User talk:Technical 13/2016/2

Nomination for deletion of Template:Web Entertainment
Template:Web Entertainment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Technical 13/Drafts/Caroline Strong
User:Technical 13/Drafts/Caroline Strong, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Technical 13/Drafts/Caroline Strong and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Technical 13/Drafts/Caroline Strong 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If there’s a problem with me, talk to me
Hi. I’ve responded to some of your allegations at WP:ANI. For anything else, please take it up with me directly rather than advocating that I should be blocked without being informed of the existence of a problem. My Talk page is always open if you have something you would like me to explain or justify. And even if you are to be passive-aggressive, I’d much prefer you do it to my face than indirectly on a noticeboard. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't do that unless you decide to register for an account on wikipedia. I just don't bother leaving messages or starting discussions on the talk pages of IP anon editors because IPs are too dynamic and I don't want to have to chase you to discuss it. We can discuss it on ANI (since you started the discussion there) or we can discuss it here I suppose (although I am pretty busy, so I may be very slow in responding to any comments you may make). I'll also note that I haven't indicated or suggested that you should be blocked. I suggested that you should have been blocked at a previous point when you were being excessively disruptive and engaged in an edit war that you then acknowledge would have never happened if you had an understanding of what the policy you were claiming was justification for a redlink to a topic that surely fell under rednot. You also weren't following the BRD process, You were bold, you were reverted, no further reversions should have occurred until the discussion had concluded (whether the user who reverted you wanted to contribute or not). Had you just stopped there, and discussed it and researched if the thing you were trying to redlink could have been a viable topic, you'd have found it couldn't and the whole thing would have died there.  Anyways, I'm tired since I had a long day, so I'll be going to bed shortly.  Feel free to continue this discussion here or there, and I'll respond when I have time (I may be active and make other edits to other pages or other sections of this page without responding here, my time is often very short and this topic is honestly near the bottom of my priority list.  I will however respond before it get's archived (even if I have to bump it)). —   02:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * “IPs are too dynamic and I don't want to have to chase you to discuss it.” You don’t have to worry about that; my IP address is static and hasn’t changed in the, lemme check… almost a year since I’ve started editing anonymously. But if you have a problem with me that requires intervention, then sure, we can discuss it at ANI. I’d prefer a more civil and WP:CALM discussion, though.
 * How can a discussion conclude if it never begins? I asked, I waited, nothing happened, so I reverted. And you forget, I think, that other, uninvolved editors (solicited through WP:3O) were also supportive of the redlink. It seems unfair of you to lay all the blame on me, and to accuse me of being disruptive when he was reverting against consensus (and seems to have a bit of a history of doing so).
 * Here, then, is a more complete sequence of events to work with:
 * I see an unlinked meta-series name, and I link it, assuming that something involving so many famous titles must naturally be due for an article.
 * Eaglestorm reverts, apparently because he thinks redlinks are universally unacceptable.
 * I post to the Talk page to explain that some redlinks are okay.
 * While waiting for a response, I notice he’s edited the article in the meantime. Assuming he has seen the Talk page and would have made a counterargument if he had one, I restore the link, since there’s no readily apparent reason not to.
 * He reverts, claiming a conflict of interest (what?).
 * I post to his page, pointing out my post on the article’s Talk and inviting him to tell me I’m wrong.
 * A day and a half later, I’m still the only one to have posted about this. I reinstate my edit with an explanatory edit summary. (This one, I admit, may have been objectively improper.)
 * He reverts with no explanation whatsoever. He also reverts my post to his page with “desperation play” (what?).
 * Frustrated by this guy’s apparent refusal to do any collaborating on this collaborative project, I post an edit war warning on his page along with taking issue with his tactics, post the question to the article’s Talk again, and solicit WP:Third opinion.
 * Two editors respond, both agreeing that the title should be redlinked. I post to Eaglestorm’s page to inform him of this.
 * A third uninvolved editor reinstates the link.
 * So there’s the edit warring in context. If you still think my conduct was disruptive in context, I’m open to constructive criticism. Besides making that second revert (7), and besides intuiting that he had a point which he never made, what should I have done differently here? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * “why this IP editor is hitting dozens of pages deprecating template uses”—Because I came across it being used to completely wrap section headings (thus duplicating their anchors/IDs), so I checked the template’s transclusions and found it was a fairly common error.
 * “insisting policy pages be changed because of some flawed perception of some law that pages must follow with no exceptions”—If you’re referring to WT:Basic copyediting, Wikipedia editors and pages are (quite reasonably) expected to follow Web standards. More to the point, I’m of the opinion that adhering to standards, particularly from a usability and accessibility standpoint, will improve the encyclopedia, and I don’t think anyone would claim otherwise. Do you disagree?
 * “and attempting to wikilaywer their will to be done”—You’re gonna have to be more specific. Is this about me trying to get project pages to follow Web standards? That should be uncontroversial.
 * “then that reeks to me as a fairly wikiyoung editor evading a block and attempting to cause as much disruption as they can.”—Wrong on all counts. I did get blocked once, but that was on this IP address.
 * I'd expect that an SPI investigation of said IP isn't out of the question”—Go for it. Just please drop the hostility until there’s a result. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * my IP address is static
 * I asked, I waited, nothing happened, so I reverted. I'm sorry, hours is not "I waited" by any standards.
 * you forget, I think, that other, uninvolved editors (solicited through WP:3O) were also supportive of the redlink via WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override WP:REDNOT and the WP:GNG
 * You missed WP:REDNOT and therefor assumed wrong
 * You assume what he thinks, and he was right that redlinks to pages that can never be topic are unacceptable
 * Yes they are, unless there is little or no probability that the topic can have an article (like the one you attempted to create)
 * You again assume something that may have been incorrect.
 * I have no idea where your claim of COI comes from, feel free to explain
 * WP:BATTLEGROUNDish if you ask me
 * Yep, was improper.
 * I can understand where he was coming from. I can also see where you were coming from.
 * WP:CALM, WP:DTTR, WP:NPA (you got frustrated - should have just backed away for a bit if you were frustrated, yep - just an essay with a counter essay of WP:TTR - you have to judge who you are posting templates on - I personally welcome fresh trout when I'm a noob - someone who's as anti-social as this user - unlikely, "taking issue with his tactics" - his tactics aren't the issue - the content of the article is and the redlink didn't belong)
 * WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - WP:3O is not a cure all and WP:ANI is not the next step in the WP:DR process (it should be the last step and you skipped right over the WP:DRN).
 * Not sure who you're referring to here. Drmies was reverting soly on the grounds that this editor wasn't communicating, not that they were incorrect.
 * I hope my blow by blow response helps you understand what your saying to me, and offers some insight as to how you could have done it better. If you had done a Google search before initially adding those square brackets, none of this would have happened. If you had stopped to red all of RED, I and investigated why it had been reverted in the first place, all of this would have been avoided. I'd also suggest backing off a little bit on your dictator tone and actually listening when well established editors (regardless of how well liked they are) try to explain to you why something shouldn't be changed. While I don't personally object to your preference of editing as an IP (and I support your right to do so), if you are going to be a regular editor, you may want to consider creating an account which allows you the ability to build some credibility on the encyclopedia as a "regular" editor. I'm sure it would improve your reception, and if you're truly WP:HERE, it actually provides more anonymity by hiding your IP (which resolves to Southern Florida) and improving your accountability.  Anyways, happy editing. —   04:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I ed with your addition to your post, and I'm too tired to go through the new points added tonight. Maybe tomorrow or another day. —   04:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that EC.

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

To 2: He never specified.

To 5:. I have no idea, either.

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

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

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

One last thing, and possibly the most important: What exactly do you mean by my “dictator tone”? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I still would very much like to know what you meant by: “I'd also suggest backing off a little bit on your dictator tone”. If this advice was given in good faith, then please explain it so that I may follow it. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CoINlinks
Template:CoINlinks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by skin has been nominated for discussion
Category:Wikipedians by skin, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox software/Sandbox
Template:Infobox software/Sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox software/Test cases
Template:Infobox software/Test cases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:(pf)-meta
Template:(pf)-meta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/no consensus
Template:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/no consensus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/delete
Template:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/delete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/retarget
Template:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/retarget has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Web Entertainment
Template:Web Entertainment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:(pfs)time:
Template:(pfs)time: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)