This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
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 a participant in the Articles for Creation process
Email this user
Technical 13's page on GitHub
This user has 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.

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    2016   
Live Talk Page
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Mdann52 3 6 1 0 86 08:34, 7 July 2015 6 days, 21 hours no report
Rich Farmbrough 2 43 34 13 56 23:59, 4 July 2015 4 days, 12 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 10:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Friendly reminder[edit]

Just a reminder you said you would review the new discussions when you have some time. As I said there, some editors are construing the results of the proposal and !vote more/less broadly than others... The original "Formal poll" asked for editors to be "stating an opinion based on policy or guidelines in favour of or opposed to the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles. Some editors (and the contested edit to the MOS) are taking the close to apply to areas other than Formula 1. Clarification and rationale would be helpful.

That's what you get for trying to be helpful – as they say, no good deed goes unpunished Face-smile.svg. Thanks again. Mojoworker (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Bumping thread. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Bumping thread. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 09:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Bumping thread. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yet again, I'm so sorry I'm so slow to get to this, I'm finishing up Spring finals and starting summer classes (had to take an away class that starts a week earlier so I get no break between semesters here) which is really chewing up my time. All I can say is WP:SOON™ — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Bumping thread for 30 days. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
{{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Bumping thread. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Bumping thread for 30 days. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
{{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

If there’s a problem with me, talk to me[edit]

Hi. I’ve responded to some of your allegations at WP:ANI. For anything else, please take it up with me directly rather than advocating that I should be blocked without being informed of the existence of a problem. My Talk page is always open if you have something you would like me to explain or justify. And even if you are to be passive-aggressive, I’d much prefer you do it to my face than indirectly on a noticeboard. Thanks. — (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, I can't do that unless you decide to register for an account on wikipedia. I just don't bother leaving messages or starting discussions on the talk pages of IP anon editors because IPs are too dynamic and I don't want to have to chase you to discuss it. We can discuss it on ANI (since you started the discussion there) or we can discuss it here I suppose (although I am pretty busy, so I may be very slow in responding to any comments you may make). I'll also note that I haven't indicated or suggested that you should be blocked. I suggested that you should have been blocked at a previous point when you were being excessively disruptive and engaged in an edit war that you then acknowledge would have never happened if you had an understanding of what the policy you were claiming was justification for a redlink to a topic that surely fell under rednot. You also weren't following the BRD process, You were bold, you were reverted, no further reversions should have occurred until the discussion had concluded (whether the user who reverted you wanted to contribute or not). Had you just stopped there, and discussed it and researched if the thing you were trying to redlink could have been a viable topic, you'd have found it couldn't and the whole thing would have died there. Anyways, I'm tired since I had a long day, so I'll be going to bed shortly. Feel free to continue this discussion here or there, and I'll respond when I have time (I may be active and make other edits to other pages or other sections of this page without responding here, my time is often very short and this topic is honestly near the bottom of my priority list. I will however respond before it get's archived (even if I have to bump it)). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • “IPs are too dynamic and I don't want to have to chase you to discuss it.” You don’t have to worry about that; my IP address is static and hasn’t changed in the, lemme check… almost a year since I’ve started editing anonymously. But if you have a problem with me that requires intervention, then sure, we can discuss it at ANI. I’d prefer a more civil and WP:CALM discussion, though.
    • How can a discussion conclude if it never begins? I asked, I waited, nothing happened, so I reverted. And you forget, I think, that other, uninvolved editors (solicited through WP:3O) were also supportive of the redlink. It seems unfair of you to lay all the blame on me, and to accuse me of being disruptive when he was reverting against consensus (and seems to have a bit of a history of doing so).
    • Here, then, is a more complete sequence of events to work with:
      1. I see an unlinked meta-series name, and I link it, assuming that something involving so many famous titles must naturally be due for an article.
      2. Eaglestorm reverts, apparently because he thinks redlinks are universally unacceptable.
      3. I post to the Talk page to explain that some redlinks are okay.
      4. While waiting for a response, I notice he’s edited the article in the meantime. Assuming he has seen the Talk page and would have made a counterargument if he had one, I restore the link, since there’s no readily apparent reason not to.
      5. He reverts, claiming a conflict of interest (what?).
      6. I post to his page, pointing out my post on the article’s Talk and inviting him to tell me I’m wrong.
      7. A day and a half later, I’m still the only one to have posted about this. I reinstate my edit with an explanatory edit summary. (This one, I admit, may have been objectively improper.)
      8. He reverts with no explanation whatsoever. He also reverts my post to his page with “desperation play” (what?).
      9. Frustrated by this guy’s apparent refusal to do any collaborating on this collaborative project, I post an edit war warning on his page along with taking issue with his tactics, post the question to the article’s Talk again, and solicit WP:Third opinion.
      10. Two editors respond, both agreeing that the title should be redlinked. I post to Eaglestorm’s page to inform him of this.
      11. A third uninvolved editor reinstates the link.
    • So there’s the edit warring in context. If you still think my conduct was disruptive in context, I’m open to constructive criticism. Besides making that second revert (7), and besides intuiting that he had a point which he never made, what should I have done differently here? — (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • “why this IP editor is hitting dozens of pages deprecating template uses”—Because I came across it being used to completely wrap section headings (thus duplicating their anchors/IDs), so I checked the template’s transclusions and found it was a fairly common error.
    • “insisting policy pages be changed because of some flawed perception of some law that pages must follow with no exceptions”—If you’re referring to WT:Basic copyediting, Wikipedia editors and pages are (quite reasonably) expected to follow Web standards. More to the point, I’m of the opinion that adhering to standards, particularly from a usability and accessibility standpoint, will improve the encyclopedia, and I don’t think anyone would claim otherwise. Do you disagree?
    • “and attempting to wikilaywer their will to be done”—You’re gonna have to be more specific. Is this about me trying to get project pages to follow Web standards? That should be uncontroversial.
    • “then that reeks to me as a fairly wikiyoung editor evading a block and attempting to cause as much disruption as they can.”—Wrong on all counts. I did get blocked once, but that was on this IP address.
    • I'd expect that an SPI investigation of said IP isn't out of the question”—Go for it. Just please drop the hostility until there’s a result. — (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • my IP address is static[citation needed]
      • I asked, I waited, nothing happened, so I reverted. I'm sorry, 22.183333333333 hours is not "I waited" by any standards.
      • you forget, I think, that other, uninvolved editors (solicited through WP:3O) were also supportive of the redlink via WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override WP:REDNOT and the WP:GNG
        1. You missed WP:REDNOT and therefor assumed wrong
        2. You assume what he thinks, and he was right that redlinks to pages that can never be topic are unacceptable
        3. Yes they are, unless there is little or no probability that the topic can have an article (like the one you attempted to create)
        4. You again assume something that may have been incorrect.
        5. I have no idea where your claim of COI comes from, feel free to explain
        6. WP:BATTLEGROUNDish if you ask me
        7. Yep, was improper.
        8. I can understand where he was coming from. I can also see where you were coming from.
        9. WP:CALM, WP:DTTR, WP:NPA (you got frustrated - should have just backed away for a bit if you were frustrated, yep - just an essay with a counter essay of WP:TTR - you have to judge who you are posting templates on - I personally welcome fresh trout when I'm a noob - someone who's as anti-social as this user - unlikely, "taking issue with his tactics" - his tactics aren't the issue - the content of the article is and the redlink didn't belong)
        10. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - WP:3O is not a cure all and WP:ANI is not the next step in the WP:DR process (it should be the last step and you skipped right over the WP:DRN).
        11. Not sure who you're referring to here. Drmies was reverting soly on the grounds that this editor wasn't communicating, not that they were incorrect.
        I hope my blow by blow response helps you understand what your saying to me, and offers some insight as to how you could have done it better. If you had done a Google search before initially adding those square brackets, none of this would have happened. If you had stopped to red all of RED, I and investigated why it had been reverted in the first place, all of this would have been avoided. I'd also suggest backing off a little bit on your dictator tone and actually listening when well established editors (regardless of how well liked they are) try to explain to you why something shouldn't be changed. While I don't personally object to your preference of editing as an IP (and I support your right to do so), if you are going to be a regular editor, you may want to consider creating an account which allows you the ability to build some credibility on the encyclopedia as a "regular" editor. I'm sure it would improve your reception, and if you're truly WP:HERE, it actually provides more anonymity by hiding your IP (which resolves to Southern Florida) and improving your accountability. Anyways, happy editing. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 04:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I (edit conflict)ed with your addition to your post, and I'm too tired to go through the new points added tonight. Maybe tomorrow or another day. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 04:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry about that EC.

He was active at the article between my post and my revert. I didn’t wait at all long, granted, but I waited long enough for him to edit the article.

To 2: He never specified.

To 5: [1]. I have no idea, either.

To 10: AN/EW had actually been my next step, because he was warring against Talk consensus. I ultimately went to ANI, as I said, because consensus doesn’t even seem to matter to him, even after the EW block. If I should have gone to DRN before EW even with the 3:1 consensus, then fair enough.

To the final analysis: By that logic, the other editors responding in that discussion hadn’t read RED. Eaglestorm never claimed that this particular title shouldn’t be redlinked; he indicated that there should be no redlinks whatsoever, so I don’t think he’s read RED either. But if you’re right, if he’d just used some words, the whole issue could have been avoided as surely as if I’d looked for coverage.

I sincerely appreciate your responses here, particularly to 9. CALM would most definitely have been appropriate. But yes, his tactics, his reverting with complete disregard of other editors’ opinions (and not just me), that was what I took issue with, even after the link stopped being a question.

One last thing, and possibly the most important: What exactly do you mean by my “dictator tone”? — (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I still would very much like to know what you meant by: “I'd also suggest backing off a little bit on your dictator tone”. If this advice was given in good faith, then please explain it so that I may follow it. Thanks. — (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times[edit]

Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. kelapstick(bainuu) 04:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure nominated for deletion[edit]

Hi, I'm notifying you of a discussion where I mentioned you because you have been involved with The Wikipedia Adventure. You can comment here: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure_(2nd_nomination). Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 15:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:AFC submission/draft/testcases[edit]

Hello, Technical 13. I'm not sure if you still need this page or not. It's showing up as eligible for db-g13. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Do not waste my time...[edit]

With completely and utterly pointless and inane templates. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Please don't be WP:UNCIVIL with me Lukeno94. I was just trying to politely ask you to be mindful and not call a good-faith user a troll (which is a personal attack). I wasn't aware of it until the IP asked why they were being called a vandal for trying to help on #define vandalism. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not a personal attack to call a spade a spade. The IP's last edit summary was trolling, pure and simple. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

hi...history revision statistics link is down[edit]

I left a note at village pump technical, but that was a few days ago, any help would be great thanks (I left a note with Musik Animal too, but nothing yet)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Ozzie10aaaa I've restarted all xtools, let me know if I need to do it again. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
sorry to bug you, but its still down...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote[edit]

Flest utökade.svg
  • Hello Technical 13:
This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 28 of 2015. Thanks for participating!
Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 20:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case notification[edit]

Technical 13, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. I apologize the delay in notifying you of this case opening.
For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Proposed decision[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, which supersedes all other provisions:

Technical 13 (talk · contribs) has recently made several postings that constitute personal attacks. More than one has had to be suppressed as it was potentially libelous, and this would normally have resulted in an indefinite block from editing. The Arbitration Committee has decided however that as this case had been accepted before those comments were made, and there are unrelated allegations that merit investigation, Technical 13 will be allowed to present evidence in his defence if he chooses, and grants him the following limited exception to that block:

For the duration of this case, he is prohibited from making any edit that is not both (a) directly relevant to the case, and (b) on one of the pages or talk pages of this case. Any comment that may constitute a personal attack or libel if posted publicly must be submitted only via email to the Arbitration Committee, and must not be posted on wiki.

If he breaches this restriction, or makes any comments deemed to be uncivil or personal attacks, he will be blocked indefinitely and may only comment on the case via email to the Arbitration Committee.

Any block may be appealed only by Technical 13 via email to the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 26, 2015)[edit]


The amounts of fat types in selected foods

Hello, Technical 13.

The following are WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selections:

Previous selections: Nightlife • Sport • Buggy (automobile)

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote[edit]

Flest utökade.svg
  • Hello Technical 13:
This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 29 of 2015. Thanks for participating!
Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 00:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13 arbitration evidence phase closing soon[edit]

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 30 June. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Liz Read! Talk! 16:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


You are my/our only hope to resurrect this useful and excellent tool. :-) Please help with it. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Somalis[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Somalis. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for Technical 13 arbitration case[edit]

Hi Technical 13, in the open Technical 13 arbitration case, a motion has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 closed[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following motion has passed and been enacted:

  1. Technical 13's indefinite block is converted to an indefinite ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Technical 13 may appeal this ban at any time to the Arbitration Committee if he wishes to return to editing.
  2. Technical 13 is limited to one account, and may not edit through any account other than "Technical 13". He is explicitly denied the right to any sort of clean start.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 closed

Arbcom Block[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.

Appeal of this block may be made in writing, by emailing (Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of ArbCom. Questions about this block should be directed to the committee's mailing list.)

-- Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)