User talk:Steel1943

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

Happy New Year, Steel1943![edit]

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

Happy New Year Steel1943![edit]

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

WP DAB banner[edit]

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

  • @Uanfala: Thanks for the notification about that discussion. However, I'd recommend that a firmer consensus be formed on that decision, probably discouraging the use of {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} on talk pages of disambiguation pages altogether. I mean, from what you are saying and from my own opinions, placing {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} on talk pages of disambiguation pages already tagged with {{Disambiguation}} is rather redundant, but it has seemingly been practice to do so for several years, and thus why I've been doing it. For reference of two other such templates where placement of the WikiProject template is restricted, see {{WikiProject Redirect}} (not supposed to be placed on talk pages of redirects) and {{WikiProject Templates}} (not supposed to be placed on talk pages of templates.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Mboivin Question[edit]

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

Thanks for caretaking[edit]

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

Kendra Haste[edit]

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

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

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Apologies for my temper Steel. I sincerely appreciate your purpose and good will but you could not, (albeit inadvertantly), have chosen a worse moment to educate me, said education being, I confess, long overdue. But try to appreciate the situation - go to the Kendra Haste page and check top image - hi res - work in progress - then go to bottom - an elephant in Waterloo station - holding up the entire structure - head down and forever patient while we as a species flit by. I don't want to bore you with arty crap - I'm merely dumbstruck that, just when I have such extroardinary images in my hands - I have to go to the naughty corner and learn to obey the god of OTRS. Any other time Steel - but I must upload the the other 4 images I was given this evening or I am going to to look like a complete idiot tomorrow. As you say - OTRS - nine years I have been registered a wikipedian and in the very evening I get my hands on excellence I get to go to OTRS. Can you understand my frustration now Steel? After nine years - could you not just allow me the dignity - the prize of uploading these few images - so I don't look like a complete arse tomorrow? Can you appreciate my frustration? MarkDask 23:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Have a look?[edit]

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

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

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

Sriracha F.C.[edit]

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

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

Templates transcluded in the MediaWiki namespace[edit]

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

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

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

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

TWL pages[edit]

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

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