User talk:Kephir/archive/2013/02

The /dated template
Maybe you can see my confusion with the PROD/dated template? The first sentence says to subst, then the second sentence says not to subst it. I see now that the first sentence refers to the main PROD template, but it still looks confusing to me, at least at a first glance. Does the /dated doc page really need that first sentence? It was so confusing that I started this discussion, and now it seems that I was quite misinformed. I'm sorry for my confusion, but that /dated/doc page wasn't being used, anyway. – Paine ( Climax !) 11:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC) PS. and thank you for correcting my error at Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic).
 * The first sentence says to substitute prod or proposed deletion, not proposed deletion/dated. Substituting the former will transclude the latter with the timestamp generated at substitution time. Keφr 11:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that now. Don't you see, though, that the way it's worded, one can easily miss that the first sentence does not refer to the /dated template "itself"?  At first read, it actually sounds like the second sentence contradicts the first sentence.  Also, if you read my discussion above, you'll see that the /dated/doc page has not been added to the /dated template page. – Paine ( Climax !)  11:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. Red rose64 took care of adding the /doc page to /dated a little while ago.

WP:COI+
Hi Kephir. I'm curious if you noticed the recent changes to the COI+ proposal which I believe brought it in line with all consensus policies and guidelines surrounding paid editors. Specifically, COI+ encourages sticking to the talk pages and does not currently advocate for direct editing, a view which is well within the community consensus on the appropriate role of paid editors. I don't think essay is the right tag for this page, as it's a set of agreements designed to be consistent with WP:COI. Perhaps no template would be a better option, and just use a hatnote with shortcuts separately? Cheers, and thanks for your feedback. Ocaasit &#124; c 22:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I replied on the project's talk page. I think it is better to discuss it publicly with everyone who might be interested. Keφr 07:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ch page status to 'Essay'. Insufficient  content  to  be a Wikipedia guidance essay.
Hi. I'm just  letting  you  know that  I  have reverted an edit you made. For this kind of change, please obtain consensus. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you only were so kind to point to the actual page. I guess you meant WP:NOTNAS. First, WP:DRNC. (Another thing would be if I changed it to be policy. But I did not.) WP:AAAGF is much shorter, and yet no one complains about "insufficient content to be an essay". It is written like an essay, and as you can see in the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_you_won%27t_learn_in_new_admin_school&diff=538003986&oldid=536788759 edit which changed it to "information page"], it previously noted that "There are people who will disagree strongly with the views presented here". So this is not an "information page which describes communal consensus", this is a piece which tries to make a point: an essay. Please revert back. Keφr 06:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)