User talk:Steel1943/Archive 5

Good work

 * I just saw what happened about ten days ago. It's a gray area.  In a way, you were both right and you were both wrong.  The other editor was an admin and should have known better than to cite a guideline as "policy".  On the other hand, the guideline does specifically go against nac if the decision cannot be performed by the closing editor.  On the other hand, your placement of a db template on the redirect would have gotten the job done and similar actions have been done in the past.  Personally, I would have done the same thing you did, except I'm not yet ready to retire, even for the first time.  I have been known to take a wikiholiday from time to time.
 * I suppose it's a good thing – I just came here to piss you off some more (jus' kiddin') and lam into you for removing the "to project" from  on 27 Nov with  this edit .  That Rcat can be used to tag cross-namespace redirects and project-page-to-project-page redirects.  It automatically sorts them properly into separate cats.  There are three like that:
 * R to help
 * R to portal
 * R to project
 * Also, you can insert extra Rcats into the Redr template, up to six total Rcats. So you didn't have to add R to subpage independently, you could have embedded it like so:    (I usually use the shortcut R sub as in  ).
 * So anyways, hope you get better soon and fully recover from whatever malady you suffer from. I'm not saying that because I like you or anything.  You're a template editor, and the project needs good template editors, that's all.  Seriously, you needn't go through life letting other people push your buttons like that.  Push 'em your own self!
 * Actually, the only important thing I came here to say was... You will be missed. As always, Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 21:35, 17 December 2013 (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". :)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R from filename title
Template:R from filename title has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Article Alerts
Hi Steel,

I know you keep an eye on the D&D Article Alerts page. I don't know how much you are into gaming in general, but if you wanted to keep track of more processes for a broader range of subjects, last year I had an article alerts page created for the RPG Wikiproject, and there is also an article alerts page for the Board and Table games Wikiproject (which covers wargames, CCGs, and other non-RPG tabletop games). BOZ (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my cut-and-paste move of Abishai (biblical figure)
Hello, you posted on my talk page that Abishai (biblical figure) is a cut-and-paste move from Abishai. I respect the work that the copyright removers and cut-and-paste move fixers do, and I have done my share of it in the past. However, while I respectfully disagree that this case requires the remedy of combining page histories, I do agree that something needs to be done with the article.

Abishai was a disambiguation page back in 2006, and it still is now. Here is the entire disambiguation entry for Abishai as it was when I created the new article.


 * Abishai (Bible), the father of (i.e., "desirous of") a gift, the eldest son of Zeruiah, David's sister. It is also the name of the Semitic chief who offers gifts to the lord of Beni-Hassan.

I admit that my work here was quite sloppy, especially because I did not intend to include the second sentence of this entry in the new article, "Abishai (biblical figure)" (at least I hope I did not). Instead, it should have been made into its own disambiguation entry on the disambiguation page, "Abishai". The sentence in the article "Abishai (biblical figure)" that is currently devoted to the Semitic chief with the same name should be removed from the article.

Now, let us deal with the first sentence, "Abishai (Bible), the father of (i.e., "desirous of") a gift, the eldest son of Zeruiah, David's sister." In my opinion, "Abishai, the eldest son of Zeruiah, David's sister," needs only a reference to the Bible, in this case 1 Chronicles 2:13. I do not want to be insensitive to Wikipedia's editors, but I do not think that attribution of this phrase is necessary.

However, as far as the part about "Abishai" meaning "the father of (i.e., "desirous of") a gift," I would say that it should not be included without its own reference, as it is not included in the Bible, as far as I can tell. As far as attribution goes for this contribution, I would say that it should be given, if it were to be kept in the article. I was also sloppy in not even fixing the part about the meaning of his name, as the wording is very poor.

If you like, you can leave the article in the cut-and-paste move fixing pen, but I suggest that "the father of (i.e., "desirous of") a gift," simply be deleted from the article. The sentence about the Semitic chief with the same name should also be deleted. After that, an entry on him should be put on the disambiguation page, "Abishai". After all of that is removed, the only thing that will remain from the disambiguation page move will be, "Abishai, the eldest son of Zeruiah, David's sister."

These are my opinions on what was done and what should be done. I will leave the decisions to be made about this article up to you.

I am not writing this message in anger or resentment, and I have tried to make sure that my reply is clear and logical. If I have failed to do that, I apologize in advance. Unfortunately, written communication lacks the many non-verbal cues that face-to-face communication has, which leads to misunderstandings. Thank you very much, Kjkolb (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that Abishai (biblical figure) needs work, and I thank you for providing feedback about my actions on my talk page, but this is not the purpose about why I requested the history merge. Before the WP:CUTPASTE move I was referring to that happened in 2006, the majority of the contents that were on Abishai were moved to Abishai (Bible) (now Abishai (biblical figure)). It seemed that the original purpose of Abishai before 2006 was a main article first, and a disambiguation page second. At this point, both pages seem to serve the purposes which they should, but the page history that was on Abishai before 2006 seemed to more belong on the history of Abishai (biblical figure). (It was as though the disambiguation page was created in 2006.)


 * Anyways, the only reason I noticed all of this was because I was attempting to find a new target for the redirect Abishi, but could not find one. However, in the process, I noticed the odd edit histories of Abishai and Abishai (biblical figure), so I requested them changed. I personally have neither any vested interest to update Abishai (biblical figure), nor any idea where to start. Steel1943 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

LSZ
Hello,

I noticed you reverted my edit to make LSZ reduction formula the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for LSZ. Upon investigating I noticed that the traffic to Lysergic acid 2,4-dimethylazetidide was 6x higher, there were 20x more linking pages and the google search ranking was significantly higher. As a result I reverted your reversion.

Thanks for your understanding, Testem (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Testem, I noticed when you "reverted" my revert, you actually didn't do a true "revert" on my edit; rather, you "cloaked" the revert as a way to change the redirect to a whole new target, as proven in these two sequential diffs: 1 & 2. Even though that wasn't a true "revert of my revert", I don't disagree with your reasoning, granted that all of the topics on LSZ (disambiguation) are not my strong points. Also, as the information you stated meets the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I have no desire to start a WP:RM or WP:RFD discussion. There may be the possibility that another editor may feel as though they have a reasonable dispute of either the primary topic, or the lack thereof, but I am not that editor at this time. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was not my intention to try and conceal the end result of my edit. Thanks for your understanding. Testem (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bangs / Fringe
Hello! Sorry about any confusion that's arisen. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (The section's title refers to a move that occurred yesterday.) Thanks. —David Levy 20:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, considering I'm not worried about it myself. At this point, if other editors feel the need to leave a page titled the way that it is, even if it breaks how the move request is posted on WP:RM, I'll just let it play itself out. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about the broken move request. Because I'm involved in the dispute, I've asked that another admin get this straightened out (by closing the inapplicable move request and either reopening the original or initiating a new one).  —David Levy 20:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * makes sense. The only concern that I had, as a editor who looks at WP:RM from time to time, is that the most recent move request appears as though the article is trying to be moved to its current title, which obviously makes no sense, and probably doesn't to other editors. That was all (though I'm not afraid to boldly fix the issue myself, if I can, as you saw.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that this is a problem in need of fixing. —David Levy 20:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Bor
I just wanted to say thanks :) Nedgreiner (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning
Talking bird (cognition) primary topic. you all will unlimited block — Preceding unsigned comment added by CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * CYl7EPTEMA777, by the way you are talking to me, I have a strong suspection that you are either a sockpuppet, or someone who needs a better understanding of how Wikipedia "works". Threats of an "unlimited block" as both a non-administrator and someone who is not familiar with established Wikipedia policies is not only very uncalled for, but can actually get you blocked. Seriously. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 124.170.229.124 write administrator about you,DrChrissy,Johnuniq,Kurt Shaped Box,Boomur,Epipelagic and Dbrodbeck and administrator will decide who block (he write about you all on User talk:CYl7EPTEMA777) (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * CYl7EPTEMA777, honestly, you should look at and read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DABNAME before doing any more edits on the "Talking bird"-named articles, if you haven't done so. I'm stating this because, right now, the edits you have been performing look very disruptive, and do not have any consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, CYl7EPTEMA777, that last comment you made resulted in me opening up a discussion on WP:ANI regarding your edits and conduct on Wikipedia. On your talk page, I have posted the link to the discussion. I really cannot give you a standard notice about disruptive editing after you have went out of your way to threaten me with an "unlimited block". Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominal
Hi! Could you please explain your revert to my edits on Nominal? Thanks ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forget it. I just say your subsequent edits. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , my revert was accidental as I explained in the edit history of my revert of my accidental revert of your edits. And if you need an explanation of my subsequent edits, look at the edit notices. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and get into detail about my edit notices, in case they are not clear:
 * On Nominal, the name of the page is Nominal (linguistics), NOT Nominal (word). It is standard for the actual name of an article to be on a disambiguation page, not a redirect to it. (Please refer to MOS:DAB for further information.)
 * On Nominal (linguistics), the hatnote that was put on the page is not used in the true fashion for a hatnote. The main purpose of hatnotes is to direct the reader to the proper article if they might have accidentally reached this article by typing the entire name of the article. It is more likely that an editor or reader is accidentally going to type the ambiguous term "Nominal" and reach that page than type out the disambiguous title "Nominal (linguistics)".
 * Hope that clarified my edit notices, in case they were not clear enough. Steel1943 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I already said I saw your subsequent edits too late :-) In case you are interested, I've brought up the issue at WT:LING. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for going into unnecessary detail then; above, you typed "I just say your subsequent edits", so I thought you meant that you meant to ask me about my subsequent edits, NOT that you saw my subsequent edits and you understood their purpose. That's what I get for misinterpreting that typo! Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear... and that's what I get for typing too fast! W and Y are not even next to each other on my keyboard. My apologies, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well thank you for the Barnstar
Thank you for that, I appreciate that very much. Ambrose Bierce called a lawyer "a liar with a roving commission" and I hope at least I am not a liar. I try honestly to make the encyclopaedia a bit better. I have a tendency to ramble and that is my worst fault, but I do try to do my research. That does not mean of course we will always agree, and I wouldn't expect always to expect to: that is just my way of treating others with respect. I have three rules in life, "don't hit, don't lie, don't cheat". Everything else is negotiable. Everyone else can have their own, but those work for me.

Thank you also for all your hard work at RfD and I imagine elsewhere. I do actually create and edit articles as well (I've improved Hitchin Flyover, Dualit, Bachelor griller and added an image at touch typing and Remington Rand today because I have my aunt's Remington typewriter) and do a bit of translation. I am not the most well-read man or anything, but who was it who said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? I don't have books on me at the moment, well only Hungarian ones, so I can't check it. Leviticus wasn't it who said man is born to struggle as the sparks fly upward, in the KJV (I am not very christian but I love the KJV). I suppose I am a jack of all trades and master of none, but I just try to make it a little bit better every day, I thought that is what it was all about, like real life, you can't make it perfect but you can make it a little bit better, every day. Ovid said "Add little to little and you have a great pile".

It means a lot to me, thank you for that. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Achilles Statius (disambiguation)
Hmm, yes (and I'm not surprised that an admin might read the template and delete a page without noticing that the template doesn't jive very well with the policy). But I have to give primacy to the policy over the template, I should think.

Reading PRIMARYTOPIC, it's a very touch feely, develop a consensus to determine primacy guideline that doesn't seem well suited to speedy deletion (which should only rely on things that require not discussion). Here, though, it probably depends on how you interpret Achilles Tatius - if Achilles Statius is an alternate spelling of his name (which is how I read the disambig page), then you'd need to do research, have a discussion, etc. Whereas if it's just there as a typo, then I think there's obvious primary topic.

Actually, the more I read the template, the more the wording bugs me. A disambig page might have a primary topic and still disambig thirty pages (e.g., George Washington (disambiguation)), or conversely, a disambig disambigging one extant page and a few redlinks might well not have a primary topic. Bringing it up at WT:CSD might be an easier place to find clarity. (But I obviously won't object if you're gung-ho for a RFC). I suspect either bringing the template into line with the policy page, or opening a discussion somewhere then bringing the two into line, is a good idea. (But if your hope is that you'll end up with all the admins parsing C:CSD having totally consistent behaviour with one another ... good luck. Without naming names, there are considerations beyond just how the policy reads.) Wily D  14:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion
There are several redirects for discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Your username and signature...
I have a few rolls of 1943 pennies as well (I'm probably one of the few that gets the reference) and as such I think that is a cool username. Might I suggest brining your signature up to date however? The tags that you are using were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5 at all. As such, I suggest replacing: with: which will result in an appearance of Steel1943  (talk) compared to your existing of: Steel1943  (talk) — Either way. Happy editing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. And dang, someone finally figured out how I made up this name! But eh, then again, I made it up before search engines became a big thing, if you know what I mean.  Steel1943  (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Those rolls I've had, I've had since the early 80's... ;) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Mistaken thanks
Oops. I didn't mean to thank you for that edit - the "thank" button is dangerously large and near the "back" button on my small smartphone. In fact I think the edit is wrong as it is not an example of "when to link to a dab page". Will revisit it when I'm online from desktop. Pam D  05:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * no worries. In fact, I think my edit is wrong too! ...Since the way I made the edit has nothing to do with disambiguation! However, the way that the line read before, it was incorrect and/or backwards. Feel free to correct it with an example that actually has something to do with disambiguation.
 * By the way, I get what you are saying about these smartphones; I have a touchscreen one, and I end up accidentally "clicking" Rollback all the time! Steel1943  (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Steel and PamD: Check out Customizing watchlists. It provides a formula to remove the rollback links from your watchlist. No more risk of accidental undoing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Astronomische Gesellschaft Katalog
Please help immediately. Someone has vandalized this article (random, I know) and I have no way of fixing it. Please help as soon as you can. Thank you! Italia2006 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BELO, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Behind Enemy Lines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:RMTR
Now at Talk:Inspector De Luca (TV series). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to Old Order
I note your reversion. If I were going to argue I would say that "Old Order" is the predominant part of the name and therefore searches of Old Order should go to Old Order. However, it is not a clear case. It the search goes to ancien regime, the searcher gets there directly. He can still get to the other old orders via the hatnote. Chances are, he is actually interested in ancien regime. If the search goes to Old Order, someone interested in the Mennonite Old Order can get there quicker than through Ancien Regime, but the searcher interested in ancien regime has an extra step. It is a matter of judgement. When I made my change no one else seemed interested. If you'd rsther see it the other way, go right ahead! I am not going to oppose it.Branigan 08:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For the most part, I actually agree with your logic in the matter with your edit ... sort of. The reason I reverted your edit was when I looked at Old Order (disambiguation), I did not think that page qualified to be a disambiguation page since all if the titles there (except Ancien Régime) were essentially partial title matches. In fact, since my speedy deletion of the disambiguation page was denied, I'm thinking that my "Plan B" may need to be considered on the disambiguation page: turning it into a "WP:DABCONCEPT". (It almost looks like someone tried to do this in the past, but it since Ancien Régime is still at the top of the page, the task does not seem completed. In a case like this, Ancien Régime might serve a better purpose in an "Other uses" section.) Steel1943  (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, if the disambiguation page gets moved to the ambiguous title, I'm thinking of tagging it as so (with a Dabconcept tag). Steel1943  (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Old AfD multi
Consensus did not favor moving this to Old XfD multi. But you might take a look at Module:Old AfD multi. It appears that User:Theopolisme was trying to convert the template to Lua. This might be an opportunity to add TfDs, MfDs etc in a proper manner. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that information. I didn't get around to responding to the opposing IP, but I happen to agree with them. I was, more or less, proposing the move due to lack of any other existing options. Once I get a better understanding of Lua, I may take a crack at that module. Steel1943  (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, see Template_talk:Old_AfD_multi. The Lua rewrite is actually fully functional, and it would be pretty trivial to add support for other types of deletions as well, assuming anyone is ever interested in getting it implemented (there were never any replies on my initial thread)...  Theopolisme ( talk )  20:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion
There are several redirects for discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding time banner to WP:RFD
I don't know what happened to this but you mentioned it at WP:RFD in November 2013. I go a lot more slowly than most people so I only just found it! Not quite true but I happened to notice it.

I did create the tempate and that might be more appropriate because I don't think we want to give the exact seconds, and the guidelines at RfD say "stay around roughly seven days", not that they are knocked off at you know exactly the second that the 7 &times; 86,400.000 seconds fall. But I think discussions should stay around as long as they are necessary. I would close some myself and can do that without being an admin but prefer to stay a gnome and let others do the admin, I would probably turn into Adolf Hitler or my cat who is patently plotting world domination but can't get past the dog, and would start closing discussions after two comments because it was just my opinion.

Thank you again for all your hard work on Wikipedia: it is noticed by at least one other editor. Si Trew (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Haha, I wish I could honestly close more. However, it seems that some of the administrators have been enforcing WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC these days; bottom line, all the discussions that are obvious deletes, and I want to close to delete ... I cannot. There used to be a time when some non-admins would close discussions to "delete" then tag the corresponding page with a Db-move or Db-xfd, but it seems as though those days are behind us. In all honestly, I'd like to get those two policies changed to allow non-admins to close discussions to "delete" during times of heavy backlog, but I'd rather get some support from other editors (non-admins and admins alike) before I try to take on that great task; I would even support this motion if I was an admin (but, then again, if I was, I probably would have closed all of them by now ... ha!) Also, would you able to direct me to the discussion you are referring to about the times template? (It may be locked up somewhere in my brain, and it probably was important to me at the time, but I have had at least one Wikibreak since then.) Anyways, thank you for your kind words! Steel1943  (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, perhaps the way to start is to suggest to revise policy (at RfD I mean) to say "if there are four straight delete votes with no other comments it's bleeding obvious delete and anyone can do it" (obviously not quite in those words).


 * My main gripe is with good-faith editors changing articles that are the targets of redirects, or the redirects themselves, while they are under discussion, (you're a bit guilty of this I'm afraid to say) which is trying to hit a moving target and renders invalid others' comments that made sense when they said them but not when someone else tries to look them up. Perhaps it would be good if Twinkle or other tools actually put the article revision number in the links on XfD. I notice another editor, and a very good one (I am not naming names), today at RfD was complaining that it took two days of holiday to sort out some mess about Elisabeth Walker: which seems an odd thing to say since firstly it had not reached consensus what to do about it, and secondly no-one forces one to come here, on holiday or not. It took me and the missus for example six weeks to translate the articles about the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 and another six years to sort out the messs and it's still not very satisfactory, that's WP:NOTPERFECT. We don't have to make it perfect, we just have to make it better. I usually just take a Wikibreak – or edit anonymously – when I get fed up with an editor having a personal attack at me for trying to do so – yet somehow I always return. And I take a Wikibreak when I am on holiday or working very hard and haven't time. Seems an odd thing to say. Si Trew (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that I have done what you have stated a few times, but usually either on a disambiguation page, or when I just straight up don't realize that a discussion is happening; if that ever happens in move discussions, I usually either update the move discussions (due to my complete obliviousness of the discussion). I've seen some editors make changes that make a request malformed; by that time, I usually just add onto it rather than revert the edits; I used to revert edits like that, but after a comment regarding me reverting non-consensus actions on a discussion relating to names with diacritics, I decided to stop doing that and let nature take its course. Oh, the stories I could share about all of the lessons I have learned here on Wikipedia, such as originally thinking that redirects could be PROD-ed, or basically making a mess of another Wikimedia project that led me to what I thought was going to be a permanent retirement (back in April 2013; I didn't come back until about October 2013) due to me performing some really dumb and selfish edits that disrespected fellow editors, mainly due to a misunderstanding about Wikidata (which was a new project back then.) After these experiences, I can say full-heartedly, if a person wants to purposely throw themselves into an situation where they can learn from their mistakes, Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) is the place. Steel1943  (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I am guilty of the same. I added a pic of two candidates at Next Hungarian elections, for example. A bit of scrubbing is fine, but an outright change pulls the rug from under one's feet. As if I had a rug: I just put in wall-to-wall carpet. I agree with you entirely, Wikipedia is a great way to learn from one's mistakes or, to put it another way, recognise one's failures. I said many years ago and I stick by it: show me a man who has never made a mistake and I will show you a liar. The difference between men and boys is to say sorry, I am wrong (I don't mean you). And oddly enough most don't because they are ashamed to say sorry, but you get more respect not less from saying "sorry, I am wrong, let's sort this out", and you get more trust – not just on WP but in real life – because people then think "this man will admit he is wrong. So when he says he is right and sticks to it, he means it". Not just Wikipedia but real life too. I'm an engineer and we do it habitually without any side, argue and disagree and then go out for lunch or dinner with no problem, but on Wikipedia it gets quite heated unnecessarily because people are not used to arguing in that way. Si Trew (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Haha, as for Wikidata, I tied up some chemical article to the Hungarian Wikipedia (the article was there but was not tied up with the Interwiki link) and got told off on Hungarian Wikipedia for not using Wikidata. I hadn't even bloody heard of it cos I had taken a Wikibreak and it had come in while I was away. But we got it sorted, which is the main point. Strange to be kinda told off in Hungarian for doing it the wrong way. Si Trew (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Contact (1997 film) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Contact (1997 film). Since you had some involvement with the Contact (1997 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. uKER (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Contact (1997 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contact (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm ... yeah, it's intentional because it is a redirect ... thanks bot! Steel1943  (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)#Requested move
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Know about WP:TWINKLE?
Only asking because I saw you manually request page protection, when Twinkle can do it automagically. Just wondering. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware of its existence. However, I do my best to AVOID using tools of the such. I prefer doing everything manually so I don't have to worry about these tools breaking and causing unintentional edits that point back to me. Steel1943  (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. Just like to let people know as I've seen editors incessantly complain about having to do everything manually, then point them to Twinkle and their reaction is something like; o.o "Wow, gee, thanks!" I understand though. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I definitely get what you are saying, considering that everyone is not the same and competency is different from person to person. Anyways, you doing this for others can definitely be necessary and helpful. Keep it up, and take care! P.S. I created Lmd. Steel1943  (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!
Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

TfD template fix
Please remove the linebreak between the noincluded TFD tag and the template code at Template:Tn; it's causing the template to wrongly insert a newline before its output. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, I think. can you verify?  Steel1943  (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, that fixed it. Thanks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Diego (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

PASTE
Please read WP:DIFFCAPS.-- Laun  chba  ller  23:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Odd, WP:DIFFCAPS seems to support my edit. For that, I'll probably open up an WP:RFD discussion shortly.
 * Never mind. Your edit works for me until another organization is referred to as all caps. Steel1943  (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And, never mind on that: I don't see where this topic is referred to by all caps. WP:RFD discussion starting shortly. Steel1943  (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , out of respect to your request on your talk page, here is the link to the discussion: Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 29. Steel1943  (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
I should have known about Defaultsort &mdash; I see it all the time and I guess I just blanked on it. Thanks for the note. After nine years here, there's still a lot to learn!

While I'm here, since you mentioned you opposed the RfC change, you might want to add an "Oppose" to the list. Can't hurt, especially when such a major change is being contemplated. And anyway, thanks again for the head's up! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, and I get it. Wikipedia is an ongoing learning experience; I seem to learn more here every day I edit, especially with every edit of mine that gets reverted! By the way, I did already voice my "oppose"; I'm the comment above yours. :) Steel1943  (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * D'oh! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

question re technical move
Halkomelem I've realized since I could just put a db-move on the redirect, is it OK to remove it from the speedy moves list; or is there much difference. It's a very common term in BC English, used without any modifier, same with its dialects though there are no separate articles/titles for them (yet - Hunquminum, Hulquminum, Halqemeylem).Skookum1 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would leave it on both to allow the move request to have more exposure to administrators. I mean, after the move is done, the other request will be acknowledged/removed just as quickly. (Minor disclaimer: I am not supporting your move requests with this information, but rather providing information on how to get this task accomplished quicker.) Steel1943  (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Did the comments
at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=608125648#Contested_technical_requests RMTR] answer your objection? If you are still not satisfied with having separate articles at Global Innovation Index and International Innovation Index then we should open a regular move discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I no longer have any objection with the moves bring carried out. My concerns were addressed during the course of the discussion. Steel1943  (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jody (given name)
Hello, Steel1943. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Jody (given name), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Amortias (T)(C) 19:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have contested your WP:PROD nomination. The page you nominated is a list (see WP:LIST). Lists do not fall under the same notability scrutinies that article are subject; lists do not exist to establish any notability of its title, but rather list subjects which are referred to by the title. I mean, if we start deleting lists due to notability reasons, we might as well start deleting disambiguation pages as well. (That was the cleanest way I could word that, so I apologize in advance if that sounded sarcastic: if you refer to the links I provided in this response, you should get some information about lists and disambiguation pages, and their guidelines.)
 * By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! Although it will take some time to understand the guidelines that have already been established via consensus over the decade that Wikipedia has existed, once you get the hang of them, this place is actually quite fun and rewarding; I say all of this out of personal experience. Anyways, hope you stick around!  Steel1943  (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Point noted - have a feeling theres gonna be more things to get wrong/right than I've had hot meals, is useful when something like this is put in a friendly manner. Amortias (T)(C) 21:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Less keystrokes
Fewer keystrokes. *slap*. Carry on. Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You've been in a rather rare form lately. Is all well? Steel1943  (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was only joking. Your intelligence and insight at RfD, at least one editor very much appreciates (and you can't get less fewer than that.) I don't know what you mean by "rather rare form" do you mean good or bad? I do what I can and I don't expect to be right but it helps me get through to edit a few things and just gnome about.


 * I've been a bit down the last few days, I suffer from clinical depression but it passes in a few days. Have I been being out of order? When I get the depression I don't notice that I am being so. You know I was only joking about "less/fewer" an odd distinction when we have "more/more" do we have an article on less and fewer or something? I am not sure I can make one as I don't have my books with me to RS it. It is British English e.g mentioned in Fowler's Modern English Usage – modern of course in Britain meaning 1922 – but I am guessing that you know that already. One nice thing with living in Hungary is that although my ears hurt from hearing Hungarian they don't hurt from hearing bolloxing up our pure and unsullied English language (smiles) but it was always thus.


 * And all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well. The depression knocks me back a bit and docs say the tablets won't help, and won't prescribe me any, and they have said this now for over ten years so I just get through it on my own and it only lasts a couple of days and then I am back to my normal patronising and intolerable self. I do odd things when I am depressed – taught a girl in the pub to do the foxtrot but since I hadmy steel toecaps on and she had some dainty little heels that didn't go too well & she trod on my feet! Yes everything is fine, thank you for asking, but if I am out of order please do tell me: I am not in that line of business to be a nuisance or an arsehole to others, but when I have a bit of depression I don't notice I am being so accidentally. Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pending Block and leaving?
I'd just like to say that having a clean block log is not necessarily depreciating, and being blocked does not mean that the user is necessarily bad. There have been innumerable requests for adminship users who have successfully been granted the tools even though they have been blocked at one point in their Wiki career.. Wikipedia is at times frustrating, as there are content disputes which you may feel strongly about and that the other user is being disruptive. I acknowledge this. Though that is no reason to quit. If you do however decide to leave after subsequently receiving a block, I don't fault you for it, and thank you for your hearty contributions on Wikipedia. Tutelary (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. However, given my history of run-ins with the community during the past few years that have led me to attempt permanent retirements twice already (once in April 2013 that lasted until October 2013, and another attempt in December 2013 that only lasted for only about a month or two), I figure that in this case, the "third time's the charm", and I'm going to stick with it. The pending block that I'm about to receive should be the motivation that I finally need to leave Wikipedia for good: I mean, if I'm blocked, it's going to be considerably more difficult for me to come "out of retirement" when I desire, and asking for the unblock will honestly require more effort than I am willing to put into trying to edit again. Steel1943  (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Result of the AN3 complaint
Your AN3 report has been closed. Both editors are reminded that an WP:RFC is in progress. Anyone who reverts the text again without waiting for a verdict on the talk page is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 04:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good for you. Keep hold of that stick. An administrator has already made it perfectly clear that I also violated 3RR as well when I reported you, and has already provided a result. Geez, I really can understand why an editor had requested an interaction ban from you. Anyways, keep on owning Drafts as you have; I plan on enjoying my rather great real life for a while in lieu of interacting with you anymore. Good day. Steel1943  (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Other uses-section
Over at TFD, you asked about customizing the notes for why a page/template/etc. is deleted; I replied, but since you didn't reply, I just wondered if you'd seen it. My answer is "I think so", depending on what you mean; more details are provided at the TFD. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * my apologies for not responding. I had read your comment and then, in my mind, I thought I responded, but I obviously didn't. I was, more or less, asking if a reference to the About template in the edit notice that is a result of a deletion (such as the several at New article) would be a sufficient substitute to turning the template into a redirect. However, I'm about to post a comment in that discussion here in a moment; my opinion has changed a bit, given some of the votes for the template to be turned into a redirect. Steel1943  (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)