User talk:Cryptic/archive-13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive. Please do not edit it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

rollback script[edit]

Hi Cryptic, just saw your message about this. I'm not sure where to put it. I put it in my common.css but it didn't seem to do anything. I don't know of my .js stuff can interfere - that's a bit of a mess but I just put up with the error messages now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in your common.js that would interfere. The css will only affect rollback links added by Mediawiki itself, so it won't do anything about ones added by Twinkle. Twinkle might interfere with the Mediawiki ones, too - I don't use it, so can't be sure. —Cryptic 15:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood the discussion. I like having the rollback link in my watchlist as it shows me if an edit is the latest edit. Unless there's something else that will do the same thing, which wouldn't surprise me, I'd rather take the risk of accidental rollback. Thanks for the quick reply. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Klassroom.[edit]

Dear Cryptic, you have deleted the page Klassroom citing no reliable source and not of importance (A.7)

However the wiki page has multiple sources including news articles and is also a affiliated educational institute which is exempt from section A.7

Requesting you to kindly republish the page or provide guidance as to how can it be restored. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadude (talk • contribs) 10:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It had routine announcements that it was seeking funding. Those are not news articles in any reasonable sense, and they verified almost nothing in the article. It's also not an educational institution in any sense. See WP:CORP for our inclusion criteria. —Cryptic 11:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cryptic,

All the given links are of news portals, and facts auch as number of centers, financial holding structure of the company, list of investors has bene provided in those articles. While the headline of the news article suggests about fund raising, the same wasn't mentioned anywhere in the wiki article. In fact all the facts and figures quoted on the wiki page have been memtioned clearly in the news articles, which were used as citations.

Kindly assist in page restoration.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadude (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to restore this. Your avenue of appeal is WP:Deletion review. —Cryptic 13:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polyisobutene listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Polyisobutene. Since you had some involvement with the Polyisobutene redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

your assistance please...[edit]

Erica Procunier is an alumnus of the Canadian Film Centre's prestigious residency program.

I request userification of Erica Procunier, an expired {{prod}} you deleted. If, after an examination I don't think an article is likely, I'll speedy delete the userified version.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entire content was '''Erica Procunier''' is a [[Canada|Canadian]] film and television composer.<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2421501/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1}}</ref> She has composed for [[And Now a Word from Our Sponsor]]. External links to www.ericaprocunier.com, IMDB again, and cfccreates.com/alumni/658. Want the categories? —Cryptic 20:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. Okay. Don't need userification. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Jq_(programming_language)[edit]

I can't understand this deletion. Wikipedia has lost the page for the open source language JQ. Jordinas (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordinas: (talk page stalker) FYI the reason was Expired PROD, concern was: The only reference is primary, as are all external links. No indication that this is more than a personal project. Article was created by Jordinas, whose contributions all involve adding links to jq from other pages; COI likely.. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=96412147 deletion log). If you do indeed have a COI, I suggest declaring it. If you intend to recreate the page, I would also suggest submitting it to AfC rather than creating it in mainspace. Just my 2 cents. If you are just someone who codes in Jq and wanted to right about it, then feel free to disregard. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the jq language was, indeed, at one time very much a personal project of [[1]|Stephen Dolan], however, it isn't just a personal project any longer, and I don't see why it should matter if it was anyways, as jq is a very popular language. jq has two current maintainers not the original author, and has had quite a few [[2]|contributors]. jq is ranked at #46 on the [[3]|Rosetta Code rankings], for whatever that is worth. The fact that jq continues to be hosted at a personal repository on GitHub is hardly important, as it is trivial to create an organization for a personal project -- the complaint here appears to be purely about style, that the homepage being on a personal GitHub is somehow bad. As to COI, I don't see it. Was it Stephen Dolan who created it? I don't know who [[User:Jordinas]|Jordinas] is, but, if it is the GitHub user [[4]|fadado], then that is just a fan of the language. FWIW, [[User:Cryptonector]|I] am one of the current maintainers of jq, which you can see by looking at the commit history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonector (talk • contribs) 23:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Technical Barnstar
For this answer. Not a hard thing to answer if you know it, but that's something that's going to be super, super helpful to me in the future. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

90.224.198.15[edit]

Could you please revoke talkpage access from user:90.224.198.15 . CLCStudent (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom[edit]

Yes, bingo, many thanks! GiantSnowman 11:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Query[edit]

Can you kindly write a query about retrieving the following data:-

  • I would wish to see the the date of flag-removal and the reason behind it, (as indicated in the log).
  • I would be also interested in knowing the date of perm-grant and the reason; for doing so.
  • All the users who are currently indefinitely blocked and/or globally locked but have the NPP flag. Additionally, the date and the block-reasons or lock-reasons.

Thanks! ∯WBGconverse 19:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

quarry:query/33247 for the first three bullets. This is only accurate for grants/revocations in November 2012 or later, when the log format changed; I don't remember offhand when the patroller group was added, but I think it was well after that. Also doesn't account for promotions to sysop, so there's probably false positives.
I haven't looked into how locked users are represented in the db before, so that'll be later. —Cryptic 02:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked patrollers are at quarry:query/33250. quarry:query/33249 shows there's no globally-locked users with NPP on enwiki. If there were, you could get the lock log with something like 

SELECT /*...other stuff...*/, log_timestamp, log_user_text, log_params, comment_text
/*...*/
JOIN metawiki_p.logging_logindex
	ON log_title = CONCAT(/* user_name from user_groups join user query */, '@global');
JOIN metawiki_p.comment
	ON log_comment_id = comment_id
WHERE log_type='globalauth'
	AND log_action='setstatus'
	AND log_params LIKE '%lock%'

though, really, there's never going to be more than one at a time, and that only if someone were really remiss, and it'd be easier to go to meta and search the logs directly. —Cryptic 04:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so fast and so efficient:-) Your help is appreciated! ∯WBGconverse 12:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration[edit]

Hi Cryptic, Can you please advise me how to close the arbitration case for Future.perf? Thanks in advance - Stevepeterson (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevepeterson: Better that you don't try yourself; the arbitrators are a bit territorial. Just add something like "I withdraw this request." to the end of your statement. —Cryptic 02:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see you've already done so. Just give it some time. —Cryptic 02:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great , thank you so much. Stevepeterson (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bailey (wrestler)[edit]

Hi,

I contacted Kurykh on 02/14 and he is not active. Can you help me please (if not just say : NO but I just want an answer).

--Sismarinho (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't; admins don't have the authority to just undelete articles deleted at AFD on their own say-so. You need to take this to WP:Deletion review. —Cryptic 22:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider that you don't want to help me. I'm french, I dont don't know what I must do and your answer will not help me. I stop thixs message now because I'm anger against you.--Sismarinho (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of wiki page Matthew Tee Kai Woon[edit]

Dear Cryptic, I want to help fix the page for 'Matthew Tee Kai Woon' it seems like it had citation, reference, copy paste issues. I believe I can fix these issues and resubmit it to you for your consideration. Hoping for a positive reply from your side. Regards, Mansoor Mansooriqbalnagori (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted as a copyright violation. It can't be restored and fixed iteratively; you have to start a new article from scratch (for which you don't need my permission). —Cryptic 08:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for prompt reply. Mansooriqbalnagori (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion log Mehbooba (2018 film)[edit]

why do you think this page should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeboy7 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version I deleted a year ago, or the revisions I hid today? —Cryptic 11:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Rogers[edit]

Thank you. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saad_Ahmed2983/sandbox[edit]

Flagging a sandbox that may be of interest to you, related to your deletion of Zcode. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love You Two[edit]

Hi, there's already a draft for this article. Please check if it passes AFC. Thanks. Draft:Love You Two

Rama Arbitration Case[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous listing as a party[edit]

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Shetty[edit]

Is it possible for me to get a userspace copy of this deleted article? This subject came up in dinner conversation recently and I was surprised that he did not have an article. A quick news search leads me to believe there's a strong case for notability. ~Kvng (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No better than the draft version. Full text (by Studs88) was: —Cryptic 02:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jay Shetty is a public speaker who gives motivational speeches to several corporate, educational and charity institutions.He lives in London,work for Accenture company as Digital Strategy, Innovation & Social Branding + Meditation/Lifestyle Coach.He is an active member of his local temple and organizes festivals attended by over 60,000 people.He also coaches corporate individuals in mindfulness and was invited to coach 1000 consultants at Twickenham Rugby Stadium in 2014.He had organised food distribution programs and Sewa Day initiatives[1].
  1. ^ "Jay Shetty | Asian Professional Awards". www.theprofessionalawards.com. Retrieved 2016-03-31.

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP counts[edit]

Hi Cryptic. I forked your queries [5] [6] and I was wondering if you had a moment to look them over and let me know if I'm "doing it right", or missing anything, and whether you think these numbers are "real" (accurate)?

Thanks! Leviv ich 06:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with the queries per se (the ones I spot-checked, anyway). Checking for infoboxes happens to work very well for footballers, since both players and managers use the same infobox, and the infobox is very consistently used. I have no idea how consistently the other infoboxes you're checking for are used, though - you may be better off looking for category intersections, for which Petscan is the tool of choice. If nothing else, it should provide a useful crosscheck. —Cryptic 10:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response and spot-checking. Petscan seems to crap out for Category:Living people (large categories?), and I can't figure out how to do category intersections on Quarry, or how to search for categories and subcategories. E.g., Living people+Office-holders. The quarry documentation and example scripts don't seem to have the answer. Is there's a help file somewhere I should RTFM? Should I post on RAQ? Thanks again. Leviv ich 22:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Direct category intersections are easy - you'd do something like
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM page
JOIN categorylinks c1
    ON c1.cl_from = page_id
JOIN categorylinks c2
    ON c2.cl_from = page_id
WHERE c1.cl_to = 'Living_people'
    AND c2.cl_to = 'Office_holders';
(and maybe add a "AND page_namespace = 0" to limit it to mainspace pages, though there should only be mainspace pages in Category:Living people anyway).
Subcategories are less straightforward, and if there's an efficient way to do it besides either enumerating the subcategories manually (like "AND c2.cl_to IN ('Subcategory_name_1', 'Subcategory_name_2', 'Subcategory_name_3')") or doing a text match on them (like "AND c2.cl_to LIKE '%_politicians'"), then I don't know it.
The quarry documentation and other query examples on meta mostly assume that you already know SQL and just aren't familiar with the Mediawiki database schema, so there's no FM I'm aware of for you to R to get better specifically at Wikipedia queries. WP:RAQ is reasonably well-watched by knowledgeable folks despite being underutilized; posting there's a good idea. —Cryptic 01:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's very helpful! --Leviv ich 02:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Zakaria Jomaa[edit]

Hi, just wondering if you could take a look at the move request that's been opened at Talk:Ayman Joumaa (disambiguation). I see you were involved with the AfD and subsequent protection for Ayman Zakaria Jomaa a few years ago. A new article has been created with the incorrect spelling Ayman Zakaria Joumaa, I don't know how this differs from the version that was deleted so WP:G4 may or may not apply, but if it looks good perhaps you could lift protection and move it to the correct title? Regards. PC78 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text is very different. The references aren't the same, but are of the same character - they're namedrops, PR releases, and an interview. Probably needs a new AFD, though another admin might be willing to G4 it (I'm very cautious with G4 and G11 specifically because I think we should use them much, much more often than we do). I'll unprotect, though. —Cryptic 16:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've moved the article but will leave it to others to determine notability. Appreciate the help. PC78 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you![edit]

Happy first edit day! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!![edit]

Hey, Cryptic. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Curious about a stat[edit]

Can you be kind enough to write a quarry-code, that outputs the gender-values of all users, who participated over Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? Regards, ∯WBGconverse 18:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: I'm not Cryptic, but see quarry:query/36641 (although that excludes users who only participated before the page was moved from BN). * Pppery * it has begun... 18:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
quarry:query/36843 has the aggregate values. Want the pre-BN split data too? Actually, it doesn't change that much; I just folded it into the same query. —Cryptic 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to both of you. ∯WBGconverse 15:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These results confirms my impression of the AN discussion about blocking WMFOffice, too. I had a comment to make about this disparity but I don't think it would be welcome right now. But it would be interesting if it was noted in any coverage by the Signpost. It is like a blaring siren to some of us. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a depressingly long time since my sole undergraduate-level course in statistics, but I don't think this shows much of anything. Even setting aside that barely half of the editors there set the preferences value to anything, the ratio isn't all that far off from declared users overall (115941:576106 female:male, or about one sixth). Trying to count the number of undeclared users overall is problematic for a couple reasons - the way the db is set up makes it several orders of magnitude slower, and the overwhelming majority of registered user accounts never edit at all, let alone set preferences. —Cryptic 04:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Careful about daring to combat the biases of an agenda-driven admin. You might find yourself sent to the loony bin if you continue to exhibit wrongthink supported by facts. 205.175.106.196 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Sissy Spacek (band)[edit]

Hello Cryptic. I hope you're well. You deleted the page Sissy Spacek (band) back in May 2008 and I was wondering if it could be brought back to life please? I believe the band is significant in the noise scene and I would like to try and expand and add sources to what was there before. Many thanks. --Ichosethisusername (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides maintenance tags, the entire content (written by MrBook; please attribute if you actually use any of this) was "Sissy Spacek is an experimental grindcore band comprised of John Wiese and Cory Ronnau. Their music typically consists of Ronnau on vocals and Wiese on bass/drum machine, with the results often cut up at a very fast tempo using a computer. [[Category:Experimental musical groups]]". —Cryptic 20:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the quick response. I think I will start from scratch if I may? --Ichosethisusername (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems for the best. (Though it's not like you need my permission.) —Cryptic 20:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You posted the same diff twice ....[edit]

In your last edit to the RfA, you posted the same diff twice. Letting you know because I agree and I'd like to respond once you supply the second diff. Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Thanks. Tried to swap the order at the last minute, and apparently the second paste didn't go through. —Cryptic 10:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about NFCC#3[edit]

Hi Cryptic. Your last post in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310#User:Marchjuly on Arsenal W.F.C. was quite interesting and I meant to follow up a bit more on it. Do you have an opinion on File:Ireland Football Team Badge.png and File:Football Association of Ireland logo.svg? These both seem to be essentially the same file with the only difference being the names added to the badges themselves. This photo seems to the teams do use the "Ireland" version, not the "FAI" one. Moreover, there is quite a low TOO in the UK which might also be the standard for Ireland as well. This is not a question about whether national association's are "parent entities" and individual teams are "child entities"; only about how (or if) you think that NFCC#3 would apply to files such as these. I'm not going to run of and request that one of these be deleted based upon your response, but rather am more interested in it from an overall NFCC interpretation/application standpoint because it's something which has come up with respect to other files over the years and there does appear to be some different opinions on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, I've always been of the opinion that no svg file that's above the threshold of originality and that's an exact representation of it's subject matter can meet NFCC#3b - they're inherently of infinite resolution. In particular, the edits to them to reduce their default sizes that are typically done, nominally to make them comply with 3b, accomplish nothing whatsoever. But no attempt to make sane policy about nonfree vector imagery has gotten anywhere between the fair-use maximalists and the technically ignorant, and it's not what you're asking about anyway. So for the rest of this I'm going to assume the images were both the same (raster) format, and pixel-for-pixel identical except for the text.
For use on Wikipedia, the country of origin's TOO doesn't matter; we treat images as public domain if they're below the US's threshold. The only difference it's going to make is whether we can move the image to Commons. I don't know what the TOO in Ireland is, and neither does Commons, apparently; but even if it's similar to the UK's, and just the "FAI" and "Ireland" texts are copyrightable in their country of origin by themselves without the surrounding artwork, that's not going to make any difference to which image we use, or whether we can justify using both.
Let's assume the "Ireland" image is already in use on FC Example Iota, and you're trying to decide whether to use the "Ireland" or "FAI" image to use on FC Example Phi. In both cases, Wikipedia would be displaying two different pages, each showing one copyrighted image on it. If you reused the "Ireland" image, though, Wikipedia would then be hosting only one fair-use image, instead of the two it would have to host if you were to use the "FAI" image. That's more in keeping with both the intent and wording of NFCC#3a.
However, that's not enough of a reason to display the "Ireland" logo on FC Example Phi if the "FAI" image is the one that the team actually uses. Even if both teams occasionally used a third version of the image without any text, but usually used versions with text specific to the individual team, I don't think it would justify using the textless one for both solely to eliminate an image. Our purpose isn't just to build a free encyclopedia, it's to build a free encyclopedia too, and the balance enwiki's chosen has fallen pretty far toward the encyclopedia side when these goals have conflicted. (At least for images. Don't get me started about album articles.)
The NFCC argument's only going to make a difference when there isn't any reason external to Wikipedia to choose one image or the other. That's the scenario I thought I saw in the AN thread you linked above - it looked very much like you were switching to the Ladies version of the logo, despite its inaccuracy, solely because the textless one had already been found to be inappropriate on that page. —Cryptic 03:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed reply. First, I think I'm in agreement with you about svgs; there's been alot of converting of non-free files to svg lately and it is something which has come up for discussion based upon what's written in FREER, but as you post there's quite a bit of disagreement about it and is probably going to be something which will continue to be disagreed upon. (FWIW, the last time I asked about this was Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#WP:FREER and svg files)
I probably shouldn't have just mentioned TOO like I did without better explaining the reasons why. I'm just curious about cases where the copyrightable elements of two files are pretty much identical, with the only real difference being non-copyrightable elements; so, essentially the files are the same from a NFCC standpoint, which means other factors might need to be considered to determine which should be used. I did take that as to be part of what you were trying to get at about the two files discussed in that AN discussion, and wanted to see if it might apply to the two Ireland files. Maybe the files discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 10#File:Florida Gators men's basketball logo.svg are a better example. All of these files are basically the same except for the team names; they were added as a result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 15#File:Florida Gators logo.svg. (I did mention the "team" Twitter logos as a possibility, but wasn't sure; someone else uploaded them all and then added them to the various articles). Anyway, this kind of thing is something I've wondered about ever since, and did previously ask about it with respect to the two AN files, but started wondering about it again after reading your post.
Another reason I'm asking about this is because of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 20#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg with respect to the noon-free use in the women's national team. I get the meaning of the stars, but they seem to be pretty much non-copyrightable elements and the crest/badge is the essentially same without them; as you point out though, this might not matter as much what the team is actually using. I did a bit of digging to try see how national federations officially brands their teams; as I pointed out at WT:FOOTY#Determining the official branding of national teams, this appears to vary quite a bit so it's hard to find one rule to fit all situations. In the case of Brazil, the women also actually do seem to use the logo with the five stars on their uniforms even though they clearly haven't won the Women's World Cup five times. I get the reasons why some may feel that the star-logo shouldn't be used on the women's team and I felt the same way; now, however, I'm not so sure now.
The original reason some of these files were being removed had to do with the relationship between parent and child entities, and not really anything to do with gender. Individual teams were being seen as child entities of their parent organization or they were seen as using the branding of "another" team (i.e. they didn't seem to have their own branding identity, organization, official websites, etc. but basically seemed to be part of Sports clubs around the world|another larger team/organization); so, using non-free files that weren't individual team specific in the "child" team articles was interpreted as not complying with the NFCC. Of course, this interpretation might have been wrong and there is currently an ongoing discussion to try and sort this part out
Beyond the parent/child entity thing though is sort of what you've mentioned about Wikipedia being a free "encyclopedia". Assuming there are no non-free issues to worry about, I'm trying to figure out whether the logo/badge the team has choosen for itself or has had chosen for it by its national federation should be the one used in the article, even if it might not seem "correct" contextually to do so. Germany national football team uses File:DFBEagle.svg, while Germany women's national football team uses File:DFBWomen.svg and photographs of players from both teams show this to be the case. There's not really an issue with that since the men have won four World Cups and the women have won two; the only issue I thought there might be is whether the stars (most likely non-copyrightable) elements were a problem per NFCC#3, but you clarified this pretty well for me. So, as I posted here, if photographs are going to be used to determine whether a non-free file should be used for official branding, then maybe the second FFD about the Brazillian team badge also got it just as wrong about the non-free use in the women's team article as the first FFD discussion did, but only for different reasons. Sorting out how and when the NFCC applies to this type of logo use might resolve the "free" part, but the "encylopedic" part might also need some clarification too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anarchist writers[edit]

I went ahead and repopulated Category:Anarchist writers. Thanks for providing the link on the talk page showing the prior contents of that category! Jd4v15 (talk) 05:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove full protection RCA Inspiration[edit]

Hi, can we trial removing the full protection of RCA Inspiration? {{ping|waddie96}} {talk} 14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waddie96: OMG. I'd meant to semi, not full - the indef and "remove at discretion" note in the log was so that the (unusually persistent) sock who'd been plaguing it for years wouldn't be given a date to check back on. —Cryptic 15:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you {{ping|waddie96}} {talk} 10:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your ongoing efforts[edit]

The da Vinci Barnstar
For your ongoing efforts providing query assistance at WP:RAQ, especially your ability to see beyond the requesting text to capture the spirit of the request. –xenotalk 23:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wrongability???[edit]

I believe you nounified incorrectly. The word you're looking for is wrongitude. Or, perhaps, wrongitudinosity. But not wrongability. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not my misnounification! It's a direct quote from Red Dwarf. —Cryptic 02:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, transferal of blame. Nice. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TY[edit]

Thank you for building a quarry query! -- GreenC 16:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks![edit]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm NahalAhmed. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Ryszard Walkiewicz, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-Nahal(T) 07:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page notification[edit]

Hi there, I received a talk page notification from you but I wasn't able to find your message on the page itself when I searched. Did you have a question for me? Omanlured (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Omanlured: No; I reverted Michepman's (most recent) inappropriate warning. —Cryptic 14:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK that makes sense, thanks! I think he is just still scrutinizing me over a misunderstanding we had at Karl Racine and Talk:Karl Racine a few days ago. I don't think anything I did there rose the level of harassment though. Omanlured (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Pence-Brown[edit]

Hello, You deleted my page on Amy Pence-Brown. It would be very helpful to me if I could have it placed back in my sandbox so I can fix my changes. This is for a class project and I need my work back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith554 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Smith554 (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Amanda[reply]

A) Wikipedia is not in the business of providing free webhosting for your class assignments, and B) restoration is plainly unnecessary - you already have your work back, as evidenced by you creating a copy of it at User:Vieringa/Amy Pence-Brown, complete with speedy deletion tags, after its deletion from mainspace. I'm not going to undelete this. Your route of appeal is WP:Deletion review, but I urge you not to further waste your, and our, time. —Cryptic 08:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hey @Cryptic: just a heads up that the student above apparently is not taking the advice of Wiki-ed folks or you and has recreated said article in mainspace, which appears to either be a conflict of interest for them or they're uploading copyrighted images as well. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of List of Hello world program examples [edit]

Was this deletion discussed anywhere first? Was it raised at Talk:List of Hello world program examples or Talk:"Hello, World!" program? Was it ever tagged as CSD #G4, or was it simply deleted?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hello world program examples was four years ago. I can't see when the article returned since then, but this is too long to just delete it undiscussed, on the basis of such an old AfD alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, see ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Time limits on G4? that answers several of these questions. Anomie⚔ 14:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martinaaperez - article on Yale College Council[edit]

Hello @Cryptic:, I am writing to discuss me restarting the article on the YCC. I was told that the procedure is to contact the person who deleted your page if you are interested in writing on that same subject again. Please let me know your thoughts and if there's anything I should know before moving forward with this. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinaaperez (talk • contribs) 01:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(That would be User:Martinaaperez/sandbox, formerly User:Yalecollegecouncil/sandbox (MFD discussion), for any interested onlookers.)
In roughly decreasing order of severity:
  • For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text previously published on other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. If you are or represent the copyright holder of https://www.ycc.yale.edu/structure-1, you must follow the procedures at WP:Donating copyright material to release it.
  • If on the off chance your position at YCC or your work on this article is paid or compensated in any way, you must disclose that, as per WP:Paid-contribution disclosure.
  • Even if not, you should still explicitly disclose your (quite obvious) conflict of interest, and familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest policy (full version; summary).
That's sufficient to rewrite the draft. To have any hope of being accepted as an article, the most pressing issue at a glance is sourcing. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (misleadingly termed "notability" for historical reasons) for organizations are detailed at WP:NORG; the short, short version is that we require "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", with the meaning of every word of that statement defined, in excruciating detail, on the NORG page. The citations to ycc.yale.edu abjectly fail the independence test, and while the links to Yale Daily News were better, they're still probably not independent enough. —Cryptic 02:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 03:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

                                                 Happy holidays[edit]

Happy New Year!
Cryptic,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America1000 22:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help to delete "Apsara Dance" and "Apsara dance" pages ? I don't want these pages are redirected to "Robam Tep Apsara" page. But they should be deleted then I can move "Robam Tep Apsara" to "Apsara Dance". "Robam Tep Apsara" is false title, it's name in Khmer language but in English it should be "Apsara Dance". George Vickery (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cryptic,

People have tried to make this page a lot of time that is why you have made it protect page. Can I I know how can I really make this page and can you please remove the protection from it. Dushyantkapoorofficial (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you create Obada Adnan ? Alex1981march (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quarry help[edit]

Your SQL-fu may be stronger than mine. Could you take a look at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Ve4w1kwylz16g8u5? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I refuse to comment on Flow pages as a matter of principle, so you get your reply here.)
Try running "SHOW CREATE TABLE actor" to see what that table view is doing behind the scenes - it is appalling. Since you're only looking at logging, actor_logging will work better. Running a single "SELECT * FROM actor_logging WHERE actor_name = 'RoySmith'" and then just using the actor_id instead of joining has occasionally sped up queries a great deal for me (even though it shouldn't, but because we only have access to table views and not the tables themselves, we can't use index hints like normal).
I don't know offhand if the page_id stays valid between a deletion and undeletion. You may be better off joining on lu.log_namespace=ll.log_namespace AND lu.log_title=ll.log_title.
Check out https://tools.wmflabs.org/sql-optimizer if you haven't found it yet; it lets us run the equivalent of EXPLAIN despite not having access to the underlying tables. Results for your query; 13.4 is the biggest problem here, and without some experimentation I think it's the result of the query hidden by the actor table view. —Cryptic 15:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and that query's going to show multiple rows if you've deleted a given page more than once, or it was restored more than once. You probably want "SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT lu.log_page)" instead. —Cryptic 15:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
quarry:query/41088. log_page, surprisingly, seems not to have been added until 2009 October 07 and never backfilled, so joining on it (and count(distinct)ing it) breaks. —Cryptic 16:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SQL Optimizer is awesome, thanks for pointing that out! Explain is broken on quarry; good to know about this alternative. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out, the join on page_id was indeed the problem. https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/41090 runs at a reasonable speed. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flow[edit]

Indeed. I say the same thing daily.-- Deepfriedokra 16:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Emin Boztepe[edit]

Hi can you please help me with creating a deletion review of Emin Boztepe it doesn’t meet notability guidelines Australianblackbelt (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Fine. WP:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 15.
Also, go ahead and revert that article once more and see what happens. —Cryptic 01:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hi! Thank you for reverting this edit of mine. On second thought, it's indeed instruction creep to ask Wikipedians to do all that notification work. I've instead created a feature request, asking for CSDHelper to please do the notifying automatically instead. Feel free to comment on the feature request, if you wish. (If you reply, please ping me.) Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep[edit]

Thought I was fixing an archived page from 2016, not reverting everything since 2016. Insert self-trout here, and thanks for fixing it before too many people realized :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: No idea what the above was about, but if you're looking for self-troutable material, I deleted my own DYK nomination the other day. So don't feel bad. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Little help with a query[edit]

Back over at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_178#Help_with_a_Query_on_Quarry, you mentioned that my limits weren't accomplishing anything.

I added some additional parameters [7], which worked, but it's still running very slow. I tried implementing what you suggested regarding the limits to speed it up, (and again here). But no success. What am I doing wrong? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, hrm. In layman's terms, what 

  AND (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM revision_userindex
       WHERE rev_actor = actor_id
         AND rev_timestamp >= 20190807000000
       LIMIT 500) >= 500

does is:

  1. Generate a compete list of all of that user's edits on or after that timestamp,
  2. Count them,
  3. Organize the count into a table looks like
    #COUNT(*)
    169105
  4. Stop building the table in #3 once it has five hundred rows,
  5. Compare the result in the first row to see if it's more than five hundred.

So what we want to do is stop building the results from #1 and #2 once it hits 500, not the results in #3 (which will only ever have one row anyway). You can show this is an improvement experimentally by running 

SET @actorid=(SELECT actor_id FROM actor WHERE actor_name='BD2412'); -- or some other comparably prolific editor
SELECT (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM (SELECT * FROM revision_userindex
                              WHERE rev_actor = @actorid
                              LIMIT 500) sq1) >= 500;

and observing that it very quickly comes up with "1" (i.e., "true") - 4.53 seconds in my test - and comparing it to 

SET @actorid=(SELECT actor_id FROM actor WHERE actor_name='BD2412');
SELECT (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM revision_userindex
        WHERE rev_actor = @actorid
        LIMIT 500) >= 500;

which would chug away for hours before telling you the same thing. Or at least, it would if quarry didn't kill it after the first 30 minutes.

The problem is that, for reasons lost in the mists of time, while sql lets you pass a column name like actor_id down one level into a subquery, it doesn't let you pass it down two levels like you'd need to do here. And my sql-fu isn't good enough to work around that.

However! That isn't even the biggest reason why query 39960 is so slow. There's two proximate causes for it timing out, and a third genuine error:

  1. The subquery for blocks isn't indexed - log_title by itself is index only when preceded by log_namespace. So when examining me, for example, it would not only look for blocks of User:Cryptic, but also Cryptic, User talk:Cryptic, Gadget definition talk:Cryptic, and so on, because there's no way for it to know beforehand that there will never be block entries for titles in other namespaces. It's actually much, much worse than that, since it doesn't just do the equivalent of that block search in each of the sixteen existing namespaces, it looks at all of the ten-million-and-something log entries after the given timestamp (even the non-block ones), for what the sql-optimizer tells me is slowdown on the order of 15000×.
  2. "OR" binds less tightly than "AND". (Think of them as the equivalent of '+' and '×' respectively.) So where you say 
    SELECT COUNT(*) FROM revision_userindex JOIN page ON page_id = rev_page
       WHERE rev_actor = actor_id
         AND rev_timestamp >= 20190807000000
         AND page_namespace = 4 -- Wikipedia, from [[WP:Namespaces]]
          OR page_namespace = 5 -- Wikipedia talk, from [[WP:Namespaces]]
    that isn't "a count of all edits by this user that were after this time that (were either in the WP: or WT: namespaces)"; it's "a count of all edits that were either (in the WT: namespace), or (were by this user after this time that were in the WP: namespace)". There's a whole lot more of the latter, and because of the limit issue, every single one of them is fetched for each user examined.
  3. You've got a stray semicolon before the last subquery, so it looks like a second top-level query. If the first hadn't timed out, you'd've gotten a complaint about how queries can't just start with '(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM...'.

#1 is easily fixed by adding "AND log_namespace = 2" (User:). #2 can be fixed by putting a set of parentheses around "AND (page_namespace = 4 OR page_namespace = 5)", but it's easier, clearer, and less error-prone to rewrite it as "AND page_namespace IN (4, 5)". And all #3 needs is for the extra semicolon to be removed.

I've done all three (and used string comparisons for the timestamps, so you could just say things like "user_registration < '20190207'" without having to double-check you have the right number of digits and still have it work) in quarry:query/41981. It ran in under two minutes. It would probably be ok even without partitioning by user_editcount, but would at the very least let you use a much wider range there.

One of the reasons I suggested asking at WP:Request a query is because that page is watched by people who actually know what they're doing. I've managed to make it almost all the way through my career without having to do more than the simplest database interaction professionally: I've always either been on a team with a dedicated dba, or we weren't trying to do anything especially large or complex; and in both cases we could fix the schema if it wasn't specifically set up to do what we needed it to. That's part of the reason why I answer the easy requests there - it helps me some to think about how to get the database server to do more work by coming up with a pure-SQL solution, instead of my usual easy-but-inefficient "good enough for this tiny project with small amounts of data" method that just uses a general query and refines the result in the front-end program.

This is practically the opposite - not only can we not change the way the wikimedia database tables are set up or indexed to suit this purpose (and, of course, it wouldn't be reasonable to think we could), but because of the way non-public data is redacted from them, we can't even tell for certain what we'd need to change, or even to explicitly advise the database servers to use indices that are already there if it doesn't happen to guess at the right one on its own. —Cryptic 05:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic, Thanks very much for your help. Your explanations are very helpful for explaining why it was failing. I'll use WP:Request a query from now on. Have a tiny Barnstar for your trouble: The Technical Barnstar. For helping me optimise my godawful Frankenstein monster queries on Quarry. — Insertcleverphrasehere Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 01:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luckin Coffee delete-and-move from userspace?[edit]

Hi, so much chaos from the Luckin Coffee moves. I see you deleted the articlespace version and moved the userspace sandbox over. Why's that? Was it missing the author history or something? Thanks for re-protecting it against moves, at least. cc @Drmies: who was involved earlier too. tedder (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article that was briefly at User:Stellasun666/Luckin coffee, then User:Luckin coffee, then Luckin coffee, then Stellasun666/sandbox (which wasn't actually in userspace) had all the history of the article that began life at Luckin Coffee. The version you protected consisted only of the first two of the three revisions that currently remain deleted at Special:Undelete/Luckin Coffee: the redirect left over from the first page move to User:Stellasun666/Luckin coffee, and Jianhaoz's good-faith but incorrect recreation of the article by cut-and-paste. (The third revision there is the one created by your protection.) What my delete-and-move did was to restore the status quo ante. —Cryptic 15:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't look at the history when I protected it, just noted it was approximately correct, content-wise. tedder (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, and more admins are piling on with moves: @Steel1943 and Anthony Appleyard:, other temporary pages: Luckin Coffee (version 2), Luckin Coffee (company). tedder (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 14#Luckin Coffee (version 2). I think Steel1943 misread the (version 2) title as having been created while cleaning up the original moves, not the much-later undeletion that it was, but it didn't seem worth further argument. The (company) redir is redundant but at least harmless. —Cryptic 23:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...Yeah, mine is not a temporary move. Those "(version #)" redirects the fate I did to it: moving the edit history to a usually {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} title, or something similar so the redirect isn't useless. Steel1943 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Oy vey, I just realized this is your talk page, Cryptic. I came here in response as to a ping, but wanted to tell you something anyways:
You may be interested in seeing Wikipedia talk:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Discussion regarding titling standards for moving parallel histories. That discussion happened in 2015 ... and stuff like this is apparently still being created ... Steel1943 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Stringer[edit]

Dear Cryptic, as I explained previously to GB fans on his page, the deletion request was already accepted few days ago, but by mistake I reopened it (I was looking for a way to remove definitely the picture and the result from the search). Would it be possible to delete it again? Also, I saw that others editors contributed to the page I created, but they only modified the layers, structure of the page, and modified few links, while I wrote the whole main article by myself and collected all the references included. How can I delete it again? LarissaAineli —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LarissaAineli: I'd suggest proposing it for deletion via the WP:PROD process, giving your actual reasons why it should be deleted (beyond "I want to remove it"), to see whether anyone objects. This is the sort of person we'd normally want to have a biography for, and since it's been here for a year and a half, simply speedy-deleting it upon request seems improper. —Cryptic 09:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: Thank you for the clarification, indeed there has been a change of mind and I've been asked to remove it. Do you know how could I justify it? LarissaAineli
A) Asked by who? B) By saying why you want it removed. —Cryptic 13:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navia Lx deleted Why[edit]

I don't know why you deleted the article "Navia Lx" Please can you explain to me or help me out(Sarah jason (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

The article not only did not show significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (which is the short short version of the inclusion criteria for a Wikipedia article); it didn't even say anything that implied a search for such sources might possibly be successful (which is the threshold at which an administrator can delete an article on his own recognizance). I see you've created the article twice more since I deleted it, and it's been deleted by two different admins. I strongly advise against attempting to do so again without actually including such sources. —Cryptic 19:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

recreating Seitu Jones article[edit]

I noticed that you had deleted an earlier article on Seitu Jones and it was cited as having no meaningful, substantive content. Hopefully that has been addressed in its recreation.
Myotus (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version consisted entirely of 'Seitu Jones', so yes, obviously that reason no longer applies. —Cryptic 08:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Creighton speedy deletion[edit]

Hi Cryptic. I created the page 'Adam Creighton (journalist)' and after nomination you deleted it. Firstly thank you for your patrolling. It was certainly not my intention to breach copyright and after the extra changes I made I am a bit surprised at the removal of the page. Clearly there was similarity between the content of the page and Creighton's history/CV but the most recent edits I made surely differentiated the page from any source material? I would appreciate any advice/insights you could give? With appreciation, Cabrils (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made didn't remove the infringement, only made it harder to verify - the result was still substantially similar. See WP:Close paraphrasing. —Cryptic 22:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep of Murder of Tessa Majors[edit]

I'd like for you to consider whether the above article meets the criteria for "speedy keep." It is currently subject to a deletion discussion, supposedly on notability. The subject has extensive RS coverage and the nomination seems frivolous. Your input would be much appreciated. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet any of the criteria for WP:Speedy keep. Unless you're implying User:Black Kite is a disruptive vandal, and I'd expect you to prove that case at arbitration. I actually agree with him in principle - this is an instance of missing white woman syndrome, and shouldn't have gotten the disproportionate media coverage it has. —Cryptic 12:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you're missing the point too. I was actually referring to #5, because the degree of reliable source coverage makes it so obvious that the article meets WP:GNG. Cute theory but we don't make value judgments on what's notable, we just observe what's been treated as notable in reliable sources. Surprising to hear that from someone of your experience. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Tessa Majors is not itself a policy or guideline. —Cryptic 13:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake -- I meant #3. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to think he didn't read the article. Disagreement about just how much of a presumption that meeting the GNG makes, or having such vast overconfidence in the enwiki editing community so as to think it would side with its own policies against a short-lived mass media human interest story, doesn't constitute such. I must admit some curiosity as to what he thought he'd accomplish, practically speaking. —Cryptic 13:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to believe they did. The editor apparently didn't review the sources or relevant policy, WP:NCRIME. This has received national attention in reliable sources over several months. Even a cursory search reveals a dozen of articles in the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, even along with in-depth analysis pieces comparing it to past notable crimes in NYC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must also admit some curiosity as to what you think you'll accomplish, practically speaking. It should be clear by now I'm not going to change my mind. —Cryptic 13:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I was just responding to your points. I think I've made mine. I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning here but respect your decision. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just gonna comment here on something you said earlier -- I think your dismissal of coverage on a crime as "Missing white woman syndrome" in this instance, over someone who's been murdered, is in extremely poor taste and I hope you'd strike it. That kind of commentary shouldn't be coming from WP editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Referring to media coverage as missing white woman syndrome has very little to do with that crime and everything to do with the media's bias in overreporting it and underreporting crimes whose victims are less affluent and photogenic. That's almost tautological, even if I hadn't explicitly made that point when I brought it up before. —Cryptic 12:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Tverberg -- uncontroversial delete[edit]

moved to Draft talk:Gail Tverberg

Resubmitting a page which was taken down due to copyright infringement[edit]

Hello Cryptic. I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly. Hopefully its right! - you have recently deleted a post I've made due to "copyright infringement," due to my misunderstanding of the formatting and uploading guidelines (totally my bad). I would like to hire another individual to create the page, since as I understood, being employed by this individual, I am unable to. However, if mentions that if I wanted to write about the same topic which you rejected, to reach out to you. So, that's what I'm doing. Do you have any suggestions on how to go about rewriting this page and having it up and running? Thanks! P.S. is it possible to see exactly what I have submitted for the page you deleted? Or any way to access the information again? I just want to see for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daradavigne (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In no particular order:
  • You can get all but the first few sentences of the sandbox from the same place you got it the first time. That site is given in its deletion summary.
  • Formatting and uploading guidelines had nothing to do with anything. The sandbox was deleted, in part, because you copied copyrighted text into Wikipedia without releasing it under a compatible free license. To do so, you must follow the procedures at WP:DCM. But don't do that, because it was also deleted, in part, because it was irreparably promotional. Working from this as a starting point will never result in a neutral encyclopedia article.
  • It's a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use, not to mention unethical, to edit for any sort of compensation without properly disclosing your employer and affiliation. This applies to your other hired individual just as much as it does to you.
  • Were you expecting a different answer than you got at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1049#My Submission Rejected because of "Plagiarism"? —Cryptic 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Good God(musician)[edit]

Cryptic You have recently deleted my article Good God(musician). You stated it was deleted because there was no indication of importance but didn't I indicate the importance of the article when I contested the deletion? I don't don't understand how he or the article is not important if fans are asking me for this information and are requesting to be able to find him on Wikipedia . Do you have any advice on how I can show the information or relevance needed so that the page can be restored ? Derrick Will Write (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Good God (musician)[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Good God (musician). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrick Will Write (talk • contribs) 01:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose I'll reply there then. Once you get around to opening it, anyway. —Cryptic 01:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what I did wrong and how I can fix it ? I don't think it is necessary to delete the page if the problem is fixable ? Derrick Will Write (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Shakour[edit]

I was asked on my talk page why Arash Shakour does not show up on Google search. I have replied at User talk:FCBlinder, and have restated the policy on conflict of interest, because that question makes me think that this is likely to be paid editing for Search engine optimization. I had said that the draft would be speedily deleted in article space because it did not make a credible claim of significance. It was moved to article space, and you speedily deleted it because it did not make a credible claim of significance. Posting here only for the record. Not requesting anything unless you want to say or provide something. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for this info. I had no idea about Special:Undelete! I don't even know how anybody would find that through normal channels since there's no "What links here" link. So mysterious! Anyway, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion[edit]

Hi, please I have realized my mistakes on the page Patrick Eidusi and wish to correct them by writing a neutral article, so i request for its undeletion so i can work on it.ThanksThecapitalking (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, declarations like this aren't credible unless you can articulate precisely what your mistakes were. (If you're still watching at all. Sorry for the delay; it's been hectic here, for reasons that are probably guessable.) —Cryptic 15:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Restoring "Meril" Wiki Page[edit]

Draft:Meril (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

Hope you and your family are doing good in a pandemic situation the world is going through.

The reason for me to reach you out was to see if you could restore 'Meril' page. I wasn't done uploading all the content + images I had before as I was struggling to add images.

Furthermore, I'd also like to add reference links which I couldn't add before to prove the authenticity of the content.

Let me know if adding reference links will add value to the content I saved as a draft before.

Regards, Kushal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal shah 02 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be done. Almost the entirety of the draft infringed the copyright of the company's website. No amount of additional content or images or reference links will change that. —Cryptic 15:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players suspended for domestic violence[edit]

In this edit, did you mean to write, until all the current-deleted versions instead of if all the...? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant exactly what I said. Undelete all the revisions, and you get a list of people who have a copyright interest in the article text, and another list of people who merely gnomed at it or edited a list entry or such. Undelete them and then revdel the revision text, and you just have a list of people who edited the page. That's tolerable if it's unavoidable and you're not revdelling because of copyright infringement, but it's avoidable here, since I'm not seeing any revisions in the original article which meet the criteria for redaction anyway. —Cryptic 03:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by future total wealth[edit]

I know you deleted this article, that was just my opinion. I'm not telling you to restore it, but I want to find the sources and put it in User:Ferctus/sandbox4 instead of Wikipedia, where only facts are accepted. Could you copy the sources and paste it in User:Ferctus/sandbox4? Thanks, and have a nice day! - Ferctus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It had none. —Cryptic 00:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a second opinion[edit]

Greetings,

I know this is a bit of an unusual request, but can I ask whether you consider the closes at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 29 appropriate? I know a short while ago you did complain that some of my DRV closes are too close to "supervoting" and when coming back to DRV I want to be sure that it won't become an issue again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those discussions were one-sided enough that any closes other than the ones you made would have been unjustifiable. The additional commentary beyond just the result, particularly in the Trinidad-Tobago DRV, wasn't necessary.
Somewhat relatedly, while I'm undecided whether a DRV result properly belongs in the AFD it's reviewing at all, inserting it in the middle like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification) seems a bit out of place. {{delrevxfd}} has a result= parameter that works a bit better. Neither method will stop User:AnomieBOT from making edits like this, in any case; if you care, you've got to add {{olddrvfull}} yourself. —Cryptic 15:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added that template. I don't think there is an agreed upon way to note the outcome of a DRV on the XFD page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just about nobody notes it at all. I end up watching a lot of afds that get reviewed on DRV, since I add somewhere between half and two thirds of the {{delrevxfd}} templates; I remember seeing the outcome mentioned via prose around a dozen times, and by the template parameter maybe three or four times at most.
(Much more often, the template gets reverted entirely when the afd gets relisted, leaving no record of the drv at all. That's irritating. I don't know when "relist" stopped being jargon for "undelete and start a new afd" and started being "reopen the same discussion, watch hardly anyone who wasn't at the drv comment because the discussion already looks long, and usually have the next admin close it the same way it was the first time", but I don't think it's worked out well.) —Cryptic 21:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen Years of Editing![edit]

Hey, Cryptic. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society[edit]

Dear Cryptic/archive-13,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted Page - Manoj Pillai[edit]

Dear Cryptic, one of my pages titled Manoj Pillai was deleted yesterday citing A7: No credible indication of importance; G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Pillai).

However, after the earlier deletion, i had recreated the page with multiple news articles and other references to support the biography and achievements of the concerned persion mentioned in the article.

Kindly request you to republish the page or provide some guidance on how i can recreate the page while adhering to your requirements. Any help will be appreciated.

Thank you. Krithikamanohar (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Pillai and last deleted version I remember the article did not meet the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia as it lacked notability as per WP:BIO and was WP:TOOSOON which only served WP:PROMOTION here. The repeated creation after delete is kind of WP:BLUDGEON and editing pattern suggest that the editor might have a close connection with Manoj Pillai and thus may be subjected to WP:COI and WP:PAID ~ Amkgp 💬 06:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The final decision regarding the request remains with Cryptic. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your response ~ Amkgp. I understand where this might have gone wrong. Would you have any suggestions on how i can rectify this so that the page can be republished (at the appropriate time with the necessary changes that meet the requirements). This is not a paid contribution. Appreciate your help. Krithikamanohar (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krithikamanohar, visit Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself ! ~ Amkgp 💬 06:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ~ Amkgp

Additional sources could overcome the afd discussion. But these ones weren't it, and were so clearly "not it" that there's no reasonable way they could have influenced the discussion: they're a mixture of press releases, directory entries, and passing mentions; one doesn't even mention the article subject. That you didn't wait even a full day after the afd decision cements the issue. Your route of appeal is WP:DRV. —Cryptic 13:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemover[edit]

Hey C, I saw you took away my pagemover rights; though I of course may have made an inadvertant screwup, I have been very careful about only surpessing redirects where I am pretty certain CSD would apply to the resulting redirect, and never in mainspace, and I am not aware of any complaints to date; can you point me to any problematic supressions (out of the many, many hundreds/thousands I have done)? Certainly taking the right away from an experienced editor without any notice seems extreme, no? Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You removed redirects from draftspace in contravention of WP:RDRAFT after I and another admin reverted speedy attempts on them, one of them less than a day ago. [8] [9]. What did you expect would happen? —Cryptic 05:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that WP:PAGEMOVER says: ". . . moves should be reverted upon request if they prove to be controversial." I would have expected such a request from you, giving me oppportunity to immediately (and happily) revert both those moves. Oh well, I guess it is two strikes and I'm out. (WP:RDRAFT does not apply one of them, by the way). I'd ask that you look at the whole of my pagemover work and kindly reconsider. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To your somewhat irritatingly-mistimestamped request, two questions:
  • If "Democrația"-class minesweeper was really better in mainspace as you say, why did you wait nearly a month between tagging Draft:"Democrația"-class minesweeper for speedy deletion and creating a redirect there? Quotes don't seem to be a common convention for ship class names: only "V/W" class destroyer and "Bayraktar" class LST seem comparable, with the caveat I don't work with ship articles.
  • Between that, the redirect suppression coming almost immediately on the heels of your suppression of another draft I'd just declined your speedy tag on, and no other suppressions from Draft: to mainspace that I could find in your recent move history, do you see why I viewed this second one as a deliberate provocation? —Cryptic 06:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I can see that. But please assume good faith on my part: they were the only declined draft G6s in my entire June CSD log (of over nearly 1,000 CSDs), and so I moved them one right after the other becauee I was reviewing the CSD for declines: no provocation intended. I honestly believe that if those redirects exist, they are better in the mainspace than in the draftspace (more likely to receive external links, etc.), but now see clearly your view and will not do any of those redirect moves going forward. There are some others in my older move history that I will find and revert, tagging the resulting Main-to-Draft redirects for G6 CSD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. On the reversions - you're probably better off recreating the redirects from draft, if the moved-to redirs in mainspace are valid (I still don't think "Democrația"-class minesweeper was, and I'm dubious of Glória a Hong Kong too - there doesn't seem reason, per WP:RFOREIGN, to specifically associate this song with its Portuguese translation). If they aren't, you'll get faster admin action (if you care) by tagging them with the more specific {{db-r2}}. —Cryptic 07:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Page Dragvanti[edit]

this is regarding the deletion of page "Dragvanti" which you recently performed. I am writing to check with you if you can republish as draft so i can change the language and republish. As this is one of the few available articles on LGBTQIA+ content in India. this would make more relevant and help queer artists make more art. Please find the the relevant references below.

https://telanganatoday.com/celebrating-the-diversity-of-drag https://www.lifestyleasia.com/ind/culture/dragvanti-how-indias-first-drag-website-aims-to-encourage-the-art-form/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/events/pridemonth-amid-the-pandemic-the-pride-marches-on-virtually/articleshow/76240187.cms https://www.thehindu.com/society/how-indias-lgbtq-communities-have-taken-pride-month-2020-online/article31827685.ece https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2020/jun/24/a-virtual-space-for-drag-performers-2160497.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmayya (talk • contribs)

(Moved from archive). —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've been trying to think of an encouraging, or at least polite, reply to this for a while now, and I'm afraid there just isn't one. The article was ridiculously promotional compared to the significance it asserted; it was written in broken English; and its references were plain awful - a mix of passing namedrops and such unabashed and uncritical praise that it calls into question whether they have any meaningful editorial oversight at all. If I restored this even to draft, it would just be deleted again. You still have the references, such as they are, and the text was unsalvageable. Decline. —Cryptic 19:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to mainspace Draft:List of League of Legends champions[edit]

At the risk of being accused of forumshopping, I'm looking for advice on how to proceed with an article. You may remember a few years ago that you moved an article which had been deleted to draft space for me. It can now be found here: Draft:List of League of Legends champions. I'm looking to have it restored, however recently I submitted it and it was declined at AFC for the sole reason of having been deleted in the past. I created a WP:DRV that you may want to take a look at. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Ireallyreallylikewriting's sandbox on Lisa Von Tang[edit]

Hi Cryptic,

Hope you're safe and well. I recently wrote an article on a fashion brand called Lisa Von Tang in my sandbox and submitted it. But it was deleted because the admins thought it was "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Um, I'd just like to clarify that nowhere in that article did I encourage people to buy any of the brand's products. My article was basically the story of the brand: how it got started, where its founder came from, some of its achievements, and how it has evolved from past to present. So yeah, I really don't understand why people would interpret my writing as product-pushing. I was just telling a story about my favourite brand. Please help? Thank you! IreallyreallylikewritingIreallyreallylikewriting (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a public relations puff piece. We don't allow that either, as the policy linked in my deletion summary explicitly states. —Cryptic 11:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No use[edit]

Sorry, but the template No use needs to have the Deletion tag. ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the <includeonly> tag would do it. Sorry. ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the includeonly did was to make the template misleading when viewed directly. —Cryptic 07:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh......... Ok, I understand it now. Thank you ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:120pings[edit]

Is the template 120pings ok so?
You can use it like {{120pings|Cryptic|AppleUserWithPermissions|...}}
ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it doesn't work - Help:Notifications#spamming - and for instances when it would, it's redundant to {{ping}}. —Cryptic 07:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for the information. But. How many pings are able with {{ping}} ? ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried clicking on it and reading its documentation? —Cryptic 08:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I tried. I think 50 or? ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I understand the difference Cryptic ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know a template, which is needed, an I could create? ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obada Adnan[edit]

Hi, You protected the article Obada Adnan before months, and I understand why ( because he was not notable) , But now I’m sure be became notable , So is there a way to create the page again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1981march (talk • contribs) 18:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Write a draft at Draft:Obada Adnan and then raise the issue at WP:DRV. —Cryptic 18:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anmol Dhiman[edit]

Hi, Given the number of deletions, perhaps it is wise to salt the page. Cheers. Kleuske (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Counterproductive in cases like this; he'll just make it somewhere else where it'll take us longer to notice it. —Cryptic 12:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As predicted: Draft:IS Media. —Cryptic 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schatzi0804 persisting in edit warring upon expiration of block[edit]

User:Schatzi0804 has refrained from discussion of the issues over which they are edit warring, returning to their tried-and-true overuse of the "undo" button. Clearly here for a purpose other than making an encyclopedia, despite a final warning.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Dana Chisnell[edit]

Hi Cryptic, I just had a speedy deletion of Dana Chisnell. Was trying to write about a notable woman in design and civic tech. I had read through the guidelines on advertising and not sure where it was flagged for advertising. Can you help so I can make sure I don't have the same issue again? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techhistwriter (talk • contribs) 00:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical articles on Wikipedia are meant to be just that - neutral, dispassionate biographies in an encyclopedia, not résumés in prose form. Sentences like the first, "Dana Chisnell is an American pioneer and leader in civic design.", consisting almost entirely of puffery and almost no actual information, have no place; and the article was full of such statements. I was also particularly unimpressed by the promotional misrepresentation of Apolitical's listing of her, which certainly was not as "one of... [the] World's 100 Most Influential People in Government". (And who the heck are they anyway and why should we care about their opinion so much it deserves mention in this biography's lead paragraph?) —Cryptic 15:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Trade (american funk band)[edit]

Why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Lord Thomas Pie (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're asking me, it's clear you've already seen why: "No credible indication of importance". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web host to document every group of people in existence. The article gave no reason to think that the band meets our inclusion criteria, or even said anything that implied a search for sources would turn up anything that might; it merely listed its location, members, and that they were once interviewed. You managed to link their website no fewer than eight times and no other source, which any reasonable person would find excessive. The situation is so common and so clear-cut that administrators are trusted to delete such articles on sight without discussion. —Cryptic 23:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - Dark Lord Thomas Pie

Deleted page David Luyimbazi yet i was affirming to notability[edit]

The a page had notability and independent sources Just like Jennifer_Musisi page and Andrew_Kitaka page. The new page was created in the same format. I appreciate any corrections that would get it back. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiame Josh (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted because of notability or sourcing. And if you know it was me that deleted it, you know that wasn't why I said I was deleting it. There is no way to see the one piece of information without the other. Jennifer Musisi makes at least a token effort at being a biography instead of a curriculum vitae, like David Luyimbazi was, though it's still borderline; Andrew Kitaka is closer to acceptable. Raising those articles isn't a valid argument, in any case. If this article is to return, it won't be in a form that in any way resembles your previous attempts. —Cryptic 18:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Axcient[edit]

Draft:Axcient, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Axcient and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Axcient during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js[edit]

I had moved that redirect to the draftspace using this script. What went wrong? Shouldn't the redirect be deleted so I can move Draft:Malcolm in the Middle (season 4) to the vacant space once the draft is well developed? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the redirect shouldn't be deleted until you're ready to move the draft over it. —Cryptic 05:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publish 2021 Richmond Football Club Season[edit]

Hi Cryptic, Can you please publish the now locked Draft:2021 Richmond Football Club season page. It has received further media coverage and more sources have been added to reach notability standards relied upon for publishing the men's iteration of the previous years' page. As the men's and women's league are treated equally under WP:NAFL, it is appropriate the page is published. Please ping me for any replies. --DustyNail (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DustyNail: I'm not going to do that. Few of the new sources address the subject of the article directly, and none of them are independent. You can try for a different opinion through a review at either WP:AFC or WP:DRV. —Cryptic 01:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: Are you familiar with similar season summary pages in this wikiproject or in other sports leagues? Early edits of 2019-20 New York Knicks season for instance gives a good overview. The content on the page I was working for is not materially different. And on independence, the sources are published under an independent media arm of the league head office and match the source of literally hundreds of related project articles that are maintained and supported by members of our Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football community. I appreciate you have a different opinion, but in the absence of a re-publication, would you be able to assist with setting up a discussion on review? I'm not familiar with the backend processes required. --DustyNail (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page[edit]

Thanks for deleting that redirect for the draft of the Glengarry article. I meant to create the draft in user space so i would have time to work on it at my leisure, but accidentally created it in main space. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the draft so I'm going to re-create the page as an article with full content. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infodrips[edit]

Hello, Cryptic, I'm looking forward to hearing from you about the section, Would you like to discuss more here on your talk page?, or should I go to request removal/delisting at WT:SBL..? Thanks — Aaqib Ahmad Talk 07:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. —Cryptic 12:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then, you please tell me that what should I do for this? — Aaqib Ahmad Talk 13:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let it drop. —Cryptic 13:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! It is unfair measures.. Hoping a responsible answer by you Cryptic, In the light of Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility and Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, at WP:5P..! Hope you remembered! — Aaqib Ahmad Talk 20:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop posting here. —Cryptic 03:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Review[edit]

Hi, thanks for your reply here, which you told me that the deletion review doesn't apply. So how do I proceed on the merge review if I think it should be unmerged? When I started to add the new contents into the article in the recent days and tried to unmerge it from the current main article, a user just quickly and simply remove all new contents without giving any notice nor explanation. I think they should at least put a merge-request template to discuss and then wait for several days, which they didn't. Is my understanding correct? --D7CY689 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treat it like any other content dispute. —Cryptic 08:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. But I think no one will go to the talk page of a redirected article? So where should you suggest me to start the discussion?--D7CY689 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page of the redirected article. WP:RCD describes what to do if "no one" goes there. —Cryptic 08:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 United States racial unrest[edit]

Could you please protect the page 2020 United States racial unrest ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have died down after Primefac started handing out AE blocks. I'll watch it, though. —Cryptic 13:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for the hard work on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#File_deletions_by_Jonteemil! RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was only a few hours' of tedium, and, while I would have preferred to spread it out into fifteen-minute chunks over a week or so if my hand hadn't been forced, there was still no thought needed. If you really want to thank me, go make some intelligent comments at the ffds that are still open (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 14, note the irritatingly-hard-to-see relists). Or renominate some of the restored files for deletion - probably at least a third really should have been deleted, even by my permissive standards for WP:NFCC#8. —Cryptic 13:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confluent[edit]

I'm just trying to add a page for this company: https://www.confluent.io/ But you remove it. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknoraver (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you hijacked the redirect from Confluent to Confluence. Every existing use of that title is to the geographical term, and none are about the company. You're not the first to try this, either, which is why I protected it.
Second, I deleted your version because, not only did it not show that the company meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria by citing "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - and each word in that is a term of art, go read WP:CORP before attempting to recreate this article instead of just relying on my one-line summary - it didn't even say anything that implied that a search for sources would be successful. Administrators delete such articles on sight. —Cryptic 21:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Restoring "‎Luthfur Rahman" Wikipedia Page[edit]

Hi,

This Wikipedia page was originally deleted due to lack of notability of the subject, notability of the subject has since increased and there are now numerous reliable references available to add to the article, could you please restore the Wikipedia page so that it may be updated.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Keir Hardie (talk • contribs) 00:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that, but I'm a little hesitant. It's more than five years out of date and fairly promotional in tone; if restored and unimproved, the page would likely be immediately nominated for a formal deletion debate. (Less importantly, it's showing errors in every single one of its existing references, though I don't know how many of them only appear in preview mode.) What I'd suggest is restoring this as a draft at Draft:Luthfur Rahman, improving it there, and only then publishing it to the main namespace. Is this acceptable? —Cryptic 00:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can ignore me and ask someone else. That'll end well, yep. —Cryptic 04:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obada Adnan[edit]

Hi, First, hope you are doing well in these pandemic situations.. Second, can you please check if Obada Adnan is eligible to make an article about him now? Best, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1981march (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has already been through an AFD and a DRV. No administrator is going to unilaterally unprotect it. You can bring it up at DRV again if you think the situation's changed (and if you disclose your stunningly-obvious conflict of interest). —Cryptic 08:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete File:VaithilingamSornalingam.PNG[edit]

You deleted this file back in 2015 as a fair-use file unused anywhere. It appears that it was intended for use in the infobox on Shankar (Tamil militant), but the editor used the wrong parameter names resulting in it not showing. If the file doesn't have any other problems, could you undelete it (and ping me so that I can fix the infobox)? Thanks, Vahurzpu (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vahurzpu: Done. —Cryptic 22:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Institute for Collaborative Education[edit]

Greetings Cryptic. Could you please ove this deleted entry to Draft:The Institute for Collaborative Education? I understnad it was short but I would like to see what was there. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire content was "The institute for collaborative is part of the Coalition of Essential Schools and is in the old stuyvesent high school building." —Cryptic 05:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. Would you mind moving it to draft spaceso I can work on it? I'm seeing some coverage here in a school guidebook. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic/archive-13&oldid=1211797329"