This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 85 | ← | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | → | Archive 95 |
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HTML element 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(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Template:Date series header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, SMcC, I just got myself extracted from that new font bug, and what a headache that was. They seem to have got it so I can now read my screen, but now I can't read your sig. I could always read it before. Screenshot: [1] Did you do something new to it? — Neotarf ( talk) 06:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
User_talk:Ring_Cinema/Archive_3#As_a_practical_matter_... and User_talk:Ring_Cinema/Archive_4#Good_faith_is_as_good_faith_does. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess you don't know that change requires consensus. If you don't know that, it seems like you shouldn't be editing the Consensus policy page. Bad form! When you're reverted, even on something small, take it to discussion. That's the process and procedure. Thanks for all your good edits! -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 16:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm honest and accurate. I recommend it for everyone. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello
I ask here to you this, because you contributed on Stern talk page. I'm contributor on french wiki. I found info on Sam Stern. Look at this. Sam Stern has been hired by Bally Manufacturing in 1969. but i don't know the date he stpped. more, reading seeburg and stern page, Sam Stern should be executive CEO untill 1979 at williams Manufacturing Company ? / create Stern Electronics in 1977 ? / and become seeburg president since 1980 ? !
I can't find anymore info, my native language is french, and it's pretty difficult to go further in research.
PS : i also Added a message on SNK page without answer of anyone! Best regards.-- Archimëa ( talk) 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
All this arguing is wearing me a bit. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Removing_current_consensus_from_guidelines. Let's see if we can agree on some general principles. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect
T:FAUNA. Since you had some involvement with the T:FAUNA redirect, you might want to participate in
the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.
John Vandenberg (
chat)
17:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference to WP:ARBATC. I notice mention there at WP:ARBATC#Individual sanctions of one against you. Is it current? Andrewa ( talk) 01:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you are repeatedly violating the current sanction. Please refrain from questioning my motives, as in argument for its own sake, pretense of understanding a debate you haven't researched at all above.
I'd also strongly advise you to keep your replies succinct and to the point. As well as questioning my motives, the above attacks me in ways that are simply over the top. I've been doing a great deal of research... including reading the arbcom decision of course, but that was a while ago and I had not realised that you had been specifically sanctioned, or if I did I'd forgotten. Andrewa ( talk) 13:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If we continue henceforth to stop stepping on each others' toes, that'll probably be the end of it. Maybe we'll even be good collaborators (Noetica and I were for a long time, and e-met each other through a personal conflict very similar to this one). If we do come into conflict again, I think we should try to resolve the matter with discussion. It's seemed to work okay so far. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Even though I've strenuously disagreed with the format and nature of that poll-like discussion you initiated over there, I do have to admit that the reliable sourcing round it resulted in has been productive. Well, not so much for the pro-capitalization argument, but which side is WP:WINNING isn't the point; an end to the dispute and having 5 guidelines finally stop contradicting each other is the point. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
"All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article."Some wikiprojects seem to act this way (well, rather, their most vocal "natural leader" members do, while most ignore this crap as wiki-political noise of no interest to them, and go back about editing articles, rolling their eyes). But the actual anti-WP:OWN views here are a vanishingly tiny minority. The problem is that these messages are loud and tenacious ones, and they rapidly attract new "recruits" because they seem to promise increased power, authority and "rights", like some form of topical adminship without the scrutiny of WP:RFA.
But it actually is also a legitimate style matter, and the reliable sources as well as common sense fall solidly on the side of lower case. Virtually no one uses upper case for common names of species but specialized guidebooks and journals. And we have a really clear policy about that, too, even titled to specifically address both classes of usage! WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. There is no tenable position for capitalizing this stuff here, not without changing several different policies, radically. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
which are just the most common case of this and go much the same way but with more twists and turnsis referring to. The arguments from other style guides all say "do not capitalize these things". Even the world's most prestigious science journals do not capitalize species names even in ornithology articles. The WP:BIRDS claims that ornithological style is unique are nonsense; herpetology journals also mostly capitalize, but we do not pick up their habit here. The reason that this has kinda been done on WP with regard to birds is nothing but force of personality in one self-selecting group. There is no other difference at all. I recently posted a challenge to the idea that the IOC list was somehow qualitatively different, somehow "more special", more authoritative, whatever, than the name lists in other fields like herpetology, and cited them, and said show me what the difference is. Result? Dead silence.
Anyway, "I'm fascinated to know how" you possibly could have missed the fact that the IOC conventions require specialist knowledge to write correctly, despite how many times it's been covered (by many, not just me) over the years this has been going on, especially when I recently cited the Handbook of the Birds of the World criticizing the IOC's particular capitalization scheme, unless you simply have not been reading anything from any side of this issue other than watch catches your eye for a few second. Did you even read the quite short WP:BIRDS#NAMING review of the complicated rules? They require exact knowledge of the scientific classification of the species or subspecies in question and its relation to others in order to get it right for any given bird if a hyphen is involved, and so on. That's why anotehr bird taxomonic authority rejected the IOC's system as too complicated to be useful. Oh, two of them did, actually; forgetful me. Are the facts of the debate simply not of interest to you? Has only the debate as a thing unto itself, like a reality show, caught your attention?
It's highly unlikely that that straw poll mess will result in any kind of consensus at all, though it clearly hints which direction it will eventually go (since, gosh, it's already gone that way again and again, every time the debate comes up in a bigger venue than WT:BIRDS). I'm happy to see a 3-to-1 majority in favor of lower case, which is about what I predicted (I think it will be closer to 4-to-1 soon enough), but I expect that WP:BIRDS will reject it as not-really-a-consensus, because it's an impenetrable thicket of sub-sub-sections, littered with link-farms to bogus ngram searches, people voting in the wrong section and editwarring about people moving their !votes to the right section, and blah blah blah. It would be an insult to the community to list that thing at RFC or CENT. It needs to be started over, from a draft RFC that both sides buy into the wording of, and with a rule at the top against inserting comments into the !vote sections between people's posts, only commenting in a comment section, and enforce this by refactoring regularly. We can put sourcing on separate pages.
Or the status quo can just continue. More people, who do not regularly edit MOS, are going to file RMs to move bird articles, more people are going to remove LOCALCONSENSUS gunk from guideline pages, and the weird-capitalization wall will just come apart, brick by brick, as it's been steadily doing since 2008. I'd be happier with a "clean" RFC, but whatever. Even Casliber says the lower-case side of this debate "has the numbers". We clearly and more importantly have the sources and the reasoning; the birders have nothing but a tradition of sorts that they like a lot and want us to like, to no avail.
In the interim, I'm working on some ideas to provide a compromise I think people can all live with after tempers cool (despite my anti-fanclub's beliefs, I actually want all sides to be okay with what we end up doing). I am not interested in squabbling with you further in public. If you feel we need to argue about something, you can e-mail me directly (or we can Skype or whatever); this medium is too slow and formal. If we each had a better idea where the other party was coming from and why, I think our interaction might go more smoothly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've generally tried to avoid commenting in any detail on the argument that the English names of species should be capitalized because they are proper names, because it's a complex area of linguistics (which I'm used to teaching to undergraduates, so find difficult to discuss at the right level on a talk page). If you're interested, I've updated my thoughts at User:Peter coxhead/English species names as proper names. I don't think that English grammar supports either view, and particularly not that bird names should be capitalized in English. If you find the essay at all useful, feel free to commend it to bird capitalization enthusiasts! Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll extend the olive branch | |
I don't seek to be adversarial and I meant no offense. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
{{
Olive branch}}
was a redlink, though. For my part, I didn't mean to go on at that much length at the retention page. I didn't see what a screenful+ it was until after the fact. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC) On a second read I was also unnecessarily intemperate. Sorry about that. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
Olive Branch}}
.
PaleAqua (
talk)
04:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
Olive branch 2}}
, and the old one to {{
Olive branch}}
leaving the redirect or vice versa.
PaleAqua (
talk)
05:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Tlxb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redirect actually. DePiep ( talk) 22:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Template:Tlb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rediredct actually. - DePiep ( talk) 22:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Notifying myself for the record, in case I need to search for it later. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on April 16, 2014. Please send me an email at jmatthews@wikimedia.org if you would like to claim your shirt. -- JMatthews (WMF) ( talk) 00:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hamburger Schule 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've made a suggestion at the afc that I now close it--could you look, and say if you agree? DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to be such a patronising arse. It might leave you with a nice smug feeling but it really doesn't contribute much to the debate in question. -- Chuunen Baka ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I've recreated (some of) {{ tlg}} in Lua w/ a shorthand here -- it works 86% percent of the time! Anyway, this way should be easier to maintain, and we'll still have a shorter syntax if the tl-whatever tpls get deleted. If you like the idea, then maybe we can pitch it at tlg's talk page or wherever. If not, then oh well. — lfdder 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 85 | ← | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | → | Archive 95 |
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HTML element 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(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Template:Date series header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, SMcC, I just got myself extracted from that new font bug, and what a headache that was. They seem to have got it so I can now read my screen, but now I can't read your sig. I could always read it before. Screenshot: [1] Did you do something new to it? — Neotarf ( talk) 06:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
User_talk:Ring_Cinema/Archive_3#As_a_practical_matter_... and User_talk:Ring_Cinema/Archive_4#Good_faith_is_as_good_faith_does. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess you don't know that change requires consensus. If you don't know that, it seems like you shouldn't be editing the Consensus policy page. Bad form! When you're reverted, even on something small, take it to discussion. That's the process and procedure. Thanks for all your good edits! -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 16:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm honest and accurate. I recommend it for everyone. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello
I ask here to you this, because you contributed on Stern talk page. I'm contributor on french wiki. I found info on Sam Stern. Look at this. Sam Stern has been hired by Bally Manufacturing in 1969. but i don't know the date he stpped. more, reading seeburg and stern page, Sam Stern should be executive CEO untill 1979 at williams Manufacturing Company ? / create Stern Electronics in 1977 ? / and become seeburg president since 1980 ? !
I can't find anymore info, my native language is french, and it's pretty difficult to go further in research.
PS : i also Added a message on SNK page without answer of anyone! Best regards.-- Archimëa ( talk) 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
All this arguing is wearing me a bit. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Removing_current_consensus_from_guidelines. Let's see if we can agree on some general principles. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect
T:FAUNA. Since you had some involvement with the T:FAUNA redirect, you might want to participate in
the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.
John Vandenberg (
chat)
17:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference to WP:ARBATC. I notice mention there at WP:ARBATC#Individual sanctions of one against you. Is it current? Andrewa ( talk) 01:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you are repeatedly violating the current sanction. Please refrain from questioning my motives, as in argument for its own sake, pretense of understanding a debate you haven't researched at all above.
I'd also strongly advise you to keep your replies succinct and to the point. As well as questioning my motives, the above attacks me in ways that are simply over the top. I've been doing a great deal of research... including reading the arbcom decision of course, but that was a while ago and I had not realised that you had been specifically sanctioned, or if I did I'd forgotten. Andrewa ( talk) 13:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If we continue henceforth to stop stepping on each others' toes, that'll probably be the end of it. Maybe we'll even be good collaborators (Noetica and I were for a long time, and e-met each other through a personal conflict very similar to this one). If we do come into conflict again, I think we should try to resolve the matter with discussion. It's seemed to work okay so far. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Even though I've strenuously disagreed with the format and nature of that poll-like discussion you initiated over there, I do have to admit that the reliable sourcing round it resulted in has been productive. Well, not so much for the pro-capitalization argument, but which side is WP:WINNING isn't the point; an end to the dispute and having 5 guidelines finally stop contradicting each other is the point. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
"All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article."Some wikiprojects seem to act this way (well, rather, their most vocal "natural leader" members do, while most ignore this crap as wiki-political noise of no interest to them, and go back about editing articles, rolling their eyes). But the actual anti-WP:OWN views here are a vanishingly tiny minority. The problem is that these messages are loud and tenacious ones, and they rapidly attract new "recruits" because they seem to promise increased power, authority and "rights", like some form of topical adminship without the scrutiny of WP:RFA.
But it actually is also a legitimate style matter, and the reliable sources as well as common sense fall solidly on the side of lower case. Virtually no one uses upper case for common names of species but specialized guidebooks and journals. And we have a really clear policy about that, too, even titled to specifically address both classes of usage! WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. There is no tenable position for capitalizing this stuff here, not without changing several different policies, radically. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
which are just the most common case of this and go much the same way but with more twists and turnsis referring to. The arguments from other style guides all say "do not capitalize these things". Even the world's most prestigious science journals do not capitalize species names even in ornithology articles. The WP:BIRDS claims that ornithological style is unique are nonsense; herpetology journals also mostly capitalize, but we do not pick up their habit here. The reason that this has kinda been done on WP with regard to birds is nothing but force of personality in one self-selecting group. There is no other difference at all. I recently posted a challenge to the idea that the IOC list was somehow qualitatively different, somehow "more special", more authoritative, whatever, than the name lists in other fields like herpetology, and cited them, and said show me what the difference is. Result? Dead silence.
Anyway, "I'm fascinated to know how" you possibly could have missed the fact that the IOC conventions require specialist knowledge to write correctly, despite how many times it's been covered (by many, not just me) over the years this has been going on, especially when I recently cited the Handbook of the Birds of the World criticizing the IOC's particular capitalization scheme, unless you simply have not been reading anything from any side of this issue other than watch catches your eye for a few second. Did you even read the quite short WP:BIRDS#NAMING review of the complicated rules? They require exact knowledge of the scientific classification of the species or subspecies in question and its relation to others in order to get it right for any given bird if a hyphen is involved, and so on. That's why anotehr bird taxomonic authority rejected the IOC's system as too complicated to be useful. Oh, two of them did, actually; forgetful me. Are the facts of the debate simply not of interest to you? Has only the debate as a thing unto itself, like a reality show, caught your attention?
It's highly unlikely that that straw poll mess will result in any kind of consensus at all, though it clearly hints which direction it will eventually go (since, gosh, it's already gone that way again and again, every time the debate comes up in a bigger venue than WT:BIRDS). I'm happy to see a 3-to-1 majority in favor of lower case, which is about what I predicted (I think it will be closer to 4-to-1 soon enough), but I expect that WP:BIRDS will reject it as not-really-a-consensus, because it's an impenetrable thicket of sub-sub-sections, littered with link-farms to bogus ngram searches, people voting in the wrong section and editwarring about people moving their !votes to the right section, and blah blah blah. It would be an insult to the community to list that thing at RFC or CENT. It needs to be started over, from a draft RFC that both sides buy into the wording of, and with a rule at the top against inserting comments into the !vote sections between people's posts, only commenting in a comment section, and enforce this by refactoring regularly. We can put sourcing on separate pages.
Or the status quo can just continue. More people, who do not regularly edit MOS, are going to file RMs to move bird articles, more people are going to remove LOCALCONSENSUS gunk from guideline pages, and the weird-capitalization wall will just come apart, brick by brick, as it's been steadily doing since 2008. I'd be happier with a "clean" RFC, but whatever. Even Casliber says the lower-case side of this debate "has the numbers". We clearly and more importantly have the sources and the reasoning; the birders have nothing but a tradition of sorts that they like a lot and want us to like, to no avail.
In the interim, I'm working on some ideas to provide a compromise I think people can all live with after tempers cool (despite my anti-fanclub's beliefs, I actually want all sides to be okay with what we end up doing). I am not interested in squabbling with you further in public. If you feel we need to argue about something, you can e-mail me directly (or we can Skype or whatever); this medium is too slow and formal. If we each had a better idea where the other party was coming from and why, I think our interaction might go more smoothly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've generally tried to avoid commenting in any detail on the argument that the English names of species should be capitalized because they are proper names, because it's a complex area of linguistics (which I'm used to teaching to undergraduates, so find difficult to discuss at the right level on a talk page). If you're interested, I've updated my thoughts at User:Peter coxhead/English species names as proper names. I don't think that English grammar supports either view, and particularly not that bird names should be capitalized in English. If you find the essay at all useful, feel free to commend it to bird capitalization enthusiasts! Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll extend the olive branch | |
I don't seek to be adversarial and I meant no offense. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
{{
Olive branch}}
was a redlink, though. For my part, I didn't mean to go on at that much length at the retention page. I didn't see what a screenful+ it was until after the fact. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC) On a second read I was also unnecessarily intemperate. Sorry about that. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
Olive Branch}}
.
PaleAqua (
talk)
04:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
Olive branch 2}}
, and the old one to {{
Olive branch}}
leaving the redirect or vice versa.
PaleAqua (
talk)
05:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Tlxb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redirect actually. DePiep ( talk) 22:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Template:Tlb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rediredct actually. - DePiep ( talk) 22:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Notifying myself for the record, in case I need to search for it later. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on April 16, 2014. Please send me an email at jmatthews@wikimedia.org if you would like to claim your shirt. -- JMatthews (WMF) ( talk) 00:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hamburger Schule 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've made a suggestion at the afc that I now close it--could you look, and say if you agree? DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to be such a patronising arse. It might leave you with a nice smug feeling but it really doesn't contribute much to the debate in question. -- Chuunen Baka ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I've recreated (some of) {{ tlg}} in Lua w/ a shorthand here -- it works 86% percent of the time! Anyway, this way should be easier to maintain, and we'll still have a shorter syntax if the tl-whatever tpls get deleted. If you like the idea, then maybe we can pitch it at tlg's talk page or wherever. If not, then oh well. — lfdder 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)