User talk:Cryptic/archive-2: Difference between revisions

As one of the editors who does the actual work, your contribution to the discussion at Template talk:Move to Wiktionary#Move_vs._copy would be valuable. Uncle G 15:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I edited International Talk Like a Pirate Day by removing the wikilink on the second mention of September 19. I see it as over-wikification. You re-wikified it to "allow date preferences to work". You cited Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) as justification. I don't see where it says that every instance of the same date need be linked just to allow for date preferences to work. Could you point out this part of the guideline? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My cite was a shorthand explanation of the feature; I hadn't bumped into you before, and didn't know whether you were familiar with it. I was tired when editing and had not noticed that the same date was already linked earlier in the paragraph as well. While there's something to be said for consistency - someone who has his date preference set shouldn't see "19 September" right next to "September 19" - on a second reading, the extra date is redundant and I have removed it. Is this acceptable? —Cryptic (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That'll work! Dismas|^(talk) 09:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to know that your page was repeatedly blanked today. Several users helped out in the various reversions. If you are making vandals mad, you must be doing something right!? See you around the site. Psy guy ^(talk) 22:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on! Yes those are the two blotches I was referring to. Actually, for the top left one, if you look left a little more, there are a few diagonal streaks there as well :) Thanks for editing the photo. Enochlau 13:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support at my RfA. I was a bit surprised at the level of support. I hope I live up to your expectations. -R. fiend 16:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to sway your vote, it just seems you may not have had full information when voting on the featured picture candidate Hijab. Please see my comment there. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile companies recently, but don't seem to have deleted the article.

Also, I've noticed that you haven't been substing {{vfd top}} and {{vfd bottom}} in your closings. General practice is to subst these, not so much to reduce their impact on server performance (which is probably minimal; most people don't spend too much time paging through the old vfd logs), but because they contain comments saying what to do if an article of the same name is afd'd again - namely, not to erase the old discussion. It's especially problematic because the templates, until, recently, contained backlinks to Template:vfd top and Template:vfd bottom, which makes it impossible to find unsubsted instances through What Links Here (unlike, say, if you had been using the shortcuts from {{vt}}/{{vb}} or {{at}}/{{ab}}). —Cryptic (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that I forgot to actually carry out that deletion. I've just remedied it. As for the "subst" and stuff, well, I've never fully understood what the "subst" means, but I'm happy to use it if that's what one's supposed to do (well, not "happy", I've discovered that AfD closings take long enough without adding more typing to the process, but I'm "willing", anyway). Now, it was difficult to tell from your message, but are the shortcuts you mentioned acceptable? That would be even better (less typing instead of more), and I'd be genuinely happy to use those. -R. fiend 16:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subst: causes the template tag to be converted into the template's contents when the page is saved, instead of staying "{{vfd top}}" and being converted each time the page is viewed. For a practical example, see this diff. Using the shortcuts is better than vfd top/afd top, in that a bot could conceivably be written to fix them, but there isn't a bot that's currently doing this so far as I'm aware. (Sorry about the extremely delayed response; I've been tied up in real life.) —Cryptic (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting the error in the copyvio instruction box- I copied it from WP:CP, I should have checked it twice before notifiying 50 or so people :)--nixie 00:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an error in the box, but a change to the template to make urls with an equals sign in them work properly. (Though changing all of your talk page messages was probably overkill, since if the "url=" is omitted, it still works about half the time.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with the CSD A8 notice- it should say Blank the page and replace the text with {{db-copyvio}} where it currently says, on their talk page, add {{db-copyvio}}. I'd appreciate your help adjusting them again.--nixie 01:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you make the change at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header, I'll go through and mirror it to the user talk pages. I'm a bit leary of changing it myself, given that I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and haven't received a reply there, and that I was one of only six who opposed this speedy criterion. (I still think it's a bad idea. I poses potential harm in the form of articles that don't strictly qualify being speedied, and only minimal benefit in that WP:CP will look shorter, but no actual work will be saved except when the person who initially identifies the infringement deletes it himself.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the leave the text visible part was added to the message- it does not make any sense since as you pointed out the admin will have to check the age and so on anyway- it was also not mentioned in the proposal as far as I know. I think CSD A8 has some potential to help with the WP:CP backlog- very few admins actaully clean up the WP:CP page, to delete 1 days entries takes 1 or more depending on the server lag. If A8 sends 20% of a days copyvios to speedy it will make quite a difference- and will spread the workload a bit more evenly between admins. Just as I was about to remove the instruction - I can see that you have done it, I'll handle the question from any confused people that got the message. Thanks.--nixie 02:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice on the eye picture, I regret not being able to read the message before. You're doing a great job! Hearth 02:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Thanks Cryptic, for catching my mistake. As you can see, the button has now been pushed ;-) — Paul August ☎ 14:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. That was pretty dumb of me. I closed a lot of stuff in quick succession, and I think the 'pedia was being wonky at the time. Will do now. moink 05:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Mea culpa. Thanks! *nuke* · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I haven't done much on Wikipedia for some time now due to a busier schedule, so it was easy to find that in my contribution list. You're right- there is no record of me adding these to the logs. I've handled many TFD's before, so I probably made that mistake because of a distraction of some sorts, not out of ignorance. I notice that I left a message here saying that I was about to delete the template- so I was planning to delete it, I must have gotten distracted by something.

Either way, I neglected to delete them for some reason, so I've logged and deleted all the templates you mentioned. Thanks for telling me, and sorry for missing that before! -Frazzydee|✍ 21:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I nominated the above article for deletion as is does not appear to have anything to do with Bolton Wanderers F.C. or anything else for that matter. Are you admin? If so, I’ll request it be deleted as soon as possible. - Thanks you, Bwfc 10:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and the article doesn't appear to be speedyable. Now that I've listed it properly at WP:AFD (see the instructions at the bottom of that page), it'll almost certainly be deleted within a week or so. —Cryptic (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :) - Bwfc 10:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion but didn't understand your comment - I know it was orphaned, as it came from the list of Dead-end pages. Was there something else I shd have done besides nominating it? Staffelde 22:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was the nomination, not the article, that was orphaned - it hadn't been properly listed on an AFD subpage, so the only people who could find it were those who stumbled across the article, or those who (like me) search through Category:Pages for deletion looking for incomplete nominations like this. Please see the bottom of WP:AFD for the full listing instructions. Specifically, you missed step III. —Cryptic (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice scripts! Have you thought about joining Wikiproject User scripts? Alphax ^τεχ 07:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness! How did you happen across my sub-page? Uncle G 13:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Allpages is a wonderful thing, especially when you're looking to get involved with new-page patrol and recall that someone's written something sensible about triage, but can't remember the exact name. —Cryptic (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Allpages was the most probable of the three hypotheses that I had. You've answered what would have been my supplementary question. ☺ The triage page is linked to from Wikipedia:New pages patrol, by the way. Uncle G 18:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you list this image as "Unknown copyright status"? The disclaimer on the original source of the image begins with the words: "This official website of the “Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India” "... etc. [[1]]

That sounds pretty much like a government agency to me (although the web page looks rather crappy.) The description of the "PD-Indian Gov"-tag primarily deals with photos but states that "Information published by Indian government websites are in Public Domain under the Right to Information Act." Would you please elaborate why this image should not be PD under this definition? --Valentinian 16:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See {{PD-IndiaGov}}'s tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the information. --Valentinian 09:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You had the Margaret Turnbull page speedy deleted and I was curious why, as "re-post" is not a speedy deletion criteria (as near as I can tell). As I understand it, editors should be cautious about re-posts after a delete (or second AfD noms after a keep). Please note also it was deleted on a 2-1 vote, which is hardly overwhelming. Marskell 17:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. If you want the article back, list it on WP:VFU; don't just submit it again. —Cryptic (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see--sorry, browsed the article rather than the general rules. What's the greater evil, red links or re-posts? This name is red-linked in at least four spots. If someone else came along and added the article, unaware of the AfD, would it be speedied immediately? Marskell 17:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usually articles are orphaned when they're deleted via afd, so redlinks shouldn't be an issue. Re-creation by independent sources can be a sign that an article is, in fact, needed, though this argument doesn't seem to hold much weight on VFU. (See, for example, the tortured history of Digg, which went through at least three vfus.) The low turnout may well be a more compelling argument, however, so I encourage you to list it. I don't have any interest one way or the other on the article - I just noticed it show up as a new page on my watchlist. —Cryptic (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did add this incidentally. Boy, tough crowd at undeletion. Going to be a close vote though it shouldn't be. 2-1 is sufficient?! Marskell 08:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may have changed, but last I checked it was 50% and at least three editors favoring undeletion. It will probably still be close. This isn't as obvious as the recent Albert M. Wolters case, but with the SETI Institute connections it's very difficult to see why it was deleted first time around. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just suggesting reconsidering your recommendation for deletion of The_Band_of_Thieves wristband page; I recently updated the page with a picture for the verification of its existence, and I assure you I am no one's puppet, though it was a friend of mine who showed me the website.--Hoov 00:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I missed it. It's been taken care of now, though. Thanks. -R. fiend 16:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... Thanks for your advice. Funnily enough I was about to ask you what I was doing wrong (I know you've 'un-orphaned' a number of my Afd's), when I read your advice above to User:Stafelde. I know it doesn't count for much but I've bookmarked the required instructions and will apply all steps to Afd's in future. Cheers for the gentle redirection! Budgiekiller 17:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G'day from OZ. Yeah I trawl through random articles for various reasons and came across Mr Frew and wasnt sure the best way to go with these mini personal bios of people who probably put them on to see how long they last, or maybe complete naivete. My naivete is that I am not sure of the afd proces - I suspect the person above is in the same boat, so i'll go back to instructions again. Keep up the good work!vcxlor 14:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for reverting that heavy vandalism on my page. Thanks Again --JAranda | watz sup 21:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to No Day/No Night alerted me to the fact that I'd forgotten to remove the AfD header from the article when I closed the AfD discussion. Thanks for fixing this! -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Speaking of which, though, can I bother you to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonnacris? It got missed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 1 (which has now scrolled off of WP:AFD/Old) because it was blanked for a few days on the 14th. Looks like a clear delete, and not worth relisting. —Cryptic (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I closed the debate and deleted Nonnacris. Interesting how a well-timed blanking can disrupt the AfD process. Let me think whether this can be fixed. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your suggestion on the talk page, I created {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} and moved the template with the variable to {{Orphaned fairuse replaced}}, with proper redirect shortuts for each. Thanks. DES ^(talk) 20:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit to Template:Warcraft-stub and was wondering if you could clarify your reasons for removing the icon from the template. I'm somewhat confused by the reason you gave - "remove icon - not fair use in a stub template" - because it doesn't seem to make much sense: why is it that an icon is not fair use in a stub template but is fair use in an article? Plus removing the icon made the stub notice much less obvious on the Warcraft articles. XD Thanks. --Arabani 00:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. —Cryptic (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the (fast) clarification! --Arabani 00:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me out on this one. Someone had already tagged it for AFd, without creating the subpage. I created the subpage, but then couldn't get it to enter correctly into the afd log page. Not sure why --JJay 02:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 05:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.

Yes, I do vote keep for schools, regardless of their notability or the state of their articles. But it's always because a) I'm already editing the afd for whatever reason (usually because the nomination process was incomplete), and b) the amount of acrimony these debates generate far outweighs whatever damage deleting (or keeping!) the article would do. The stronger the consensus for keeping is, the more likely it is that people faced with a horrible school stub on new-pages patrol will mark it cleanup and move on instead of touching off another fight.

If school articles were almost always deleted, instead of almost always kept, but still caused this much damage to and ill-will among the community, I would routinely vote delete on school afds I came across.

Going to a random school afd and voting keep because someone asked me to on my talk page seems very likely to worsen matters, not improve them, as I've feebly been attempting in my own ineffective way. Please do not make such a request again. —Cryptic (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have bothered you to seek your input.--Nicodemus75 06:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and feel free to read it. Halibutt 19:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be as polite as it gets, but to be sincere I'm starting to loose my nerves. At the talk page I clearly explained why the page is not eligible for speedy deletion. Yet you continue to claim that it is - and it is constantly vandalized by admins who don't even take a look at the talk page. Any suggestions? I already asked for page protection, but perhaps I should as for some other help from the community? Halibutt 10:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the entry for me...I think I've got the hang of it now. Cheers. PJM 14:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You made a change to Template:Db-repost (talk · links · edit), makign the parameter be provided with "1=". Thjis is not needed, and is at best confusing. As I understand it, when a tempalte boyd includes {{{1}}} it is specifiing the first positional parameter, and the parameter should not be named in the invocation. Am I incorrect in this understanding? DES ^(talk) 16:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "1=" is only needed if the contents of the parameter themselves include an equals sign. In that case, if it's not included, then everything up to the equals sign is parsed as the parameter name, so everything tagged {{db-repost}} looked like it was just tagged {{db}} - i.e., they said "The given reason is: {{{1}}}" instead of "The given reason is: it is reposted content that... —Cryptic (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see, because the link to the log page recently added includes an equals sign. That makes sense. Arrgh. Sorry to bug you. DES ^(talk) 17:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You noted that this listing had been orphaned (and I see how I forgot to put in the pg= parameter in the template), but there were five votes before your comment, so I'm wondering how they got there, especially as they're from users who are known to frequent AFD. I doubt they'd have found it just by accident... strange. Anyway, thanks for listing it properly. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They probably found it from its link from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calchas Street. —Cryptic (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - an oversight. {{substub}} should be protected. I protect pages so rarely that I probably just forgot how to do it properly. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert the Blue Mary image again? The current image is definitely not a screenshot. --Dangerous-Boy 06:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I've contacted the person who overwrote it. Anyone may revert images by pushing the (rev) link next to the version you wish to change it back to, by the way. (The image in question is Image:Bluemary.jpg, for any interested third parties.) —Cryptic (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've rv'd the anon who keeps making threats/attacks on me. He's quite persistant. He's a constant problem on Warez and List of warez groups, be careful you might wind up with your own stalker.  ALKIVAR™ 01:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enh. I wouldn't mind particularly; I don't stress easily, so trolls don't bother me. Given the choice, I'd rather he waste his time trying to annoy me than breaking articles. —Cryptic (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]