User talk:Steel1943

CAN'T RETIRE

Steel1943 tried to leave Wikipedia, but found that they couldn't do so…

Happy New Year!

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Steel1943,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Ref desk talk

The item in question is from a year ago November.[1] Obviously long past usefulness. Thanks for zapping it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

A bear hug for you!

	WikiBearHug
	We have had, recently, a fair number of in-depth, passionate, but civil, disagreements at RfD and I feel like I should give you a WikiBearHug because I want you to know that, though we disagree, I appreciate your contributions to RfD, your patrolling, and, where applicable, your assistance. Doug Mehus T·C 00:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Dmehus: I appreciate that, and I hope that you don't take anything that I'm telling you the wrong way. I've just been dealing with such subjects for almost a decade now, and I see the patterns that need to occur to make both the community happy and to make Wikipedia a place that can be used as it's intended to be used. (But, of course, that doesn't mean that I'm always right, and I know I'm not; I could clearly be with consensus sometimes, all the time, or almost none of the time. We all just kind of learn as we go.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Steel1943, Hi, I've responded to your comment, but with my clarification, I'm wondering if you might be able to remove, climb down from, or otherwise refactor your reply in which you wrote, "...@Dmehus: So, I never once cited or linked WP:RS, so please don't claim that I did; obviously, a third party search engine search is sufficient. And I don't know where in the heck you saw me disagree that "...commonly used redirects targeted to the proper article with the correct information can be very useful." With that being said, I'm going be very blunt with this next statement: Please stop claiming that I said either the opposite of what I said or that I said something I did not because I'm getting to a point where I'm considering requesting a two-way interaction ban between us. Thank you. (...)"? See my updated replies. Doug Mehus T·C 21:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Gavaccino, you said: "There were some interesting points between Steel1943 and I above, but in the grand scheme of the discussion, I don't think it's essential to this redirect's discussion, particularly I've since changed my !vote." Oh wow, what a self-centered statement that comes off as a borderline WP:OWN issue. Wikipedia is a community project, not the Dmehus project. I could honestly care less that my statement had any bearing on your vote; discussions are assessed by closers who implement the consensus and arguments presented by all participants in the discussion. And to invalidate my comments in this regard as inapplicable to figuring out the fate of Gavaccino ... considering that I did my best to stay on-topic until you decided to completely disregard the contents of my statements and then change yours to make it seem like I didn't respond to yours appropriately and, whether intentionally or unintentionally (I really don't care to find out which) have made me sound like an idiot with the way I responded to the comment you changed inappropriately, I have no desire to withdraw my statements and no desire to change anything else that I have stated in that discussion thus far. In fact, at this point, I highly recommend that you do your best to not interact with me anymore as your continuous lack of comprehending discussions, rather-misguided and unclear responses, and now apparently attempts to cover up your tracks to make editors sound like idiots makes me realize that it is not in the least productive to interact with you. Please do not mention me, please do not thank me, and please do not directly respond to my edits ever again, as I plan on doing the same. (I understand that unless there is consensus for it, I cannot stop you in participating in discussions that I start or participate in and vice versa, but please do not reference me directly in any of such discussions ever again.) Thank you, and please respect this. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

(Struck out parts I have retracted.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Dmehus: I realized that I unintentionally broke what I said above when I mentioned you on Roseguill's talk page. After self-reflection, even though I still have some the opinions I mentioned above, I seen now that me trying to uphold some sort of makeshift interaction ban is rather childish on my part. You really are trying your best to WP:AGF with the actions you are performing on Wikipedia, regardless of what you do that I agree with (or not). If you are okay with me striking out the part above where I want you to stop mentioning me in discussions and vice versa, I'll do so. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  Not a problem. Strike out whatever you need to, and I was hoping we could come to an amicable resolution here. You have made my day because I respect you, your knowledge of policies, and your experience. It was difficult for me to avoid interacting because of our shared participation at RfD, but I can respect your wishes not to thank you if you wish. Tavix has similarly requested not to be thanked (unless warranted, i.e., if I create a page or a redirect, which Tavix infers I want deleted from a discussion somewhere and deletes per G7, then I would thank Tavix to show concurrence) and not ping them on replies because they monitor discussions in which they participate. Doug Mehus T·C 01:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  I am not involved whatsoever in this discussion so it is inappropriate for you to bring me into this. That being said, I am very sympathetic to the points Steel1943 is making above. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

MOS:ORDER

AWB isn't compatible with MOS:ORDER it seems. Whenever someone does some sort of cleanup using AWB, it automatically moves the hatnote up and short description down. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Fylindfotberserk: Oh dang. Seems that one tool is now compatible with MOS:ORDER (Twinkle: It used to by default post cleanup tags at the top of the page if the first line was anything other than a hatnote, which I guess has now been resolved), and AWB either isn't or never has been. I would have never known since I have never used AWB to tag pages with such templates. But, that's certainly good to know! Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't use AWB either. My observation is based on how many times I have to manually restore MOS:ORDER after someone uses AWB. I wonder why some tools are not compatible with an established MOS. They should do something about it. Nice chatting with you though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: MOS:ORDER was changed after the last time that AWB was released. If you want AWB behavior to change, you can probably leave a comment at WT:AWB. --Izno (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Izno. It seems a discussion is going on regarding this. As for me, I'll keep correcting that manually. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Category:Redirects from catchphrases / Template:R from catchphrase

Category:Redirects from catchphrases (and Template:R from catchphrase) have been nominated for merging with Category:Redirects from slogans (and Template:R from slogan, respectively). You are invited to comment on the discussion at the categories' and templates' entry at Categories for discussion. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

CSD delays

You recently wrote "obvious speedy deletions now seem to take days longer to execute without you [RHaworth] holding the admin toolset". Can you give me some examples? As I write this, CAT:CSD is empty. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: Oh no, you want me to back up my words rather than accept that the sole purpose of my statement was to raise RHaworth's spirit in case he reads that. In other words, I could, but I don't feel like taking the time to review my recent CSD tags, and no thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ...@Ritchie333: Ah heck, I'll bite, given that I really don't know your intentions with your inquiry, and my assumption of something akin to WP:GRAVEDANCING may or may not be valid (and I honestly don't care to find out). There were a few entries on my January 2020 tagged pages that took a couple of days before they were attended to. Steel1943 (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I just want to know if there's a general problem with CSDs being backlogged for days, because I haven't personally seen this. If there is a problem, we need to look at getting more admins with good experience of assessing new pages. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Fair enough, and my apologies that I chose to be harsh with my first responses. Well, that, and I'm not sure if in such a scenario, as you mention above, if "more" admins is the answer. I mean, on the English Wikipedia, we have what ... 1000+ admins ... and only an honestly small portion of them actually perform administrator tasks? Maybe there needs to be stricter criteria about in what instances an admin has to retire their admin title (such as lack of use, etc.) have to be implemented. But then again, even if some more newly-appointed admins (or even a rallying of current ones) were be be asked to stated they would dedicate their time to a task, we're all just volunteers here who are kinda all renegades in our right and edit in WP:WIKITIME. This place is like free will to the max (but, of course, bad choices lead to blocks.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment I, too, have noticed CSD delays, and I miss RHaworth. He was a good administrator. Good thing we still have Fastily, kingboyk, WilyD, and Ritchie333, though, who still seem to do a lot of the CSD mopping. Doug Mehus T·C (talk page stalker) 00:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

RfD close for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Christopher Wilson (reporter)

Hi Steel1943,

Regarding your close for Christopher Wilson (reporter), I'm wondering how you determined consensus to retarget to Christopher Wilson (biographer). Shhhnotsoloud argued it was ambiguous and not mentioned, both solid arguments, and Rosguill argued it was not mentioned. I argued it was not mentioned, ambiguous, and unnecessary disambiguation clarifier created by a serial sockpuppeteer my latter comments on retargeting. BDD and Narky Blert argued for retargeting, which is fine, and they had equally solid arguments. However, I still don't see a consensus. Even if you apply extra weight to their arguments in consideration of alternatives to deletion, that gets us to a no consensus. I personally would have no problem with you closing as no consensus as it was a sound close, even if a close close for a non-admin (I've done some close closes as well). This would allow you to retarget per BDD and Narky Blert boldly, but, like your rationale re: the white marble close, the result would be "no consensus."

Would you be amenable to amending your close as "no consensus" and retargeting boldly?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 00:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Dmehus: "No consensus" was not an option since no one advocated that the redirect be kept as is. The "delete" comments were based on there not being mention of a "Christopher Wilson" at Rebel News. Multiple participants made arguments that the subject at Christopher Wilson (biographer) is also a reporter and an appropriate option for retargeting since the redirect could refer to Christopher Wilson (biographer) and not be ambiguous. Even one of the first "delete" comments acknowledged the existence of Christopher Wilson (biographer) and of it as a plausible option. The close was based on existing subjects on Wikipedia at the present time; if another subject is created later, the redirect can be retargeted to Chris Wilson (the target of redirect Christopher Wilson) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} since that would satisfy the primary concern presented by the discussion participants, and there shouldn't need be another discussion for that. Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  That's true Shhhnotsoloud did note Christopher Wilson's secondary career as a reporter, but also didn't say they endorsed retargeting. That leads me to believe one of too things, either that (a) they believed the disambiguation qualifier was of dubious utility per WP:R#K5/WP:R#D8 or (b) they believed it was an implausible search term and also of dubious utility per WP:R#K5/WP:R#D8. Rosguill's argument was still strong, as were mine. "No consensus," as I understand it, means what it says it means, when there's not a clear enough outcome to effect change. It doesn't dually mean it can't be used when "keep" is not an option. Like I said, I have no problem with you boldly retargeting post-close to effect the problematic current redirect target of Rebel News because of that. But I just don't see it how there was any consensus to retargeting here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Note too that Rosguill even closed the Halo 7 and Halo 8 redirects as "no consensus," which meant they stayed where they were, but it was problematic without a mention, so either Rosguill or Tavix (can't remember which) retargeted them to the two Nine Inch Nails albums boldly. Doug Mehus T·C 00:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  I should add, too, for clarity that I didn't think the close would need to be backed out. Since the retarget has already been done, I was just thinking that, effectively, you would be able to modify your result of your close to "no consensus" and then update the talk page manually, since we're not a bureaucracy and all. Doug Mehus T·C 00:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Dmehus: In the discussion, there was clearly consensus for retargeting to Christopher Wilson (biographer) for the reasons I already stated above. Unfortunately, I really don't have any further elaboration to provide (including Rosguill's and Shhhnotsoloud's comments as I already addressed them) since I answered your inquiry about my close, which I believe also adequately answers any points and concerns brought up in your previous inquiries. If you feel the need to dispute this further, feel free to WP:DRV this as I am unconvinced that my close was improper. If so, I will participate by copying my previous statement regarding why/how I came to the "retarget" conclusion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks for your response. I wouldn't say there was a consensus to retargeting, based on the discussion, though we could've still retargeted boldly after the close. It's probably not worth taking it to DRV because the the only outcome I would be seeking is to overturn to "no consensus" or to "relist" for another week. Given that only BDD responded since the last relist, I'm not sure it would generate much more participation. So, we'll probably just call it one of those "agree to disagree"-type situations. If and when there's another Christopher Wilson that's a journalist, that redirect can be converted to a separate article. Doug Mehus T·C 14:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  No hard feelings, I trust, since you even offered for me to list this at DRV but I've decided that we should get some clarity on whether a no consensus outcome is still possible even if, practically speaking, it had the problematic effect of remaining targeted to the current target. I've reiterated what I said here, so it will good to have some solid answers. Doug Mehus T·C 01:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Christopher Wilson (reporter)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christopher Wilson (reporter). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Doug Mehus T·C 01:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)