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.

Hello Steel1943,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Weet 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. Rberchie (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Clicked the wrong button here - not meaning to rollback you, just undo it. "Murica" isn't a logical entry term for America per se, but it surely is for American patriotism, which is not what it was listed as in that RFD. We can have a new RFD if you like, but it's a relatively unlikely misspelling of Murcia, and most Google searches show an association with Americanism. Red Slash 17:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jumpy. Since you had some involvement with the Jumpy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MopSeeker FoxThree! 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kia. Since you had some involvement with the Kia redirect (the move discussion), you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO.2FWP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects.3F. Thanks. - TheChampionMan1234 04:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just asked RHaworth to review these deletions. I'm concerned that the criteria were nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: I have no strong opinion either way. I saw that your D word nomination had an alternative besides deletion. I'd see that as an opportunity to recreated it with a different target, if that would be your proposed WP:BOLD action. Either way, if the redirects get restored, feel free to reopen the discussions by removing my close banners. (On a related note, I recreated Animal Evolution.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Sheesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please close my SPI now. I have apologized, and I am not an evil criminal. Fangusu (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just had a random thought I thought you might appreciate: WP:NOTWIKIA is the new fancruft. Since we're not supposed to call things cruft... --BDD (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Like Bahaha, so true! Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've left a comment.

but damn, I haven't edited anything on WP:TOKU related since 2007. It's kinda weird to get notices on that. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Hbdragon88: Haha, I get what you mean. For me, I'm waiting for the day I receive a notice about any Dungeons & Dragons-related article I edited years ago. 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Help me out, I'm still learning. What did I do wrong with that close? How should I do it properly? Thanks! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Zackmann08, you actually did everything correctly except for one minor detail. I noticed that when you closed the discussion, you used ((subst:tfd top)) without any additional text explaining your close. Per WP:TFDAI, to include a closing statement in your close, you will place ((subst:tfd top|'''Result'''. Reasoning.)) ~~~~ instead where '''Result''' is the result of the discussion (which would be "merge") and "Reasoning" is a brief explanation of why the discussion was closed as it was (optional in some cases). Also, before the tildes, you may want to place ((subst:NAC)) to designate the fact that the discussion is being closed by a non-administrator. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you for the explanation!!! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The article Sinkwa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A choice between a Swazi word and a red article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"make sure that no good information is lost"
Thank you for quality articles such as Ken Reeves (meteorologist), for redirects, page moves, disambiguation, template editing, closing delete discussions and moving articles for creation, for appreciation and "make sure that no good information is lost", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943, for a semiretired user, you are still pretty active! You seem a thoughtful person, judging by your willingness to reconsider your edits, as you did here, so I'd like to ask your opinion first in this matter.

There are two things that motivated me to be bold and change WP:LIKE and like redirects (aside from the ambiguity introduced by three essays on basically the same topic, which I alluded to in the edit summaries):

1. In my impression, these shortcuts are often used as a cudgel by editors who JUSTDONTLIKE another editor's change, but have no policy or guideline to refer to. So by referring to one of these essays with a shortcut, they seek to gain a semblance of official authority. There may also be an incentive at play to be the first to pull the gun of an ALLCAPS shortcut before the other guy does.
2. IDONTLIKE the proliferation of shortcuts for the same topic. This begs for an explanation: What reason could there be for it? Could it be that people don't actually care for the exact content of the essay they're linking to? (Before I refer to a policy or guideline, I often take a look at the page to make sure it really applies. On that occasion, I also check its shortcut.)

I'm wondering if this is a path worth pursuing. To back up #1, I would have to do some research; maybe look at uses of LIKE and like links and classify them by what they were used for. Probably it would be good to look at cases that are at least 3 months old to see what became of the issues, and to not disturb any fresh wounds. #2 would even be harder to research.

So what do you think, am I just seeing ghosts, or is there something to it? — Sebastian 22:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sebastian, yes, I am probably the most active semi-retired editor ever!!! Anyways, to your question, I originally retracted my opinion since I see the value in the logic that you presented, given that the shortcut is ambiguous and could refer to multiple topics in the Wikipedia namespace for editors; I understand this as I turned Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports) into a disambiguation page. However, in the specific case, this shortcut has been used for such a long period of time that changing it into a disambiguation page could cause long-time users of these shortcuts to get a bit frustrated when they try to utilize these shortcuts in their intended manner prior to them either becoming or redirecting to a disambiguation page. In my opinion, disambiguation pages in the Wikipedia namespace are only helpful if all of the content of the titles of the new disambiguation page, as is, would make sense merged together, and if the page does not have include a shortcut (or is the shortcut) of a highly-used shortcut notable for targeting its current target. For example, the essay Wikipedia:I just don't like it is a bit of the oddball to this group because it doesn't specifically refer to only move or deletion discussions. In the case of WP:ILIKEIT, I would say that the better option might be to add a hatnote to the top of the section that WP:ILIKEIT currently targets with references to the pages that you had put on the disambiguation page. That could possibly get the same message across to our readers without confusing the ones already familiar with the shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I didn't mean to question your reasons for those edits of yours; you already clarified them well enough with your edit summaries. But since you're discussing this, I would like to point out that you're only seeing one side of the coin. This discussion matches what is described under Wikipedia:I just don't like it#User interface discussions. I am arguing on the basis of what makes sense to new users, and you represent the "I've gotten used to it that way" side. In addition to the general advice of that essay, we should also consider what are the worst likely cases for each choice? If LIKE is a disambiguation, then at worst it means that someone has to click twice to get to the intended essay. If LIKE is a redirect, then at worst someone gets directed to the wrong essay, with no hint that the other essay even exists. The second choice clearly destroys relevant information. — Sebastian 20:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sebastian, I'm actually not part of the "I'm used to it that way" crowd (That kind of hurt, really. ). Since this site builds decisions from consensus and not from bold actions, I have taken into account that my perception of what needs to be done will sometimes be reverted, such as in this instance. That's why I believe the hatnote is the best solution: this way, the "used to it" crowd goes where they expect to go, and the "why did I end up here" crowd gets clarification via a hatnote. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about your hatnote suggestion while I was formulating my reply. And yes, I did have the impression that you're not a crowd follower, which is why I addressed you in the first place. But why are you denying WP:BOLD? Now that's a guideline, for a change. I don't see anything wrong with following it. — Sebastian 20:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sebastian, I'm not "denying" WP:BOLD, per say, especially since I make bold edits all the time (and have taken several Wikibreaks after my edits were reverted, especially when literally one editor who disagrees with my actions decides to blanket revert all of my most recent edits.) WP:BOLD, in my mind, basically validates the editor's judgement call that their edit will not be controversial, and allows the editor to perform edits without having to wait the week-or-so time period for a discussion to complete before their proposed edit(s) can be "approved" prior to execution; it's a big time saver, and it allows editors to just keep up the good work at a steady pace. However, I have learned over time what will immediately be challenged by someone else, and what just straight-up makes sense or what would be opposed by several if reverted. Shortcuts in the Wikipedia namespace with a long history of usage towards one particular target, from what I have found, seem to fall into the former group I mentioned; that was why I performed the initial revert, but then changed my mind, but then was validated after a different editor reverted my revert of my revert. (Well, that's a redundant tongue twister of sorts.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; that makes sense. Happy editing! — Sebastian 21:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sebastian, thanks for taking the time to converse! This conversation helped me refresh my memory on how I have learned to edit over the years, which is always enlightening. It's always refreshing to meet an editor(/administrator, in your case) who is willing to converse differences in opinion without getting super defensive about their stance and is willing to be perceptive of others' opinions! Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, likewise! You're right, taking differences in opinion very personal is a human trait that often makes collaboration harder than it needs to be, especially at Wikipedia. I think we can learn a lot from bees[1]. — Sebastian 21:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about WP:NOT applying to redirects. That does not mean I shall agree with you about any particular redirect, but the principle to me is sound: I think it was you, I am not sure, who made the not-so-subtle distinction between an article and something in article namespace.

Because redirects exist in article namespace, it is important not to give people a WP:SURPRISE if they end up at the "wrong" article. Most would barely notice they had gone via a redirect at the top of the page (and that's how it should be), if we get it right. There are no barnstars for gnoming redirects, but I think indexing the Wikipedia is important. It is truly a resource not that anyone can edit (my internet is playing up) but that anyone can view, at least, that is the goal. Get them to where they want to go. I truly believe that Wikipedia has done more for human knowledge, with the contribution of a few thousand editors, than has happened in centuries past when we were told what to believe. I don't care that Jimmy Wales is an idiot, fortunately a few of us are not: but when we make mistakes they are quickly corrected by our peers. Si Trew (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you fancy taking something off my backlist then? I still need to translate fr:Bijou and I have several ((Railway line legend))s to do, if you fancy (they are tricky). But you deserve a break, you work too hard here. Si Trew (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Si Trew, maybe some day! But first, I have to finish this. Steel1943 (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Strange, I was using one of those at 2am this morning. I never could get the stuff on the wall until I realised the paint was meant to go on the bristle end of it. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:How to fix cut-and-paste moves § Discussion regarding titling standards for moving parallel histories

All 10 of these were cases where I had to move page X (usually largely composed of old redirects) to somewhere else to allow requested move X (disambiguation) to X and history-merge was not suitable, or not possible because of WP:Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC) @Anthony Appleyard: Before I go into this too much, I want to say thank you so much for all of the work you do on the English Wikipedia to fix edit histories by merging pages together; you do more merges, and accurate merges nonetheless, than any other administrator on here, and for that, you really do deserve all the credit and barnstars that anyone can ever receive. I really am glad that there is an individual who is able to skim through those day by day, fulfilling the edit history merge requests and not get burnt out on it, seriously. Anyways, yes, I'm quite aware that you are the one that creates those titles. The issue with those titles being functional redirects, in my opinion, is that they create very odd, very unlikely titles for redirects that really shouldn't exist. I don't know if there is an acceptable alternative location to move these histories, but what I have been doing in one way or another has been trying to move the alternate version to a plausible search term (such as moving a parallel version of Foo (film) to Foo (1987 film)). That way, the edit history is still somewhere, but it's not hiding in a redirect that isn't helpful as a search term. Occasionally during the past few years, I've trying to brainstorm for other ways to resolve this issue I've seen, and this was the best resolution that I came up with. As you saw on my requests at WP:RMTR that you removed, it becomes a bit more complicated to move any parallel versions of a disambiguation page anywhere since the only two community-acceptable titles for a disambiguation page per WP:DABNAME are the ambiguous title and the title with "(disambiguation)" at the end. I'd really like to look for and discuss possible solutions to this, especially since there seems to be a constant consensus to delete these redirects as unhelpful on WP:RFD. Also, another item to consider is that anyone looking for actual titles of articles or redirects named "version X" get blogged down having to skim through all of these parallel history redirects prior to finding an actual article with "version X" in its subject's title. Steel1943 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) (Butting in...) I think Steel gets why they were moved out of the way, s/he are just requesting that the old history be put at a location that is (a) more likely to be found if anyone is looking for it, and (b) less likely to be deleted by a passing admin who doesn't understand what's happened, e.g. what happened to Trey Smith (version 2). Generally I think that, if there is an obviously suitable place for the histories like with these dab pages, it would be preferable to have them there rather that at a version 2 type place. This actually reminds me a bit of Talk:Node of Ranvier#Page history of merged article, which we never got a great resolution on. Pinging the users who commented there in case they're interested: Andrewa, Graham87, Wbm1058, Fuhghettaboutit. For clarity, these are the requests Steel made. Jenks24 (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC) @Andrewa, Graham87, and Jenks24: I am unwilling to merely let the old edits of page X sit deleted under the edits moved from X (disambiguation) to X, as that is liable to accidents (see WP:Parallel histories) if, some time after that, page X must be temporarily deleted and then undeleted (e.g. for history-merge or history-split). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC) @Anthony Appleyard: I don't disagree with your logic: I disagree with the titles of the pages which the parallel histories are being moved. There has to be a different way to name these parallel pages... Steel1943 (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I agree a best solution for complex cases like these should be agreed upon and documented, and having just successfully run for admin on a platform of working the hist-merge beat, I hope to help with that. But for now, I first intend to start by working on the easy ones to get my feet wet. After I have some experience with that, I may have a better idea about the best approach for the complex cases. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice work there, I trod on your feet by doing a bit of CE on it. I want to upload a pic of some of my paintbrushes, fatter ones not the arty farty ones, which are in a mixture of metric and imperial cos some I got in England and some I got in Hungary, some have both measures on them. But I need a fairly high resolution camera to pick that out, and the missus has cunningly hidden a camera before running off with a gay bloke to Vienna. (That would be a good story were it not just her job.) I Will do if she tells me where it is. We just moved house a few weeks ago, could be anywhere. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Si Trew, thanks, but I didn't write most of it. It is actually a section that is currently in Brush; I'm just trying to work on it to become a standalone article, especially considering that is this subject's case on other language Wikipedias. I mean, it is quite odd that it isn't a full-blown article here... Steel1943 (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

All right, as long as you don't mind my bunging in. The missus says the camera is in the drawer in the front hall, which it isn't... we lived for eighteen months in a five by five room and that included me putting in a shower cublicle, little kitchen, little living room, and bedroom and stuff, so we are kinda amazed we actually have five or six rooms now and don't know where to put anything so things get a bit lost sometimes. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha, go for it! I'll be happy if it becomes a standalone article, regardless who writes it! Steel1943 (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm I am not sure Steely has the right attitude, saying "one day, maybe"... that is the "If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs" approach... :) Si Trew (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

...Something like that. But hey, the more eggs in the basket, the ... heavier the basket? Steel1943 (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

As for it being standalone, I mean, is it? We don't tend to classify things by use. A paintbrush, for example, is a good way of cleaning an ashtray, as anyone in the pub trade will tell you, but we don't call it an ashtraybrush. That being said, discrimination is good and specific articles are better than generic ones. Si Trew (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I added a pic at Paintbrush#Decorators' brushes, though I cocked up the name when I uploaded it to Commons. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Aqueduct/version 2

added a link pointing to Aqueduct

Pratigya/version 2

added a link pointing to Pratigya

The Goldfinch/version 2

added a link pointing to Goldfinch

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Google pakistan. Since you had some involvement with the Google pakistan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 02:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What were all those edits about, why were you keep on reverting my edits, I understand you were doing it in good faith, but that seems odd, just wondering.... - TheChampionMan1234 02:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheChampionMan1234: Google Pakistan had a history as an article. Per my edits, I moved the history as an article to Draft:Google Pakistan in case anyone wants to work on it later to resolve these concerns. Also, it, in a way, essentially prevents "keep due to having history as an article" votes from appearing in the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please bring this matter to the discussion itself, as it is slightly unrelated to my previous question on why you were reverting my edits. - TheChampionMan1234 02:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheChampionMan1234: So, about the "other" edits: Me not realizing that you merged Google Pakistan into your nomination due to your malformed merge (which I then reverted myself after I saw it in the nomination, and then thanked you when you corrected your formatting error) has absolutely nothing to do with either my opinion (which I currently lack any) or any value that can be brought to the discussion by mentioning such a trivial matter. Steel1943 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Get it now, but I mean placing that as a neutral comment on the discussion would be better than nothing. - TheChampionMan1234 02:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I'll have to pass. I have no interest in these redirects as redirects; I moved Google pakistan to Google Pakistan to get the attribution (see WP:CWW) to the proper title. Now that another editor believes that should go (you), I really don't care, but believe that the edit history of someone trying to create the subject as an article needs to be preserved, so I restored the page and moved it into the draft namespace. I did what I thought needed to be done WP:BOLD-ly to prevent lost information. So, again, no thanks, I don't feel like commenting since someone could start asking me my opinion since I appear to be the creator of those redirects, which I technically am, but since they are now both the result of page moves, I really am not. Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943, I moved the general comments section back because of a discussion that occurred here. I think if the section were to be moved to the talk page, which I'm not necessarily opposed to, it would need wider community and bureaucrat involvement. Separately and not related, I hope you didn't take my comment as badgering. It was not my intent, but rather just wanted to mention some places where sysop tools are useful at AFC. Best regards, Mkdw^talk 04:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Mkdw: I didn't consider it badgering at all. Honestly, I would have moved it to the talk page whether or not you were responding to a comment I specifically made since as I stated in my edit notice, your comment/section was getting counted as a neutral vote. Do you know any way around that? Steel1943 (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I was able to fix it. I noticed Xeno had run into the same issue when the decision was made to move the general comments section below neutral. Something about an extra space which I added and it seemed to do the trick. Mkdw^talk 04:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Steel1943. I just wanted to reply to your comment after my oppose vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happy Attack Dog. I agree that it was too soon for this user to become an admin; there is insignificant history to judge how the user would use or not use or misuse the bit. I hope you understood my comment though. Those who spend a lot of time reverting vandalism, and who give warnings to said vandals (if nothing else, to document that they were warned and facilitate any needed blocks later), will automatically have a high percentage of user talk edits. Twinkle makes it so easy to select the correct warning message at the correct label, that not using it is just wasting time. (The same thing applies to Oshwah's nom as well, except that I was waiting for him to answer the rest of the questions.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Etamni: Thanks for responding; I knew that RFA was going to be closed soon after, so I wasn't sure if a response would have happened. And I agree, there is not enough data at the preset time to oppose based on an edit ratio, but in this case, since WP:NOTNOW applied there, that took prominence. That, and my opinion is based on me noticing that most actions as an administrator that take place in the "User talk:" namespace is in response to another editor's request on the "Wikipedia:" namespace. So, I feel that the editor has to be on the "requesting" side prior to being able to be on the "respond to request" side. Steel1943 (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943, since the relevant RFA is over I thought I'd continue the discussion about your edit ratio theory here if you don't mind? The blocking of vandals is partly based on reports in Wikipedia space, but that can be misleading. Only a small minority of vandalism is so egregious that we block without going through the four levels of warning, so most cases of vandalism will involve four userpage warnings before the AIV report requesting a block. The ratio becomes much more than five vandalism reversions (usually in mainspace) four userpage warnings to one AIV report if we consider that some of these warnings actually work and stop the vandal. But for a typical editor the ratios can be very different, if they have Huggle or Stiki and are doing recent changes patrolling then the system will steer them to likely vandalism, especially edits by people who have been warned for vandalism, so editors using such tools will have a higher proportion of AIV reports. By contrast if you are manually patrolling recent changes, for example by looking at edits by users with redlinked talkpages, then you will have a very high ratio of edits to userspace, especially if you are doing so on the basis that everyone gets a message, either warning vandals or welcoming newbies, but you will only rarely come across someone so egregious that the person merits an immediate block. Once you've warned someone there is no need to watch them further as the warning will highlight their edits to the Hugglers and Stiki users, and if you are editing manually you won't be able to compete with people using such tools, at least not when you look at edits of people who've already been warned. If there is an admin currently on Huggle or Stiki then they are going to be blocking vandals themselves without doing an AIV report. Of course the patrollers who are patrolling manually and helping newbie as well as dealing with vandalism will have fewer edits per hour, but more of the close calls and requests for help from newbies.

Speedy deletion is even more extreme as the nearest thing to an admin noticeboard works off the category system, when you tag an article for speedy deletion it goes into CAT:CSD, if your tag is correct then the article should get deleted, increasing your number of deleted edits and userpage tags, but without any Wikipedia space edits. If your speedy deletion tag is declined by an admin or another editor then you also keep the mainspace edit. Prod and BLPprod work in a similar way, only AFD and a few others such as MFD involve the creation of a Wikipedia page for the deletion debate. So if the RFA crowd started to expect a low proportion of userpage edits of recent changes patrollers and newpage patrollers, the best candidates would be at the biggest disadvantage. ϢereSpielChequers 19:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Before I get started in responding to this, I have to start with this disclaimer: I'm going to try my best to break down my opinions in regards to my "high user ratio theory". Since this is a pattern that I recently recognized, there may be some holes in my explanation; I just know this opinion works for me due to patterns I have seen through the course of the related RFAs. By the way, in the only RFA that is currently ongoing, I also had "User talk:" namespace concerns, but was not convinced immediately to "oppose" until other concerns came up about the candidate that pushed me over the edge to go to "oppose". So, in a way, I feel that further validates my theory. Anyways, without further ado...

First, part of my theory is akin to "What came first ... the chicken of the egg" belief. In your statement above, you made a reference to the blocking noticed that admins provide after blocking a user. This is a task that should, in theory, be exclusive to admins: the only reason a non-admin would seemingly ever place this notice is if they think that placing that template automatically blocks the user whose page they just tagged, which obviously doesn't work. My point here is that when it comes to admin tasks that specifically are in response to admin tool use, considering an admin who had a high amount of "User talk:" edits is moot. After an editors makes the transition to being an administrator, a high amount of "User talk:" edits is common; however, this does not hold true to non-admins since they are not responding to administration actions they took (since they cannot technically make them yet.)

(I probably have more to say, but I've been holding into this note for quite some time now, so I'm just going to post this pending more discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes it would be odd for anyone other than an admin to ever leave a block message. But such messages are relatively few compared to warnings, and any editor can warn a vandal. We have stats on nearly eleven years of admin activity, and there are just under 3.3 million blocks issued in that time, not a trivial quantity, but totally eclipsed by the number of userpage warnings that will have lead to those blocks. BTW another problem with looking at stats is that fashions change re stale messages on IP talkpages, when you have an IP that has been reassigned any warning messages are irrelevant to us and disconcerting for the new user of that IP; so there have been purges where people have deleted or blanked IP talkpages. Deleting them removes any userpage warnings from the stats as they are based on live edits, blanking them makes no difference to the stats, any editor who was vandalfighting a few years ago will have some of the userpage warnings they once gave now counted amongst their deleted edits rather than their useropage edits. An equally active editor who has done pretty much the same amount of editing and of the same type but entirely in the last three years will have a higher proportion of user talk edits simply because the talkpages of the IPs they've warned are unlikely to have yet been deleted as stale. ϢereSpielChequers 09:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: My sincere apologies for taking so long to respond to this. I was going to take a moment to read and respond thoroughly, but now per some recent edits I have been doing myself, I have basically concluded that my previous stance is a bit faulted. There was one namespace I completely forgot to include in this equation: the "File:" namespace. Given that most of the edits performed in the "File:" namespace via patrolling the Upload log, as I found out, result in large amounts of "User talk:" edits, I've decided that this new information I did not even realize before has completely tipped my opinion about edit statistics "belly-up", so to speak. Steel1943 (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steel thanks for the reply. I think that stats are an interesting approach to evaluating candidates, but just as any theory needs to be tested on live data, they need to be accompanied by actually looking at people's edits. Two things so far that I take from stats are, firstly if someone has few or no talk edits of any sort then they are unlikely to have interacted much with other members of the community (though there can be exceptions) and secondly that editors with very high edit counts may have a surprising number of people coming to their userpage and discussing mistakes etc, - but those errors can be a miniscule proportion of their edits. ϢereSpielChequers 08:57, 10 October 2015 (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.

Please delete Module:Testtehshvghb for me per speedy deletion criterion G7. The creator, User:Steel1943 (test) is a legitimate alternate account of mine. I was testing to see if I could move a page in the "Module:" namespace without the template editor right, as well as see if redirect would be automatically deleted, but since it's a Lua module, I could not place the ((Db-g7)) tag on the page. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Steel Man, you're very welcome! Also, I noticed that you requested that User:CoffeeWithMarkets remove the 1 September listings from the main RfD page when it was relisted because it was the last open discussion. When I relisted Wakopedia to 18 September, the entire 1 September listing was automatically removed from the main RfD page. Just fyi. Joys! (and don't be bored, just be thankful for all the good you do, can do and will do!) Painius  21:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks again Paine! I would have done it myself, but I figured I'd give someone else a chance to give the process a try. By the way, I'm not sure if September 1's removal was automatic. ;) Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You sly devil, you !>) You rm'd the 1st about 4 mins after I relisted, so by the time I checked, the 1st of September had "automatically" disappeared. And here I thought the software had been tweaked. (sigh)
BTW, you might want to be careful with the use of bullets when you respond, especially if you ping someone. See this discussion. Painius 

Paine, I know, I'm sneaky! (I actually didn't Ping you in my previous comment, so I must have been really sneaky!) Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hah! Are we both excited beyond belief, yet? !>) Painius  23:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not my best day ever here... Thank you. - Nabla (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The image i uploaded File:Ducs de Dijon logo.png, is not converted from or based on the JPG it replaced. Non-free images are deleted all the time, so why is it so important to maintain their history. Also, wile caring for and enforcing standards, remember that PNG over JPG is also a standard, and IMHO a more important one, considering that it affects the appearance of the article as opposed to the irrelevant history of the image. As for the broken links, which broken links? If you reconsider your opinion, please revert your edits. Thank you. --Ben Stone 21:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Benstown: Per your edit history, I noticed that you have uploaded several images. That, and I am aware that PNGs are recommended over JPGs due to quality. So, I have a question/suggestion for you: Why not upload your new image to the old title and then (or beforehand) move the file to a "*'png" title extension? That way, the editor attribution will remain intact, and the new image will be in place? Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Benstown: Since I just found a template called ((Should be PNG)), I have to assume that the way you uploaded and replaced that image is our standard. Thus, I reverted my edits. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The images i deal with mostly are non-free, and it took me some time to get used to the ruthlessness that those are treated (for instance, many old logos of brands that aren't so recognizable are deleted, just because, check my talk page and delete logs). So while the history is important, non-free images are inherently "temporary". I always credit the original uploader when i base on it, but the time and effort to maintain the history, which might be deleted anytime, and the fact that not many people wander to the file page and even less check its history, it's not worth it. As for the names, well, Logoducs.JPG and the like, are not great names to say the least, aesthetics (and standards) matter in the name too. --Ben Stone 21:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Great! So now you added a section to ANRFC, which can never be archived, because NFCR is perpetually backloggged. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Armbrust: I know I reverted your revert, but random question: What are your thoughts about marking NFCR historical and referring editors to WP:FFD? (This has been brought up at WP:MFD at least once, but with backlogs like this, I really think it's time to shut down RFPC.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with you on that. In its current state it's just a huge timesink. The oldest discussion will be shortly 4 months old, and it's just keeps pilling on. I think this is related to TLSuda's decreased activity since the end of June. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Armbrust: And thus, it has started. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Time to shut down WP:NFCR by merging it into WP:FFD? for my proposal to shut down WP:NFCR. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
      • And now it's closes as "Consensus is to merge NFCR and FFD into one process, called "Files for Discussion"." Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Armbrust: Today is a good day! Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from..." Is that your way of saying you want my own creations to be deleted. My Enevlope and Cookies wer self created and the Cheyenne Skyline pic was that of www.cheyenne.org. Follow the link if you don't belive me. If you go to my page I see you are trying to disobey rule 4: DO NOT DELETE MY STUFF. Please put your head on straight, Steel. [[Wiki Zachary (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)]]

• @Wiki Zachary: Please refer to the notices which I have posted on those files. The licensing you posted on those files is incorrect, and as they stand, are eligible for deletion. If you are releasing the images into public domain, please refer to options at Wikipedia:Image use policy for methods which you can use to license these images released. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Steel1943: Ok... Wiki Zachary (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Steel1943: Seriously? Wiki Zachary (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Wiki Zachary: Yes. Wikipedia, in my experiences, had been serious about making sure that no pictures are hosted here without proper licenses for legal reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Steel1943: Click on each reference for info. 260px ^[1]

260px ^[2] 260px ^[3] 260px ^[4]

(talk page watcher) The correct URL of the webcam image is http://cheyenne.org/webcam/ -- and the link takes the viewer to a copyrighted page. The copyright notice is buried in the privacy policy, and can be found at: http://www.cheyenne.org/about-cheyenne/about-the-visitors-bureau/privacy-policy/

Zachary, images you take yourself can be appropriate for Wikipedia, if the proper releases are furnished, but they must still meet Wikipedia's other rules. In this case, the first two images (the envelope) are not appropriate for Wikipedia because they have a person's (yours, I assume) address clearly visible. The fourth image is not appropriate because there is a copyright associated with the source, and it does not appear you own the copyright. The third image doesn't have either problem, but it must still have the proper release, on file, and it must be relevant to the article it is being attached to. I hope this helps.

Steel, I believe the envelope images qualify for oversight rather than speedy deletion. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  21:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Etamni: I have fixed the link. On my talk page, I list the license.

My Talk page: Wiki Zachary (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Etamni: I read the oversight article but I still didn't understand the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Zachary (talk • contribs)

Oversight is not needed since the images have been deleted instead. Actually, oversight would have been the wrong process since deleted images are not visible in previous versions of the relevant pages. Zachary, I'll explain more about this on your talk page -- this is someone else's page and not the best location for continuing this conversation. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello... the photos i recently added in the page of AE Larissa FC are HISTORIC IMAGES taken from the club's Greek page of wikipedia and are without any copyright owner and can be used freely. The rest of them is personal work (and for those who are supposed that aren't) i sent you examples of links and pages that these photos can be found and are published also freely without any licensing terms (these historic images are published freely in dozens of websites all these years so it's difficult to find if there is any copyright holder at all!!!)  : http://www.vissini.gr/albums/1985-%CE%BA%CF%8D%CF%80%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%BF/ 1 http://www.sentragoal.gr/article.asp?catid=39287&subid=2&pubid=487430 2 http://www.monsters-larissa.gr/component/joomgallery/?func=detail&id=175 3 http://datab.us/Search/Uploaded%20by%209551196 4 https://alithinihistoria.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%B1-1988-89/ 5 http://www.google.gr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vissini.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/%2525CE%252591%2525CE%252595%2525CE%25259B-%2525CE%2525A0%2525CE%252591%2525CE%25259F%2525CE%25259A-%2525CF%252584%2525CE%2525B5%2525CE%2525BB%2525CE%2525B9%2525CE%2525BA%2525CF%25258C%2525CF%252582-%2525CE%2525BA%2525CF%252585%2525CF%252580%2525CE%2525AD%2525CE%2525BB%2525CE%2525BB%2525CE%2525BF%2525CF%252585-1985-5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.vissini.gr/albums/1985-%25CE%25BA%25CF%258D%25CF%2580%25CE%25B5%25CE%25BB%25CE%25BB%25CE%25BF/&h=204&w=300&tbnid=lfTDTxLWx3-CEM:&docid=KfExC3YH76WAWM&ei=LEkQVuXoOIvwavWhkMgB&tbm=isch&ved=0CCQQMygHMAdqFQoTCOWux4Sgp8gCFQu4Ggod9RAEGQ 6 http://aelara-fans.blogspot.gr/2009/09/12.html 7 http://www.aelole.gr/2013/05/2007_5.html

I can also sent you more of these sites but i suppose this is enough to prove you that i am right.. Nevertheless IF YOU WANT TO REMOVΕ THEΜ PLEASE think again and act as you wish. thanx

After checking with NeilN, I've restored template protection to ((Clear)). Since you mentioned that template protection was useless due to the template also being cascade-protected, I've removed all cascade protection that I can find, and I'm no longer seeing a warning that the template is cascade-protected when I edit it. Still, I'm an admin and therefore able to edit fully protected pages; it would help to get input from someone with template-editor but not admin. Would you mind checking the template and confirming that it's only template-protected, or checking it and telling me that there's more work to do? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: From what I see, you successfully removed the cascade-protection, leaving the template available for template editors to edit. However, was there a justifiable reason for removing the cascading protection from ((Clear))? (I am just wondering since I wasn't asking for a protection downgrade; I really have no opinion either way, but have to imagine there was a reason for cascading protection being applied to the template.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Nyttend: Also, I just read User talk:NeilN#WP:RPP, part two; NeilN took the action to the page's protection level I was asking. For a bit more details into my recent requests such as this, see User talk:Mr. Stradivarius#Question which I think you may know the answer. Steel1943 (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking and providing me the links. As you may know, cascading protection is effectively the same as protection of the page itself; a page is stuck onto Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items basically in case the template itself accidentally or absentmindedly gets unprotected. It's basically just a method of convenience. Since the page says that it's only meant for "High-risk templates that should always be protected", and since this one shouldn't be fully protected, it shouldn't be on that page. Finally, cascading protection was also applied to several redirects (e.g. Template:-), and since I had to remove those from the cascade-protected items page (before I did that, the template remained cascade-protected), I went back and fully protected all of them. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: I understand that, but I don't recall there bring any sort of consensus to remove cascading protection from templates just because template protection exists. If I recall, cascading protection is to remain on template pages that not even template editors are permitted to edit. Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here's my train of thought — from the beginning, the idea has been to "allow editors who have earned the trust of the community as knowledgeable and responsible template coders to modify templates, modules, and edit notices that have been fully protected for precautionary reasons". This was the wording of the proposal that, upon getting widespread support, became the basis for creating the userright in the first place. It really doesn't matter which technical measures we take to enforce consensus (as long as they're not unreasonably complex), so if it's okay to downgrade a page to template-protect from full-protect, it's okay to remove cascading protection from the same page. In fact, it's better, because it's less confusing to have Page A protected "directly" than to have to edit Page B to change Page A's protection; as you saw at NeilN's talk page, it looked like I made a mistake at first, since removing this template from WP:CASC didn't unprotect it, and it took a bunch of time to realise that transcluding the redirects had the same effect, even before I could begin removing them and protecting them. Nyttend (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: I understand your reasoning, and agree with it (since yes, in my opinion, someone who is trusted to edit protected templates seems to already have community-consensus to edit all or them with the template editor user right.) However, I'm still not sure if the reasoning presented here (which I agree with) has been agreed upon by the community. I think that there might need to be a discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Template editor to verify if this should be done in all cases, or specific cases, etc. just for clarity and probably to add this information to Wikipedia:Template editor. (For example, I tried to search the text string "cascad" on Wikipedia:Template editor, and found the string nowhere, so cascading protection doesn't seem to be mentioned on that page at all.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't see why the first RFC would be insufficient, since cascading protection is just another form of protection. This ought to be done on a case-by-case basis, since the normal process (if I remember rightly) is that we unprotect upon request — we do on-demand reduction, rather than doing stuff that nobody cares about. I don't remember anyone objecting about the method of protection, as long as the result is the same; the only objections I remember ever seeing regarding cascade-protection were related to the fact that cascade-protection prevents most editors from modifying documentation pages, so in general, individual page protection is better than cascade-protection. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You have changed an infobox logo and flagged up one for deletion. Is there any reason that two logos cannot be used in one article Shaun Muir Racing? The 'new' logo for 2015 (as cited [2] in conjunction with Yamaha Europe) File:HeaderLogo-Left.jpg and the original logo File:Milwaukee Yamaha logo.png for UK are clearly different.

The prose was arranged to allow for both to be used, with the 2015 change prominent in the article. I actually had not finished the upload rationale, as it needed reference to Yamaha's increased involvement for 2015. It may be necessary to again change the logo for 2016, so what about historical accuracy? Thx--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Rocknrollmancer: Good question. As far as I understand, fair use rationale is very strict on how an image can and is allowed to be applied. For logos, if they change appearance, the most recent should be used. After I looked at the new image, I checked the primary source for verification (the subject's web site), and I did not see the "old" logo in the site. Fair use requires a very specific reason why the image should be allowed on the article, and why it should remain on Wikipedia. The image needs to identify a specific subject where it is placed in an article. Where the "new" logo was placed failed to do this. In my experiences, one of the few ways which would validate the two logos remaining on the site is if the new one is used in the infobox (such as what I tried to do in my edits), and then a new section be created on the article listing and describing previous logos that the subject has used. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I only swing by the article once in a while; I'll give it some thought and try to work around it. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Gooday. I have now expanded and changed the Shaun Muir Racing article prose to incorporate an historic section to which the original logo is pertinent, and the layout is acceptable. I have also updated the logo (file) rationale and removed the di-orphaned tag. I trust this is satisfactory.

I didn't rename the 'new' logo when I uploaded it as I didn't expect it would be at all controversial, as it could only be used on the one article. rgds.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: I just had a moment to check the article as well as the file description. They both match each other in regards to their use in the article, and why it is used is quite clear. Looks good to me! (And yes, there really isn't a reason to rename the file, at least until the newer file gets renamed.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943, Regarding Johnny & the Dicks.jpg. I have to say this is all pretty confusing. Simply, the photo in question is a photo of the band, is owned by the band, and is for the purposes of promoting/publicizing the band. How is this inappropriate use? I could have the owner of the photo, John D Morton (the "Johnny" of "Johnny & the Dicks" upload it. I am just trying to offer what I think is pertinent content. I thought I made this clear when I uploaded the picture. Thank you 99Kitty Kats (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• @99Kitty Kats: The best way I think I can explain this is proof is needed for the file being released. Also, a hard drive doesn't really show where it came from, or who owns the photo. If you can be chance find a copy of this photo elsewhere (such as a web site), that may work as fair use. I believe that the method on Wikipedia to prove that the image has been granted by its owner is to create an OTRS ticket request for the claim. If that ticket is fulfilled, then the image should be permitted to be used. Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@99Kitty Kats: However, if proof can be provided that its owner releases the image, then it can probably be filed as a free image. I was, more or less, stating that it is difficult to nearly impossible to prove who owns the copyright to an image you have that you did not take yourself when the claim is that it was saved on your hard drive. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943, Today I read a new section on my talk page regarding an image "not in use" in any page. I'm not sure why this is so, because I just finished adding File:Memrise logo 2015, with cyan background.png to the article Memrise a number of hours back. Clarification would be appreciated. Thank you, Kaifee Haque (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Kaifee Haque: By adding the image to Memrise, the image is now present on an article, so the tag I placed on it is no longer valid. (See WP:NFCCP point 7.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Steel1943.I need to make clear the fact that the file: Pkgdj.jpg was actually given to me under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, by the creator of this work PKGDJ (Petros Kyrkos). As a result there is no doubt that it is an image of a free type used under a creative commons label. I hope in your immediate response. Greetings Apostolos Xaralampous (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Apostolos Xaralampous: Since you personally are not the owner of the image, there are legal issues with you uploading the image. If the owner of the image did provide you permission to upload it to be used freely, then a ticket needs to be filed through the OTRS ticketing system so that the permission can be verified by the OTRS team (and them, they will in turn, put a "stamp of approval" on the image to state that the permission has been verified.) If the permission cannot be verified, the other option you would have in regards to this image is to claim fair use and then include it into appropriate article(s) per the standard lied out at WP:NFCCEG. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Steel1943. Thank you for checking the copyright issue with the above mentioned file. I have added the "di-replaceable fair use disputed" template with my rationale added (hopefully at the right place; I am new to that), and further added a more complete explanation on the file talk page. I hope that meets the criteria -- there has really been a lot of controversy about how to report that graph. Note please that the lower resolution graph that was retained for the copyright reasons does not fully make the point: The numbers on the horizontal axes are blurred to the point that they cannot be deciphered. One of the higher resolution graphs from my submission, where the numbers are readable, should be recovered (I don't know how to do that). If I understand it correctly, they are now the ones that are orphaned. Strasburger (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Strasburger: My apologies for the delayed response on this: The reason I tagged it for deletion is because from what I see in the image, it looks like the point portrayed in the image could be represented by a free image (drawing) with the same information. Also, I spent a bit if time looking into the various options we have here at Wikipedia to see if the image is or isn't eligible for copyright, and it looks like it is since I have not been able to verify the death date of the image's author. (If the image is not subject to copyright, then it can be used freely, at least per United States standards.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The author is Harry Moss Traquair, Scottish ophthalmologist and perimetrist, who lived 1875–1954. Strasburger (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Strasburger: The image may still be subject up copyright then; the threshold for releasing an authors work after their death, from what I have found, requires that the author be dead for at least 70 years. (Death year of 1954 would put the amount of time at 61 years.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Let me ask back, please. The point is, there *is* no free image for the total visual field. Traquair’s is the only one. Of course I could redraw the graph leaving out a few details that are not needed. But wouldn’t that get me in the same copyright issue? (In the "di-replaceable fair use disputed" template I tried to explain but I'm not sure that was taken into account.) Strasburger (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Strasburger: Given that the field is represented by geometric shapes and lines of sorts (and per my understanding of WP:NFCC), it may not be. However, after reading WP:CV, I'm not 100% sure. If I recall how the image looked, as you said, it could be manually drawn by someone else, but does that institute a infringement of a copyright? In the specific case of your image, I am honesty not completely sure, but edging towards "no". However, if it is a copyright violation to redraw the image, then right there is proof that "no free alternative exists", and thus, the image you uploaded previously could be uploaded again. The best option may be to upload it again, then maybe "nominate" it on WP:NFCR to see if the image that was here before can be determined to be an acceptable non-free image as non replaceable due to possible copyright infringement due to the possibility of plagiarism if redrawn. (At the present time, I cannot find anything specific to answer your concern.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Steel1943. Your account has been granted the "file mover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Swarm ♠ 06:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You might need to retry it a couple of times to get it to load. This lists a number of files which need to be cleaned up or examined so that they have sufficent ((information)) enabling them to be moved to Commons. If you find bad sources, no permissions etc, I assume you know how to use TWINKLE (and aren't afraid to use it)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2 converted a variant of the above into a much more palatable form - https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/5594 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG: I'll give this a check when I get some time away from the ever-growing Upload Log (or I feel like doing something else.) On a related note, I'm thinking of creating a maintenance category for pages with a non-free licensing tag but no "|image has rationale=yes" tag ... so that the files where rationale hasn't been supposedly verified can be listed. (I'm aware that this category would have thousands of images, but I think it is necessary since it is really a bit useless to have the "image has rationale=yes" functionality, but not have the pages without it not be tracked.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That category already exists, Category:Non-free_images_for_NFUR_review into which files are automaticaly categorised by the various non-free license tags. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG: Well whaddya know, it does exist. (Not sure how I missed seeing that category on the related pages.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch is a redlink. You can move Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch to it without needing administrative help. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I see you placed a template on File:Typeeto logo.png stating "This image (or all images in this article or category) needs to have its border removed. Where borders are desired they should be added with wikimarkup or code." However, I believe that the "border" you are referring to is an essential element of the logo in question, and that removing it from the logo would thus be incorrect. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• @GrammarFascist: The "borders" are the patches of blankspace on the left and right sides of the image. These borders do not seem to be part of the logo since they are blankspace. Steel1943 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying that. I have cropped the blank areas out of the image, and I also removed the template from the page. Please advise if I did either incorrectly. Thanks again, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• @GrammarFascist: Looks good! Steel1943 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2015 (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.

Dear admin,

Please delete User:Steel1943/vector.js per my request (WP:G7). I'm unable to place a speedy tag there myself since the page doesn't allow template transclusions to work properly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Nthep (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent notfication about tagging for this file. I just added a non-free content template. However, it does not appear on the file page, although it does appear in the edit history. Is this normal? Any help that you might provide will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• @NewYorkActuary: I had the same issue with the template appearing; after I made another edit to the page, the issue fixed itself. However, just a point: what you added wasn't licensing information, but rather fair-use rationale. Both are required for fair-use of copyrighted images, but images need both. (When you first uploaded the image, I was not sure if you were claiming free use or fair-use since you had not placed a template claiming either one.) I went ahead and added the licensing information, as well as added the image to the article where you claimed it should be used. All three of the aforementioned steps (one which you did yourself) are required for fair-use images. Further clarification of these criteria and others can be found at WP:NFCCP. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, and my apologies for causing the extra work. That was my first non-free upload and I'll be sure to do all three steps in the future. Thanks again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

what is the difference anyway? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• @VegasCasinoKid: "Opacity", the best way I can explain it before I even realized that "opacity" was the term for it, is using "blankspace"/"clearspace" in an image instead of "white space". I guess imagine a black circle in a white square: if you cut and move just the circle, you are moving the circle in a square of "blankspace" but if you cut and move the entire circle and square, you are moving in a square of "white space". In other words, the white on the edges is not part of the subject that the image is meant to represent, so it has no reason to be there. Steel1943 (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have now found a logo for SMR, after seeing it on the clothing of the man himself, live on British TV. There is still uncertainty regarding this team, but it appears he has lost the official Yamaha backing for World-level racing to Paul Denning's Crescent team, and maybe also for UK to a new team headed by one of his former riders. rgds, --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Rocknrollmancer: Interesting. Crazy how fickle/quick-changing the world of sponsors can be! Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, last race of the season yesterday (my time) and the TV presenters are speculating furiously about this - now this team is being linked with Italian manufacturer Aprilia, retaining their top, British Championship-winning rider and main sponsor Milwaukee, to run a World-level team. Initially I guessed they may have a 'satellite', semi-factory Yamaha, a second-string team. Shaun Muir was interviewed live, stating that negotiations will be concluded in two to three weeks. I'll keep an eye on it. Rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not opaque, it just has white in it. The image is PNG with a transparent background... --Remram44 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Okay. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What proof do you have that I didn't create those images myself? --ACase0000 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• @ACase0000: It doesn't matter whether or not you created those images; those characters are copyrighted, and your creation(s) are derivative works. The copyright(s) of the likeness(es) of the character(s) is still owned by the creator of the character(s). Feel free to update the non-free tags I placed on the images to ensure they do not get deleted by keeping their fair-use claims (by staying that you created them); stating that they are free images is blatant copyright infringement. Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It is my first time uploading images myself. I only created one of them. Can you please update the information? :-) --ACase0000 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@ACase0000: Which one are you referring to? File:Luke (Thomas & Friends).png? Steel1943 (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I created the Alfie image. If that is what you mean. :-) --ACase0000 (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed a category is misspelled. Category:People by company in the United Kindgom. As you notice the word "Kindgom" should be "Kingdom". When I checked the page's history the article has been here since June 2, 2015. How can this be solved? I -- User:Knudde Kjell, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Knudde Kjell:, Looks like GeoffreyT2000 already started a request to move the category here. Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• OK, thanks! -- User:Knudde Kjell, 7:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I notice you have added a non-free reduce request to an SVG I have uploaded. They are scaleable SVGs which despite technically being 0px wide, Wikipedia renders at 512px. It is impossible to render them differently on Wikipedia, and the non-free rendering issue is with Wikipedia itself (perhaps they should render as 256px). The issue is present across the files here: [3]. Until Wikipedia sorts the issue out, it does not make sense putting this template on SVG images. Thanks,   JaJaWa |talk  17:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Anthony Sher in Bill Alexander's RSC production of Richard III.jpeg

Hello Steel 1943 Thank you for looking at Bill Alexander (director) and checking out the photo use. I have added (as I see it) extensive rationales for both the 'directing volpone' image and the 'Sher in Richard III' image. I now can't see them, however! As you'll have guessed, I'm a beginner at this, (although my love for Wikipedia is of long standing). You'll also probably have guessed that I'm a writer not a coder! thanks in anticipation

I am looking for urgent help!

(Moobel (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC))

• @Moobel: I tried to resolve the concerns that I have by editing the image(s), but I don't think that my concerns can be resolved. I either have nominated some of them for deletion, or will here shortly. The notifications of the discussions will be on your talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Steel1943 Thank you for your advice re the images on this entry, finally I think I understand, particularly with regard to living subjects! Moobel (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There are still a lot of interesting things that can be done on this project:

1. At Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Rejected requests, you will find that many requests are declined because of parallel histories. Most of the pages don't have proper attribution of content which has to fixed by use of the flags such as ((Copied)) on the talk page. (example edit, another).
2. Take a look at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#2015. The user is banned from creating articles and thus has a huge repository of artilces in his userspace. Check them for any copyright issues (unlikely to be found) and move them to the mainspace.

Thanks, 103.6.159.76 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right about the heading anchors. It's just a small area where we disagree. The only places I don't usually use anchors within headers are those pages where I know bots keep track of things. Bots don't do well around anchors within headers, so I then place the anchors just beneath the headers, as you do. Other than that I put anchors in headers and sub the ((anchor comment)) template just beneath the headers. Up to now, that template has been able to explain how to deal with long edit summaries. Just wondering what part of the template you don't understand? Pleasant pathways, Paine  23:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Paine Ellsworth: I understand the template, but don't agree with ((Anchor))'s use in section headers solely due to the fact that that it breaks edit notices, and most won't care to fix it, leaving a broken edit history. Once upon a time a while ago, there was another page that had anchors in every section header; I had to fix future edits in a similar fashion since every section redirect in the edit notices for the past two years were all broken. Steel1943 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Broken how, exactly?  Paine  17:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Look at the last 50 edits of the page where I reverted your edit. The section I reverted has been edited a good amount of times, and all with broken section redirects to a section named "‎((anchor|Alphabetical listing))Alphanumeric listing". Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I must be wearing a dunce cap, because I cannot see how exactly those edit summaries are "broken". Yes, they're a bit longer because of the anchor, but that hasn't "broken" the summaries, it merely lengthened them. And as is mentioned in the ((anchor comment)) template, if a longer edit summary from an editor is needed, then the anchor can be erased from the edit summary. So again I must ask, exactly what is it that you think is "broken" by placing an anchor in its correct position within the subject header???  Paine  18:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: In the edit notices, the difference is "→‎((anchor|Alphabetical listing))Alphanumeric listing:" vs. "→‎Alphanumeric listing:". In both situations where the anchor is in the section headset and when it is out of the section header, clicking on the "→" in the aforementioned examples will forward the reader to the section only if the notice appears as ""→‎Alphanumeric listing:". Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

And once again, my friend, you both amaze me and instruct me. Part of my problem is that I've never used those little arrow links, although I do see their utility. Also, I've had several talks with editors about anchor positions inside headers, above headers, below headers, and about several possible options in regard to anchor positions, and never has anyone raised the breakage of the arrow links as an issue in the positioning. That begs the question of just how important is the utility of the arrow links compared with the utility of placing anchors within headers to fix broken links and to not be too confusing to others (confusion can arise if anchors are placed above or below headers, each type of positioning with its own drawbacks). I did a few tests on one of my essay pages (it's a lot shorter than the rcat index and therefore renders faster for test purposes), and I found also that edit summaries on history pages aren't the only places the arrow links appear. The following link is a diff page that shows the arrows on the left and right sides just before the edit summaries within the parens. The arrow on the left side will take you straight down to the See also section on the same page (which is different from the arrows on the history page that open a new page) – The arrow on the right side, which precedes an edit summary that contains an anchor template, does nothing: essay diff. As you can see (and probably already knew) anchors within headers break those diff arrows, as well. So you were right once again, Steel Man, and I ne'er shoulda doubted it! I should also note that I tested the HTML anchor, <span id="anchor_name">...</span>, within a section header, and it does not appear to break the arrow links nor lengthen the edit summary. It's anything that can appear in the URL between the number sign (#) and the header title that breaks the arrows.  Paine  05:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I would request that you immediately close the file for deletion case Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion#File:Operation_Barbarossa_Infobox.jpg as you flagged it for NFG, even though all images being used are credible and sourced on Wikimedia commons.

Thank you KevinNinja (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I do not understand why the urgency to close this discussion. An admin will close after the 7 days have passed. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that the ((self)), ((GFDL-self)) and ((GFDL-self-with-disclaimers)) templates contain a source as the templates state that the uploader is the copyright holder. Files with these templates should not be tagged with "no source". You should only tag files with "no source" if the uploader didn't specify who the author or copyright holder is. If you dispute the source, list the file at PUF instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. I saw that the summary information on those files only included the subject of the picture; I was under the understanding that "source" also meant that information about how the uploader created the image was necessary. Makes more sense now. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

On the request of Jeff Dye, I ask that you stop reverting my changes to his wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogert96 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Yogert96: See WP:NFCC#1. In a nutshell, this Wikipedia policy states that a non-free image (such as the file you uploaded and placed on Jeff Dye) should not replace a free image when one exists (such as the image that you have attempted to replace on Jeff Dye) or if a free equivalent can still be created (which it still can since the subject of the image is still alive). Wikipedia is not a means for promotion. In fact, in all honesty, the only way the image you uploaded, File:Jeff-dye-2015.jpg, will be able to remain on Wikipedia is if you can have it released under a free license and get permission from the copyright holder to do so: for the process on this (if you are able to do this), see WP:CONSENT. Steel1943 (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Si Trew has asked for a discussion to address the redirect (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — 'twere me. (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Si Trew, well dang, I kind of miss helping out at RFD. However, with the flood of nominations there right now of redirects that have all been created by one specific editor, I've kind of laid low from there for a while since that seems to be what RFD is right now, and those large pages are killing my browser. However, lately, I've been more active helping out with pages and noticeboards related to the "File:" namespace; I just needed a change of pace, I guess. I mean, I'm so involved that this happened. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to apologize; didn't notice those people had removed it. SanctuaryX (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• @SanctuaryX: No worries. Hope all gets resolved over there! Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know your edits may/have been discussed at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#AfD_culture. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey S, for books it should be noted to use book formatting and not article formatting. Please click onto Help:Books/for experts#Saving books, then scroll on down to Allowed syntax, where further on down you will come to Formatting an article title, which reads "You can use a pipe to add formatting to a title." Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Discographer: Thanks for the heads-up on that! (I did not know of this guideline, and just compared Book:Diana Ross to Book:Brandy Norwood, and here's what happens!) Well, I'll revert, given that all piping I removed has to be in italics anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Discographer: Beat me to it, I see! Steel1943 (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I see you keep attempting to reupload File:TheMuppetsStudiologo.jpg, because it didn't show the new picture. However, I can see the new picture just fine and might know what your problem is. Try opening the page in a different browser than you normally use, or delete the cache and cookies in your current browser. Elisfkc (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

...for your kind words. They're greatly appreciated. :-)

Happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943. The file was added to the NFCR discussion "User:Davidstewartharvey/sandbox" mid-discussion. See Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 70#User:Davidstewartharvey/sandbox for reference. Thank you for fixing the license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CFS. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:CFS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst✈^(discuss) 14:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Perfect timing. Just enough time for me to start checking and see if it was something I needed to comment about. Gave me a good chuckle. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• @CambridgeBayWeather: I had to blink 182 times to realize that "Untitled" seems to be an official alternate title for that album. Ya don't see that every day... ha. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I text you for your messages about deleted these files (File:Courtney Kennedy.jpg, File:Chris Kennedy.jpg, File:Max Kennedy.jpg, File: Doug Kennedy.jpg, File: Edward Kennedy, Jr.jpg), not is necessary deleted them because, how I put in the summary of each one of them in source and not replaceable with free media because, are files that were take of free media as are news or social sites like pinterest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlejandroR1990 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• @AlejandroR1990: All of the sites that you just referenced are not the original source of where and/or how these pictures were created. The licensing tags you placed are actually correct; since you are not the copyright holder, and since you (or I) are not able to verify if the uploader was able to release these images with a free license, they are assumed to be non-free, requiring that the image have a fair-use rationale which you did do. However, since they have to have a fair-use claim, the images are subject to the non-free content criteria: there are 10 criteria that have to be met to allow a non-fee image to remain on Wikipedia. However, all of the images you uploaded fail the first criterion since the subjects are still alive. A better explanation of what types of non-free images are not allowed can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images; the very first point there states that non-free images of biographical subjects that are still alive are considered replaceable, and thus fail the first non-free content criterion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, is impossible to know who make these pictures and when, I could lie saying that these people gave me permission to use their pictures but it isn't my style for that I put non-free work — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlejandroR1990 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Upon a closer look I saw too late that this image is watermarked, I will let it resize the image but will need to replace it anyways slightly cropped or altered to remove the promotion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Knowledgekid87: No worries. Either way, I tagged the image as so. Steel1943 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks, and all set now =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943,

With regards to the issue of copyright for the following files:

I believe I did provide evidence of permission. The proof of public domain and permission to allow replication is explicitly listed on the image source / website. If you go to the bottom of the page of the link I provided at Vancouver Archives, you will find the following information posted:

Basis: Copyright Copyright status: Public domain

   Act: Replicate
   Restriction: Allow

As such, I believe this is a photograph that once had copyright, is now public domain, and the source website has publicly posted a status stating explicitly that the general public is 'allowed' to replicate.

If you have any questions, please let me know. I've left a copy of this message on the talk page of the original article, too.

thanks, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Sturgeontransformer: Looks like my concerns that resulted in me placing those permission tags were both resolved by Stefan2 changing the copyright tag you placed. Thus, I have removed the "permission concern" tags from both files. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Steel. I was not ignoring your hints: [4]. I was in the middle of trying to upload several new logo images and replace old ones, but I did see your "SVG needed" templates on the new file pages. Unfortunately, I do not have the technical skills to implement the conversion of these images from jpegs to the SVG format, but I have requested assistance at the Graphics Lab talk page [5], and hopefully someone will have the time to assist in the next few days. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: I don't have the skills either. In fact, those templates are placed to, more or less, categorize the files for anyone who watches the applicable category to convert the files to SVG. I think all but one of your recent uploads have simple enough coloration to be converted to SVG; the one that was not had a grey background and a trademark symbol. If you don't get to it (I don't know how to create SVGs either), someone else probably and hopefully will eventually. Steel1943 (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Your dedication to patrolling new uploads and keeping copyright violations off Wikipedia is greatly appreciated! Lets see how many more times we trip over each other's edits Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 21:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Steel1943!

Are you absolutely certain a Shantae series article is justified on Wikipedia? I mean, I believe it could be, as there is seemingly enough content to make one, but I'm not 100% about the Wikipedia rules. And if it is, do you plan on writing it, or at least create a stub? I might do one eventually if it's justified, but I want to know your plans, if any, first.90.10.152.82 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• @90.10.152.82: Considering that the series has three titles and a confirmed fourth, I'd say yes. In fact, I already have a draft/stub created. If I publish it, would you be interested in helping me work on it ASAP? Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As information, I created redirects to the series article for the two cancelled games. -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Ferret! Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, the article has been created at Shantae (series). Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Hi again! I will try and see what I can do for the series article. About the article for the first game, Ferret suggested that a running for GA was not too far-fetched. The discussion on the video game project talk page has mentioned that at least a review for copyvio was necessary before that, but do you think it would qualify afterwards?90.10.152.82 (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Why are Disambig rules over ruling list rules? Any idea what is going on? How can this be stopped?

I watch and support a list page. List of people with surname Carpenter and it is bizarre watching the diambig bots and disabig editors tearing apart the list of names. Having dozens of disambig pages for common first names is one thing but forcing lists of names into using dozens of disambig pages is nuts. It creates great confusion and defeats the purpose of lists. It almost appears they - those particular disambig editors- are running amok.

Disambiguation pages#Given names or surnames
Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them.

By applying disambiguation to list articles they are violating Wiki standards.

Example: List of people with surname Spencer [edit] Shortcut: WP:APOLIST The Spencer (surname) has a good deal of content, so adding the full list of people with the surname would be excessive. There are enough persons with that surname to support its own list. List of people with surname Spencer is not a disambiguation page; it is a List.

Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Marchjuly (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Steel1943/HappyHolidays)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for the greeting Steel1943. I hope you and yours also have a happy and safe holiday season. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, I was planning to start the article on Salve music today, which is the reason why I put the link in the page you took down. But then I found that there is an section on it here. I wonder if this link would be appropriate for the Salve disambiguation page? Thanks. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Caballero1967: In that case, there are one of two options: either the title can be created as a redirect to the section you referenced, or the auricle can be created (or even create the redirect, then overwrite it with an article later. However, either way, afterwards, you will want to revert the disambiguation page back to the first edit you did on Salve (disambiguation); otherwise, the entry will fail MOS:DABENTRY for having multiple blue links. Hope that helps! Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks. Let me see if I understand you. Since there is already something written on the subject, I will not write anything (perhaps just improve what is already there). So, according to what I think you said, I should create a redirect toward this subsection in the disambiguation page? Caballero/Historiador (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Caballero1967: Whether it not the subject needs a standalone article would be up to your own discretion. What I am suggesting, more or less, is that the quickest resolution that doesn't require writing an article is to create Salve (Dominican) as a redirect towards Music of the Dominican Republic#Salves. Then, the first edit you performed on Salve (disambiguation) would be sufficient in allowing your new addition to meet the standards of MOS:DAB in full. Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas2)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It would've been nice to receive a notice like you're supposed to when nominating something for deletion. I'd recommend you do that in the future because not everyone sees it until it is too late. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 10:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Corkythehornetfan: I nominated that file via Twinkle, so I would have thought that it would have automatically notified the uploader about the fact that it was nominated, but I guess that may not have happened. Also, it seems that the rationale in my nomination may have been wrong anyways since the file is now on Commons, meaning that it was deleted since it shadowed a Commons file, and in this case, it was the same file. (In other words, the file is considered free by others, so it being non-free was not the reason why the local copy on Wikipedia was deleted, but rather because it was consisted free enough to be put on Commons.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: per this edit, I confirmed that Twinkle does provide notices to the talk page of the uploader when the file is nominated. If you did not receive a notification, you were most likely not the file's uploader. Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

hai my friend I answered your questions Now check Google if you have any doubts--Imahesh3847 (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)mahesh

• @Imahesh3847: I saw some of your answers. With the exception of the images you claim are from your drone, your responses to my concerns about copyright infringement validate my concerns. Files that are "found on the internet" are most likely copyrighted by the original uploader at the site. You've claimed that you have the permission to release them with a free license, which you do not. Wikipedia can only host files that are truly able to be released as free by their uploader (or they have explicit permission to do so from the uploader), or by declaring the image non-free with a fair-use rationale. On a side note, the images you uploaded would no be able to be kept here with a fair-use claim either since they would all then fail WP:NFCC#1 since they could be replaced with a free equivalent. Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Tanukucentre and Expressway are from Internet but not the other 3 images. tanukucentre is from tripmondo.com another one is from Facebook which has no copyright holder --Imahesh3847 (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)mahesh

bye BRO we can see tommorow I'm going to sleep . only Tanukucentre image is from tripmondo.com--Imahesh3847 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)mahesh

• @Imahesh3847: Again, with the exception of the drone images, you are for sure not the copyright holder of any of the other images, and thus they need to be removed for legal reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok then remove them now itself --Imahesh3847 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)mahesh

• Comment I tagged all of this uploader's files with either ((db-f9)) or ((subst:rfu)). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page about the Possibly unfree image I didn't know about this but I have an autism spectrum disorder can you help me?--EDMultra7 (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)