WPBannerMeta#Syntax - which just happens to be exactly how it was before. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for fixing that Rose. It makes no sense to me why it did that, but I'll experiment with it in my sandbox and figure it out. In the mean time, I appreciate you fixing it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This week's

article for improvement

(week 13, 2014)

The knee of a patient is examined with help of radiography after an injury. Hello, Technical 13. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Injury Previous selections: Rare breed (agriculture) Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

What is WACG? Where is it referenced in WP:SIG?

And why can't you just ask the user to change their signature instead of doing it on just one page and not even bothering to mention it to them? --Onorem (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NVM. I found WCAG now...and see that someone else has already asked them to change it. It would have helped if you mentioned the WCAG portion with your first edit and left out the bit about it being painful and the bit about not including the username (which is not a requirement last I checked.) --Onorem (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I transposed the letters, my bad. I was going to leave them a mention on their talk page, but hadn't gotten around to it yet. If someone else has already done it, that's fine. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures again

While this has all been good and fun... I'm done discussing it here. If you feel that it requires further discussion John, I will reluctantly do so at

WP:AN/I. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please don't make any more edits like this one. --John (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• John, care to expand why I'm unable to fix a signature with a color ratio of 1.07 fails WCAG on every level in violation of multiple policies? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I think because you were unblocked with the understanding that you wouldn't be involving yourself with signatures again. Has that quasi-restriction been lifted by the unblocking admin? If not it would probably be wise to channel your efforts elsewhere (even if I agree with you on the obnoxious signatures front). –xeno^talk 22:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that is why. --John (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhh... Well, since there is no recidivism and I'm not making any pointed refusals to take hints, there is nothing to see here. There is no restriction on me assisting others with their signatures or requesting them to fix there signatures per the what is now a policy, especially in regards to meeting the WCAG guidelines to prevent issues with those whom have medical conditions related to vision and color blindness. There was just the restriction that I don't start any signature related shenanigans, which I am not consider fixing a signature per policy starting any shenanigans. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree. Per This covers ... complaining about others' sigs, and anything like that. this is now into the area you said you would avoid. Did you get a mentor? If so, who did you get? --John (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhh... Now looking back, none of that actually was part of the unblock request acceptance which is as I quote, Accept reason: On the condition that any recidivism, in particular related to signatures or a pointed refusal to take a hint, will be met with a swift re-block. There is no such restriction there. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was an inappropriate action.

WP:TPO states that If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures... you may edit the signature to the standard form. The WCAG guidelines, while meritorious, are not included in them. (An attempt to include signatures in the accessibility section of the MOS failed

in 2012.) Had this come from another user, I would chalk it up to inexperience or a misunderstanding. However, you have been warned before to absent yourself from the area of other users' signatures.

Last warning. If I see you attempting to act as guideline enforcer for any other user's signature, in light of repeated warnings for you not to, I will consider it as disruptive editing and follow it with a block. You can discuss problematic signatures with their owners, but that's it. — Scott • talk 11:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Scott, your comment here is against your ban from commenting on my talk page. You've been told multiple times by me to keep your comments about this topic off of my talk page both here on my talk page and at AN(/I). There is absolutely no excuse for your comment here as John and I were already discussing it and you are obviously just sticking your nose in here in an attempt to harass me and make personal threats and attacks. As such, I'm afraid I have to take this issue to the Arbitration Committee as this is a pointed refusal to take the hint that you are not welcome on my talk page with comments on this topic. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About

WP:CASC

Would you mind sort of "teaching" me how you found out that

WP:CASC? I'd like to know, in case I can determine those templates are incorrectly placed on that page myself. Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• I suppose I could do that Steel1943.

1. Open Notepad++
2. New tab with //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Cascade-protected_items&action=info#mw-pageinfo-templates
3. Copy contents of that list to new1.txt in notepad
4. New tab with //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere&namespace=10&hideredirs=1&hidelinks=1&target=Template:«Protected_Template» replacing «Protected_Template» with the template you want to research.
5. Copy contents of that list (all pages) to new2.txt in notepad
6. Make sure to trim any parenthetical extras from every line (search and replace (ctrl+h) to replace
   ReGex
   of /\((.*)?\)/ with nothing should work) on both pages.
7. Make sure to sort the lists in alphabetical order (I copied them to
   WikEd
   to sort them).
8. Make sure to save both lists
9. Open
   ExamDiff
   with both text files (make sure to check the options and that "Only show differences" is NOT checked (as what you want is the similarities)
10. Go through and copy every similar line to your sandbox (I copied them to User:Technical 13/SandBox#Quick Spot)
11. Wrap each line in * [[]]
12. Go through each one of those links and find where the template is actually used.

As you can see, it can be quite a process and it does not always produce very useful results. Feel free to ask me for help if you need to find a cascade protection in the future and I'll see what I can do to help you. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

The only revision to

Subst only}} on 22:19, March 26, 2014 (UTC) which was before your 15:21, March 27, 2014‎ (UTC) nomination for deletion. Perhaps you should make sure that what you come here to complain about and harass me about is true and accurate before you do so in the future. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seeing as how you've now decided to have a go at me in edit summaries on pages that I've never touched, here's a piece of advice for you: if a template is is subst-only by your design, then document it, rather than generating a useless blank documentation subpage and expecting other editors to be psychic. — Scott • talk 16:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Y'know, you could have just pointed that out and I would have retracted it and even accompanied it with an apology. You chose instead to accompany it with a false accusation of harassment. I won't, then. — Scott • talk 17:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you were to look through your recent edit history for comments to me you may see that it is no wonder that I quickly come to the assessment that such "advice" on my talk page is nothing more than additional harassment from you. Perhaps a few comments here or there that don't seem to be complaints or harassment would change such an earned
  assumption of bad faith on your part. Either way, I wish you well. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you for your RfA support

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Wiki

I was/we were asked to take the ACC issue somewhere "on wiki". If you post it somewhere,please let me know. --Tito☸Dutta 15:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tito, you mean the question of whether or not people who have no need for a user right should have it removed? If so, I don't know what else to say as the policy is pretty clear. Per this discussion, users who are no longer involved in the ACC process (meaning their ACC account has been suspended), or with the Education Program may have the user right removed at any time. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it was told so many users' rights can not be removed on the basis of that internal list discussion. Note also the file mover right. Why did that user need file mover right? I had to spend a year and upload many files before getting that right and he got it within minutes of creating account. About Account Creator right, their process is not clear. As we have noted, no once created any account. What was the need? Tito☸Dutta 15:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist

Re:

♔ 18:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thanks
  Czar, I was unaware of that. I've tweeked that template and taken it out of "beta" status (where it has been stranded for the last couple years it seems). I added some error handling so that it will be easier to find when people leave it on a page by accident. You can find a list of accidental leavings at Category:Pages with a transclusion of Template:Reflistp that should be removed‎ (as noted in the updated documentation). Since you are here on my talk page... Might I suggest brining your signature up to date? The <font> tags that you are using were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5
  at all. As such, I suggest replacing:

<span style='font:1.1em"Avenir";padding:1px 3px;border:1px solid #909'><font color="#909">czar</font>&nbsp;[[User:Czar|<font color="#909">♔</font>]]</span>

with:

<span style='font:1.1em"Avenir";padding:1px 3px;border:1px solid #909;color:#909'>czar&nbsp;[[User:Czar|<span style="color:#909">♔</span>]]</span>

which will result in an appearance of: czar 

♔ — Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the suggestion. Two things: (1) I'd like to use your improved code (thanks, again), but the underline beneath the ♔ is colored differently in your version. Know how to fix that using the preferred code? (2) There was some discussion

♔ 15:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Not sure what underline you are talking about. They look identical to me in Firefox (even the underline caused by hovering). Which browser (and version) are you using that they look different or can you be more specific about what or how it looks different and I'd be happy to try and help you figure it out. I'm not sure a bot is required to be honest now that there is a category there (and the count seems to stay right around 0). I'll read the discussion on that and continue any comments or ideas there. I honestly don't know much about bots, but I know who does (and many of them stalk my talk page). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: bots, sounds good. Re: underline, latest Chrome 33. It's #639 vs. #909 (img). czar 

♔ 16:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• So I spent a little time and went through all of my browsers and versions and created a compilation of screenshots displaying how your signature looks as compared to how it would look:

File:Czar signature.png

Czar, apparently, the <font> tag still works in Chromium (Opera 19), Safari, and Chrome. It doesn't work at all in IE (old version 7 from my Win Vista machine or the new version 11 on my Win 7 machine) and results in all black text (the shifting of your box may have just been a result of zooming in). All other browsers show the default hover blue color. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done about the hover color, but I would think that the overall color of #909 is preferred over it showing as black in IE. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Haha, wow. Thanks for doing that. (IE 7 is pretty hilarious.) Odd that the preferred method can't produce the results I want. Anyway, I've switched the first tag and kept the second—best of both worlds. Thanks again for your help czar 

♔ 18:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for all of your work on WT:MMS helping out people who wish to send messages :) Legoktm (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

AfC query

Hi Technical, could you please have a look at Articles for creation/Tony Acree, I don't think it's setup right. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• JM, I've done all I can for it, now it is up to the creator to add some sources in-line and finish it up... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you... JMHamo (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC that you requested

Hi.

I am responding to your request for a link to an RfC about Template:Infobox software but I am responding here because that discussion is resolved with consensus (fortunately). If you want to see the RfC, in the same talk page, scroll upward. The purple hue and the image of a yellow duck are very difficult to miss.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This week's

article for improvement

(week 14, 2014)

An April Fools' Day hoax marking the construction of the Copenhagen Metro in 2001. Hello, Technical 13. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: April Fools' Day Previous selections: Injury • Assassination of Anwar Sadat Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Skilled group

A-holes of the labour market — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.98.58 (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skilled group

A-holes of the labour market — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.98.58 (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

flower time!

Spring is sprung, and there's reason to smile. Somewhere at editor retention it says stuff like "promote a positive environment". Take fuzzy snuggly blanket. Dunk in rain barrel. Option A, spread on line to dry. Option B, toss on someone's head. I got crocuses in my yard..... willing to share!

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Need some help

Hello Technical 13, you already know that I'm working on

^talk) 02:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hello there
  AFCBuddy) have had years of revisions and workings and the re-write script has taken about three months to get close to what the old script was at. So, let's figure out exactly what it needs to do, and I'll start drafting something up for you. :) Since you are here on my talk page... Might I suggest brining your signature up to date? The <font> tags that you are using were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5
  at all. As such, I suggest replacing:

[[User:Jim Cartar|<b><font color="Red">J</font><font color="OrangeRed">i</font><font color="Orange">m</font> <font color="ForestGreen">Carter</font>]]</b> <sup>(</sup>[[User talk:Jim Cartar|<font color="LightBlue"><sup>talk</sup></font>]]<sup>)</sup>

with:

'''[[User:Jim Cartar|<span style="color:#F00">J</span><span style="color:#F46">i</span><span style="color:#FA0">m</span> <span style="color:#282">Carter</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Jim Cartar|<span style="color:#9ACEFE">talk</span>]])</sup>

which will result in an appearance of:

^talk) — Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much, I have changed it now :). "Point System" that is what I was trying to say. There is no problem if it take sometime to write a script. We will not implement the reward system till the script is ready. So, can you create that script on behalf of our project?

Yes that is a real good idea, Three links shall be fine. We will nominate three coordinators of this project and they will re-check.

• I'll head over to your project talk page and see what you've all discussed so far. I'll post the ideas there and see what the other project members think. Then we can start putting together some pseudo-code for your de-orphaning script (which will also post totals / results to a check page at certain intervals which can be looked over and reviewed by others and be the basis for the final scoring system. — {{U|Technical 13}} ⁽t • e • c) 14:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with our project is that the members were not regular here. So it is taking time to come to a conclusion. Your help and ideas will be very much appreciated. (We are also discussing on prominent members talkpages). Thank you.

talk) 14:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

BTW, Do you know someone who can review my request for permission??

talk) 14:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Legoktm comes to mind... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi, if you check version history at ANI you'll find I was working on a joke involving another editor, but was momentarily confused and put in your name instead. I have since corrected the unintended mistake. Sorry.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Please have a sense of humour

There's no reason that my harmless April Fool's prank needs to be deleted immediately; there's no policy against it, and in fact,

at least one core policy quite supports it. Have a sense of humour and leave it be for the day. Pushing to delete it immediately has the primary effect of frustrating me, and no positive effects of which I'm aware. I'll delete it myself once the day's over. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Nihiltres I do have a sense of humor; however, it is quite twisted and this prank isn't that funny. Now, if you wanted to put up an RfF (request for founder) or some such, I'd support it and let it be. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, great job. It's deleted, and I'm annoyed. It's not about the joke itself being particularly funny, it's about playing around with a minor prank. Your sense of humour is not a deletion criterion. For that matter, "RfF" is terribly unfunny from my point of view. The relevant point is that I won't stifle your jokes needlessly; you've managed little more here than ruining my morning. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FOOLS rules was the issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It was a redirect to the article space, not from, and I duly tagged it with {{Humor}}, thus neither of those points apply. For that matter, I ran this prank in 2009 and 2010 without issue. Don't try to rules-lawyer me; you're only digging a deeper hole. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobdy in their right mind would find it humourous to edit the heavily-used "centralized discussion" template to propogate a joke of any type. It's one of the types of behaviours that is unacceptable overall ES&L 16:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People in their right mind are editing from POV. People in their left mind are also. I'm usually in the leftover mind myself.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

RE Wikipedia article Spider Project(software)

Dear Technical 13, thank you for raising issues with the Wikipedia article

Spider Project (software). As this is my first article I think I will need to get little bit more detailed guidelines on how to improve it. I have razed questions at the article's talk page. Would you be able to have a look at my questions and provide more detailed improvement suggestions? Ev2geny (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Details added. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for detailed feedback. I think I understand what you mean (though I do not quite 100% agree with all of your conclusions). Any way, I have involved Spider Project community to provide more of the reliable secondary sources. As I understand you have raised a new issue of notability, so I will look 1-st to address this one. If you don't mind I will post a message here when I believe the article has been reworked sufficiently for you to look at again.- Ev2geny (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]