User talk:Steel1943/Archive 12

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Happy New Year, Steel1943!

Happy New Year!

Steel1943,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Steel1943!

Happy New Year!
Steel1943,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WP DAB banner

Hi, just letting you know that there's generally no need to create new talk pages containing only the {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} banner. There was a discussion about that a few months ago. Of course, you're welcome to put the banner on already existing talk pages and to create talk pages if they will contain something other than the WP DAB banner (like old rfd notices, a discussion, or banners for other projects). Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Uanfala: Thanks for the notification about that discussion. However, I'd recommend that a firmer consensus be formed on that decision, probably discouraging the use of {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} on talk pages of disambiguation pages altogether. I mean, from what you are saying and from my own opinions, placing {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} on talk pages of disambiguation pages already tagged with {{Disambiguation}} is rather redundant, but it has seemingly been practice to do so for several years, and thus why I've been doing it. For reference of two other such templates where placement of the WikiProject template is restricted, see {{WikiProject Redirect}} (not supposed to be placed on talk pages of redirects) and {{WikiProject Templates}} (not supposed to be placed on talk pages of templates.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, the consensus seems to be already reflected at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Templates, which has had the relevant instructions for six years [1]. There might be a case for discouraging the template's use altogether, but I don't think such a proposal is going to pass (and I would probably oppose it myself). – Uanfala (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
      @Uanfala: For what it's worth, I would also oppose not using {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} on any page (which is essentially deleting the template.) I was, more or less, recommending that the template only be used on non-disambiguation page talk pages, such as Template talk:Disambiguation and Template talk:Hndis. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @Uanfala: Ah, I see: "{{WikiProject Disambiguation}} - Project banner for talk pages with discussion. Please do not use to create talk pages that have no discussion.". Not sure how I overlooked that for all of these years, but at this point, I think I may be more curious where JHunterJ found/established the consensus for their edit to the guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Mboivin Question

Good Day I received a message from you stating that I was not the person with the copyright, for MBoivin, I would like to know how to go about getting this process over so that the picture are uploader into Wikipedia.Sebastienb06 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for caretaking

Thanks for looking after image niceties such as the ones you did for the Hull City of Culture logo. I appreciate it! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Kendra Haste

Hi Steel - I noticed your 11 posts on my talk page - all about my uploaded images. Yes I can appreciate it might look like I have gone into overdrive but actually what I've been trying to do is turn a novice page into an excellent article. I began by asking the named sculptor's agent if I might have high resolution images if I could prove the potential worth of the article. The agent said yes. I have worked hard in recent days to make it look like an article, (including uploading several low res images to give the article some semblense of shape), and today the agent said yes - downloaded all the high resolution images I asked for, and with full permission.

So why are all my images up for discussion? Give me 24 hours and you can simply delete all the redundant images. The ones I'm uploading are the absolute best so by all means discuss them but, do you have to make my talk page look like a war zone? Please withdraw your 11 prospective discussions and allow me 12 hours to put my graphics house in order. MarkDask 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Markdask: Sorry about the several notifications. If I hadn't informed you of every single file I nominated, a bot would have posted a message for the rest I hadn't notified you of. Feel free to remove as many notifications as you need. Anyways, to the point: Since your images are currently tagged with fair-use rationales, they are all subject to 10 specific criteria that need to be met to remain on Wikipedia. Most likely, you will want/need to change the tags on the files to reflect that the images' copyright holder permits their use on Wikipedia. At this point, what I would recommend is that you post in the discussion that you have taken steps to acquire permission from the images' copyright holder once you have started that process. Also, are you familiar with how to send/verify file release permissions with a group called "OTRS"? If not, I can post a template with instructions/help that can direct you on how to accomplish that. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Could you make your mind up please Steel? I've got this message, and another on my own talk page. All I'm doing right now is replacing low quality images on the Kendra Haste page for high resolution, very excellent, images that I have full permission to use. MarkDask 22:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Markdask: Make up my mind on what? Unless you acquire permission for these files to be used on Wikipedia and submit that permission to OTRS as I already told you, they are still tagged (by you) as fair-use and need to meet the 10 specific criteria I already linked in my above explanation since they are tagged as fair-use. Again, "...are you familiar with how to send/verify file release permissions with a group called "OTRS"? If not, I can post a template with instructions/help that can direct you on how to accomplish that." Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC) (Comment returned after deleted, thus why {{No ping}} was used. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC))
Forget it - and the damned article MarkDask 23:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Markdask: I'm not in any way trying to stop you from working on that article. I'm just trying to inform you of the issues that may arise due to the way you uploaded/tagged those images. The 10 fair-use criteria were put in place to essentially protect the Wikipedia project from legal issues pertaining to fair-use claims. If you can go through the process to verify the permissions via OTRS, then the images would no longer be "fair-use" and could be placed more freely without legal concerns. Anyways, I'm here to help if you have any questions regarding fair-use or the file permission process. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for my temper Steel. I sincerely appreciate your purpose and good will but you could not, (albeit inadvertantly), have chosen a worse moment to educate me, said education being, I confess, long overdue. But try to appreciate the situation - go to the Kendra Haste page and check top image - hi res - work in progress - then go to bottom - an elephant in Waterloo station - holding up the entire structure - head down and forever patient while we as a species flit by. I don't want to bore you with arty crap - I'm merely dumbstruck that, just when I have such extroardinary images in my hands - I have to go to the naughty corner and learn to obey the god of OTRS. Any other time Steel - but I must upload the the other 4 images I was given this evening or I am going to to look like a complete idiot tomorrow. As you say - OTRS - nine years I have been registered a wikipedian and in the very evening I get my hands on excellence I get to go to OTRS. Can you understand my frustration now Steel? After nine years - could you not just allow me the dignity - the prize of uploading these few images - so I don't look like a complete arse tomorrow?

Can you appreciate my frustration? MarkDask 23:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to mention - I have full permission to use the images MarkDask 23:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for site policy on using non-free images. In short, it doesn't matter if you got permission to use the images for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia requires minimal use of non-free images on the site. For one, fair use pictures of living people are generally never allowed except in rare circumstances, because free variants can reasonably be used. In this case, using so many fair use images on one page is definitely a violation of the NFCC. I would say that you should pick the one image that best represents her art (and which doesn't show her), to keep on the article, and remove the others. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hi Mark. Since you've stated I have full permission to use the images, I am assuming you've been in some kind of contact with Kendra Haste. Wikpedia doesn't really need permission for non-free content; you just have to be able to justify non-free use by showing how it satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria, which as you're finding out is not always a simple thing to do. All ten NFCC need to be met, and failing even a single one means that non-free use cannot be justified. Since the files seem to have been sent to you by email, in addition to minimum use, there are also some concerns having to do related to WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a.
Another option to non-free content, would be for Kendra Haste to upload the images herself to Wikimedia Commons under a compatible license for Commons (which may require OTRS verification depending upon the specifics), or for her to explicitly agree through you to freely license the images under such a license and have you upload them on her behalf (which will require OTRS verification). There are, however, a few caveats in either case.
  1. She has to be the original copyright holder of the image. Typically, the copyright is held the photographer (not the subject). So, for a file such as File:Haste elephant, work in progress.jpeg, she is likely going to need permission from the original copyright holder or provide something to OTRS showing that the copyright has been transfered to her. On the other hand, if she uses a selfie stick or a timer to take a photo of herself, then she would be considered the photographer so OTRS permission is probably not needed. See c:COM:OTRS for more details.
  2. She (or the original copyright holder) is going to have to explicitly agree to be willing to allow the files to be used by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime for any purpose, including commercially, and understand that once this permission is given that it cannot be revoked at a later date. It's not enough to simply give permission to you or Wikipedia, or to say OK for anyone to use as long as they don't try to make money off the images because that type of "conditional free licensing" is not accepted by either Wikipedia or Commons. That is partly why you don't find too many images of artistic works on Wikipedia or Commons that are not considered to be in the public domain. See WP:CONSENT or c:COM:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries for more details.
  3. There may be Freedom of Panorama matters when it comes to images of sculptures which need to be addressed. FOP rules vary from country to country as explained at c:COM:FOP. In some countries like the US, taking a picture of a building is OK and only the permssion of the photographer is needed to freely license the photo; on the other hand, taking a picture of a 3D work of art like a sculpture, even one installed in a public place, is not automatically assumed to be OK. The photographer can license the physical object that is the photo for sure, but the photographer cannot claim copyright over the sculpture being shown and that copyright needs to be taken into account. If the the photographer and sculptor are, by chance, the same person, then they should be able to provide a license for both things; but otherwise another person's permission may be needed for OTRS verification purposes. Please note that FOP almost always depends on the country where the photo is taken and some countries like the UK might have more liberal FOP rules than the US.
Sorry for the long post. If you have any further questions, you can post them here or on my user talk if you like. You can also ask for help at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VP/C. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Have a look?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iniced - this looks a lot like Fangusu to me, but with a lot more swearing. Back in the summer they were identified relentlessly blanking trivia from Tom and Jerry episodes, which is a behaviour I don't recall Fangusu being involved in but fits her profile, the swearing doesn't though. I came across Fangusu editing at Indian chess today with an IP that's also edited Love Me, Love My Mouse in one of her bouts of restoring old edits, and noticed a couple of blocked accounts also editing that page which are also definitely her, but tagged as Iniced socks. I'm not sure if the large group of Iniced socks identified in August is also Fangusu but we missed it, or if some of her accounts have just gotten swept up in a different case because they have some similar edits. What do you think? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Ivanvector: I just reviewed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iniced versus what I know about Fangusu as well as re-reviewed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fangusu, and based on what I know about Fangusu, I am not convinced the two sockpuppet masters are the same. As much as Fangusu has edited articles that relate to cartoons (specifically articles regarding Futurama or cartoons with anthropomorphic animals), I don't recall her ever editing a Tom & Jerry-related article. I, more or less, only remember the aforementioned articles, the ones about video games, and the ones about clothing. However, with that being said, this suspicion of mine may help...

    ...When I reported DJ Autagirl as a sock of Fangusu, I actually suspected that DJ Autagirl and Fangusu were two different people, though their editing patterns were essentially the same (and, as proven via the sockpuppetry case, their IP information.) I've suspected for a while that the person who talks "as Fangusu" is different than maybe anyone who creates an account to edit in places where Fangusu does. "Fangusu" usually begs to keep her edits live, where her socks that have registered accounts do not and/or remain silent to other editors trying to engage them. Maybe the other registered accounts are people Fangusu knows that edit on her behalf using her computer and she gives them instruction on where and/or how to edit. There could potentially be a bit of a meatpuppetry issue with people who use whatever device Fangusu has used that doesn't change IPs on a regular basis. So, with that being said, your suspicions could potentially be spot on, but given the subject matter in the edits of the other sockpuppet master, in my opinion, it's inconclusive. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sriracha F.C.

Hi Steel1943. Would you mind taking a look at Sriracha F.C.? For some reason, an IP redirected the page with this edit, but otherwise left the article intact. I noticed this at the time because the infobox is using a non-free image, but I never got around to trying to figure what was going on. Anyway, it popped up on my watchlist again when Xqbot fixed a double redirect, so I figure I'd ask you because you have experience with redirects. FWIW, the IP might have been trying to create a hatnote and added the redirect by mistake, but I'm not sure and don't know enough about the subject matter to try fix it myself. Any ideas what is going on here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Marchjuly: Looks as though another editor fixed the issue yesterday. (I wasn't on Wikipedia yesterday.) Either way, the edit you provided ... moving the "#REDIRECT [[]]" line to the top of the page changes the page from a soft redirect to a functional redirect ... which seemed to be what the IP did. If there are any lines of text above the "#REDIRECT [[]]" function, the page functions as a soft redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking a look. I saw that some else had reverted it back to an article, so I am assuming that means the redirect would be considered "controversial" if made again, right? Would it be OK to take to RfD if another IP comes along and does the same thing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @Marchjuly: Well, from what I saw, the IP placed a redirect above a full article. That is a problem because ... if a page is redirected, then he page should only consist of the redirect (#REDIRECT [[]]), redirect category templates and maybe categories. Instead of doing what the IP did, in practice, if the page was to be redirected, the article should have been blanked. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying that specific page should have been blanked; I have not and probably will not assess that page for notability.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @Marchjuly: If the title of the redirect does not match the subject of its target page it one of its target's subtopics, the preferred method would actual be to restore the article then send the article to WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Understand with respect to both. Thanks for the clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Templates transcluded in the MediaWiki namespace

Hi Steel, hope you're doing well. :) I've just been trying to find some background about the recent discussion at RFPP about {{collapse bottom}}. When I wrote my comment I was just going from my memory of how things are usually done, but now I've worked out why I thought what I did. Before the template editor right was introduced, templates used in system messages were generally (but not always) fully protected. The only options were no protection, semi-protection, and full protection, so full protection was presumably used so that the MediaWiki interface wouldn't be vandalised. {{display/watchlist}} is a good example of a template that was fully protected for use in MediaWiki-space; {{sp-contributions-footer}} is a counterexample.

I was involved in drafting the template editor RfC, and in the archives you can see several mentions of whether the RfC proposal should include the ability for template editors to edit the MediaWiki namespace, and it was decided not to put it in. The question of templates transcluded in the MediaWiki namespace didn't come up directly in the drafting or the RfC, but because it was implied in the drafting process, I assumed that the status quo of fully protecting templates transcluded in the MediaWiki namespace should continue.

As to my opinion, I actually think it would be helpful for such templates to be editable by template editors. There is a big difference between autoconfirmed users and template editors in terms of the level of trust put in them, so I severely doubt it would cause any harm, and it would make things smoother when these templates need to be updated. I think what is needed is a discussion somewhere (as you suggested in the RFPP thread) to gauge the consensus on what to do. Perhaps we should suggest a change of wording at WT:PP and then follow it up with an RfC if it looks like it would be controversial? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Mr. Stradivarius: Yes, it's been quite a while! And thanks for giving that discussion a look: As you probably have figured out by now, yes, I have seen you do a few such protection upgrades/denials in the past. :) That discussion though ... I eventually realized that I was starting to rant a bit, and that served no purpose for the WP:RFPP page in general, so I said my closing statement and placed {{RFPP}} in it to get it archived ASAP.
  • (Bit of a TL;DR about me and "template editor") To kind of allude how much I pay attention to the specifics of the "template editor" right, here's a bit of my background about my desire for it to exist prior to the RFC you referenced being created proposing the right's existence. As you may or may not know, a few months prior to the template editor creation RFC, there was an RFC for a similar right to be created: Wikipedia:Protected Page Editor. During the RFC discussion on its respective talk page, late in the discussion, I suggested the creation of a different right called "Template Editor". My assumption is that when I proposed the right's existence, it didn't get enough exposure due to it being bundled in a different right's RFC near the end of the RFC's 30-day discussion period. So, much to my surprise, an RFC was created months later to propose the existence of such a right. Anyways, just stating this to illustrate how/why I can be a bit passionate about the specifics of the Template editor right in regards to its use. And, with that being said...
  • You and I may be talking a bit of "apples vs. oranges" here, but I want to make sure that is not the case. I'm actually not advocating that editors with the "Template editor" right be able to edit pages in the "MediaWiki:" namespace: In fact, if that were proposed, I would be a "very strong neutral". My concern, more or less, lies with the lack of specific clarification of when templates should be subject to full protection instead of template protection. From my understanding, in regards specifically to the "Template:" (and maybe "Module:") namespace, if the template has a reasonable justification for full protection and is not subject to cascading-protection, then the protection level should be lowered to template protection by default with no controversy (provided the rather obvious exception of putting temporary full protection on a page being edited by template editors in a way that violates the community-established guidelines for use of the template editor right such as edit warring, etc.). Also, from my understanding and my opinion, the only time that a page in the "Template:" namespace should not be edited by template editors is, as you sort of alluded, when the page is linked/transcluded on a "MediaWiki:" page. But, then again, shouldn't such pages have cascading-protection since any slight adjustment to them has the potential to break Wikipedia if the edit causes code breaking? Reviewing the discussion you linked above and from my recollection of related discussions pertaining to "template editor", the consensus-established method to ensure that template editors do not edit specific templates permanently is to make the template subject to cascading-protect, provided that the template qualifies for cascading-protection via any respective guidelines for cascading-protecting a page. So, in retrospect, per what I perceive as the currently-established consensus, if a page in the "Template:" namespace doesn't have or qualify for cascading-protection, then the highest level of protection that page should have is template protection, not indefinite full protection (again, with the aforementioned edit abuse exceptions to use full protection, usually temporary, in specific cases of template editor editing abuse.)
  • In a nutshell, Mr. Stradivarius, I do believe that there needs to be some sort of WP:RFC to refine the criteria for placing template protection on respective pages, but at the moment, I honestly am unsure how to word a coherent proposal that others could follow, especially since between the two of us, it seems that we are presenting two not-completely-the-same issues, so I'm not sure off the top of my head how to combine both issues into one proposal. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

TWL pages

Hey Steel. Sorry for the TWL page misunderstanding. I think Cochrane is the only partner page that is at a TWL subpage, because WP:Cochrane is used for something else. I'd have discussed before undoing the moves, but as I mentioned, I didn't realise I was undoing moves until I'd already started! Sam Walton (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Samwalton9 and JustBerry: (Figured it'd make sense to ping them as well) No worries there. I actually don't have a preference or care which page is the parent page. I'm currently doing an "on-and-off" cleanup task involving looking at all pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:. When I ran across this group of pages, their locations (not including redirects) were mixed between subpages of Wikipedia:Credo and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Credo. Since the pages were connected to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, I moved them all to be subpages of that page, obviously being unaware of any other naming convention established elsewhere. As long as all of these pages are synchronized to the same parent page (as I did and I see Samwalton9 by moving them back to "Wikipedia:Credo" titles), that's good enough for me. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, thanks for sifting through Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:! --JustBerry (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Spurious stuff in Wikipedia:

Well done for tagging these pointless redirects in the Wikipedia namespace. Small point: if you have tagged Wikipedia:Foo for deletion, you do not need to touch Wikipedia talk:Foo if it exists. When the admin deletes Wikipedia:Foo they get a clear warning that the talk page exists and will delete it any way. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @RHaworth: Thanks! I get what you mean about not tagging the "Wikipedia talk:Foo" pages, but it probably doesn't hurt to do it. I mean, human error resulted in most of those "Wikipedia:"-namespace redirects, so human error may also result in the deleting administrator unintentionally not deleting the talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

New page review after tagging

Hi Steel,

When you tag a redirect for deletion, it would be helpful if you could also mark it as reviewed: the New Page Patrol guidelines say that once a page is appropriately tagged, it can be marked as patrolled. --Slashme (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Slashme: You're preaching to the choir. By the way, if you look at the edit history of Mike Jordan, you will see that I am the page's creator... Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I missed that point! --Slashme (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Steel1943,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 811 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level 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!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Null edit request

Hi, re this request - a WP:NULLEDIT is not normally necessary, since a WP:PURGE is usually sufficient - and moreover, is available to all users, even those not logged in. This is why there is a "[purge]" link top right of the green doc box. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Redrose64: I've attempted page purges in the past so that changes to transcluded pages appear, but haven't seemed to work. Not sure why, but since then, null edits seem more effective than page purges, IMO. Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    If a change in categorisation is the desired outcome, then yes, a purge won't fix it. But for a simple link change, it should. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Kendra Haste

Hi Steele - I finally persuaded the agent to upload the images to Commons and yaay - the article is beginning to look sweet. I thought I'd let you know how it's going because without your challenge the article could not now be bordering on stable. There are two considerations outstanding; "Work in progress", (use of photo of artist in private setting), and of belonging to TFL, who insist on CDPA §62 strictures, but I've gone back to Iridescent to deal with those issues as he clearly knows this stuff better than anyone else who pitched in. Thanks for your intelligent intervention. MarkDask 16:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi markdask. Unfortunately there still seem to be licensing problems with the files which were uploaded. The account who uploaded them was c:User:Kendra Haste. Ms. Haste cannot upload the files as her "own work" if she did not take the photos herself. All of the files are attributed to other people, which means that their permission is needed for the files licensed in such a way as explained in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Moreover, it makes no sense at all to list the file's Commons url as the source of the file since the file's obviously didn't originate on Commons. It would be better to list the actual URL where the files can be found online as the source.
I've posted something about this at c:User talk:Kendra Haste, but perhaps you can explain to Ms. Haste's agent what is needed for the files to avoid being deleted from Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Steel1943,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 811 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

🔞 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 🔞. Since you had some involvement with the 🔞 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 15:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia: notice

Moved from User talk:Nyttend
- so that I can remember what this response was for... (User:Nyttend/Project redirects)

I stumbled upon this page of yours while I was doing my "off-and-on" skim of pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:. Long story short, I truly believe there is a strong need for an edit notice or prompt to appear when either creating a page in the "Wikipedia:" namespace or moving a page into the "Wikipedia:" namespace. In fact, to see what work I've done on this so far, see my CSD log from July 2016 to present. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Solid argument! I can't help with the editnotice, as I don't understand how to create a notice that doesn't affect existing pages; WP:EDITNOTICE tells you how to create a notice that affects the entire WP: namespace, but the notice would appear when you edit an existing page. All I can suggest is that you request assistance from someone else, e.g. WP:VPT, and I'll readily support any such request. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There's probably an HTML class we can use to hide a Wikipedia-space-wide project notice--or rather, display on page-creation. --Izno (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) It can be done with admin assistance. Create and template protect {{Wikipedia page creation editnotice}} (or other name as you see fit) with the desired {{editnotice}}. Then create {{Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia}} with {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}||{{Wikipedia page creation editnotice}}}} and fully protect it again (currently salted). — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Train2104: I think that you pinged me about something related to this in the past. Did anything ever come out of what you pinged me about? Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I somewhat forgot about it and it got moved to the archives, you're welcome to unarchive it to comment on it if you want. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

European toilet paper holder

I've moved it to User:Bishonen/Featured nihilartikel candidates/European toilet paper holder - the actual "article" is in Bish's userspace, so that seems the logical place to put it. Black Kite (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Nigerian prince

See my closing comments at the linked discussion, there was no need for a second relist as clear consensus was developed following the first. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Champion: I disagree since from what I saw, there was no consensus prior to my relist. But either way, I'm not going to challenge your close. Steel1943 (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Champion: Actually, scratch that. After reviewing the discussion, I don't agree with your close since per what I see, there still isn't consensus. Even if the end result is to retain the status quo, it would be due to lack of consensus for alternatives, not because there was strong support to keep the status quo over other options. ("No consensus" [what I see] vs. "Keep all" [your close].) Reopen please? Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @Champion: Just realized that you performed the close 7 days after the relist. Per the above, could you please change your close to "no consensus" instead of "keep all"? Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
        • @Champion: I noticed you've been editing since these comments. Just letting you know that in absense of a response to my comments, I'm considering sending the referenced discussion to WP:DRV. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Cleanup Barnstar
For helping to pick up all the projectspace "litter" that few people know exists! — Train2104 (t • c) 04:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Thanks for your vigilance as always. After I commented earlier this morning I had some stuff come up which involved having an alarm set on me at work at the end of it all, so sorry I wasn't around to follow up. Seems to be dealt with now, anyway.

Before it gets archived, I wonder if you'd like to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fangusu range block request and offer an opinion if you disagree with my assessment. Based on today's SPI I think my picture of Fangusu might be incomplete, especially as regards there being several unrelated vandals at USC. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Ivanvector: I looked at that thread before it was archived. Either way, in my opinion, blocking an IP range that large would cause too much collateral damage since they cannot all be Fangusu all the time. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

back

Easy tiger.

S. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned Userspace Draft

Hi,

Saw you had linked to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yvette91367/Andy_Gross_-_%27%27Steve_%27%27%E2%80%9Cthe_Customer_Service_Guy%E2%80%9D%27%27.

Seeing as Andy Gross exists, and the information seems entirely the same, and that the user no longer exists, is it safe to delete the page? Sorry for bothering you. I'm a beginner and not sure what to do.

Thanks, Hwdirre (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Hwdirre: I have moved that page to User:Yvette91367/Andy Gross - Steve “the Customer Service Guy”. Any other action to that page would be up to to your discretion, including possibly nominating that page for WP:MFD. (However, it would probably be best to leave the page as is: If that page was nominated for deletion, I'd be neutral. The page doesn't seem to be harming anything, and if the editor wants to work on this draft in the future to possibly add to the existing article, they would still have that option.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Curiosity has the better of me...

...regarding your user name. Is this some kinda "Penny" pun? Anmccaff (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that makes cents. Anmccaff (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your necessary maintenance work. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:MelanieN submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Steel1943 has been actively editing for more than 5 years and has nearly 80,000 edits. I want to honor him because he is primarily someone who toils away in the shadows, doing necessary work to keep Wikipedia uncluttered and readable - things like finding articles that were created by mistake and nominating them for deletion, or doing necessary maintenance at XFD discussions, or carrying out move requests, or creating disambiguation pages. He modestly describes himself as a Wikignome, which I think is a title he should wear proudly. Wikipedia would collapse without Wikignomes like him.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks!!! I don't really know what else to say except ... I'll just keep doing what I'm doing! Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I cannot really second that except to say he is the editor over many years, and I appreciate it over years, even when I disagree with him. One of the best editors on Wikipedia. We am de best. You deserve the award. 84.3.187.196 (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
This editor, Steel1943, is always polite and courteous, always vigorous in argument, always stands aside and is impartial if it is a personal interest. I only know him through Wikipedia. One day I will buy him a pint. He is the best. 84.3.187.196 (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Bollox I forgot to log on. User:SimonTrew on that IP. Si Trew (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Updating Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading

I added proposed deletion thing into instructions as part of implementing the File PROD process. I see you have contributed to the subpage. I need some help copyediting it please. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @George Ho: My apologies for the late reply. I looked at it around the time you sent me this inquiry, and I couldn't think of any ways at the time to add/tweak wording for your text. If I have an epiphany and think of something, I'll add it. Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries. What about WP:GOCE/REQ? George Ho (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see you back old bean

Nice to see you back at RfD! To give you the nod, I am trogging through the backlog of Eubot redirects. This is well known and has come up at ANI. Just like with the Neelix ones, I have no idea who made them, I am not arguing against the person just against a stupid bot.

Good to see you back, I missed you.

S. Si Trew (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:GOLDLOCK-EDIT

Is there a particular reason you created this shortcut (and WP:REDLOCK-EDIT), and pointed them where they go? They don't have any incoming links. At least they should go to WP:EDITREQ. – Train2104 (t • c) 05:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Done. @Train2104: The "me of 2013" was a bit different than the me of today. Steel1943 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


RfD

That's weird steely. April 25 is empty. Bogus Linda and that is missing. Is that just my end? It is UTC+8 here so it will turn over to April 26 shortly, but April 25 is missing, no entries (but I can't see from history that anything has been deleted vandalism etc. Did you move them down to 24th?) Is that just my end? Take a peek if you are around. 84.3.187.196 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Bollox I forgot to log on. User:SimonTrew on that IP. Si Trew (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Retired

To whomever responds to this request,

Please remove all user rights associated with my account that can be removed. (I think this means everything except autoconfirmed and extended confirmed, but if either of those can be removed as well, go for it.) I don't plan on being back for probably ever, and I don't want my user rights to remain in the event that somehow, this account gets compromised. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, though I hope you return after a break. It seems like this could've been avoided if the other party had simply checked the actual content of edits that they were reverting. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Patar knight: If you are okay with doing so, I think I'm ready to utilize the user rights I had again. My retirement is really starting to look like it's not happening, and I'm a bit more optimistic about being able to balance my life and Wikipedia than I was three months ago. Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) I went ahead and updated your user rights for you. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. Welcome back! -- Tavix (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the fish.

(Notice I avoided saying that you'll come back like a bad pen...) Anmccaff (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Steel1943,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 811 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

To anyone who may watch this page

Just an FYI for anyone who may watch this page or desire to contact me at any point in the future, in possibly the next day or so, I'm going to be disabling my "Email this user" link and disabling all email notifications to my email account. This is essentially a courtesy if anyone wants to contact me, but since I'm trying to make best on my retirement and a recent notification brought me back, I can't have that happen again. (I'm also going probably going to post a proposal at WP:VPPROP prior to going dark, something I noticed after my retirement which may have kept me here for a couple more weeks after I decided to retire, but I figure the proposal could help other editors if they run across the same situation I did when ... I was not notified that someone other than me had created subpages of my user page.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Mario (Mario) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mario (Mario). Since you had some involvement with the Mario (Mario) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PRehse (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • @PRehse: Thanks for the notification. I have responded. Now, I'm going dark again. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note to self...

I suppose I'm placing these statements as a reminder to myself when I have broken my retirement. Anyways... Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. ...This one is for edits on Sophia Abrahão. Going dark again. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. ...This time, I redirected Template:FfD doc to Template:Ffd/doc (as well as related edits to ensure that there were no improper transclusions, mostly of Template:IfD doc, which formerly redirected to Template:FfD doc), after reading this by KATMAKROFAN and this by Train2104. I found this issue (which was probably overlooked) after becoming a bit curious about FFD since I hadn't looked at Wikipedia for a while. Curiousity still gets to me occasionally, I guess. Anyways, going dark again. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. ...Yet another series of edits related to ArthurRebelnatico socks. I may have to check my notification preferences. Anyways, going dark again. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Okay, I may be a bit terrible at this retirement thing. Now, WP:RFD edits regarding User:Allenkelly/Madware, as well as edits specific to List of Mario franchise characters. Darkness falls again. Steel1943 (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. ...Some things related to WP:RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

In the dark

Just wanted to wish you excel always in whatever you do, and to thank you for all that you have taught me. Have a high quality life, and I hope you are many years gone before the devil notices you missing. Be well.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Paine, as you can probably see in the section above, I've been doing rather poorly at this "retirement" thing ... so bad that I'm thinking of requesting that the {{Retired}} on my user page be replaced with {{Semi-retired}}. But either way, my "retirement" was my call to starting taking my real life more seriously, and it turns out that during the past three months, I've been doing rather well with that. I'm limiting myself to "reactive" things that just look so problematic to me that I have to do something ... as long as I don't need any user access level to do so since I don't want any of those back at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Good to see you're still around and helping, Steel Man! Wikipedia still needs us – no 'bout a doubt it.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Firewoman listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firewoman. Since you had some involvement with the Firewoman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. feminist 15:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 July 2017

Please replace {{Retired}} with {{Semi-retired}}. Turns out that my retirement isn't working out so well. However, please do not unprotect the page as I currently still desire the protection to be present. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. This makes me happy to see. -- Tavix (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope that you return to active editing when the time is right for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Steel1943/Archive_12"