Jump to content

User talk:Steel1943/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

Redirects that don't have a space before the disambiguation searchable

Hey, not sure if you know this, but I've found intitle:/a\(/ (example; replace the letter to find more) which is useful to find redirects that don't have a space before the disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Look at the hidden text at the bottom of my user page... Been tweaking regexes for a bit to avoid false positives. 😉 Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Hidden text! Gonnym (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Eh, my regex setups would not have found Tropical Storm Verna(1945) since my regexes are set up to ignore malformed "disambiguators" with the first character being a number, due to the high potential to return false positive results for valid chemistry-related redirects that have parentheses, dashes, and numbers at almost random locations. Steel1943 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Just created a regex for years. The search contained a very small amount of false positives (and may return different results every time it is used since the complicated regex makes the search function time out), but most seem like valid WP:RDAB issues. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ways to improve Brother's Keeper (2021 film)

Hello, Steel1943,

Thank you for creating Brother's Keeper (2021 film).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi Steel1943. The article as it stands is borderline for meeting WP:NFILM and would really need to be expanded with additional WP:RS sources to demonstrate notability. It would benefit from an explanation of the plot, and the addition of a 'Reception' section. It would also benefit from addition to relevant Wikiprojects.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bastun: This is a automated tool notification failure since I created the title as a redirect and I did not create any of the content on the page: The editor who did that was Inwind. Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, I do not use the Page Curation tool, but if the tool allows custom notifications and you wrote that notification, you may want to look at the page's edit history next time to ensure the correct editor is named and the notification goes to them instead. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, yes, the tool identifies the 'page creator', I should have checked. My bad! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirect disambiguation errors

Hey Steel! Thank you for your nominations at RfD by the way. I've been curious for a while if you've been working off of a list (from Quarry or somewhere else) in order to identify the redirects that make errors in disambiguation. I've ran a few tests of my own and found a slew of pages with disambiguation errors, although I haven't really bitten deeper into that chunk for a few reasons, mainly because my focus has been elsewhere and I wanted to confer alongside your efforts. I guess the main thing I'm wondering is if you've been working off a list, and/or how far through are you those nominations, and/or what criteria have you been using to make the list? Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 02:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait... I can't believe I didn't see the other section two above this that I should've tacked onto, LOL. That does answer some of my questions, I haven't checked the regex yet. A lot of what I was looking into was missing or extra parentheses and how often those come up (there's a few hundred or so) but I wanted to see how likely it was that we'd be running into the same problematic redirects. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
By the way, I was investigating this around when I sent this message, but I thought you might want to take a look at this massviews of Foo(bar) redirects: [1]. The query it's based on, ([2]) isn't a perfect catch-all by any means, as there's plenty of chemistry redirects which validly lack a space, and show up in this report because of it. But by looking at the viewcounts, most of the chemicals float to the top of the list view-wise (not all though). I saw looked into the regex you used in your searches, which is what I adapted for this query, but instead was looking at lowercase letters instead of numbers in the disambiguators. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Utopes: I'll take a look at that Quarry inquiry ... beats having to reload my regex every time the search times out. (I used Quarry like once in the past, but couldn't really figure it out ... but since my real life time to dedicate to Wikipedia has been rather sporadic lately, the list of entries I get prior to the query timing out on search is usually all I have time for whenever I run the regex search.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good if you do; for disclosure, I might also start chipping away at some of the redirects listed there in a little while. Although, I'm (quite surprisingly) trying to space out my nominations so I'm not just going all in for a singular category at RfD. As an example, I don't think I'm going to do any more RDAB nominations for a while as I'm waiting for my current few to simmer and conclude, and am instead putting my attention on the backend of the NPP queue instead. A strategy I've been thinking about is to bundle all of the redirects that are exactly of the form Foo(song), of which there's 129 (per [3], but who said it was going to be easy 😅). Similarly there's 172 that are exactly like Foo(film), another common occurrence. We'll see how the next few weeks play out. Hope real life is going well though! Feel free to take it easy, there's no deadline by any means ^^ 😌 Utopes (talk / cont) 06:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of E129 (disambiguation)

Notice

The article E129 (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the script not working for "List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists "

Searching it on wikipedia counts it as an article and not a redirect due to its status as rfD. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  • @1ctinus: I know, thus why I was stating you need to check your edits and/or scripts since all edits, correct or erroneous, are the responsibility of the editor who made them. (Odd that I couldn't find a shortcut to a policy explaining that, but it's true.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Template:R from subtitle" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:R from subtitle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Template:R from subtitle until a consensus is reached. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Adult fiction

Re your revert, Steel1943. A merge had been completed by me sometime ago. An article on Adult fiction would duplicate most of the already existing [[Fiction]] article. I have now added a sentence to the lede of that article, and am considering whether more is needed. I probably should have done this at the time of the merging! Sorry. Rwood128 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rwood128: Not sure if you saw that I reverted my revert. Long story short, your subsequent edits to Fiction resolved the concerns I had with Adult fiction going back to being a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Rwood128 (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar time!

The Helping Hand Barnstar
Seriously, I know you're not my official mentor or anything but with how much you've helped me out... Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I retargeted Candidates for the first novel

Hello Steel1943, I'm not sure of the etiquette here but I saw the closed RfD for Candidates for the first novel and I thought List of claimed first novels in English was almost certainly the information someone would be looking for with that query (as opposed to Novel#Early novels). I changed the redirect myself, which I think is a find "bold" edit but I wanted to let you know in case you disagreed or in case there is a process I should follow in the context of RfD which I am not aware. Thanks for your cleanup work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: Only thing I really have to do to avoid huge amounts of controversy is ask the other participant in that discussion ... @Johnbod: Do you have a problem with the change? Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
No, that's much better. I'd never seen that. Hang on - that only covers novels in English, whereas the other went to ancient & later novels. So I still prefer Novel#Early novels. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@LEvalyn and Johnbod: Due to the above potential disagreement and since the redirect has been edited and reverted since my close, I have reopened the discussion and relisted it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9#Candidates for the first novel. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for relisting, Steel1943, that was the right call -- I had assumed the original choice was made without an awareness of Candidates for the first novel as an option but it looks like consensus is still clearly to stick with Novel#Early novels. It was good to have more discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

RfD

You can always let me know if you want this discussion to be reopened. Okmrman (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"King Dede" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect King Dede has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § King Dede until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

BFD

Hi! Can I ask why you created the shortcut WP:BFD, which points to MFD? Not looking to blame you for anything, just not sure what it stands for. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: Wikipedia:Books for deletion. May want to consider bundling both at WP:RFD. (Heck, turns out I created both; I'm uncertain of their historical utility though, so I'm not going to tag them for {{Db-g7}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Tagging Talk pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Steel1943,

It feels like years since we interacted last. I just want to say that there is no need to tag a talk page for CSD if the article/redirect page is already tagged for speedy deletion. Many admins use Twinkle which deletes them both at the same time and there is no reason to delete the Talk page before the main page. It can look misleading if an editor or admin is glancing at CSD categories to have existing Talk pages tagged as if they are orphaned Talk pages which they are not at the time of tagging. Basically, tagging the main Article/Redirect/Template/Category page is sufficient to ensure that the Talk page is also deleted. Thank you for all of your contributions to the Project. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, it has been a good while! I hope all has been well. Anywho, to the method behind my madness:
  • At the present time, {{Db-x3}} is not built into Twinkle. I keep track of my CSD tagging with Twinkle's CSD logging option, which does not function if the template is not built into Twinkle. At the present time for this specific application, the only option to update the CSD log is to tag the talk page, provided it exists.
  • {{Db-talk}}, an extension of WP:G8 (as you are aware), has one line of verbiage in its automated message which is missing regarding the use of the template, specifically the following:

    "... for talk pages of ... pages currently flagged for speedy deletion"

    ...meaning the double tagging is both allowed and apparently proper. (Maybe this verbiage needs to be added to the {{Db-talk}} template?)
  • I know this doesn't apply to you, but I've run across several instances over the years where an admin will delete a non-talk page, but then for some reason I guess, inadvertently uncheck the option to also delete the respective talk page. In cases like this, which do occur, having the talk page tagged as well allows someone to "admin the admin" if the initial admin does not delete the talk page. (I get there are some talk pages tagged with {{G8-exempt}}, but running across those do not happen very often.)
...Anywho, that's my take on why I'm doing this, and ... I think my thought about adding the "... for talk pages of ... pages currently flagged for speedy deletion" verbiage to {{Db-talk}} may need some consideration to avoid such a disconnect happening again in the future. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"----" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect ---- has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30 § ---- until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Your moving of pages in arbitration space

You are moving several pages in arbitration space without discussion. While the reason may be valid, I would strongly suggest not doing this without first asking if this is okay. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: This edit summary seems to hint there is no issue with it, thus I started this task as I saw no controversy with it as these moves put the old discussions with the correct parent page. Because ... making sure archives match their correct parent page for ease of finding is cleanup. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
While it is probably better that these pages are moved, it is causing a flood of messages in the clerks IRC channel. So if you do start this again, I'd recommend doing this more slowly. Furthermore, some of the new locations were redirects (for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion). While the edit summary in that example doesn't explain what motion necessitated the creation of the redirect, it seems that at some point the arbs were happier to redirect to the old location instead of moving the pages. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: Not sure I agree that my edit summary was not clear. "Match current name of parent page" seems to ... clarify exactly why I have been doing these moves, and the edit summary stating where the page was and where it was moved to inherently states what the former parent page was and what it is now. If need be, I can update that edit summary to "Match current name of parent page from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case" if need be. (For the record, I did notice that not all subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration apply to moving them to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ... which is why I've been moving them in chunks by case rather than just moving the whole lot.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the edit summary I am talking about is an edit summary on a now deleted redirect (that was deleted by overwriting). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Dreamy Jazz: Also, per the way Template:ArbCom sidebar is set up at the present time, the search box uses the root "Wikipedia:Arbitration" to find pages. Unless the pages' names are updated, they cannot be found with this search bar. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: Dangit ... annoying IIRC notifications. I'm assuming IIRC triggers a notification whenever a page in a certain subpage space is created ... and I'm assuming it is "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests" or "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Cases" or something of that nature? Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes. A bot keeps an eye on edits / log actions in arbitration space. There seems to be at least 6 IRC messages per case move. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: Dang, okay yeah, that's a bit annoying. I'll hold off for now; I still see it being necessary, but I get what you mean there. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I've have an arbitrator say that this is okay to do, so you can continue moving pages but preferably at a slower rate. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: Thanks for doing the dirty work of asking someone for me! For now then, I guess I'm going to try to get the "A"s done, and then pick it back up in a few hours. (It's difficult to avoid too many notifications since I'm moving subpages of each case at once ... so, I may need a clearer number for what is "too many", but thanks for understanding that this is cleanup.) :D Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Someone will post here again if you are going to fast, so feel free to pick a speed. Also feel free to keep the log summary you were using before (as a shorter summary is less in terms of message content for IRC). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Dreamy Jazz: Quick question (and most likely my last ping to you on my talk page): Which talk page on Wikipedia would you believe to be be the best place to inform those receiving IIRC notifications that I am making these moves? For example, I'm not sure if I should post this notice on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, or somewhere else. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee is probably the best place for this. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
There is also Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks, but this probably should be seen by the arbitrators to let them know in case they wonder why the IRC is filled with messages (so using the top level talk page is probably best). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
On a editorial note: it would be helpful if you were to use "IRC" in your messages instead of "IIRC". I wondered if there was some tool called "if I recall correctly" (or maybe something else with the same initials) that generated notifications and tried to track that down before I saw this thread. isaacl (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Isaacl: Haha ... whoops ... yes, I'll get that acronym fixed in appropriate places. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) . I've grumbled in the past that they're housed under different prefixes, so I'm okay with the moves themselves. I didn't propose it because I didn't think that others would agree that it was worth all of the time/effort spent on moves, but if you (Steel) want to do so, go ahead. Dreamy, I've just realised that these moves will affect the search box at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases (maybe there are others with similar codes?), so this is a note that they will have to be changed when the transition has been done (hopefully one of us remembers!). Thank you both. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz: Regarding: "...I've just realised that these moves will affect the search box at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases..." I see what you are referring to (I should have figured there was some page somewhere that was designed to find the older case archives), and am knowledgeable to update that {{Mbox}} transclusion after these moves are done. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Seems like it's more than one, unfortunately. If you're willing to do so, that'd be great. If not, happy to do so myself. I guess in the long run it doesn't really matter, as the redirects will still be searchable. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz and Sdrqaz: As I stated in the discussion I started at WT:ARB, I no longer have interest to perform these moves, and it seems as though there's a lot more controversy surrounding this than I had anticipated. Thus, I reverted the moves I made, restored any redirects that had existed prior to me making these moves. My interest in further pursuing these moves is currently nonexistent. Thank you for your time. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

AfroCrowd meetup page moves

Similar to the section above, can you please revert your recent mass-moves of AfroCrowd meetup pages? For something like that, it's important to consult the meetup page maintainer first, in this case User:Shanluan. Pharos (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The arbitration page issue above was significantly more serious than this: This is almost apples and oranges, not similar in degree at all since it doesn't involve arbitrators. These are moves similar to moves I did years ago for meetup pages to marry pages that ware supposed to be with their parent pages, and there were no issues. I moved 5 pages for a very clear reason; to match their appropriate parent subpage since otherwise. The arbitration page issue above was significantly more serious than this. Eh, no matter though; I just decided that I need to take a half-year wikibreak since I'm getting tired of some random editor believing there is controversy in what seems like clearly uncontroversial matters. Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@Pharos: Actually, it was 4 pages. Mass move my butt ... 4 PAGES. Anyways, I reverted what someone else could have done themselves per WP:BRD without leaving redirects. Anywho, I'll be archiving this soon since I have no desire to see your response. Good day/riddance. Steel1943 (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Steel1943 :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: I'm not not interested, but I'm not ready to confirm my interest either. Are you still interested in my feedback? And if so, do you have a deadline for a response? Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no deadline, you can participate whenever you feel like it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hope you're alright

Hey Steel1943, I was about to send you an email a few days ago to ask about what happened and why you retired. I've been seeing a lot of Wikiepdians going through a storm lately, and I understand that things are hard and frustrating sometimes. If you ever want to talk or anything, my email is open. Sorry if this was out of the blue but I was a little concerned. The Night Watch (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Lowercasing RfAs

Re this edit: I must say, as someone who gained adminship in an RfA with a lowercase title, I'm a little offended! (not really, but there is precedent :P) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, Dang, you got lucky that no one changed that! Usually, some gnomish editor, such as myself, would have been going crazy seeing that! (Well, I sort of am, but whatever. 😂) But, for the serious business, you probably get what I meant: Though User:olivetree39 and User:Olivetree39 are the same, they are not User:OliveTree39 or User:oliveTree39 since a lowercase "t" represents a different, apparently nonexistent editor. (The lowercase "o" works right, it's the "t" that was the problem ... see WP:NCLOWERCASEFIRST.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
What??? I was the creator of WP:NCLOWERCASEFIRST almost 8 years ago? Dang, I forgot ... and it's probably high time for a shortcut with a shorter title. 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Interesting follow-up here is that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Theleekycauldron 2 exists ... 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
hah, yeah :) i think there are a couple of other successful lowercase RfAs out there, but I can't remember them off the top of my head... definitely use a lowercase title at my own userpage. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

What did I do wrong?

Ideally, I should have used "multi=yes" with the {{Rfd2}}, but I don't see anything wrong with the {{Rfd}} at Chinese coins. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: May not realize it, but that is unrelated to why I did what I did. For one, I didn't read your nomination statement all the way through to even realize you linked Chinese coin, so no concerns there; I just added Chinese coin since I didn't see it and you nominated the plural. (Looking at what you are saying though, without Chinese coin technically being included in your nomination, the closer may not perform any action on it since that redirect would have not been tagged for the 7+ days otherwise.) But the other part ... and why I used Twinkle ... was to notify all the redirects' creators and the target page automatically, since that was not done and since ... I didn't feel like typing out all the substituted notification templates otherwise. 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try using Twinkle next time. I didn't notice the singular redirect until after submitting the RfD, so I added the remark later. I didn't know how to do that properly and didn't bother to study it closely. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: The edit I performed to merge the discussions may be a good point of reference: Twinkle cannot perform bulk nominations, but the nominations can be done separately and then merged. (Twinkle also provides an option to not notify the redirect's target page or the creator, which helps with avoiding posting duplicate discussion notifications.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Super Mario Wii 2: Galaxy Adventure Together

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Super Mario Wii 2: Galaxy Adventure Together. 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. Mia Mahey (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mia Mahey: ...and DRV closed. Next time, attempt to bring up your concerns to the closer before opening a DRV ... which is a very important point listed in the very instructions of DRV. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

thanks for your contibutions!! :) xRozuRozu (t • c) 06:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

on mario game redirects that do not happen to have the mario name as a disambiguator and instead just have basic words

real quick

opinions on throwing "bros." redirects (like bros 4 and... bros 3 i guess) on rfd cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan: Might as well nominate them and see what happens. I'm thinking they will be deleted, but not sure: "Bros." has a strong affinity to Super Mario. Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
alright, will be doing it in i actually don't know how long, but hopefully only 2 hours
thanks cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Renaming a page while an RM is open

You renamed the article at Fort Moore (1846-1853) and also renamed the article at Kazimierz Wodzicki (1816-1889) while those pages had RM discussions that were still open. I request that you please do not do this. I can understand why you think such a change is desirable, but it confuses the RM discussion and causes the article to show up in the WP:RM#Malformed requests section of WP:RM. It also tends to motivate people to change the description of the status quo ante in the RM nomination to eliminate the automated error message, which causes a misrepresentation of the RM nomination. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Meh, WP:IAR, I hate it when editors think policy needs to be followed when such uncontroversial changes are made, the bot should have fixed how the discussion appeared on RM, I made all the necessary edits to make everything appear correctly after those moves to allow the RM to proceed as proposed. Whatever; it's crap and comments like this that piss me off royally and make me happy I can step away for a few days after comments like this come my way. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
In fact, it was your edits that caused the move requests to appear on the malformed move list: 1 and 2, not mine ... which fully prevented that from happening. And per your edit summaries, how the hell are editors supposed to be reading your mind if you propose an unrelated move in your nomination statements, even if you mentioned WP:HYPHEN in the statements? Confirming to WP:HYPHEN is inherently uncontroversial: My moves were to confirm with WP:HYPHEN in the titles in their current forms, which has absolutely nothing to do with your nomination statements. So seriously, if you want the move requests to disappear from the malformed move list, revert your edits. Otherwise, find something else to do other than harass an editor who was trying to clean up something they noticed that seemed uncontroversial. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I see where I could have done better though: Putting a comment or two in the discussions after performing the moves to explain what was going on to participants in the discussions ... though I could have sworn I did something like that in my edit summaries, but that was not enough. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My comment was not merely about following some policy. I didn't refer to any policy. It was about avoiding alteration of the discussion record and avoiding error messages. If you had not moved the page while an RM discussion was open, there would not have been any distortion of the discussion record and there would not have been any error messages. It is also incorrect to say that the hyphenation has nothing to do with my proposal. In fact, the first sentence of my Fort Moore nomination began with a comment about the hyphen. But the titles I was proposing did not use a hyphen or a dash, so changing the hyphen to a dash is contrary to the proposal and adding confusion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: After reviewing the discussions, I meant to remove that part of my comment regarding my false claim that you did not reference WP:HYPHEN in your nomination statements, but overlooked it; the best I can do at this point is strike it out since you have now responded. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Not a big deal. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @BarrelProof: However, regarding "If you had not moved the page while an RM discussion was open, there would not have been any distortion of the discussion record and there would not have been any error messages.": I made a series of edits to prevent any error messages from happening, including updating the RM templates and the nomination statements; as far as I'm aware, no errors occurred due to any negligence on my part. (Seriously, I make a point to ensure I am extremely thorough on this.) After I made the moves, I did notice that the RM bot had some issues with updating one of the listings in the current discussions list (something I have not seen occur in the past), but that was all I noticed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
But yeah, seems RM is a bit more finicky than I want to deal with for something like that anymore. There's a very high chance I will abide by your request in the future. (I can't commit 100% just because something may came up, but I sure as heck will up my threshold for changing an active discussion again in the future.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks. When I made my reverts of your edits of my proposal statements, I did not realize that would generate error messages at WP:RM#Malformed requests. I recognize that changing the hyphen to a dash is at least some improvement, although I think the timing of it causes problems. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: "I recognize that changing the hyphen to a dash is at least some improvement..." You sure do! You do so much that you put it dang there right in your nomination statements ... which I apparently did not read fully before making the moves. My apologies about all of this and having to take time to approach me regarding something I should have though twice about. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, as you may have noticed, I've been submitting a lot of RMs lately for titles that have hyphens in date ranges. I've cleared out practically all of them that have date ranges starting since 1800, and I'm now working on the last few in the 17xx category. Since the dash is contrary to a Wikipedia convention, it seems that many of these titles also have other problems resulting from authors having a lack of familiarity with other Wikipedia conventions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I haven't been too active at RM lately (though apparently active enough to cause grief), so I haven't really noticed. I recall a while back, you had been working on disambiguator for "politician" subjects, but I think that was a year or so ago. Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
That loud banner notice on the top of the page does say "Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed." I don't understand what's so urgent about the cosmetic length of a horizontal line that makes the title so bad that it can't wait. I'd be more understanding if the page title was "Fort More", and somehow, inexplicably, nobody had noticed the spelling error. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Dang, that hit came in so late that if Wikipedia were a game of American football, that hit would have been penalized. It's like my statements about my WP:IAR claim, how I did what I could to prevent technical brokenness with what I did, and how your bot had nonstandard behavior during this time ... were completely ignored. Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Late flag. My bot throws flags when it detects that an RM is open to move from a different page. If you were going to ignore rules, you could have gone all the way and declared it a technical request, moved to the requested target and closed the RM. Or you're suggesting that my bot should have ignored an editor who was ignoring the rules; that it's "nonstandard" behavior to try to enforce rules and standard behavior to ignore them? Sorry to find you in such a bad mood. I understand, editing Wikipedia can make me grumpy at times too. wbm1058 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
IHDFC anymore since we are all volunteers here. I'm forfeiting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, one point ... all edits I did traditionally do not cause your bot issues. I updated the template, updated the nomination statement, and everything else I've noticed your bot recognizes to perform its task. For some odd reason this time, when I made the changes, the "current discussions" subpage did not update for like a day ... something I had never seen before; in other words, all edits I did should not have "thrown flags". If your bot is checking every existing nomination for conformance on a regular basis (like whatever interval it takes to update the "current discussions" page), it had a minor snag the day I made the updates. Not sure why, but eh, my actions were nonstandard either way, so whatever. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The bot still isn't perfect, though it's improved a lot over the years. In football, "an elaborate system of fouls and penalties has been developed to 'let the punishment fit the crime' and maintain a balance between following the rules and keeping a good flow of the game. Heh, Wikipedia kind of works like that too? I can tell that you're fretting too much over this. It's not going to affect the outcome of anything significant. Time to move on to the next play ;) wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: "[The bot has] improved a lot over the years." Truth right there, so yeah, it's whatever. 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steel1943/Archive_22&oldid=1242415654"