User talk:Technical 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This user has opted out of talkbacks


  General   Journal   Bugzilla   Sand Box   Drafts   .JS   Templates   UBX   Logs   Shiny   Talk   TB




 
2011 2012 2013 2014    2015   
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Armbrust 3 40 36 11 53 16:13, 4 August 2014 2 days, 21 hours
no
report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot I NotifyOnline at 18:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am taking a break from most wiki-editing except for stuff related to T13bot (task list (1) · logs (actions · block · flag) · contribs · user rights) and my ACC duties.


Emergency![edit]


Twinkle[edit]

Review of the article Spider_Project_(software)[edit]

Dear Technical 13, I was working to improve my article Spider_Project_(software), which you commented some time ago. I believe I have significantly improved it and wanted to come back to you with the request to review it again, but I now noticed, that you nominated my article for deletion. Apperently this is due to one reference. I must say I am totally lost. Can you please put more information on the Talk:Spider_Project_(software) regarding this?

Ev2geny (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, now, when the article Spider_Project_(software) has been restored, I would like to ask your time to review it once again and consider removing if not all, then at least some of the maintenance tags, which you placed in March. As I mentioned, I have done quite a considerable work with references. In addition to the changes in the article I have also provided point to point response on your comments at the Talk:Spider_Project_(software).Ev2geny (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Technical 13: when do you think you will be able to review the article Spider_Project_(software)? I actually do not know exactly Wikipedia rules, so if you are busy, can I ask somebody else to review it with the goal to check on whether some of the maintenance tags posted by you on the article can be lifted now, after I have done improvement work? Ev2geny (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your change to Template:Archive basics[edit]

What would you think about ...[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Technical 13. You have new messages at Ollieinc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Discussion at WP:AN#FYI: The toolserver.org reference converter seems to be shut down[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AN#FYI: The toolserver.org reference converter seems to be shut down. Thanks. Sam Sailor Sing 05:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: I had the file of reflinks from Dispenser, and a bot as well. But it is tricky. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 05:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Pardon me if I'm slow, OccultZone, are you saying you have or could have Reflinks up and running again? Best, Sam Sailor Sing 05:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Possibly you can, but it will require a number of technical changes. Dispenser has told that the matter is currently disputed, and he ensured that "there are bugs", in his tool. So the matter is probably not one sided. You can wait, he's waiting too. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 06:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. I have not been aware of prior discussions (now again on VP/T) and as a non-technical editor I would not have had anything valuable to offer to the discussions other than the basic fact that Reflinks despite its shortcomings did reduce the time it took to generate {{cite}}s. If this becomes a matter of donations let me know, and I will gladly chip in. Thanks. Sam Sailor Sing 09:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It was a matter of donations a bit more than two years ago, when Wikimedia Deutschland decided that they could no longer afford to support the Toolserver (which they hosted but provided free of charge to the other Wikipedias). It began failing within weeks - manifested in several ways, such as out-of-date or incomplete data, slow processing, slow data retrieval, error messages. It is way too late for donations now: Toolserver is gone, and it's not coming back. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why I got a notification of a discussion on AN that I'm not involved in (which has been subsequently closed as "wrong forum"), and I'm also not sure why this discussion is happening on my talk page. I do have a question though, OZ, are you saying that Dispenser has released the source code to you under an open license so that it may be modified and moved to Labs? Please do clarify that, I'm fairly confused. If so, Dispenser, can you verify and is that offer open to anyone that wants to fix the bugs and port the tool to Labs? — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
All I can do is, I can send you the bot(including the files) and 'reflinks' is added to that folder. So once you have the code, you can probably make your own program. But it requires a lot of editing, something you already know. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to do so OZ. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Emailed you. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

(Also for User:Anne Delong) I see a lot of strong wording at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Toolserver_shut_down and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Reflinks_is_no_more, regarding Reflinks. I start a little behind the 8-ball, as I do not think I've ever used RefLinks. Based on my quick glace at User:Dispenser/Reflinks, I gather it took bare urls as input and created fully formatted references as output. I can see why this would be valuable, but before we jump to the conclusion that it should be replaced as is, I think it is worth checking out other options.

I am extremely interested in good referencing (which makes it mildly surprising I have no familiarity with Reflinks).

My coding skills are non-existent, although I think I know enough to carry on a conversation about design specs.

I'm generally happy with what I view as the Foundation direction, although the devil is always in the details. I am trying to provide the Foundation with some input, although that process is happening slower than I would like.

I'm writing to you, because I saw you contemplating writing a replacement for Reflinks. Before you undertake that, I'd like you to see what I am pushing, so I can be better informed on the best route forward.

At a high level, as I summarized here


The editing experienced will be vastly improved for new editors, as well as experienced editors, when three tasks are completed:

  1. Ability to insert a reference using VE
  2. Ability to autogenerate a reference from a digital identifier such as ISBN, doi, PMID or from a Google books url
  3. Widespread implement of digital identifiers for sources such as newspaper and magazine articles

The good news, from the point of view of the development team, is that step 1 is largely complete, and step 3 is not your job. That's a task I want to take on, hopefully with assistance from others.

I suspect step three with be a long-term project, so we may need short-term stop gaps.

At the moment, I am interested in feedback from both of you about the auto-referencing plans of the Developers.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I add some more stuffs?? Like auto formatting of existing refs, deletion of unknown parameters, if they are not already included. Jim Carter (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sure at this point. I've been so busy with cramming for my final exams I just completed that my brain is just in mental overload. My plan for a replacement tool was going to include a few components.
    • I was going to start with a GUI style web page that a user could visit, type in the name of the page and click "run" or some such. The page would then read all of the stuff from the wikitext inside of the <ref>...</ref> tags and build a list of references. It would sort out URLs from ISBNs from etc. and try to retrieve all data it could about the source. It would then offer an interactive "changes" pane and a "preview" pane. This would let users change the wikitext of the references similar to what one might expect from VE in a wikitext appearance (harder to explain then I envisioned). It would show errors and make suggestions for things that likely should be offered. If it finds a dead link, it would search archive databases like webcite and try and find and archived copy of the URL. There are many pieces and components to making this UI work the way I'm envisioning, and I would likely have to take it in modules and just expand as I go otherwise it would be overwhelming and take way too long to get some usable product working.
    • Next, based on whatever I have for a UI above, I was going to make the workings of finding the sources and formatting things able to be run from the URI (so you could make a link to run the tool without visiting the tool). These two parts would replace (and improve) the previous webreflinks.py that everyone was using.
    • The final part of the project will be to create a bot, that with BAG approval, will go through the list of all pages (starting with the oldest) and run itself on every page and if there are useful improvements to references it will automatically take care of it.
Like I said at the start of this post though, my brain isn't available for such a project right now, but I'll need to make something as a project for my C# class in the fall, and this seems like a very good use of that time. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like you have a lot on your plate, and I trust you know how to prioritize, finals come first. That was part of the reason for reaching out to you. I'd hate to have you work on something that might become redundant. However, it appears you wouldn't start right away, so some time to think it through.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I just finished them a couple hours ago, but I need decompression time and I have some other little things planned for the next week or so (Fourth of July, son's 17th birthday, start of second summer session at school, T13bot (task list (1) · logs (actions · block · flag) · contribs · user rights) AFCH stuff, CVD work, and a couple other promises I've made). I expect I'll really be able to start looking into this reflinks puzzle in a month or so. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 21:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project[edit]

You are invited to participate in a discussion regarding a Wikimedia genealogy project. Questions and comments are welcome on the project page or its corresponding talk page. Thanks for your consideration! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on template-protected pages[edit]

Please don't edit war on template-protected templates, like you did on Template:Documentation here and here. Remember that this can be grounds for having your template-editor rights revoked. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Mr. Stradivarius, I would hardly consider those examples of constructive collaborated editing to be edit warring. I attempted to achieve consensus by editing by being bold, that edit included making the template hide itself when in edit mode with a clever method I learned from my editing of {{Reflistp}}. Despite my inability to see why anyone would ever want to be forced into scrolling through pages of template documentation every time they hit Preview, Jackmcbarn claimed that was part of his method. I certainly wouldn't want to make anything more difficult for others, so I went out of my way to write User:Technical 13/Scripts/editTemplateNoDoc.js‎‎ and to make it work I wrapped the module call from the template in a span that does nothing except add a class wrapper to the template. Jackmcbarn reverted that claiming the module already was completely wrapped in a similar class, and I attempted to adapt for that. I found his claim was incorrect, only the top half of the template was wrapped in that class so I added a new span with the class that was already in use that he specified. I ignored the fact that he dictated that there should be no edits to the template and all edits must be made to the module. I found it to be a little dictatorial implying that templates should be abandoned and everything written in Lua, and assuming good faith figured he misspoke because he couldn't have meant that. Users like myself and Redrose64 surely shouldn't be forced to learn a new language that we don't understand in order to be able to edit Wikipedia. I would have had no objection to anyone that wanted to code my change in Lua (which is harmless to anyone and not disruptive) as long as the function I created works as intended. That being said, I don't see this collaborative effort as an edit war and there is no reason to have that template fully protected on my behalf as I'm sure we can get this misunderstanding resolved. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 10:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
"Mr.Stradivarius (page does not exist)", "{{Reflinksp}} (page does not exist)" OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OZ, I wouldn't have upset if you just fixed them... I'll fix the link to my script once I get on a computer, editing from a mobile is hard enough without having to open a new tab to check my contribs and see what name I used.. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Remember, edit warring(you already know what it is) has to do nothing with the quality of content, and "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring".. Whenever you edit/touch the disputed content 3 times or more under 24 hours, it is considered as edit warring. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OZ, that is not how it works and I encourage you to read WP:EDITCONSENSUS to see an explanation of exactly what Jackmcbarn were doing. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
"Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Why you and him were reverting each other? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OZ, we weren't reverting each other. I made a change, he reverted it, I made an entirely different change, he reverted it, I made a different change based on his response, Mr. Stradivarius reverted it. I did not once revert anyone... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't wanna see you get blocked or revocation of any of your right, so please be alert. :-) OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate your concern, OZ, I'm far from concerned about such things. I've been around long enough and know that while such misunderstandings happen often, that most administrators are willing to discuss situations and reach some sort of agreement usually. I also know when to recognize when there is a stalemate in discussion and a wider community needs to become involved because it is no longer about who is technically right or wrong but a decision of the community of how things are to be done. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Possibly, no one will directly block you, at least not when whole "edit warring" has been disputed. We know you are important. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Technical 13: The point as I see is it that having had a contentious edit reverted once, you should then have left the template alone and discussed instead - this is WP:BRD. But, you made a contentious edit twice more (the fact that it was not the same edit is irrelevant, but the difference between second and third was slight), each time being reverted. A discussion at Template talk:Documentation#Debate by edit summary was started by Johnuniq at 04:09, 3 July 2014, and it is only after several hours and several posts here that you responded at that thread - with something that isn't an explanation at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Several hours while I was sleeping, and I always respond to things on my talk page before I start making rounds answering other posts once I get up and start drinking my morning coffee. I agree the first edit may have been contentious in hind sight as an edit that affects a template's appearance, but only slightly as in it doesn't alter the appearance at all except for those that are actively editing the template, and I did not complain what-so-ever about Jack's reversion of that. My second edit was entirely unrelated to the first, and fell under changes to CSS classes with no visible effect and as such required no discussion. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted, Jack, having seen what I was attempting to do and knowing that he has Lua experience and knowledge I do not, should have reworded have made the appropriate change to the Lua module instead of just reverting my template edit. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, what Redrose said. I think WP:TPE#Editing disputes is more relevant here than WP:EDITCONSENSUS - the consensus process for editing protected templates should not be confused with the consensus process for normal article editing. Also, it is not arbitrary to require that edits be made in the module rather than the template. Other modules that create automatic documentation will not be able to use code added to the template page, so doing everything in the module ensures that documentation pages look the same whether they are generated from Lua or from wikicode. Further discussion along these lines should probably take place at the template talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
From the last sentence of that paragraph: never wheel war with other admins or template editors. To me, that seems to describe today's edits rather well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mr. Stradivarius, I didn't see it as wheel warring at all. Setting aside what I consider an OWNership issue of those proficient with Lua suggesting that those that aren't proficient aren't allowed to edit templates that have module components even for something as simple as adding a CSS class which had zero impact on appearance or functionality, and setting aside the fact that there are at least two fully capable Lua editors that despite this discussion having gone on for more than 24 hours insisted on using reversion (which is only suppose to be used after their preferred method of fixing the situation has been completed) instead of just adding the class to the module so that it can be used to remove all parts of the documentation from template pages in edit mode for those that want it (of which still hasn't been done). My first change was reverted by Jack, and he gave a clear explanation of why it was an issue for him. That was the end of that. Then, I made an entirely different edit, in order to accommodate a new user script I had written to allow only editors that want to get rid of having to scroll through those long annoying pages upon pages of documentation a way to avoid it in a completely unrelated method. In order to accommodate this, I needed a class to reference, and I made a change to add a CSS class with no visible effect. All was good. Jack decided to revert that edit saying that the class name for my script needed to be "template-documentation" instead of "template-doc" as the former was already in use in the module. I found that this class name already in use, was only applied to a portion of the documentation and I accommodated Jack by adding the class HE specified as a wrapper for the template. Apparently, you didn't like that simple solution, but instead of fixing the the module to properly attach that class to ALL parts of the document you decided to revert the template without fixing the module.
To everyone else following this thread, don't get me wrong, I've had plenty of interactions with both Jackmcbarn and Mr. Stradivarius to know that their actions were made in good faith, and I'm not in the least trying to accuse them of anything wrong. They are both very good and productive editors and there are many other projects we have worked together on in some capacity (including some going on while this discussion takes place). I'm just not convinced at this point that this was the right course of action for this situation as they should both know by now what the revert stage of the BRD process is: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one." As such, their insistence on reverting the improvement to the template was entirely inappropriate.
Regardless, I had a good day spending time with my daughter today (except for at the end when she knew her mommy was going to take her home and daddy wasn't going and she cried saying daddy go with us that tore my heart out), and I'm not going to allow this discussion to ruin that for me. So, I'm asking any of the Lua editors that are reading this, if you don't want non-Lua people editing your templates that invoke lua modules, please, just fix the Lua module and end the charade... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Your second and third edits both wrapped the documentation in a <span>...</span> element. This is invalid, because the documentation is a <div>...</div> element followed by a <table>...</table>, and the <span>...</span> element may only contain phrasing content, which does not include the <div>...</div> or <table>...</table> elements. In addition, the third edit put extra green boxes around the protection lock icon, the File:Test Template Info-Icon - Version (2).svg image and the words "Template documentation". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Redrose64, are you claiming that is something they could not have immediately fixed by refinement?? as for the third edit, that was using the class that Jackmcbarn specified instead of the one I wanted to use. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say you should use it; I said we already use it. And if you want to hide doc pages from preview, you can do that with user CSS as the template stands now (just maybe use an extra selector). Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay Jack, can you tell me which of the classes used in the other part of the template (module) is specific to that template(module)? The choices are: plainlinks fmbox fmbox-system. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── .template-documentation,.template-documentation+* Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Jackmcbarn, those options aren't on the list. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    That doesn't matter. Use that as a selector and it will select both boxes. Just change this:
		$( '.template-documentation' ).css( 'display', function (i, val) {
  • to this:
		$( '.template-documentation,.template-documentation+*' ).css( 'display', function (i, val) {
  • and it will hide/show both sets of boxes. Also, note that you can replace your whole .css.... stuff with just ".toggle()". Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Jackmcbarn, I'm telling you that doesn't work, and looking at the source code, <table id="documentation-meta-data" class="plainlinks fmbox fmbox-system" role="presentation" style="background-color: #ecfcf4;"> it is clear that class is not in there and that's why it doesn't work. Since I've seen template pages with more than one documentation call, relying on the id is invalid which is why it must be a class. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I just tried it myself and it works. Copy line 35 to the end from [1], and replace the contents of User:Technical 13/Scripts/editTemplateNoDoc.js with it, and it will work.
  • I tested it in the console and it does not work for me on my home computer (running the latest version of FFESR). So, I tried a dozen different ways to fix it in the module sandbox and found one that works without breaking everything. I've implemented that one and my script now works again. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mr. S., I believe that reverting because of what the cosmetics of having a box inside of a box looks like instead of making sure to maintain functionality is somewhat disruptive. I would be very appreciative if you would just fix it so that either the whole thing is inside of a single box with a class that can be used to hide it, or fix it so that all of the little boxes have the same definitive class that can be used to hide it. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've reverted that edit. Putting the end box inside the main blue div doesn't look good, as you end up with one blue box inside another blue box. You would be bound to get complaints about it from editors who are used to the old end box display. Also, you should by now be aware that these sorts of edits to Template:Documentation/Module:Documentation are not uncontroversial, and you should be proposing them on the template talk page rather than putting 100,000 pages in the job queue again, only to have your edits reverted. Quite frankly, I'm tempted to report you to ANI myself at this point. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No need Mr. S.. Thank you. I'm done with it. I've asked for it to be fixed, it's not going to be fixed because instead of just fixing it in a way that cosmetically pleases everyone, the preferred method of dealing with it is to claim ownership to the template and module. So, do what you want with them. I will not edit that template or module again, I'm simply going to move on to other projects. I will simply delete the documentation template from templates when I'm editing them and restore it when I'm done. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: You know that nothing will happen in ANI as Technical_13 has been frequently helpful to this project. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Being helpful is not a free ticket to behave how you want - the rules apply to everyone here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Correct, but adds more credibility when we talk about user conduct. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 5) OZ, while I appreciate your intent, it isn't required. Firstly, Mr. S. only said he was tempted, not that he was going to take it to AN/I. Secondly, I've already said they can have that template, and I won't edit it again, so it would be a moot point to take it to AN/I as it wouldn't be actionable on that aspect. They could admonish me for trying to improve the template editing experience and letting this discussion go this far, and I apologize for that, I should have given up trying to improve the template to make it easier to edit templates about 24 hours ago, but there isn't really much more that can be done than that. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Surely, but late now. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, the reason that you've been reverted is that all four of your edits to the template/module have been broken. If you actually proposed this on the talk page to make sure there's a consensus, and got the code written properly, there wouldn't be a problem. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
(Correction: the first one wasn't technically broken, but it was controversial.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 5) Like I said, I've requested it fixed, but instead of just fixing it the way you want, you've (plural) decided to make me try to fix it myself. There is a discussion on the talk page, it says to read the discussion here. So, I'm done. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The code works for me in Firefox, so the problem is either something with your computer/browser configuration, or with another user script. You don't fix that by changing the whole module. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have watched this discussion with increasing dismay. Various concerns have been raised over your use of the template-editor userright, and your responses have not demonstrated that you understand these concerns or will act on them. Your recent edit to Module:Documentation proves that little has been learned. Is it appropriate for you to continue to have this userright? I don't think an editor in your situation would be given it if they asked at WP:PERM. I also think you are currently causing a net negative effect with these tools. So I think it is right that you should take a break from them and reflect on what has gone wrong. Feel free to rerequest at WP:PERM/T after a suitable period of time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • So, what you are saying is because the code works for you, it doesn't matter if it works for anyone else because you don't like it. Either way, moot point. Like I said, I'll just remove the {{Doc}} or {{Documentation}} from templates when I work on them. Simple. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
If I see you remove the documentation from a single template, I'll consider it WP:POINTy and shall raise an WP:ANI myself. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Red, why wait? I'm almost certain I'll forget at least once at some point (which is why I use {{Reflistp}} when editing references in sections on article pages). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur's concerns[edit]

(edit conflict)*2 Concerned Editors (Redrose64OccultZoneMr. Stradivarius) This it not the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth recent case where Technical 13 has used the Template Editor privilege in a manner inconsistent with the rules regarding the permission not withstanding other recent cases of Technical 13 being strongly warned to not edit war over a prefered version of the page( see 1). I would also like to note that freqently when Technical 13 is confronted about their actions, the responsibility is shifted elsewhere (Cell Phone Browser's incomplete implementation of HTML standards, Twinkle, Archiving utilities, MediaWiki core logic, etc). It was impressed upon me that if I believed that there was a pattern of misuse that a RFC/U should be conducted, but that I should keep my hands out of drafting the RFC/U due to my significantly being involved as a disputant against Technical 13. I am bringing this to your attention so you may determine if there is a pattern of misuse of the permission and thereby a RFC/U should be conducted or if we should go straight to AN/ANI/a uninvolved administrator with this significant string of evidence as RFC/U has no enforcement provisions. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: the first and fifth links you give don't involve template-protected templates, and the second doesn't go into any specifics. The third and the fourth bear further consideration, though, particularly the third. If you think that, plus today's incident, is enough to open a thread at ANI, then you are welcome to open one. Personally, I would rather that T13 recognise that his use of the template editor right has sometimes been problematic, but it may be a good idea to have a wider discussion about it. If you do post at ANI, the usual caveats will apply - the behaviour of all parties will be examined. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: The first and fifth links represent making exceedingly poor changes that cause the template to perform in undesirable and potentially broken manners, suggesting in my mind that conesnsus is not being secured nor are potential updates to these high visibility templates being tested prior to implementing in the core. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: The second is the private appeal to Technical 13 to do the right thing in the context of Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard#Template-protected_edit_request_on_7_June_2014 which is the subject of the 3rd warning that I linked. It rings out clearly in my mind that Technical 13 is not qualified to hold this permission. I would also point out at the plethora of topicons this user displays leads to me wonder about a perception of hat collecting. Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (comment from a Nosy Parker) Hasteur, IMO your hat-collecting comment was un-called-for in this instance, since it's pretty obvious that T13 edits lots of templates, and didn't "collect" the Template Editor right just for show, but because he planned to use it. No need to pile on extra mud; it only distracts from the issue under discussion. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mr. Stradivarius, in response to your comment of Personally, I would rather that T13 recognise that his use of the template editor right has sometimes been problematic, I've never claimed to be perfect, nor am I afraid to say when I made a mistake. I'm not afraid to make difficult choices, and if I make the wrong one, {{Trout me}}, let's fix this issue, and move on... This is only Wikipedia, and no mistake can be made that can't be fixed. Anyways... I had a good day, and I hope that if Hasteur wishes to continue this, what I consider a personal attack on my talk page intended to serve no purpose except to harass me, I strongly urge him to do so elsewhere as I would appreciate not having such dribble on my talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT[edit]

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. . — xaosflux Talk 02:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Global Banking Alliance for Women[edit]

Thank you for responding to my help request. But I'm still not sure what I can do to make the article not read like an advertisement. If the article is fine, is it possible to get rid of the advert comment? Could you advise, please. Many, many thanks.Katrinpark (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

An automatic method of showing references in preview[edit]

You have mentioned that you use {{Reflistp}} to show references while editing/previewing section edits. Are you aware of the existance of User:Js/ajaxPreview? That user script provides an automatic view of references when previewing edits and adds a button to (or changes normal operation to) preview using AJAX which improves the time required for previewing.

My personal preferences for configuration of this are:

//Faster preview.  Preview shows References in section edit.
importScript('User:Js/ajaxPreview.js'); // [[user:js/ajaxPreview]]
//Config:
var ajaxPreviewPos = 'bottom'; //buttons on the bottom, replacing standard,
   //leaving smaller button for standard when desired
//And if you want tables to be sortable and collapsible elements to work as
//  usual in the Ajax-updated preview, use the following code:

// code to execute after each preview update
window.ajaxPreviewExec = function(previewArea) {
  mw.loader.using( [
    'jquery.tablesorter',
    'jquery.makeCollapsible'
  ], function(){
    $( 'table.sortable' ).tablesorter();
    $( '#wikiPreview .collapsible' ).makeCollapsible();
  } );
}

I should also note that showing references in preview mode states that it has been added to the code for 1.24wmf12, which is the next version to be released. — Makyen (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for bringing that to my attention as I wasn't aware of that script, but I'm guessing I would find the "Preview" highlights syntax when editing .js and .css files quite annoying and when I'm editing those sections I just want the references, not a bunch of other features. I look forward to that part of wmf12 if it works right. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The setup which I provided above results in buttons being available for both the new AJAX based preview/show changes and smaller buttons right next to them with the standard functionality so you can choose at the time you click on the button as to if you want the regular preview/show changes or the script based versions. — Makyen (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
After testing, I found that this change does not show references in section edit previews. It only results in adding a list of references when the entire article is displayed and there is not one explicitly defined. — Makyen (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 28, 2014)[edit]

Wok Cooking.jpg

Stir frying in a wok

Hello, Technical 13.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Stir frying


Previous selections: Java Man • Anubis


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Hello[edit]

Hi Technical! I remember that you developed a userbox on the request of a friend of mine, Soni. As you are an expert in this field, I wanted to ask you about this achievement award currently on my sandbox. Can it be developed too for congratulating users for GAs? Faizan 08:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Child safety[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to ask you to expand your closing comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 30#Child safety. I am squeezing my head by I can't figure out the way you got to this conclusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Dmitrij, I read through all of the comments and the list of possible places to change the redirect to and picked the one that I thought most appropriate. I would much rather see a standalone article created on the topic, but I think Child protection most closely reflects Child safety for now. I'm not sure I've clarified it very well for you, but I'm hoping. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a personal decision. Why didn't you just !vote then? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Because I wasn't !voting as I have no interest in the topic. I was closing the request based on what I perceived as the consensus based on the comments in the discussion. Of little consequence, I closed it against what I thought should be done because that was what I perceived the consensus to be. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

T13bot making off-task edits[edit]

See [2]. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Jackmcbarn, I've stopped the task and am looking into it. It is a simple regex search and replace using AWB and I have the following skip options set:
    • Page is in use
    • Edit blocked by spam filter
    • No changes are made
    • Only whitespace is changed
    • Only casing is changed
    • Only genfixes (which should cover the instance you linked above I believe)
    • Page is redirect
    • Page doesn't exist
That change appears to me to be the "unicodify whole page" option which is a genfix. Thank you for reporting it, I'll figure out exactly why and make any necessary adjustments to correct the issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently, there is no way to turn off if "only unicodifing changes", so I've unchecked the "Unicodify whole page" option. Please, let me know if the issue shows up elsewhere. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing requests[edit]

Please do not close template edit protected requests, as you did herehere, as it is not appropriate. You are welcome to comment on requests, but please leave the closing to template editors. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • MSGJ, I think you are confused. I reopened the request in that edit after some discussion had occurred and I no longer opposed the change. Second, there is no policy, guideline, rule, or law that says I'm unable to close any request including fully protected, template protected, or otherwise if the request doesn't meet the criteria of a suitable request per PER or if the change is contentious because I'm objecting to it. There have been discussions on this topic before (pertaining specifically to non-administrator closings before Padlock-pink.svg Template editor even existed) and the consensus was there is nothing wrong with this. I suggest if you disagree with this that you open a proper RfC in a proper location and obtain a changed consensus on the matter. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    I am not confused, but I did provide the wrong diff above, now corrected. I don't want you using the {{EP}} template to close down requests for full- or template-protected pages. Whether or not there is a policy that forbids this, it is common sense. If you personally support or oppose a suggestion, please comment on it, do not attempt to close it. Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Unwarranted damage to unrelated thread[edit]

Once again, you have made unnecessary and undesirable changes to a thread completely unrelated to the thread that you were commenting on. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And again. Stop doing that. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Red, has anyone told you recently that you make a great INSPECTOR? Thanks for fixing it and causing me an (edit conflict) while I was doing it (so I just abandoned the change). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't need to fix these pages if you didn't break them in the first place. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Like you've been informed before by multiple editors including the developer of the script, Jackmcbarn, those edits are through an api-automated process similar to Twinkle using VE's parsoid and I've no way to preview the edit before it is submitted to see if it is going to break anything. You are more than welcome to take your complaint to bugzilla and complain to the parsoid devs that their product is causing errors, I'm sure they would be happy to look into it and fix it for you. In the mean time, keep right on inspecting! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, we can file Parsoid bug reports, but that doesn't fix the wikitext that the script broke. If you break wikitext, you should really be fixing it yourself, whether the breaking was the fault of a tool or not. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mr. S., as I already said, I was in the process of fixing the wikitext when I (edit conflict) with Red. Nothing made her have to fix that in the few minutes it was up and it wouldn't have hurt anything to sit there for 10-15 minutes. However, to fix it in less than 5 minutes and then come here to complain about it like it is all my fault and I'm suppose to make sure I check the preview before an api-automated tool makes an edit which is impossible when Red has been informed of this the other times they have come here to complain seems like flat out HARRASSment to me, and I am requiring that Red before this has to get any more messy. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I've submitted bugzilla:67768 regarding this issue. For now, as has already been said, just fix it when it happens. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I've just updated my script to show the user a diff of edits it makes, so users can see and fix these types of problems themselves now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Robban Andersson[edit]

Could you please take a look at the refs for Robban Andersson. Appreciate it!--BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I've run Reflinks on it, that is about all I can do. Good luck. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 21:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Appreciated! Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at Elsa Collin when you got time for it. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Friend...[edit]

I'm very concerned. The last few weeks, I've seen some unusual behavior; unusually testy, combative, overly sensitive, a bit hard headed. We all have bad days, bad weeks, bad months even, and my observation is that you are having one. You aren't at your best, and I've seen you around for some time, so I have something to compare to. As a friend, let me just say that the Arb case isn't a good idea. Honestly, it is a phenomenally bad idea. I know nothing about template, not interested, my specialty is more akin to dealing with behavioral problems. You are free to ignore my advice here, but I'm giving you same advice I would give my own flesh and blood here: Take some time off. You need a break, you are burned out. Close the case, take a few weeks 100% away from Wikipedia and get a fresh perspective. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to concur, this is a sound observation and advise, Tech, please take a step back and reflect. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 01:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I was thinking the exact same thing...and then I saw the ArbComm filing and thought to myself "we've lost him". You've slipped into the abyss ... and I don't think there's anyone on the project that wants that to happen. The recommendation to take time off is more-than-sound for your own sanity...pretty soon it'll become an enforced break, and NOBODY needs that the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If I was walking into this situation uninvolved, I would be issuing an indefinite block, considering that you were unblocked on a last chance, and considering that you have made serious accusations of harassment against others.
I'm not going to do that. But please, step back and reconsider, because I fear that someone else will if you keep going down this road. --Rschen7754 19:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your contribution to my topic ban discussion[edit]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trover[edit]

Hello Technical 13. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Trover".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trover}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Technical 13. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 13:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC). 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.

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the note about the High Beam topic icon. Donner60 (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure you're still watching[edit]

T13, your ArbCom filing is awaiting your action - specifically, an Arb advised "There has been a long history of other harassment from Redrose64 as well, that's a very serious allegation. Please, provide evidence or retract it". The case cannot be withdrawn with that open, and now since you're refusing to respond yet still editing, the entire case is now turning around to centre on you and your behaviour. You need to do something, pronto. the panda ₯’ 10:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I only have the ability to read and edit/email on my phone for a couple minutes from time to time while going to appointments. I don't have the ability to dig through diffs and create links to them. I objected to Red changing my bullet points to naked indents months ago and their continued insistence on doing it is a violation of WP:TPO and harassment. Doctor's calling us in, gotta go. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The point is, if you don't substantiate, you need to strike (or authorize someone else to, since your access is limited). I strongly suggest simply striking and withdrawing. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
T13, if all your "harassment" complaint is changing asterisks to colons, then that's pretty weak. Indeed, that's basically the only things you have even tried to substantiate. There's no way that changing indent styles a) disrupts your enjoyment of the project, b) warrants an ArbCom filing in any manner. You've got a lot of crap on your plate - first you had a couple of issues around user-rights (yeah, you generated them yourself) that made your online fun a lot less fun. I would expect that made you feel as stomped on as a narc at a biker rally. Then you really went all out in a retaliatory filing ... and got stomped again; not a good feeling. These led to some even WORSE decisions from you on Wikipedia. I can guarantee that you're literally moments away from a block of some length, and that's going to be worse.
But online isn't real life - the X button exists in the top right corner on purpose. Now you've got some real live shit going on: now that is what life is about - THAT is where your focus needs to be.
One way or another, you need to take time off from this project, and choosing your way is better than it being forced. But you don't seem to be able to stay away voluntarily. Now, because you're smart enough to outthink the java-based Wikibreak enforcer, you need to request a block. Yes, you're permitted to do that - with zero blemish on your block record. Ask someone - Dennis or myself to block you as a self-requested block for a period of 6 months - the admin will annotate the block log accordingly. Spend that time focussed on family. Spend that time analysing your wikilife so far. Spend time rethinking how you interact when challenged. Come back in 6 months with a new perspective, new direction, and stronger than ever.
As I've said, you're literally moments from a block by one of at least a half-dozen admins that I know of - the next AN/ANI that has your name even mentionned in passing is going to be the proverbial straw on the back of the proverbial camel. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • All I can say is that I agree completely and I would be willing to do a temporary self requested block if it was requested. Dennis Brown |  | WER 17:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 29, 2014)[edit]

Eod2.jpg

Inserting blasting caps into blocks of C-4

Hello, Technical 13.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

C-4 (explosive)


Previous selections: Stir frying • Java Man


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Arbitration case request declined[edit]

Hi Technical 13, the arbitration case request you submitted has been declined by the Arbitration Committee as they believe the community is still able to handle this issue so arbitration is not yet required. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you so much for your help at the Teahouse. I appreciate you guys to the full extent. If you ever need my help. Just ask! SkaterLife 15:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal re June BED[edit]

There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#We_need_a_conclusion that merits your consideration Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AFCH[edit]

How do you use AFCH on AfC/R? Pressing More and then Review (AFCH) just brings up a bar at the top of the page, not something for each request. Ollieinc (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • As I've said before, you don't. You need to use WP:AFCHB since I can't get any admins to push the beta version forward to live. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realise that. WP:AFCHB works great thanks Face-smile.svg Ollieinc (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

T13bot operating outside of approval[edit]

In regard to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/T13bot, your bot is removing the "metadata" class from things on the page that do not result from the substing of {{afd top}}. This is causing it to edit war with AnomieBOT over the navigation headers on the page, which may well actually be metadata. Please join the conversation at User talk:AnomieBOT#Bot warring. Thanks. Anomie 11:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverts to userbox template documentation[edit]

I've fixed the problem by removing all links to your userboxes from my user space and will henceforth endeavour to avoid using any userboxes that you have created or modified. — QuicksilverT @ 03:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • What problem? I wasn't aware there was one. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

AFC tabs[edit]

I fail to see how consensus is not clear on removing the backlog drive creation button from the tabs. There is an emerging consensus to hide the button away somewhere less odvious (such as at the bottom of the BLD main page), but no one has supported keeping it on the tabs page. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 06:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

sa.wikipedia.org problem[edit]

Hi ! I want to share some problems with you, because you are connected with sa.wikipedia.org. Our admin is neglecting us. Admin is not involving us in policy making process and when we are propose some requests, then also he don't even reply us. I and many other users of sa.wikipedia.org are felt helpless against our Admin. Please guide us in this problem. if you will not take it seriously, then in future it may be a big problem of sa.wikipedia.org. NehalDaveND (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • What language is sa? I don't think I've ever edited there. I'm certainly not the person to help you with your admin problems. I have no idea who you would talk to about issues with sa.wp, but I wish you the best of luck finding them. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Sanskrit. Mandruss (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, to decode any Wikipedia language code, just pop it through the {{#language:}} parser function: {{#language:sa|en}} → Sanskrit --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 30, 2014)[edit]

Jazz Band in Queens Park - geograph.org.uk - 729107.jpg

A Jazz band plays in a park festival

Hello, Technical 13.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Jazz band


Previous selections: C-4 (explosive) • Stir frying


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Template:Admin dashboard/rfarfp[edit]

Hi T13, I noticed you made some edits to the request for permission functions of the template, I was wondering if you could work out why requests for template editor isn't showing up on the Template:Admin dashboard when it's empty? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Hey Cal. I remember working on that as part of a request to fix an inclusion size problem, and if I was to guess, I would say it's probably not supposed to show when it's empty to save those bits of inclusion size. I'm on my mobile and can't dig in to confirm that at the moment though. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought it might have been that, however when there aren't requests for account creator it still shows and says that there are none. As far as I can tell the code is the same so I'm not sure, anyways I'll leave it with you. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox. 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) 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 31, 2014)[edit]

Sistinehall.jpg

The Sistine Hall of the Vatican Library

Hello, Technical 13.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Vatican Library


Previous selections: Jazz band • C-4 (explosive)


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Jodosma[edit]

I want to know why you thought it was OK to create a lot of pages that I did not ask for. Apparently I now have to do work to remove your unwanted crap. Why don't you Get.A.Life and stop "helping" people. I need an answer you twat. If I don't get an answer I will plague you until I do. By the way, I think you are a very sad person.Jodosma (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • You asked for a database dump of everything with an improper case of a zodiac sign. I gave you everything with an improper case of a zodiac sign. You don't want them anymore, simply CSD them. No harm, no foul. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 06:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:YearInNorthernIrelandNav[edit]

Hello, I've had to revert your changes to Template:YearInNorthernIrelandNav as they were causing the template to display incorrectly. - X201 (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • X201 I don't see any complaints on the talk page Template talk:YearInNorthernIrelandNav. Can you point me to what exactly the complaint is? You undid a lot of useful changes there, some of them are template breaking. Please specify the exact problem, and I'll look into exactly what was causing that. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
It was via The Help Desk. The template was twice as large as it should have been and had error messages in it. - X201 (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
See screenshot. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the screenshot Red. Always very helpful for troubleshooting. Should be all fixed now with the updated code. Thanks for the report. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Invisible Barnstar.png The Invisible Barnstar
A barnstar to you for reviewing at least 50 submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive!
Posted by (tJosve05a (c) on 23:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation.

Signatures[edit]

Aloha, A while ago you fixed my signature so that it was coded correctly. To avoid breaking it again, I wanted to ask you to take a look at the following code:

<small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F08,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">[[User:Solarra|<b style="color:#CC0099;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥]]</span></small><sub>[[User talk:Solarra|T]] ♪ [[Special:Contribs/Solarra|C]]</sub>

Let me know what you think! ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀ 09:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Solarra: Two problems: (i) the <b style="color:#CC0099;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> is not balanced by a closing </b>; (ii) the contrast ratio between text and background (see WP:SIGAPP) is way too low - it is only 1.39:1, but at least 4.5:1 is required for WCAG 2.0 (Level AA) compliance. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 1.39:1 isn't exactly correct as the background shadow isn't a solid color. I agree that the contrast is still too low, and I have suggested something that looks okay to me below. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F6E,-4px -4px 15px #F6E;">[[User:Solarra|<b style="color:#C09;font-family:Comic Sans MS">♥ Solarra ♥</b>]]</span></small><sub>[[User talk:Solarra|T]] ♪ [[Special:Contribs/Solarra|C]]</sub>
    (♥ Solarra ♥ TC) seems fine to me. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Where a gradient is in use (this includes a shadow), you need to consider both ends of the gradient. Whilst #C09 on white gives a contrast ratio of 5.21:1, which satisfies Level AA, #C09 on #F6E gives a contrast ratio of 2.08:1 - still too low. You need to either lighten up the shadow to about #FFE8FD or deepen the text to about #730056 to get the desired 4.5:1 --Redrose64 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
You have some choices to look over. Pick the one that you like best. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
4.53:1 - fine. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I wasn't expecting this level of assistance, thank you much! I found one that seems to comply with WP:SIGAPP. Thank you again for your help! <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ TC 18:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)