This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Saw you take your name off WP:MIA and wanted to be the first to greet you! bibliomaniac15 05:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• It's great to see your name pop up on my watchlist! Welcome back and all that jazz... -- Tavix ^(talk) 06:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Welcome back, Steel! — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Saw your name in an old RfD, thought "I miss Steel"... then scrolled a few sections up at today's RfD log and saw you there. Glad to have you back! (I'm one rename past whenever last we interacted.) And I endorse the "quieter roll" approach. Basically what I did for ~7 years. Sometimes the whole wiki is just too busy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Tamzin: I definitely recall you per your old username, and I know we had positive interaction, but I don't recall where we interacted. I don't think you were an RFD regular when I was previously. I want to say we interacted at TFD, and I think that was why I was not surprised when I noticed you are an admin at Wikidata, but I may be wrong. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

    Heh, does it still say I'm a Wikidata sysop somewhere? I thought I'd chased down all the references to that. No, in summer of 2014 I got an email reminding me to make my required 5 admin actions by the end of the day. It was a nice day in Vieux-Port and I wandered around and got distracted, and was desysopped by the time I got back to the hostel. No regrets. But yeah, I actually checked the Editor Interaction Analyzer for us, and it weirdly misses a decent number of interactions in 2018 (my second stint of regular editing, this being the third). It also misses you asking User:Example where baby Wikipedias come from at User:Tamzin/Example RfA (April Fools). But no, overall it's less any one interaction, but the passive camaraderie that comes from seeing someone around in the same venues for a while. So again, glad to have you back! If you're up to closing some RfDs anytime soon, RfD is actually teetering on the edge of no backlog template for the first time in a very long time. (SPI, my other projectspace love, recently hit zero backlog for a short period, so I'm hoping I can see RfD follow in its footsteps.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Tamzin: Wow, that User:Example RfA was such a blast from the past that I forgot I said that! I think my sense of humor has toned down over the years. When I came back, I wanted to avoid and consensus-based forums for a while and try to write/update some articles, but shortly after I started working on a few articles, my interest in doing so waned. I guess old habits die hard. I might just start closing some discussions soon. 🤣 Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Seeing your name come across my watchlist now made me so happy. Glad I'm not the only pleased to see you come back (in whatever capacity). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• its definitely good to see the old timers coming back! —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Steel1943,

It would be very helpful when you tag pages for deletion, such as this one, that you post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. In this case, they are a new editor with only 22 edits so it's useful to inform them that they created a page in error and let them know what that mistake might have been.

I see you used Twinkle to tag the page, which is great, so please check your Twinkle Preferences so that the "Notify page creator" box is checked. Also, I believe the default setting on Twinkle is to only have a few CSD criteria boxes checked off when they really all need to be checked! It doesn't really matter whether the criteria is A7 or G4, the editor should be informed that a page they created has been tagged and most likely will be deleted. Thank you for all of the work you do and for spotting this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Liz: Twinkle doesn't tag editor pages for G6 tags, nor does it even have this option, unless it's a copy-paste issue. But thanks for reminding me why I intended to only work on improving and creating articles when I came back after my over-year absence; I'm not a fan of posts like this, and if you hadn't thanked me for "the work [I] do", my message would have been a lot more impersonal and mean-spirited. I'll just leave it at that, and try my best to focus on not performing any edits other than ones that directly involve improving an article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Liz: I hope you know that I'm a big fan of the work you do burning through CAT:CSD, but this is the third or fourth time I've seen you tell someone that they should have notified a user despite either the notification template not existing or notifications being discouraged under the circumstances in question. With the utmost respect, it sounds like you have views on notifying for CSD that diverge from current practices, in which case perhaps a thread at WT:CSD would be the best next step, to discuss changing those practices, rather than hashing this out one case at a time on user talkpages. (For instance, I'm not sure I agree with the premise that it's less confusing to a brand-new editor to let them know you've tagged their redirect for deletion, when they may well not know they'd created that redirect at all, since it's just something the software does when you move a page... It's a question that would be good to discuss in a centralized venue, I think.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a ((ping)) for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 17:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Steel1943. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries on the mistaken Rfd. Happens to all of us from time to time. For what it's worth, I had interpreted your comment on the books "exclusive from the article's subject" as meaning "not about cat food", hence my comment. It seems we were both a bit confused. Smartyllama (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Smartyllama: Thanks for the kind words, and sorry again for the confusion in that RfD. (But agreed, my use of "exclusive" probably needs some work; I read it a few times myself, and I'm not even sure I understood what I was saying.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Steel, do you mind if I clean-up some of the Version 2 redirects you moved? Where possible I've been placing the edit history back at the old title involved in the move creating the Version 2 redirect. I think it's cleaner and clearer that way, and doesn't create additional unnecessary redirects. For example, Grown Ups (2010 American film) is two steps too disambiguated, so I don't see how that's a useful title. I can move it to Grown Ups (2010 film), and then restore the intervening edit to add an RCAT. Others are fine, for example Griffin had parallel history so it had to be moved elsewhere. Halifax is fine too, but I had set that one aside because there are 242 deleted edits under the current article title that I'd like to unwind when I have the time to unsort all the history between the (former) city and HRM and disambiguation(s) thereof so there's a bit of duplicated effort there. I'm sorry if this sounds critical, I don't mean it that way because I do appreciate your work, especially the addition of ((R with history)) which I had somehow forgotten about! -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Tavix: Doesn't matter to me. As you probably saw, I've just been moving them to either a plausible related title or a questionably helpful (but not inaccurate) ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) title. Honestly, I'm just happy there's some more hands doing this since apparently my interest in working these has fluctuated since 2017. 😅 Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Okay good, I didn't want to step on any toes. To be fair, your interest in Wikipedia in general has fluctuated since 2017. 😜 -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

    Yeah, yeah... 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you expect with that loud, Royal Blue sig of yours, Steel Man. Good to see you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 21:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks Paine! Are you still going by that these days? Seems you've changed your signature as well! 😀 ...But yes, I figured it was time to try a new coat of paint over that dull green I used for over a decade. Call it my "fresh start" without doing an actual fresh start, I suppose. Steel1943 (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, people still call me Paine all the time. Just one of the many, many times I've changed my sig. This time I thought I'd use my middle initial, I. Actually like the deep royal blue; it suits you my friend. Happy New Year and all that! Really is good to see you helpin' out again!  Paine  19:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you please making an redirect page CBS News Streaming Network as redirected page to CBS News (streaming service) because i feel that official name should be given an redirected page as per most articles that have already rename their articles. 180.254.169.132 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Would an admin please remove my Template editor and Page mover permissions, as well as my access to AutoWikiBrowser? Thanks in advance. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Uw-2redirect/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I'm also really happy to see you back! I liked your old signature color, but an editor by any other sig is just as welcome. :) --BDD (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

On March 20th you designated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Humane_Society as underlinked; I think it's probably fine after the work you did on it. I will remove the template, just wanted to let you know to review it and re-add the template if you still think it should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillbuds (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for letting me know! QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 19:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

quarry:query/63206. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: Wow, the fact that you knew the regex I was searching for was .*[^ ]\(.*\)$ tells me you know what I've been doing lately. 😂 Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Mm, maybe a [^ ] would work better there. For some reason \S was an issue but I forget why. Feel free to fork and play around with it! I've tried to think of a way to filter out all the chemistry ones but I can't come up with anything, short of doing some categorylinks magic on the target pages, which seems very slow and potentially false-negative-prone. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh. Heh. This is funny. I just checked VPT and saw your thread there. The above was just based on seeing all your nominations at RfD lately. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
      • @Tamzin: Haha, yep! By the way, I was responding to your previous message a while back, and lost it ... but, about those chemical redirects: maybe .*[^ \-]\(.*\)$ could weed out some of them by preventing instances of "-(", which seems to be common in chemical redirects. 😅 Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

You dumped this spam on my talk page.

== "Respect(song)" listed at Redirects for discussion ==

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Respect(song) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 24#Respect(song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you nothing better to do with your time?
Suggestion: Get a life. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Pdfpdf: That was courtesy notification that the redirect was nominated for WP:RFD since I nominated it, and you are listed as its creator. Suggestion: participate in the discussion, or find something better to do than talk trash. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Your two edits that I reverted were intended to fix a mistake, namely a missing space. However, you did not provide an edit summary, and instead of simply correct the typo, you changed also the capitalization of "function". Such a capitalization change is generally totally useless, and strongly discoureged by WP:NOTBROKEN and MOS:VAR. This was the reason of my reverts. In this case, the capitalization change is also misleading, and mislead me, since I did not remark that a space was also added. D.Lazard (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• @D.Lazard: Thanks for reaching out, and I apologize for not being more descriptive in the initial edits which you refer. My original edit summaries were "fix link", but I should have been more descriptive why I was making the changes on the first edit summary given WP:NOTBROKEN, especially since I am aware editors have been blocked in the past for making large amounts of similar edits without a better explanation for their edits. (Regarding the capitalization change though, in most cases, when I've seen a WP:PIPE-d link, I've usually seen the title of the linked page capitalized, regardless of how the link ends up appearing, but I wouldn't change such links unless I had an additional functional reason for doing so, such as this instance.) Essentially, my edits were an attempt at proactively fixing potential broken links prior to the linked title being deleted; My original plan was to put Function(mathematics) in a bundled WP:RFD nomination, but I went ahead and nominated the redirect after your reverts. On a related note, thank you for participating in the RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Steel! :) I see you and I have both taken stabs over the years at handling the situation of what the primary landing pages should be for the cards in a standard 52-card deck. Despite that, it seems things remain rather inconsistent. I was wondering if we could put our heads together and come up with a proposal to take to RfD or some other venue.

The status quo

Clubs Value Title Target 2♣ Two of clubs Standard 52-card deck Two of Clubs 3♣ Three of clubs Three of Clubs 4♣ Four of clubs Four of Clubs 5♣ Five of clubs Five of Clubs 6♣ Six of clubs Six of Clubs 7♣ Seven of clubs Seven of Clubs 8♣ Eight of clubs Eight of Clubs 9♣ Nine of clubs Nine of Clubs 10♣ Ten of clubs Ten of Clubs J♣ Jack of clubs Jack of Clubs Jack of Clubs Disambiguation page Q♣ Queen of clubs Queen (playing card) Queen of Clubs Disambiguation page K♣ King of clubs King (playing card) King of Clubs Disambiguation page A♣ Ace of clubs Ace Ace of Clubs Disambiguation page Diamonds Value Title Target 2♦ Two of diamonds Diamonds (suit) Two of Diamonds Standard 52-card deck 3♦ Three of diamonds Diamonds (suit) Three of Diamonds Standard 52-card deck 4♦ Four of diamonds Diamonds (suit) Four of Diamonds Article on a band 5♦ Five of diamonds Standard 52-card deck Five of Diamonds 6♦ Six of diamonds Six of Diamonds 6 of diamonds 7♦ Seven of diamonds Beer card, about the card in some games Seven of Diamonds 7 of diamonds 8♦ Eight of diamonds Standard 52-card deck Eight of Diamonds 8 of diamonds 8 of Diamonds 9♦ Nine of diamonds Curse of Scotland, about the card Nine of Diamonds 9 of diamonds 9 of Diamonds 10♦ Ten of diamonds Standard 52-card deck Ten of Diamonds Diamonds (suit) J♦ Jack of diamonds Jack of Diamonds Jack of Diamonds Disambiguation page Q♦ Queen of diamonds Queen (playing card) Queen of Diamonds Disambiguation page K♦ King of diamonds King (playing card) King of Diamonds Disambiguation page A♦ Ace of diamonds Ace Ace of Diamonds Disambiguation page Hearts Value Title Target 2♥ Two of hearts Two of Hearts Two of Hearts Disambiguation page 3♥ Three of hearts Standard 52-card deck Three of Hearts Disambiguation page 3 of Hearts Article on a band 4♥ Four of hearts Standard 52-card deck Four of Hearts 5♥ Five of hearts Hearts (suit) Five of Hearts Standard 52-card deck 6♥ Six of hearts Hearts (suit) Six of Hearts Disambiguation page 7♥ Seven of hearts Standard 52-card deck Seven of Hearts 8♥ Eight of hearts Eight of Hearts 9♥ Nine of hearts Nine of Hearts 10♥ Ten of hearts Ten of Hearts J♥ Jack of hearts Jack (playing card) Jack of Hearts Disambiguation page Q♥ Queen of hearts Queen (playing card) Queen of Hearts Disambiguation page K♥ King of hearts King (playing card) King of Hearts Disambiguation page A♥ Ace of hearts Article about the card Ace of Hearts Disambiguation page Spades Value Title Target 2♠ Two of spades Standard 52-card deck Two of Spades 3♠ Three of spades Three of Spades 4♠ Four of spades Spades (suit) Four of Spades Standard 52-card deck 5♠ Five of spades Five of Spades 6♠ Six of spades Six of Spades 7♠ Seven of spades Spades (suit) Seven of Spades Standard 52-card deck 8♠ Eight of spades Eight of Spades 9♠ Nine of spades Nine of Spades 9 of spades 10♠ Ten of spades Ten of Spades J♠ Jack of spades Jack of Spades Jack of Spades Disambiguation page Q♠ Queen of spades Article about the card Queen of Spades Disambiguation page Q♠ Queen of spades K♠ King of spades King (playing card)#King of spades (No such section) King of Spades Disambiguation page A♠ Ace of spades Article about the card Ace of Spades Disambiguation page A♠ Ace of spades

Sources: Quarry 63508; this search (couldn't get Unicode stuff working on Quarry).

Based on Quarry 63512, the following articles are the subject of ambiguity that are not resolved at applicable target articles: The Five of Hearts; Seven of Spades (film); Ten of Diamonds (film); Two of Diamonds (album) (hatnoted at Two of diamonds' target but not at Two of Diamonds)'. There is also The Diamond Brothers, to which Three of Diamonds (book) and Three of Diamonds (collection) redirect.

I identify the following questions that need to be resolved:

• For a playing-card redirect that is not ambiguous with any other article, which is the correct target: Standard 52-card deck or the relevant suit's article? This could probably be resolved in a single mass RfD. (I lean toward the latter answer, partly for ease of hatnoting.)
• Is the WP:DIFFCAPS DABb approach currently taken with 9⁄12 jack-through-ace cards correct? Personally I don't love it, but it's probably not worth fighting, although if it's to be kept that way, Deacon Vorbis' bold retargets of Jack of Clubs, Jack of Diamonds, and Jack of Spades should be reverted. (Jack of Hearts already was.)
• For the lower-ranked cards, where there's no article on the rank itself, if the uppercase version is a DAB, should the lowercase one redirect there, or should it still point to the suit? Two of hearts does the former, while Three of hearts and Six of hearts do the latter.
• If a card is not individually notable, and something notable shares its (uppercase) name, which is the primary topic? Currently we're inconsistent. We have the band Four of Diamonds as primary, but, as noted above, have the films Seven of Spades and Ten of Diamons and the album Two of Diamonds as secondary to the cards. I lean toward saying those three should be moved. (3 of Hearts and The Five of Hearts are more in SMALLDETAILS territory, while with The Diamond Brothers it doesn't seem the book is itself notable.)

Thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: Well, umm... I don't remember which one(s) I worked on, and off the top of my head, I can't recall what I said about any part of that. Could you point me in the direction of the one(s) I've dealt with in the past so I can attempt to recall my thought process in the matter? (Oh, and I will probably be learning SQL soon ... just realized that is what Quarry seems to use.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I see you've been bringing a lot of redirects to RfD that were the result of past blank and redirects (e.g. some of the Harry Potter pages). While there is certainly nothing wrong with this, I suggest that if you see in the history the redirect is the result of a BLAR, it may be better to restore the most recent version of the article and nominate for AfD instead. There are some, myself included, that don't believe redirects that used to be articles can or should be deleted at RfD, so we will just vote to send to AfD anyway. Not sure how you feel, but if you agree it would certainly be a way to skip a step. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Mdewman6: I know you would have no way of knowing this, but I check for WP:BLARs 99% of the time, even if I don't mention it in my nomination. For the most part, thus far, I don't agree with any of the "Restore and bring to AFD" comments in the discussions thus far I can see have been put in my nominations since I don't think any of them would survive an AFD, especially the ones that were an article for less than a week over a decade ago. But, I'm choosing not to get further involved in responding to those comments because in the almost decade I've been making RFD nominations, the discussion (and what you bring up is a repeat concern) goes back and forth between editors who think that even the slightest bit of content, even if it's blatantly useless or WP:NOTFANDOM or promotional, needs to go to AFD. And in the past, I've been criticized for restoring garbage content in a WP:BLARed redirect. (But that doesn't mean I don't restore WP:BLARs; see my most recent restoration at Magic item.) So, as politely as I can say this: Thanks but no thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back S! Re: one of your comments about April Fools day at the VP. I remember through the mists of time that there were some clever, creative and funny things that used to happen on the 1st :-D Sadly that was a loooong time ago. Best regards and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 17:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• @MarnetteD: Agreed! I recall like a decade ago where most, if not all, of the joke edits on April Fools' Day were funny and not disruptive, but nowadays, looks like there's more disruption than humor. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yep S. Now it seems what is disruptive editing 364 (365 in a leap year) is all they can come up with on the !st. Cheers MarnetteD|Talk 21:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  @MarnetteD: Agreed. Have a good rest of your weekend and well, and good running into your edits again. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Pls explain why wpsongs does not apply. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Richhoncho: That's not the WPSongs template. You are using ((R from song)), which is a WP:RCAT template. The template you are looking for is ((WikiProject Songs)). Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, past my bedtime. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Steel1943,

Just a reminder in your active page tagging, CSD G5 does not apply to template that are transcluded or categories that are not empty. This is because the deletion of these pages impacts other, unrelated pages that have nothing to do with the sockpuppet's activities. For example, the deletion of a full category would leave a lot of red links on other articles that, per WP:REDNO would each have to be removed individually. It's best to nominate these pages for deletion at either WP:TFD or WP:CFD if you want to see them deleted. Thank you for your contributions! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• "CSD G5 does not apply to template that are transcluded or categories that are not empty" WP:G5 says that nowhere, but sure, whatever. Yet another reason for me to not get involved in these types of edits again; being criticized for following the directions as they are written, since that is apparently controversial. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• (talk page stalker) Liz, the category exception for G5 is categories that may be useful or suitable for merging, which is quite a bit different from your definition of categories that are not empty. There are plenty of examples of unuseful categories that are not empty (especially ones populated by the sock, which should be rolled back as part of the clean-up process). I'm also confused why you thought it relevant to discuss templates here? According to his CSD log, Steel did not tag any templates. I note this isn't the first time you've come here with faulty advice, so if you are going to "remind" him again, you better make crystal clear you are coming with the correct advice—or better yet just leave him alone. He likely knows a lot more than you do in the areas in which he is active. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a ((ping)) for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Steel1943. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ~TNT (talk • she/her) 21:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

ygm. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)