User talk:Technical 13/2013/3

2013

2014

2015

2016

Jan - Mar

Apr - June

July - Sept

Oct - Dec

Live Talk Page

Could you help me?

Hey, Tech13. I have been experimenting with some new signatures, and have settled (after much deliberation) on TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]}. What I would like is a signature where The, One, and Sean are each links to my userpage, talk, and contribs, respectively. Same colour, smallcaps, blur etc. Just getting rid of the ugly ^[links]. I'm unable to get the teal colour to stay on the text when I link it. What am I doing wrong? Thanks for your help, TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 22:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheOneSean is a start. can't finish on droid... will have to do on computer. trick is to add span style color teal in the piped section of each link. Technical 13 (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Theonesean. I'm on my laptop now, so let's see what we can do... [[User:Theonesean|The]][[User talk:Theonesean|One]][[Special:Contributions/Theonesean|Sean]] is as close as we can get while staying inside the 255 character limit without substituting a template and it looks like → The One Sean ← (We had to drop the small-caps to make it fit in 255 characters.) Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are amazing. The One Sean 22:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That list of alumni

There are major issues, possibly cultural issues, with many articles in the Indian subcontinent, in that things are added without citations, or even with incorrect citations. One thing we have to be is diligent in requiring any addition to pass WP:BLP, and a ghost list such as this does not comply with BLP in any way. As you see, I have reverted your reversion. I will continue to insist that all alumni in this list, whether commented out or not, be cited. It is a matter of BLP, which trumps all.

The cultural issue is harder to address. Many additions are by IP only once only editors, some are by editors in what one might term 'good standing', but even the latter often fail to understand that lists of alumni have major BLP issues. Regrettably folk add their favourite perosn, who may, or may not, be an alumnus. Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC backlog drive

would you please help me with participating in the AfC backlog drive? -- Lee Tru. 13:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lee, talk page stalker The One Sean here. What do you need help with? I could give you an overview of how to review articles if you're new to AfC, or I could help you get set up with the Backlog Elimination drive scoresheet. Or were you asking Technical 13 for his help in elimination the backlog? If so, sorry and bye. But if not, just reply on my talk page and I'll be more than willing to help you out. Thanks. The One Sean 22:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spans and deprecated HTML

Thanks. I've changed my signature. HTML (etc) used to be an area where pretty much anyone could play. Now it has become so much more than the old "Print Stream" concept and entered the world of the impenetrable and arcane. It was, I suppose, inevitable. This of us who started to build web sites happily in raw HTML in 1996 or so had a wholly smaller arsenal of things to play with. Today it's rare that I see the underlying HTML. Fiddle Faddle 13:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started with ANSI escape codes on my VBBS Bulletin Board System and worked through the introduction of HTML, then JavaScript, then CSS, and now I'm working on PHP (took a break) and SQL etc... What an interesting adventure it has been indeed. I've not given up my quest to fix people's signatures (as the bad code really annoys the crap out of me as much as guys leaving the toilet seat up annoys women), but have employed a new tactic to do so and it seems to be working well. Anyways, Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My own sites are always made to be XHTML compliant wherever possible. Regrettably I have some that are intractable. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshop

Take a look at my Photoshop work and tell me what you think. I would like to hear your opinion: File:Waves_of_Sorrow.png. Thanks! Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 13:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VE Cat

here seems to be some error, your name has not been updated at Category:Wikipedians who have turned off VisualEditor --Tito☸Dutta 14:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, although, Category:Wikipedians who have turned off VisualEditor is showing on the bottom of my user page, so I'm wondering if it is just a queueing thing... I'll post a null edit on my page and see if that fixes it. Technical 13 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

email

Hello, Technical 13/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 14:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, never mind. sorry Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 14:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you mad at me or something ??? Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 15:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all dear, not at all. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Anyways, you can count on me for anything :) Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 15:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Guestbook

Hi Technical,

You were editing my guestbook for me the other day, I am just checking that you haven't forgotten...

Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox request

Hi, Could you help design a userbox that says "This user supports friendship between Cuba and the U.S.A.", with flags of the two countries? I would be grateful. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why just these two countries? I suppose we could also make generic userboxes which support friendship between any two countries for that matter. I would definitely put up one for India and Pakistan on my userboxes. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... I'll make one... When the below examples work, then you know it is done.

Code

Result

Technical 13 supports
friendship between
Cuba and USA.

Usage

Technical 13 supports
friendship between
India and Pakistan.

Usage

Technical 13 (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I think it is done unless you want some modifications made to colors or something... Also, the prefix does work, it just doesn't show in the example above due to an issue with {{Usbk}}

Technical 13 supports
friendship between
Cuba and The USA.

Enjoy! Technical 13 (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Technical 13~! I liked the userbox, especially when it talks about India and Pakistan. Fai zan 13:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it should work for any two countries (and most states of the USA / Providences of Canada etc). I should make sure the box passes WP:CONTRAST though... ... It does and I've added the table from the snook tester... 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

In spite of the hardships he may encounter in his real life, Technical_13 shows a true dedication to showing and teaching others new, innovative features on IRC bots and other intriguing features on Wikipedia. Technical_13 is happy to give recommendations, advice, and suggestions to those who may need him. Also, he is very diligent individual in his work on improving Helpmebot and contributing to other projects on Wikipedia. Furthermore, Technical_13 has a great sense of humor and a fun person to talk to. I truly think he embodies the true characteristics of an administrator, hence award him the "unofficial Admin's Barnstar." JustBerry (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Enjoy a cookie for all of your hard work! JustBerry (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 4th Of July

Greetings from Cuba :) Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 12:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFCH

If you have used the Git command line to clone WPAFC/afch, you need to run these two commands on the repo:

git tag -l | xargs git tag -d

git fetch --prune

This is because I broke the tags and had to push some fixes. I've also reactivated push access to the repo. Please read the README for some info on what to do. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical project

Someone mentioned you may be the right person to make this a functioning tool, if you have an interest. The idea is for this template to send COIs here and other folks like the Help desk could probably just link here and COIs can go through the wizard and get advice and go through the process in a very structured and efficient way. CorporateM (Talk) 14:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kazinag National Park.
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. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Technical 13 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, See this page. I think it's unnecessarily jamming the submission category. I think you should move it to your user-space and when you are done editing straight publish it to the main page, Cause you are that experienced to do this.:-)--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 10:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for all the help! Mat ty.007 11:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biting newcomers template

I did not bite any newcomers. I did not know that templates are allowed since it is called articles for creation. SL93 (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem and next time you'll know. I'm even thinking about starting an afc/t section. happy editing. Technical 13 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess what I would do is not use a template and just comment. SL93 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I forgot something...

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for your help with my signature! You're awesome. the one sean 04:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Technical 13/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rotten Tomatoes score & RotTomBot

The bot has been approved for trial -- during the trial, the goal is to add the template to around 50 articles total for testing. I added it to Keep_the_Lights_On#Reception_and_awards with no problems, and I'll keep working on adding it to more articles, although if you ever have time your help would be appreciated. Thanks, T13! Theopolisme (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

I hope your family get well soon. Here, have some pie to cheer you up. Mat ty.007 20:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP: The Script Design

Hey, It's been a while since I don't hear about you. How you doin'? I hope your family is doing fine, and the health issue no longer exists.

I need a little bit of help with the desing of the WP: The Script. Can you check what I've done? Miss Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 20:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am obssesed with U2 xP Miss Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 11:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Steven Crowder page

Thank you for your kind offer to help. I'm a long time Wikipedia user but some of the tags aren't intuitive to me. This issue has been going on for a year, with people attempting to delete his page and failing that, writing a "hit piece" on him. I've tried EVERYTHING, talked at length, nothing will get through to the people who actively hate and want to smear him. They want to just throw conflicting WP policy links at me (lawyering) without discussing the issue. Help me get it protected and reverted to the last consensus in March, as the article now was specifically created to disparage Crowder (as it was written by the person who fought vigorously to say he isn't "notable enough" to rate an article). So he wrote this negative article,and people who don't like ME are taking it out on the "living person" it he article. Thanks for your guidance!JohnKAndersen (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are always on the IRC channel to help me, and when you aren't you are more than happy to help me on Wikipedia! Thanks for all the help you've given me, and keep up the good work! Mat ty.007 18:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Articles for creation/Template:MTS line dots

OK, I can set up a version of my "List of San Diego Trolley stations" page, as the "Test page". (I'll also put the same in my Sandbox too, just in case...)

But, if it's OK, I'll need until later today before I can get to that - I've got to get to work before I can get to it. Thanks for getting back to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IJBall (talk • contribs)

IJBall, that is fine, you could just put your test-cases page on the redlink I provided in my comment on the draft. :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've uploaded the 'test page' (it's my forthcoming "List of San Diego Trolley stations" page (to be submitted for review soon...)). If I didn't do this right just let me know.

This page is also currently saved to my Sandbox (though that version of the test page is pointing to my Template Sandbox, and the Template Sandbox gets cleared out pretty quick, so...)

Anyway, if you need anything else on my end, just let me know. Thanks again for all of your assistance on this! --IJBall (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall, I've added a few inclusion tags to your template submission to see what the actual output is on your test-cases page. Is that all it is suppose to do? If so, it looks fine and I'll approve it for you (after a little minor tinkering to clean up the templates code as it could be shortened and do the same thing). Technical 13 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's all it's supposed to do! - Just give me "icon dots" for the 4 lines (but in a way that allows my table to "sort" correctly for the "Lines" column). :)

Thanks for doing all this! And thank you for "cleaning up" the code (I'm pretty much a no0b when it comes to something like Template code, so I appreciate you making it better for me!). --IJBall (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13 - I've got a follow-up question for you, re: this template: I can't seem to get the Silver Line text to display the proper "silver" color using the 'Line dots' template.

I've looked at your template code, and I can't figure out what the issue is. But if I use the 'Line dots' template for the Silver Line text color, the text color comes out as " span style="color:silver;" " rather than " span style="color:#808080;" " (which is a darker 'silver') like it should be if the 'Line dots' (and the accompanying 'MTS color') templates are used. You can see what I'm referring to if you look at the Silver Line text in the first table on my current IJBall/sandbox page.

Any help you can provide on fixing this minor (but vexing!) issue with the 'MTS dots' template code will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance! --IJBall (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll go take a look at {{MTS line dots}} for Silver Line -- This change should do what you are looking for and make it easy to see how to change other colors for text as needed. The next edit after that one fixes your capitalization issue. Happy editing. :) Technical 13 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looks like that did the trick! --IJBall (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOCE Menu

Hi T13,

Per your request over IRC, here is the "link" to the "issue." I am working on the issue with GorillaWarfare at the moment, you might want to take a look at the whole situation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GorillaWarfare#WP:GOCE_Menu. --JustBerry (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRN needs your help!

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Here, start the day well! Mat ty.007 14:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung's CSD tip

Hi Technical 13. Thank you for all your work patrolling new pages. You may occasionally wish to review your CSD log to see what happened to some of your nominations - blue links may signify removal of a CSD template that has gone unnoticed without addressing the issue(s). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, thanks for the advice. I actually do check my CSD log every other week or so. I use Anomie's linkclassifier script for my log pages which makes it super easy to see which ones were deleted, which ones still are waiting on an admin, and which ones require more attention from me. I often PROD or nominate for XfD if CSD was legitimately contested. :) Technical 13 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Looks nice! You can be the first person to receive my new sign, with limited edition orange paintwork. Regards, Mat ty.007 20:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you so much for sorting out my sandbox. You're a SuperBarnstar. RBDowing (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biting

There was nothing biting in my response at the Teahouse. If you feel the urge to apologize for me in the future, please take it up with me first. A "bitey" response would have focused on how her husband has abused Wikipedia in the past in order to promote himself, complete with writing essays about how it is desirable to do so, and how she should not be writing any articles about subjects with which she is involved (as she probably receives revenue as the result of sales of her late husband's books).—Kww(talk) 22:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

You are very busy and I appreciate anything you might be able to do. That being said, and given the other person who has been using my husband's name, perhaps salting is the best way to go. There is so much about Arnold Reisman on the web and of course I think he is a notable person but I am biased. If you can do something, great....if not, let it be. Just as long as his name isn't redirected elsewhere. That is a corruption that would be unacceptable.Lonyar (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I am very busy between family medical issues and being a full time college student. I will go through what I had restored and fix it up and try to build an article with sufficient reliable independent sources to be an article again. Like I said on the noticeboard, I suggest for you to just not watch because it will be slow and tedious work that will likely frustrate you as to "why hasn't he added this or that yet". Trust me on that one, I've been on the other side waiting for others to work on my articles, and when they have many more important distractions, it gets very frustrating. So, if you haven't already, turn on your ability to receive email from other editors and try not to check in to see what I've done very often. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for the help! I'm currently at step 3 and currently the page looks like: // [[File:Krinkle_RTRC.js]] mw.loader.load('//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Krinkle/RTRC.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript')

Do you want me to clear the page and do step 3, or just add importScript( 'User:Bility/copySectionLink.js' );
Thanks again! Dan653 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Krinkle stuff is a gadget now so you should completely remove it. :) Technical 13 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but it didn't work :( Dan653 (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Contents_box. Theopolisme (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll let them know, glad it's not just me. Dan653 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013

posted by Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:aka

Hi T13, how are you? I saw you contested the speedy deletion of Template:aka, because you said it could be a redirect. A redirect to what template? Ross Hill 19:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused. I thought tgat gthe better known ss template was a duplicate of a template called aka and that is why you were nominatung it as a duplicate. I later found out that aka was already a redirect to brtter known as, and that is fine like that. it doesn't hurt to have a template that does that, although it might be nice to expand it... Technical 13 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology templates

Hi, since you've been involved in past discussion on this topic, you may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Review_of_navigational_templates. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blastophaga

Hello Technical 13. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blastophaga, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I do not agree with the reason given for declining this. I think it can be salvaged, and I will tweak it and accept or resubmit. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCD: I have no problems with that. I'm just going through all of the six month plus and either "cleaning the submission" with the AFC tool if I think it can be salvaged (creating an edit and in effect reseting the six month timer) or tagging for G13. Good luck with that article! :) Technical 13 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, understood. I have been doing the corresponding job of working down the list of G13 nominations. The first-level screeners like you have been doing a good job, because this is the first I have found that was not an obvious delete. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zapped after all. I had got the taxobox all sorted out before I thought to check - Blastophaga already exists in mainspace! JohnCD (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD, I've been using Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions to go through and find them... That category is added by the declined template for all submissions that haven't been edited in at least six months. Just waiting on Joe's Null Bot to go through and populate the category. :) Technical 13 (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine - boring but necessary housekeeping. I have deleted about 40 at this sitting, and have to go and do something else now. It doesn't matter if the article has found its way into mainspace by another route, there's no point keeping the declined AfC. JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: User:ChuckHeat

Hello Technical 13, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:ChuckHeat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, GorillaWarfare. I tagged it as such as it looked like a resume to me from my mobile device. I see that you have suggested he submit it for review to be moved into article space and warned him about potential coi implications. Anyways, happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

[tongue-in-cheek-mode]I never thought I'd see the day! Welcome to more standard talk page archiving![/tongue-in-cheek-mode] Fiddle Faddle 11:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect to be taking an extended leave before too long, so I wanted something set up so it isn't a complete mess when I get back. Technical 13 (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

This user is an administrator on the Test Wiki. (verify testwiki)

I made an update to it, do you like it this way? Prabash.Akmeemana 21:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fine either way. :) Technical 13 (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I used fireworks to put the mop there and I uploaded it to commons, they never had it with the mop, I'll also get a topicon to go with it! Prabash.Akmeemana 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased

I'm very pleased you stayed after your initial baptism of file. It;s good to have your perspective on things whether we agree or not. Fiddle Faddle 19:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Jesus isn't a dick keep him out of my vagina

Hello Technical 13, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jesus isn't a dick keep him out of my vagina, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly an attack page or negative, unsourced BLP. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of my CSD nomination GorillaWarfare. I'll skip the PROD as I know that the person that removed the CSD tag incorrectly thinking it was an "I just don't like it" tagging would remove the PROD as well so off to AFD I go! Thanks for your time. :) Technical 13 (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of horses has already PROD-ed. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that... Technical 13 waits patiently... Technical 13 (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, slow down...

...and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's deletion criteria. This is the second deletion request based on a spurious reason from you I've reverted in as many edits. Mogism (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)One could argue either way on this one. It is a BLP and the sole reference is a primary source. Today would BLPPROD be correct? Borderline, I think, 55:45 for deletion unless referenced. I think your message to T13 could have been phrased somewhat more thoughtfully. Fiddle Faddle 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your note... The number of red links on my log pages would lead to an assumption that I am fairly familiar with the criteria. I appreciate your concern, and would love to see you take initiative to fix the problems with the articles to no longer make them deletion worthy. Either way, both of those articles are now at AFD to allow the community to decide. Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I question

Thanks for this question - replying here as the discussion has been archived. I think there might be a case for some of these images being added to the MediaWiki:Bad_image_list and if you or anyone else thinks they do, the instructions for how to get them on there are at the project talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Dent-Brown → Done Technical 13 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Code for COI

Hi, you might want to see this → Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Code_for_COI Miss Bono^[zootalk] 14:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implement

I need to implement the "random portal component in the Portal U2 (something that Portal:The Simpsons has) but I don't have a clue of how to do it. I need some advice. Is something about this {{Random portal component|max=19|header=''Selected article''|subpage=Selected article|seed=3}} Miss Bono^[zootalk] 15:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new face of DRN: Technical 13/2013

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your work on the AfC helper script! APerson (talk!) 13:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory/Archive 6

A tag has been placed on Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory/Archive 6 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Technical 13 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory/Archive 5

A tag has been placed on Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory/Archive 5 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Technical 13 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bogdan1333

Since you opened an SPI into this user, I assume you've been watching him/her more closely than I have, so I was wondering if you were aware of any edit he/she has made to article's which have since been deleted? Based purely on the username, I have a nagging suspicion that this may be a sockpuppet of Bad good dragosh98 (talk · contribs), but that alone is of course no where near enough for an accusation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you for making my userbox a template... Benison {Talk with me} 09:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Unspecified Gender Wikipedians

A tag has been placed on Category:Unspecified Gender Wikipedians requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Technical 13 (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your remarks at the Afc help page

Technical 13: This is the first time since joining Wikipedia last year that I have been truly angry. When you said that you would help test with my proposal, and then didn't, and didn't reply to my message asking you to let it go so that someone else could test it, I thought that you were just busy, and then forgetful. Now I find that you were deliberately not doing it because you have grandiose plans to single handedly rewrite everything in sight and holding up Writ Keeper's and my work without even letting us know so that you could incorporate it into your own at some later time. Here are a few adjectives to describe what I think of this behaviour: rude, high-handed, patronizing, arrogant, ignorant and mean. The script that Writ Keeper wrote works perfectly well as it is, and there is no justification at all for making it wait for some future project that isn't even proposed yet. I can usually find a way to see things from the other person's point of view, but this time I am not even going to try. My upbringing prevents me from expressing myself more strongly. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, I had thought I had mentioned this intent multiple times before. I apologize if this hasn't been the case. In the last few months, my baby has gotten the flu, her mother has had surgery to have her gall bladder removed and now has strept throat. We've also gone through divorce and are still in the process of separating. I've also had my financial aid for school audited and am on the verge of having it retro-actively suspended for this semester which will kill my schooling as I can't afford it otherwise. I had not forgotten, I was not intentionally ignoring you. I have no other active projects I've been working on. I've just been way too busy with real life to do much more than I can do in a few moments here or there at my own pace. When I get to the article wizard upgrade of my proposal, I hope to work with you and Writ Keeper to incorporate his script of your idea. I'm by no means trying to upset you or shut you out. As far as asking me to say I didn't have time for testing, it was a moot point for the fact that a script should never have only one tester, so if multiple people were testing, my part was irrelevant. Technical 13 (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is for you!

Thank you for helping me on ##Revi ^connect. So I give this cheese burger for you! 레비Revi^{^Discuss}_{SUL Info} 03:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yum... Technical 13 (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoy Hoy

It was vandaled Here and I reverted it (with twinkle.... I don't have Rollbacker flag here.)

Have a nice day! by 레비Revi^{^Discuss}_{SUL Info} at 14:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

?

	?
	your advice on deleting an article in my userspace does not work.please have a look and reply please ( numbers ) jjbernardiscool (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Jjbernardiscoo! I've fixed it for you using Twinkle. I am going to assume the other instruction didn't work because of case sensitivity, which shouldn't have happened in this case and I will investigate and fix that in a little bit. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Userbox

Can I create a template relating to MSN Explorer?

Thank You!!!

Tariqmudallal (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what did you have in mind Tariqmudallal? There is no logo image you can use for it, but you could put text in that box. Technical 13 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

Notice you remove the help me tag - hope you can assist me getting my User:AspieNo1 undeleted. Appreciated for the assistance. —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Hi. There are new comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Many submissions with no references at all, not even unreliable ones that you will probably find interesting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving

I am leaving Wikipedia. It was so nice to meet you. You've been an awesome friend, thanks for teaching me the technical stuffs. Take care. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bono I'm assuming that it is a personal reason and not something that happened on Wikipedia that is causing you to leave, is that correct? I will miss your perky attitude and nice messages. I wish you well, wikifriend. :) Technical 13 (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a personal issue, it's a Wikipedia issue. I suck as a contributor and now I'll get fat eating ice cream to see if I get over this :'( Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13 hugs Miss Bono. I don't think you suck as a contributor at all. I see you making lots of good and useful contributions. Who told you, or implied, that you suck as a contributor? Technical 13 (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I spent lots of times in talk pages instead of contributing to the encyclopedia. I wanted to wake up the WP:U2 and make good their articles... but I failed. Now I am crying like a baby and my co-workers think I have personal problems. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bono, spending time on talk pages collaborating with other editors to improve articles which have gotten GA or better status is very appropriate and thinking otherwise is silly. I wish that you would stop being so hard on yourself, there are still U2 and other similar projects that need help from editors like you to get GA. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what about my internet problem. I cannot make researchs on my own or find fresh info. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 14:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an "outside of Wikipedia" problem. That is why you spend so much time collaborating on talk pages. You are doing the best you can with the tools you have available, and making decent headway at it too. Aren't you moving for school soon? Won't you have more resources available then? I thought you had said that at one point not too long ago? Technical 13 (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I passed the exams for college but they gave me Medicine, so I'll be taking the exams again in May 2014. That means I'll be at work for at least one year and then I'll move for school. I think I will have more resources there. There's Internet at University of Havana (with some restrictions as well). Miss Bono^[zootalk] 14:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting me

HI Don, I decided to stay :) Thank you very much, for all the support and for stopping me to quit :) You are a great friend... Miss Bono^[zootalk] 12:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Work

My boss assigned me some task to do and one of those includes learn how to use Symphony (software). I was wondering if I can ask you for help in the future if I get stuck?? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#A proposed tool for reducing backlogs

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#A proposed tool for reducing backlogs. APerson (talk!) 17:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Technical 13/Userboxes/OS

They don't have to exist to be populated was your response to my fixing the template. The process to delete a category requires them to be empty. Also, allowing red categories to be be populated encourages editors to create the category. Which if it was deleted at CfD, has them breaking the guidelines. It would be much better for you to simply check if see if the category exists before you actually add it. That way we avoid all of the problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFUND requested. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cup of Coffee for you!

Coffee for our coffee holic! 레비Revi^{^Discuss}_{SUL Info} 11:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I'm sorry to hear about your personal life. I hope all the issues are taken care of and good luck with your baby. So, this is totally going to throw you off. The box with Jury Member will be replaced with a name once the show is over. That would defeat the purpose of the template. They vote for who they want to win. How would that work in the template?

Thanks for all your help! I appreciate it! Templates are a foreign language to me. I'm going to try to create a template, but I won't be nearly as successful. You are not obligated to do these. These are only ideas. But I'm going to create a to-do list. Is there a more appropriate waiting list than here? I'm sorry if I come off as using you. Here are the templates I created.

Template:BBHOH
Template:BBNOM
Template:BBPOV (kinda the same as my idea, but I had a new idea)

Please create template User:JHUbal27/sandbox/BBEvict2 with '''[Name]''' [Number] of [Number] votes to evict Not done

Please edit the Template:Infobox Big Brother housemates parameter hm-veto, so that if you type "yes" then [[File:Big Brother PoV sign.png|16px]] will be shown in the box Not done

You do not have to do these ever. It's up to you whether they are possible and if you want to do them or not. I'm trying to be tactful. Bye. ~~JHUbal27 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out

It's a category page, and should not have text - let alone THAT text. Remember WP:BRD. If you want it added, start a discussion where people will see it ES &L 13:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add: there are 2 authorized places for info about "userboxes related to this" - one is on the category talkpage. The other (rare) is in the "instructions" area of an edit notice ES &L 13:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Oh, my word. Rien ne change jamais. Begoon ^talk 17:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about submissions

For the record I submitted those there based on the special cases rule of CFD because they are used mostly for categorization. So, I think your vote to keep the on a technical foul was pretty pointless and a waste of time. But I removed them, I will resubmit them, and I anticipate the result will be the same. Useless crap we don't need will be removed, either way the result is the same regardless of symantics. Kumioko (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People from Guin, Alabama

I replied to your post here[1]....William 01:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Running late

Hey, T13. I'm running late. Is it OK if we push our meeting back a half hour? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I leave school at about 4PM EDT... Just ping me. :) Technical 13 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

I have a little problem with this userbox-- User:Miss Bono/Userboxes/age, it is not showing the day. Can you help me? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 14:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Technical 13 (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Oh, I am still working on the random images for the userboxes of U2 albums, if you still want to help me with that. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 95

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 95, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows ME

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows ME, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 3.x

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 3.x, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 98

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 98, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use DOS

Category:Wikipedians who use DOS, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help

thanks for your help at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_2#Category:Scientific_phenomena_by_status. great idea. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you..

tweaked the template to add the years. I noticed, it helps, thanks. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick I added years for >6 months and days for <6 months so you can see how close it is to being compliant. I'm hoping this will get integrated into Twinkle soon and HasteurBot / Yet Another AFC Helper Script (develop branch) already have it integrated. Technical 13 (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly

Like I said, ugly. So I'm thinking that if I design a template I could have one for each row. Your edit link in each row open up an edit for the whole table. That may have been intentional, but I'm thinking that if I had an edit link in each row which would open up just the row for editing, the overall table would be sortable, while preserving the ability to edit a single row.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Technical 13 (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started in User:Sphilbrick/sandbox

However, I do not see how you did the edit button in the last column. Is that easy to add?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this | style="vertical-align: middle;"| [{{Plainlinks|url={{fullurl:User:Technical_13/SandBox/Gymnasts/{{{discipline}}}/{{{nation}}}|action=edit}}|name=edit}}] is relevant, but I'm not getting it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, you mean User:Technical 13/SandBox/Gymnasts/template (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? It's a work of technical genius that's most easily described as "magical". xD It's based on the idea that the list is broken into multiple "shorter" and easier to manage pages that are all transcluded in together to create the final product. Technical 13 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got that, I'm just missing how to add the edit option to the template.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a direct link to the fullurl with an action=edit for the subpage with the information from that particular row. So, in order for this method to work, there must be a collection of sub-pages. Technical 13 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I added the fullurl template, and now clicking on edit will edit the page, but that's a bit unwieldy when I extend to 300+ entries. I could group by conference, but then I cannot sort except within conference. I'm guessing I cannot tell it to just edit that specific template?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and group by conference, you will still be able to sort the whole table if done right. Technical 13 (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There, I gave it a push in the right direction for you... Let me know if you need more assistance/prodding with it. Technical 13 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made progress, thanks for your help.

Before I finish the remaining conferences, I'm hoping you can take a look and see if I am missing anything. For example, I see you used some noinclude tags, but I didn't. Do I need them?

The draft is at: User:Sphilbrick/sandbox

One issue, I need to add a couple footnotes. See the original here List_of_current_NCAA_Division_I_women's_basketball_coaches#UTSA_Roadrunners and note the footnotes on FIU and Green Bay. I tried adding them to the template, but it didn't work right.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was struggling with noinclude, but I think I'm getting it. I saw you added the header to the conference template, and wrapped it in noinclude. I guess I was thinking of it as if it were a comment, so I didn't get why it was being used, but now I get it. It is rendered when you look at the template itself (which looks much nicer now, thanks), but when transcluded, only the list portion is included.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Correct. WP:NOINCLUDE and m:Help:Template#Noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude have some more good details on <noinclude>...</noinclude>. :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I did wrong with the footnote, but it doesn't matter it works now. I changed the font size, 11 was too large. Now to add the other conferences, and move it into main space.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more, (hopefully last) question. When I add the noinlcude, which I have done for {{Wbb coaches/Big West Conference}} and {{Wbb coaches/Colonial Athletic Association}}, I get an extra line feed. I'm not seeing where it is coming from.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed {{Wbb coaches/Big West Conference}} by removing the linefeed, but you seem to have one in {{Wbb coaches/Conference USA}}. How did you get the new line without creating a problem?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Meh, it shouldn't have a linefeed after last template before noinclude. If you wanted to have linefeeds for some reason, you could always wrap the body of what is to be transcluded in <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> and get rid of the <noinclude>...</noinclude>s I suppose. Technical 13 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I now get it. I need to remove a linefeed, Yours worked because it was the last one, when I added a new one, the problem occurred. I can handle it now. Probably not perfectly, but it works--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved form sandbox to main space List of current NCAA Division I women's basketball coaches. Thanks again for your help, but now you are my go to template guy, hope we can work together again soon.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I was just looking over your user page, and am assuming you're from Maine as well... Maybe we will even run into each other at a Maine meet-up sometime. :) Technical 13 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G8+5

Fragment of discussion from User talk:Plastikspork#Template:G8.2+5

I see three votes for merging and one for deleting. How does that amount to no consensus?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 50/25/25 split, Merge/Delete/Merge-Delete-Don't_Care how do you think that results in "merge"? Looks like no consensus of whether it should be merged or deleted, and no consensus are kept. Technical 13 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "don't care" vote actually said, "Either merge or delete it, depending on the outcome of the Template:G8 nations nomination." The G8 template was kept, so it should be merged. Don't discount other people's opinions as 'don't care' votes so easily.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't said which way they were leaning depending on the outcome of the other nomination. It could be just as easily have been delete if the other one is kept because it is no longer needed. So, that vote is neutral. There is no clear consensus there. Feel free to renominate separately. Technical 13 (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what I meant when I wrote that. I wanted the template to be either merged or deleted, which is why I voted that way.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD:G1 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CSD:G1. Since you had some involvement with the CSD:G1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Keφr 19:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for the editnotice work!!!!! Happy editing!!!!!!!!! Benison talk with me 14:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I think your WTF link is broken. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC

Hey, per discussion at User talk:Theonesean/sandbox/AfC Mentoring, I was just wondering... what did you mean by "everything"? Is it reviewing, draft creation, and the whole shebang? Or just new work for reviewing?

I am thinking that the community mostly seems to know what it's doing when it comes to reviewing tools. If you're making an extension, we can help with design review and code review, but it's probably wise to not try and overlap efforts by having us creating a reviewing tool as well. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 04:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I just put up the very start of a rough draft for the extension I've been working on to be looked at and collaborated on https://github.com/Technical-13/Extension/tree/master/Concepts based on a hacked up version of mw:Extension:Widgets and I welcome you to take a peek and see where I envision it going. Technical 13 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at github and not being a programmer, it tells me absolutely nothing. In my experience as a project manager, I have to explain to people what is wanted, and then let the programmers use their technical ability to make it work; I often have the impression however, that programmers think they know what the stakeholders want and often get it wrong. The Foundation learned some such lessons the hard way. What we want to avoid therefore, is duplicating each others efforts. What I have been interested in achieving is something like the Page Curation tool fly-out for processing AfC pages. Why? Because the code already exists. That said, it will only be of any use when 1) the user right RfC has been closed, and 2) the 'draft' namaspace has been created. For the moment I see no need to put the cart before the horse and risking anyone's enthusiasm being dented if their concept is not the chosen one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I'm actually designing this for more than just this Wikipedia project. I intend to have it flexible enough to be used here, but I'm also designing it for use on ddowiki.com, so I have no concerns about whether or not this will be used someplace and intend to continue designing it. If the community asks me to tweak this or that, I'm sure I can accommodate many such requests. Technical 13 (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where and how to access the code for the Page Curation Flyout? I don't, but it might be an idea for us to take a look at it together, and perhaps involve Hasteur in it. As I have already discussed with Steven, Brandon, and Erik Möller, it would be nice for the Foundation to provide some technical help (because it's partly what they're paid for - especially if it can have a cross-Wiki implementation), but we also need to avoid a top-down project like the one they gave us with the excellent page curation system, which nevertheless still did not address the core issues, and still has some (new?) bugs that 'Zilla is apparently very slow to address. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Nice catch :) equazcion ^(talk) 19:55, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Equazcion, Not my first and I'm sure it won't be my last. Technical 13 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helped with pipe in parameter

OK, it turns out I'm not quite done, but I'm stuck. I cannot use "Independent" as a conference, because that is a dab page.

The right link is NCAA Division I independent schools (basketball)

However, I didn't want that long a name so I tried Independent

That doesn't work, because it interprets the pipe as the start of the next parameter.

I tried replacing by its ACSII code, but that renders as the first row on my sandbox: User:Sphilbrick/sandbox

and the edit button doesn't open the right template.

What am I doing wrong?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PIPE says it should probably be Independent. If it's interpreting that pipe, then there is a problem with something else. {{!}} is a work around, but should be absolutely unneeded in a piped link. Technical 13 (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh... Yes, I have looked and and fixed it for you (took me two edits to that page and one edit to the entry template)... It had to do with the way that they were being transcluded. Technical 13 (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I don't think that would have occurred to me. Now I have to make it so the edit button works. Will see if I can figure it out.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - SPhilbrick, you have two choices for that.
      1. Move the page to where the edit link points to now
      2. Change where the edit link points to (this is what I would pick, just swap some parameters around in the template)

Good luck and let me know if you need me to do it. Technical 13 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured it out, had to move {{Wbb coaches/Independent}} to {{Wbb coaches/NCAA Division I independent schools (basketball)}}

Option 2 was probably cleaner, but I figured out option 1 and it worked.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of three

At today's TFD log you've mentioned a "rule of three" a couple of times, and I was just wondering where you'd got that from? WP:NENAN mentions five as a minimum... Giant Snowman 16:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GS, to be honest I do not remember where I saw that. However, since the templates in question I mentioned it on don't even meet that threshold, it's incidental. :) Technical 13 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. 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) 00:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Progressive Barnstar

		The Progressive Barnstar
		I couldn't find a barnstar that would adequately thank those involved in making the template editor user right RFC a reality, so I created this new one. The Progressive Barnstar recognizes those courageous enough to work towards a vision for change at Wikipedia. Technical 13, your technical and political input, as well as your successful efforts to involve the MediaWiki developers, and your general ongoing support, were all critical in the arrival at a proposal that seems to have brought the community together on a topic that's caused so much division in the past. I consider it a success at this point, no matter what the eventual outcome, and I thank you. equazcion ^(talk) 06:27, 18 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Request an account process

Hi Technical 13, a few months ago you requested access to the account creation tool. Are you still interested in joining the team? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cal! I am still interested, and after discussion on IRC with some of the others, my understanding is that I still need to wait My last block will have been more than six months ago has started. (refresh) Is that correct? Technical 13 (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#CSD:G1. Thank you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Dogmaticeclectic#September 2013. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. You didn't even bother to change the "[l]inked article"... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Have a conversation instead. This is silly and unhelpful. equazcion ^(talk) 21:41, 21 Sep 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't mind being templated Equazcion when I actually screwed up. However, his claim that I "didn't AGF" was flawed and faulty. Either way, I believe this has resolved itself and is over. :) Technical 13 (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon_School

I have just got off the phone with Caroline and sent her the following details in an email. She said will review it on Sunday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT

Below the temple email they provide there is a list of license types from which to choose.

Email the email response team ("OTRS") at permission-en@wikimedia.org to confirm all permissions for the following image file names.

I believe an Attribution (copyright) license is most suitable for these images.

Wicks Steve (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:GitHub top icon

Template:GitHub top icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note I certainly don't think it is appropriate to be adding a topicon, or anything else, to another user's userpage without their consent. Generally user pages are considered the exception to WP:OWN unless the user explicitly says they don't mind other users editing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:UP#OWN? "[P]ages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." Is that a dead... regulation, shall I say?

Though actually I will agree with you about this particular case. If the user did not choose to advertise their presence on GitHub, I think we should not do it for them. Unless, you know, bad things happen and for some reason it becomes significant. I think WP:OUTING would be more relevant here. Keφr 07:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox wikiproject software

Template:Infobox wikiproject software has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Talk:CSD:

Technical 13, am I missing something, or did you create an RFC at the talk page of a redlinked redirect? One that, in theory, would be eligible for speedy deletion as the talk page of a deleted page? Surely there is a better location for such a discussion? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraexactzz, what could possibly be a better place to discuss the CSD: PNR that the talk page of the topic itself? That kind of is the policy, discuss topics on their talk page. Not to mention, any admin that chose to delete such an RfC would likely be nominated for de-sysoping for being disruptive and not here to build an encyclopedia. Technical 13 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- …said the person who spends half of his time here tweaking userboxes. How about putting the RfC at WT:Namespace? Or just letting it go? Or sleeping over it, taking a break for a single day? Is it that important to have it resolved right at this very moment? Keφr 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is important to me because the deletion of this immune to deletion PNR has created hundreds, if not thousands, of redlinks to policy pages. It is important to fix this because despite the fact that the 20K people that have used those links in the last month arrived there, they now expect to be able to get back with a simple CSD:criteria. I've added an RfC notice to the page you mention above. Talk:CSD: is still the appropriate forum. Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been moved, and should be fine where it is. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of CSD:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on CSD:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with CSD:. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Notification of RfC: Should CSD: be an exception to the immunity of pseudo-namespaces to deletion?. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace 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. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#CSD G13

Technical 13, I don't think you were pinged about the above discussion although I know that you have been involved in saving some stale drafts. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that.

I found a nice template that does pings, but it apparently has a limit of five (hint, hint). I actually thought about you, but I honestly didn't realize that you were as involved as you are, then I got side-tracked by cleaning up the text and did not add the second ping group.

Despite my faux pas in not including you, maybe you can provide a number that is relevant. Hasteur has hinted that the incoming additions to the list will exceed the deletions if the throttle is much lower. DGG seems to think that 50 a day will be enough. I'm looking at the cat, but do not have a clue as to how to find out how many are added each day. Do you know? I don't want to bother Hasteur, as I sense some frustration that this issue is still alive.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You can see exactly how many are at least submitted by looking at the Category:AfC submissions by date/September 2013 and it's parents and children. Obviously those don't include the ones that have infant CSD syndrome and are already dead. And yes I'm frustrated that editors who were on the minority of the consensus building exercise can call the same g'd same question 10 times in under a month and keep asking the question at different venues to look for the answer they want. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. That helps a lot. I realize that those are the count of created submissions, some will actually become articles, some will be deleted under other CSD processes, but most will eventually go to the G13 pile. Which means we need to delete a couple hundred a day just to stay even. I thought the reference to 50 a day was unrealistic, but this helps make the case.

I'm sorry if my bringing it up at AN adds to your frustration.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not accurate SPhilbrick, the bot nominates 50/hr as it is coded at the moment. So, that is up to 1,200 a day if there are admins actively running through the queue deleting... Technical 13 (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 50/hr. If the category is already full, the bot knocks off to the pub early for a drink. This also discludes the page titles with unicode characters in it (because mysql hates a lot of unicode). Those I have to advance by hand because the bot has trouble with it. Hasteur (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

?? What isn't accurate? Did you think my 50 a day referred to nominations? I could have been clearer, but I was referring to DGG's request that the limit be 50 a day. I thought that was unrealistic , but I needed help quantifying it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I have just reclosed the RFC, please note that if you attempt to reopen it, I *will* block you for 24 hours for failure to drop the stick. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JDI. I'm not quite understanding what disruption is inherent in leaving the RFC alone. equazcion � | 20:12, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Timtrent — Equazcion — Kudpung — Dennis Brown — Johnpacklambert: — Sphilbrick — Charmlet — Theopolisme‎‎ — Hasteur — MusikAnimal: — Cullen328 — Peridon — Masem — Crisco 1492 — Launchballer:: (long list, I know, sorry). I've pinged you all because I need to take the rest of the day off from this topic, and I need your help drafting up an appropriate RfC because I believe that the question of whether or not WP:RfD#D6 should be upheld as it is literally translated and interpreted needs to be discussed by the entire community. However, I realize that the cabal and rogue admins (good god I hope you all realize that I don't seriously think that they are out to get me) won't allow me to start an RfC on it myself. Any input and assistance I can get on this matter is greatly appreciated. If you know someone else that may be interested in or willing to help with this RfC, feel free to invite them. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A little history would be good. Who created all the CSD redirects in article space, and how long had they been around for? equazcion � | 20:39, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)
  - I created them all about a month ago. I was noticing that Twinkle, the Template:Db-meta, and several other processes, scripts, and programs were using [[WP:CSD#G1|CSD G1]] (substituting the appropriate policy of course). So, I decided to be WP:BOLD and create all of the redirects to [[CSD:G1]](substituting the appropriate policy of course) which is actually nine characters shorter and does not require piping to make the link look right. The fact that the users of Twinkle on their log pages only see the CSD G1 set a long standing precedent for CSD:G1 because it is intuitive and what many people would expect having run across and seeing MOS: and other namespaces like Category: and User: and Talk:. Technical 13 (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created User:Equazcion/CSD pseudo-namepsace. If/when you want to use it, I would move it to a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. equazcion � | 21:32, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)
- Equazcion, that looks like a great start. I don't know if you have been following the ongoing discussion below, but I would like to allow that to progress a little more before submitting that RfC proposal. I'm also slightly concerned that the RfC as you have worded it is asking for permission to create a PNR and doesn't include discussion on WP:RfD#D6's declared immunity which was ignored. It is fairly important to me to understand why it is okay to dismiss the current process and be forced to adopt a new one without a consensus by the community to do so. However, if you, and the others I invited to help here, think that it is a lost cause that consensus was ignored and it's okay for these people to go rogue and destroy (yes, I'm being dramatical) more than build, than I will do so. Thanks for your help. Technical 13 (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said it at the RfD and I'll say it again; to remove an entire namespace just like that is absolute crass stupidity beyond belief. There should've been a thread on WP:AN, not WP:RFD. How are new users supposed to work out that WP has anything to do with CSD?--Laun chba ller 21:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support here Launchballer. Equazcion has started a new RfC draft which he linked above and I would love to get your input on it as well. I'm moving these comments up to that heading to avoid fragmentation because I'll have a hard time following otherwise. :) Technical 13 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) I'm providing a framework that I think has the best chance of avoiding the drama that preceded it. I feel that referring to the PNR "immunity" is not likely to invite the most helpful input, as it makes it seem as though you're doing this out of soreness over the deletion. It's also a fairly weak argument from where I'm standing, because anyone could create any pseudo-namespace (or 20 of them, for that matter), and claim the same immunity. The question, I think, should really focus on whether or not the community feels this pseudo-namespace is helpful or hurtful. That said, you can make whatever changes you feel are necessary. equazcion � | 21:47, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)
  - I'll also note that WP:RFD#DELETE, which your immunity claim seems to be based on, doesn't actually say these are immune to deletion. They are merely exceptions to the cross-namespace rule: Meaning that cross-namespace redirects are deleted as a matter of course, but pseudo-namespace redirects are not to be treated this way. They can still be deleted but are not subject to the across-the-board rule applied to cross-namespace redirects. equazcion � | 21:57, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so the discussion here has stalled out and no-one else has popped in to comment. Equazcion, I think it is appropriate to get the RfC started at this point. Do you agree that my thinking, as much as I hate to not WP:AGF myself, that I should abstain from commenting at least at first would be a good idea? Technical 13 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure. I think it might be good to start with a very sensitively-worded and humble opening remark from you, where you acknowledge the history of this, because the people familiar with this situation are going to reference you anyway. The first thing outsiders see about you in this RFC shouldn't be in the words of people who, for lack of better words, might not like you and doubt your intentions. Just my take. equazcion � | 18:35, 24 Sep 2013 (UTC)
  - Admittedly, I'm not very good at "very sensitively-worded and humble", what would you suggest? Well... Let me the night to sleep on it and I'll come back tomorrow with my view of the back-story and reasoning as best-ly worded as I can and you (or anyone else I've invited) can poke at it and we can work to clean it up together. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Equazcion, I've slept on it and here goes.

I created them all about a month ago.
I was noticing that Twinkle (take a look at my Twinkle log page for example), the Template:Db-meta, and several other processes, scripts, and programs were using [[WP:CSD#F1|CSD F1]] (substituting the appropriate policy of course).
The fact that the users of Twinkle on their log pages only see the CSD F1 set a long standing precedent for CSD:F1 because it is intuitive and what many people would expect having run across and seeing MOS: and other namespaces like User: and Talk:.
When they try to go back to the criteria description once their article / page / draft / file / whatever is gone, they type in "CSD F1"... That fails...
They think... Ummmm... OH! Maybe it has a colon in it like User:Example! So, they type, "CSD:F1"... Now they have tried and failed twice... They are getting frustrated and are starting to wonder why they are bothering contributing at all.
They ask why on a forum or IRC and someone dangerously familiar with WP: suggests "WP:F1"... There is a page there... Wait... That's not what I was looking for... The heck with this... I quit...
These people should never get past a second attempt to get to a page that they want...
So, I decided to be WP:BOLD and create all of the redirects to [[CSD:F1]], which is actually nine characters shorter, people have been seeing for years now, and does not require piping to make the link look right.

Get rid of the numbers and run it all together and what do you think? Should I add in a note that these links had thousands of hits in the three weeks they existed meaning that there are feasibly thousands of people that expect these shortcuts to work? Technical 13 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I said the history I meant more in the realm of acknowledging that you might not have handled the post-deletion events as well as you could have, and rationalizing your creating yet another RFC now -- because people familiar with this are going to make reference to that. "First he ___, then he ____, then he _____, and now he _____. This guy will do anything to get these things undeleted, so I oppose". The main idea is to compel people to judge these on their merits rather than on your behavior (you could even say you hope they do that, flat out). Some of the rationale you wrote above is convincing, and I'd incorporate it into the main RFC body (perhaps shortened a smidge); and do your "acknowledgment" thing in your support vote. That's how I would handle it. I have no idea whether this'll work or if mine is necessarily the best strategy. equazcion � | 21:06, 26 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Let me start by declaring that I have no idea about prior behaviours in this matter, nor am I interested in them. Or rather I am only interested in them insofar that they might hamper the discussion of a mechanism that might enhance the work of those creating this encyclopaedia.

From that starting point I suggest to you that no-one will die if this is delayed to let any dust settle. Indeed, no-one will die if this is even abandoned. What I am trying to say is that this putative improvement is interesting, but is inessential. The way the RfC has been drafted I support the change, but it's a close call. I would not, I hope, be influenced by anyone's prior behaviour, but that is just a hope. I am as emotional and as illogical as the next man.

What harm will it do letting this idea ferment and mature prior to suggesting it at some point in the future, and in a wholly neutral manner? Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being as emotional and illogical as the next man, I'm also incredibly impatient, so I understand that compulsion in others. Everything that isn't a dire emergency fix (which is basically almost everything anyone ever proposes) wouldn't be hurt by waiting a theoretically infinite amount of time. If something can be improved I like to get it done, and I like to make the effort when the compulsion hits me, taking advantage of the inspiration I feel at the time. I don't like people telling me it can wait. Everything can wait. Everything can wait forever. That's neither here nor there in my head. That's just me though -- I consider this RFC the baby of Technical 13. I just helped out with some words and he can edit it and/or wait and/or submit it how ever he likes. equazcion � | 22:11, 26 Sep 2013 (UTC)

But then again, waiting might increase the chances of it succeeding in this case. :) Anyway like I said it's up to you (or you guys). I don't have any particular stake in this RFC. I'm not even sure if I'll be voting in it. equazcion � | 22:16, 26 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Point by point:

Right.
They do.
No, it does not. How? Where did the colon come from?
Maybe they do. Though I would expect an unexperienced editor to simply dump a full URL to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion with clarification which criterion they refer to, instead of relying on obscure initialisms which only insiders understand. When they are staring at a deleted page, the criterion is already linked for them, they just need to click on it. No need to use any shortcut at all. Or if they seen it in their Twinkle log, they could have looked up the page markup for it. (Though I am yet to see a newbie keeping a Twinkle log.)
Why would they add a colon? I think newbies are not so eager to make such hasty generalisations. On the contrary, I would assume they are rather intimidated by the technicalities of editing, and will prefer to try things that are (in their perception) working for sure and that were told to them explicitly, instead of taking a wild guess. Also, if this scenario were common, we surely would have seen it in the hit counter. And yet, there are no hits for these redirects before their creation. So all that seems incredibly contrived.
In this particular example, I would expect the advice to be "use WP:CSD#F1". And even if they go to WP:F1, there is a hatnote on the target page they would probably follow. Not a huge deal here.
I would not cater to users who are that impatient that they give up after two tries. I do not believe that they would produce any quality content ever. It takes a great amount of work and patience to produce something valuable.
WP:BOLD itself states: "Be bold, but not reckless". You already learned about namespaces, what they are for and why they were introduced. You should have thought for a moment that defeating the namespace division that was put there for a reason for the sake of some specious "newbie convenience" may not be the best thing since sliced bread.

And I already said that the number of hits has been much inflated because of the links you (and mostly you) kept introducing in the CSD policy page, in templates (especially), in discussions and edit summaries, and it does not necessarily imply any support for this particular set of shortcuts. New page patrol and the nomination itself have also surely generated some false positives. Using that as an argument is a sign of either dishonesty or foolishness. The closing administrator suggested dishonesty, but I am going to go with Hanlon's razor and assume a misunderstanding of tools. Keφr 07:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm actually quite impatient as well, especially in this issue as I feel the are hundreds, if not thousands of people out there who are confused and frustrated by links that worked, but no longer do. However, I'm trying my hardest to go in with as clear of a head as I can, which is why I took a whole day to think about the "history" of how I came to this idea in the first place. The baby is crying, so I'll have to come back and tweak the other part later. Technical 13 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hundreds? Thousands? Billions and billions! But hit counts for the last few days say otherwise: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Try the others. Barely background noise (web crawlers or whatever), redirects with more hits than that have been deleted. This is not only a post-hoc rationalisation, but a blatantly false one. Keφr 06:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that right there proves that the hit counter doesn't work consistently for non-existent pages because I have visited most of those daily on multiple occasions from multiple locations since their deletion (10-20 times a day) and those aren't showing. Technical 13 (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Since you requested discussion, I've decided to ask you a question: why exactly do you think that the WP: redirects - that I mentioned in the initial discussion - are insufficient? After all, they serve the exact same purpose, use an existing namespace, and are in fact one character shorter! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one character shorter, except that on in order to use it, most people pipe the link so that it looks like [[WP:CSD#G1|CSD G1]] (Twinkle, db-meta, etc all do this) which is actually nine characters longer than simply [[CSD:G1]]. Also, can you show many how those that aren't specifically attuned to Wikipedia already are suppose to derive WP out of Criteria for Speedy Deletion? It is not intuitive to the majority of people in the world, and it should be. Technical 13 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have still not explained why you cannot simply replace the WP:CSD# links with the WP: ones. Your second point is worth considering, but seems insufficient as reasoning for creating a whole new set of redirects. (I've merged this discussion with the one above so that it's more likely that others will refer to it.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, that has an easy explanation — WP:F1 points to a WikiProject. Special-casing for that would be unfeasible. But there is a more important question: the way I have seen it used, when people link to the criteria manually, they just do not bother with link piping, or simply use the WP:criterion shortcuts, which usually work. When they use tools, the tools use whatever links that happen to be programmed into them. The tools' links work, they are stable, that the tools use them does not create an inconvenience, so why change them? Keφr 21:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The WP:F1 issue can simply be resolved through WP:DISAMBIGUATION of some kind (including simply changing the redirect if there's WP:CONSENSUS for doing so), so that's obviously not a valid argument. As for the rest of your points: my response is, again, that pages should be edited to use the existing redirects rather than creating new ones; in my opinion, you still haven't made a convincing case as to why the tools in question cannot simply use the existing shortcuts. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not asking to change them all, I'm asking to add a logical addition to the list of ways to get there... The tools links are all piped to CSD criteria (take a look at my Twinkle log page for example (User:Technical 13/Logs/CSD)) and you will see all of the criteria I have nominated stuff as. This means that for years people have been seeing "CSD G1" etc links (most of them don't know what a piped link is), so when they try to go back to the criteria description once their article / page / draft / file / whatever is gone, they type in "CSD F1"... That fails... They think... Ummmm... OH! Maybe it has a colon in it like User:Example! So, they type, "CSD:F1"... Now they have tried and failed twice... They are getting frustrated and are starting to wonder why they are bothering contributing at all. They ask why on a forum or IRC and someone dangerously familiar with WP: suggests "WP:F1"... There is a page there... Wait... That's not what I was looking for... The heck with this... I quit... It is of my opinion that they should never get past a second attempt to get to a page that they want... Technical 13 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - It seems that this discussion is going in circles... I don't think you've answered the main question yet: why not change the piped links used in the tools to the WP: ones (so that people start seeing them much more often)? Also, I just explained how the WP:F1 issue can be resolved! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The links are piped for a reason... CSD means Criteria for Speedy Deletion. It is intuitive and is "grandfathered" in so-to-speak as it is what has been in use for years. Why do you want to change links that people have been seeing for years from "CSD G1" to "WP:CSD#G1" so badly? Why do you think everyone should assimilate to something that isn't common sense (there is no common sense in looking on WP: for a CSD)? Technical 13 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I want them to be changed to "WP:criteria", not "WP:CSD#criteria"... I'm not quite sure why that doesn't seem to be clear yet. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        WP:There is no common sense at all. There is some sense in using WP: as there are non-Wikipedia meanings of "CSD", and we want them to be kept separate. Keφr 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I mentioned in the nomination, these shortcuts had no hits at all before being created. (And as I explained at WT:CSD, this is not because the tool we use for measuring it does not count hits for non-existent pages, because it does.) If the scenario you just described were common, I think we would see that in the statistics.
      And if you do not want to change existing uses, then why the whole parade with {{editprotected}} on {{db-meta}}? Why promote the shortcuts on the WP:CSD policy page?
      
      (I disagree about the "obviously not a valid argument" part. Consensus may favour keeping it to point to the WikiProject, for example because of existing use. So this may be a valid argument for not using these in places where consistency is a necessity.) Keφr 21:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if consensus favoured that, there would still the option of disambiguation (including via WP:HAT), as I pointed out, so would still not be a valid argument. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But why point to some disambiguator, when you can be unambiguous in the first place? (Imagine someone clicking on a link and scratching their heads thinking: "What do you mean, my penis picture was deleted because of a Formula One project?") Keφr 22:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only one redirect out of a massive set, and it's not even certain that consensus wouldn't favour simply changing the redirect, anyways. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:criteria" is not acceptable as your WP:DAB suggestion for WP:F1 is invalid, as it is not acceptable to do so per WP:DABACRONYM especially where WikiProject Formula One has already been determined to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Technical 13 (talk) 5:57 pm, Today (UTC−4)

I think these rules apply mainly to articles, and not necessarily to other namespaces. Keφr 22:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for that redirect doesn't really even exist (it's a redirect too), and you're claiming that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC "has already been determined"? Not to mention that I don't think that the rest of the redirects should be ignored simply because you seem to have deemed one of them "unusable". Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all sure I understand what we are talking about. @Technical 13: Please brief me. My own talk page will do if you don;t want to break the flow here. Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding Timtrent. I know that we don't always agree on things, but I also know that you are objective to the task at hand. So, I figured I'd ping you (and a few others that haven't been directly involved much) to help draft up the RfC that Equazcion has linked above. I know there is a little bit of reading involved, but if you are up to the task, I'd appreciate it. :) Technical 13 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Equazcion/CSD pseudo-namepsace is the draft, and should explain things somewhat. equazcion � | 22:56, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I understand.

I think the issue is a desire to make things crystal clear. If I understand you correctly there is a need to draft a topic/question which will become an RfC. I have read the current version of the draft and would have no difficulty in answering it as drafted. I am sure it can be improved, but, as is usual, we will only see the improvements required after people have failed to answer it in an expected manner. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that is confusing is the welter of discussion here which, presumably, ought to form part of the RfC when that is created/requested. I'm also a little confused about what appears to be a block threat early on when it looks as if we are simply meant to be discussing the format a question to the community should take. I've never seen a block threat for someone attempting to cause a consensus to be created in an open manner before.

Never worry that we have not always agreed, T13. That makes discussions better. If we agreed over everything we would be very boring :) Fiddle Faddle 23:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from worried Timtrent, in fact it was the very reason that you were one of my "chosen ones" for this draft development. :) Technical 13 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little perplexed. The question at hand appears to be a simple one, and one where the community is perfectly capable of reaching a simple consensus. As with all consensus based matters some folk will be happy, others not so much, but we stand or fall by consensus, even if it can create weird results. So, why is this question about a pseudo namespace CSD: so seemingly controversial? No-one will die if we have t, nor will anyone die if we fail to have it. Fiddle Faddle 00:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of violating WP:AGF I have to say that I think the controversy has more to do with who created the redirects than it does with the merits of the redirects themselves. As well, it has to do with what occurred following the deletion discussion, which I think Technical 13 could have honestly handled more rationally. equazcion � | 00:19, 24 Sep 2013 (UTC)

PS. That's not to say I condone everyone else's actions in response, which I think blew this way out of proportion. Everyone acted a bit rashly all around. equazcion � | 00:23, 24 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Joe

Best to let it go T13. Let Joe make his own waves, you don't need the headache of taking him to ANI. Joe would cry "baiting" and "abuse". Much better to just be patient until someone brings him to ANI when he isnt just coming off a block.--v/r - T P 14:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, TParis, I hadn't read outside of that section when I posted that. To be honest, I was hoping he would read the links I posted for him, re-evaluate his behavior and just drop the stick and go back to editing. After reading more of his page outside of that section, I see the likely-hood of that is minimal, at best. What I would ask, is if you can find someone else (preferably an admin) who has been previously uninvolved with this editor and post a reply (where I ask an admin to confirm for me) telling me not to do that, as the administrators are already aware and will deal with this themselves. That way I can back away without appearing to have no spine, which anyone who knows me knows isn't the case. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steamtown, U.S.A.

I understand what you are trying to do by moving the loco's to their own pages, by they are not long enough for their own articles. Those little articles are stubs and, for now at least, they belong in the larger article. Please do not butcher that article.--Ishtar456 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:SPINOUT. Also, I did not create Meadow River Lumber Company 1, Schwarah191 did on May 6, 2010‎. I'm just using other articles that already exist. Either way, the proper place to discuss it is the article's talk page, and not mine. I'm not upset, but let's please move it there. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A.". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 18:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message

I have nominated Steamtown, U.S.A. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Technical 13 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not post on my talkpage again, under any circumstances. Your battleground behaviour and mistreatment of another good faith editor in search of help is deplorable. This is the worst of wikipedia - treating it as a "game" to be won. I already expected little from you in the way of human interaction and empathy, but this pointiness descends to new depths. I have no wish to communicate with an editor who exhibits this kind of behaviour. You should be ashamed, but I know you won't be. I'm removing your talkpage from my watchlist so I will not see any reply you make to this. Shame on you. Begoon ^talk 14:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon, I am happy to oblige you in cases where policy do not override your specific request as in requirements to notify you of discussions on various noticeboards. I appreciate your ability to AGF and show some civility to other editors who are here for the same reasons as you. Good day and I wish you the best. Happy editing. Technical 13 (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement which overrides my wish in this matter. You have my clear instruction not to post on my talkpage under any circumstances. If there is something you feel policy requires posting there then find someone else to do it. I suggest you don't test my resolve on this. This page is now removed from my watchlist. You just don't know when to stop. I strongly suggest you learn. Begoon ^talk 14:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon, first you say that you're going to impose a self imposed interaction ban, I say that's fine and you post on my talk page again. Seems kind of battlegroundish to me. Please stop before we have to escalate this. I've only posted required noticeboard notifications to your talk page and I made one attempt per WP:CALM to offer you WikiLove to break the tension and try and discuss things. I'm done trying to resolve things with you personally and any future issues will require a discussion at WP:AN/I as I'm tired of your condescending personal attacks and harassment. Good day. Technical 13 (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]