User talk:Steel1943/Archive 4

Welcome back!
Glad to see you back at it again. :) You missed a lot of craziness. I have a big project in the works that I was planning to start up in the not-too-distant future that you may want to help out with. BOZ (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BOZ!!! I never thought I would be back, but here I am! :) And craziness, eh? Hmm... are you thinking of a WikiProject of sorts? Steel1943  (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, oh yes, sir! Hopefully much of it is being resolved right now, but hopefully people will excuse my pessimism regardless. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Photograph requested


A tag has been placed on Template:Photograph requested requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Hello Mark Arsten. My apologies for the late reply. I do not have any templates I can think of at the moment. There might be on in the future that has not had its protection level "downgraded" to Template Protection yet; if I find one, I'll let you know (unless requests to do so get absorbed into WP:RFPP soon, which I see there have been talks about.) Steel1943  (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * BDD!!! I saw that you had commented earlier on some of my responses to requests in WP:RM and WP:RFD, and was wondering ... how have you been? Steel1943  (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Protection level change request for Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)
Could the protection level of Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) please be changed from Full protection to Template protection so that I can fulfill the posted edit request? Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. JohnCD (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ! Steel1943  (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Protection level change request for Template:Db-meta and Template:Hang on/notice
Could the protection level of Template:Db-meta please be changed from Full protection to Template protection? The reason I ask is that there is a specific edit I would like to do that would allow a non-instrusive, non-destructive modifier to the code that will allow all instances of the namespace's name to be replaced with the word "redirect" when "redirect=yes". Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, could the same be done with Template:Hang on/notice: could its protection level please be changed from Full protection to Template protection? Thanks! Steel1943  (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

These two requests have been done, but please do not make any significant changes to Template:Db-meta without discussing on its talk page. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MSGJ, . I am aware that messing up Db-meta could have some sure adverse effects. The edits that I am thinking about doing I believe to be non-destructive and non-intrusive to the functionality of the template. I plan on posting a note in Template talk:Db-meta prior to doing anything substantial. I might be working on Template:Db-meta/sandbox later to explain and show the changes I am talking about. Steel1943  (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixing screw ups
Since you are now edit warring to enforce screwing up our archives, I've started fixing the archives directly. You'd think someone would take care of that when the retargeted the rd, but I guess my expectations are too high. — kwami (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, I apologize for undoing your edit without talking to you first. This is actually the first time that I have seen in the history of me having any part in WP:RFD discussions that it was practice to change any links in archives, talk pages, or other "non-essential" pages after their target was changed. To me, the action you took was, in essence, editing links so that they did not appear as they did originally, and could alarm a user if they saw their archives edited for any reason. As another reference, when disambiguation work is done that makes a few hundred pages' links point to one disambiguation page, the links in talk pages and archives are not corrected. Anyways, this is my take. But, as I said, I have never seen it done differently than the way I closed it. Steel1943  (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that.
 * There are other cases, I think, were we've kept odd links so that the archives still function. In this case, many of the talk pages refer to specific conventions described in the target page, so changing that page makes the talk pages and archives nonsensical.  Rather defeats the purpose of keeping an archive, though I suppose if someone were ambitious enough, they could go through the edit histories of the links.  — kwami (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, earlier today, I realized that I completely forgot to do something that I usually do when moves like this occur: leave a hatnote on the previous new target letting editors and readers know about the new target. I have now remedied this on International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects; I added a hatnote regarding the fact that they might be looking for Help:IPA for English. (I was wondering for a while today what I forgot/used to do to prevent redirect references from being completely broken; it was adding a hatnote on the new target!) Steel1943  (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts and am sorry if I snapped at you. I'm just so tired recently of idiot admins (and others) that I tend to react to everyone that way.  I'm even afraid to make a routine move request for a typo, because often as not the admin will fail to leave a link and a bot will follow behind deleting all the redirects, and if I specifically request that a link be left to prevent this, then other admins edit war with me over my subsequent request to delete that link once the redirects are fixed.  So utterly simple to do correctly, and yet so difficult to get someone to do it without creating a mess that it's easier to just leave articles at misspelled names.  I'm glad we still have some like you around.  — kwami (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Question for administrator
Would an administrator be able to look at Requests for undeletion real quick? I want to make sure this issue gets resolved before it accidentally gets any worse. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have replied at Requests for undeletion. You will see that there is, in fact, nothing to worry about, as nothing was deleted except a couple of redirects. I will also move the disambiguation page again, as agreed at Talk:David Z (disambiguation). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks (again) JamesBWatson for doing the detective work to figure out the issue. Unfortunately, as a non-admin, I do not believe that I can see a title's move and deletion history when there is a created page at its location. If I could have, (and I never did the careless move), I would have never had a reason to bring this up! Again, thanks! Steel1943  (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I realise that. It's so easy to make a move, then think you may have done it wrong, and you have no way of going back and checking. I can easily imagine how you must have felt about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Question for You
Hi User:Steel1943. First, I can safely assume that you acted respectfully and in good faith when you chose to delete my request for an Admin help on "Talk page". The thing is that you left me hanging... and did not give me an alternative to get an Admin's attention. Can you perhaps tell me how to get an Admin's attention to review, and, if he/she agrees with the consensus analysis, move the article? Thanks again. Worldedixor (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Worldedixor. My best recommendation to get an admin's attention is, in a way, what I stated in my editnotice on that article's talk page: place the Admin help template on a section on your own user talk page, and then below the template, asking or stating the question/request for the administrator to answer/resolve, referencing the move discussion on Talk:Maron (specifically Talk:Maron, if you would like a formatted link post in your note; you can just copy and paste it). Hope that helps! Steel1943  (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you would like a good example, look at my request for administrative assistance on my user talk page directly above this section. :) Steel1943  (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Super!... That helped a lot... thanks a million... we need to clone here... Count me in when you need a vote for admin. Worldedixor (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=580424582 your edit] to Funk may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Fixed it. Steel1943  (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Millennial Generation
Today, you closed the move request. You wrote there is no consensus to move the title to "Millennial Generation". Just fyi, there was no consensus to move it from Generation Y to Millennials either.

My question for you is: does "consensus" or lack of it among a few editors trump Wikipedia's title policy? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title

Also if you are a non-admin then can this move request be opened up in another admin venue?

Thank you.

172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey 172.250.31.151, there were actually quite a few factors involved with the closing decision I made on the discussion. I looked through both related discussions on the talk page to essentially do what any administrator would do themselves to determine closing any WP:XFD request on Wikipedia: considered everything.
 * First, I saw the move discussion that happened earlier on the page regarding the Generation Y to Millennials request: when I was reviewing that move request (that was closed by someone else previously, I definitely noticed consensus to move to the current title "Millennials". Also, doing a revert on that move during the move discussion you started mentioned only once or twice (given the great response your move request had by other editors), so that option essentially not seen. What can happen sometimes in larger move discussions is that any alternate moves provided than the one in the discussion (unless it is presented immediately after the discussion starts) do not get the attention they deserve. If you want to see another example I am referring to, please see a discussion I closed on Talk:Motor Gun Boat; during that conversation, there was a suggestion made to move Harbour Defence Motor Launch to HDML, but there was not enough attention paid to it by other editors to fairly say that there was any consensus for that move.
 * Another point that you brought up, and actually something that I had to learn myself when I started editing on Wikipedia: there are no rules. Essentially, there are not really any "policies" on Wikipedia: there are "guidelines" and "precedents". The Manual of style and other guidelines, such as the one about titles, are recommended and advised to follow, but it's not a requirement. In fact, the talk page I was referring to earlier's title, Motor Gun Boat, may go against the WP:TITLECASE, but consensus decided to not give that guideline consideration for the requested move to get it to lowercase. Essentially, if a editor doesn't agree with a guideline applying to a particular case, they can disagree with it and not follow it, but only if consensus agrees with not following the guideline in that case: otherwise, the edit could be controversial. In your move request's case, it was controversial, and the peers who presented their cases during the discussion had mixed thoughts on the move, which actually brings me to my next point:
 * There's a difference between what "No consensus" means versus "Not moved". "No consensus" means that the discussion went in too many directions to be able to make a clear decision: when this happens, the practice/precedent is to not perform any action, including the requested action that is part if the discussion. "Not moved", as it would have pertained to your move request, would have meant that it was very clear that the editors who participated were able to provide very good reasons (most likely through precedent or guidelines) that were disagreeing with the presented move, reefer ring to the presented move ONLY. In your move request's specific case, there was such a combination of opposes (most per WP:COMMONNAME) mixed with support for your proposed move and an alternate proposal to move the article back to Generation Y that doing any of the three aforementioned options had a reasonable amount of disagreement by the presenters of the other two options for any to be considered.
 * Note: In your move's case, I had to make a judgement call to basically predict if having the discussion go on for another week would clarify consensus for any of the three major options provided during the move request. Due to the direction I felt the discussion was taking, I did not believe that having that specific discussion go on for another week would have provided any enough clarity for any of the three major options presented to declare which one was clearly agreed, with good reason, by a majority and for similar reasons. Given that, I closed the discussion.
 * IN A NUTSHELL, to answer your concerns promptly, "policies" can be disregarded in favor of consensus, there was previously consensus to move the title to Millennials during a previous move discussion, and "no consenusus" means that there was not a clear call for any direction in a discussion having preference over the others (so thus no action was taken). If you want to open up another discussion on Millennials to move it, you can (I'm not saying that I'm not sticking by my decision to close the previous discussion to "no consensus." I'm saying that a new discussion might be able to clarify consensus if it was started from scratch. And, unless you are banned or blocked by an administrator [which I hope never happens to any good, productive editor], you can open up as many discussions as you like.) Also, you were in the correct venue to request the move; move requests can be closed by anyone capable of making a good decision (hopefully based on consensus) to confidently close the move; technically, the main difference between non-admins and admins on Wikipedia is access to deletion tools and the ability to block editors.


 * ...And please keep in mind: just like you and I, and just like any administrator or non-administrator on here, we are all volunteers trying to make Wikipedia the best free and accurate source of information available to anyone. Anyways, I apologies for my long response to your question, but I hope I addressed everything. Steel1943  (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Question/assistance request for administrator
Would an administrator be able to go ahead and carry out the speedy deletion and move currently posted on Tigranocerta? I'm asking through this method due to the fact that I had closed the move discussion a couple of days ago, and there seems to be a bit of confusion to why the article is still at the title/name Tigranakert (capital) (per Talk:Tigranakert (capital)). Thanks in advance! Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅  Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ronhjones, . Steel1943  (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

request for clarification
Hi, regarding: Hapa

I requested protection and you replied " Note: From what I am seeing, it looks like there are at least two sockpuppet "masters", and one of them looks like a duck. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)"

Can you please clarify? From what I can see there are several other unique users making similar arguments on both the article and talk page (I am ignoring anonymous IPs). All including myself have been reverted by a single user. Thanks

Pendrop9 TAG_Speakers KAVEBEAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyglottz (talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Polyglottz, I had a moment to look over the edit history of Hapa. I left that note for the deciding administrator to assist in deciding what action will be taken in regards to the edit war on Hapa. Unfortunately, since I am not an administrator, the action they will take based on the information I stated on WP:RFPP will have to be explained by them. In cases like this, the protection on a page is usually not upgraded to full protection; instead, user(s) are blocked from editing (but as I said, that will be up to the administrator who takes action on your case.) Also, please refer to the links I provided in the answer for clarification on the terms I used. Steel1943  (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Polyglottz's Sockpuppetry
Hi Steel1943. There seems to be some confusion. Polyglottz needs to be investigated. I opened a sockpuppet investigation before, but it was prematurely closed because Polyglottz was not active at the time. Now that Polyglottz/TAG speakers has returned, I think it is time to reopen the case. It is quite serious that Polyglottz/TAG speakers keep insisting on protection for the page when the appropriate action is to work towards consensus.

Here is the link to the sockpuppet investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TAG_speakers/Archive

It's worth noting that Polyglottz edited the "Paul Spickard" article on November 3, 2013 while TAG speakers made edits to the same article on October 4, 2013 and again on November 11, 2013.

Aside from looking at the edit history of Hapa, please look at the article's talk page. Polyglottz's and others' arguments have been thoughtfully and civilly responded to. Polyglottz/TAG speakers is acting like he owns the article and refuses to engage in the consenus-building process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKia (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * GaryKia, I would recommend reading my note very carefully. Like I told Polyglottz, I am not an administrator; the call is going to have to be made by the administrator who takes action on the case for Hapa on WP:RFPP. Steel1943  (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm very new to Wikipedia. I don't want to be blocked from editing merely because a bully using sockpuppets is trying to get the Wikipedia authorities to stop me from editing. How do I address the sockpuppetry problem during this page protection request? Do I have to wait until an administrator makes a decision and then point out Polyglottz's sockpuppetry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKia (talk • contribs) 03:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * GaryKia, since I assume good faith, I will provide you information can be used by you or Polyglottz; if you suspect that there is sockpuppetry happening, it can be reported on WP:SPI. Steel1943  (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Message for Ployglottz and GaryKia
Per the response on the Hapa request on WP:RFPP, this should be referred to the edit warring notice board. I am posting this here so that editors Ployglottz and GaryKia can confirm that I have acknowledged the administrator's response on WP:RFPP. Steel1943 (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ToaR new parameter
Just thought you'd like to know – I just used the new   parameter for the first time at Talk:R:BASE System. –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 04:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Paine Ellsworth, looks nice! I'm thinking of possibly making the parameter trigger the page being put in a category as well. Steel1943  (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, well keep in mind that the redirect is sorted into . Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 17:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFPP/H listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect RFPP/H. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:RFPP/H redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and placed a Db-blanked tag on RFPP/H (so thus, I closed the discussion). Your point is valid, and I have no refute for it. Steel1943  (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Allright then, I went ahead and did the deletion. Always a pleasure to run into a user who is  willing to consider other points of view instead of letting their ego get in the way. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Xu (surname)
Hi. The RM has closed, but I think there is sufficient sourcing for a standalone article on the second Xu, including Xu change to Yee/Yu. Are you still of the opinion the families should be demerged? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion about that is a bit neutral. The reason I stated that during the RM is because I have seen other precedents where surnames have been split while using different diacritics (such as the several examples on List of Chinese surnames) ... but now, I noticed that my reasoning was not good since all of those examples redirect to articles without diacritics anyways. With that being said, I now have no opinion either way. Steel1943  (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
...for sorting out my completely ballsed-up attempt at requesting that technical page move! Don't how how or what you did, but cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)
 * no problem. Glad to help. I was once a new editor trying to figure out the discussion forums; it can be a bit confusing at first. Steel1943  (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Gross and uninformed error on nominating Indian reserve for RM.
Very, very, very bad. Are you Canadian? Are you a Canadian indigenous person? Did you think to look at the full scope of categories and lists before 'relisting' this? See my comments at WikiProject Canada, where this should have been discussed first, also at WP:IPNA. Why did you do this????Skookum1 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, some of that previous comment was rather uncalled for. Since you had to ask a question like this, I would recommend reading the description on how relisting works at WP:RMCI for an understanding on why I relisted the discussion. WP:RM discussion consensus is determined based on information provided during the move discussion on the article's talk page; when I relisted the discussion, there was not enough consensus provided during the discussion to close the request to "moved" or "not moved". If you do not agree with the outcome of that move discussion, feel free to create another move request on its talk page. Also, another option you have would be to ask the editor/administrator who closed the RM for clarification on how they formed consensus for the move, which I see you have already done. Steel1943  (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Living for the Weekend
Hi Steel1943

You recently participated in a move request for the albums/songs titled "Living for the Weekend". This move has been partially carried out, but due to lack of consensus over the album versions, I have started a new request for those specifically, at Talk:Livin' for the Weekend: The Anthology. Please feel free to comment there if you so desire. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Li (chestnut)
22:36, 23 November 2013‎ Steel1943 (talk | contribs)‎. . (45 bytes) (-4,378)‎. . (Redirecting page to Li (surname meaning "chestnut") - no consensus established (yet) at Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English to create a new page - action was seeming taken boldly) (undo | thank)
 * I appreciate your reasons for edit, and also the sensible ground you have taken and comments made following recent entry into this discussion, but per WP:BRD Zanhe has restored, and boldly or not, creating articles always has to be better than blanking, deleting sources, ... What Zanhe has demonstrated here is that the issue of notability and the repeated forum shopping attempts to merge these families is spurious. In which case no reason not to go ahead and do what Wikipedia does. At this point enough disruption/prevention of article growth has occurred. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the update on the status of that RfC. What I saw was another editor who was trying to do a bold non-conensus revert on those articles prior to the RfC being closed. Also, I agree with what you stated as well; I am actually quite impressed with how more thorough Zanhe's version is versus the previous versions of the "Li (surname)" articles. At this point, and after I just looked over the RfC a bit, it looks like the RfC might be getting to a point where it can be closed. If you and/or others think so as well, I suggest that a closing request be posted on WP:ANRFC so the RfC can be formally closed. (I'd close it myself, but since I'm a bit involved with my reverts and I do agree with you, I cannot.) Steel1943  (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is getting near the point, but it'd be better with a few of those who've previously commented looking at the situation now after Zanhe's raft of improvements. I was quite surprised that even with Li (chestnut) which is a "new" name, there was so much material. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries for template replacements
Hi there, I noticed to a page on my watchlist. Your edit summary was "replaced template". It would be helpful for other editors if your summaries for similar edits mentioned what templates you were changing - for example: "Replaced: Template:Missing → Template:Missing information." Best wishes, —  Scott  •  talk  13:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 24
Hello Steel. I have undone your closure of the above RFD, purely for technical reasons: How can you close a discussion as delete when you are not able to do the actual deletion?-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)`
 * , like I always have. Look at Kainaw's criteria: I have marked it with the appropriate Db-xfd tag. For this reason, I'm reverting your unclosing my close. Steel1943  (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NACD is about as clear as policies come and I feel that your use of that speedy delete tag is not what it is intended for. Please revert yourself and follow policy, if you feel the policy should be changed then you should make a proposal at the correct venue-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I figured by now that you have seen my response on my talk page. In addition, I just noticed that you are an administrator. The way that I closed the discussion I have seen done by a few other non-admins in the past, and saw it as a valid way to close WP:RM and WP:RFD discussions in cases where consensus seems rather clear, and if there is not another administrator to take action on relisting or closing the discussion. In fact, I have then seen an administrator involved in the discussion perform the "speedy deletion". I apologize for coming off rude in my response on my talk page: I thought that this was either a known or accepted process. If you feel the need to revert my close of the discussion, I will not revert it again. Anyways, time for me to retire again. Take care. Steel1943  (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Retirement
I apologise if it was something I had said that has caused you to leave, it was not my intention to upset you in anyway, I was just trying to point out that what you were doing was, for better or worse, against policy-- Jac 16888 Talk 23:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)