Technical 13

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

TOC:   ↓ Go to bottom ↓     ↑ Go to top ↑

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Numberguy6 0 0 0 01:36, 1 June 2024 6 days, 10 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 14:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	This is both two fold, for your original idea at RFPP (ahem, second paragraph), and your novel compromise, which think is is quite reasonable. Best of luck with the RfC, I will be watching from the sidelines. kelapstick(bainuu) 17:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Request Edit templates

Hey I noticed you were tinkering with the Request Edit template and was wondering if you could help with something User:Sphilbrick has been looking for a technical person for. Basically if you see the Fake Examples section here we need someone to work their magic to make it work.

I think it's the only thing needed before moving it live. CorporateM (Talk) 02:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ping Sphilbrick and CorporateM. I'm going to need more details here... Make what work exactly, and what is the definition of "work". — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It sounds like they want a script to make a list of all recent closes of COI edit requests, the same way AFCH makes a list of all recent article accepts. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well, if that's the case, then the need an EditCOIHelper that can log for them... :p You want that job since it should be a fairly simple adaptation of you EPH, Jack? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yuppers. We have all these categories for closed Request Edits[1][2][3][4], but with no way to sort them by date to see the recent ones or to see who is closing them, etc. It's sort of a black box system where nobody can see what's going on. The volume is much smaller than AfC or NPP, so the system is not well-developed yet. Volume is growing quickly, so we need something a bit more scalable. CorporateM (Talk) 03:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

At the recent Wikiconference USA, we had a meeting to talk about how to move forward. One aspect is finding a better way to keep track of what we are doing. User:CorporateM is using the AFC templates as a model for a project page, so it seems natural to recycle some of the tools used there for COI Request Edits. However,User:NativeForeigner also suggested that the table at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations might also be useful. Obviously, not all fields, but if there were a way to generate a table like that, identifying items such as:

• Location of request
• Name of editor making the request
• Time of original request
• Name of editor most recently working on servicing the request
• Time of most recent edits related to the request
• Interim resolution (not yet touched, open)
• Final resolution (fully implemented, partially implemented, declined, with reason)
• Time of final resolution
• Elapsed time between initial request and final resolution (or current time, if not final)

The table would have all recent items, with items closed over 90 days moved to an archive list.

The above is just off the top of my head, we are likely to identify additional information needed, but this should give you a flavor of what I was hoping to accomplish. I do not have strong feelings on whether the AfC or SPI model is the best starting point, just wanted to make sure it was considered.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I'm starting to understand Sphilbrick, what you need is a bot like AnomieBOT or EarwigBot To check certain categories and build you a response table kind of like what already exists on User:AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable or more like Template:AFC statistics? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, something like the AfC Statistics seems fine. At some time, it may be useful to analyze some metrics - average length of time from request to resolution, counts of how many are implemented fully, versus partial, versus rejected, etc. I mention this in case it affects how it should be structured. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the existing AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable has some shortcomings. It doesn't identify who takes up requests, and once an item is handled, it disappears from the table. I don't want items to last in the table forever, but I would like old ones to be archived, so they can be viewed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've tried asking Anomie about that, and iirc (my memory is horrible), he said he didn't know how to go about making it accurate information without developing a whole new system and he just didn't have time for that kind of project. All of his source code for that bot is available from the bot's userspace and if someone was to develop the rest of the system, I'm sure he would consider edit requests for the bot to be more efficient. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'll check the code. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Computing Star
		For your all your awesome help here and here. --UserJDalek 04:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Merging drafts from AfC

Thank you for your comment at WikiProject Ireland. My problem is a technical one. Can draft articles at AfC be merged into other articles in exactly the same way as articles in mainspace? I don't know the technicalities of AfC and I don't want to "break" anything. I suggested to FoCuSandLeArN that he should go ahead and create the article, and then we can go through the normal merge process, but he seems reluctant to do that. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but it is probably going to require an administrator to do a proper WP:HISTMERGE and with it being four pages as such, it will likely be a complicated one, and administrators willing to do complicated histmerges can be hard to find. You can try posting it in the Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen, noting that it may get declined because there are slightly parallel histories, but you should not in the request that you are requesting this before any text-merging is done to make sure that you avoid any problems. I don't know a lot about history merging, it's not something that is done on the other wikis I'm an administrator at. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Exists template

Regarding your curt edit summary: (a) You broke the template. Unintentionally, of course, but it was broken, and it's in use in hundreds if not thousands of other pages. (b) I am not an expert on the template or how to code it, nor did I have time at the moment to look into it. I just knew that it was broken, and I reverted it to a version that, for my test, worked. It may not have worked for the cases that you were attempting to fix it for, but it worked for cases that your version didn't work for. (c) I could have just contacted you ... but how would I have known whether you were still online, or when you would be next? It needed attention now and I took care of it as best I could for the moment. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• You misunderstood what I was saying. You knew that "Talk:Tony Hawk's Whatever" was a pagename, and you could see it was previously "{{{page|{{{1}}}}}}" and all you had to do was replace one for the other... I'm taking care of it now. Thanks for letting me know. Happy editing. :) I do believe it is fixed now.. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I get it. But macros are very delicate, especially when there are constructs like 12 consecutive right braces; and I really couldn't be sure that that's all there would have been to it anyway. I wasn't going to take the chance! Thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't...

...hide the content of Bonkers's user page. It has survived MfD twice, so there's no consensus that it needs to be removed (or rather a consensus that it need not be removed), and doing it without a supporting consensus, and without a request from Bonkers himself, just seems like rubbing salt in the wound to me. I don't think it's necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Writ Keeper, I see multiple requests on his talk page for it to be blanked and no opposition, this looks like a consensus to me. I still intend on fixing the coding on the page so it "can" be done, and am wondering if maybe just hiding it from unconfirmed editors would be okay with you (this should block random IPs and search indexers that don't follow robots.txt). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it's not all right by me (though I don't have any kind of final say about it, of course). It's his user page; I know he doesn't own it, but users have wide discretion on their own user page, and we shouldn't circumvent it without reason. The correct place to go to if people don't like that is MfD, and as I mentioned, the page has already survived two of those. If people want to try it again, they can file another MfD, but until then, I don't see the value of blanking their user page, even if it's only for non-admins. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • That's fine. I'll just fix the broken and missing code then. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Final Appeal

Please stop being obstinate. Per Wikipedia:Template_editors#Criteria_for_revocation I have grounds to believe that you have fallen astray of multiple of the conditions for revocation (including a pattern of performing obviously controversial edits to protected templates without first determining consensus, used the permission to gain the upper hand in disputes, and performed any blatant vandalism). I therefore ask you to do the right thing and revert your controversial implementation. If I do not get satisfaction I will have no other option but to appeal to the appropriate venue (WP:ANI per Wikipedia:RFPERM). I would prefer not to do this as it would be a blunt club to deal with a issue and put a permanant stain on your template editing privileges, but your continued misrepresentation of consensus is not acceptable. Hasteur (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: if you believe there is a pattern of misuse (and not just a few bad calls) then the best course of action would be WP:RFC/U. If, at the conclusion, there is firm consensus that some advanced privileges should not be held by this editor, this can be enacted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

A quick sincere thank you for unlocking Adverse Childhood Experiences (study). FeatherPluma (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Archiving of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Why did you manually archive these four threads? None of them were particularly old (one of them was last commented on yesterday); ClueBot III (talk · contribs) would have handled them eventually. It would also have put them into the current archive, and not an old one, which was last used for archiving in November 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

They all appeared to be marked as resolved, and they were last commented on 6, 5, 4, & 4 days ago based on the last post. "Something" needed archiving because I was hitting some kind of page length limit that was preventing me from scrolling down to the bottom of the page on my mobile in desktop mode. I'd never had that problem before and archiving those sections fixed it. As far as where it got archived to goes, that should be looked into in more depth because Equazicon's archiver uses whatever the regular bot would be using based on the configuration on the page. Sounds like cluebot isn't updating the page counter like it should be. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again you're blaming the system for errors that you made. Check your edits before saving. I have moved the threads to the proper archive - I would have undone your edits, because (despite what you put above), none of those threads were marked {{resolved}}, but subsequent edits to the page mean that "undo" is not possible. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Once again, you are telling me that I need to check my edits before saving when using a fully automated editing tool where checking my edits is impossible as there is no edit window. The final post in most of the threads is the original poster saying "thank you for your responses" which strongly implies that it is resolved. However, thanks for bringing it to my attention that cluebot isn't preforming all of its duties if it is not updating the count for the archive page number. I'm digging into that now. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

CB3 never has and never does update the archive counter on the source page. That is how it was designed. It is not a failure of CB3 not "preforming all of its duties". The problem is that One Click Archiver (OCA) was designed specifically to function only with the MizaBot/lowercase sigmabot III style of bots using only numbered archives (lcSB3 does update the counter when moving to a new numbered archive). OCA was not intended for any other use, except for when a manually updated additional template was placed on the page to give it a counter reference. The real issue is that One Click Archiver is a script which works in a very limited subset of situations, but was released for public use without making it clear that it does not function properly under a large number of situations. Even if that issue had been made clear, I still disagree that it was appropriate to release it for public use with its current limitations. The current limitations are guaranteed to be encountered by most of the people attempting to use it and are guaranteed to cause issues when it is used in that manner. — Makyen (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• By me removing the commented out and dead MB/LCSBIII config at the top of the page, no-one should be able to use OCA on that page anymore. Issue resolved itself by removing the unused and expired code from the target page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had just looked at your changes on the VPT page and was making a similar statement that the changes should result in OCA failing on the page when I found there was an edit conflict. I agree that this is an acceptable solution as indicating failure to the user is better than archiving to the wrong page without informing the user.

The only other significant thing I was saying in that now non-existant edit is that OCA really should be re-designed to properly parse both CB3 and lcSB3 (MizsaBot) configs and handle date based archives in addition to just numbered lcSB3 archive schemes. — Makyen (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 June 2014

A purely procedural note, but I don't feel it was appropriate for you to close that edit request. The nature of the request was a disagreement that Hasteur had with an edit you made. That makes you involved (in a non-admin sense) and therefore, in the eyes of much the Wikipedia community, poorly placed to rule on matters of consensus or to use advanced permissions impartially. I'm not suggesting you re-open the request, but a better course of action would have been to let an uninvolved template editor or admin make a call on the request. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 10:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was involved. I had considered that, but based on the frequent and disruptive requests from that user, and the fact that his basis for the request no longer existed, I felt it was the only logical conclusion that anyone would come to. Based on these facts, I remember vaguely there is a clause that says if it's the only reasonable solution IAR applies and and involved closure is fine. Anyways, I appreciate you stopping in to make sure I understood what I was doing and had justifable and sound reasoning. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, please do not close any edit requests where you are involved or any requests involving Hasteur from now on. Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Testing changes to individual Twinkle modules on wiki.

@AzaToth, This, that and the other, Amalthea, and Aaron Schulz: I have a change to the Twinkle friendlytalkback module I'm working on, and I'm wondering what I need to do to test that it works properly? The test code is on User:ShoeMaker/Gadget-friendlytalkback.js (which is a alternate account of mine that currently has the regular Twinkle disabled (because I reset it to site default settings for testing)). What do I need to setup on that account to have Twinkle load with my test module instead of the live one? I'm assuming that I need to load a modified main MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js (I can just through it in my "skin.js" file for testing) that calls my test script instead of the live one? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

We all have different setups to test Twinkle I think (personally I've set up a local web server and import a dynamically combined script from my hard disc, via my monobook.js). For that reason nobody has ever invested any time to make it easy for /everybody/ to switch to test modules even though it wouldn't be particularly hard to do so (we could even include the github HEAD files ...).
Anyhow, if you're only planning minor changes that won't require a whole lot of iteration something like this may be sufficient:

mw.loader.using(['mediawiki.user','mediawiki.util','jquery.ui.dialog','jquery.tipsy'], function(){
    mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.js');
    mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.css', 'text/css');
    mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js');
});

mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=User:ShoeMaker/Gadget-friendlytalkback.js');

Twinkle.talkback();

You'll need to execute the three statements separately to give them time to load the scripts, and the first statement will throw errors since a number of Twinkle modules will be missing and the initialization code can't cope with that. But it will get your module loaded. :)
Amalthea 17:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

Hey I noticed you archived posts on Talk:Yank Barry from a few days ago. You might already know this but wanted to mention that *any* thread that had a reply within the archival-timeriod (in this case which used to be 30 days) would still be kept on the main talkpage. The system was working so far as I can tell - it's just that some of those apparently older threads had very recent replies. I fixed the talkpage Notice so it is clear that the archiving will occur for threads that have no replies within the past 15 days. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Shearonink, please see User talk:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver#Not working for me. I was tinkering around because there was a report that archiving wasn't working. I couldn't figure out why exactly it was giving that error (which means it must be a bug in the way the script handles the configuration I've been unable to dig into yet), so I tried an alternative measure so that it would work in the future. That thread was the most stale (no edits in something like 21 days which is over the 15 days you claim it should be now), and made a good testcase. Anyways. Happy editing and thanks for stopping by! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, lowercase sigmabot was apparently working as it was supposed to, it was carrying over content from the main talk into the Archives every day until 8 June when OCA was used a couple of times. I guess I don't understand what you mean by "there was a report that archiving wasn't working" - is archiving in general having issues or was there a concern about that particular talk page? Also, will it make a difference that there are now two separate sets of code containing "archive = Talk:Yank Barry/Archive %(counter)d|counter = 1"? Thx, Shearonink (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

After I posted above, I saw that the redundant code has been removed by another editor. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 24, 2014)

File:Elmo-cockpit xltn.jpg The Tickle Me Elmo toy was based on the Sesame Street character Elmo Hello, Technical 13. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Tickle Me Elmo Previous selections: Amazon Basin • Film criticism Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC) •

Signature assistance

Hi T13, I noticed your offer at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) to assist those wishing to bring their signature into the 21st century. I made an effort to do this recently but I'm not good enough at CSS. Generally, I want to keep the brown and blue colors and have a larger lowercase "t" at the beginning if possible. Thanks for your help. - tucoxn\^talk 00:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Tucoxn! Welcome! I think you will be happy with:

- '''[[User:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#522C1B">t</span><span style="color:#522C1B">u</span><span style="color:#417DC1">coxn</span>]]'''\<sup>[[User_talk:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:serif">talk</span>]]</sup>

which is fourteen characters less than the length of your existing signature, looks nearly identical, and contains no deprecated code.

In order to have your <big>t</big>, simply use this code (which makes your signature code length identical to what it is now):

- '''[[User:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#522C1B;font-size:16px">t</span><span style="color:#522C1B">u</span><span style="color:#417DC1">coxn</span>]]'''\<sup>[[User_talk:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:serif">talk</span>]]</sup>

Existing: - tucoxn\^talk     New: - tucoxn\^talk     With <big> t: - tucoxn\^talk

Enjoy! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"a" vs "an" for acronyms

Ah, yes, maybe I should have begun by googling it. For reference, this is what I was looking for. Here's an excerpt on correct usage. It depends on whether the acronym is pronounced as a word, or as letters, and whether the first sound of the letter/word is hard or soft:

   a FASB rule; an FOB airfield
   a LAN schematic; an LAPD memo
   a MOMA exhibit; an MRI test
   a NICU nurse; an NPO order
   a SAM base; an SAT exam

Squish7 (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hey friend, I have done what you said here, but I'm still facing problem. I have installed the script here but the script is not working? What should I do now? Jim Carter ^(talk) 11:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey I it's working now. Thanks. Jim Carter ^(talk) 16:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw this before I was awake this morning and forgot about it... My first thought was that you needed to WP:BYPASS your cache (and waiting a little time automatically did it for you. Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Signature

(Replying to what you said at Tucoxn's tp) How silly of me. Is there a tag I can use for the color that isn't deprecated? I've seen some kind of "span" tag that some use. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes.

--[[User:AmaryllisGardener|'''<span style="color:#E0115F">Amaryllis</span><span style="color:#74C365">Gardener</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:AmaryllisGardener|'''talk''']]</sup>

should give you an identical appearing signature to what you have now: --AmaryllisGardener ^talk

Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Replaced. Thank you! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Second guessing other editors

I noticed before that you had added additional responses to one or two of the edit requests I serviced. (I check pages in my contributions list for which my response was no longer marked current to catch some of the replies where the requester fails to reactivate the template.) That behavior raised a concern on my part that you had some issue which you weren't bringing up in a direct manner. Now you've escalated to "calling me out" about a decision on an article talk page. That increases my concern to the point where I need to bring it up with you. You should voice any concerns you have about how I service edit requests on my talk page. If a mature conversation there does not reach an acceptable conclusion, feel free to try other forums for addressing user behavior. But you need to stop and think about the appearance of your current approach. The new editors who are asking for our help are instead treated to an unprofessional display of two editors bickering with one another. Please stop that and just bring up your concerns on my talk page. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Older and ... well older, I apologize if it seemed like I was second guessing your responses, that is not my intention at all. I am not sure what the previous times that I have done that were, but I'm guessing the reason you are here is due to my asking if you saw the hidden reference that the user had offered. I don't see them when I'm responding most of the time, and that makes me question if other people have seen them as well, especially when the URL looks like something that may be considered reliable. I use Jackmcbarn's Edit Protected Helper script, which means that I respond most of the time right from the action=view for the page instead of from the action=edit edit window. This is why I don't see hidden comments or things hidden in <ref>...</ref> tags. I've requested that the script scan the section for those and report on anything that may be hidden I can't see directly, and I've come to the conclusion that I'll have to make the changes myself and request the script be updated. I'll try to remember that if I have any questions for you, that I should go to your talk page to ask instead of pinging you to the discussion to ask. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and again I apologize if I've offended you in any way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pleasant reply and I'm sorry for having misinterpreted the earlier events. At Talk:List_of_emoticons, I did go out to the link and it appeared to be a personal website, so I declined the request with an {{subst:ESp|rs}} plus a few words to that effect. If someone else had chosen to add the emoticon, it wouldn't have hurt the encyclopedia and the normal evolution would have either improved the source or removed the emoticon, so it's really no big deal. I'd just rather we give the impression that we are working as a team when we service requests. With that in mind, I'll improve my reply to you there. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, no problem. I'm sure I'm fairly odd in my beliefs on what working as a team means. I believe it means that we should question each other when we are unclear on each others' meaning or if there is something that we see that the other may have overlooked. I believe it is good to not agree on everything each other does, and when that occurs, I believe that discussion and compromise to reach a consensus are paramount. Anyways. I'm glad you came here and we talked this out. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard that description of a team. I like to think of it more like a baseball team, myself. Everyone is taking care of their own duties and trusting their teammates to be doing the same. Sometimes one sees that another player needs help and steps in, but nothing is as funny as seeing two outfielders run into each other and miss catching the ball. (Unless it is the sight of two outfielders stopping just next to each other while the ball drops between them.) As long as we both assume the other is doing their job correctly, there's nothing wrong with asking questions and making observations. Cheers, Older and ... well older (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MWML

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

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 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/MWML}}, 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. JMHamo (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. It's been WP:USERFIED and debannered. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Commenting on draft submissions

Hello Technical 13,

I've seen you comment elsewhere that discussion related to draft articles should take place on the talk page, rather than the submission itself. This is something I agree with, in principle. (It was the matter of implementation that was the issue, I recall.)

So I when I attempted to bring discussion to the talk page in the case of Draft:Epigenetics of partner preference I was quite surprised when you and another reviewer kept posting comments to the submission page.

Do you have any comments on this? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• MSGJ, the comment was posted by the script on my behalf as part of the decline. It's still just the issue of getting the technology updated to post comments to the talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 11:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editnotice

Hi, I just saw your change at Wikipedia:Editnotice so that only those that actually can edit editnotices can see the create rows. Can you help me understand that? I have in the past week created an editnotice template as requested at the talkpgae of an article. There is consensus to use editnotice on that article and on the subarticles (hence the template). The visual appearance on the editnotice has been discussed at the talk and at realated wikiproject to for consensus how it should look. Now that I was about to add a request for this editnotice-template, the rows to create edit notice was gone. I would have used that to come to the correct page and then pressed the link on that page to create a template-protected edit request. It is a fast easy way to make request of your editnotice instead of trying to find the correct "name" and path for your own editrequest. QED237 (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting, Qed237. I hadn't thought of that indirect use for it. I'll revert that template for now and see if I can find a way to revise the input box to only show a create button for those that can actually create AND show a button for everyone to go to the talk page for where an edit notice would be and request its creation. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

While you're here on my talk page, are you aware that the <font> tags in your custom signature are deprecated and disallowed per policy? They were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5 at all.

As such, I suggest replacing:

<span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Qed237|<font color="blue">'''''QED'''''</font><font color="red">'''''237'''''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Qed237|<font color="green">('''''talk''''')</font>]]</span>

with:

<span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Qed237|<span style="color:blue">'''''QED'''''</span><span style="color:red">'''''237'''''</span>]]&#160;[[User talk:Qed237|<span style="color:green">('''''talk''''')</span>]]</span>

which will result in a 204 character long signature with an appearance of: QED237 (talk)

compared to your existing 222 character long signature of: QED237 (talk) — Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Thank you for restoring it, there are always some things that is easy miss and this is certainly one. Maybe I am the only one doing it that way. However the solution you described above sounds great (if it is possible) especially if the editrequest template exists on the talkpage when you get there (as it is now) and it is only to fill in.

Regarding my signature I dont remember how I made it and I had no idea at all that it is incorrect. If i remember correctly I took signature from an other user and modified it (by looking at several signatures). I will make the changes you suggested and I cant even see any difference in the signature. Thank you! QED237 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested at WikiProject Maine!

	Hello fellow WikiProject Maine members!
I'm trying to breathe a little new life into WP:WP ME and as such I have posted a few questions on the project's talk page that I would like to get some feedback from all of the project's members on! There are apparently a lot of inactive members on our participants list (and even a user that has been blocked for years). What do we as a project want to do about inactive or blocked users? I have some ideas on the issue, but would love feedback from others. Remove blocked users that appear to be no longer interested in participating in developing Wikipedia. Users with zero activity at all in three years are unlikely to come back. I suggest that we remove them from the mailing list and deactivate any categorizing feature of a userbox on their page. When doing this, we must make sure to leave a note on their talk page explaining that since they have been off-wiki for three years that they have been removed from the list as a purely technical measure and they are more than welcome to add themselves back to the list if they choose to start editing again. Users with zero activity on wiki for 18 months may come back, despite it being unlikely. I would suggest that we mark those users as inactive on our mailing list, and stop sending them messages like this one to prevent their user talk page from filling up with irrelevant notices. Users with zero activity on wiki for at least six months should be marked as inactive in the mailing list template, but should still receive mailings. I'm also trying to gauge some interest in there being a Great American Wikinic in Maine! If you are interested, possible locations might include Portland, Augusta, and or Bangor, please make a note in the appropriate section on our talk page! We should create a template to use for mass mailings from this wikiproject so all we need to do is enter our message and signature and the general format of the box and image and title and stuff will stay familiar. What is your opinion on this idea? Do you have any preferences to what that may look like (because I think this looks horrible compared to some I've seen from other projects)?
This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) at 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC). To remove yourself from this list, please remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Maine/members, remove the WikiProject's userbox/category from your user page (rarely used for mass mailings), or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Article wizard

Thank you for answering my request and fixing Wikipedia:Article wizard. 2001:18E8:2:1020:114D:7C6F:FA83:BE0 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WT:TW / WP:VPT

Since it has already been noted at WT:TW that the problem is NOT Twinkle-related, the discussion at WT:TW should be closed and centralized at WP:VPT, not the other way around. As such, I have undone your mistaken close at WP:VPT the panda ₯’ 21:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was just centralizing it where the topic was first mentioned. I don't care if you want to move and consolidate all of the half dozen or so different conversations to VPT. That is fine.

While you're here on my talk page, are you aware that the <font> tags in your custom signature are deprecated and disallowed per policy? They were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5 at all. As such, I suggest replacing:

<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small>

with:

<small style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#000"> the panda </span><span style="color:#000;background:#FFF"> ₯’</span>]]</small>

which will result in a 196 character long signature with an appearance of: the panda ₯’

compared to your existing 221 character long signature of: the panda ₯’ — Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's kind of disingenuous to say one of your pet peeves is "disallowed by policy" when you're the one who wrote it into the policy. Just more signature nonsense that you agreed to stop when you were unblocked. –xeno^talk 22:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Written in 3727 days ago and apparently uncontested. I'd say that passes as a consensus. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Rogue entries can sneak into policy pages and remain for years even if they lack consensus. See the ongoing RFC at WT:UP as an example. That no one has yet reverted your unnecessary and unilateral change does not mean it has consensus. –xeno^talk 01:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Xeno: I'm not doubting you, but could you provide a link to where he said he would stop? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

See here and work your way back. Though our host seems to be backpedalling and wikilawyering out of his commitment to leave signatures well-enough alone. He will probably catch a re-block sooner or later if he keeps it up. –xeno^talk 01:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, even editing the sig policy page should have resulted in an immediate re-block the panda ₯’ 23:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Emergency!

Moved to WT:Twinkle § unlinking issue

Deletion request of creator of article, Manggahan High School

Hey Technical 13, I'm sorry but I would like to say that I'm not vandalizing and I just want first to strengthen the article before posting it because other infos there have no reference so please don't state that I'm vandalizing. I'm the CREATOR OF ARTICLE and accdg. to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_delete_a_page that if you are the article creator, you can request deletion of it, but I don't vandalize.

Neilvin John Aventurado (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• According to CSD:G7, which is the specific deletion criteria you are requesting deletion under, since you are not the only substantial contributor, this criteria can not be used to request deletion. You are more than welcome to improve the article (or request improvements on the talk page), but you may not request deletion using the {{Db-g7}} template. Since the deletion is controversial (the tags have been removed by multiple editors), it is also not eligible for a WP:PROD deletion. Your only possible way to get it deleted at this point is to achieve consensus for deletion at WP:AfD, which is going to be difficult to do considering it seems to meet the guidelines for inclusion that can be seen at WP:NSCHOOL. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Manggahan High School

You may want to take a look at User talk:Piguy101#Page Manggahan High School deletion regarding Manggahan High School. The page is now blanked with CSD G7 on it. I am not sure what is vandalism or not here. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle

Moved to WT:Twinkle § Not loading

Archiving

Hey, Technical! Hope you're OK. Do you know anything about MiszaBot? It stopped archiving my talk page and I was wondering if you'd heard anything about it. Will I have to change bots? How would I go about doing that while keeping my current order of archived material? Thanks for your help, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs) took over archiving for MizaBot months ago. Many have noticed its archiving habits are sporadic at best most of the time. You might consider User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver to fill in the gaps and get the sections the bot misses because of missing or bad timestamps. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)OneClickArchiver is not working when I tried it here even when they have archive counters. Do you know how to solve this problem??? Jim Carter ^(talk) 19:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Jim, OCA is extremely space sensitive and that is my hypothesis for why it isn't working. I intend to submit a "pull request" of sorts to Equazcion to resolve this issue, but in the mean time, make sure the |counter= and |archive= have no spaces before the parameter name (before or after the pipe). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So, I fixed the spacing issue, and archived the top section for confirmation and it is  fixed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oups I thought I already replied here. (Short term memory loss) Thanks for fixing that. Jim Carter ^(talk) 06:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Jodosma and The Teahouse

Sorry I got this person so upset. I was trying to make sure the explanation was actually correct. I went to the proposals Village Pump and told them if a person doesn't post on a talk page then that person's signature shouldn't appear. I use a template where I have to manually include my signature and the time and date, but it's something a bot could do. The bot could do the notifying and say it is from the person who activated it (what Jodosma did), and the only response I got was a lecture on responsibility when using Twinkle, which is why I never intend to use it. But that response was worded in such a way as to suggest maybe the explanation was wrong. Thanks for clarifying.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• No worries. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 25, 2014)

The old buildings of the National Library of China house historical and ancient books, documents and manuscripts Hello, Technical 13. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: National Library of China Previous selections: Tickle Me Elmo • Amazon Basin Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC) •

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pink Team Cleaning Services (June 16)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Draft:Pink Team Cleaning Services.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

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

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Technical 13, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My signature

It keeps telling me my signature is too long.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •
13:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this the one you wanted me to do, because it does look different.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •
13:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Vchimpanzee, that's an improvement to me. :) Looks different in what way? The only difference in actual appearance is that instead of using bold ·s, you are using regular •s. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

In the edit window. As for why my signature looked the way it did, I copied someone else's I liked years ago. That person doesn't seem to come here any more.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •
13:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Technical 13/SandBox/HTMLdump/Page 1

When you use media: links it generates a file usage. See the bottom of File:AngryParsley.png. Using the :File prefix enables a link, but does not create the file usage. Werieth (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• We have a split discussion here, so to consolidate, I'll only reply here from now on. Linking to a file, does not violate NFCC#9, only displaying the image in an inappropriate location does. I've set the links back to the colon prefixed File: links because what the goal of that dump is to fix is actually on the File: pages anyways. Anyways. Happy editing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue becomes that usage of the media prefix causes reports to flag the page as having non-free media. Converting them to [[:File prefixes avoids that headache. Werieth (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's a headache that is the fault of the report, WP:NFCC#9 specifically says that uses outside of article space must be linked, it does not specify how they are linked or restrict it from being a link directly to the file. Using media: is exactly that, a link per NFCC#9 itself. I would be happy to look into how the reports that are mis-flagging that as pages having non-free media are set up and working to see if I can propose a fix for that, but that is a flagging error, not an NFCC issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Its a core mediawiki issue, nothing to do with the reports. Mediawiki treats [[File usage links the exact same as [[media links. As it creates a file usage its more than just a link. A link is [[:File and does not create a file link. Werieth (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Brian Kennedy (businessman)

Hello and thank you for the review. I don't understand what you are referring to as copyright material in my article.? could you please clarify.

I'm new to Wikipedia and this is my first article.

Regards

Darran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darran Wilde (talk • contribs) 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Darran and welcome to Wikipedia. copyrighted material is material that is copied (not necessarily word-for-word, just close enough) from another website onto Wikipedia. Because such copying of material is illegal, it can not stay on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that the topic of the article you want to write can't exist on Wikipedia, you just need to very clearly state all of the facts in your own words and the more sources you use to do that, the easier it will be. Note that sources must be considered reliable in order for them to be considered towards establishing the topic's notability on Wikipedia (which isn't necessarily the same as notability in the rest of the world). Please check out all of the pages I have linked in blue text, and if you need further help, I would be happy to point you in the right direction. Thanks again for your interest in contributing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Technical 13. I have completely rewritten the paragraph in my own words taking care to not copyright or sound close to the original. I have now resubmitted the article with hope that it meets the Wikipedia criteria. Regards,

Darran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darran Wilde (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wikisource author

Hi Technical_13 - Your recent edit to this template seems to have broken it - could you take a look please? Colonies Chris (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You edit to the locked template Template: Wikisource author broke it. You inserted an extra set of close brackets. Sorry, but since it's lockes, I cannot fix it myself. Relatively minor, affecting only a few tens of thousands of pages :-) Arch dude (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks guys, should be
  Resolved
  . — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring?

Edit warring? Really? Over this? You are of course not "fixing" anything since you can't show consensus that anything is /broken/ in the first place. And if you plan to edit all pages now to replace tags considered deprecated in HTML5 (and there's really no point in you insisting on changing user comments only on one obscure talk page if you aren't) then I'm sure that you are facing trouble. If using AWB for cosmetic changes isn't going to do that first.
I don't get why you are in such a hurry about this. If this really ever turns into a problem then we /still/ can make changes to all pages with consensus-backed tools. If MediaWiki /does/ handle them (and I'm very optimistic that the simle tt/big/font tags are going to be translated automatically at some point) then all you are doing now is making pages less maintainable by adding loads of inline CSS to wikitext. Harmful, not helpful.
Amalthea 12:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's the problem, Amalthea... It is broken now as my mobile device doesn't support half the tags I am fixing. They just show as empty spaces. I've even modified my skin css to try and force them to show, and they are just dropped on my blackberry. So... If MediaWiki isn't going to fix them, something needs to start getting done by someone. I've got a screenshot comparison I'll upload at lunch in a couple hours after my exam. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Amalthea a simulation (since I can't actually take screen captures on that device, not enough resources to run any of the apps for that) of what I see when I use my old BlackBerry is:

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I really cannot believe that a Blackberry (and an "old" one at that) doesn't support font tags. Are you sure this isn't because it's not supporting those styles you are using. Is this really reproducible when you're logged out? Amalthea 15:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I added those styles because the elements disappeared after an update, and I wanted to see if I could force something to appear in those spots. I can't log in on that device (See Bugzilla:46241). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Expand: I'm not saying it wasn't a corrupt update on that specific device, but I find it odd it only seems to affect <font>, <acronym>, <big>, <center>, and <tt> that I've seen so far. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Licensing issue

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

---

Please fix the licensing of your image. You can't take cc-by-sa content that is not yours and release it into the public domain. –xeno^talk 14:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• There is nothing in there that isn't in the PD because it is all text and basic shapes which fall under PD because they are too generic to be licensed. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  Alan and Amalthea's text is too generic to be licensed? –xeno^talk 15:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible for copyright at all. - There is no creativity. Alan's reports an issue (just the facts and an undetailed inquiry), Amalthea says "no", Alan suggests making it look like something else (again, lacking detail). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think you're mistaken, but I'm no lawyer or expert. (@Moonriddengirl: not a huge deal, but I am curious: are talk page contributions like those in the image above sufficiently creative to be eligible for copyright?). –xeno^talk 15:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, talk page contributions like those in the image above are sufficiently creative to be eligible for copyright. Threshold of originality might contain more helpful information. The courts have been very clear that the threshold is low; see [5] for instance, which notes " To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be. Id., § 1.08[C][1]. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To illustrate, [p*346] assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Done but I disagree there is any creativity there to make it eligible for copyright. Not even the slightest amount, in the crudest interpretation. But, in the interest of diffusing the user that just came here to disrupt this discussion (If that was not their intent, they would have properly left it on the file's talk page on commons, my commons talk page, or at very least in its own section on this page. Anyways, let's move forward and worry about building the encyclopedia. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

When Amalthea et al. were posting to the talk page, the notice 'By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution.' will have been displayed just above the Save page button. That's not edit-page clutter: it's a legal notice. They clearly clicked that button, or performed some other action like Alt+⇧ Shift+S which initiates the save: hence, whatever they had just typed was instantly dual-licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 with GFDL. The terms of CC-BY-SA include that if you publish a copy, you must use the same, similar or a compatible license. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Redrose64 except when the image doesn't meet the threshold of originality to allow copyrighting. Such as the BIG example on our threshold of originality page The logo of Sony is not considered a "work of authorship" because it only consists of text in a simple typeface, so it is not an object of copyright in respect to US law, on this basis, since these talk page posts only consist of text in a simple typeface, they are not an object of copyright in respect to US law. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think you're operating from a very fundamental misunderstanding here, but I don't have time to discuss it further. Thank you for updating the license, and sorry for moving the above thread onto a tangent (I've split this section out for you). –xeno^talk 20:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Too little too late in my opinion, but the damage is minimal, and I really don't care. Happy editing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Amalthea et al. didn't create an image, they posted text. That text was licensed CC-BY-SA. Any published copy of that text - whether it be also in the form of text or converted into an image which represents that text, is subject to the same license. Saying that it's in a simple typeface won't stand up in court: it's the words that are depicted, not the shape of the letters, that the lawyers are interested in. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

MadmanBot/CorenSearchBot code

Is linked from User:MadmanBot, and may have some of the functionality you were looking for, it certainly does a function related to what you're trying to do, and that DupeDet does. I'm not an expert on it, just found it some years ago trying to figure out why I do a better job than that code at finding copyvios. (I think the answer is ... it doesn't use Google.) HTH, --j⚛e decker^talk 23:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

HTML5 standardization question

As a programming enthusiast (who isn't necessarily aware of recent technical advances) your edit to Template:W-screen makes me wonder: what's the idea behind this? Is this preferred; and, if so, in which situations?
It seems like the thing to do would to be to have MediaWiki come up with an update to the software to re-interpret <big>...</big> as something like <span style="font-size: larger;">...</span> rather than hunting down old-style markup and changing it bit-by-bit.
Just musing here... meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question about User:Technical 13/Drafts/Caroline Strong

Hello, Technical 13! I'm Bellerophon. I have replied to your question on the Articles for Creation Help Desk about User:Technical 13/Drafts/Caroline Strong. You can read the reply at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#22:38:29, 20 June 2014 review of submission by Technical 13. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 08:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Just testing your talkback link ;)

My sig

Any suggestions to make it compliant? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sure! I suggest replacing:

--[[User:NeilN|'''<font color="navy">Neil<font color="red">N</font></font>''']] <sup>''[[User talk:NeilN|<font color="blue">talk to me</font>]]''</sup>

with:

--[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup>

which will result in a 147 character long signature (4 characters shorter) with an appearance of: --NeilN ^{talk to me}

compared to your existing 151 character long signature of: --NeilN ^{talk to me}

— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies and thank you

Hi! I did not mean to ping you from wllm's talk page. Honestly, I do not entirely understand this notification concept. I linked your name so he would know who I am referring to. I apologise profusely for interrupting your day and am very sorry. I am happy it worked out with new signatures all around for Wil and NeilN. I promise not to link your name again, even if I directly mention you, okay? All the best. Fylbecatulous talk 20:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Fylbecatulous, no no... It was no interruption or inconvenience at all. Please do ping me. I prefer that method of communication and I can always offer the replacement code and if they choose not to accept, that is their choice. :> — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome ツ. Thank you again. Fylbecatulous talk 20:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:East Germany

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:East Germany. 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) 00:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

US-PD

You seem to have accidentally requested speedy deletion as copyvio for Daniel Webster Comstock, a page that was copied from a US government source, and is therefore in the public domain. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• DGG, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the information. Learn something new every day. Question: does everything .gov fall, under PD like this, if so, I can filter those URLs out out my copyvio detection script I've been working on. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

it is unfortunately a little complicated. .gov usually but not always means us gov. -- see .gov. Only US government works are PD-US, not state works (there are exceptions that are PD, such as California and Florida and possibly Texas), or publications of some independent government agencies. And it does not apply to works originally published elsewhere, but republished there by the US gov by permission of the copyright owner -- which often applies to illustrations ans sometimes very rarely to text. To deal with all cases, there might need to be different message for .gov. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, DGG, I've been working on my script all day, and it now has improved filtering for duplicates, filters out all links in the AfC submission template, all external Wikipedia (even to other 2 character languages), toolserver and labs links, and webchat.freenode links. I'm doing some digging on this PD stuff that you brought to my attention and it certainly is complicated. I will admit that I currently know little about what is PD and what isn't and where copyright laws point on many things (I have just an extreme basics of it down), but based on my research so far, it might be safe to filter out all pages that were created by Quadell's Polbot, and all links with fed.us/ and .mil. I'm not sure what other ones to do... I can also add ca.gov/, fl.gov/, california.gov/, florida.gov/. The filter might look like: /https?:\/\/((ca|fl)|(california|florida))\.gov\//i If there are many more states, I might test it another way in which I chop up the url into everything from the "https?://" to the ".gov/" and then see if the result of that is in an array containing all of the qualified states. You are unsure about Texas, so I'm going to leave it out for now. Where can I find which states' sites are in the PD, or how can I find out if a specific state's site is in the PD I guess is the better question. Thanks for your help on this project. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of the article Spider_Project_(software)

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)

This week's article for improvement (week 26, 2014)

Anubis, the jackal headed god of ancient Egypt Hello, Technical 13. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Anubis Previous selections: National Library of China • Tickle Me Elmo Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC) •

Rollback

Have at it. I'll forgo the obligatory spiel about not using it for good-faith edits, etc., as I think you can be trusted to figure those things out. Let me know if you have any questions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Your change to Template:Archive basics

Moved to Template talk:Archive basics

BotRq

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/T13bot. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Xaosflux. I've noted this in the VP thread per your request. I'm calling it a night, but I'll get all those trial edits done tomorrow. Thank you for your quick response. :) Happy editing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Signature

OK, thanks for that, looks better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• You're welcome Jimfbleak. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 10:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad you stayed around

I remember the early days when it was touch and go. Glad you stayed. I've been meaning to place this message for some days now. Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• LOL Timtrent, I'm still constantly under fire by some... It's all good. The only thing that I can't do right now, and wish I could sometimes is make changes to and edit interface messages and other users css/js on request. Not interested right now in becoming an administrator (which is would it would require at this point), but maybe someday. I'm holding off until after the RfC to give those additional rights to  template editors. Anyways, I'm not that easy to run off... lol — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This may be right up your street

Please would you look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewer_help#Draft:GXSOUL_has_a_problem and consider if my suspicions may have a grain of truth in them? Fiddle Faddle 23:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request T13bot

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/T13bot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Draft talk:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source

I will be interested in seeing what you do with the draft. I think you might be in for more of a headache than you think, unless you are going to cut it down into a article so small that it will have little encyclopedic value. I won't be coy here, I'm a bit irritated over the whole matter, but if you can put it into article space, you are welcome to do so. I am also very interested in seeing what references you find, as I have spent two years digging. There ARE more references out there, but I didn't want to load down the page with one-off discussions. For example:

1. At least one of the Slingatron patents mentions launching fuel in the form of explosives that explode in a reinforced combustion chamber.
2. Kare has created a paper on using thin film diamonds as a remote fuel. Beamed power accelerates the thin film to the vessel at extreme velocities, and as the films approach the vessel, a plasma cannon blasts the incoming projectile, and the particle components are harnessed for acceleration.

As sad as it might seem, there really has been very, very little research in remote fuel propulsion technologies. My guess as to why would be because they are, for the most part, pie-in-the-sky, impractical applications. When I realized two years ago that there was a practical application for them, and we could do it with existing technology, I spent a LOT of time digging for information.

I do not know how, exactly, I can allow you the rights to reference the little book I wrote, or even if you would want to reference it. To my knowledge it is the only existing document in the public domain describing the function of a practical remote fuel system for use outside Earth orbit. If you do find other references to methods of remote fueling that uses launchers, delivery systems, and capture systems, or some close facsimile, I will be very interested in reviewing those references myself. Matthewhburch (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Matt, I've listed some possible stuff I found in a precursory search on the web on the draft's talk page you can look over. I really am tired now, but the bottom reference (the paid subscription thing I get access through my University for) seems most promising. You might be able to access as well on Wikipedia:JSTOR, if you apply quickly, the list is nearing the 500 limit quickly. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Technical 13, My account is not a year old, I do not meet requirements for JSTOR Matthewhburch (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Since I'm as old as dirt, and my account is a few years old, I must've entirely overlooked that requirement. You might add your name to the list anyways mentioning you know you are under that requ but noting how useful the access would be to your developement of this article and similar articles. If you alreafy have access as I think I though I saw in one of your replies, this is a moot point. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see the articles and recognize a great many of them. I'll poke around and check on the limitations of my access there as they stand. I'm a lightning rod right now and am not going to ask for any special considerations to be made for me. If a year is required, a year is required. If someone wants to give me permissions, fine, but I'll not ask for them. Despite what some might think, I am a strong proponent of following rules. If I understand them. If they are documented. Matthewhburch (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Most of the so-called-rules on Wikipedia are well documented in the 60 or so links in that big welcome template I left on the top of your talk page (which you deleted calling clutter). I could add a collapsible navbox to the bottom of your talk or user page with the same links if you like... looks a little less cluttered and is a great rule reference guide. Just let me know. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 10:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I did see what Hasteur did to the draft. Something like that seems to be potentially useful, but I don't want to collect too many collapsible subsections either. If you put one up there, I'll play with it and see how much it irritates me, heh. If you hadn't figured it out already, I'm a bit on the OCD side about some things. My workspace is one of those things. Matthewhburch (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Leo Zeitlin

Hi, sorry, but this is a mistake surely? 04:13, 27 June 2014‎ Technical 13 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,417 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). ? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• In ictu oculi, what part of NMUSIC are you claiming this person meets? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask, have you used a CSDA7 on classical composers with de.wp and ru.wp articles before? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have no idea, but you're welcome to go through my CSD log. All I know, is I look at the article and some nothing that matched any of the points of the en.wp NMUSIC guideline that {{Db-music}} covers. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What would you think about ...

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MediaWiki editor

Template:Infobox football biography

I agree with all the changes you just made except the matter of centering the title. I used the center html element because the title doesn't seem to center itself when the template is embedded onto, say, {{Infobox officeholder}} (see Michel Platini for example). Unless you know how to fix that I think the html element would be better. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 12:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Davy, I've fixed the immediate issue by wrapping it in a css styled div, although I'm not happy I had to do that. That actually appears to be a bug in the infobox Lua module, and since that module is way too complicated for me (a "hello world" module would be too complicated for me right now), I'm going to see if maybe we can't get one of Mr. Stradivarius or Jackmcbarn: to look into it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Friendly request for Davy

Davy, while you are here on my talk page... I am noticing you have a lot of obsolete HTML elements in your signature, and I am wondering if you might be interested in bring it more up to date as such. If you are interested, I suggest replacing:

[[User:Davykamanzi|Davykamanzi]] → '''<small>[[User talk:Davykamanzi|<font color="#00A1DE">talk</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davykamanzi|<font color="#F2D21D">contribs</font>]] • [[User:DavyK17|<font color="#20603D">alter ego</font>]]</small>'''

with:

[[User:Davykamanzi|Davykamanzi]] → <small>[[User talk:Davykamanzi|<b style="color:#0AE">talk</b>]] • [[Special:Contribs/Davykamanzi|<b style="color:#ED2">contribs</b>]] • [[User:DavyK17|<b style="color:#264">alter ego</b>]]</small>

which will result in a 231 character long signature (20 characters shorter) with an appearance of: Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego
compared to your existing 251 character long signature of: Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego
— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Thanks for that. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Davy, I originally overlooked the fact that the contrast ratio for your contribs link make it near invisible... Would you consider making it a darker color or adding a contrasting backgorund color to fix the issue? — 15:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)}

Mobile

Hey T13, I'm starting a new thread. While I was playing around. I found a bug or something I don't know. I was watching this user page (Melanie I'm sorry for the ping) through the mobile version wikipedia. The collapsable section of barnstars are just vanished when I was watching the page through the mobile version. When I clicked the edit button, I found the barnstars are in a collapsable box. But no "show" button is appearing when I was previewing the page. Jim Carter ^(talk) 21:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if that is a bug Jim. I've seen people bring that kind of thing up before and I believe that is how it is suppose to work for that (You're welcome to bring it up on WP:VPT of course, there maybe someone who knows more specifically why there). I can teach you how to mention someone's user page without pinging them though... {{Noping}} is your friend for these things. this user page for example does not ping MelanieN. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's got the navbox class. This class always has the property display:none; on mobile view. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you T13 and Rose is red for the help. @T13 thanks for that noping template. I will use it when needed. Thanks again. Jim Carter ^(talk) 06:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I should perhaps have been more specific: the section Barnstars and such begins with {{cot|Barnstars and such}} and it is that templates which sets the navbox class. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 27, 2014)

Reconstruction of the head of Java Man Hello, Technical 13. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Java Man Previous selections: Anubis • National Library of China Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC) •

Talkback

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.

Minor edit...

I need help with the script, because whenever I use this script, my edit is marked as minor edit. You can answer here. Thanks Occults (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Occults, which script? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Occults/common.js - Occults (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Occults, I see. That's a lot of code to read... I have no time to really dig into that, but when I view the source for the "mark as minor" checkbox for this edit window below, I see:

<input name="wpMinoredit" value="1" tabindex="3" accesskey="i" id="wpMinoredit" type="checkbox">&nbsp;<label for="wpMinoredit" id="mw-editpage-minoredit" title="Mark this as a minor edit [Alt+Shift+i]">This is a <span id="minoredit_helplink"><a href="/wiki/Help:Minor_edit" title="">minor edit</a></span></label>

Good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks a lot. Occults (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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)Template:Z48

@Sam Sailor: I had the file of reflinks from Dispenser, and a bot as well. But it is tricky. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please feel free to do so OZ. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Emailed you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Got it... reflinks.py on GitHub is User:DumZiBoT/refLinks but not User:Dispenser/Reflinks. However, thank you for showing me that OZ, it may be able to be made into something useful anyways. DumZiBoT/NicDumZ who was last active 527 weeks ago might be able to help with that. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

(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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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)} · botop ^{(e · t · c)} · 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

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

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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 10:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Mr.Stradivarius (page does not exist)", "{{Reflinksp}} (page does not exist)" OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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)

• The problem with that, Mr. Stradivarius, is that This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in editing disputes. which is entirely based on You have a privilege that most people do not have. does not apply when both editors are in the  Template editor group. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:10, 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I just tried it myself and it works. Copy line 35 to the end from [6], 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely, but late now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur's concerns

(edit conflict)*2 Concerned Editors (Redrose64—OccultZone—Mr. 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)

• If having a few top icons makes me a collector, perhaps we need to open up new RFC/U's on Richwales, Ritchie333, I JethroBT and BrownHairedGirl to name a few...

• (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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

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

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

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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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)

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

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... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC) •

Hello

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)