Open main menu

Hee HeeEdit

Hi S. I just finished cleaning up around 60 some odd bare urls so in the case of this I would use the title of the book I read in college by E. F. Schumacher - Small Is Beautiful :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW the new refill 2 is pretty slick :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: For sure! And sure enough, I've already hit a few urls that neither Refill 2 or Reflinks can't fix! Gotta stop biting off more than I can chew! (And yes, whoever made he overhaul of that Refill interface did a dang good job!) Steel1943 (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev etcEdit

Hello. Since you, as far as I can see, have never taken part in the endless, and very repetitive, Kiev -> Kyiv discussions on Talk:Kiev and Talk:Kiev/naming you can't possibly know anything about the level of disruption there has been on those pages for more than ten years now, and thus shouldn't start moving things around without discussing it first with the people who have been active there. Your move of the list of old discussions to a separate page did not improve anything, and the message you added in the list, about all discussions being held on Talk:Kiev/naming, isn't needed, since it's already stated right below the project banner on Talk:Kiev. So I suggest you move everything back to where it once was. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Thomas.W: I'll perform reverts on the changes to the instructions I made (since I later realized that I was following something an IP said and not established editors), but as for everything else, since I strongly believe that the other work I did helped organize the archives, I'll have to respectfully decline. I'll provide diffs of what I'm reverting after I am done. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, regarding " can't possibly know anything about the level of disruption there has been on those pages for more than ten years..." ... Considering I just cherry picked through all the archives, yes I do. It doesn't take a discussion participant to see what's been going on; anyone reviewing the archives can clearly get a clue, so please don't assume you are aware of what I do and don't know. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, in regards to the archives: Honestly, they were a flippin' mess, and the archivist in me cannot be okay with them going back to their messy numbering and missing numbering and potentially confusing the blazes our of anyone who looks at them. They are now numbered appropriately, and their order allows templates like {{Tan}} and {{Aan}} to function properly. And as for Talk:Kiev/naming/old discussion list: I created it since the exact same information/list was on multiple pages (Talk:Kiev and Talk:Kiev/naming); unless the plan is to put that list on only one page, not creating a separate page for the list risks having contradicting or incorrect information on one page but not the other. I even added a link to the new page for ease of editing that page since everyone is not technical. Anyways, long story short, other than what I have already reverted, I fail to see any problems or issues with the edits I made, and believe this must be a misunderstanding. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943 and Thomas.W, I don't think the active requested move (Talk:Kiev/naming § Requested move 9 July 2019) should be on the Talk:Kiev/naming page. Right now, the discussion isn't being listed properly on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, and it's classified as a malformed request. I see that the notice on Talk:Kiev/naming has the message "Please note that due to technical reasons any actual move requests need to be made on Talk:Kiev, but should be moved here after they have closed." Would it be possible to relocate the requested move discussion back to Talk:Kiev while it's active, and then relocate it back to Talk:Kiev/naming once it's closed? — Newslinger talk 04:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Fyunck(click), who restored the instructions. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe that's the reason the notice was put there to begin with? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the part of the instructions in Special:Diff/905556104 is not being followed. Either the requested move discussion should be relocated to Talk:Kiev while it's active, or the sentence in the notice should be deleted. Steel1943 was criticized for following the instructions when they assumed the sentence was correct, and then prevented from deleting the sentence when they assumed it was incorrect. This is inconsistent, and we need to settle on one or the other. — Newslinger talk 05:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • An WP:RM can only be made on the talkpage of the article which someone is requesting to rename. On Kiev, we've been then moving them to the name subpage because the topic gets so much traffic. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    If this is the accepted practice at Talk:Kiev and Talk:Kiev/naming, would you mind changing the notice at the top of Talk:Kiev/naming to reflect this? Perhaps something like "Please note that due to technical reasons any actual move requests need to be made on Talk:Kiev, but should be moved here after they are listed on WP:RMC." (emphasis added) could eliminate any misunderstandings in the future? Note that this practice causes the discussion to be listed as a malformed request at WP:RMC § Malformed requests. — Newslinger talk 06:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'll let someone else do that. Anyone can do it. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
      Done. See Special:Diff/905613802. — Newslinger talk 06:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    So that notice that had been there for 10 years was correct, but not worded clearly. I'm glad that got straightened out. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Wbm1058: Pinging you to bring this to your attention ... since this obviously has the potential to cause RMCD bot to post such moves in the "Malformed requests" section of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions if the request is not entered and transferred in a certain way (Talk:Kiev/naming vs. Talk:Kiev), sort of as an FYI if you ever run across someone reporting this. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Given that this seems to be an extreme one-off, this edit by Paine Ellsworth seems to have patched this so it works at RM as configured. I'd rather not encourage too much creativity in this regard. In other words, I don't want to make it too "normal" to have such endless name-change discussions that editors routinely resort to setting up subpages for the purpose. wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fyunck(click), Softlavender, and Newslinger: Thank you all for sorting that out. Even I agree that all move requests should be posted on the talk page of (one of) the page(s) being moved, but after reading all those notices, I thought this page was some sort of extreme exception, especially given the message from Thomas.W above. Anyways, glad it got resolved in a consensus-like fashion. Steel1943 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Just coming by to give you a HUMONGOUS thank you for straightening out the archives on Talk:Kiev/naming. That had bothered me for years, but I just wasn't sure of how to go about fixing it. --Khajidha (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying edits to portal archivesEdit

I just undid two of your edit to portal archives with the edit summary I believe "archive1" was intended. (1, 2) Immediately after doing so, I realized that edit summary was slightly ambiguous, so I thought I'd clarify. What I meant was that you replaced Portal:PortalName with Portal:PortalName/archive2, when you should have replaced with Portal:PortalName/archive1 (in those particular cases).

Of course, your original edit was a while ago, so this is probably somewhat irrelevant for you, but I just thought I'd clarify in case the revert diffs didn't make sense. Retro (talk | contribs) 11:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Um, in this case, it would have been better to request history split. I was actually actively doing that when you created the page.
(But it can still be backmerged.) Retro (talk | contribs) 12:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Retro: I'm not done editing yet. But the precedence with those pages seems to be what I have done at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Hong Kong. (Compare to Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Literature.) And yes, I was in the middle of requesting a history merge when I was also in the process of fixing incoming links to that page. Steel1943 (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
See here. Steel1943 (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying you went against precedent. My (minor) disappointment is that you appended an extra edit on Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Hong Kong/archive1 that significantly changes the latest edit timestamp. But maybe that revision can be deleted. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
But then again, latest edit timestamp isn't necessarily the cleanest way to query when the latest edit substantial edit was, because of inconsistencies exactly like this. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Right, because I just edited the page. When fixing these pages, there is always going to be a new "latest edit timestamp" somewhere; this cannot be avoided, and I completely fail to see how this is concerning. Steel1943 (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
...And wow, I don't remember doing these edits to featured portal archives ... but I most have been quite involved as I even updated Template:Fopo to allow linking to archived nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
When I made those comments a moment ago, I was under the impression there might have been a way to move the previous history without leaving a newer edit timestamp. But upon further consideration, I think there would have been an automatic edit history entry when when the page was moved, so I suspect I was mistaken.
I'm not "concerned" over the timestamps. I was just looking at this from a page analysis perspective, and naively hoping that the latest edit timestamp would be a somewhat reliable way to discern the latest substantial edit. But this particular case is definitely not the only the only case where the archive structure has been reorganized; GimmeBot cleaned up and moved many of these previously, and human editors similarly did the same at different points, so there's not going to be much reliability for portals that were nominated multiple times. So really, my "disappointment" is a bit silly on my part. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

LiSA listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LiSA. Since you had some involvement with the LiSA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJLTalk 22:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. Since you had some involvement with the Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Discovery Travel & Living logo.svgEdit

Hi Steel1943. Would you mind taking a look at this? It's shadowing c:File:Discovery Travel & Living logo.svg, but the two files are slightly different (the local one seems more complex in design at least for c:COM:TOO United Kingdom purposes). I was going to add {{Rename media}} to the local file's page, but I'm not sure how to best rename it. All of the above, however, is based upon the assumption that the Commons file is OK to keep. If it's not, then there would be no need to change the file name. The local file is still being used in an article which means it's not eligible for WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

RfD relisting of "Pakistani actors and actresses" nomination vs "Chinese and Japanese names of the United States" nominationEdit

Hi there Steel1943. Your relisting tool seems to have choked on the nonstandard formatting of the long Pakistani actors nomination. I can't tell from context whether you meant to relist the actors, the Chinese character redirects (my nomination) or both. Do you mind checking Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_5 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_15 to see what needs to be done manually to fix those pages? At the moment they both have errors. Thanks in advance for checking this. (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, that was the oddest error I've ever seen with the XFDcloser tool. Everything should be good now. Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure it was just a one-off problem with the actor nomination's nonstandard formatting. Thanks for correcting it. (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there Steel1943, today is 15 July 2019! It says Mon Jul 15! 2001:56A:774D:8F00:5CD1:336B:2588:BF1E (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Huh? Steel1943 (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

GameplayofFinalFantasy listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GameplayofFinalFantasy. Since you had some involvement with the GameplayofFinalFantasy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2#SupportEdit

Hi Steel1943, I refactored the indenting on your !vote at this RfA - also (unusually) I moved you from first-supporter-that-has-been-retracted to second-supporter-that-has-been-retracted for technical reasons (some of the bots and reports off RfA get mad when the first entry is not a numbered !vote). Just wanted to let you know what happened, and make sure you knew it was not to change the substance of your input (if you think it did - please let me know!). Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Xaosflux: No worries there. Those bots can be some finicky weirdos sometimes; even when one tries to do right by the bots, one still breaks them. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Green River College logo.pngEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Green River College logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirect suppressionEdit

May I ask why you've moved a redirect that is currently at RFD, removed the tag and suppressed the RD under G7? How does this qualify under G7 or any of the other suppression criteria? Praxidicae (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Praxidicae: Please see my response in the RFD. Also, I removed the tag since the redirect which the tag was placed when I removed the tag was not the title nominated. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Praxidicae: Seeing this now, give me a few minutes, and I think I'll have a resolution amicable for all parties involved. Steel1943 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
      @Praxidicae: All should be good with that nomination now. Please let me know if there's anything I missed to clean it up. Steel1943 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for advice/assistanceEdit

Hello Steel, I'm just briefly reaching out to request information from an experienced editor such as yourself on the correct procedure for escalating a dispute between editors. I saw that you had previously removed a page created by the editor in question, and that you have been a part of Wikipedia for a very long time. I would just like to get a fair resolution, while conforming to the rules of Wikipedia, without causing any kind of unnecessary fuss or any friction, and while being able to understand whether the editor has the authority to make the decision they have, and whether that is conclusively up to them. I've asked them 4 times for advice on the process of gaining a resolution, but they have chosen to refuse me that assistance. Any advice would be very much appreciated, and I would like to proceed in the correct manner. Metatronsqube (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • It's difficult, and rather impossible, for me to provide any input when I have no idea what you are referring to. Steel1943 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Request admin assistance for deleting my subpagesEdit

Could an administrator please speedy delete all of the pages found at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Steel1943/deletethese per WP:U1? (I was going to tag them all myself, but there's 100+ of them, and most are probably also eligible for WP:G8 as redirects with nonexistent targets, as well as WP:G6 as pages created in error.) All of these pages were redirects since they were created; for specific/further details, see Portal talk:Law of England and Wales#Requested move 20 August 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89(T·C) 02:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


Please do not remove nonexistant portals from Module:Portal/images. In addition to portals, this module provides image links for WikiProjects, Notice Boards, and userboxes. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 00:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No drama. I'm merely pointing out that this module has multiple uses beyond just portals. For example, see Category:Welsh Wikipedians. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 16:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Buaidh: Fair enough. I suppose the more proper word that I should have used instead of "drama" was "disagreement". But yeah, I tend to avoid certain discussions these days, such as one which may arise from discussing the schematics behind our referenced edits, especially if I don't/didn't see the whole picture. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Probably certain templates shouldn't use modules for which they are not obviously important. :) --Izno (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
There are over one thousand templates that access Module:Portal/images. They were first created in 2010. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, because Template:Portal/Images was created in 2010. My point is not invalidated by the age of those other templates anyway. --Izno (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: Since the only resources that can access Module:Portal/images are templates, properly Module:Portal/images should be moved to Module:Template/images. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Please do not give modules names that make them subpages of non-existent pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


Are you also a septuagenarian? I would like to change the name of WikiProject Wikipedians aged 70 and older to WikiProject Senior Wikipedians and lower the age requirement to 60, 55, or even 50. I would like to encourage more older users to participate. We could also tackle the issues of ageism on Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh: However, I gotta admit that "...If you die, please move your name here so we know you are not just loafing." gave me a bit of a laugh. :) Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Tennis incorrect categories?Edit

I see you have been removing ALL external links from tennis player bio sub-pages. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but what do you mean by "their existence here causes errors and throws the page into incorrect categories?" Looking at one example of [[ Andy Murray career statistics]], what errors and what wrong categories? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

when people have breaksEdit

OK - so evad hasnt been on recently, he has real life things that preclude regular editing. He will be back, and he will definitely sort out the script issues. Its just some of us are here too much, and even a month seems like an eternity ... JarrahTree 14:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • ...Considering XFDcloser is having a new issue where it is now hiding closed discussions on RfD, amongst other things, and that people keeps making requests, well, who would have known. No matter though; I just edit here. :) Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Find MyEdit

Your actions there are certainly bureaucratically justified, but I would have hoped a little experience and common sense would have resulted in the inevitable by closer decision rather than restoring and prolonging the confusing and misleading situation (where Find My iPhone is at Find My, etc.) originally created by someone who understandably but incorrectly assumed that Find My was a rename of Find My iPhone. --В²C 19:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Born2cycle: In all honesty, from what I saw with the way the discussion was going, even if the issue you are referring to did not happen, I still would have relisted the discussion since I did not see consensus in the discussion itself given the two opinions/votes present in the discussion when I viewed it. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know. But isn't the confusion and misunderstanding in the commenting prior to mine obvious? And the views clearly implied (and explicit in edit summaries) by those involved with the moves you reverted could be considered too. In other words, would you be willing to bet any significant amount of money this will end up anywhere other than the three articles named after the three corresponding apps? So why not just cut to the chase, especially given the alternative of putting the articles in a confusing and misleading configuration. For example, someone might now be inclined to update the article about Find My iPhone' to be about Find My since it's sitting at Find My. So this seemed like a good place to apply WP:IAR. After all, in the unlikely event anyone objected you could have undone the bold close I'm suggesting. Anyway, I get what you did and why, I just wanted you to know why I thought it was a little short-sighted and not optimal; water under the bridge. I've asked the others to reconsider. --В²C 19:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Born2cycle: I get what you mean, even being a "probably-more-often-than-I-should" enforcer of WP:IAR myself. The way I see this discussion, there really is/was a fine line between doing what seems obvious versus being bureaucratic. I fact, I had to put a bit of thought into the decision I made for the discussion before I performed the reverts and relist I did. I suppose at this juncture, here's my take on the current state of the discussion: If the move discussion was still just for Find My (the article formerly at Find My iPhone before it was moved), per WP:RELIST, there is now consensus and I would go ahead and move the pages without waiting another 7 days. However, in the discussion's current state, Find My (app) has been added to the discussion, so technically, WP:RELIST does not apply to moving that page now, but then again, the scenario with that was created by me, making me the culprit for creating the very situation being discussed currently. So ... yes, there's a fine line here, and it's not even clear if WP:IAR would apply to moving the pages now as it may be okay to move the pages and it not being per WP:IAR. I may go ahead and do that soon, but I'd feel more comfortable with such a move happening "now" if the one editor who overwrote Find My when it was a redirect participate in the discussion to ensure further consensus on it. (I will ping them again in the discussion shortly.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Arg geez, I don't need them to state is specifically ... they already did implicitly before I moved the pages by creating the situation I reverted. Going to go move the pages... Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
          • LOL, thank you. Honestly, I can't imagine anyone reasonably objecting to this close. It's already much better/clearer. Thanks again! --В²C 21:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Finnic peoplesEdit

Hi! Thank you very much for your help on the Finnic peoples article a while ago. An editor has renamed the article back to Baltic Finns now, which looks like based on false information, and I cannot rename the article back on my own because they also created another Finnic peoples (disambiguation) page. I have added more sources on the talk page, but the editor has provided no sources of their own to support the move. Are you able to chip in and offer your opinon? Thank you. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Blomsterhagens can't be bothered to read the refs in the leads of the articles they've edited, and claims that they don't exist. I welcome an informed discussion, but this is ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI, these same notes have been left on my talk page, too; see also Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#‎Finnic peoples. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Steel1943".