User talk:Wikid77/Archive 8

This is Archive_8 for User_talk:Wikid77 (Jan 2013 - Dec 2013)

I've noticed your comments in various places where the dash dispute has taken place, and would like to express my views on a few things. First off, I agree with you that Apteva is a good editor, who has done what he thinks is right in terms of hyphenation and dashing. He is perhaps correct in his assessment of how things ought to stand in regard to these. However, a consensus has been achieved, which states that Wikipedia will follow a different style of usage, as laid out in the Manual of Style. Both you and Apteva have argued that the consensus reached is not technically correct. Despite the validity of your arguments, this is still consensus; in many cases it isn't a pleasant thing to have to abide by, but here I think we must. In the grand scheme of Wikipedia, titles with endashes do very little to turn off readers or bother users.

That said, I would encourage both you and Apteva to take a break from pushing the pro-hyphen viewpoint, given the controversy it has instigated in various places. You are, of course, more than welcome to voice your concerns about Apteva's treatment at the administrators' noticeboard; however, I'll offer my thoughts on that briefly. I don't really think they're out to get Apteva, but are just extremely irritated by the consuming nature of this dispute and want it to end, and to end quickly. Best of luck in your editing, and thanks for your participation. dci | TALK 19:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. In particular, I have suggested that you be included in the topic bad that will most likely be applied to Apteva, because you exhibit precisely the same tendentious editing pattern on this issue. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid77, I have contacted admin MBisanz on an issue that concerns you. See this section of MBisanz's talkpage.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 07:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you recently edited the {{Inflation}} doc page. I notice the template is suddenly producing an error. See for example Ely and Littleport riots of 1816—(£ {Inflation} - Amount must not have "0" prefix: 0.4. 24— given the input {{Inflation|UK|0.4|1816}}. It is not just that article. See also Little Thetford et al. Are you aware of any changes to the template that may have caused this? --Senra (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have bothered you. It seems to have been fixed. Thank you anyway --Senra (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned you in an ArbCom case request (see WP:A/R/C). While you are not a party yet, your comments would be appreciated. --Rschen7754 08:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warning signs of suicide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hemlock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tornado preparedness is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornado preparedness until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I would drop by to add something more since the template is pretty standardized. Please don't take the nomination badly; it's directed more at the topic in general than the article you wrote over it. Personally, I think the article is decent (it has its problems, but then again so do most articles) and as a meteorology student I'm also passionate about the topic; however, I think that the article as it's written is a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE and that it would be very difficult to flesh out a stand alone article over tornado preparedness without violating that policy. If the article is kept, that's great, but I think it would be wise to have the discussion over it just so there is a consensus. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have moved your two sections to the talk page. I think we ought to keep discussions about the group itself to the talk page. I have also replied to them.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Test-driven development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sampling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not mentioned anywhere in google books or google scholar. Other results are for breeders or user-contributed sites

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TKK ^{bark !} 02:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you like solving problems, and I have noticed a tenacity and methodical approach that are often useful in engineering a solution—good. However, please consider whether your comments at User talk:Apteva (and related places) might inadvertently lead to a much larger problem—not a solution. Like many regulars I have a habit of poking my nose into drama, but my taste for that is actually very limited so whereas I have seen disputes and arbitration from the inside, I am a neophyte when it comes to wikidrama. Despite that, I have seen a dozen cases where an editor (say X) gets into some difficulty with a significant group of editors opposing what X is trying to do. The problem comes when X has a certain kind of personality and has two or three vocal supporters—those supporters may eliminate any chance of X listening to what the community tells them—after all, if X has strong support, why shouldn't X push harder? The inevitable outcome is that in a month or two, X gets into a new battle, and then another, and ends up indefinitely blocked. What X needs is to digest what the community has decided—it is totally irrelevant whether the community is wrong, or has been misled, or should be reformed. Pursuing an ideal goal may lead someone to personal misfortune—nevertheless, the person may feel the journey to be worthwhile. However, the scenario I am describing concerns editor A pursuing an ideal goal, with editor X ending up indefinitely blocked (and permabanned if they push it after that). I rather hope you won't feel it necessary to reply to my message—you will either see my point or you won't—but if you do reply I will notice it here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the next problem the "community" has stated, is after they handle editor X, then editor A is next, then editor B, editor C, D, E (see the pattern), because before editor X, there was editor W, editor V, and editor U (see User_talk:Pmanderson blocked 1 year). In just a few weeks, I have counted 9 editors, not even looking for them, who have been warned they "do not have consensus" to oppose 8 editors who formed their own false consensus for the whole community of planet Earth. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Danny Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to End of the World

KISS principle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Less is more

List of unsolved deaths (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nonpareil

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thanks for participating in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive! Please accept this award along with our appreciation, and we hope to see you in March. —Torchiest talkedits 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Leaderboard Award—5th place, total articles
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Wikid77 for copy editing 30 articles during the WP:GOCE January 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks so much for your big effort! —Torchiest talkedits 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Doad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rana and Fiefs

Shirish Saraf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you could take a look at fixing 41–41 °F (278–278 K) which is wrong. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Use Convert/2 for ranges: There might be problems with negative numbers or other amounts in ranges, so use Template:Convert/2:

• {{convert|41|-|41|F|K}} → 41–41 °F (278–278 K)
• {{convert|41|-|41|K|C}} → 41–41 K (−232.2 – −232.2 °C)
• {{convert|41|-|41|K|F}} → 41–41 K (−385.9 – −385.9 °F)
• {{convert/2 |41|-|41|F|K}} → {{convert/2|41|-|41|F|K}}
• {{convert/2 |41|-|41|K|C}} → {{convert/2|41|-|41|K|C}}
• {{convert/2 |41|-|41|K|F}} → {{convert/2|41|-|41|K|F}}

So use {convert/2} more often. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alabama tornadoes. Since you had some involvement with the Alabama tornadoes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alabama tornado. Since you had some involvement with the Alabama tornado redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Alabama tornado events, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huntsville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see Module talk:Citation/CS1 § Minor bug in position of period. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC) /* Bug in cite web/lua*/[reply]

if you are going to add templates, you need to tag them with {{subst:tfd}}. Frietjes (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth investigating if table.concat is better than using .. when joining lots of strings together.

local idcommon = ARXIV .. ASIN .. BIBCODE .. DOI .. ID .. ISBN .. JFM .. JSTOR .. LCCN .. MR .. OCLC .. OL .. OSTI .. PMC .. PMID .. RFC .. SSRN .. URL .. ZBL .. Archived .. AccessDate .. Via .. SubscriptionRequired .. Lay .. Quote .. PostScript

vs

local idcommon = table.concat({ARXIV, ASIN, BIBCODE, DOI, ID, ISBN, JFM, JSTOR, LCCN, MR, OCLC, OL, OSTI, PMC, PMID, RFC, SSRN, URL, ZBL, Archived, AccessDate, Via, SubscriptionRequired, Lay, Quote, PostScript})

-- WOSlinker (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wikid wondering what is with the change in template formatting at the bottom of this page made in this edit? [1] I prefer the previous formatting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big fan of navboxes. Let me get rid of a couple :-) Does this solve the issue? How about a max one navbox per page rule? Anything else to fix the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if I could simply make the pages faster to edit for me that would be a huge plus... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think about one navbox per page? Would that solve much of the speed issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you thoughts on using faster ref templates? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikid77, I noticed you've been contributed a lot to the Lua script at Module:Citation. I just created a request page for Lua scripts at Wikipedia:Lua requests and it'd be great if you could watchlist it to assist anyone who needs help with Lua scripts. Thanks! Dcoetzee 00:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for reverting your changes, but could you check Hondo Valle, Elías Piña and Sierra de San Pedro Mártir National Park before you update it again? the good news is that this exposed actual errors in many others, but most of those have now been fixed. I think the only error we need to address is a blank value, so we can probably replace the #iferror with an #if, so that would make it go faster. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you update the colouring and numbers (only the average highs I believe), as I found that the previous NOAA/NWS Weather Now numbers had the highs skewed upward by 0.8 °F? And both The Weather Channel and Accuweather confirm this finding. Thanks much GotR ^Talk 02:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DONE. I have updated /cached for the 13 colors of the Average-high numbers to match {New_York_City_weatherbox}. -Wikid77 09:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not to seem pestering, but given the recent changes to {{Weather box}}, the margin between the non-cached and cached templates should be significantly less than 7 seconds. This is not at all to say there is no longer any purpose to the cached template. GotR ^Talk 21:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not starting everything you say like this: Nothing personal, but, frankly, doing this bullet-and-a-label thing every time you respond to someone (on, say, the technical pump) looks a bit odd. Nobody else does it, because it's not the way people normally participate in a conversation. I've noticed that you sometimes don't get replies to your comments, which may be as a result of this. Thanks for the detailed work you're doing with Lua. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bolded paragraph titles focus topics and are used by others: I tend to use the bolded intro phrase, to each section, as an overview of the topic, which also helps to avoid rambling into a "shaggy dog story" with off-topic tangents. The paragraph topic titles are just an extension of the "==Header==" concept, but can contain any characters which might be invalid in section headers. Also, some people, on occasion, also use the same style, but sometimes just to emphasize the first thought, rather than act as an overall header, similar to using an interjection "Ahoy!" which is offset from a sentence by separate punctuation. Anyway, I am aware that some other people think the bolded phrases are a "bit odd" but that does not concern me after all these years. You must understand that when I developed the early forms of "googling" many years ago, "no one" else was searching entire pages, in books or documents, for multiple words, in any order; instead, there were keyword searches within a set of predefined keywords, or "grep" patterns to search with regular expressions using metacharacters, but no one would search the entire pages for separated words as a set of simple words to hunt; and yet I was not bothered that searching whole pages for multiple words was a bit odd, because there was a clear rationale for structuring a page that way, as with the bolded intro phrases. Perhaps, in another 30 years, the bolded topic phrases might become more commonplace in conversations, just as multi-word searches have become better understood despite their initial oddity in society. Also, upon reading other comments, it is easy to see how some responses veer far from the initial topic of a paragraph, and perhaps a bolded topic could help some people to better focus their thoughts, or clearly announce a major related tangent in a conversation. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it. I've reverted ALL your edits to Gamma function, because it actually made some of the formulas wrong, all misaligned, and much more difficult to edit. Your changes within {{math}} may have been good. Stop doing it unless you understand both the formulas and typesetting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Each formula was identical but 105x faster: I am sorry you were confused by the optimizations to the math-tag markup, which reduced the typesetting time for article "Gamma function" from 31 seconds to 17 seconds. Each formula was changed to display the prior symbols, in identical order, only running 105x times faster. Upon comparing results, each formula was actually identical in contents to the prior, slow complex math tags; however, there were some slight alignment changes, but numerous improvements to readability, consistency of fonts, as well as formatting several equations 105x times faster. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please never do anything like this ever again. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Optimizations made perhaps too fast: I regret that you were upset by the rapid optimizations to each complex <math> tag, to format 105x times faster. Some users had previously reported trouble when editing the page, and then requested quicker formatting, due to the 60-second timeout which generated wp:Wikimedia Foundation error. As a computer scientist, I quickly optimized the markup to reformat as two orders of magnitude faster, but I can appreciate how some users might get "progress shock" when first seeing such enormous speed improvements. I worked as a university math tutor for years, so I think the optimized math-tag format can be explained, even to beginner students, as merely a string of separate symbols, each enclosed inside the <math>...</math> tags, rather than inside a single math tag. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Even in the unlikely event that you checked each equation under multiple browsers, and understood the equations well enough to determine whether there was a significant difference, the resultant quasi-equations were uneditable. If you had left the original equation in place, but commented out, editors who found one of the "equations" incorrect could restore the original, and edit that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikid, I've had some more thoughts about Template:Yesno, and I've left a post at Template talk:Yesno#Most-used values which you might be interested in. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was really touched by the kind message you left at my talk page. I'm tremendously impressed by the work you've done to get the Lua backend running for citations and the skill with which you've done it; thus far the transition seems to have been very, very smooth, all things considered. I'm glad you were able to bring these benefits across Wikipedia and not just to a few high-traffic articles.

I'm very excited about the prospect of using Lua to restore COinS metadata and parse it properly and increased error-checking (for nonsensical or contradictory parameter values) in citation templates in general. In the long run, I think migrating our citations to a standard, metadata-generating format, and perhaps moving some of them (books, journals) to Wikidata, will be tremendously useful for the encyclopedia. (Even more so, frankly, than the infoboxes that seem to get people so excited.) It's great to have someone like you with strong knowledge of CS and optimization working on the backend for these things. Choess (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Proposed changes to protected BS-overlap. Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikid77. You have a reply at User talk:Rich Farmbrough's talk page. Also see this humorous Dutch animation. LittleBen (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the block notice on Rich's page, this block can be amended or overturned, "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page". So it seems that—for the block to be amended or overturned—there needs to be a concrete proposal, like "the block discussion should be reopened" or "the length of this block should be reduced to not more than ..." that a majority of "uninvolved editors" will vote for. LittleBen (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite quick has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Wikid. I am making a new template for some of the Medal of Honor numbers and I was wondering if I could recruit your help. Since we are starting to migrate to Lua I thought it would be better to just build it in lua now rather than build it and than have to convert it later, but I don't know anything about Lua. So here is my idea and I'll let you know if you are interested or have time to help.

Currently there are about 40 different numbers relating to Medal of Honor recipients. A couple examples are Total medals presented, total recipients, totals by conflict, etc. All of them are on a number of articles so when updates are necessary they have to be updated on every single article. So what I am looking to do is create a template, that will allow them to be updated in one place and then that template will be put on the articles in place of the actual number. So they number only has to input once. If you have an example where this is already done I would be happy to do the work I just need a starting point. Its nothing that needs to be done immediately so I have plenty of time to practice. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kumioko (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikid77. You have new messages at Kumioko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eek, I hope you don't think that I'm a mean person in a cabal! Sorry about the confusion about my semi-protection of Five Ws. I never meant to take sides in this dispute, nor to impune anybody. See my comments at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#As_to_my_motives.

Bearian (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed the access date from within a cite news template and manually wrote the viewed date. Why didn't the accessdate parameter work? Ryan Vesey 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently, accessdate limited to use with modified webpages: There has been a long-standing restriction, in the wp:CS1-style cites, to refuse to show the accessdate value unless the parameter "url=" is also shown, as linking a commercial or news webpage (and not an online journal webpage!). I discussed removing that restriction, but no consensus yet, and meanwhile, 45,000 editors think, "Accessdate is when I saw the document" (or linked to PMID or doi or Bibcode webpages) but the Lua-based cites still show an error message for "accessdate=" when no "url=" given. Hence, I just inserted the literal "Viewed..." as the prior editors seem to want to say. Perhaps this needs to be discussed in a wider forum, because 45,000 editors want to use accessdate for any webpage or document they have viewed/accessed. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Might you be coming to the Amsterdam hackathon in May? Travel subsidies are available. It'd be great to have you there. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Those 2 PD-Govt images are no longer needed for "Beau Rivage (Mississippi)" and could be deleted. -Wikid77

I don't understand your comment at Jimbo's talk page. I was speaking of the scenario of criminals (e.g. cartels) threatening admins to get things removed, not editing directly; and of admins deleting or suppressing mainspace and talk page edits to keep information and its suppression unknown, rather than editing directly. Did you think differently? Wnt (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the request for a "media blackout" by law-enforcement agencies, where they wanted to deter the captors from torturing the captives to gain futher media attention, and so those criminals would not know that people were discussing the issues by telephone rather than by newsreports or via Wikipedia articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still don't understand what exactly you were trying to say with your comment, but if it's not about what I said specifically, then I don't have to figure it out. :) Wnt (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Acceptability, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Acceptability and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Acceptability during the discussion, but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're barking up the wrong tree. You could take all the citations out entirely and it will still show the problem.

The page was working properly a month ago, no change, and now it isn't.

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 19:01, wikitime= 11:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your userpage says you have something in the 500,000 range for edits. Popups tells me you have 38,883 edits. Could you explain the disparity? Are you including alternate accounts? If so, which? Killiondude (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Manipulated edit-counter to remain below 40,000: When I first joined Wikipedia, I formerly would change just a few words at a time and save multiple edits per page, because I did not know other ways to avoid edit-conflicts. Some years ago, I realized that I could suppress a higher count and manipulate my edit-counter by saving edits offline, into text files, to be checked with edit-preview only, and then later merge several edits, with other editor revisions, as one final SAVE operation. Also, I have written some text on Simple English Wikipedia and then copied it here as batches, to appear as one-edit saves.

Those batch-edit tactics have led to seemingly "impossible" results, such as writing a complex, wp:wrapper template to convert 4 measurements at once, in reverse order, by making just 1 edit to write Template:Convert/flip4 (but actually tested for an hour in numerous edit-previews before the one Save). When I want to update thousands of pages, I change a common template used by all, such as updating the populations in 2,700 Austrian towns, or I let another editor put a category link into 300 pages. Other tips I have noted in essay "wp:Avoiding edit-conflicts". Anyway, the reduced edit-counts had averaged a multi-edit ratio of about 17-to-1, where each 100 edits were actually like 1,700, and now, the 39,000×17 = 663,000 typical edits. However, I have far increased my multi-edit ratio, often making over 200 changes during one edit-SAVE operation, and so my true edit-count probably exceeds 700,000, with template changes altering over 2 million pages.

Meanwhile, some editors have complained that I should make several smaller edits, rather than "300" changes as a single edit-save, where each separate edit could address one type of change made across the whole page, rather than a hodge-podge mix of all various changes blended together. Another problem arises when other editors do not like one change in a batch-edit, then they have reverted all my changes from the one edit, and so making more edits can be better at times. Also, I have noticed other editors who create a "username2" to allow numerous other edits, so I am thinking to try that tactic to keep my official edit-counter below 45,000 edits, but allow more edits per page. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikid77, thanks for your help with this at the PUMP. I wanted to ask you something else about it. We've had a problem there for a long time with excessive load time after saving because of the citation templates (currently taking 25 seconds to load for me after I've saved, and that's when I section-edit). An editor removed all the templates with a script in May last year, and load time was good for a while, but another editor reverted him a couple of months later.

The second editor has now agreed to let me convert the citation templates to manual refs. I wanted to ask you two things: (a) do you have a script to convert these to manual refs; or (b) if not, do you have a script that would replace them with faster-loading templates in the meantime? That would at least be better than the current situation; I'll have to convert to manual refs manually so it will take some time, and editing there in the meantime is no fun, especially if you're making lots of edits.

Please don't go to any trouble. I'm wondering only whether you have any technical magic that you'd know how to apply without too much trouble and time on your part. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the citations are using Lua now, and the page edit previews for me in 7 or 8 seconds, which doesn't seem very bad. If it is taking a lot longer than that for you, then there might be a specific problem at your end. The revision you linked with no citation templates still takes about 5.5 seconds to edit preview for me, so making that conversion would only save you about 2 seconds. Personally, I wouldn't think that is worth the trouble. Dragons flight (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a fast machine at the moment, so the problem isn't here. (The earlier version you tried had lots of small images in it, which slowed things down more.) It's page loading time after saving that's slow – not preview – so that making several edits in a row is time-consuming, unless you know to go to another window, but new editors won't necessarily know that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Edit preview gives you the time required to render the page with all the templates and such. Save does additional things like updating link, file usage, and transclusion tables. Save is also burdened by things like processing the edit filter. However, the amount of time required for saving a page beyond that required for an edit preview is not strongly linked to the presence or absence of templates. Of course, you could try making the change and seeing if it seems like enough of an improvement to be worthwhile, but if the edit preview time is okay then I wouldn't expect the save time to be improved much by changing the citations. Dragons flight (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be too much work to convert the refs as a test; I'd have to convert quite a few before the difference would show up, and I'm having to do it manually. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

• Edit-preview runs 6.5 seconds, split as subarticles to quicken: Because the current Lua cites are so fast (over 170/second), then changing the 132 {cite_web} or 46 {cite_news} into manual cites would only reduce time by perhaps 1 second, as 5.5 seconds. Typically, the slowdown is caused by Internet traffic of long URLs in cites, and splitting as 4 or 5 subarticles would make each portion of the list reformat 4 or 5 times faster. Otherwise, another tactic is to defer many of the cites to each person's article, where each article contains the related cites about "vegan" and then the list would reuse a tiny cite as "<ref name=see>See linked article for sources.</ref>". By having numerous entries footnoted as "See linked article" then many of those long URL addresses can be omitted, and the list might shrink to below half the current page size. Otherwise having long URLs, even in manual cites, will swell an article to become a mass of textual data. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. The aim there is twofold: (1) to make the ref formatting consistent (it's currently all over the place), and it's a lot easier to do that with manual refs; and (2) to have a very simple format for new editors to copy, without all the unnecessary parameters, and in general to make the article very easy to edit. These lists often attract entry-level edits so I don't want anything there to be so complex that it puts off new editors. I like the idea of deferring the cites to the subject's article, but it would add extra complexity.

  Would it help significantly to have only one ref per person to reduce the number of URLs? My experience of editing articles with lots of URLs is that you only notice the slowdown when a large number (300 plus) are present. But the slowdown caused by citation templates shows up much earlier than that – at around 100. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite_xx can be subst'd out via Cite_quick: I do have some "magic" to quickly change to manual cites, based on Template:Cite_quick, and I will put that version into Talk:List_of_Vegans/sandbox_cites, as an "article sandbox" which can be edited, to compare the SAVE runtimes. To get wp:subst'ing to work in the sandbox, then I must rename all "<ref..>" as "<xxref..>" or such because the MediaWiki parser does not see subst inside typical reftags. After experimenting with the sandbox version, then we can run subst'ing of cites in the live "List of vegans". Give me a few minutes to create the Talk:*/sandbox_cites page. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's brilliant, thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DONE. See Talk:List of Vegans/sandbox cites (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs). As expected, the edit-preview time is 5.5 seconds now. -Wikid77 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is wonderful, and very kind of you. I'll start copying them over tomorrow. It has saved me a ton of work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Hyperbola. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong tag. Wikid77 was clearly in the wrong, but that's not the right tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For over 7 years, speedy-deletion has been stopped by edit-removal: Sorry, but this is how it works, folks: if the tag is removed, the speedy aint-speedy-any-longer. So, read the related edit-summary, as that has been the explanation to stop speedy-deletion for over seven years on the English Wikipedia for over seven years of suggested speedy-delete tags for over 7 years since 2006. During those seven years, or actually longer than 7 years, I have never seen a button or wikilink state, "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" and I did not see that notice, in this case, even after seven years of dealing with article deletions. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was your rationale for removing the copy edit tag from this page? It's currently being overhauled as part of a wp:goce drive, and the tag shouldn't have been removed before the work is complete. Dementia13 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought the copy-edit work was complete, with over 500 fixes to italic titles, phrasing, Bot text-messages, excessive URL-address parameters, and reformatting as 3-column lists; however, I left the other maintenance tags which notify editors of different issues to edit. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikid77. You have new messages at Talk:Hyperbola.
Message added 12:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Widefox; talk 12:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Google has re-indexed Gone with the Wind (film) with a "https" prefix: http://www.google.com/search?&q=gone+with+the+wind. Just thought you should know. Obviously we can't keep moving the article back and forth, so somehow Google is going to have to be stopped from crawling the https links. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can analyze the impact on the pageviews, to measure how much the "https:" prefix has deterred the readers this month. However, the new http-prefix redirect with "(1939 film)" can help other readers to access the page (who were hunting "1939"). Meanwhile, there is active discussion at wp:PUMPTECH to fix the Google-https links, perhaps by rel="canonical" in the MediaWiki core embedded with each WP page. So, the wheels are in motion for this. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for answering the poll at the village pump about how effectively we communicate existing policy via the actual wording on the policy pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martial music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State of mind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, turning WPBannerMeta into mostly Lua (mentioned at Template_talk:WPBannerMeta/core) might be very helpful. There are a lot of pages takes ~4sec to parse that are just empty talk pages with 2 of these templates. Looking at what the job runners are doing for updating backlinks by doing profiled runs I've been seeing:

 90.52% 34.244028     20 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta
 89.12% 33.714810      9 - Parser::parse-WikitextContent::getParserOutput
 88.98% 33.662138     20 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/core
 83.21% 31.478573  29067 - Parser::braceSubstitution-pfunc
 79.50% 30.075348  22425 - Parser::callParserFunction
 76.11% 28.794159     10 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WikiProject_United_States
 36.19% 13.689459    190 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces
 35.20% 13.316895   4940 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-Yesno
 28.93% 10.945155    190 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces/core
 23.37% 8.841014   5374 - Parser::callParserFunction-pfunc-if
 22.84% 8.641418   6030 - Parser::callParserFunction-pfunc-switch
 21.81% 8.252376   3688 - Parser::callParserFunction-pfunc-ifeq
 19.25% 7.282992    200 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/hooks/tfnested
 15.44% 5.840316     10 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WikiProject_Cities
  9.28% 3.511158      1 - Parser::parse-call_user_func_array
  8.52% 3.221836   6772 - Parser::braceSubstitution-loadtpl
  6.17% 2.334287    270 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/istemplate
  5.70% 2.155634  30073 - Parser::braceSubstitution-modifiers
  4.03% 1.522838     30 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/qualityscale
  3.23% 1.221347    390 - Parser::callParserFunction-pfunc-ifexpr
  3.11% 1.178340     10 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/hooks/todolist
  3.11% 1.177872   1480 - Preprocessor_DOM::preprocessToObj
  3.01% 1.140379    138 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-Pagetype
  2.91% 1.101268    108 - Parser::replaceInternalLinks2
  2.78% 1.052913     10 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces/taskforce
  2.69% 1.017991     10 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WikiProject_West_Virginia/to_do
  2.57% 0.972819     10 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/taskforce
  2.56% 0.968048     40 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/class
  2.53% 0.957131     10 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-Tasks
  2.34% 0.883613     48 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/importance
  2.33% 0.881351     30 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-WPBannerMeta/importancescale
  2.21% 0.835151     20 - Parser::braceSubstitution-title-Class

That is for 10 jobs. This template seems to be wasting a massive amount of job runner time. Multiple runs give similar results. Aaron Schulz 04:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning on responding or should I take it that you were just being ignorant? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you are active. Were you planning on doing something about the unjustified claims? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to article content we've had plenty of disagreements and maybe will have them in the future. But when it comes to technical issues where you have quite some expertise, you are not only very helpful in knowing/seeing the problem and explain it to laymen like me in a way I can understand; In those matters I usually fully agree with your opinions (about an issue) as well. I don't spread cookies nor barnstars around since I personally find them a bit silly. Instead I'd like to give you a big THANK YOU for your input(s). Best, TMCk (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikid, I noticed you seem to be shortening the automatically created section headers in your edit summaries (The part between /* ... */). Please don't do that, since it breaks the direct section links on history pages (the blue arrows "→‎" before edit summaries). Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I had just started clicking those "→" so I guess I'll insert an "{{Anchor|header}}" when the original header is very long. -Wikid77 16:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikid77,
I saw the threads you were involved in on Jimbo's talk, the issues you touched at the thread titled "Jaron Lanier" resonated with me. I fervently concur with your view that there should be "less room for the POV-pushing which has given Wikipedia a slant on issues". And to bring this core issue into focus, I wrote an essay about what I see as the flaws embedded in the consensus-building procedure and how that process is abused time and again. I reckoned you're the most suitable person for reviewing that essay, I would very much like you to comment on that essay. Would that be acceptable to you?

Although you're not in any way obligated to accommodate my request, should you choose to respond favorably to this entreaty I will be highly obliged. Cheers, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have read that essay and replied at your talk-page. -Wikid77 15:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you have created the following articles:

• Old Style common year starting on Monday
• Old Style common year starting on Tuesday
• Old Style common year starting on Wednesday
• Old Style common year starting on Thursday
• Old Style common year starting on Friday
• Old Style common year starting on Saturday
• Old Style common year starting on Sunday

but have left these articles as redlinks:

• Old Style leap year starting on Monday
• Old Style leap year starting on Tuesday
• Old Style leap year starting on Wednesday
• Old Style leap year starting on Thursday
• Old Style leap year starting on Friday
• Old Style leap year starting on Saturday
• Old Style leap year starting on Sunday

would it be possible for you to create these articles so as to have both New and old leap calendars.

Thanks. Paul2387chat 11:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I see a pattern that will enable me to create the pages quickly, copying the 84 months (7×12) from various prior pages, but it will probably be tomorrow when they are ready. -Wikid77 15:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re this edit, I'm guessing that you want to suppress all the text from "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:" down to "Submit an edit request". I've not found a way of suppressing the first sentence, but it's possible to suppress the box contents from "This page is currently protected and can be edited only by administrators." onwards:

#mw-protectedpagetext { display: none; }

Put that in either Special:MyPage/common.css or Special:MyPage/skin.css and the boxes like MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext will be suppressed. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks and put in Help page: I edited my common.css and that worked to suppress the 190-word blurb for View-Source. I have added that into "Help:User_style#Samples" to start explaining how to hide long messages for other users. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concordance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As best I can tell, you have a slightly distorted (i.e., biased) view of priorities and site issues as you personally hit a particular problematic behavior more often than most users. Let me run it down as I see it currently.

You post to a lot of noticeboards, village pumps, and other high-traffic pages. When doing so, you use section-editing. For a long article or other page, edit conflicts can be quietly handled by MediaWiki. But on high-traffic pages, when two people are editing the same section, it's easy for edit conflicts to occur. Most users aren't commenting in these discussions, they're editing a section of an article or other page, free of edit conflicts. But because you personally are hitting this issue so often, you feel that it's much higher priority than it actually is.

Of course, Flow or LiquidThreads or something will eventually make edit conflicts when replying non-existent, but these things take a lot of time and patience. We'll be there one day. In the meantime, yes, there will occasionally be edit conflict-related bugs in the software: some related to replying in high-traffic forums, others related to poor quiet merge handling, etc. But that doesn't mean that edit conflict handling is the highest priority issue, as annoying as it may be to you. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• High priority due to user frustrations: The problems caused by edit-conflicts are not just in the 27,500+ pages where conflicts have been noted. The issue is about "user-frustration levels" where many users are already editing articles at a high level of stress, due to intense focus on wording or markup or template parameters, and then "Edit conflict" just upsets the whole applecart, and sends some users over the edge (even though many edit-conflicts would be easy to fix by small changes in diff3). It is a problem of perception, such as someone in a restaurant finding a cockroach in their soup, where there is no evidence the whole soup pot was cooked that way, versus the roach walking into the individual soupbowl, but it is viewed as a high-priority problem due to customer perceptions. Some people see the "Edit conflict" message, while other people get notices in user-talk that their edits caused an edit-conflict. So, the wp:VisualEditor had been set to "overwrite-conflicts" rather than inform the users that all their tedious keystrokes were rejected due to some erstwhile change (could be 1 line out of hundreds of changes) by another user. The problem is truly massive in scale, as evidenced by "14,139" mentions of "edit conflict" in user-talk pages and by "8,702" mentions of "edit conflict" in article talk-pages. In fact, even though I know to remain calm when edit-conflicts occur, I dislike editing the hot-topic articles, about recent disasters or criminal trials, because the edit-conflicts have been so numerous. However, after having found ways to bypass edit-conflicts, now I intend to edit more current-events articles, and help other users learn to work around the problems in the MediaWiki software. Anyway, please understand that, due to the impacts on user-frustration levels, the edit-conflicts are a high priority for many active editors, raising levels of fear that are difficult to measure beyond the 27,500 pages where the problems have been noted. Fortunately, many edit-conflicts are trivial to auto-correct by simple changes to diff3, such as checking the count of conflicts/overlaps as being just one conflict, to then stack the multiple insertions in LIFO order (last-in, first-out) at the same line number. It's just sad that these trivial fixes were not done years ago, but better late than never! -Wikid77 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You created several citation templates that are now obsolete. I can either delete that or move them to your user space:

• {{Cite quick}}
• {{Cite fast}}
• {{Fcite}}
• {{Fcite book}}
• {{Fcite fast}}
• {{Fcite journal}}
• {{Fcite web}}
• {{Vcitation}}

Please let me know what to do here. --  Gadget850 ^talk 13:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All of those templates were closed at wp:TfD as Keep: Those templates must remain where they are, per the results of community consensus. See for example, Template:Cite_quick which outperforms the Lua-based cites, in allowing more than 2x (twice) as many citations per page:

• wp:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_29#Template:Cite_quick

There is no consensus to either delete them, or userfy them to reduce access or mislead users into thinking those templates were not used in many mainspace articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only template in use is {{Cite quick}} in a few articles. I don't understand the intent of keeping unused templates which meet the criteria for speedy deletion per T3: Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion. Looking at the TfD, the consensus was to keep these for test purposes— that testing is long past, and the new Lua based templates are now in place. Again, I don't see the need to keep these in template space. --  Gadget850 ^talk 19:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond any consideration of speedy-deletion criteria, the community consensus of the full multi-week wp:TfD discussions was Keep and mark some for historical purposes, when viewed from wikilinks such as "Template:Fcite_journal". There are other templates, with similar fast-format issues, which can benefit from re-analysis of those templates and from comparisons of benchmark timing tests of running those templates in test pages. If you are looking for some 8 templates to delete, of minimal value, I suggest to check recent wp:TfD discussions and help to delete templates which might act as bad influence on editors planning to write other templates, rather than deleting the fast-cite templates which were designed to run 5x-12x times faster than major wp:CS1 cite templates at a time when there was no other way to format cite parameters at such rapid speeds. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have convinced me of the course of action needed here. --  Gadget850 ^talk 00:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite quick has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further note: seeing the above discussion then checking the template it seems it's still being used and added to articles, despite the previous discussion and the notice at the top of it. I think something else needs to be done to make sure it stays historical, per the discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikid77, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite fast has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Gadget850 ^talk 11:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reading about symmetrical versus Wikid. Were you right about the template problem (does everyone accept you were)? Did he go uncle? TCO (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Some twisted WP:PERF to seem "right" thinking, but we got Lua: Others, beyond User:Simetrical, continued to cry "WP:PERF" to stop performance improvements, but the developers facing the WP slowdown, installed Lua script to allow rewriting faster templates. However, from my perspective, the WP:PERF essay was continually diluted in updates, to list ever more exceptions of things to instead worry about. Yet my key advice, "Everyone worry about performance together to improve speed" was only followed by Jimmy Wales and a few editors, and I had to fight more battles to improve Wikipedia's speed. A crucial battle was 7-month acceptance of Template:Cite_quick (now deleted, renamed as Citation/quick), which not only ran 5x-10x faster in large pages, but ran smaller to rescue major article "Barack Obama" (one month before the 2012 Presidential Election!), when the page was cratering due to many large templates (yes, massive navboxes warned by "wp:Overlink crisis"), and so {cite_quick} was so efficient, fast, and full-featured (tested by others) that it reformatted "Barack Obama" plus all massive navboxes, with room to spare. Of course, if my advice had been followed years earlier to worry about performance and keep templates optimized, then "Barack Obama" would never have cratered during the 2012 election year. Instead, Simetrical had dangerously advised to merge gigantic templates, without worry, and the wp:CS1 cites (using Template:Citation/core) grew to drag major articles to edit-preview in 27-45 seconds, where some pages such as "Israel" would crater on slow servers, reaching the 60-second timeout to get wp:Wikimedia Foundation error and die. In desperation about site-wide slowness, developer User:Tim_Starling simply chopped {Citation/core} to be 20% faster by dropping the COinS metadata, without a wp:consensus approval, as a draconian step to salvage system-wide performance after too many years of "don't worry" sank the S.S. Wikipedia. Still the whole of WP did not worry, and I had to finish writing the Lua-based cites, as Module:Citation/CS1, to make major articles edit-preview, or reformat, 2x-3x faster in March 2013. Some developers, finally uber-worried about performance, had pushed to install the Scribunto interface in February 2013, and Lua script now runs at about 400-600 #invokes per second. However, several people now understand how to write faster Lua-based templates, and the trend is "faster is better" to totally ignore WP:PERF. The basic problem is "Wirth's Law" (1995) warning of slower software. Did anyone say I was right 6 years ago? ...of course not, and they still object when I advise how cite templates can be quickened even more for huge articles, from 100 per second to 350 per second, if we worry about performance! -Wikid77 (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that reader experience is the main goal, user editing the second one. So differentiating "server" side is a little wrong. That said, I'm not a techie person and probably more different than either of you. I don't like the lag from the cite template callups on big page editing. And I really don't even like filling them out (do way faster going manual). You should look at the latest WMF discussion, there are some remarks about templates and how "performance" is important. (Again, I'm not qualified to banter on how that is defined, let alone improved, but it was at least topical.) TCO (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Most smartest Wikimedia decisions, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Most smartest Wikimedia decisions and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Most smartest Wikimedia decisions during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*applause* Keep on with your analysis...you may yet convince more people... Double sharp (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixed the formatting with nowiki tags (and not just for a clear illustration when someone decides to post here using VE :-P) Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a smart idea. Thanks. — Scott • talk 18:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - do you have javascript skills? If so, I may request your help on a project re: category intersections if you're interested. See User:Obiwankenobi#Category_intersection_prototype_version_2 for a prototype. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gregory Meeks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Medicare and Armed Services Committee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you'd be able to track down the source description page and info for File:Hurricane-Katrina-Grand-Casino-Gulfport-hotel-EPA.jpg which you uploaded here a while back and is now on Commons, that would be great, thanks! Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 13#Strange taxobox formatting when Neomura is at the top. It may be connected with your earlier fixes to the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Some data shows VE used +6% more for 1-9 byte edits, +12% for 100-999". I'm trying to interpret this, and I think that there are two ways to look at this, one of them fairly plausible, the other fairly implausible. I wonder what you think.

When we look at different usage patterns for VE, we can say "When people want to make a larger edit, they reach for the VE more often than when they want to make a smaller edit". Or we can say "When people click edit on VE, they tend to make larger edits than when they click on the wikitext editor". I think the second is a more plausible model, particularly when we are talking about anons/newbies.

What do you think?

I am just thinking that having a clear view on this might inform how you write about the stats you are gathering.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you'd like to mediate the issue, my only concern is that the attack on legitimate opinions (whether support or oppose) cease. A line must be drawn between what is legitimate opinion and what is truly and intentionally hateful commentary. A few users have already left comments on Josh's talk page about this and he's ignored them. However, if you can make headway, your comment on ANI appear reasonable and I'm not looking for blood; I'd just like to deescalate the talk page and removing the most attackish editors seems like a good idea^TM to me. In retrospect, removing Bugs from that talk page probably benefits the encyclopedia as well.--v/r - TP 22:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Molecule Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyperspace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikid77. It is quite frustrating that a lot of editors there are trying to sanitize the article, expunging comments made by Asaram and his son and removing the material on ongoing criminal investigations. There is a criminal proceeding underway against Asaram Bapu and his son over the mysterious deaths of 2 little boys in their school on their ashram in 2008. Editors have repeatedly tried to remove it, previously asking for more references and after getting them, still removing the section, asking for consensus before adding this material.[2] What is going on here? Does the BLP policy not allow addition of well-referenced material on criminal chargesheet against an individual without "consensus"? I think that we have to consider either explaining the BLP policy in clear detail or revisit the policy. --Crème3.14159 (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your new "humor" page is now at User:Wikid77/Jimboning. Do you really think Wikipedia space needs this kind of thing? Plus, if it's there, anybody can and will edit it, did you think of that? Bishonen | talk 09:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sarin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sevin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Way To Keep It Simple Star
		I like the idea of electing admins. Why is wiki so far behind and still using a feudal system? You do not seem to have many Barnstars and if I knew how to do it I would give you a KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) Barnstar which surprisingly does not exist. So go head quote me, make one up and put one on your user page if you desire. You would be the inventor and first recipient. Maybe some day I will be more skilled in wiki and it would not be such an major undertaking in my limited time to do that myself. 208.54.40.134 (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There.—John Cline (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bolding everything you say? The only bold things on e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) are headings and your statements. This gives off a vibe with some unfortunate implications (could be construed as attempting to draw away attention from words of other editors). Matma Rex talk 23:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bolded topic-headers, which I place at the start of some paragraphs, are indeed "headings" of sub-sections, but those bolded phrases do not get listed (nor wikilinked) in the Table of Contents. When I make a short reply, not a major change of sub-topic, then I use plain non-bolded text. It just happens to be a pattern where I tend to reply as whole sub-topics, rather than tiny short replies, and while some people might view the bolded headers as "draw away attention" from current discussion, other people have commented to me how they see the bolded topic and know they can "ignore" the comment because it names the topic which they have no interest in reading. Hence, rather than "draw attention away" from thoughts, the bolded topic can warn readers to not read further because they can pre-screen (by the bolded phrase) for how it might distract from the original line of discussion, and many people have replied above a bolded paragraph to continue the original narrow focus.
Hence, the bolded-topic headers have worked, in practice, to clearly segment discussion into the various bolded sub-topics. In comparison, I dislike plain text which quietly wanders off-topic, or which is actually a "shaggy dog story" which seems to continue the discussion, but midway, the topic changes, or morphs, into a far tangent, and there was no "bolded heading" to warn of a complete shift into an off-topic tangent. The result often becomes a mass of plain text, with no bolded-topic dividers, and very difficult to re-read and determine where the thread diverted into major side-topics in the mass of plain text. Again, a bolded-topic phrase is indeed a sub-header which is omitted from the table-of-contents, as if "====subtopic====" but not a grandiose level-4 header, which would be supremely listed in the contents index. Does that make sense now? -Wikid77 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, no, it doesn't. But okay. :) Matma Rex talk 09:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The community are generally cautious when considering candidates with a block/ban record; though if the block/ban is over 12 months ago, and the candidate demonstrates that they have changed, and that the behaviour which led to the block/ban would not occur again, the community will tend to trust the candidate. A candidate with an existing block/ban in place is not going to gain the community's trust. The way to do it, is to have the block/ban lifted - behave appropriately for at least 12 months, and try again. If you yourself feel that on appeal the ban wouldn't be lifted, or that you need the ban in place to prevent you from behaving inappropriately, then you are indicating that you don't feel you are trustworthy, and so you are not going to gain the community's trust. My recommendation is that you withdraw your nomination (you can do that either on the RfA page or here on your talkopage by simply saying "I withdraw my RfA nomination"), wait at least a month (so there's no spill over from the RfA) and then appeal your topic ban. If you get the topic ban lifted, wait at least 12 months, and try at RfA again - explaining what you have done, and why things are different this time.

And there's no need to get too stressed that this RfA is not working out - there are many respected Wikipedians who didn't pass RfA on first attempt. And that includes me! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your RfA as unsucessful. Hopefully you got enough feedback to decide how you want to proceed.

Regards, Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, I think it was fairly obvious that a block-log is viewed as an immense "scar" on the reputation of a Wikipedian, even 2.3 years after the final entry (or 7 years after a wp:3RR block). -Wikid77 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know - it was taking me a lot of time to research you, you've been very active, and I winced at some things, but I was still unable to see why I shouldn't support you. So thanks for running and I hope to be able to support next time. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and meanwhile, I will try to find ways to help the Lua and template-editing admins, so they do not all get burnt out by the complexity of today's massive, intricate Lua script modules and templates. In formal software development, as you may known, there are firm guideline rules to not write overly complex source code but not here yet, and many modules or templates are likely far too confusing, even for professional programmers, so imagine the frustration for admins trying to update templates which are more-complicated (and less-documented) than professional computer source code. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikid, I'm sorry to see that your RfA didn't succeed this time. If you want to try again, I'd say the first step is to get the topic ban lifted, so that it's not hanging over you. I saw you post somewhere that it protected you, but I can't see how that's the case: the way to protect yourself is just to avoid those articles. If you go to whichever board or admin imposed the topic ban, and explain that you haven't edited those articles since X, and have no intention of editing them again, but that the ban is hanging over you and helped to torpedo your RfA, it's likely to be lifted.

Also, if you need an admin to add your edits to protected templates, so long as the changes aren't contentious or have consensus, I'd be willing to do it for you if that would help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have been leary to lift the ban and re-enter "open season on Knox editors" because I recreated the Amanda Knox article in June 2010 and tended to talk with interested new editors, which was then often claimed as "collusion for advocacy" or improper wp:CANVAS, but now, after the acquittals there should be less suspicion of advocacy. As I recall, there were dozens of editors who were blocked, which bolstered the primal fear, plus most editors who wrote about exculpatory evidence are gone now (including long-term editors), while most who suppressed the evidence in articles are still here. However, I will try your advice in a month or so, because I have learned in 3 years how to avoid those articles. As for protected templates, I am content to use {editprotected} and wait a week, or month, because even that is preferable to people wondering for 3 years why all those templates have not been updated. It was often a case of so many fascinating topics in Wikipedia, I forgot to check back on templates from years ago, but now I realize how the 74% (wp:Silent majority) of editors who avoid talk-pages (or bickering) are busy working on amazing articles and not getting blocked. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry the RFA didn't work out. I don't doubt for a second that aspects of the toolbox would have aided your work and that you would have been reliable with the whole package. Hopefully they'll figure out that they need to break apart the tool kit — I don't see the election process changing and yeah, ancient history on the block log looms large and probably always will with respect to blocking and deletion buttons. Just remember that you don't need validation through RFA. Also, I'm completely serious that your regular opinions (which would certainly run counter to the majority there) would be an outstanding addition at Wikipediocracy. Do consider it. Best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA /// Carrite (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikid77. If your time permits, please review Q7, and its continuation on the RfA talk page. I believe you possess the insight we need to achieve a quick resolution and beseech you to consider sharing that needed insight. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	RFA Barnstar
	I'm sorry that your RFA got snowed. In return, here's a barnstar! buffbills7701 20:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We can also be more vigil to refute improper comments at other RfA pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was hoping to be notified and will review. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, mostly for you at Template talk:Convert/hand. Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• EEP! Can you just delete Template:Rndhands? We don't round hands in horse land in official measurements, though people might do so in practice (but that can go up or down, depending on the breed; the pony people are totally nuts in this department). We might round to the nearest half-inch or centimeter for practical purposes, but not when it counts in competition, especially on the margins (compare to weight classes in boxing or wrestling, there's a magic cutoff number and if you're over it, you are bumped). I think this is not an itch that needs to be scratched. (humbly beseeching) Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit removed brackets within a verbatim quote so that you're putting words in the mouth of a source who did not say those words. We cannot deliberately misquote someone. I had thought this was a bot, but apparently it's a person, so I ask you not to put words in someone's mouth that they did not say. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Honor System (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks so much for adding the map at Union of Italian Jewish Communities. Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Foreign relations of Taiwan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stericated 7-simplexes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | style="background:#e7dcc3;"|[[Coxeter group]]||A₇×2, [<span/>[[<span/>[3⁶]], order 80320

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kafr Lam may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• East|first=Adrian J.|last=Boas|publisher=Routledge|year=1999}} ISBN 0-415-17361-2, 9780415173612}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Međimurje horse creator uses cm; we need hands and inches conversion for a range I've tried but failed, so temporarily did it with a clunky method (see article). Can you make it work in a simpler way, as we can do with {{hands|15.1|to|16.1}}, which renders as 15.1 to 16.1 hands (61 to 65 inches, 155 to 165 cm) ? I tried but failed with {{convert/show2 |155|to|165|cm|hand|in}} Feel free to have at it. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 23:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Created unit-code "hand in" for limited cases: I have created a special type of compound unit-code, as "hand in" to show both output amounts with full unit names "hands" and "inches". Note the examples:

• {{convert|99|cm|hand in}} → 99 centimetres (9.3 hands; 39 in)
• {{convert/2 |88|to|99|cm|hand in}}             → {{convert/2|88|to|99|cm|hand in}}
• {{convert/2 |88|to|99|cm|hand in|abbr=on}} → {{convert/2|88|to|99|cm|hand in|abbr=on}}

The new compound unit-code "hand in" is a special, unusual format, and it cannot be used in typical range conversions, only with Template:Convert/2 to show a range, and the output units cannot yet be abbreviated by "abbr=on". Sorry I did not create the compound unit-code days ago, but it is a very complex, tedious case. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Can you pop this into the convert/hands template so it's available for future use? And if you would want to be a truly wonderful human being, could you do the edit on Međimurje horse so the un-syntax savvy like myself can just see it in action. I think the folks at the convert talk page did something there too. Montanabw^(talk) 23:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like "I have also suggested to Jimbo that Wikia should fix edit-conflicts, since most are easy to auto-merge, and computer scientists have known for years how to recover from edit-conflicts. This "ain't rocket science" or even consumer loan origination which has 18 independent variables affecting the loan-payment calculations." are not useful and make it harder to respond to the actual problem. Please stop. Legoktm (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I have redacted those phrases at VPT. I had suspected the comments about Wikia would likely be off-topic, as outside the scope of WMF, but it was part of a longer comment and I apologize I did not omit those phrases. Thanks for clarifying your concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that really wasn't enough. Your whole paragraph of It also doesn't help that the developers think edit-conflicts are ok, and not a massive, high-priority problem to be solved (this month) by changing diff3.c and setting read-lock semaphores in the system. Even in a distributed system, with mirrored databases, there will be write-lock and read-lock operations which limit access to the latest stored revision of a page. The whole concept of test-and-set access to resources has been known to software developers for decades. Most conflicts are easy to auto-merge, and computer scientists have known for years how to recover from edit-conflicts. It is merely a case of comparing 3 revisions of a page, while a read-lock prevents another user from trying to perform an edit-save against the same prior revision, during the intervening few seconds. is off-topic. The user is asking for help with a timeout related edit conflict. While your advice might be good intentioned, it is distracting from the actual problem. If you have suggestions on how to fix edit conflicts, you can file a bug in mw:Bugzilla or submit a patch to mw:Gerrit. Legoktm (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you just received the protected template editor userright. Are there any full protected templates that you'd like to edit? Let me know and I'll downgrade the protection so you can do so. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Verndale, Minnesota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army War College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the opportunity, I'd appreciate any critical feedback you might have on an idea I've been kicking around and have finally put into writing. I want to get a couple of people's opinions in advance of possibly suggesting it at Village Pump. It's at User:Alanyst/Curations. I'm asking you because I've seen your involvement in technical innovation and optimization of Wikipedia infrastructure. Thanks, alanyst 13:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful changing these. Bo-Bo is an AAR arrangement (actually a British variant of this - the Yanks don't distinguish B-B from Bo-Bo), the corresponding UIC classification is Bo'Bo'. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you performed a major edit after someone put an {{in use}} template on the article? [3] --Rschen7754 23:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been editing that page for hours, and it has been hitting the 60-second timeout limit with "wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" during the past 8 edits. I was trying to get the page to reformat faster. Apparently, other editors neglected to look at the page history, to notice all the current edits I have made and failed to coordinate with me as if template {in_use} would override the edits I have been making for hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted by someone else while I was in the process of doing so myself. My edit summary was to be: "take to talk for consensus first". You should know that your edits to that template would be controversial. Please discuss them out first, or people are liable to ask that your template editor userright be revoked to prevent you from editing against consensus. Imzadi 1979 → 04:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was an accident and not intentional. –Fredddie™ 04:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then accept my apologies. If not, I stand by my statement. Imzadi 1979 → 04:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for reverting so quickly. I was doing a Run-Preview as {Jct} to test operation of a new Template:JctUS, which runs 10x faster (3 sec. where {Jct} runs 30 seconds), and in the midst of https-protocol cache updates, I somehow saved that copy. BUT NOW, I know to leave the edit-summary blank when doing a Run-Preview in another template's space. I have my Special:Preferences set to warn for blank edit-summary, and it has prevented saving about 20 unintentional edits. Anyway thanks again for the rapid revert. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equazcion has a nice script that guards against accidental edits to protected pages, might be more reliable than the blank summary trick. See User:Equazcion/SafetyEdit.js and Wikipedia talk:Template editor#Script. PaleAqua (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're trying to help in proposing changes to jct/jctint/et al., and your intentions are appreciated. However, the road WikiProjects already have an effort underway to rewrite these templates to fix the issues you have concerns with, and making continual proposals to split the templates in various ways is distracting from that. I would like to ask you to consider allowing us to finish rewriting the templates and then raise any concerns you have with the rewritten templates when they're done. As it stands now, consensus is pretty consistently for the rewrites and against the splitting; we can do an RFC to affirm that consensus, if you like, but I think it would be a better use of everyone's time if you were to disengage for a couple of months and come back and discuss ways to further improve the new templates when they're finished. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naya Lahore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyallpur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've seen you around and thought you might be interested in IRC. There are a variety of channels within the Wikimedia and Mediawiki realm, especially those involving more technical matters which you seem interested in. You can use a browser-side client like webchat or use any IRC client to access Freenode if you are interested. Killiondude (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote in your page that: "Future open: From what I've seen, the Wiki concept could be extended to greatly improve reliability, but allow anonymous editing of articles outside a screening phase, warning users to refer to the fact-checked revision as screened for accuracy (this eventually happened in German Wikipedia).".

Will it be possible for you to elaborate, concerning what happened in the German Wikipedia?

You highlighted the Mobocracy problem, and in my opinion there should be some treatment for it. e.g. Users who applies a war of attrition tactics, cheat, lie, delete supported sentences etc. Recently a wp:drn editor decided in my favor, but it was very long and exhausting debate. I had plenty of supporting wp:rs while the other side had none. Moreover, one the other editors lied: few months ago he supported my view, but during this discussion he fought against it, with a lot of reasoning and writing, and without any supporting wp:rs. there is nothing to do about such a behavior, and he will repeat it , in my opinion.

Will this German Wikipedia rule help a little bit against such this kind of editing? Ykantor (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:Pending_changes allows limited editing: The system used by the German Wikipedia, to control edits made by other users, is called "wp:Pending changes" where many people can submit proposed edits to the selected pages, but only a reviewer can approve the edits to be applied to the live pages, and viewed by the general public. The problem, here, is that some of the troublesome editors can gain the reviewer right and are able to approve improper edits as if reviewed by a fair, balanced editor. In the specific case, which you mentioned, then wp:PC might work well for several months, until the troublesome users can be controlled by other sanctions. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting. I guess it could improve a lot the situation at the Arab- Israeli conflict articles. However, there is a sided administrator who consistently support the troublemaker. So this admin, might grant Reviewer rights to the troublemaker !. Thank you Ykantor (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to that is to avoid having any sided administrators! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the gift! -Wikid77 (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—posting notifications with the intention of influencing the outcome of Template talk:Convert#RfC towards one side of the debate. While appropriate notifications are allowed, they should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices that espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Johnuniq's original notification at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 120#Module:Convert is a good example of how to post neutrally worded notices. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but there is no problem with canvassing to people who have no prior stated opinion in a matter, and the wording provides clear facts and does not advocate to post either a Support/Oppose decision in a discussion, as I know well from having helped to write policy wp:CANVAS. Perhaps next time, check to see if a person has written the policy you are addressing. In general, the use of wp:CANVAS-thumping tends to shutdown collaborative work, so I would advise you to be more reserved with your opinions in the future. The hindrance to collaboration was a major reason I had rewrite wp:CANVAS. Just a word to the wise. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Something being factual does not make it neutrally worded. Your notices to VPT contained loaded language and opinions, such as your claim the previous proposal was "strongly opposed" (disputed by Huntster). Your messages were worded to only include information that supported your own ideas. Though you did not specifically say "please support my proposal", your message was advocating support for your proposal. This is disruptive to consensus-building because people arriving at the RFC from your notice could be biased towards your views, unfairly swaying the balance of opinion.

  Thanks for drawing your contribution to WP:Canvassing to my attention. I like reading through the history of pages, and often learn interesting things while doing so. I think you overstated your contribution somewhat, though. You started a talk page discussion, which inspired Kotniski to edit the page. Their changes did not use any wording you suggested (you didn't suggest any; you wanted the page demoted to an essay). Saying you rewrote wp:CANVAS is rather misleading. Regardless of the significance of your contribution, contributing something to a guideline doesn't give you a greater say over how that page should be interpreted than any other editor.

  That discussion you started also revealed something else interesting: you have past form for canvassing. Under the circumstances, I would have thought you would show more caution about posting notices of discussions. (BTW, the talk page posts you archived in Sep 2010 never made it to your archives.)

  Should you consider posting discussion notices in the future, please constrain yourself to simply stating what is being discussed and where it is being discussed (no more than two sentences). You don't need to explain the background or reasoning behind the discussion, and definitely do not include any argumentation. For example "I have started a discussion about X at Y. Please give your views." is a good notice. "I propose to X. Please discuss at Y." works well too. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing "neutrally worded" with "hollow message with no context or background". As a degreed information scientist, let me remind you that a "hollow message with no context or background" provides no context or background to the reader. The main goal is to have collaboration, and your barking of no-edit orders to me, or no-content in messages is merely disruptive and a colossal waste of my valuable time, which I am sure you have never considered. Please refrain, or limit yourself to "two sentences" and very short, in talking with me. I am extremely offended by your tone of messages, and find your actions and argumentative reasoning appalling. If you have considered my ideas, at all, even remotely, then I suggest to rethink your actions, carefully, during the next 2-6 months and perhaps imagine if you could find some ways of working with other people. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the original heading to this section. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. You have a lot of leeway on your own talk page to organise comments, move them even to other pages or delete them but you should never rewrite them to change their meaning, even if you disagree with them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at various suspect pages, to see if they are showing "invalid unit" or "unit mismatch" from the Lua Convert. Also, I have been updating the prior threads at Tt:Convert to use {convert/old}, where the results have been nonsense with the Lua version running as {convert}. -Wikid77 07:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Lenbot. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Lenbot redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DePiep (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC) /* Template:Lenbot listed at Redirects for discussion */[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Convert/lenbot. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Convert/lenbot redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DePiep (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of oil refineries may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• oilbbl/d|m3/d|abbr=on}}, the refinery was shut in 2009, now it is only a distribution terminal}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phymorhynchus castaneus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operculum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Crapnology indeed. Best felicitations in the holiday season. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

/* A Dobos torte for you! */

<<end>>

NOTE: See User_talk:Wikid77/Archive_9.