User talk:Steel1943/Archive 3

Add topic
Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 10

Denial of Death

Why did you add the anti-psychiatry template to this article? TimL • talk 15:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Reason. The article is on the template. Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I removed the article from the template, and the template from the article. Now it should be consistent. TimL • talk 01:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Good deal. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

For your April Fool's edits

Hello Steel1943, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for editing an article


Thank you very much for improving the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article a moment ago. I was actually going to take out the part that you deleted, but I have LOTS of editing to do on that article, so any help is deeply appreciated. Thanks again for your generous help and time! Dontreader (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


I don't mind your reversion at all. How about a comment on the talk page about using Kickstarter as the source for various projects? Thanks. (And get better!) – S. Rich (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, I personally think that Kickstarter is about as reliable of a source as IMDB. Ironic... I was just thinking about that yesterday. Steel1943 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, Kickstarter (IMHO) is more reliable because there are legal restrains, like anti-fraud laws, which should restrain them. To compare, IMDb is more of a hobby for film buffs. No money is raised. I recall making some edit suggestions to IMDb a few years ago, but I don't know/can't remember if the IMDb editors have accepted them. (And thanks for the Kickstarter input!) – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Certainly. Even with that though, the submissions are still primarily created by the parties which are trying to raise the funds, so there's still a bit of bias to what is written on the specific entries that cannot truly be considered "clean to cite" until the funding period has ended. Anyways, I'm going to take a break from editing Kickstarter, for now. We'll see how that discussion goes regarding the credibility to cite Kickstarter in articles. (I almost tried to nominate Shroud of the Avatar: Forsaken Virtues for WP:AFD due to Kickstarter being the only source, but then I decided to hold off on that and put cleanup templates on the article instead.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
  Previous issue | Index | Next issue  

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:


Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

WikiProject Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Reply on Charon123able's talk page Charon123able (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


G13 is not yet policy, as I understand it. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I tried my best to read through that entire conversation that happened on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, and I am still not 100% sure that that is the case. Here's what I understood, based on what I saw:
  1. The new G13 speedy deletion criterion is now listed on WP:CSD, with no editors reverting it after it was placed in the article.
  2. The second discussion was closed (which was about changing the "one-year" verbiage) to "no consensus to change verbiage" after what I believe is the original discussion seemed to have stopped receiving responses (the last response in that section specifically regarding the G13 criterion happened sometime in the middle of March.)
  3. An editor has already taken the time to create {{db-g13}}, already having articles tagged with this template appear in the proper categories for administrators and other users for reference.
  4. The second discussion seems to have been closed by King of Hearts, which may have resulted in the creation of Template:Db-g13.
...However, DGG, I did see your proposal below the section that was closed by King of Hearts, but from what I'm seeing, it looks more like a proposal to change the verbiage of the now-existing criterion. I hope I'm understanding this right; I would hate to realize that I'm misunderstanding consensus, and am actually causing issues by performing disruptive good faith edits. Steel1943 (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion was reopened by another editor. The addition of it to the page was premature. Everyone is I think agreed we need to quickly get rid of a few tens of thousands of old AfCs, some of which will need only minimal checking. The discussion is how much checking will need to be done. I'm saying we should go relatively slowly and do a lot of checking, the consensus seems to be to do less checking than I would like. I am very willing to accept that if it continues, because not only do I agree we need to get rid of these one way or another, but I think it so strongly that it was I who started the discussion in the first place!! (And I'm still suggesting it should be 6 months, not a year) There are a confusing number of suggestions. There was one just turned down to delete them en masse without looking at them. I think it safer not to act on them yet. Consensus at WP is sometimes hard to decipher. I know it in this case will not be what I want it to be, but what it will be I am much less sure of. It sometimes amounts to, whatever someone can get away with. (WP:BOLD). We usually try to avoid using BOLD for speedy, but I've used it myself, and so has every active admin there.
What I am doing in the meantime is getting rid of as many old (and not so old) AfCs that I can under the provision of G11, entirely promotional. I've been nominating 4 or 5 a day, and I've been deleting about a dozen a day of the most obvious ones single-handed, a practice I generally disapprove of but which is sometimes justified. Why not do that also? There's also test pages, G2, but since there is a simultaneous discussion about eliminating the test pages criterion entirely, I'm somewhat more reluctant to use it, though I am still doing so.
That it's on the policy page is unfortunate. But I don't want to open a side discussion about removing it, since up to now so few people have been using it. (A side discussion would be, not just what should the policy be, but to what extent are we sure what the policy should be, and whether whoever added it was right to do so, etc. etc. in successive cycles of remoteness from the issue. I can't really say you are wrong in using it. I think the commonsense way to use it if you really want to is to make certain it's not just tecnnical, but something that has no chance at all of being an article. it's always good to do the obvious ones first. I hope that in practice this will be our main distinction, because that determines what benefits the encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 12:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 12:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy that I'm finally able to get a moment to respond to you, DGG. I saw that there was another editor who reopened that discussion, Colonel Warden, just like you had stated. I understand why it was reopened, but I reclosed it since it seemed like the desire to have this new criterion exist was approved by WP:SNOW. However, I do agree that the current way the criterion is worded is quite vague, and will have administrators, such as yourself, scratching their heads trying to figure out why some of these drafts are being tagged with this speedy deletion tag ... when some of them are decent articles that are decently written drafts that can be added to the article space. The way that the current wording stands ... after the occurrences yesterday, I would rather there be a clearer explanation of what is the true purpose of this essentially "poorly-written" criterion. In fact, I think, in the meantime (since I am going to bow out of that discussion for the time being), I will join you in your advents to tag some of the drafts with {{db-g11}} where applicable; seems like a more acceptable method in which to find these articles at this time. Steel1943 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

drafted submission templates

Can you explain me, why this reviewed submission (and declined) was falsely (missing parameters) resubmitted by you in this edit? mabdul 11:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just an explanation: our project has changed the way how to handle "drafted" submission (submissions which will not directly submitted by the first edit, only if the user requests a review) in the last two years multiple times. All variants are still workable, although the AFC helper script only "converts" the reviewing method to the newest system. mabdul 11:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Mabdul, happening to come here, I do not understand what you are saying. Is it wrong to bring an unsubmitted article into the system? and review it? Is it wrong only if one intends to accept it, but wrong if one wishes to suggest changes?
And I have a related question: if one wishes to change an incorrect decline reason of an AfC one happens to come across,, is there any way of doing it except by making a resubmission of it? DGG ( talk ) 12:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The submission was already reviewed and declined! Read the "yellow" box in the first link: "The reviewer left the following suggestions on improving your draft:'" Reviewer was Sceptre (talk · contribs) as you can check the history. mabdul 19:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Mabdul, I would recommend looking at the previous submission notice again. The notice stated that the submission was neither accepted nor declined. Sceptre might have "reviewed" it, but the submission was just put into "not pending review" status, meaning it was never "rejected" or "declined." So no, when it comes to the terms that I understand, it was never "declined". Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I was declined! That was made with an old obsolete system and was totally valid and correctly done! Moreover did the template changed over the last 3 years dramatically multiple times. mabdul (public) 06:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Since I'm not understanding what this means, nor am I understanding what this has to do in relation to why I submitted, I best say why I submitted it. I was trying to get it "officially" declined so that it could be speedy deleted later with speedy deletion criterion G13. However, that criterion itself is a source of major controversy right now, so I have stopped performing such submissions for the time being. This conversation can be restarted once the discussions regarding that criterion have slowed down, if necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
It was aready official submitted and already official declined! mabdul 14:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Great. I dropped the stick a while ago. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your reverts

Hello there Steel1943, well, if you can find sources that explicitly show that TLC is still under activity instead of citing their individual names and acts I'd appreciate. Thanks in advance. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, all I am finding are videos citing that they are going on a reunion tour. However, from all of the other examples I have seen on Wikipedia, before a group can be called "broken up", there is usually a citation to some sort of publication stating that they have broken up, even if its their own social media. Steel1943 (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
So, if they are going on a reunion tour, they apparently have split up in the past, precisely before that aforementioned tour. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This is where there is a strange, gray line about this topic. I'm going to see if I can find anything in a WP:MOS about this specific situation. Otherwise, my stance on this is that if they are on a reunion tour, that means that they are/will still perform as themselves, meaning they are still together. Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Weird. I cannot find a single WP:MOS guideline about this specific case, not even on any WikiProjects. (The latter probably being because the most applicable WikiProject seems inactive.) It looks like an edit like this would need some consensus on the talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


the way i see it, unsourced claims calling someone an alcohol and drug addict with a police record is an attack, even if they couch it around in "he tried to be good but failed" language. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Delta function (disambiguation)

Steel1943, thanks for the crash course in redirect policy - I was unfamiliar with the notion of an intentional link to a disambiguation page. However, the joke is on us, because Delta function is now a redirect to its primary meaning, Dirac delta function (see also this discussion). So now Delta function (disambiguation) is truly a page without a purpose. Since my RfD was rejected, I'm probably not the right person to propose deletion. How about you? RockMagnetist (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • No worries RockMagnetist. I see what you are saying about someone redirecting the disambiguation. In effect, I went ahead and put a {{db-g6}} tag on Delta function (disambiguation) since it no longer serves the function that it should. I believe that redirect should now qualify for that criterion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Move request (revisited)

Last month (in fact, a little more than a month ago), you contributed to a move request for Cleveland School Massacre with the comment that you opposed the move on procedural grounds (because of the interaction with the other proposed move). Since then, the other article has been moved (to Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego)) and rewritten as an article about the shooting, not the perpetrator. This article, however, is still hanging around in WP:RM, and has been relisted for a third time. Now that your original concern has been addressed, would you consider revisiting the discussion and revising your comments if appropriate? I'd like to see this move request closed (one way or the other), and your input would be appreciated, regardless of your position on the request. FWIW, I actually thought this would be the easier of the two requests to resolve, but I tend to be overly optimistic about these sorts of things. (wry grin) Horologium (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:RWJHughes/sandbox

Hello Steel1943, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:RWJHughes/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: speedy deletion of this has previously been declined - let the MfD take care of it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Wasn't 100% sure, so no worries. Steel1943 (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi steel, I'd like to urge you to re read wp:snow (and also wp:BOBSLED), I think you are misinterpreting it, and bordering bludgeoning the process. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • If you are referring to the action I performed on WT:CSD, it is not a matter of WP:SNOW the least. The proposal you had set up completely complicates and deters from setting up speedy deletion criteria. Admins should not have to assess an article prior to performing a speedy deletion: like I said, it "defeats the purpose of defining speedy deletion criteria." If you want to start that discussion again, I would highly recommend a different venue, such as WP:PROD. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, article assessments in themselves can be considered controversial (with the exception on the ranks of GA and FA, since they require a process.) Also, per WP:ADMIN, assessing articles is not listed as a required task for administrators, which makes sense since becoming an administrator is based on the community's assessment of if the editor can be trusted with the "admin mop", and that involves all of the criteria listed on WP:ADMIN, and article quality assessment is not listed as one of those requirements. In fact, I am sure there are several administrators who have never assessed an article in their entire editing history on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
While I completely and utterly disagree, and you apparently misunderstood it completely, that was not what I was referring to, but rather to how you interpreted snow on that page in the statement "For now, the best option would be to see if any one choice has preference per WP:SNOW. If not, then those values can be determined at a later time. Right now, the point of this discussion is to centralize these values, not determine which one's vote holds more weight over the others. Steel1943 (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)" which is so far from my interpetation of how WP:SNOW can be applied that. I think you mean consensus rather than snow there. Since snow is quite often misinterpreted, I thought I'd drop you a note. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies for jumping to conclusions. I would not have thought that was what you were referring to as I stated that statement a while ago. I stated that based on the conversations above that that attempted to start the criterion in the first place. I was trying to word that to explain to King of Hearts that the values of the outcome that can be agreed in in the proposal would probably best be discussed after there is the obvious consensus that none of the other options could "win" via WP:SNOW. So no, I didn't misinterpret that.
However, my other point. The reason the voting was set up for only "Time" and "AfC types" is to simplify the criteria that have been bounced back and forth for a while. Throwing the additional point you put in there, at this time, completely throws a monkey wrench into simplifying the basic premises of the criteria. If you still disagree with this, can I please ask that that point not be brought up until these two discussions with votes are closed by an uninvolved party prior to that discussion being brought back up again? The G13 debate has been ongoing for an excessive long amount of time. However, I do believe that it it should be a requirement for every author of the drafts to automatically be sent a note on their talk page about the WP:REFUND process, specifically referencing their AfC that was recently deleted, but that discussion can be brought up at a later time; that's a task that can even be left up to some sort of bot... A bot that will search for recent AfC submissions that were deleted for G13 criterion, then post a note on the original author's talk page with a reference to that AfC submission, and reference WP:REFUND. Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
As a side note, I am currently building a bot to gather statistics for AfC pages (acceptance rate, correlation with number of declines, correlation of time between submit and review and re-submit rate, correlation between number of revisions before review and review rate, and if possible throw in deletion rates as well), and I'm under the impression it will be fairly hard to run a bot to do this (since it is after the fact, it will need to run over the deletion log, do a text-based search for G-13, get the page id, with admin permissions view the deleted revisions of the page id (not sure if possible), extract the user ID of the original author). I may be mistaken, I'm new to the whole bot business, but if you do hear of some simpler way, I'm interested!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talkcontribs) 14:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that you have an incredible idea. However, I have a bit of an addition to what that bot, or maybe a separate bot, could do as well. This idea is sort of "insurance" to the whole G13 process. This bot could do the following tasks:
  1. Scan the deletion log for recently deleted articles that have the "G13" notice listed in their deletion notes
  2. Upon finding a recently deleted article for G13, go through the edit history to find the original author of the recently deleted draft
  3. Create a new section on that editor's talk page, referencing the recently-deleted article (for G13), as well as reference how to retrieve that article by posting a request on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13.
I know this does not fix all possible issues, mainly because there might be other editors interested in those deleted drafts, but it would at least give the original author a chance to revive the article, and finish what was not finished on the draft, and hopefully make it into an article acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Steel1943 (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Timestamps for AFC/R

When you answer requests at WP:AFC/R, please make sure you sign your edits: The bot that archives old requests determines age by timestamp; if the last entry in a given section doesn't have a timestamp, that section will never be archived. Yours, Huon (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops, thought I did. Well, if that hasn't been fixed yet, I'll get to it. Thanks for letting me know! Steel1943 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the latest two, and I sometimes check whether the oldest unarchived request has a timestamp. Nothing to be done right now. Huon (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
  • Eh, I was submitting this so it could have been declined, which was a practice I was doing last week to clear out some of the unsubmitted entires. I have ceased doing this until the details of the G13 speedy deletion criterion get worked out via consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Long stories

Am I ready? Is anyone ever really ready? Well, I think so. Could you drop me an email? --BDD (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved response to BDD's talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M. Emmet Walsh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bound for Glory (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) 17:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Steel1943. You have new messages at Wilhelm meis's talk page.
Message added 04:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


For doing the wikignome fixing at my RfA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Steel1943 (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my On the Rebound posts,

although in my opinion, because only one On the Rebound is notable there is no need for a disambiguation page as a simple {{for}} template can deal with it. 99% of people wanting On the Rebound want the Floyd Cramer song. What is your opinion on this?--Launchballer 21:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Farewell and best wishes

For what it's worth, I felt that you were a net positive to WP:DND. Best wishes to you. BOZ (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Surprised and sorry to see this. Thank you for your help in the Admin nominators WikiProject. AutomaticStrikeout (TCSign AAPT) 16:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mitzi concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mitzi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)