User talk:Steel1943

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thorax may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ], [[esophagus]], [[trachea]] and a part of the [[sternum]] known as the [[xiphoid process]]), as well as the content of the thoracic abdomen ([[stomach]], [[kidney]]/[[adrenal]], [[pancreas]],
• ].<ref>[http://www.aocd.org/skin/dermatologic_diseases/polymorphous_light_eruption.html aocd.org > Dermatology Polymorphous Light Eruption] American Osteopathic College of Dermatology. Retrieved on

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatnot

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)

Bored

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)

Your 10 "version 2" move requests at about 01:01, 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)

Paintbrush

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aqueduct

Pratigya/version 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pratigya

The Goldfinch/version 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

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)

Google pakistan listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

General comments

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)

Earlier admin discussions

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)

Admin help request for Module:Testtehshvghb

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)

Relisted at RfD

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)

Thank you

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

I don't get it

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)

ANRFC

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)

I INTENDED TO KEEP MY STUFF UP! ©©©©©©©©©©WIKI ZACHARY

"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

260px 260px 260px

References

(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)

AE LARISSA FC

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

Template:Clear

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)

Two logos in one article?

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 [1] 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)

File:Johnny & the Dicks.jpg

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)

RE: Orphaned non-free image File:Memrise logo 2015, with cyan background.png

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)

Making clear that there is no copyrights problem with Pkgdj.jpg

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)

Fair use of File:Traquair 1938 Clinical Perimetry Chpt 1 p 4.png

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)

File mover

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)

File Information

First a long URL http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan3/catscan2.php?categories=All+free+media&negcats=All+non-free+media%0D%0AWikipedia+files+of+no+use+beyond+Wikipedia%0D%0ACopy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0ACopy+to+Wikimedia+Commons+%28inline-identified%29%0D%0ACopy+to+Wikimedia+Commons+reviewed+by+Sfan00+IMG%0D%0AFiles+with+poor+sources%0D%0AAll+Wikipedia+files+with+unknown+source%0D%0AAll+Wikipedia+files+with+unknown+copyright+status%0D%0AAll+possibly+unfree+Wikipedia+files%0D%0AWikipedia+files+with+disputed+copyright+information%0D%0ASelf-published+work%0D%0AWikipedia+files+with+unconfirmed+permission+received+by+OTRS&ns%5B6%5D=1&templates_no=Already+moved+to+Commons%0D%0Absr%0D%0Ac-uploaded%0D%0AConvert+to+SVG+and+copy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0ACopy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0Adb-meta%0D%0ADeletable+file%0D%0ADeleted+on+Commons%0D%0ADo+not+move+to+Commons%0D%0Aduplicate%0D%0Adyk%0D%0Aesoteric+file%0D%0Aexample+files%0D%0Affd%0D%0Afile+at+CCI%0D%0AFormerFeaturedPicture%0D%0AImagewatermark%0D%0AKeep+local%0D%0Am-cropped%0D%0ANFUR+not+needed%0D%0Anominated+for+deletion+on+Commons%0D%0ANotMovedToCommons%0D%0ANow+Commons%0D%0AOTRS+pending%0D%0Aout+of+copyright+in%0D%0APD-ineligible-USonly%0D%0App-protected%0D%0App-template%0D%0Aprotected+generic+image+name%0D%0Aprotected+image%0D%0Aprotected+sister+project+logo%0D%0Apuf%0D%0AShadowsCommons%0D%0ASplit+media%0D%0Auserspace+file%0D%0AWikipedia+screenshot%0D%0Awrong-license%0D%0Ainformation&max_age=60000&only_new=1&sortby=uploaddate&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1

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)

Miscellany for deletion

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)

"Border" on Typeeto logo.png

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)

Admin assistance request

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)

Doors_of_His_Face

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)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

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)

Opacity

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)

Shaun Muir Racing

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)

File:Kubernetes (container engine).png: opacity

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)

Recent "non-free" tagging

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)

Question

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)

Re: SVG non-free reduce

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: [2]. 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)

Bill Alexander (director)

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 Template:Please 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)

Bill Alexander (director)

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)

Bored?

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)

Heading anchors

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)

Deletion

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)

Tagging files without source

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)

Hey

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)