This user helped get "Kick (association football)" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 2015 April 13.
This user is a WikiGnome

User talk:Steel1943

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This user tries to leave Wikipedia, but finds that they can't do so…

Wally (given name)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wally (given name), and it appears to include material copied directly from

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, this was a bad tag, considering that it is content moved from Wally. Time to make a suggestion to the bot owner. Steel1943 (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you back at RfD[edit]

Nice to see you back. I haven't looked (will do after this) at what I just saw "pending block and leaving". I will tell you for one, I know you argue vigorously and intelligently and improve the encyclopaedia by doing so. I wouldn't like to count how many you "won" and I "lost" or vice versa: I would guess it is about half and half. Never known you be anything but polite, solid, point out the facts. Hard for a bloke like me to say but you are what every Wikipedian should be. Takes onion. Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  • @SimonTrew: Thanks! Speaking of which, I'm going to archive my entries up until October once I get access to a computer in a couple of days; that section is kind of old news. Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I have an archive in real life. It is about five feet talle and has a balanced force by virtue – Galilleo could have told you this – of two cylindrical rotational devices at its feet. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Guy fawkes night cheers![edit]

I got one of these for Hallowe'en, I don't know why but if I don't pass it on apparently there is a pox on me. So amended, but still a bit late:

I dropped some pennies[edit]

Some pennies
Same pennies

I added a couple of pics of pennies I dropped to Commons. I know not as good as a slot machine, but you might make some use of them. There's a selection of new sterling, old sterling, american one cent pennies, and a bit of euro copper Si Trew (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Si Trew, dang, much thanks! But, I'm thinking that I may have needed to be more specific; I'm looking for the 1943 variety. ;) Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The weirdest ones, when I used to fix computers as a bit of a sideline, a music teacher and composer had a rattling tower machine and I got six pre-decimal pennies out of it. Saved his computer but neither of us could for the life of us work out how they got in there: he had no children you know shoving things into the draws, but the CD draws etc are sealed units anyway so they wouldn't have fallen in. I suppose someone shoved them in the back as a laugh or something. The six old pennies are on the photo! Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Which reminds me Penny falls/Penny Falls doesn't exist. We do have Penny pusher as an R to section. But I was more trying to get the history of them; everyone knows what they are but there is not much info on them. About six years ago I tried to look up for patents (which would probably be called "device for receving and randomly delivering small amounts of petty cash by mechanical " or something, in the way patents are), I phoned a couple of the large slot-machine manufacturers, got on to the Patent Office and British Design Museum and the Toy Museum and so on, and got nowhere; the curators themselves said I know what you mean but I can't find anything about who invented them or when (I guess late nineteenth century). I mean it's just a couple of eccentric cams driving a shelf etc but I couldn't RS it at all. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Question[edit]

To the administrator whom this may concern,

I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Autochecked a few minutes ago. On this page, it says that if any editor has this right, it should be removed; per this list, there is currently 1 editor who somehow received this user right. Could this be resolved? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have removed the right, and posted a message about it to the talk page of the administrator who gave the right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your mass RfD nomination...[edit]

... is greatly appreciated. I know I bitched about the one title being restored, and I'm glad it's being nominated, but I didn't realize that there were quite so many similar redirects, and I definitely didn't expect them all to get nominated at once. They are all equally useless, of course, so you'll have at least one person supporting your effort to get rid of them all.

I know there's some way of configuring the wiki software to reject certain titles, so if these get deleted - fingers crossed - you might want to do whatever is needed to just prevent the creation of titles with multiple single quotes in them. The people who create pages like that are simply making a natural mistake about how wiki syntax works, but unlike most things here they can't just go back and fix their mistake, at least not in any obvious way. It's better to just prevent the mistake from having any effect in the first place.

Again, though, kudos for actually making the effort to clean things up here. (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • @ Thanks! There's probably at lot more, but the ones I nominated are only the ones that specifically start with at least two apostrophes. (I was trying to get this mass nomination organized during the time I had requested that Ricky81682 restore that one specific redirect due to it not technically being eligible for WP:CSD#R3; I'd like to see all of these go as well, but only if it's done the correct way.) And also, an alternate idea may be if my nomination passes, there should probably be a new criterion for speedy deletion for redirects that states something link "Redirects that contain wiki markup: any redirect that contains at least one instance of at least two consecutive apostrophes." Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would work too. Good to see I'm not the only one who wants these gone. (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@ I don't know if you are still the same editor at that IP address, but if you are, I just wanted to let you know that the creation of titles with any instance of at least two consecutive apostrophes has now been added to the English Wikipedia's title creation blacklist; see here, and I can confirm that it works (since I know that as an IP, you cannot create a page to confirm.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect Barnstar[edit]

Redirect Barnstar Hires.png The Redirect Barnstar
Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! This is for your work at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 20. Keep up the good work Lenticel (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

All 357 redirects?[edit]

Nice to see you, haven't seen you in a while. Haven't opened that yet.

May I wish sincerely you and your family an early happy christmas since it will take me from now till then to go through them, you bastard.

Hope you're doing all right... for now.... Si Trew (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That was meant as a rather pathetic joke, I do sincerely hope you and yours are doing well and nice to see you back. Herculean task on that one you've taken on. Si Trew (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
No worries Si Trew, I took it as so, and even chuckled a bit when I read it the first time. But I agree, preparing for that nomination took me the better part of a few hours; in related news, due to the page moves I performed in preparation for that nomination, it would seem that I created about half of those redirects. :) Steel1943 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests[edit]

(Undid changes of "Uncontroversial" to "Unchallenged" - where was the discussion for these changes?)

Do you disagree with the changes' rationale or the replacement "Unchallenged"..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sardanaphalus: I disagree with the word change since "unchallenged", to me, sounds like the request has already been assessed and has no reason to be challenged, whereas the word "uncontroversial" sounds more like an editor's bold opinion that has yet to be assessed. Also, the section "contested technical requests" seems to flow better with the previous section having the word "uncontroversial". Steel1943 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Understood; thanks for explaining. It didn't occur to me at the time, but both "unchallenged" and "uncontroversial" can be read as suggesting already-assessed etc. Perhaps something using "proposed" or "submitted" might avoid these overtones..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sardanaphalus: Those may be an option, though I personally prefer to remain at is due to "it being this way for so long". That, and I've seen editors in the past do renaming in those sections or even changing the hidden notes around, and it "breaks stuff". I'd say your best option if you believe that any changes should happen of the section header names, a discussion should be started on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It may've been this way for so long, but the potential misreading only struck me recently. In the grander scheme of things, though, it's not a big deal, so I'll leave it to be noticed again sometime. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Here is a Barnstar. Because why not? :) (¯`·._.·[God Of Death ÐËxtËR]·._.·´¯) (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled right[edit]

Thanks for adding The Master and Margarita (disambiguation). Since you've been around a while and seem to know what's what, you might want to apply for the autopatrolled user right. This will prevent pages you create from appearing at Special:NewPagesFeed, saving new page patrollers some work. Swpbtalk 21:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Swpb: Thanks; I wish I could, but any right-minded administrator would refuse giving me that right; I've created several disambiguation pages and redirects, but only 2 or 3 articles with content and references. Per the guidelines, redirects and disambiguation pages don't count towards the requirement for being granted this right ... but, I wish it did. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hurry back![edit]

L8RG8R – Paine  03:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Weihnachten10.gif Happy Holiday Cheer
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Steel1943, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
AmaryllisGardener talk 19:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas! --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)

Happy Holidays![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Steel1943, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

  • Thanks Technical 13! (I would have just clicked "thank" on the edit, but since you weren't the one who did the edit, I know you would have not received it.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Christmas tree sxc hu.jpg
Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! Face-smile.svg

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 04:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


Hey Thanks for cleaning my nominations. All those similar names left me very confused. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Move request for Ilz[edit]


could you explain why you are opposed to the move request. Do you consider the river the primary topic WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ? Inwind (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Inwind: From what I see, it's not only the primary topic; it's also the only topic. What other subject that currently has an article is also referred to as "Ilz"? Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I see now. Either way, the discussion has been moved to Talk:Ilz#Requested move 28 December 2014 by another editor. Steel1943 (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts[edit]

Have I correctly understood the meaning of your username? Jehochman Talk 23:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


I know what WP:TPO says, but I'm using WP:IAR here, as these users have used irrelevant arguments. They simply imply WP:IDONTLIKEIT as being a reason for not moving the page. I'm also going to request a change to WP:TPO for this soon, but do you oppose to WP:IAR? I'm not going to reinstate it now.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

also, I know IDONTLIKEIT is for deletion discussions, but it's basically the same situation here.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI Steel, I filed a report at WP:ANI concerning this. -- Calidum 21:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Calidum: Yep, that would have been the other venue in which this would have been reportable. Well, so much for my comment below; I'll check out the report. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Qxukhgiels: I don't oppose IAR, but following it also comes at the price that most likely, the community will disagree with you (which has happened in this case). Either way, I would recommend that you either request the closure on WP:ANRFC or stop reverting the edits on Talk:Woodstock; at this point, the talk page edits would be reportable on WP:3RR, but I'm going to hold off on that since you have stated you will stop, and that's enough for me. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The majority of those editors are not thinking it through, and I think the community would agree with that. It's their PT, and I don't think, as famous as this event is, that it is the PT for most of the world. Do you disagree with that?Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Qxukhgiels: At this point, since a report has been filed on WP:ANI, you would probably be better off asking any questions or stating any concerns there in an effort to state your side for the community to see. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


I just looked at your user page for the first time. Very interesting, especially that you like "depreciating" unused templates. Well, you could try "deprecating" (no letter I) them instead: templates are not WP:CHEAP you know! I think it was you who suggested {{deprecated template}} (not {{depreciated template}}) to me (at RfD).

Beyond that, have a happy new year, eh? Your humble gnome Si Trew (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I presume you realise I was being rather sarcastic. Sincerely, thanks for all the hard work you do at WP. I for one appreciate it. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Si Trew, yeah, all has been good. Ironically, I ran across the "deprecated" vs. "depreciated" issue earlier when I was trying to change some section headers on WP:CSD as well. Other than that, just getting a bit fiery over the fact that the title creation blacklist hasn't been fully functional lately, resulting in titles that are on the blacklist being created anyways. (About half a month ago, I asked for titles that have any instance of two consecutive apostrophes to be added to the blacklist; it was, but now the software that enforces the blacklist is having intermittent functionality issues, causing title cremation havoc, so to speak ... such as the RfD nominations today ... well, at least one of them.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I've taken that one to CSD, if it's the one I'm thinking of. But I bet it is declined. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Si Trew, I'll cross my fingers, toes, and eyes. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Were I you, I should uncross them all. I have put reasons on the R's talk page, quoted reasons, quoted at RfD and quoted the RfD at the talk page. In short I have buttonned every hole. So it is bound to be rejected; a racing certainty yesterday was (although that is more suspicious and I still need to dip my toes into that one since I think there's some interested party dipping in there). Persuasion is better than cure, or whatever the doctor said, but often to present a fait accompli as I said at RfD earlier gets it rebuffed. Better to pretend you don't know and need help, sometimes, than quote chapter and verse. (I have had security guards help me away with stolen goods that I couldn't lift onto the van, by asking their help: long story, but basically psychology says "nobody would ask us if he were stealing it". Me: "Do you want to check the receipts?" They: "Nah, you're alright.") I am a very clever idiot. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Blow me down, it did get deleted (''A World Transformed'' ). That should give you a precedent, at least. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Si Trew, Yeah, I saw it got "R3"-ed ... Shocked it got deleted for that reason though, considering that the redirect was 2 months old ... Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I put your statement that it was only valid for 3 minutes on the talk page of the articlepage when I nominated it for CSD (and referred it back to the RfD discussion). You can see my exact words (I can't!) as an admin if you look at its talk page, but something like "I realise 14 Nov is not recent by usual XfD standards, but in fact this was only valid for 3 minutes before the page move, and the chances of it being referred to internally or externally in that time are slim". Still amazed anyone actually read the talk page, despite the admin instructions telling them to. Si Trew (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Smashrooms etc[edit]

Nice work with the mario bros. redirects, most of them seem to have gone red. I have been quiet about these to let them go delete by default (and obviously you can't close them yourself) but nicely done, can't see why someone searching for "Smashrooms" or "The Smashrooms" should be WP:SURPRISEd to end up there. Better off being red. I am an inclusionist by nature, and one of the reasons I lurk at RfD is to turn redirects into articles, sometimes translate them (I did a few the other day from French) but sometimes things are better off red. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Ugh, I just reminded myself, one needs to be done from PNT that needs translating from Hungarian. That will be a struggle. Excuse me for not linking – purposely I am not, so as not to clutter "What links here" etc. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Si Trew, there seems to be quite a few bad redirects directing towards video game-related articles, probably due to Wikipedia guidelines being near nonexistent back during its infancy. Like, for example, Halo (series) has probably the better part of 5-10 redirects directing towards it that really should not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
So I see. Will you please stop cluttering my nice clean RfD pages with your perfectly correct nomiations! It was nice and clean before you started! Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Colorado Springs (disambiguation)[edit]

Feel free to tag the disambig page for deletion (or use MfD) ... but first converting it to a redirect, then tagging it for speedy as an invalid redirect seems a bit deceptive. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Barek: I disagree since I believe that it would be eligible for G6 in another way if it were reconverted to a disambiguation page; {{db-disambig}}. Besides the primary topic, all other entries were partial title matches. (If the redirect did get reconverted to a disambiguation page, my next edit would be to remove all of the partial title matches, which would have left the primary topic sitting at the top with no other entries on the page.) That, and I'd rather not bother the community with going through a 7-day deletion process with something that seems so uncontroversial; if it's controversial (since you seem to think so), I'd rather the community have to deal with the misleading redirect existing. Thanks for your time and consideration. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
If you feel the disambig qualifies for speedy under G6. feel free to tag the disambig for G6. I will allow another admin to review that. However, by first wiping out the content and leaving only a redirect, then tagging because what you left is an invalid redirect - it's misleading at best. That would be no better than someone turning any article to a redirect to some other article, then tagging it for deletion as an invalid redirect. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Barek: So, I performed the edit I said I would if it was reconverted to a disambiguation page, then you reverted my edit. I follow a guideline, then you revert me. No administrator in their right mind would speedy delete the page with that much text on it. If you feel so adamant to protect a page that obviously doesn't meet MOS:DAB standards, that's on you. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? Your argument is that blanking it first helps it to qualify for speedy? You don't see the obvious misleading nature of that action? I admit that I should not have made the second revert from when you stripped out all the inappropriate partial name matches, and I apologize for that second revert - but I feel the first was entirely justified in reverting your bypass of process for the sake of convenience. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Barek: At this point, I understand your stance about your first revert, and respect it, even though I disagree with it since I believe I was following process, given that I do not know of any guideline that states that a speedy is not allowed if the previous few edits put the page in the state that made it speediable, provided that the previous edits were justifiable and following process themselves. However, the second revert; thanks for the apology. Also, since someone else reverted your revert, I'm going to go ahead and tag it with {{Db-disambig}} with the state it is in now and see what happens, and then accept whatever that outcome is. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"US" versus "U.S."[edit]

WP:USPLACE does not discuss the question of US versus U.S.
Where in the Wikipedia style manual might we truly find guidance on that specific point?
Thanks.  Doc – DocRushing (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC).

WP:NOTUSA. -- Calidum 15:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@DocRushing: Calidum beat me to the answer; I knew I said the wrong shortcut right after I said it. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTUSA does not require either the use of U.S. or the avoidance of US.
However, it does in part offer this comment:  "Some major American style guides, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition), now deprecate U.S. and prefer US".
Does any of you know of any unequivocal requirement that we specifically must use U.S. or avoid US in an article at the Wikipedia?
Thanks again.  Doc – DocRushing (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC).
It also says U.S. has been the dominant form. While there is no rule explicitly stating is the periods, it's a well observed convention on Wikipedia to use them. -- Calidum 05:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @DocRushing: As far as I know, that is the only Wikipedia page that mentions any requirement in regards to the "US" abbreviation (so if you desire, feel free to revert my revert; I will not re-revert you). If you believe that there may be an issue with the way that the guideline is worded, you may need to being it up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style regarding the section WP:NOTUSA leads to. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Marshall Eriksen[edit]

Template deletion process[edit]

Hello, wanna discuss about the template Template:Programmes broadcast by Zindagi. Since nomination, no one had even discussed as till now. Plus the dramas aired in it are syndicated Pakistani TV soap opera, no fresh or self created material airs here. Though it's clear redundant. So here, whether discussion would be closed or still keep it? DerevationGive Me Five 16:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Derevation: I actually have no opinion about that template either way. I asked the question regarding its redundancy at its TfD nomination so whoever closes that discussion will have a clearer idea why the template is redundant (which I didn't feel was accurately described in your initial nomination.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Sir, Pakistani channels have their own template of their television dramas. So here in Zee Zindagi, ONLY SYNDICATED OLD DRAMAS BEEN TELECASTED . No new show of their self has been aired. Read that article and ping me. Thanks again

DerevationGive Me Five 06:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Derevation: The comment you just posted here would be better placed on the template discussion. I actually have no interest in voicing an opinion on it; I asked the comment "redundant to what" for your benefit and the discussion closer's so that it is clear what you believe is redundant. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Lightning in a tropical cyclone[edit]

I've closed the longstanding RFD for Lightning in a tropical cyclone as no consensus with an unusually detailed rationale. Basically, nobody wanted to keep it, but there wasn't consensus on what to do, so I've taken a bold step of un-redirecting it and immediately sending it to AFD to get input from people who don't often show up at RFD. I'd really appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning in a tropical cyclone, where I've given a strong suggestion that people pick between the RFD-favored steps of deletion or retargeting to lightning. I'm attempting to notify everyone who participated in the RFD (that's BDD, Ivanvector, Inks.LWC, Guy1890, Steel1943, and Thryduulf), but if I missed someone, please do the notification for me. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC on primary topic[edit]

This issue has been discussed many times already, as you can see at WP:PDAB. NotUnusual (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @NotUnusual: Awesome, I just asked what is considered a "perennial proposal" on many of the Village Pump forums. I just closed the entire discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • A lot of editors have participated in the Thriller RM. When it closes, you could follow up by proposing that the guideline be changed to correspond with the result. NotUnusual (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @NotUnusual: Now that I know about WP:PDAB's existence, I'd rather not take the route of restricting primary topics solely to articles with titles that contain no disambiguators. Instead, I think it would be more valuable to our readers if parts of WP:PDAB were merged into the section which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC redirects so that they won't have to go to a different page to find this information. (Compare this idea to the current state of WP:DIFFCAPS.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to have to note this but required if turns out to be community banned user: SPI on User:NotUnusual In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Pearlasia Gamboa[edit]

Last month, you participated in a deletion discussion for several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa. All participants were in favor of deletion for several of them, but three were convoluted. The majority were in favor of deleting each one, but these three got one don't-delete each, and the whole discussion was difficult to assess; Bromley86 had a good description in calling it "this whole convoluted and, frankly, nuts area", and the two most helpful votes were split between deletes and don't-deletes. Since none of the redirects are outright harmful, I figured we'd get the best result if I just kept them and immediately relisted them; I've created new nominations for them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 4, and your participation would be welcome. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bob Ives (racing driver), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages UJ and Top Gear (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) 09:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  • UJ is probably intentional, since its meaning is not clear, nor is its definition on the disambiguation page. So, I'm leaving it. I'll fix Top Gear. Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice work[edit]

Not sure how you managed to find these really old unconnected talk pages, but I'm glad you did! Cheers.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Mojo Hand: Thanks! I may reveal my secret after I get done tagging some more (though the secret could probably be discovered...) Steel1943 (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Human Resources Practitioners[edit]

Delete the talk page 'when you wish' - there was a red link on the List of Livery Companies at the time (and see the exchange on the talkpage thereof). 'Noting what could be found so far' if anyone wished to pursue the subject further (and 'not all WP kites will fly'). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinion on WrestleMania 32[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right person I should be talking to, but I'd like to see an opinion regarding that article mentioned above. Since 2006 (before me and @CRRaysHead90: even joined here), people have been creating WrestleMania articles in advanced of one year (Take WM 23 when it started). They always marked them as stubs and expanded them later on. Now, InedibleHulk, LM2000, and starship.paint are saying that the article doesn't even meet WP:GNG even though it was marked as a stub and secondary sources are available. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I know I've said this before, but you pinged me here, so I'll reiterate. If secondary sources are available, and the article needs secondary sources, and you want the article to exist, use the available sources to say something notable. This could be the largest attendance and gate in WrestleMania history, according to Forbes. That would count. There's a fair bit of other easily accessible stuff.
In the time it took you to write and cite this here, you could have improved the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Technical request[edit]

Regarding this, shouldn't it be left to an admin whether to accept or decline? Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @SNUGGUMS: Move requests on WP:RMTR can be moved to the talk page by anyone. That, and if the move had been processed by an admin as a technical move, I would have immediately requested a revert due to me personally finding the move request controversial. (Might as well save us both time.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Do tell why you feel it would be controversial. I have rarely (if ever) seen any other biography article on Wikipedia that uses quotation marks within the title. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: In the almost 12 years of that article's existence, it has never been at the title Weird Al Yankovic. I mean, I would think that if it should be there without a second guess, it would already have been there at least once, especially given the subject's level of notability. I mean, I would think a move without the quotation marks (or at least a discussion, given that the page currently has move protection) would have happened by now if it were destined to happen. Steel1943 (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Interesting..... it just didn't seem conventional for nickname use in article titles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: I cannot say that I've seen it before either, but if someone else (such as an admin) would have completely denied your request without starting a discussion, I may have started the discussion myself. I'm honestly a bit curious on what the consensus will be on this subject's article title. Steel1943 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Queensgate bus station[edit]

I have replied to your comments at Talk:Queensgate bus station; I hope it aids your understanding. A word on language: "This is actually not exactly true" read like you were accusing me of being somehow dishonest. Please try to remember to assume good faith if you are going to wade in. (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I was doing was detective work, since I am quite familiar with how the confusion happened in regards to the move request. But, would my intentions be clearer if I had reworded my "not exactly true" to "not exactly the case" so my lack of a lack of assuming good faith is clearer? And also, I tried to use the word "probably" as often as possible to make my good faith assumption as clear as possible. Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I appreciate the clarification. Cheers, (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Felling mine disasters[edit]

Hi Steel. There was a discussion over splitting Felling mine disasters last autumn which was closed off last December. Thanks for removing the incorrect template, but unless you are wanting to restart the discussion I've removed it from the main page as well. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: I have no interest in doing so. I've just been working on fixing or removing incorrectly placed templates of the such (which results in sometimes moving the template to the article from the talk page, as what happened here.) Anyways, thanks for letting me know! Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ghosttown (song)[edit]

This is now at WP:RMTR. You've opposed the technical move, but apparently someone else already put it at that title. If you still object, do you want to open a move discussion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @EdJohnston: Yes, but right now, that's not my primary concern in regards to that article. My current concern, as seen in the following two diffs: (1 and 2) ... is that the move was a cut-and-paste move that needs to be fixed/reverted. Steel1943 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I've responded. Apologies for the inconvenience. The cut+paste isn't something I've really done before and it won't happen again. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Another Believer: In regards to the cut-paste move, no worries. It will probably get fixed here shortly, if it hasn't yet. (By the way, the link in your edit summary didn't work.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. It works for me... Did you include both lines (the full URL)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Another Believer: I meant that linked URLs don't work in edit notices. I thought you had attempted to link it with double brackets, but my eyes and memory deceived me. Steel1943 (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha. ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Histmerging the Main Page[edit]

I've opposed your histmerge request at Meta, saying that we ought not go deleting the Main Page without consensus first, and one steward has come by and agreed with my position there. In order to avoid a stalemate, I've started such a discussion; see Talk:Main Page#Histmerging the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Nyttend: Thanks for the notification of this discussion. I probably will not participate in it though; I figured that if there were any red flags that might appear regarding this request, it would have been done so by a steward on the board which I posted the request, and it has. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: However, I have advertised the discussion on the RFD nomination. Also, I too am curious what history merge tool User:Ajraddatz is referring. I am quite aware that this history merge can break Wikipedia temporarily (thus, the reason why I left it in a steward'a hands to find additional red flags), but if this "tool" can merge the histories without taking down the page, the page downtime could be adverted. In fact, I'm going to inquire about that tool further on the steward'a board; now, I'm even more curious. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. The opposition I expressed at Talk:Main Page is a completely different issue (I don't think merging the revisions would help, even if it weren't disruptive), because of course the opposition I expressed at the stewards' page isn't relevant if this tool does what it sounds like. And thanks for clarifying your position on ultimately deleting this redirect; sorry for misunderstanding you. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)



I have just seen your message. However, I need some help as I accidentally created two pages before. I would like to delete the page - Draft: Jozef Matejka, and only keep the page for Jozef Ján Matejka . I don't wish for both to appear. Can you please give me advice how I can delete the draft page (Draft: Jozef Matejka?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoma 93 (talkcontribs) 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:REQPROTECT listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:REQPROTECT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:REQPROTECT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tito Dutta (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo NX[edit]

If it really is too early for the article, then Project NX and Nintendo NX should exist as redirects to a section where the subject is mentioned until the draft can be moved back into the proper place (then the redirect can be deleted for the move). SNS (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @SNS: I completely agree with you in regards to the company being a valid target until more references are established. However, it looks like someone recreated the article at Nintendo NX, so at this point, especially given Nintendo's popularity (I should know; I've been playing games developed by Nintendo for over two decades), I'm probably just going to merge the two together and leave the page in the article space. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Super Mario and links to "high fantasy"[edit]

Hey Steel, I don't know if you read my reply on my Talk page yet, but I looked into this and did not see any discussion on the article Talk page nor did I find any in the Talk page archive. You seem to have gotten emotionally invested in this as you've referred to a simple Wikilink or use of terminology as vandalism[1][2], when its a content dispute at most about, of all things, a video game. OK, granted its a popular one and been around for a while, but its still just a video game. WP:AGF, I haven't looked into your edit history, but this is the kind of thing that I've seen Editors get topic banned over at WP:ANI. I'm just saying that as a few friendly words of caution. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Scalhotrod: See here, here, here, and here. Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • No worries, I'm not saying that its not frustrating or that its high quality content, but in the grand scheme of things there are far worse things to worry and be pro-active about on WP than an adverb or two in an article about a video game. There's a fine line between WP:STEWARDSHIP and WP:OWNERSHIP in the minds of some Admins that's easily crossed. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! 2[edit]

Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG The Template Barnstar
I'm thrilled with the improvements you've made to {{Rfd2}}. Your edits will make discussion and closing of redirects clearer and easier. Thanks so much! --BDD (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Preferred disambiguator: "actor/actress" or "pornographic actor/actress"?[edit]

  • I think you misunderstood my rationale. I didn't say the discussion was about one individual article; what I said is that that particular article's talk page is where the biggest discussion about the topic is taking place, and it's too complicated to have users making the same arguments on different related talk pages (would you want to keep doing that?). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Erpert: I completely agree that it is best to fix discussion forks regarding the same (or, at best, similar) topics from happening; however, in this particular case, it seems that the focus of the discussion you closed (which I participated in, by the way) is more about establishing a guideline for a disambiguation standard, whereas the discussion you referenced is about a concern with one specific article (and the primary focus of that discussion seems to not completely relate to the disambiguation question asked on the WikiProject talk page.) If you really feel that the two discussions are related, it would probably be more appropriate to close/move the discussion you referenced on Talk:Aja (actress) to the discussion you closed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll wait a day or two for merging then unless the original discussion picks up; it's pretty quiet over there today. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Kick (association football) has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Robert Downey Jr[edit]

Did you not notice the useful function of this redirect that you swapped out? By omitting the period at the end, in works in templates that add a period after. Let me know if you see a problem with that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Dicklyon: I did notice, but it's technically incorrect since the period is part of the article's name, and thus in my opinion should be "clickable" (rather than utilizing a redirect.) However, I do agree that the double period looks odd. I may, at some point, edit some of the applicable hatnote templates to add a parameter that allows the automatically-generated period to be omitted manually. Steel1943 (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The double period is more incorrect than the technicality of whether the period is inside or outside the blue highlight. Dicklyon (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kick (association football)[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Title (EP) revert[edit]

I did not check the edit history before reverting your edit, but found that it was you who reverted the initial change, so I'm here to briefly explain. You are correct in that the difference between album/EP may not be clear to all readers, which is why there is a hatnote atop Title (Meghan Trainor album) that points readers who might have been looking for the 2014 release to the EP article. However, since "EP" is a very specific and clear term, it is incredibly unlikely that a reader would end up at an article disambiguated as "(EP)" if they did not intend to find the 2014 release with four songs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Or, more simply: not every reader knows what an EP is, but every reader knows what an album is. Those who looked specifically for "EP" do not need a hatnote pointing them elsewhere. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lauren Hill[edit]

Sorry about that - I missed the recent news about her. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)