Jump to content

User talk:Steel1943/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Happy New Year, Steel1943!

Happy New Year!

Steel1943,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 02:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Happy New Year, Steel1943!

Happy New Year!

Steel1943,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Fangusu IP

Put up an SPI on the IP at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fangusu Meters (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup. You probably edit conflicted with me on the SPI. I'm going to add the diffs for the original edits just to cross the t's. Meters (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Spyro (series)

I thought you had reverted me on the main article. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @Drmies: No worries: it seems that we both had some errors there. But, in regards to your question about the IP: I don't suspect that editor is a sock of Fangusu since the content of the edit is so different than anything Fangusu and their socks have done. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Bastard honey

Moved to Draft talk:Bastard honey#Draft:Bastard honey

I'm glad you saved this. Has anyone found sources to add so we can move it to mainspace? @Anna Frodesiak: Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You know, that isn't honey. That is sugar with food colouring. It has wasp hive paper and moss glued on it. A total scam. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. The uniform coloring and moss sort of gives it away. Do we have an article on food hoaxes or adulteration we can merge it to, or should the draft page created by Steel1943 simply be deleted now? @Anna Frodesiak: Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess some of the text (not the lead, obviously) could be used to describe it and could be added to some article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Counterfeit consumer goods has a little blurb about the problem with honey in the US, but nothing about China. Which reminds me, there was a series of articles several years ago about the problem with verifying the ingredients in commercial honey, so I think there's room for a larger article on the topic if we don't already have one in the honey topic series. It's a pretty serious issue, and I seem to recall regulatory agencies throwing their hands up in the air and saying there wasn't much they could do. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Both Nike and NBA are both spelled a little wrong and both are on a single pair of shoes. That is what first tipped me off.
Could this honey be considered a counterfeit? There is no real thing it is claiming to be. As for China coverage, I should stay out of that. By the way, we have honey shops here with honey on tap. Not sure if it's real. There are always zillions of bees in the place trying to steal it back. They don't seem upset and are very good sports about the whole thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you're right, but wasn't he claiming it was "wild honey"? Maybe deletion of the draft would be best for now, with a user space backup for future use if necessary. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Information icon Greetings. Some of your recent edits, including ones you made to/regarding Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_January_5#File:Levofloxacin-black-box.png, do not appear to be civil toward other editors. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to (re-?) familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. In particular, it's relevant that WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Elvey(t•c) 14:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @Elvey: I gave you a rather clear "reader beware" warning at the beginning of the statement before I stated the rest of it. That, and if you considered what I said "uncivil", you must really have a low threshold for what you consider "uncivil". I would recommend you take a little while to step back, recompose yourself, and then discuss your stance productively rather than repeatedly attempt to derive information from people (such as myself) which they have made it super clear that they don't have ... since that is disruptive. Steel1943 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Elvey, I appreciate your passion for that image but please, you're in a hole and should stop digging. Steel said nothing uncouth; au contraire, your persistent questioning is rude: those questions were asked and answered. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
You still claim to be unable to answer a single one of those questions? You are clearly unwilling to do so. I do not believe you are unable to to so. Information you don't have is CLEARLY not required to be responsive to even a single one good-faith questions I asked. --Elvey(t•c) 15:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Diff showing the questions were answered, please, Drmies. There's a followup, but it contains ZERO answers to the questions. --Elvey(t•c) 15:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
No diff necessary, only eyes that can see. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
So where is the answer, for example, to the last question, namely "Are you willing to do that?" It doesn't exist, Drmies. I call your bluff. Diff or ****. --Elvey(t•c) 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Watch what you're saying, with your ****. No bluff. If you insist: [1]. I do note that you're badgering every single one of the participants at that discussion; one wonders if you really want to keep that file (and win the argument) or if it is something else that excites you there. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I reject this diff you proffer ([2]) is indeed a second bluff/cop-out. It's a diff that covers (many edits by many editors) over a 5 day period. Now you're being uncivil too. AGAIN: In particular, it's relevant that the policy page WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."--Elvey(t•c) 17:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Elvey: Besides the fact that I told you multiple times that I do no have an answer to your question in the way which you seem to be requesting, your persistence to uphold some policy to put your point of view above all others' is ridiculous bureaucracy to a point where you yourself are harassing other editors, and at this point, you have done this to multiple editors. So, in a nutshell, I would recommend that you stop throwing boomerangs and drop the stick. Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

ALSO: Stop your violation of the [one forum at a time for a dispute] principle. Let the XfD run its course.--Elvey(t•c) 15:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: So ... you are saying that bots cause WP:FORUMSHOP violations? I'm pretty sure bots like that would be blocked on sight. Steel1943 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@Elvey: This level of ignorance on your part is quite astonishing. Funny thing is that I thanked HyperGaruda after they posted their comment, and I'm saying this since I now feel like I am required to tell you for some reason. Hope that fulfills whatever need you have to satisfy your validation. Steel1943 (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

permission for images without copyright?

A happy new year to you as well.

Please note my response and request for correction regarding your post on my page. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I added a new image to take the place of the one discussed above. The new one is displayed to the right.

I am hoping that this will solve the OTRS tag issue noted above. It looks as if attention is needed to make sure the image file is adequate, please advise. I'll be glad to make any adjustment needed. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That messy, sticky honey

It is now at User:Viriditas/Bastard honey. I've moved it there in good faith per discussion without leaving a redirect. I hope that's okay with you. Sorry for all the trouble, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No thanks needed. I'm happy it worked out. Thank you for being so cool about the whole thing. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

File:UNFOC small.jpg

Hi, thanks for the help with file permissions on Ukrainian National Federation of Canada.

How do I delete the file from Wikipedia, I will seek the copyright holder of the true logo, the one used is a reproduction.

Thank you. Wikiworld2 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (9341Gracekelly) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 9341Gracekelly, Steel1943!

Wikipedia editor Topbookclub just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Review page

To reply, leave a comment on Topbookclub's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Photo of Erin Markey

Hi ... regarding your message about the Erin Markey photo, I have contacted the photographer and asked whether he will permit the use of the photo in the article. Perhaps this will resolve the issue. Thanks.

DeRossitt (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Steel1943. Thank you.

This is just so you know. A troll has been blocked; you can safely ignore this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, well, good. For what it's worth I prefer your interpretation of WP:BANREVERT (and would redirect WP:NOPE there just for edit summaries, but would probably be reverted) and I wish that more people respected enforcement of the ban policy. But I think you knew that about me already. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: FWIW, Wikipedia:NOPE has only 21 links. With that small amount of links, I'd nominate it at WP:RFD just to see what happens. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice about 沙盒

@BDD, Ivanvector, and Tavix: You may be interested in what I wrote at User talk:Deryck Chan#Regarding your close for 沙盒. In a nutshell, I created Template:Editnotices/Page/沙盒, and it works. (I know it is odd that I am pinging you from my talk page to look at someone else's talk page, but I thought it would be more appropriate here.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:127.0.0.1 revert

Ah, thanks. Makes sense now. It popped up on my radar when a brand new account Localhost (talk · contribs) created a user page that was simply a redirect to that article. Thanks for correcting my error. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I originally thought it to be a simple Milton Berle reference, but it turns out his fans spell it Uncle Miltie. Oh well. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

About hero and heroism and heroine

Hi Steel, Thanks to you for inform me about procedure in the English wikipedia. I'm French native speaker with lot of difficulties to understand bureaucratic explanation. Could you please help me by starting the discussion to dicide or not moving hero to heroism that's a question of gender equality and the desire created by an off line meeting. See this post for more information. Thanks a lot in advance and welcome to me if you need any help in French wikipedia or French project. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 15:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @Lionel Scheepmans: No problem. But, as you probably know, consensus for changes on an individual Wikipedia need to be made via the community on that Wikipedia, thus why I reverted that move. I may try to find a way to better simplify the "move vote" in that discussion. And thank you for your offer for assistance in the French Wikipedia: I may not necessarily need assistance there since I myself don't speak French, but I may need your help someday if I need help verifying possible issues with interwiki links between English and French articles. Steel1943 (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
You are very welcome Steel1943 and thanks again for your attention. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 10:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

File:RGJAY Logo.jpg

I don't get it. Now I uploaded it as PNG file but it is still appearing as jpg file. Mobile or browser issue may be. Please help me to fix it and upload low resolution file so that some other user do not raise objection in future. Thanks. AbhiRiksh (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

真是個好主意！

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For this elegant solution to a difficult cross-namespace-foreign-language redirect situation. Kudos! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not an orphan but part of an article struggling for acceptance Cyber Defense Labs (AFC namespace). I can have the copyright holder send an email giving permission for wikipedia to use this logo if you like. Where would that go ?

DrSchlagger (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrSchlagger: If the draft becomes a published article, then the file can be used there. However, if the draft does not become a published article within a week, the file will be deleted. If that happens, you can re-upload the file when the draft becomes a published article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Where would you a notification of permission to use sent from CDL? That way it would not need the article tag to remain in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSchlagger (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


According to Kevin Henson of Cyber Defense Labs the CDL logo is now part of wiki commons. DrSchlagger (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @DrSchlagger: I saw that file was uploaded by Kevinmhenson. However, the consent process on Commons would still probably need to be done there. Since it is s company logo and possibly unique enough for cooyright, the fact that he may be the copyright holder for the logo needs to be verified. Steel1943 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


I just dropped him an email and asked if he would take care of it. I asked him if it was ok to do a wikipedia article on his company before I started down this path. DrSchlagger (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Image of Dallon Weekes

Hi there! I recently responded on the talk page of the file and updated the part of summary on the file that you said failed (WP:NFCC#8), and would like an update on the status of the image that I uploaded. Thanks! --"Hey there! How's it goin'?" 01:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Image usage Laugh Track

Hi - I noticed some of the images that were removed from the Laugh track article and I want to understand the logic behind it. I see the reference to WP:NFCC#8 - Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Please help me understand why including these images (which are already used elsewhere) does not help increase a reader's understanding of this article's topic. It strikes me as a matter of opinion, meaning the inclusion of a title card could act as a point of reference for one reading while not making a difference to another. In particular is the removal of the image of Charles Douglass, the inventor of the laugh track. There is no logical reason (in the alternate world of Wikipedia or otherwise) why one would not include a picture of the inventor in his own invention. Please advise. 66.161.120.11 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

DJ DX

Hello Steel

You edited a photo that i took for my personal artist and Model DJ DX violation why? I placed the copyright permission for the photo correctly and i don't understand why it will be deleted. Can you please get back to me asap about this so i can fix whatever errors there may be so there isn't any future deletions? The Files from our site says the copyrights share and fair use at the bottom. This seems to be a mistake and i would like for someone to fix it or please contact me here. This file is on the site: DJ DX photographed in The Mana - August 2015.jpeg it appears on officialdjdx.com which is our website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylstars (talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 January 2016‎ (UTC)

  • @Vinylstars: The problem with photo file is that it has already been published somewhere else: your web site. If the file has been published elsewhere, then in order for the file to remain here, Wikipedia needs to verify that you are the copyright holder. In the notice I sent you, there is a link for the way to get in contact with our OTRS team to verify the file's permission to be released here under a free license. Steel1943 (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Yunnan Hongtu Airlines logo.jpg

Hello, I have made an svg file out of this logo and made the background transparent. But I cannot upload it as the file extensions are different (jpg vs svg). Do you know how to do this? Thanks - Sunnya343 04:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(9338)1991FL4, etc.

Do you have a list of all of these without spaces that you created?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Found it ... (here). As I stated in your nomination of the other redirects, 3.5 years ago, I thought all CamelCase redirects were useful, and it looks like I did that for a few days. Steel1943 (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for that.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  05:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP / Wikipedia

Hi, why did you do this? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Considering that I already made the previous 5–7 edits on the template (I've already been tweaking it some, so might as well tweak it as much as possible), in templates, I try to avoid namespace shortcuts in case for some technical reason, the namespace shortcut either becomes disabled or stops working. If this happens, then less-technical editors and readers would be presented with a failed link and no clear way of finding the correct target, especially if the link is piped (as that one is). So, insurance. (If you look at the template's edit history, I was the editor who implemented the namespace shortcut in the first place, so I'm changing my own edit.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
WP: isn't a namespace shortcut, it's a namespace alias, built into the MediaWiki software. The likelihood that it will stop working is so extremely remote that the demand for immediate fix would be huge. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Redrose64: Well, whatever it technically is, my opinion still stands. And yes, I am aware that the likelihood of it happening is next to none, but after I witnessed the title blacklist fail for the better part of two days about a year ago, I figure it's better to be safe than sorry with anything on here that involves some sort of technical connection powered by MediaWiki software. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Westside20

Apparently user Westside20 has no idea of how copyright works. All its uploaded files were tagged with "public-domain". SLBedit (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Fangusu

Please lift the ban. I bear no malice towards anybody. I did not mean to sock prior to the ban. I really did forget to log in at those points of time. Also, I have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, so please try to make accommodations.

I am asking you very politely and nicely to do the above favors.

Sincerely, 172.58.17.158 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So called wikibreak

Well, only 7 months, nowhere near a year. Please be nice and accurate. Deryck C. 19:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @Deryck Chan: I rounded to the higher 6-month period. Also, I respect what you stated in your closing statement, but with all due respect, with how long I have been dealing with this nominator in regards to this redirect, I really don't need a demand to be courteous to that editor. They surpassed my threshold for courtesy after the 2nd DRV. Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Lc merge

Hey Steel1943. What's the status of the {{Lc1}} → {{Lc}} merger? I know you think it's an uncontroversial merge, but BAG would like to see a TfD. If you aren't going to move forward, I'm going to withdraw the BRFA. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @JJMC89: The request isn't waiting for me. As far as I know, I was the last editor to say something in the request, and the idea of an TFD was scrapped. In all honesty, I'm waiting for a bot approver, such as The Earwig, to continue conversation in your BRFA. Steel1943 (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@JJMC89: I just saw the conversation from who I guess is another bot approver. I have responded. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. We'll see what happens. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Hypericum annulatum in rocky habitat.jpg

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will look for another alternative. What should be done now, as the free-use of the image is contested, but I agree with it? Fritzmann2002 13:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Jehoash Files

Steel, based on your lack of further comment, may I assume that you agree that, for the reasons stated in the discussion page, use of these images in Wikipedia is proper under US copyright law? PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Pond (term) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The Pond (term), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect categorization

Hi Steel1943! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter that might interest you.  Good faith! Paine  21:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect of Donald Drumpf to Donald Trump

Clicking through the "subdued" redirect still leads you to Donald Trump. I am currently discussing this untimely targeting, as well as the (in)applicability of {{redirect}} on Trump's article, on my talk page. I'd like to have your opinion on where the redirect Donald Drumpf should go in the meantime, if not Drumpf's "real" article. Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Epicgenius: To me, "subdued" = "soft redirect". That, and it's bad form to change the target of a redirect during an ongoing WP:RFD discussion regardless of what problems the current target has. After all, that's the entire purpose of the RFD discussion. That, and a mismatch between the current target and the target stated in the RFD nomination has the potential to confuse those who may wish to participate in the RFD discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Also, in regards to my opinion, it has changed since I first stated an opinion, and I shall be changing my vote shortly. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation on the context you were using "subdued." There is also a question that remains, though: Do I keep the redirect as is and add the "inappropriate" {{redirect}} template to the Trump article for the benefit of readers who landed on the Donald Drumpf article and were soft-redirected, or should I just leave things as they are? Thanks again. epicgenius (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Goven the current state of the RFD, there is indeed a bit of a weird issue. In 99% of the cases such as this one where the current WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target requires a hatnote, I would put one up there, especially with the existence of the episode article you know about with the same name, as well as a the meme article Donald J Drumpf ... wait, I got it now. Let's just turn Donald Drumpf into a disambiguation page and call it a day. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that Donald Drumpf should also be a disambiguation page, but don't we have to wait for the RfD to close? epicgenius (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd say draft it under the RFD notice, then point it out in the RFD, and see what others think. That would be the best way to possibly put this to rest. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I've now drafted a provisional disambiguation page. Thank you again for your help. epicgenius (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Glad to help. In fact, unless Donald J Drumpf is deleted, I'd say that the next discussion may need to be to move Donald J Drumpf to a title with a disambiguator so that Donald J Drumpf can become a redirect to the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a disambiguation page will end up being unnecessary, to say nothing of the fact that the current situation of having a redirect and a disambiguation is piss-poor. If present trends continue, Donald J Drumpf will be merged with Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight), meaning it will be a two-pronged disambiguation...and that's assuming there's any kind of consensus to disambiguate. Again, present trends favor just redirecting Donald Drumpf to Donald J Drumpf, or to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) if they are merged. BTW, @Epicgenius:, this would have been so much simple if there was one discussion instead of two. pbp 15:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: ...And now, I have posted a statement on your talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Emily Winifred Dickson.jpg

Question please- I did reduce the file from the original - how much smaller does it need to be - and ...due to technical difficulties - I can't easily reduce it.. Is it urgent? ☕ Antiqueight haver 22:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - good to know on both counts. I'll try to bear that in mind. I didn't even realise I could put up non-free images like this until a few days ago so yell if I get it wrong :-) ☕ Antiqueight haver 23:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Emixustat 2-D file

Hi, I'm the user that uploaded the emixustat file, now up for discussion. I admit to being a bit of a novice with the licensing, but you seem to have a preferred source in mind for this image--other than the one I've provided (that should have no marketing value). Deletion of this file is not problem for me, especially if you can suggest a different source. Thanks! Global Microscope (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Global Microscope: In all honesty, I'm not 100% sure if an image such as the one you uploaded is unique enough to be considered eligible for copyright per threshold of originality requirements. (Thus, why I nominated it ... I'm just not sure, so I am not able to resolve your licensing tag myself.) In a nutshell, if it is not too unique, we probably have some sort of public domain tag/template that can be used for it that I just don't know of; however, if this is eligible for copyright (which, it may be since you didn't create it yourself as shown in the file description,) it would need to meet all of the non-free content criteria. The criteria this image would fail is criterion #1 since a free alternative could be created since it is basically only lines and letters and thus can be easily replicated (and wouldn't be considered a derivative work.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks! I see... Emixustat is emerging as a new wiki topic with references to it from other editors in two newer articles (see RPE65). I was sort of interested in this molecule a couple of years ago, but just picked up the topic again and thought I'd see it through this time. I have an "Emixustat hydrochloride" draft in my personal space, and was hoping to add an image. As a licensing novice, I checked out other molecules already on Wikipedia and found the rationale to be that chemical formula are not subject to copyright, and thus .gov models are not, either. But that's all I know, and I will definitely appreciate the wisdom of others in this case. I might even be able to produce an original image with software of my own...but if originality is an issue, too...then I really have problems. Thanks!! ~Global Microscope — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global Microscope (talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Global Microscope: If you could by chance refer me to a file on Wikipedia of a molecular structure where the uploader doesn't claim it is their own work (such as they claim it was from a different source), that will probably tell me everything I need to know to help both of us. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'll retrace my search steps...! Global Microscope (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Steel1943:OK, try File:TaxolBioSynthesis.png. Also the Wikipedia article, "PubChem" places all PubChem information and content in the Public Domain. Chemical structures on PubChem are freely available for download and use. I checked out the PubChem website again just to be sure, and there are no apparent citation guidelines for structure images. Just data. Helpful?Global Microscope (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Global Microscope: The file you referenced doesn't meet my request: on that file, the uploader claimed that it is their own work. I'm trying to find one where the claim to the file being free does not include the uploader claiming that it is their own work. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Global Microscope: Interesting ... what I was looking for is located on that page: Commons:Template:PD-chem. Apparently, that template also exists on this Wikipedia: Template:PD-chem. I'll be fixing this soon and probably be withdrawing the nomination. (By the way, you didn't need to use {{Ping}} to get my attention here: This is my talk page, so I get notified about any edits to my talk page done by editors other than myself, such as you probably do with yours.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Global Microscope: Looks like JJMC89 fixed the tag before I got a chance to. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your patience. I've done quite a bit of science writing, but don't keep up with Wiki-specific procedures, categories and interfaces very well (especially notification systems). Please feel free to look over my shoulder any time. Global Microscope (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My uploaded photos

I receieved a lot of possible unfree images message, which I uploaded, from you. Indeed they are free because I took them myself and the content is for public display and allowed to share photos of. Some of the photos are of monuments on public grounds (and photo in public museum) and there are some uploaded by other users of the same thing. I think you need to check things out before leaving comments on my page and list my uploaded pics as possible unfree. Please do check by yourself with other local admins. In the case you acknowledge this as mistake pls reply back. All we need is some clarifications. Continentaleurope (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Continentaleurope: I don't think I made a mistake in my notifications nor my nominations. I mean, I may be completely wrong with my nominations, but per my interpretation of Commons:Freedom of panorama, I don't think I am. But, I stopped where I stopped in the nominations because I if I'm wrong, I don't want to waste too much of the community's or your time in the matter. However, on a side note, thanks for all of the fine images you have uploaded that I have been able to validate are great free images that can are eligible to be transferred to Wikimedia Commons. (Honestly, I felt a little bad that I had to tag some of your images since I know you do good work with photos.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for understanding. Just note that some time ago I uploaded a photo of an old painting which I know it was old but allowed its deletion because i had no specific info. Those that were nominated now are property of the government of Malta where the public is invited to take photos and publish them in specific to be a form of tourism. Had you been local you would understand more what I am trying to tell you. Note that they are not meant as adverts but simply putting you in a local context. If you need any photo of anything on the Island of Malta pls let me know. I am already trying to address a list on the Malta project page. I assure you that those that were nominated now are by far ok.Continentaleurope (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You know who's edits

I've asked for Oversight on her edit summaries. If she's that young we shouldn't allow her to post her age and medical condition. Meters (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Meters: Possibly, but either way, the claim about the age doesn't add up. Fangusu was originally indef blocked in 2008. (I can't say anything else in this edit without saying something that will require this edit to be over sighted as well.) At this point, I would guess that Fangusu is a shared account, also not allowed in addition to the account not being allowed to edit due to the site ban. More fuel for the fire, I guess. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I'd forgotten how long the history was on this one, Not sure if the medical claim still need to be removed then. Meters (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Beeblebrox: While you're at it, could you look at some related requests on WP:RFPP, if you got a sec and feel up to it? (I saw what you just did in regards to this, so I thought you'd be a good option to ask if you may be able to assist further since you have a high level overview of what is going on.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks like,I'd already gotten to everything but this page, now  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Steel1943. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Widr Rfa

Hi there. I've reverted your !vote there because instead of adding it, you overwrote someone else's !vote. Suggest you try again if you wish. --Stfg (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello to you both. I've restored your !vote because it was really easy to repair your error instead of just deleting your comment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Florence White

Hi, have you found a primary topic or can we stick to WP:2DABS Inwind (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Inwind: Ah-ha. I'm not sure why I wasn't able to find that article. In that case, I think your best option may be to ... wait, I have an idea. The title should be vacated soon. Give me a few minutes. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(List of) space program(s)

Notifying you because you participated in the Space program discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 21.

Perhaps you've seen that SimonTrew has nominated List of space programs for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 27. The rationale is basically a proposal to enforce the decision for Space program on the list title, but because discussion on Space program partly depends on the list (two of us saying "don't delete SP when we have List of SP", someone else saying "delete both", and the rest not addressing the list), the situation seems rather awkward. Would you object if I were to close both discussions and list them together as a new RFD? Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Steel1943. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Germany—Serbia relations listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Germany—Serbia relations. Since you had some involvement with the Germany—Serbia relations redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Beta Beta Beta/version 2

Hello Steel1943,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Beta Beta Beta/version 2 for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I must have added it just as you added yours, because wikipedia didn't mention an edit conflict! Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No sub-pages allowed in mainspace

Please do not create sub-pages like Bharatiya Jnanpith/version 2 in the main encyclopedia space. If you need to create draft pages, please use either the draft namespace or your own user space - sub-pages are forbidden in main space. —swpbT 20:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @Swpb: No worries. Since the editor who moves a page becomes its leftover redirect's "creator" afterwards per its edit history, I can see how that tool could be confused. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:NFLisAwesome

Just an FYI, but NFLisAwesome is in fact me, as the signature suggested, so your ES saying it's a sock isn't true. Zappa24Mati 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @ZappaOMati: Agreed about the image. The worst part about all this is that I should have noticed something was weird about the fact that an account with that tag was not indef-blocked. I mean, how can a blocked sock edit??? Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Camisole

It didn't take long after the protection came off, did it? Meters (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: Turns out that I'm referring to Talk:Camisole. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
My mistake. Yes, that was indeed the protection I meant. What are the chances that yet another IP in the 154.134 range from the same ISP, who mentions Fangusu and restores her edits within hours of the protection ending is a legitimate editor? I'll keep an eye on the rest of the usual targets that I know of. Meters (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed

Hey Steel1943. I noticed you reverted yourself. Thanks. Some explanation: The group and right are named extendedconfrimed in the configuration. Extended confirmed user is what will display in various parts of the interface including logs and Special:ListUsers. This is similar to:

  • Administrator – sysop
  • Account creator – accountcreator
  • Autopatrolled – autoreviewer
  • File mover – filemover
  • Template editor – templateeditor
  • Pending changes reviewer – reviewer

I hope that helps some. Using <tt>'...'</tt> implies the technical name. I don't really care which is displayed on the page. I don't think the technical names are helpful to most but are of use to gadget/script/tool programmers/developers. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:30/500 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:30/500. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:30/500 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Steel1943. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not reponding sooner. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Steel1943. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/715963983

Agreed, but there's a different solution rather than making this a wrapper of Ffd2a - What's wrong with making this a wrapper of {{ffd2a}}?

if anything, it should be the other way around - Why? The code is easier to read if we transclude the entire template. If you want to do it the other way around so that {{ffd2a}} is a wrapper of {{ffd2}}, the code of {{ffd2a}} becomes a lot more complex since headers and stuff in {{ffd2}} need to be removed by {{ffd2a}}. Also, the code of {{ffd2a}} currently seems to be better than the code of {{ffd2}} (e.g. "safesubst" is used consistently so that the transclusion in the documentation looks correct).

Also, your reversion had the result that a parser function always appears on discussion pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @Stefan2: If that is the case, then the code in {{Ffd2a}} should be merged into {{Ffd2}} and then instead of creating a wrapper, completely converting {{Ffd2a}} into a redirect to {{Ffd2}}. For one, the base code really should be in the base title and not the title with a "used for all entries after the first" designation per other noticeboards' templates for consistency. But also, in the past, I made similar edits which I am suggesting with merging Template:Rfd2m into {{Rfd2}}. (I did that a while back, so I'd have to review what I did before I could apply similar changes to {{Ffd2}} and {{Ffd2a}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • {{Ffd2a}} is used if the header doesn't match the file name. For mass nominations, it's usually a good idea to ensure that the header doesn't contain the name of any of the files as the bot closes the entire discussion if someone deletes the first file, even if the other files still need to be discussed. Therefore, {{ffd2a}} will typically be used for all files in mass nominations (and it needs to stay that way unless the bot starts acting differently) as {{ffd2}} is unusable. Unfortunately, {{ffd2a}} always tells the admin to use the wrong deletion rationale. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack

When contributing to Wikipedia we are not obliged to accept and tolerate this kind of personal attack. If I were you, I'd cross it out. This is how that's done, in case you've never done it before. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @SergeWoodzing: (Pinging you since you have decided to start discussing this on my talk page, and my talk page is my talk page) I agreed with you, said my peace, and moved on. Now, it's your choice if you want to keep up this pointless argument or not, which by coming to my talk page, you seem to want to do. S'all good. I'll just add the words "seem to" there, and take a little mini-vacation. Dealing with obliviousness and defensiveness such as yours is nothing for me to lose sleep over. Deuces! Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Warning for harassment

As has been noted (and you acknowledged) your behavior was not OK in these incidents. Please don't do that again. Harassment is not acceptable here and will result in blocks if sustained. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steel1943/Archive_10&oldid=1142802539"