User talk:Steel1943/Archive 4

• Also, could the same be done with
  Template protection? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk
  ) 06:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

These two requests have been done, but please do not make any significant changes to Template:Db-meta without discussing on its talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• MSGJ, Thank you. I am aware that messing up {{Db-meta}} could have some sure adverse effects. The edits that I am thinking about doing I believe to be non-destructive and non-intrusive to the functionality of the template. I plan on posting a note in Template talk:Db-meta prior to doing anything substantial. I might be working on Template:Db-meta/sandbox later to explain and show the changes I am talking about. Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you are now edit warring to enforce screwing up our archives, I've started fixing the archives directly. You'd think someone would take care of that when the retargeted the rd, but I guess my expectations are too high. — kwami (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, I apologize for undoing your edit without talking to you first. This is actually the first time that I have seen in the history of me having any part in

WP:RFD discussions that it was practice to change any links in archives, talk pages, or other "non-essential" pages after their target was changed. To me, the action you took was, in essence, editing links so that they did not appear as they did originally, and could alarm a user if they saw their archives edited for any reason. As another reference, when disambiguation work is done that makes a few hundred pages' links point to one disambiguation page, the links in talk pages and archives are not corrected. Anyways, this is my take. But, as I said, I have never seen it done differently than the way I closed it. Steel1943 (talk

) 08:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that.

There are other cases, I think, were we've kept odd links so that the archives still function. In this case, many of the talk pages refer to specific conventions described in the target page, so changing that page makes the talk pages and archives nonsensical. Rather defeats the purpose of keeping an archive, though I suppose if someone were ambitious enough, they could go through the edit histories of the links. — kwami (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which, earlier today, I realized that I completely forgot to do something that I usually do when moves like this occur: leave a hatnote on the previous new target letting editors and readers know about the new target. I have now remedied this on

Help:IPA for English. (I was wondering for a while today what I forgot/used to do to prevent redirect references from being completely broken; it was adding a hatnote on the new target!) Steel1943 (talk

) 04:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts and am sorry if I snapped at you. I'm just so tired recently of idiot admins (and others) that I tend to react to everyone that way. I'm even afraid to make a routine move request for a typo, because often as not the admin will fail to leave a link and a bot will follow behind deleting all the redirects, and if I specifically request that a link be left to prevent this, then other admins edit war with me over my subsequent request to delete that link once the redirects are fixed. So utterly simple to do correctly, and yet so difficult to get someone to do it without creating a mess that it's easier to just leave articles at misspelled names. I'm glad we still have some like you around. — kwami (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Would an administrator be able to look at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#David Z real quick? I want to make sure this issue gets resolved before it accidentally gets any worse. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have replied at

talk

) 10:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (again)

JamesBWatson for doing the detective work to figure out the issue. Unfortunately, as a non-admin, I do not believe that I can see a title's move and deletion history when there is a created page at its location. If I could have, (and I never did the careless move), I would have never had a reason to bring this up! Again, thanks! Steel1943 (talk

) 15:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I realise that. It's so easy to make a move, then think you may have done it wrong, and you have no way of going back and checking. I can easily imagine how you must have felt about it.

talk

) 20:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Steel1943. First, I can safely assume that you acted respectfully and in good faith when you chose to delete my request for an Admin help on "Talk page". The thing is that you left me hanging... and did not give me an alternative to get an Admin's attention. Can you perhaps tell me how to get an Admin's attention to review, and, if he/she agrees with the consensus analysis, move the article? Thanks again. Worldedixor (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey

editnotice on that article's talk page: place the {{Admin help}} template on a section on your own user talk page, and then below the template, asking or stating the question/request for the administrator to answer/resolve, referencing the move discussion on Talk:Maron (specifically [[Talk:Maron#Requested move]] , if you would like a formatted link post in your note; you can just copy and paste it). Hope that helps! Steel1943 (talk

) 04:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact, if you would like a good example, look at my request for administrative assistance on my user talk page directly above this section. :) Steel1943 (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Super!... That helped a lot... thanks a million... we need to clone here... Count me in when you need a vote for admin. Worldedixor (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Funk may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks,

•  Done. Fixed it. Steel1943 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Today, you closed the move request. You wrote there is no consensus to move the title to "Millennial Generation". Just fyi, there was no consensus to move it from Generation Y to Millennials either.

My question for you is: does "consensus" or lack of it among a few editors trump Wikipedia's title policy? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title

Also if you are a non-admin then can this move request be opened up in another admin venue?

Thank you.

172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hey
  WP:XFD
  request on Wikipedia: considered everything.

1. First, I saw the move discussion that happened earlier on the page regarding the
   Harbour Defence Motor Launch to HDML
   , but there was not enough attention paid to it by other editors to fairly say that there was any consensus for that move.
2. Another point that you brought up, and actually something that I had to learn myself when I started editing on Wikipedia:
   WP:TITLECASE
   , but consensus decided to not give that guideline consideration for the requested move to get it to lowercase. Essentially, if a editor doesn't agree with a guideline applying to a particular case, they can disagree with it and not follow it, but only if consensus agrees with not following the guideline in that case: otherwise, the edit could be controversial. In your move request's case, it was controversial, and the peers who presented their cases during the discussion had mixed thoughts on the move, which actually brings me to my next point:
3. There's a difference between what "No consensus" means versus "Not moved". "No consensus" means that the discussion went in too many directions to be able to make a clear decision: when this happens, the practice/precedent is to not perform any action, including the requested action that is part if the discussion. "Not moved", as it would have pertained to your move request, would have meant that it was very clear that the editors who participated were able to provide very good reasons (most likely through precedent or guidelines) that were disagreeing with the presented move, reefer ring to the presented move ONLY. In your move request's specific case, there was such a combination of opposes (most per
   Generation Y
   that doing any of the three aforementioned options had a reasonable amount of disagreement by the presenters of the other two options for any to be considered.

• Note: In your move's case, I had to make a judgement call to basically predict if having the discussion go on for another week would clarify consensus for any of the three major options provided during the move request. Due to the direction I felt the discussion was taking, I did not believe that having that specific discussion go on for another week would have provided any enough clarity for any of the three major options presented to declare which one was clearly agreed, with good reason, by a majority and for similar reasons. Given that, I closed the discussion.

IN A NUTSHELL, to answer your concerns promptly,

"policies" can be disregarded in favor of consensus, there was previously consensus to move the title to Millennials during a previous move discussion, and "no consenusus" means that there was not a clear call for any direction in a discussion having preference over the others (so thus no action was taken). If you want to open up another discussion on Millennials

to move it, you can (I'm not saying that I'm not sticking by my decision to close the previous discussion to "no consensus." I'm saying that a new discussion might be able to clarify consensus if it was started from scratch. And, unless you are banned or blocked by an administrator [which I hope never happens to any good, productive editor], you can open up as many discussions as you like.) Also, you were in the correct venue to request the move; move requests can be closed by anyone capable of making a good decision (hopefully based on consensus) to confidently close the move; technically, the main difference between non-admins and admins on Wikipedia is access to deletion tools and the ability to block editors.

...And please keep in mind: just like you and I, and just like any administrator or non-administrator on here, we are all volunteers trying to make Wikipedia the best free and accurate source of information available to anyone. Anyways, I apologies for my long response to your question, but I hope I addressed everything. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Would an administrator be able to go ahead and carry out the

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ronhjones, Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, regarding: Hapa

I requested protection and you replied " Note: From what I am seeing, it looks like there are at least two sockpuppet "masters", and one of them looks like a duck. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)"

Can you please clarify? From what I can see there are several other unique users making similar arguments on both the article and talk page (I am ignoring anonymous IPs). All including myself have been reverted by a single user. Thanks

Pendrop9 TAG_Speakers KAVEBEAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyglottz (talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• full protection; instead, user(s) are blocked from editing (but as I said, that will be up to the administrator who takes action on your case.) Also, please refer to the links I provided in the answer for clarification on the terms I used. Steel1943 (talk
  ) 02:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link to the sockpuppet investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TAG_speakers/Archive

It's worth noting that Polyglottz edited the "Paul Spickard" article on November 3, 2013 while TAG speakers made edits to the same article on October 4, 2013 and again on November 11, 2013.

Aside from looking at the edit history of Hapa, please look at the article's talk page. Polyglottz's and others' arguments have been thoughtfully and civilly responded to. Polyglottz/TAG speakers is acting like he owns the article and refuses to engage in the consenus-building process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKia (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RFPP. Steel1943 (talk
  ) 03:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm very new to Wikipedia. I don't want to be blocked from editing merely because a bully using sockpuppets is trying to get the Wikipedia authorities to stop me from editing. How do I address the sockpuppetry problem during this page protection request? Do I have to wait until an administrator makes a decision and then point out Polyglottz's sockpuppetry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKia (talk • contribs) 03:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SPI. Steel1943 (talk
  ) 03:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the response on the

Just thought you'd like to know – I just used the new merge=yes parameter for the first time at Talk:R:BASE System. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Paine Ellsworth, looks nice! I'm thinking of possibly making the parameter trigger the page being put in a category as well. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well keep in mind that the redirect is sorted into Cat:Redirects from merges. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

• @
  Db-blanked}} tag on Wikipedia:RFPP/H (so thus, I closed the discussion). Your point is valid, and I have no refute for it. Steel1943 (talk
  ) 20:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The RM has closed, but I think there is sufficient sourcing for a standalone article on the second Xu, including Xu change to Yee/Yu. Are you still of the opinion the families should be demerged? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• @
  List of Chinese surnames) ... but now, I noticed that my reasoning was not good since all of those examples redirect to articles without diacritics anyways. With that being said, I now have no opinion either way. Steel1943 (talk
  ) 04:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• @
  Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: no problem. Glad to help. I was once a new editor trying to figure out the discussion forums; it can be a bit confusing at first. Steel1943 (talk
  ) 20:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Very, very, very bad. Are you Canadian? Are you a Canadian indigenous person? Did you think to look at the full scope of categories and lists before 'relisting' this? See

• @
  its talk page. Also, another option you have would be to ask the editor/administrator who closed the RM for clarification on how they formed consensus for the move, which I see you have already done. Steel1943 (talk
  ) 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasons for edit, and also the sensible ground you have taken and comments made following recent entry into this discussion, but per WP:BRD Zanhe has restored, and boldly or not, creating articles always has to be better than blanking, deleting sources, ... What Zanhe has demonstrated here is that the issue of notability and the repeated forum shopping attempts to merge these families is spurious. In which case no reason not to go ahead and do what Wikipedia does. At this point enough disruption/prevention of article growth has occurred. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@

WP:ANRFC so the RfC can be formally closed. (I'd close it myself, but since I'm a bit involved with my reverts and I do agree with you, I cannot.) Steel1943 (talk

) 03:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is getting near the point, but it'd be better with a few of those who've previously commented looking at the situation now after Zanhe's raft of improvements. I was quite surprised that even with Li (chestnut) which is a "new" name, there was so much material. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed this edit you made to a page on my watchlist. Your edit summary was "replaced template". It would be helpful for other editors if your summaries for similar edits mentioned what templates you were changing - for example: "Replaced:

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Hello Steel. I have undone your closure of the above RFD, purely for technical reasons: How can you close a discussion as delete when you are not able to do the actual deletion?--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)`

• @Jac16888:, like I always have. Look at Kainaw's criteria: I have marked it with the appropriate {{Db-xfd}} tag. For this reason, I'm reverting your unclosing my close. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NACD is about as clear as policies come and I feel that your use of that speedy delete tag is not what it is intended for. Please revert yourself and follow policy, if you feel the policy should be changed then you should make a proposal at the correct venue--Jac16888 ^Talk

19:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• @
  WP:RFD discussions in cases where consensus seems rather clear, and if there is not another administrator to take action on relisting or closing the discussion. In fact, I have then seen an administrator involved in the discussion perform the "speedy deletion". I apologize for coming off rude in my response on my talk page: I thought that this was either a known or accepted process. If you feel the need to revert my close of the discussion, I will not revert it again. Anyways, time for me to retire again. Take care. Steel1943 (talk
  ) 19:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologise if it was something I had said that has caused you to leave, it was not my intention to upset you in anyway, I was just trying to point out that what you were doing was, for better or worse, against policy--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)