Jump to content

User talk:Technical 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit.
This user is American by birth
This user has access to JSTOR through UMA
This user is an Articles for Creation reviewer on the English Wikipedia.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
Email this user
Technical 13's page on GitHub
This user had access to HighBeam through The Wikipedia Library
This user uses HotCat to work with categories.
This user is registered on the Identification noticeboard.
This user watches over Wikipedia with the help of Navigation popups!
This user is a Teahouse host.
Trout this user
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Equazcion (talk | contribs) at 21:53, 3 December 2014 (→‎OneClickArchiver: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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    2016   
Jan - Mar Apr - June July - Sept Oct - Dec
Live Talk Page

No RfAs or RfBs reported by cyberbot I since 1:57 6/23/2024 (UTC)

Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

RfA data

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

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

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

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

  • FeydHuxtable, I've created the first chart based on the data I have found so far... Still need to find a historic database of active users per month... It shows that based on the current decline of successful RfAs compared to total number of RfAs submitted, by the middle of 2018, RfAs will no longer result in successful new admins.
There are a lot of other interesting trends that my spreadsheet shows, but I need more data and need to find a way to put the whole spreadsheet on wiki. Anyways... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If one doesn't assume a straight line best fit, the data could also slow a decline from 2004 (70%) to 2010/2011 (40%), and stability thereafter. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That line isn't a linear function, it is a logarithmic function that happens to show a straight line because that is what is reflected by the data. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 09:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks very much for the RfA visuals! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FeydHuxtable, I'm still working on collecting more data. At this time, however, what I've collected so far for number of admins : active editors seems fairly balanced at the moment. It's a visual that might not support the goal, but I still have more data to collect, so I don't want to say for sure at this time... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only link Im aware of for active editors . I think what you've done already is great, it's much easier to take in a good graph than raw numbers. But including the ones already on RfA talk, we have quite a good range of different graphs now you've added your projections. So it might not strengthen the case much to have more. Just saying as it would be a lot of data to crunch. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just created an image of what I have for data so far. I've gotten most of it from WP: pages or stats.wikimedia.org. I've color coded it all with a 3-tone scale except for the last column which is percent of active editors that are administrators. Some of my data isn't lining up properly and I have some gaps in data I need to research and fix. I'm guessing that a 10% of active editors being administrators is about what the proportion should be, although I'm sure that there are many that would disagree with me and without some kind of community consensus on what the target % should be, I had to go with my gut. That said, the last column is a three color scale with the upper and lower limits both being red as you get further from the target 10%. The part I know you've been waiting for:
Anyways, I'll update that table as I gather more data and figure out which data set is correct in all the places I have conflicts (most conflicts are marked with little red triangles in the cell corner where I have comments). Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N is certainly an interesting stat. Myself and WSC think every cluefull longterm editor should have the chance to be an admin if they want to, but you're right most would probably prefer something closer to 10%. Can't believe how fast you've built all this up. Happy editing to you too. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice this seems to show stable % since 2006. The problem is then the overall decline in new editors, which is then reflected by the editors active as admins -- and in every area. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References in 'List of tallest buildings in Cyprus'

I am really sorry for disrupting you on an unnecessary topic, but this aspect concerns me strongly. A great majority of the references I link to the page List of tallest buildings in Cyprus, which, as I have checked many times, meet all criteria on reliability, get deleted. I will be really thankful if you could explain why.
Regards
Oldstone_James

By the way, why do you delete items in the list that don't have references? There are several (actually more than just that) articles that don't have references at all, one of them being List of tallest buildings in Norway (two of the three references tell us nothing about the buildings and the other one cannot be opened due to a '500 Feil ved nedlasting av fil' error. Also, in the sentence above ,'http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/Article/114/language/en-US/view.aspx just shows a greyed out screen with an X for an advertisement (that doesn't show). When that X is clicked, it leaves me with http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/language/en-US/Default.aspx which tells me nothing about any of the buildings', you have just stated that the link http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/Article/114/language/en-US/view.aspx doesn't open for YOU, and not for other users (like me).
Another area which is unclear to me is the deletion of the source http://www.cybarco.com/news/the-oval-launch. Even though Cybarco is a company, the NEWS section on the website allows to only publish news, which doesn't just make it more reliable, but it makes it a secondary source. Also, even if I am wrong, the page that describes Primary and Secondary sources provides us with information that a secondary source may be a 'drawn on' primary source. This means that, as I understand it (please correct me if I have interpreted it incorrectly), two pages may be combined to form a secondary source. In our case, the two pages are http://www.cybarco.com/news/the-oval-launch and http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/Article/114/language/en-US/view.aspx, which can ideally form a reliable secondary source.
There also is one more topic that seems unclear to me: 'Upon doing some research, in order for an item to be in a list, it needs to have its own page on Wikipedia'. Most, if not all, articles on Wikipedia categorized as lists, such as List of tallest buildings in Panama City, List of tallest buildings in Finland, and many others, have half (or more) of their list items unlinked to any Wikipedia pages. However, in the article List of tallest buildings in Cyprus,(which I am sure is just one of a kind), whenever a list item without a Wikipedia link to it is spotted, it gets deleted. Is there any explanation for it (sorry for the excessive curiosity)?

This week's article for improvement (week 46, 2014)

Sleeping is part of everyday life
Hello, Technical 13.

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

Everyday life

Previous selections: Pizza • National park

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

My simple question

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

Thank you for sleeping over ;) - Do you watch the pages of other arbs also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't typically, although I was planning on adding all the Q&A pages for the other candidates (when there are some other candidates) to my watchlist to see what I can learn from others thoughts and ideas. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like kafkaesque, so I enjoy the combination of "happy editing" and my present work Klag-Lied. If you follow the link above you see that our day of national remembrance is 16 November this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was brave!

The Original Barnstar
Being the first to stand in the ArbCom elections took guts, and deserves recognition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone had to do it... lol While I was at it, I also fixed half the preload system that was missing and brought everything I could find up to HTML5 standards. :) Thanks for your unofficial support here. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Hi, Just wanted to say a massive thank you for sorting out my talkpage coding -

I'm surprised you even done it but also very grateful so thank you - Very much appreciated :)
Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

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

  • Vigyani, I can certainly see how that would be confusing. I have a cat, my userpage is a more casual environment than a candidate's statement page for ArbCom, and I love my cat like a daughter, so I counted her as a daughter at the time. I've adjusted the count on my userpage to be clear. Of my other children, My son is 17, my older daughter is 16, and my youngest just turned 3. I believe you can see images of my children (and my cat) on my FaceBook page if you so desired. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks :). Yeah I navigated to your facebook page and saw the photos. :) . Good luck with the ArbCom election. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 47, 2014)

Military aviation and missile guidance are examples of modern military technology.
Hello, Technical 13.

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

Military technology

Previous selections: Everyday life • Pizza

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Technical 13. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Fuhghettaboutit, I really wish you would have gotten a hold of me before sending out this mass message. I actually have a userscript (User:Technical 13/Scripts/CVD.js) that is extremely useful in making it easy to detect copyvios. I've asked multiple times for suggestions for improvement, and have gotten little back. At this point, I'm guessing the best thing to do to get the word out is to send out a follow-up MMs before too long so letting people know about the script and how to set it up and use it, and then see if any replies come in. I've got some more features I want to add and then we can work-up a new MMs newsletter together. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I';ve looked at your script, and judging by the code, it suffers from the same basic problems as all other scripts: one on hand, it can only detect what is open to search engines on the internet, which is a very limited set of the material that might be copied. On the other, it doesn't seem to distinguish copying of fragments or invariable material, and I don't think it catches reverse copyvio. I have yet to test it: it makes use of other good scripts, so it might have the benefits of all of them and do better than any of the other ones devised so far; if it's substantially better or even easier or faster , we might want to use it. But the real point is that all script based searches are intrinsically limited. They're just dumb regular expressions at heart, not actual self-learning AI. We need them, but they're just tools to gather partial data conveniently, not by themselves a remedy or a decision mechanism. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, you've kind of lost me with this comment. All the script was intended to do was to scan the article for URLs used as references and then open new tabs in The Earwig's Copyvios report and Dcoetzee's Template:Dupdet. It has no real AI of it's own. Since CopyVios now does it's own scan of the article for URLs (took over a year to get that feature added), it now only opens one tab using that tool and, if toggled on, all of the dupdet tabs. If nothing else, it is still a useful sidebar link to access the toollab tools. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought you were doing, and, as I just said a better interface would be a good thing; it would be nice to have one combined place to look. But I also thought you were gettting more ambitious and stretching the limits of what can be expected fro m these tools . I'm glad we understand things the same way. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great--I was planning to X-check against our actions, and see if wide discrepancies were possibly a mistake. Tho I do not think a number is necessarily useful in judging submission, it will be interesting to see if it might be. I'd be very willing to help by running checks against a sample of deleted items, tho of course there are non-WP dbs where they can be found by anyone. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is not ok

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

  • Technical13, just because you're unlikely to get feedback from others on something this unimportant, thought I'd say that you're 100% right about this, and Jehochman is 100% wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Floquenbeam, do you really know another editors intentions with such 100% certainty? What I know is that another editor replaced my username in my signature with a snark to make a point. It's up to that editor to excuse himself and say if it was a mistake or not. Until then, I am going on appearances. Why don't you go say something to him since you seem to want to help. Jehochman Talk 12:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking to Technical13, not you. If you want to talk to me, I have a talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, you're talking about me, so I am going to answer you here. If you don't want to hear from me, don't talk about me, and don't jump into a conversation that I've started. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, fine, hopefully T13 doesn't mind me hijacking his talk page too much. Don't lecture me about not knowing 100% what another editor was thinking, and then tell me you did what you did because you know what they were thinking. It's hypocritical. Or at least if you're going to do that, try to be right about it. @Kudpung: and I disagree about a lot of things, but I am confident he/she is not vandalizing your signature, I'm sure the cursor went somewhere they didn't mean it to. That happens to people all the time. You embarrass yourself assuming they did it on purpose, are violating a policy you appear to hold dear when it is applied to other editors, and needlessly escalating it into a whole thing, to the detriment of everyone involved. T13 tried to handle this with a minimum of fuss, which should be encouraged, not whined about. You are in the wrong here, and owe T13 and Kudpung an apology. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 2) Hey guys! Thanks for stopping by!
    Jehochman, disrupting a discussion over something that was almost certainly an unfortunate chain of events that resulted in one of the links to your userspace being broken was simply unacceptable to me. I understand you wanted to hear an explanation from Kudpung saying what happened, assuming he knows how it happened, but a more appropriate course of action would have been to fix the link to your user page and start a new section on his talk page asking him. It certainly wouldn't have been appropriate for him to give you an explanation in an edit summary which extremely limits the number of characters allowed and doesn't allow for pinging.
    Floquenbeam, thank you very much for stopping by, and I appreciate your comments here. I don't see it as a "who's right or wrong" but more of a "what's done is done, how can we move forward in a productive manner".
    Anyways, I think that this topic on this talk page has reached a point where it is concluded (as I have no interest in pursuing it any further) and I would suggest that follow up discussions take place on whomsoever's talk page is appropriate. Thank you and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Technical 13. Of course I will honor your request. Jehochman Talk 13:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi, can you help

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

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

Wikimedia genealogy project

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Punjabi language

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

Precious

technical progressive brilliant kind
Thank you, snuggling user who likes to help people and received technical progressive brilliant kind diplomacy stars, for evaluating AfC drafts, for welcoming new users personally and at the teahouse, for smileys and intelligent reading of diffs, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) I believe I would have to ditto that. :>) – Paine  21:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2014)

A beach on the island of San Andrés, a tourist destination in the Caribbean
Hello, Technical 13.

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

Tourism in the Caribbean

Previous selections: Military technology • Everyday life

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Regarding Multiple Sandbox

Hello! Technical 13, earlier, at my very early age in wikipedia, someone has created a multipla sandbox header for my en.wikipedia. Latterly I get understand that, it was you. Obliged. Hence, in recent days, I am feeling necessity of such a multiple header sandbox once again but not for en.wikipedia but bn.wikipedia. Please, this time let me understand how to create such a multiple header sandbox. My user page in Bengali is: [[1]]. May I... Sufidisciple (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

Hi Technical 13. In reply to this edit summary, yes, that was an edit conflict. Sorry for accidentally removing your comment. Thank you for your carefully explained WP:ANRFC closes! Cunard (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cunard, no problem, as many times as I've accidentally removed comments from others due to (edit conflict) notification failures (or even times when it works right but my edit is so comprehensive it is easier to just fix the other user's comment after the fact (which never happens of course except in theory)). I expect that I'll be closing a few more in the next few days as well. I actually quite enjoy reading all of the arguments back and forth and determining consensus, when consensus exists. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is great to hear! ANRFC could use many more thoughtful closers who are willing to explain their closes in detail. I've heard in the past that closing discussions was a thankless task (link), but I am glad to hear that you, like I JethroBT (talk · contribs) here, find it fun and rewarding. On the few occasions that I've closed discussions (one example), I've enjoyed doing them too. It is rewarding to help resolve disputes. Cunard (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • C, is there a userscript available to make the technical component of closing these discussions easier? I know there are scripts for XfD discussions, and I'm wondering if you know if there is one available for this. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know of a userscript for closing these RfC discussion, sorry! Cunard (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HTML5

Hiya Technical13, Hope you're fine and well :),
I wanted to come here as I know it may seem disheartening you changing all the HTML to HTML5 and then I revert it - I 100% appreciate your efforts and it's very very much appreciated but I hate people changing everything of mine (it's just the way I am), I know all the CSS/HTML 5 it's just real life as well as laziness that's stopped me from updating it
Don't worry I will change everything this year that's most definitely a promise but just didn't want you to be disheartened or upset that's all :),
Have a nice day and again thanks for your hardwork with updating everything to HTML5 - This entire project would be screwed without your knowledge! :),
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Friendly request

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

November 2014

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at 2015 Formula One season, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think you did this out of bad faith. You probably removed Readrose's comment by accident. Just be careful when an edit conflict arises that you haven't removed another editor(or administrator in this case)'s comment. The best solution if you are faced with a series of edit conflicts is not to save your contributions, but to leave the editing window entirely and start all over again. You can easily copy your entire contribution before leaving and the paste it back in your new attempt. Regards, Tvx1 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a matter of balance Tvx1. Like I said, I was in the process of restoring any lost comments caused by the technical glitch. I'm not sure who told you it is always better to abandon your changes and start over, but that is simply not the case. In a case such as this one, where my change was a multiple line change that was over 12K bytes in size, it was certainly not better to abandon it and start over to protect a couple one line comments or typo fixes that were less than 800 bytes. As long as the end result is that no comments are lost, then it doesn't matter how that goal is achieved. The best thing to do, when you see something like that happen is to give the editor who's edit caused the issue a reasonable amount of time to correct the issue, especially when they acknowledge they expect there to be an issue based on past experiences and/or the sequence of events. I generally, as a rule of thumb, give other editors 10 minutes for a single (edit conflict) issue and five minutes for each additional (edit conflict). In this case, (edit conflict × 5) would have been 30 minutes (10+5+5+5+5=30). Anyways, what is done is done. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your problem is with my edit on my own talk page. I just made it readable for myself. With a part of it in italics, following another part without a break it's just a mess. And regarding the edit conflicts, I found out through trial and error what is the most efficient way of dealing with a series of edit-conflicts without making a mess of it. Tvx1 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only problem I had with your edit on your OWN talk page was that it broke the formatting and made my signature italic (and left an open <i> tag, which would have caused ALL subsequent posts to be entirely italicized). As for dealing with edit conflicts, everyone has the right to deal with them in their own way as long as it is not unreasonably disruptive. Making the edit through the conflict and going back to the diff of the edit to fix whatever was accidentally changed is my method when I've added multiple kilobytes to a discussion and those kilobytes take up many lines since there is no way to simply copy those lines to my clipboard and re-add them at the end. Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Allen

DENYing comment from IP SOCK of Allen2.

Technical 13, this is Allen!

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

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

This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2014)

The Mexico–United States border spans six Mexican states and four U.S. states, with a total length of 3,145 km (1,954 mi).
Hello, Technical 13.

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

Mexico–United States border

Previous selections: Tourism in the Caribbean • Military technology

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Closing protected or template-protected edit requests

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

Hello Martin, as I responded, there is no policy, guideline, or topic ban that forbids me from doing so. To embellish on that, point number on ANRFC reads Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.. If you disagree with this, feel free to open a discussion at the appropriate venue and gain a consensus against (non-admin closure)s. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you don't understand why this is inappropriate. Let me give you an example to try and explain again. In the past I've seen you post comments on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor about whether you feel an editor meets the guidelines for this user right. This is fine, and your input is often valuable. However you have never, as far as I am aware, marked a request as  Done (because you lack the technical right to implement this) or  Not done (because you recognise that this is inappropriate for a non-admin). The situation is analogous here. While there may or may not be an explicit rule forbidding this, I nonetheless submit that it is common sense. As you are not able to make the changes requested, the only outcome you are technical able to perform is to decline the edit. The effect of this is likely to be a bias you towards declining requests. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a really poor example. Although I didn't mark the requests with the template (for various reasons like I didn't know at the time that it was required to use a template and which templates should be used. I have marked requests on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor as not done, see: User:Smuconlaw, User:Imzogelmo, and User:Oashi. Anyways, you're still going to need a community consensus to do away with NACs. I'm no more disposed towards decline than any other editor, including administrators. If I find that a request is appropriate, I either leave it alone if it is clear enough, I attempt to clarify the request to make sure it is clear to whomever comes around that can carry it out, or I ping someone I know can carry it out that has been active recently if it has been sitting for some time in the queue. I do appreciate your concern. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On those requests you have made useful and insightful comments, but you have not attempted to formally close them off, which is the point I am making. I will take this to another venue (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) if you persist in making these closures, but I thought I would make a few more comments which may or may not change your mind:
  • Although there may not be an explicit rule against what you are doing, there are various passages in various pages which show that it is not common or expected practice. For example, Wikipedia:Edit requests contains "Administrators routinely check this category for protected edit requests to process." Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests contains the sentence "Protected pages can only be edited by administrators, some of whom monitor this category and respond to requests."
  • I think you would meet a backlash if you started closing requests on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Category:Requests for unblock. Protected edit requests are of the same nature as these boards - editors are making a request to an administrator, and are expecting it to be answered by an administrator.
  • One of the reasons your template editor right was revoked, was due to concerns about your ability to judge consensus and act neutrally.
In conclusion I would reiterate that you are welcome to continue patrolling Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests and Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests and making helpful comments. It's just formally marking them as answered that is problematic. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin, please, feel free to start a discussion on WP:AN/I as you see fit, but I still don't understand why you seem to have a problem with me closing requests like this one. I only close requests that are clear cut cases of nothing can happen (without more discussion, which may (not) be due to the fact that I object to the request) either because it is a blank request, on the wrong page, would be highly controversial, or lacks one of the other requirements of WP:PER. Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requests from Dirtlawyer1

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

script thanks

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Common Good (political party)

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

  • Czar, I see only two deletes (and one was proposer) and five keeps. The delete !votes lack the weight required to say delete and the keep !votes have the required weight in the reasons to say keep as opposed to no consensus to me. My first thought was to actually relist the discussion, but I reread all of the comments and saw there was consensus to keep. You are more than welcome to renominate it (if it's going to be part of a batch, it should all be in one nomination) or take it to DRV and I'd be happy recuse myself and let process take its course. :) Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We (say that we) don't count !votes, so I'm not sure the number matters—those last several keep !votes "per GNG" should mean close to nothing towards consensus, especially as no one endeavored to say how it met the GNG and with what sources. If it does revert to numbers, I didn't vote but would think that casting doubt on the soundness of the last few would be enough to at least relist until my questions were answered. Anyway, something to keep in mind—not planning to take it to delrev or anything czar ⨹ 04:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the number of !votes, it's about the lack of weighted arguments from those suggesting deletion resulting in no consensus and the little bit of argument from those suggesting keeping swaying it from NC to K. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bunny for you

The soft bunny of happiness and tranquility.

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

Nice!

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

WP:AN/RFC closures

Hi, when closing threads at WP:AN/RFC, why are you using italicised boldface? It's not a one-off: all of these closes exhibit the problem. It's also been going on for some time - such as this edit from 27 Nov. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I italicize the verbatim close I used in the actual discussion. I'm technically quoting myself, and find it appropriate to italicize that. The bolding is as-is from the actual close that shows the consensus (or lack thereof) without my additional notes and comments. Was there a discussion somewhere that I missed that shows a preferred formatting for this? If so, I'd be happy to read it over and adjust appropriately. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at requests that were closed by somebody else, e.g. those at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 15, I don't see anybody else using italics and bold to that extent. In most cases, the only bolding is to the word "Closed", and there is no italicisation at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any of those that quote what was in the close on the discussion either, heck, most are just the close template and sometimes a request for an admin to finish the action if needed. Those kinds of comments that aren't quoted from the close aren't italicized or bold from me either (example of a close where there are non-bold/italic comments for things not quoted from closure, and another where there is a comment I put in the bullet above move close that wasn't quoting the close). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

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

OneClickArchiver

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technical_13&oldid=636517631"