User talk:Steel1943/Archive 11

Special:Diff/693789555
This is not correct. may be either with or without namespace, but your code is broken if a namespace is given. You need to use  whenever you refer to a file by name in this template. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way, looks like you were able to address this concern with Special:Diff/721285758. Beats having redundant batches of code. Steel1943  (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I must have overlooked your code when I added my code, possibly because your code didn't work if a namespace is used. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I implemented the change referenced in this section header by merging it from Template:Ffd2a back when it wasn't a wrapper for Template:Ffd2. Steel1943  (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Steel1943. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ASteel1943 granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (disambiguation) (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (disambiguation) (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (disambiguation) (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good find. Hopefully it gets deleted quick: I have no idea what the "me of 2012" was thinking when I created it. Steel1943  (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion
Hi Steel1943. I am wondering if you would mind taking a look at Special:diff/Marchjuly/723477435, Special:diff/Marchjuly/723477531, Special:diff/Marchjuly/723478073 and Special:diff/Marchjuly/723478213. I removed the non-free logos with those edits because the way they were being used did not comply with NFCC#8 and NFCC310c, but removing them from the articles has made them orphans. If there were individual season articles for these teams, then I think it would be acceptable to add the file to the infoboxes for those articles. What I am wondering is whether it would be acceptable to add the champion teams logo to the infoboxes of the individual league season articles. Template:Infobox football league season does have a logo parameter, but it seems that this more for the logo of that particular season, not for any particular team. I am also a bit concerned that trying to fudge this a bit and use the logos in such a way might mistakenly be interpreted as meaning the same could be done for all such articles such as Special:diff/Marchjuly/723477682 where the removed logo is actually still being used in the stand-alone article for the team. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns with the edits you have made on those articles to remove the files per WP:NFCC (unless the logo itself is critically discussed somewhere in the article) and WP:NFCC. If I recall from some past discussions I've had, I think and believe that the main infobox should have the most recent logo for the team only, even if it is just for that season (since that would technically be the most recent logo), but probably if it omits text that pertains to the season itself. In regards to the logo in Bangkok Bank F.C., its placement is probably correct per WP:NFCC unless it's a formerly-used logo. And I'm skeptical about using individual season logos on season articles (if they existed) on how it would pertain to meeting WP:NFCC, so if I saw a "season logo" in a "season article", I'd probably not pursue trying to get it removed from the article. Steel1943  (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. It was a bit late for me when I posted the above, so it might have been a little more rambling than usual. I was just wondering if non-free use could be justified for using the logo a a championship winning team in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the tournament/league the team won. For example, if the Marchjuly team wins the 2016 Wikipedia Cup, then using the logo for the team in the infobox of the article "2016 Wikipedia Cup"; or, if the Marchjuly team won the 2012 won the 2012 Wikipedia Cup, then using the logo used by the team at the time (it currently uses a different logo) in the infobox of "2012 Wikipedia Cup". -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply: I thought I replied, but I must have overlooked the fact that I didn't. Anyways, I'd say that a dated logo may only be appropriate on an article with that date as part of its subject. Otherwise, the dare in the image should be omitted if possible. Steel1943  (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You'll probably want to revert this too
Addition to closing instructions  00:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your receptive reaction to my reverting of the closing of your self-initiated RfC. Though I opposed your changes, if an uninvolved administrator/editor sees consensus to implement your changes based on the RfC, I will have no issue (unless I think it's a blatant misconstruing of consensus.) However, I will find a way to put your original closing statement somewhere in the RfC (unless you want to) so that the eventual closer can take your assessment of the RfC into consideration when they close the RfC. Steel1943  (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want to put my statement in the thread, that's fine by me, but to save disruption I won't bother (it's in the history). I wasn't expecting the change to be quietly accepted to be honest, but the conversation was pointlessly circular. My part is played, and I'm off to do something else. Let me know if you or anyone else wants my further input.  00:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm not sure what Legobot will make of the situation; should the RfC id be removed? I have no idea. 00:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the situation with the RfC ID is as it should be. Either way, if the RfC closer is not able to implement the change themselves and neither am I, I will send you a ping. Steel1943  (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

'list of people' reverts
Those are all WP:XNRs. Would you prefer I RFD them, or would you prefer to revert your reversion? --Izno (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate them. The redirects targeting the category pages actually seems more useful than targets where the subject of the redirect would not be found. (In all honesty though, I would advocate for deletion myself as I'm not a fan of WP:XNRs either.) Steel1943  (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a whole bunch light up on my watchlist from edits I made in the 2012 period, which looks odd to me. I guess you were just doing routine tagging for RFD old? --Izno (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. I ran across the redirects when I discovered Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 25. Some of the redirects that I reverted to redirects to category pages in that nomination were not edited by you, so I'm not sure if they showed up on your list or not. I also reverted some of your redirections without actually "undo"ing since I already added a R from history Rcat to some of those, but then decided to revert the redirections afterwards. And as you may see, I didn't blanket revert all of the redirects in that nomination: Some I added a section redirect, and others I just added Rcats and that was all I did. Steel1943  (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed those. (I also noticed at least one where I was reverted immediately after my series of edits.) I'll take a look at RFDing them in the near future. --Izno (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

19:19 	List of Swiss hip hop musicians‎‎ (2 changes | history). . (+66)‎ . . [Steel1943‎ (2×)] 19:17 	List of Swaminarayan Articles‎‎ (3 changes | history). . (+51)‎ . . [Steel1943‎ (3×)] 19:15 	List of Scandinavian hardcore punk bands‎‎ (2 changes | history). . (+360)‎ . . [Steel1943‎ (2×)] 19:12 	List of Russian diplomats‎ (diff | hist). . (+32)‎ . . Steel1943 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 508211054 by Izno (talk) Revert misleading and inaccurate retarget) [rollback] 19:09 	List of Norwegian painters‎ (diff | hist). . (+26)‎ . . Steel1943 (talk | contribs) (Add section redirect) [rollback] 19:05 	List of French hip hop musicians 19:05 	List of Japanese hardcore punk bands 19:02 	List of Italian hip hop musicians‎‎ 18:59 	List of Former Maryland State Senators‎ 18:58 	List of Filipino hip hop musicians‎‎ 18:57 	List of Filipino hip hop artists‎ 18:51 	List of Australian authors 18:47 	List of Television Episodes‎‎ N ! 18:47 	Talk:List of Television Episodes 18:45 	Talk:List of Swiss hip hop musicians‎ N ! 18:43 	Talk:List of Swedish diplomats‎ 18:43 	List of Swedish diplomats‎ 18:40 	Talk:List of Swaminarayan Articles‎ 18:40 	List of Soviet and Russian submarines‎ 18:39 	Talk:List of Soviet and Russian submarines N ! 18:38 	Talk:List of Shotgun cartridges‎ 18:33 	Talk:List of Scandinavian hardcore punk bands‎ N ! 18:30 	Talk:List of Russian diplomats‎ N ! 18:30 	Talk:List of Personality disorders 18:29 	Talk:List of Object-oriented design patterns‎ 18:29 	List of Object-oriented design patterns N ! 18:28 	Talk:List of Norwegian painters‎ 18:27 	List of German hip hop musicians 18:20 	Talk:List of Lebanese artists‎ 18:20 	List of Lebanese artists N ! 18:16 	Talk:List of Japanese hardcore punk bands 18:15 	Talk:List of Italian hip hop musicians‎ N ! 18:12 	Talk:List of Greek scientists‎ 18:12 	List of Greek scientists‎ N ! 18:10 	Talk:List of German hip hop musicians N ! 18:10 	Talk:List of Geelong suburbs‎ 18:10 	List of Geelong suburbs‎ N ! 18:09 	Talk:List of French hip hop musicians‎ N ! 18:07 	Talk:List of Former Maryland State Senators‎ N ! 18:07 	Talk:List of Filipino hip hop musicians N ! 18:06 	Talk:List of Filipino hip hop artists‎ N ! 18:05 	Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters by last name‎ N ! 18:03 	Talk:List of Australian authors‎

Old ffd full question
Hi Steel1943. Do you think that the oldffdfull on File talk:Portland Timbers (MLS) logo.png should be moved to File talk:Portland Timbers logo.svg? The .png file is likely to be deleted per WP:F5, but the files are essentially the same so the newer version should also be covered by the consensus reached at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure on that one. I would say "no" since technically, it is a new image. But I see your point: It wouldn't hurt to add a note of some sort to the nonexistent talk page about the previous discussion so that it doesn't have to necessarily be rediscussed. Steel1943  (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent RFDs
Hey Steel1943,

I pinged the closer on a recent RFD you opened: User_talk:Patar_knight. While I'd have voted "Keep" in general had that been advertised (redirects are harmless), the deletion of List of games considered the best strikes me as especially questionable, since that was the former title of the article for a reasonable length of time until someone moved it. So links on the Internet from 2014 & before point to that location. The target sees a fair amount of use, too:, ~40-80 hits a day, considerably more than many actual articles. With the closer's permission, I've recreated the redirect. Do you still believe this redirect should be deleted despite the above information? If so, I'll open a procedural new WP:RFD, but if not, we can just skip it and leave the redirect. SnowFire (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, and yes, I will still advocate for deletion for the reason I nominated it. When you create that WP:RFD discussion, please ping me. Steel1943  (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, in my opinion, page views don't relieve my concern since they do not show if the readers are arriving at their intended target. Steel1943  (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Done; see Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 9 .  I hope you reconsider, of course!  SnowFire (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisting at RM
Just a heads up that generally at RM if a proposal makes its way through to the backlog without anyone opposing and the argument is fairly sound we just move it as unopposed rather than relisting. I realise this is different to how most of the XfD processes handle it (probably because page moves are much more easily reversed than deletions). Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which discussion you are referring to as I don't recall me performing a close or relist at RM for a couple of days, but if I did relist a discussion, I would have to assume that I had a good reason to do so, opposition or not. Steel1943  (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk:Travis Scott (musician) was what prompted me to leave this message I think. I was skimming the RM list and noticed that there were several relists that I thought were a touch unnecessary (this was the only one by you). Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, that one. I relisted that one because the move request is to declare a new primary topic when there were no additional votes other than the nominator at the time. In cases like that, if no one else adds to the discussion, I'll relist it once to allow more time for possible opinions to confirm the nominator's stance. Now, if it had already been relisted once but there were still no additional comments in the discussion, then I would have closed it as proposed by the nominator. Steel1943  (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. RMCI is pretty keen on actioning any discussions that don't have an objection, but it's not a big deal. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirects to templates
Do you know when it's appropriate to redirect from the main namespace to the template namespace? Such redirects are explicitly exempted from WP:R2, so I assume that there are some situations when such redirects are appropriate, but there are lots of strange redirects like 2015 Pan American Games women's water polo game B1 and Buccaneers2015DraftPicks which make very little sense to me. Should these be sent to RfD, or is there some consensus that we should have redirects like this? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My rule of thumb on redirects such as those is that if the title sounds like it could be an encyclopedic subject, even if it may not meet the general notability guideline if the subject were an article, I'll nomimate it for deletion as a misleading WP:XNR. Also, I've never seen or heard of any consensus regarding such redirects that contradicts what I just said. Steel1943  (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And even with the case of Buccaneers2015DraftPicks, I would nominate it even though there are no spaces in between the words. Steel1943  (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One thing I've noticed is that there are lots of cross-namespace redirects to templates and categories which sound like list articles. I'd expect to find a list article, but it's not completely unexpected to find some other kind of list, such as a category listing. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've noticed a few of those recently myself. Continuous consensus on redirects of the such is usually delete, overwrite the redirect with a list, or retarget to an appropriate list article. In fact, see above as I just dealt with such an issue recently: I reverted a few redirects from targeting inaccurate articles back to WP:XNRs to category pages, but would rather see them deleted myself. (The editor whose edits I reverted stated they were going to start an RfD discussion for those redirects in the near future, but I may start that discussion myself in the near future unless I'm beat to it.)  Steel1943  (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just sent some cross-namespace redirects to RfD. Let's see how this goes. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Jenn Vix for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenn Vix 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 Articles for deletion/Jenn Vix 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 notice from the top of the article.43.241.117.171 (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

RfA
Good luck, we've not crossed paths before but you tick all the boxes - here's hoping for four in a row you to do really well --  samtar talk or stalk 14:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

RFA
Sorry you withdrew, I was in the middle of reviewing you and hadn't spotted anything that would have convinced me to oppose.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm particularly sorry if my oppose seemed to have "sunk" your RfA. It really is nothing personal and it absolutely does not mean I will never support at a future RfA. To end on a positive note, I'm planning an essay which I'm tentatively calling "content creation for dedicated vandal fighters" - see User talk:RickinBaltimore for more. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have voted support, for what it's worth. It's worrying that the community near-simultaneously rejected the idea of allowing non-admins to close RfDs as delete and rejected one of the non-admin closers who could keep down the backlog from becoming an admin. As usual, the backlogs pile up. We currently have 39,739,438 pages on the English Wikipedia and only 545 active admins. That cannot sustain itself. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have only 233 active admins at this moment, if we use the 30 actions per 2 months standard. (That standard is adapted from the 30 edits per 2 months standard used at List of administrators/Active. It was changed to reflect actual administrative action, as opposed to simple editing.) Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is, of course, an incredibly low number of actions anyway. We have whole sections of the site that would go up in flames if a single person took a vacation. Hell, I just did it at WP:CFD; after taking one week vacation in Florida and a week mostly not closing anything during my RfA (since I was waiting for access to WP:CFD/W), we were back at a backlog of nearly 100 discussions. It was cleared before I left for Florida. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Biblio Just checked and my last 30 logged admin actions go back rather more than two months, so on that measure I'm not currently an active admin (It has been a very busy three months for me in real life). But none of my recent logged admin actions took me as long as I spent checking Steel's deleted edits, and Steel isn't the only RFA candidate or potential candidate whose deleted edits I have trawled in the last two months. Measuring active admins is neither easy nor straightforward. Especially when you consider it takes at least as long to decline an unblock request as to unblock and almost always longer to decline a CSD tag to action it - we have no measure for unlogged admin actions.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  05:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Also wanted to leave you a note that I found your answer to my question both reasonable and reassuring. I likely would have supported your RFA as I have had many more recent cordial interactions with you. Mkdw talk 15:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a shame to see you had to withdraw your RfA. If I had seen it, I definitely would have !voted support because of the diligence and tech-saviness that you show at RfD. Go another half year or year without incident and hopefully you'll be able to pass (if you want to run that gauntlet again). Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note. I've been a long-term RFA voter, over the years, but, unfortunately, I didn't see yours until the day after it closed, because lately I'm not so active, and often only check in once a week or so. I would have been +support. I hope you are not in any way disillusioned by the result, and I hope you do try again. Regards. Begoon &thinsp; talk 11:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

RfA
Hey Steel1943,

I just wanted to drop by and say that I would have changed my comment to support had you kept the request open. The most recent comments of yours seem to be less "big deal-y", and without that one concern there isn't any real reason to oppose. The other arguments presented there were quite ridiculous; they referenced either one-off incidents or your ability to step back as reasons why you shouldn't be an admin. If anything, I think that your ability to change your opinions and behaviour based on feedback would have done you well in the role. Maybe you'll consider applying again someday, if you ever have 24 hours a day to edit on here ;-)

Thanks for all of your work on these sites. You're definitely a net positive as an editor, and would have been a net positive as an administrator too. Hopefully this result isn't too discouraging. All the best, Ajraddatz (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer Nettles
FYI, the merge has [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AJennifer_Nettles&type=revision&diff=730882611&oldid=605775137 been reverted]. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Missin' ya
Yeah, what header said. Temporal Sunshine  Paine  03:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I may be back now. Not sure yet. But I have made about 10 edits today, so the outlook of that possibility is promising. Steel1943  (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It made me happy to see you editing again. You've been missed! -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You've taught me a lot, Steelman, so thank you! and I hope you're back for a long, edifying time!  Paine   u/ c  09:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evry1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Everyone. 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) 11:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the wb
On with RfD then! I got me study decorated and all set up today, and me proper desktop all set up, so, can do some decent work rather than fiddling around with a tablet thingy... Si Trew (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well decorating the study has taken me about a week but I finally got it all back today, New paint on the walls and ceilings new lamps new desk new second hand desktop computer and all the reference books in woodware back again, so yay yay. I have me little fridge with chilled, er, water and stuff in, and a microwave and a bed and got some rugs and bean bags and things and trying to make it into a little den again. I also painted a great mural on the side wall of next doors property it is a rather Turneresque seascape which I am quite proud of it is about five metres wide by four metres high, the neighbour can't see it but agreed to it as the wall needed replastering anyway (in Hungary people plaster the outside of the walls and paint them, kinda stucco I guess) so I did all that. The new Banksy I am not. Hence my not being particularly worried about all the argy-bargy at WP, I have had enough to do. I will invite him around to break a bottle of champagne well cheap hu:pezsgő against the ships I have painted in the harbour of the mural, but he is the franchisee at the fag shop so we see each other pretty much each day anyway so he knows what I am doing just has not seen it yet. Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Fangusu LTA
I finally went ahead with a WP:LTA page for Fangusu: Long-term abuse/Fangusu. The case is not yet approved, but if you have anything to add, that's the place. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazing that is STILL going on after almost a year now. In all honesty, your recent knowledge of Fangusu's actions is a lot greater than mine: I blanked my watchlist a while ago, and it seems that Fangusu hasn't reverted any of my edits recently, so I'm completely in the dark. That, and since you already mentioned User:DJ Autagirl (which was amazing, given that account was used to edit during the first indefinite block and before her successful unblock request) and all the pages I remember her socking on, I can't say I have anything to add. Steel1943  (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think my sock sensor is working again ... because this editor is a WP:DUCK. (Not sure if I'll get around to filing the SPI, but if I don't, well, there we go.) Steel1943  (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I went ahead and filed the SPI. Steel1943  (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I wonder if Fangusu's editing has went IPv6. I can't say I'm sure since the edit seems productive and I haven't seen her use IPv6 addresses before. Steel1943  (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's her. Geolocates to the same city as recent IP socks, and first edit was an undo-button revert of one of your edits. Textbook. Nothing to do now since a report would be stale, but I'll consider what info I can add to the LTA. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ambox classes/Admins listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ambox classes/Admins. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ambox classes/Admins redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Choosing Wisely/American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists watchlist listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Choosing Wisely/American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists watchlist. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Choosing Wisely/American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists watchlist redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

iRacing redirects
Is there really a point to having a separate discussion at Redirects for discussion in addition to the consolidated nomination of 11 articles, lists, and redirects at Articles for deletion/List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com? It isn't necessary to be that bureaucratic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to your reverting my edits and posting this comment at the same time, it probably would have been preferable for you to only had done one or the other. That's like reverting while discussing reverts and confuses everyone involved. Steel1943  (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * No problem. I hope the rearranging of those pages is helpful to your work and makes related pages easy for others to connect to its main page for the events/discussions. Steel1943  (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is. I collaborate with the group at WP:Meetup/NYC and we are trying to establish best practices and do the right thing in all these organizational partnerships. Using subpages as you did is the best way. It was not obvious to me at the time I set up the pages, but after seeing it, I recognize it as an improvement and the best way to do things.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

KiSharika
A troll or a sock - either way very close to WP:NOTHERE block... GiantSnowman 19:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. It seems either path leads to the same ultimate destination. Steel1943  (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And KiSharika blocked by Bbb23 as a sock of (though I'm not sure if they really are the same person since it seems like it may be IP sharing per the SPI's history, but I could be wrong).  Steel1943  (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably the right decision. GiantSnowman 19:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Steel1943, you're carrying on two similar conversations with GS, one here and one on GS's Talk page. The history of the Fixer88 case is rather complex. Fixer 88 was unblocked, though, by Arbcom a few months ago. I've reviewed the history, with which I was closely involved, and determined that the block of KiSharika stands, but the tag I placed on their userpage I've now removed, meaning I'm not accusing Fixer88 of operating the KiSharika account. Beyond that, I can't share anything with you, and I suggest you let it go, although I'm sure you're acting in good faith. Your revert of KiSharika at the RfA was, of course, absolutely proper.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware of Checkuser policy and the work you do that cannot be shared for legal reasons, so I wasn't expecting you to actually tell me anything that could disrupt the work behind the scenes; After I reverted the RFA edit, I started doing a bit of research since I was considering filing a SPI. In the process, I noticed they were recently unblocked and read through Fixer88's SPI case archives a bit, so I was just trying to make sure that Fixer88 didn't get accused or tagged of anything they were not actually responsible. I suppose in some way or fashion all of this is related to the ArbCom case I know nothing about and only knew of upon you mentioning it, but since you seem to be privy to what is going on, that's good enough for me. (By the way, GS brought the conversation here, so here is where I continued it; their response here seems to be a direct response to my comments on their talk page.) Steel1943  (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding and your explanation. BTW, Fixer88's block log reflects the unblock by Arbcom.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Steel1943. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux  Talk 15:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

Could you please explain yourself more fully...
Could you please explain yourself more fully? You listed a bunch of redirects for discussion, and then withdrew them with the cryptic edit summary "I'm just going to withdraw all of these for now, considering that I reviewed the target article and am now confused about which are official titles for subtopics at the target article..."

What exactly was the nature of your concern?

No, "the battlefield" is not, generally, synonymous with terrorism. However, our articles are supposed to comply with WP:Verifiability. Literally thousands of press articles, over the years, have followed the example of US military spin-doctors, and have conflated claims that former captives have "returned to the battlefield", with have "returned to the support of terrorism".

A team of legal scholars at Seton Hall University have methodically tracked, and debunked, these claims, methodical work that the press corps is generally unaware of.

If your concern was that this conflation was "original research" on my part, you were mistaken. I followed the terms used in press reports. I believe this is exactly how redirects are supposed to be used.

I restored the notices you left on my talk page. I don't think talk page guidelines recommend the removal of this kind of notice, although overstriking them, or leaving a notice to ignore them is guideline compliant. Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do what you shall with my edits on your talk page as I care not; I removed the notifications since the nominations were no longer there, and they were my edits and you never responded to them by the time I got around to reverting them, so as I said, do as you will. Either way, my edit notice for removing the nominations on WP:RFD was quite clear and I have no drive to further discuss them due to not knowing what is going on and currently having no drive or desire to figure it out, given I read the target article in its entirety after the nominations. (In other words, the status quo remaining is the default in this case.) If you feel I was wrong in doing so, feel free to utilize WP:G7 on whichever redirects you desire as you created them all. Steel1943  (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies if my response to your question was rather blunt. I just don't have the desire or drive to figure out what I do or don't know about that right now, and was more or less, listing them since they looked like uncontroversial cleanup nominations at the time. After I proved my own original beliefs wrong by reading the target article, I decided to bail on the nomination. Unfortunately, as I sort of stated above, I really don't care to find out if those are "official" terms for subtopics of the target article, so if you say they are, that's good enough for me (unless I randomly stumble on proof while surfing the Internet that tells me otherwise, but I very highly doubt that is going to happen since the subjects I usually look up on the Internet on my leisure time are in no way related to this one.) Steel1943  (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, your edit summary seemed to indicate you remained concerned, and were considering re-instating the nomination, with a different explanation. I think you are saying your interest in the topic is exhausted, which is fine with me.


 * I think you may be saying that you read the article, and didn't find it clear... That does concern me, and normally I'd then ask for feedback, on the talk page, as to which aspects you didn't find clear.  But if your interest really is exhausted, I won't bother.


 * Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Yeah, your first interpretation is correct; I have no desire to renominate at this time due to my later finds. But, in all honesty, I don't even know what I find clear and what I don't. After skimming through the article, I found versions of these terms mentioned somewhere in context, so I aborted the nomination as that was enough for me to essentially withdraw. However, I do understand your own concerns and will try my best to validate them since I had concerns myself on both the deletion and keep spectrum; I can't make any promises, but I may look into the target article with a more fine-toothed comb later to make better relations to the terms and where they are mentioned in context so that readers will better understand why these terms redirected there (as in alternate name for the topic of the article/list, maybe section redirects for subtopics, etc.) Maybe this search will result in more constructive nominations from myself rather than the rather genetic statements I posted on the nominations (which were the result of me thinking no additional explanation or research needed to be performed) if the redirect(s) seem(s) to not have a strong enough connection to the page to be helpful in the way you outline. But, either way, the rationale will be more thorough if I end up nominating any of them. Steel1943  (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI/update, I read through the article for a bit, and I'm still confused. At this point, I don't see myself renominating any of the redirects. Steel1943  (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

pageswap script for convenience
Hi Steel1943, I've noticed that you've performed round-robin page moves recently. Thought I'd share a script here (js) that semi-automates page swaps for convenience, if you ever encounter the scenario. I've advertised this at WP:PMVR, featured two months ago in the Signpost, and have received good feedback on it. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W. ( talk ) 08:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I may have to look into that in the future. Right now, I'm actually trying to see if a separate option can be added to the page mover's redirect suppression to create separate checkboxes for the page itself and the talk page. I've found that I've had to restore talk page redirects whenever I use redirect suppression, and it gets a bit old, to say the least. I'll probably bring it up somewhere. Steel1943  (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. I might be willing to help out if I have the time. I believe this needs an update to SpecialMovePage.php and new system messages under i18n. For context, I recently made a change in the Special:MovePage dialog with 314848 to display talk page subpages (in addition to already-displayed subject subpages) if they exist. What would be absolutely ideal is if swaps are supported in the software itself, but that could be well-off from now — Andy W. ( talk ) 21:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverse crossname space redirects
Hi Steel1943. I hope you're doing well. I have a quick question about redirects that hopefully you can help with. I understand that crossnames space redirects from the article namespace to the userspace can be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:R2. What about redirects that go from the userspace to the article namespace? For example, User:Neil Kindness/sandbox redirects to Todd Anthony Tyler. The creator was working on a draft in their sandbox and moved it to the draft namespace. The draft went through AFC and was approved, so the redirect is now to the article. I'm not sure why a redirect is needed here, but also not sure if it is something to WP:R2 or WP:MFD. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings Marchjuly! It's been a while. But about that redirect ... it should probably stay. In the redirect's current form, its purpose is to be a bookmark for the creator of that page to find the article, even if they moved it themselves. If they wish to have the page deleted, they can always request G7/U1 speedy deletion. Usually, user space pages that were the former location of an article are not harmful, and are usually kept at WP:RFD. The most that could probably be done to change that redirect is to convert it into a Soft redirect, but that step is usually reserved to user space pages that are not subpages. Steel1943  (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem then. Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Bizarre
Hi. So, I won't propose it, but per your comment it is not just the main article, all sub-articles too: Hawaii Five-O (season 4) "Not to be confused with Hawaii Five-0 (season 4)" In ictu oculi (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ...In ictu oculi, that is interesting, due to the fact alone that I don't know of any precedence for disambiguators regarding such a situation. Steel1943  (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Batch closure

 * 

Okay. I'll revive my RfD closer script... Deryck C. 10:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... I may need to take advantage of that script myself. Where can I find it we see if it's something I want to use? Steel1943  (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sent you an email. And then decided to just write the script properly into a MediaWiki user script. It's now here: User:Deryck Chan/closerfd.js. Use it by adding this line to User:Steel1943/common.js: importScript('User:Deryck Chan/closerfd.js'); Deryck C. 14:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I received the email. Still pondering about using the script, but I may give it at least a try. (P.S. It's always interesting when I find a familiar editor's edits from way back when while I proactively do project namespace archive reorganization, as I found here ... almost 11 years old. Heck, I didn't even have my account registered then.) Steel1943  (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Argh. Past me embarrassing future me. Deryck C. 12:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Real names
FYI, Template:Infobox boxer has a "real name" parameter. Probably should be changed to "legal name" since there is already another parameter for birth name.

BTW, I would appreciate some help clearing the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Error&namespace=0 error queue]. This is generally my highest priority, and I don't like to see it backlogged. Resolution of more serious errors can be delayed for longer periods when the queue is snowed under by a newly-defined error. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You have actually, in a way, brought a concern of mine that I realized after R from real name was converted to an error template: the fact that the only "queue" that Error has is its list of incoming links. For that reason alone, it is difficult for those trying to help out with the queue to discern what "type" of error the error is. At least for R from real name, I was considering creating a template that would use Error as a wrapper, but then throw the page which transcludes the template into a properly, sorted error category (probably dedicated for templates which need to be replaced or, more specifically, WP:RCAT templates which need to be replaced.) In fact, as I'm writing this, I don't know if Error is set up to place its pages in categories by default or even by option. (Yeah, I don't know Lua, and I'm not sure I ever will at this point.) Steel1943  (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Once it's cleared out (and I believe I may be getting help from one of your talk-page stalkers), it's fine the way it is. The problem with creating separate categories for every issue under the sun is that's it's difficult to patrol dozens of categories. You have to constantly keep re-loading the category pages to see whether they have any new errors. I'd restrict category creation to issues that constantly fill up with several instances every day. In theory, errors should be bad enough that there is a bold red message on the page clearly identifying the issue. Sometimes I run into error transclusions that take some effort to track down, but for the most part they are easy to identify and fix. wbm1058 (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ANd the plan is to delete Template:R from real name, right? So not worth the effort to set up a special category that will itself need to be deleted as well, once the transclusions are cleared. wbm1058 (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the consensus at R from real name's RFD was to leave it as is since editors seem to think it is a useable template. I mean, it's definitely a page that would almost be guaranteed to be recreated of it was deleted since it really is a useful search term for those trying to locate appropriate RCATs. Either way, I get what you mean about the error categories ... no reason to over-saturate unless there is a need. I feel there "may" be a need in the future for the simple fact that this may happen to more RCAT templates in the future, but that hasn't happened yet. (But ... I have talk page stalkers???) Steel1943  (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * clpo13(talk) 23:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Clpo13! Nice to meet you, considering that I'm not sure if our editing paths have ever crossed before! Steel1943  (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer deletion over having the error message. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if it were deleted, the title would probably need to be WP:SALT-ed for the reasons I just stated, but that's probably a discussion for another day ... Steel1943  (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the deleting admin leaves a link to Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 10 in their deletion rationale, hopefully editors would consider that before re-creating the template. Or, maybe we could make a disambiguation page in template space? I suppose that's effectively what we have now. Category:Deprecated templates generally doesn't keep them around without good reason to. wbm1058 (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the error message at that template (plus the "/doc" page) is basically a disambiguation page, for lack of a better term. However, making the template a full-blown disambiguation page (basically overwriting the template with its "/doc" page) may be problematic since transclusions would then transclude the entire "disambiguation page". I saw a similar situation at Template:IMDb, so I attempted to adapt that at Template:R from real name. However, if there is a different standard that can be agreed upon (as I don't really have a strong opinion about the option I used, but rather just implemented it because I saw it done before), that may be a better option to pursue. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just recalled Template:Wikify. This is kind of like that. wbm1058 (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Template:Wikify may be a good example of how to adjust the templates. However, since using an ambiguous template really is an "error", I'm not sure if this would be the preferred way to do things. That, and a big red error message may stick out better to editors and readers alike. Either way, good to see that something like this has been done before as ideas can come of it. Steel1943  (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We do have Category:Deprecated templates kept for historical reasons. wbm1058 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could just redirect it to R from legal name and call it a day. :) -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ... ... ... :) Steel1943  (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/"Makara" (The Dragon in Sri Lanka)
Your CSD for this popped up on my Watchlist and I couldn't figure out why until I took a look at this. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Bundling Elder Scrolls skills at RFD
It's okay with me if you bundle them together. I gave up trying to edit the page; too many ECs! — Gorthian (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah, I'm a bit shocked that ECs happened while editing in other sections (since that usually doesn't happen,) but either way, awesome! As you can see, there are several such redirects. (That, and it probably helps that I'm somewhat familiar with the series; not sure if you are or not.) Steel1943  (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, never heard of it before this. :-P Are you doing that with Twinkle? I was wondering how best to use it to nominate a group of pages. — Gorthian (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I use Twinkle so that I don't have to place the RFD tags or the user talk page notes manually, but as you saw, I still have to manually merge them all afterwards. Twinkle doesn't have an option for mass nominations ... yet. (Requesting a fix for that has been something I've been trying to figure out for a bit, but with the way Rfd2 works, it's been giving me a bit of a headache ... for the past couple of years.) Steel1943  (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the way you did it was better than the spreadsheet I developed before discovering Twinkle. I still had to add all the tags on the redirects by hand! — Gorthian (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. After this, I realized it was time for me to figure out how to use Twinkle. If I recall, I don't think I notified every editor who created a redirect in that discussion since I was too busy placing RFD tags on all of those redirects. Steel1943  (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OMG, what a nightmare! Kudos to you for persevering through all of that, including resolving all the links and moving histories. — Gorthian (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

SIAE MICROELETTRONICA
Hello,

I would like to inform you that SIAE MICROELETTRONICA Is registered in all uppercase. Please see bloomberg link and other site. Otherwise, as suggested by vegas33 to use SIAE MIcroelettronica.

hope it helps to clarify. Br — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauro Tosin (talk • contribs) 19:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Zwerenz (December 3)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Zwerenz and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister  talk  04:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been added in error? Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't the one who attempted to add the tag in the first place: I was just the one who completed the substitution of the submit template. However, I do see that when I substituted the template, the template placed my name as the submitter, so I must have received this notification in turn. Either way, I have redirected that draft since I found that its creator has created about 3 copies of the same draft subject at different titles. Steel1943  (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Same user?
Do you think Rodre112330 & AquilaXIII are possibly the same user? The only reason I bring this up is because of this edit and this edit, both of which are requesting a move and directing their user page to Jdcomix... Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 09:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could be. I'm more sure than not, but at first glance, I don't see where their edits have crossed, other than linking Jdcomix's user page. But, it may be worth filing an WP:SPI if there is more proof than I'm seeing right off the bat. Steel1943  (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Steel, I've had some suspicions about Jdcomix myself. I recently filed an SPI that documented excessive moves and move requests among storm articles, and I did notice that Jdcomix also had done a lot of that recently. I also ran across this page, where they closed a RM that they had opened themselves. May be worth keeping an eye on. — Gorthian (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "they closed a RM that they had opened themselves." The only reason I did this is because it surpassed the 1 week requirement with no opposition, I was just moving it forward rather than having it clog up the talk page. Jdcomix (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was in suspicion-mode because of the IPs that seemed so similar to N-C16 (and turned out to be socks), but I didn't want to accuse you (or any other editor) of anything without evidence. I'm sorry my speculations came across as accusations; that isn't what I intended. And now I'll leave Steel1943 in peace. Come to my talk page if you have questions. — Gorthian (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I see the evidence, but if Jdcomix and the editor you linked are the same person (I am actually a bit familiar with the "sock master" in the SPI you linked; I noticed all the weather-related WP:RMs they placed) (I'm referring to, in case that comment seemed vague. Steel1943  (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC) ... well, not sure if I should comment until an actual WP:SPI is filed per WP:BEANS and WP:BOOMERANG.  Steel1943  (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I didn't say anything about it earlier. Just an FYI. — Gorthian (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Who are these guys? Never heard of them before, I'm assuming they were impersonating me or something? I'll try to find proof that I'm not socking, because I've never been accused of this type of thing before. Jdcomix (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe you, considering that you are obviously a more established editor than the other two mentioned here. Just wondering, do you by chance know of any cause to why these other editors may be linking your user page in their signature? (Such information may be useful in the event that a WP:SPI is filed for them.) Steel1943  (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea why they linked my userpage, but one of the users said it was a copyediting mistake per Talk:Texas–Pan American Broncs. Jdcomix (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, my comment above about a "sock master" was referring to, in case I wasn't being clear. Steel1943  (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Uh, guys...Jdcomix is not a sock puppeteer. I know him from other places, and he wouldnt do such a thing. But if you can prove with overwhelming evidence all the accounts have the same IP, then my hands will be up in acceptance of this allegation being true afterall Hurricane Layten (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for Jdcomix as well. I do know him personally, and I can verify that he would have no motive to sockpuppet. I have no affiliations with Rodre112330 or AquilaXIII, but I can assure you that Jdcomix is not involved in this.

- Hurricane Darren (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific reason why the edit you just made on my talk page was your first edit ... ever? Steel1943  (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * http://hypotheticalhurricanes.wikia.com/wiki/User:DarrenDude This is the user in question, who is obviously trustworthy if he's an admin on a wikia. Jdcomix (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Me, Hurricane Layten, and Hurricane Darren all know Jdcomix on another site. That's why. MoneyHurricane (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you attacking Darren for? And why does it matter that his first edit here was to help defend someone we all know very well for? Im pretty sure its not on the policy for admins to attack new users... Hurricane Layten (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess that makes sense then. In that case, thank you all for any contributions you make here. I don't run across subject matter specialists too often in the realm of edits I perform (with the exception of the subject of video games on rare occasion), so anything you can add to Wikipedia is greatly appreciated. (By the way, everyone pinging me, you don't have to do that here; this is my talk page, so I am immediately informed of any edits performed here, whether or not I'm pinged.) Steel1943  (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Layten is correct, assuming Darren is a sockpuppet breaks WP:Assume good faith and WP:Bite. Jdcomix (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't assuming anything until I received an answer; the italics were there to help me get an answer clearer ASAP, and obviously, one has now been provided to me by about 4 different editors causing edit conflicts on my page. Thanks everyone. Steel1943  (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, for what it's worth, WP:SPI and WP:AGF kind of contradict each other. One can't assume good faith to file a sockpuppetry investigation since good faith cannot be assumed in sockpuppetry. That's why I'm glad this confusion got sorted out before it got to the point that someone did file one, whether it was me or someone else. Steel1943  (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for any confusion I caused

- Hurricane Darren (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Youre welcome. But can i suggest that the IP addresses get checked properly instead of jumping to conclusions next time, and not attacking users when they join? In retrospect, im afraid its your fault the edit confluct happened for attacking Darren in the first place. Hurricane Layten (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't understand why I'm at fault for an edit conflict caused by other editors. I attempted to save my explanation about my misunderstanding as soon as I could while other editors kept saving their edits prior to me saving mine ... twice. So, if you are attempting to accuse me of something due to edits and accusations that got saved that beat the edit I was typing out and never saw theirs at all, that itself is a WP:AGF violation. But, at the end of it all, we've all come to an understanding of what actually happened, and that's comforting. (Not trying to stir the pot here, but for what it's worth, I wouldn't consider all admins at all Wikias trustworthy on here, considering the specific niches that some of the Wikias cover, but one specifically for broad weather-related subjects, I would assume, has a rather strict community-established requirement for adminship. So, in this case, when the claim is made about admins from such a Wikia being responsible editors, I full-heartedly believe it.) Steel1943  (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK then. Let me just say one thing. I dont see why everyone sees Wikia admins as being untrustworthy. I myself am admin ir bureaucrat on several of them, so i know how that site works. Most of the wikis actually operate by the same rules, so its not different on the different communities at all. Im done here for this morning. And yes, Wikia staff and community staff ate strict about regulations, otherwise all hell would break loose on there. When youve been admin or above there, youll see exactly what we mean. Oh, and one more thing. Just because we are admins from a site operating on different regulations, it doesnt make us untrustworthy here, because the regulations between the sites seem very similar to me. Hurricane Layten (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. And I probably should have clarified what I actually meant by "untrustworthy". I think I could have used a clearer word or explanation. I meant that in some cases, editors or admins who frequently edit certain Wikias may not be in tune with editing standards on Wikipedia. Sometimes, the way editors edit on one Wikia may be completely contradictory to how page formats or editing is accepted on Wikipedia, or even on a different Wikia page. For reference, I have edited on a couple of Wikias in the past: The Fallout Wikia and the The World Ends With You Wikia. And just editing on those, I can out of experience say that the link and page formatting standards for the The World Ends With You Wikia, in my opinion, is not nearly as clean or as polished as standards that have been set on Wikipedia; in one instance, I attempted to format a page I created on one of them with the link format enforced here (specifically the WP:PIPE standard here), and it was changed to by an admin to something that, in my opinion, didn't make sense to me. I mean, I'm not going to edit war over it or anything since I don't manage that Wikia, but that's just my example and my take on why I made the aforementioned statement you referenced. So, when you say that most Wikias work under the same rules as Wikipedia, I do believe you, but the key word there is definitely "most". Steel1943  (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. There are obviously differences between the 2 sites, but not many. As for the refraining from us being untrustworthy because we are Wikia admins, im greatful for that. At least youve put right the malice caused by the comment you made. Hurricane Layten (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I recall why I said "untrustworthy" now, so this may make more sense. I was quoting/responding to 's statement: "...who is obviously trustworthy if he's an admin on a wikia." Yeah, seems that I used that word since I saw it somewhere else in the discussion thread. But yeah, if I wasn't responding to that directly, it wouldn't have been my first choice of word to use. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems the situation has been resolved. Great! :D MoneyHurricane (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, for what it's worth, Hurricane Darren, I encourage you to use whatever knowledge you may have in your speciality and apply it to Wikipedia articles, if you feel up to the task. Wikipedia could always use more specialists in any field who may be able to provide contributions here, even if it's just advice to others and not specifically editing articles. Either way, if you contribution is collaborating with the others at the Wikia who then find a way to add the information here, that in itself is useful as well. Steel1943  (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Science of Star Wars vs The Science of Star Wars
I redirect The Science of Star Wars to the book and Science of Star Wars to the miniseries. And I put a confusion template. You can leave it at that. We do not need a disambiguation page for two topics that don't even go by the same title. It'll only further ad to confusion than clear it up. It's only if the two topics had the same title that I would support a disambiguation.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The fact that the term redirects to one specific subject can serve as a WP:SURPRISE to our readers. Also, I don't think that the word "The" is enough to distinguish these two titles, especially with search evidence that I made back then that most likely led me to create the page, as well as the subject matter of both articles being the same. If it was something like let's say "The Wall", I'd be inclined to agree with you, but that is not the case with this one. Anyways, with that being said, I'm going to nominate the redirect you reinstated for WP:RFD since I don't agree with your edit and I don't have any desire to edit war over it. Steel1943  (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I put the confusion template. They are not only two distinct topics, but also different titles. Whenever the title of the book is linked it takes them to the dismabacation page, even though the pages linking them mentions that it's a book. This only adds to confusion. As I previously mentioned, it would have been different if they went by the same title, but they don't and the pages linking them mention this. Not only that, but we got brackets added to the titles for clarification, so let's leave it at that.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your stance, and as I already said, I don't agree with it. I'll notify you of the WP:RFD when I create it. Steel1943  (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That, and if erroneous links are created, the purpose of a disambiguation page is so that they can be fixed. There is a bot and a group of editors who constantly disambiguate links to a disambiguation page just for such issues that you mentioned. Also, I am unclear what you mean by "we got brackets added to the titles". Steel1943  (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think you are referring to the parentheses/disambiguators. Either way though, if the disambiguation page doesn't exist, the two articles would need to be moved to their respective titles without the disambiguators per WP:PRECISE, most likely. Steel1943  (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

Jon Adams
Hello Steel1943. I was only following the precedent given at Old RfD, and the full date is included in the example. With regard to subst:nac, I didn't know that was such a problem, I only thought that it would be wise to add that info to the template given that (in future) if anyone wants to review a closure of an Rfd, they can know from the get-go that a non-admin closed the discussion. Sorry for any inconvenience; I hope you will understand. That being said, the way Talk:Jon Adams currently stands is not sufficiently up to standard IMO.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 02:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However, you may have to get community consensus if you believe that method should enforced. I'm just saying that as a non-admin who semi-regularly closes WP:RFD discussions and have made rather substantial updates to other templates related to WP:RFD, such as Rfd2 (and thus I have a bit of experience with placing these tags.) The way I've always done and I've seen others do it is to copy the date as it appears in the page title to the template and then do the same with the section redirect (that date plus section redirect.) Also, I do not think that putting NAC is helpful since that information can be ascertained from going to the discussion, and may actually cause unnecessary issues if someone goes to the talk page who may have the mindset that non-admins shouldn't be closing anything. Steel1943  (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, looking at the doc, if you re-add the date formatting (not the NAC), I shan't revert. Can't say I agree with the date part, but it is what it is, I guess. Steel1943  (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, .--Nev&eacute;–selbert 05:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Year dab
Hello! I started making edits such as because I think a significant proportion of readers searching for 107 will actually want to know about 107 (number) rather than AD 107. Eventually I had the rather obvious idea of getting Year dab to do the work for me. But I see it used to do this and has been edited to remove the link. Please do you have any examples of the unhelpful links that were being created? Perhaps we can find some way to retain the many helpful links without recreating the unhelpful ones. Of course, I'll need to back out my changes to avoid the links appearing twice; that's no problem. Certes (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 14. Most likely, any redirect in that nomination was automatically linked on their respective year page if Template:Year dab was placed on it. Steel1943  (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's clear now. I agree that we should delete redirects such as 1423 (number) where there's no relevant text in the target; it's a shame that solution got no consensus.  My next thought was that we should restore the links for 1 to 1000, but any arbitrary limit has errors both ways: 1001 merits a link; 933 probably doesn't.  Sadly, we may just have to restore the hundreds of good links manually.  It's a pity this wasn't appreciated by those who opposed the RfD.
 * I'm tempted to add a new parameter to Year dab or even create a new template which simply calls . Certes (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue I see with adding a new parameter to Template:Year dab to accomplish the "(number)" links (for example, ) would be that it would be difficult to fix such links created by that parameter since there's no easy way to track transclusions that use any specific parameter. That, and creating a new template in the way you reference would replicate Template:Year dab in its previous state before I performed the edit in the first place, and would probably be considered redundant per WP:T3.  Steel1943  (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Manual it is, then. I've posted a notice at Talk:AD 1 as the page move discussion is relevant to these links, at least in the range 10-99.  Thanks again for your help. Certes (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Wishing you a purr-fectly Happy Christmas!
Remember greeting you left me last year? I felt inclined to reciprocate this year. I found this image to be the most interesting of those in Commons:Category:Christmas cards. It certainly is not typical by the standards of today. Merry Christmas my friend, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Steelers jersey
Hi, I saw what you left on my page, I'm a bit new to Wikipedia so if you could help me I would appreciate it. The file I put up as th Steeler jersey was once a file but then later deleted. However on various websites, the image was saved there. The user who made "JohnnySeoul" left Wikipedia. On his account t he said he quit but many of his jerseys were left up. The Steelers one was still out there just deleted off Wikipedia so I re uploaded it. Since it was deleted,I looked at all of his jerseys for the other teams. For example on the Baltimore Ravens, Carolina Panthers, and Philadelphia Eagles have the exact same temple and work done by JohnnySeoul. Based on those, they are non-free only allowed to be used on Wikipedia. I'm still really confused on the matter. So I'm waiting ndering if you can help me. Would you be willing to reupload it and fix what ever I put wrong? http://www.futebolamericano.eu/equipas-nfl/pittsburgh-steelers That is the websit where I found the imagine, with a link to the imagine on Wikipedia, however it is a deleted page. http://futebolamericano.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Pittsburgh-Steelers-Uniformes-620x239.png That's also a link to the exact imagine. From your username you seem like a Steelers fan, it would be greatly appreciated if you could help me out ANTbook365 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I also see you said that any non-free image will be deleted after 7 days. Is that true for all non-free images or just that case? Because if that is the case I now realize that you can't solve my problem ANTbook365 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Also for the Steelers logo that I was taking about in the other chat, it's from the official Steelers website, so is there any chance that if I upload the file, I can send it to you and you can upload Orr with all the official copyright status. Because I'm very confused on the copy right status and rules for everything ANTbook365 (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AFCN-Uniform-PIT.PNG Btw that's the link of the page where the file once was ANTbook365 (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically, every Steelers logo you have uploaded is redundant to File:Pittsburgh Steelers logo.svg. If you want to update the logic it would probably need to be done at File:Pittsburgh Steelers logo.svg, provided your file is a SVG file. Steel1943  (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the jersey images you are uploading are fair-use, meaning that they have to meet 10 very specific criteria to remain on Wikipedia. Steel1943  (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, the Steeler uniform meets fair use standards, so I think it's fine. And for the logo, I'm all about small detail. If you look at the old file and the one I uploaded, you can spot differences including a black outline around the circle and difference in some shapes. The logo I took s from the official Steelers website so that's why I changed that ANTbook365 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Pictures in support of B-Dienst
Hi Steel1943, How do I fix it. All these photographs are are related to the subject ares which is B-diesnt. What do I need to do to fix this? scope_creep (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For those files' use in that article (and, for that matter, to remain on Wikipedia), you will probably need to find an applicable licensing tag that permits it for free use/release (if one exists.) File copyright tags has a few links for lists of licensing templates that declare a file for free-use; most likely, of those lists, you may want to look at File copyright tags/Public domain since an applicable licensing tag may be found there. My guess is that those files may be old enough to qualify for one of those. Otherwise, in their current state (tagged as fair-use (non-free) images), in my opinion, they all fail WP:NFCC since they are not the subject of the article. (For example, see Kurt Fricke: The file of the subject in that article is "fair use", but can remain there since it doesn't fail any of the non-free content criteria.) Steel1943  (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your are not an administrator, who would normally administrate this type of request, so I can speak to them directly? I can't make head nor tail of what your actually saying. All the files here are Second World War, from the web. All of them are out of copyright and all of them you want deleted are specific to the organization of B-Dienst. No licensing tag exists, as they are from the web. There is no licensing attached to them, as there is no licensing authority and no search of licensing would find it, as they are from WW2. I'm following the exact same process that prescribed to me by Diannaa and by another image administrator User:AntiCompositeNumber about a year ago. Lastly they are the subject of the article. It states in the No.8 of the non free criteria:


 * Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.


 * Within that context of the B-Dienst, which is abstract for most people to read. The two code picture, provide the reader with an understanding of what the codes look like, since in the article they are spoken about in the abstract. The five pictures of the military folk, are all instrumental is the daily running and organization of B-Dienst. All of them play a part in a major section of the article. Without it, it is quite hard for the reader to visualize what actually been spoken about. Other images I was wanting to add, which are now in danger, and would also illustrate major sections of the article and other articles in the series, like codes, Enigma machine, Enigma document, Cypher machinery are now in danger, because you want a copyright tag for each images (in the modern sense), for images that barely survived fire, bombing, destruction on a massive scale, and that only survived because of the wholesale theft by TICOM at the end of the world war 2.


 * Sorry, you lost me at "Your are not an administrator". I tried to help you by providing information about Wikipedia and its policies; most administrators here would probably direct you to the same pages. If you disagree with why I don't think your use of these files is proper here, feel free to revert me, and then I'll nominate them for deletion via Files for discussion. Steel1943  (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm not disagreeing with you that the files may help the article, but I don't agree with their use as fair-use images. You tagged the files you uploaded with Non-free fair use in, which means that you are claiming "fair-use", which also means that the files have to meet all 10 criteria outlined in Non-free content criteria. And I don't think that any of the files you uploaded meet criterion 8 since they illustrate the subject in the photos, not the subject of the article. For example, if File:Erhard Maertens.jpg was used in an article named Erhard Maertens (an article about the person himself), the file would be okay for use there. Steel1943  (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to pass you a list, but I see you have been watching. scope_creep (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. I was watching those pages in the event that I needed to respond. Either way, I appreciate your following up on this. Steel1943  (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Bieber listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bieber. Since you had some involvement with the Bieber redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)