User talk:Steel1943

Glad to see you're back

I like your new sig colour, too. Happy editing, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 22:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Can you give an example of what I should put, I keep putting ce (copy edit) for the summaries. From User_talk:DareshMohan/Archive_5#September_2024 DareshMohan (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DareshMohan: If I don't know what to say, I type "ce" as my edit summary. I'd think what you are doing now works. (Sorry for the late reply, haven't looked at my talk page in a while and may have missed the notification for this post.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote question

Hi Steel1943,

I saw a hatnote you put on Transgender (talk) that the article used bare URLS that need cleanup. I went through the ~300-400 sources in the combined reflist and sourcelist and found and corrected 2 bare URLS. I replaced some primary sources with secondary sources, reformatted some references, and added a couple URLS to existing refs along the way.

I'm wondering if there was some other reason for this note or other concern that needs to be addressed. I know this article uses a mix of citation styles, and see that MOS recommends consistency within an article; adjusting that style could be a larger project for the page. Still, as far as I can tell, they are all pretty complete in their bibliographic information. Am I missing something?

~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Malvoliox: I responded on Talk:Transgender#Bare URL hatnote/reference concerns where you started an identical discussion. (Also, for what it's worth, what I placed on the top of the article was not a hatnote, so it took me a moment to realize what you were referring to.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! What's the word for that kind of template? ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 19:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Malvoliox: Per Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup, there are a few names for it, but the one I see the most often on other pages "cleanup tag". Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry to clutter your talk page, I appreciate your helping me understand. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 21:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Malvoliox: No worries. Glad to help. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 1#WLBJ (defunct)

Should this be relisted? Plant🌱man (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, it may not be. For what I'm looking at, an administrator might be able to close this to a status I cannot, but I'm not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well thanks for the help anyway. Plant🌱man (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantman: Thanks for helping out at RfD. 😀 Steel1943 (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Steel! Plant🌱man (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Televsion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Televsion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 24 § Televsion until a consensus is reached. Xoontor (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UPE sock

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekz Cos.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: May want to consider Adityanetclues as well then. I was going to also mention Shifon Eggs, but they have already been blocked. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that account and was going to let it go as abandoned, but changed my mind.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. In response, I tagged the user page. Steel1943 (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaundryPizza03

Everything after Ritchie's reply has nothing to do with the RFA and everything to do with sniping back and forth, so I removed it. Their first reply provides their counter argument to your support, which is fine. What happened after isn't fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: My first response to him actually did. Without any part of my response, it reads as though I did not acknowledge his response regarding if I read his essay. Sure, I did not, but I acknowledged his comment and attempted to word it in a way that would hopefully persuade future oppose voters to thinking twice. But now, that has been removed and the state of the discussion thread can make it look like either I de facto agree with the response, which I don't, since it looks as though I never responded to it, which is not true, or I didn't read and respond to his response, which is not true; leaving the discussion open in the manner like you did removes the effort I did to attempt that. So, I would recommend some sort of advice here or some other way of editing the discussion to reflect this ... because I highly doubt you are attempting to persuade more voters into the "oppose" column with your revert given WP:MONITOR, but from the outside, it can look that way. (In addition, I don't see what in the discussion was eligible to be removed [vs. redacted] per WP:MONITOR, given none of the discussion seemed to warrant a block in response, but that's not a path I desire to travel further than pointing it out.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that right now it looks like you're someone who, over many years, has no desire to interact with [them] further than they can throw planet Earth. A less snippy reply back to them would be fine, but the whole point of this exercise is to determine if someone should be an admin with minimal drama and stress, not to argue with someone you don't like. I suggest a quick read of User talk:Tryptofish#RFA where I've had a similar discussion about my RFA monitor actions. To save you the click, the important part is It's a difficult position, since I'm a single person trying to use my judgement to act on what the community consensus on what is acceptable. We're all aware that any consensus about what exactly is actionable incivility is pretty shakey, and varies widely based on who shows up to talk about it, and who's actions are being discussed. I'm sorry that I'm not taking the actions you'd like to see, and I mean that with no snark. Just know that I'm trying to moderate the discussion in line with my understanding of what most editors would think is acceptable or unacceptable, and applying that evenly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: After considering everything, including thanking you immensely for your civil approach to all this, I decided that ... me commenting further in that RfA really doesn't serve any further purpose anymore. The trajectory of the RfA is now blatantly obvious, and any comments I state anywhere or to anybody have a minimal chance of changing anything now. I'm now really "meh", but it's better than it has been for me in the past in similar situations, and I really have lots of thanks to you for that. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clash like the above is why I keep logging in every day. It's how we maintain a civil editing environment for everybody, not just us. You guys rock. BusterD (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ramuh" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ramuh has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 13 § Ramuh until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please relist the RfD for Russia hoax

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_9#Russia_hoax

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Given that I'd rather close it to "no consensus" at this point, I'll have to refrain from taking any action. Steel1943 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then just close it. Then we can carry on. Right now we are stuck. I have created content worthy of a target at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Trump claims it's all a "hoax" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but thank you for the command. Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I didn't mean it that way. Sorry. I just meant that you are welcome to do so if you wish. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Regarding the move request I made, I just want to clarify - is it acceptable if I simply cut and paste the edit material into the other redirect? I was under the impression that this would be a violation of policy, but I do see how it may not be necessary to preserve the history. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Just-a-can-of-beans: Thanks for reaching out. There's two ways to go about this that could be considered acceptable when it comes to editor attribution: 1) after the move, requesting a history merge via Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, or 2) after the cut-paste move has been performed, place respective {{Copied}} templates on both of the respective pages' talk pages. Regarding your specific scenario, I would say the best option is the 2nd one I mentioned, which is using {{Copied}} templates. (In fact, I recently went through this process myself: See EA Sports College Football 25, EA Sports College Football, and their respective talk pages.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]