User talk:Cryptic/archive-11

This page is an archive. Please do not edit it.

Special:Contributions/82.53.179.230

Can you please block him/her? He/she involved edit warring. 115.164.91.175 (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the problem, at least not without more context. —Cryptic 13:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky/Archive. 115.164.179.252 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing some genres doesn't make you a MJH sock - particularly not if the changes are sourced, as at least some of them are - and this IP's geolocation isn't anything like the ones listed on the SPI page. I'm not going to block. Another admin more familiar with this puppeteer's MO might. —Cryptic 14:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Martin Babinec

Good Morning @Cryptic. I was working with @DRM310 on the page for Martin Babinec, which has now been deleted. Can you please assist in moving forward. Kathryn Cartini, Jan 25 - 9:06 (est)

(talk page stalker) I have left a response on my talk page for WP:REFUND. --Drm310 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathryn Cartini: I've moved it to Draft:Martin Babinec. Free advice: while you can clearly write web pages and resumés, and while you've at least read the Terms of Use (which, for a change, is more than most people in your position seem to do), you are not competent to be charging people to write Wikipedia articles about them. Please show some professional integrity and at least minimally familiarize yourself with a platform before portraying yourself as qualified to represent someone on it. While the article subject might meet our inclusion criteria, it's by no means clear; and expecting volunteers to turn hagiographies like this into neutral encyclopedia articles amounts to theft of labor. —Cryptic 01:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic. Thank you for your professionalism as I continue to learn this platform. Kathryn Cartini (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More free advice: edit warring with an administrator to remove his comments from his own talk page is the sort of thing that gets you blocked from editing. They're not going to get indexed by Google, if that's your concern, and nobody who needs to buy a vanity page on Wikipedia is likely to stumble across them either. —Cryptic 02:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing this mess. I think what happened was I lost network connectivity at just the wrong time and the automation scripts just couldn't deal with it -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Kalinskaya

Please re-create the article Anna Kalinskaya, she appeared at the finals of the 2016 Australian Open – Girls' Doubles. Regards.--Orel787 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Cryptic 11:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also its talk page. Regards.--Orel787 (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry, done also. —Cryptic 18:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too late now, you have restored it – but Cryptic, as per WP:NTENNIS, which I had summarised in my PROD on 14 July 2015‎, Miss Kalinskaya is not yet notable. It is not enough, per project guidelines, to appear in a Junior Grand Slam final – the player has to win the tournament. This should be clear to project members, which is why I am pinging @Tomcat7 too. Let's wait until the final has been played now. It is also quite possible, as a result of her good run, that she is ranked in the world's top 3 when next week's post-AO world rankings are released. Jared Preston (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTISTIC GARMENTS

Good Afternoon Cryptic. I had created a page for the history Artistic Group which is Pakistan's largest Garment Company providing employment to thousands of people with having approach to environment friendly and sustainable technology, which has been deleted. can you please restore it or assist me to make it possible to not to be deleted again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.zed (talk • contribs) 10:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam.zed: I've moved it to Draft:Artistic Garments. You should read WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:YFA, and I suspect WP:PSCOI without delay. —Cryptic 10:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Response

I have read the WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:YFA.

I just want to create something like this "Gul Ahmed Group". Gul Ahmed. but with different perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.zed (talk • contribs) 12:35, 25 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Pundit Arena

Hi there,

Can you give me an insight into why this page was deleted? - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pundit_Arena

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSportsPundit (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSportsPundit: It read as overtly promotional; much of its content wouldn't be amiss in a press release. Plus, your username strongly implies a conflict of interest. There's probably an article to be written on the company, but this wasn't it.

I'd normally offer to restore the article as a draft in these circumstances as an alternative to leaving the content deleted; it would then need review by an experienced Wikipedia editor prior to being published as an article. However, I'm currently away from home with only very intermittent access to a secure connection, so if you want that, you'd probably be better off asking at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead of waiting for me to get back online. —Cryptic 22:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wintergatan

Need to undelete the Wintergatan page being their Marble Machine music video has had 5 million views on YouTube in just the three days it has been up. Think that takes care of the current charge of `No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized'. People are looking for more information on the band other than what's on their YouTube channel and the liner notes of their albums and most people would not know to look under Detektivbyrån. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.157.201 (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

I see it's already been recreated. The former contents aren't helpful; they consisted entirely of "Wintergatan (Formerly Vintergatan, "The Milky Way") is a Swedish instrumental, eletronica, rock, and classical band from Gothenburg, Sweden." —Cryptic 11:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Hurkacz

Hi! Please, restore this article - Hurkacz is playing now in Davis Cup [1] (World Group!), so he reaches guidelines. Nedops (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nedops: Done. —Cryptic 11:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Nedops (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Cryptic - thank you for this, but don't sweat it [2]. Everyone who has edited on a page Legacypac has been active on has been told worse. Just the other day he told me to beat my head into a wall or something [3] for commenting on a 3RR another editor had filed against him. Saying I should be ignored is tame. LavaBaron (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Leeds (actor)

Cryptic Hi there. I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm trying to create a page for the Actor Andrew Leeds. How do I do this? When I tried to do this, it was deleted. Why was this? What am I doing wrong? Thank you for your help.

Trevorepson (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Trevorepson[reply]

Trevorepson, I'm not Cryptic but I saw your message. First, when I looked-up Leeds' bio on IMDB I immediately recognized him as Jackson from VEEP, though I didn't know his name; I remember wishing they'd given him a recurring role. Anyway, in order for an actor to qualify for a WP article they usually must meet one of the three criteria listed at WP:NACTOR. Leeds, while certainly a fine performer, does not appear to have had multiple, "significant roles". It appears he's not been cast in any feature films and the only recurring TV role he's had is a below-the-title credit on Cristela, a TV series that had a one-season run. Though he doesn't qualify for a WP article now, he very well may at some point in the future. I hope you decide to continue editing and contributing to WP. LavaBaron (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, LavaBaron. Thank you for your feedback. I loved him on Veep too. He was also a series regular on Cristela. And was a major recurring presence on Bones as serial killer Christopher Pelant. His IMDB also lists him as having recurred on other shows and he has appeared on Broadway. And he's verified on Twitter, so I would think he would qualify for an actor wikipedia page. But I don't totally get the rules here..

Trevorepson, when you created this article, all you put in its body was "Andrew Leeds". That's not an article - it's at best a request for one - and you placed it in the main namespace as if it were already done, so I deleted it under the expedited ("speedy") deletion criterion A3. I suggest creating the article as a draft article at Draft:Andrew Leeds (actor) instead and only moving it into mainspace when its complete, so as to avoid the spectre of immediate deletion.

You may or may not want to go through the articles for creation process as well. That'll get you some feedback on the article from other editors before it's published; on the other hand, it's perpetually backlogged, so it may take a week or two for your article to get looked at. —Cryptic 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback. I had been working on the article but I guess it didn't save when you saw it so all you saw was the name. I'll be sure to fix this. Thank you.

Another question

Now that I have completed the page, how do I move it from Drafts into the mainspace? Please forgive my ignorance. Trevorepson (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Trevorepson[reply]

@Trevorepson: I've moved it for you (and now it's back at the original title). The move-this-page function is disabled for very new users, largely because it used to be difficult to undo in the case of abuse. —Cryptic 18:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all of your help! Much appreciated. Trevorepson (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Trevorepson[reply]

Thankyou for your comments on steve wilks musician) page i have added more links can see if they qualify for wiki thanks for the learningpetredow (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for deleting the page I requested be deleted. —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please delete another page? I requested speedy delete but it's been over 23 hours and it hasn't been deleted yet. I think it's because I have placed the wrong tag but I don't see a tag for unneeded drafts. Thanks. —DangerousJXD (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Could you please delete another page? This time it's an unnecessary redirect created when I moved a page because of a typo in the title. I am not 100% sure whether it should be deleted but I think it should be as it's unnecessary. I would place a speedy delete tag but again I do not see one that would be appropriate. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a speedy. (The closest it comes to are WP:R3 or WP:G7, but those don't apply to redirects created from page moves unless you're also the only substantial editor of the moved page.) It's also harmless as-is, and deleting it is mildly harmful in that it'll show up as a redlink instead of a navbox when looking at old revisions of articles it's on. You can take it to WP:RFD to get it deleted if you really, really want it gone, but it doesn't seem to merit it. —Cryptic 09:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The main reason I even bothered asking you about this is because it's a template. I don't do much template-related editing. I of course won't be pursuing the deletion if this page any further. Again, thanks for your assistance in these matters. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

YGM. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Nothing there looks like it would be problematic if I could get at the data programmatically. Quarry seems to be stalled at the moment, though, which is irritating. Will check again later. —Cryptic 16:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you enormously for this. It's hard to believe it's taken us 15 months to find someone to do it! I wonder if I could ask you one more favour. I've added another columns to the table to list the blocked users. I've got as far as the end of the 'A's but it took me 4 hours already. Is there a quicker way of doing this than manually? if you could just run a script or something that puts 'blocked' in that column, I'll fill in the reasons later. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine it'll be difficult. I'll take a look in the morning. —Cryptic 06:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Raw unmerged data at quarry:query/8640. This is formatted as a wikitable if that's easier to deal with. Merging it directly into the existing table would take almost as long as editing it in by hand because of the added comments column. —Cryptic 08:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was perfect. Thanks. Citing Quarry as a source, I won't even need to compete the Wiki-table. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks as if the people want more. Perhaps we should ask you to run the same exercise based on the patrols done through the old system too; and probably a third one that is a combination of the two. The constraints of a Wikitable of course are also that they can only sort one criterion at a time - it's not possible to narrow down the sort criteria. I don't know how to do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what you mean by the "old system":
- If it's the moderately-old system of marking a page as patrolled, my understanding is that it shows up in the pagetriage-curation logs now (like the first, third, and fifth entries here). That's the same log I queried before, and while I can restrict it to just "review" actions, I wouldn't expect the aggregate data to be all that different. Otherwise, point me at a log link on-wiki and I'll be able to search for similar ones.
- If you mean the old-old system of patrolling by manually adding tags with Twinkle or editing directly (let alone just deleting directly), that effectively can't be done. Even if you accept that deleted edits will be left out entirely, and that only edit summaries will be looked at instead of the actual edit (see wikitech:Help:Tool Labs/Database#Redacted tables), there's no indexing done on edit summary, and there are many many (many!) rows to look at. I'd expect a query matching a regex in edit summaries over a period of a year would take on the order of days to execute. —Cryptic 07:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: On further inspection, patrols done from Special:Newpages - the "moderately-old" version - end up in Special:Log/patrol instead, and not in pagetriage-curation at all. This used to be easy to query, but pending changes mucked things up very badly; removing false positives like Special:Log/patrol/86.187.79.17 is very slow. (Gratuitous technobabble: Automatic patrols from the autopatrolled userright set log_action to 'autopatrol', which is easy and efficient to exclude, but automatically-accepted revisions seem to leave it at 'patrol', and the only way I see to exclude those is a partial text match on the log_params column, which in turn is slowed by security checks needed now that it's possible to revdelete logs.)
The Labs database mirrors don't grant enough access to use the EXPLAIN statement, and sql is very much outside of my expertise, so finding something that could execute in the 30-minute time limit was an adventure in frustration, but the first half is at quarry:query/8767. The second half is split between quarry:query/8802 and quarry:query/8803, and while they're supremely ugly, they should work as well when they actually get to run. Quarry as a whole is stalled again, though. —Cryptic 12:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrollers/Apr2014-Mar2016. No time-of-last-edit in this set, and only the time the user registered instead of the time of the first edit. Any patrol logs that were partially revdeleted won't show up at all, either. (If any such even exist.) —Cryptic 17:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Require ANi notification

Your threat has been brought to ANi and this is the required notification. [4] Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion decline for 248, 249

Why do you feel these articles should not be deleted? If that's the case then we'll have infinite articles. Your thoughts??Vinod 09:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

They don't qualify as speedies. They're not patent nonsense (as you tagged two of them) and they're not one of the very few sorts of article subjects that can be speedy deleted for lack of significance (as you tagged all three). Probably just reverting them to their previous redirects would be fine. —Cryptic 09:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

Hi Cryptic, The CSDs wasn't a joke - His AFDs aren't even funny and IMHO they should be deleted .... Plus everyone's had their fun anyway,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were a joke, and I didn't remove them, though I don't think they strictly qualify; I just noincluded them to get Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 1 out of CAT:CSD. —Cryptic 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit sorry I thought were somehow hiding the CSD category, My apologies - Thanks for your help :) –Davey2010^Talk 22:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hie Han seoul (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Matt Erard

Please restore Matt Erard.--TM 10:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: Done. I trust you'll edit the article to more clearly show how its subject meets WP:NPOLITICIAN. I'm also pinging Mackensen, who nominated it for deletion. —Cryptic 15:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I was not familiar with those rules/styles re: curly quotes. Appreciate the information BobDog54 (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jabong magickeys

I don't think that you tagged and blocked all of them:

jabong.ga: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
magickeys.cf: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The reports (link 'COIBot') contain a lot of usernames and IPs .. you may want to check. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking the accounts doesn't accomplish much, since they only make one edit before moving on to the next. I've mostly only bothered when I notice a new one soon enough that the autoblock might help. The ips will be useful, though. (And where has COIBot been hiding all my life?) —Cryptic 08:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like one could set-up a (silent) edit-filter (new article text starts with '== Watch [') to catch editors, otherwise it is becoming a crazy witch hunt (they are bound to come with a new link now). And once you know the link, you can use COIBot to find the accounts who added it (poke COIBot by adding the link in user:COIBot/Poke and wait for the report to save).

COIBot arrived less than two years after you .. what have you been doing that you never saw it .. :-D .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I BL'd the last one, see also Special:AbuseFilter/762 - if there are no false positives, we'll switch that one to prevent. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do the same until I saw User:MER-C's edit immediately preceding yours on the bl. —Cryptic 05:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bl entry will take out the links that are currently used, but since they are so difficult to discourage, the edit filter will see whether there are now new patterns being deployed (your catching of new socks will need monitoring of the spam-blacklist hitlist - http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/spamblacklist&limit=500&type=spamblacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:MER-C - quite a wide net .. but it needs to be wider .. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=American_Crime_Story&diff=prev&oldid=709103357. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another data point for that pattern, from today. —Cryptic 05:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist adjusted. I feel this is only a temporary measure until we find out how much of .ml (Mali), .ga (Gabon), .cf (Central African Republic) and .gq (Equatorial Guinea) we can get away with blacklisting. We also need the abuse filter to stop the URL shortener rubbish. MER-C 07:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C and Cryptic: for what I have seen, all these four TLDs have a lot of 'regular' traffic. But that can probably be excluded in the blacklist by not blacklisting things like .gov.<tld>, .edu.<tld>, ... I think we have a thread on this on meta. I am sure, however, that they will find their way around, some of the viagra spammers seem to enjoy hitting the blacklist at the moment in a completely futile effort. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking these TLDs means they now have to pay to evade the spam blacklist, which is a big improvement on the current situation. MER-C 09:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Goettl Air Conditioning

Hello - why did you delete this page? It is not advertising because I do not work for the company and I was not writing the article about any of their products and services, but instead about the company history because it has gone through a lot of different hands and is now coming up as one of the top HVAC companies in the Phoenix/Vegas areas which is very notable considering their tumultuous history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksteinharter (talk • contribs) 14:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible they might merit an encyclopedia article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia is going to host a marketing brochure for them, however, and that's what you wrote. I'm not going to restore this article; your route of appeal is Wikipedia:Deletion review. —Cryptic 04:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Cheers! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think the village stocks would be more appropriate. Memo to myself: no more monosyllables in a text-only medium. Everything's going to be offensive to someone. :( —Cryptic 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: I wasn't bothered, I just thought you were being rude. Deleting them was very helpful. Don't worry about it. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I create new one that would not be deleted?

The page "Hitron" has been deleted on 21 April, but I don't know why. I would like to create a new page for "仲琦科技" by English version, how can I create new one that would not be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Su-yuan cheng (talk • contribs) 03:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Su-yuan cheng: Ultimately, the article's going to need to show that Hitron passes the English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for companies (full version; simplified restatement). The article you wrote didn't even pass the lower threshold of asserting importance - it was merely a bullet list of the company's history, of the sort you might expect to find on its own web site. —Cryptic 05:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inside The Sea

Hey there Cryptic - I was just wondering if you make the page Inside The Sea (band) as a draft with all of the content that was deleted on there - I am still gathering information that may make them 'Notable' and adhere to guidelines - Thanks Josh2221 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh2221 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh2221: Done, at Draft:Inside The Sea (band), but I think this is going to be an exercise in frustration - the band seems to fall well short of the relevant inclusion criteria (full version; simplified). —Cryptic 06:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps! Josh2221

Reply to today's comment on my talk page

Hey there. I replied on my talk page also. The image is being used. I'm working on a page as a draft under my user page. Please do not treat that image as an orphan. --Nerdvana (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. There's no need to make duplicate messages to my talk page too. —Cryptic 20:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of Page

I wish to recreate a page deleted by you Rishabh Shah (IIMUN). I will be uploading new content, would that be advisable or should I use a new name for the page? Akshat145 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Akshat145[reply]

@Akshat145: Looking at the previous article, "IIMUN" is as good a disambiguator as any, since it didn't really provide enough of a neutral description to tell what he actually does, just to promote him. On that note, I really think you'd be better off creating it in draft space and going through our Articles for Creation process: make the article at Draft:Rishabh Shan (IIMUN) and put {{AFC draft}} at the start. That way you'll be able to get a review from experienced editors without having to deal with the frustration of immediate deletion. —Cryptic 17:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so, thank you Akshat145 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Akshat145[reply]

Game of Thrones redirects

Explain your removal of the deletion tags from No One (Game of Thrones) and Battle of the Bastards, where The Battle of the Bastards and The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones) were successfully deleted for the very same reason. These are pages of unsourced titles, which are then added to a page where such edits are reverted by multiple edits - they are unsourced and unconfirmed titles. This would fall under the same category of me making up a fan-based episode name and creating a redirect for it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already left a message on your talk page. —Cryptic 09:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confluent redirect deletion

I'd like to get my draft back for the Confluent page so I can edit it appropriately. As you've noted in the delete comments, I didn't emphasize importance of the company enough and it read like a promotion. I can rectify that easily enough, but I'd like the chance to start from my first draft rather than from scratch. Can you help me on that? I'm new to editing Wikipedia and didn't intend to pollute the site, I just had an undocumented topic that I actually know about that I wanted to share. Dawsaw (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawsaw: Now at Draft:Confluent (company). —Cryptic 23:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BairesDev

Can you kindly move the contents of the above subject you deleted in my sandbox? I would like to work on it from there before I submit it after it has fulfilled all requirements of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance.Pabloazorin (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pabloazorin: I'd be happy to, if either you provide at least one instance of significant, truly independent coverage in a reliable source about the company, or will explicitly agree not to attempt to recreate the article in mainspace before adding such coverage to it. —Cryptic 01:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not add or attempt to add the article into the mainspace until I add reliable references to the article that make it significant according to Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabloazorin (talk • contribs) 06:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pabloazorin: Now at User:Pabloazorin/BairesDev. Sorry about the delay, it's a bit hectic here. —Cryptic 11:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:RogerHowarthToddManning2011.jpg

Hi, Cryptic, I saw that you deleted File talk:RogerHowarthToddManning2011.jpg. Will you consider restoring it? I had it tagged with WP:G8 (specifically Template:G8-exempt) because the talk page housed a discussion that is a beneficial reference, as seen when discussing recent image matters. Keeping the page would be similar to keeping File talk:Peyton school shooting drawing.JPG. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My apologies. Not an excuse, but an explanation: after you delete a page, Wikipedia shows you a page confirming that the deletion went through, with links to view the deleted edits, check what-links-here, protect the page from creation, and delete the talk page. It transcludes the talk page so that it can be read by the admin without an extra click. Templates on the talk page show up as if they were in the namespace of the deleted page, not the corresponding talk namespace; and templates like Wikiproject banners and {{G8-exempt}} are styled differently when they're shown on File: pages so that they show a big warning that they belong on the talk page instead. I actually remember seeing this talk page and thinking, "Hey, that's unusually long for the File talk: namespace", but I don't remember seeing the g8-exempt template. I think I must have mistaken the g8 template as being another Wikiproject banner. —Cryptic 04:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Cryptic, including for the explanation. I assumed that you had overlooked the tag (meaning you somehow didn't see it). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Cryptic. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

NOO & AfC

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my deletion review

Hi Cryptic. Sorry to approach you, but right now I'm trying to complete the article, and I'm trying to upload the logo under fair use, but the site doesn't allow me to do it unless the article which the image is supposed to be used in exists. As Widr has unsalted the page, I could go ahead to create it, but MBisanz, the AfD deleting admin, has not weighed in yet, and I don't feel like re-creating the page before due process is completed. If you feel the discussion can be closed immediately (since the article is unsalted), could you help me to do so, so I can go right ahead to finish the article on article space? Thanks. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to let the discussion continue. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 00:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I shouldn't close the DRV myself since I commented on it, but if you write a note there retracting your request for a "full conclusion", someone will probably close it early. Or you can just wait until your draft is in mainspace before adding the logo; going without an image for a week isn't the end of the world. —Cryptic 00:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the ensuing discussion, I've decided that the discussion should continue. Thanks for your advice, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StonefieldBreeze

Hi Cryptic. I have no strong feelings about John Basedow. However I am concerned about you stating flat-out that StonefieldBreeze is a paid editor. What's your evidence? (For what it's worth, I'm strongly anti-paid editing and have pursued admin action against paid editors, when the evidence and behavior warrants it.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely behavioral: if he's not being compensated for his promotion of Mr. Basedow, he's going out of his way to act as if he were. 100% of his edits are directly related to this article, barring just enough to get autoconfirmed over a year ago; and his "new" draft included the majority of the language that got the article deleted at afd on TNT grounds before, much of it verbatim. That's not something that happens innocently or by accident. —Cryptic 22:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to strike your claim that they were paid. You have behavioral evidence of advocacy, but not of paid advocacy. This distinction should not be taken lightly. One is a violation of our terms of service and the other is not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing other editors of wrongdoing without substantial evidence. Now you're stating flat-out that StonefieldBreeze is socking, based on this diff, which says nothing about socking. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I replied to your comment over at ArbCom, and messed up the ping. Just in case you are interested. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

John Basedow Talkback

Hello, Cryptic. You have new messages at Talk:John Basedow.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StonefieldBreeze (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation cleanerbot on Men's rights Movement

Hey, I noticed you removed the citationcleanerbot's edit at Men's rights movement, which it promptly re added. Just wanted to let you know about this incase you noticed that it was in error. Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. The context's at Special:Permalink/748475417#Mass rollback needed. —Cryptic 10:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Cryptic.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC; your feedback appreciated

You were a principal discussant during the August 2015 timeframe when an employee of S&J PLLC posted an article that violated Wikipedia standards on pretty much all counts. While researching the deletion discussion, I found your criticisms and those of your colleagues clear and constructive. I am not an employee of the firm and am undertaking a rewrite as part of my job. I want to make absolutely certain that any revised version of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC conforms to Wikipedia requirements, especially regarding notability and sourcing.

A very preliminary draft of an article resides in my sandbox, where it will stay until I am confident it won't elicit a "speedy deletion" tag, should it be taken live. I'd be grateful if you could take a brief look at an explanatory note I've put on my talk page (too long to put it here) and perhaps to check out the draft. I know you've got a lot on your plate. Warmest regards, JoeE PPC PubAssist (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

@JoeE PPC PubAssist: I won't have the time in the near future to give this the attention it deserves. I probably wouldn't be the best person to ask in any case: I normally work with articles that are in much poorer shape; my initial contact with the previous article was entirely clerical; and my knowledge of American law is limited to what one picks up while reading Popehat. I'd suggest contacting User:Bearian (who also commented in the deletion discussion, and does work with law-related articles) or User:Piotrus (who first tagged the article for administrative attention), if they're willing. —Cryptic 21:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: Thanks very much for your quick response and especially for suggesting alternate reviewers. JoeE PPC PubAssist (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cryptic. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote!

Hello Cryptic,

Community wishlist poll

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Improve the tools for reviewing new pages: Vote here.
Reduce the reviewer workload : Vote here

For NPP: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Cryptic!

left|x173px

Happy New Year!

Cryptic,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

NPP stats

Hi Cryptic. You once helped nearly a year ago with a similar set of stats (but not quite the same). I've been asking various people since October (that's nearly 5 months already) but either they just don't have the time, or they find it too challenging, or both. This has now become rather urgent because it's now holding up a further sage in development. Couldyou help out again? We now need to know how the new user right, created in Nvember, is performing is performing.To do this I need the following data in sortable Wikitable form of New Page Reviewers showing:

user name (ckickable)
date of 'promotion' to New Page Reviewer
number of Curations
date of last curation
date of last edit.
Admin yes/no

There are currently around 300 or so non-admin Reviewers in this user group, all the rest are admins (who besides myself, are unlikely to be patrolling new pages with the Curation tool. Is this something you could quarry for me fairly quickly? I'm sorry I have to ask, but I don't have a clue about regex, SQL, or data mining - but once it's been done once and I know how, I could repeat the operation when I need it again. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find the time this weekend. Should be straightforward, except perhaps for #2.

I assume you only mean curations after the user right was created? A UTC timestamp for that time would be helpful, to save me the trouble of trying to track it down. —Cryptic 19:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any joy Cryptic? I got part the way through looking at tables here but alas I couldn't get any further -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 10:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, in spite of the urgency I missed this completely. I have 22,000pages on my watchlist and if I miss a day for personal reasons, without a ping I won't see it. For the start date please take 00:01, UTC November 1, 2016 as the start date . Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung and Samtar: The easily-queryable stuff is in quarry:query/8689 and quarry:query/9134. The Download Data > Wikitable button, pasted onto a page here, will get you something clickable.

Date of last edit could be done, but it's slow, frustrating, and (I assume) not terribly urgent. Finding the promotion date to the patroller group is even slower and more frustrating (example query for one user at quarry:query/16639) - how important is this part? —Cryptic 01:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All parts are important, taken the various things that are going to be done and hopefully accomplished once we have these desperately needed stats. We're not only trying to build up a profile of the typical New Page Reviewer, but we have ways lined up for encouraging them to do more work and less hat collecting, and to strengthen or arguments for the WMF to prioritise various aspects of the Page Curation suite of tools that have been listed at Phabricator. The 'promotion' date is important - there is no point in chiding a new reviewer if he/she was only given the right a week ago. We can leave the admins out of the equation if it will make things (or run time) any easier. Date of last edit tells us if the user is still truly active, and this is important because it's being suggested now that we start weeding out the hat collectors and removing their rights again. We have about two weeks left before some of the intended action takes place. Without the stats a lot of hours of hard work will have to be abandoned. Believe me , I would do it all myself if I could, but I just don't have a clue. My father was the rocket scientist, I'm just a mere polyglot and author of electronic and print bilingual dictionaries - and my publisher gave me the Grep to do it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Promotions to patroller are in quarry:query/16640. It's fragile - the log_params field, which is where both the old and new user groups are stored, isn't in a format that can be parsed directly in a query, just matched against a regex - and will include any users who were later removed from the group. But it should have all the non-sysops from the first two queries in it.

quarry:query/16642 (still running) will have the date of the most recent, non-deleted edit from all the users listed in either of the first two queries, if it doesn't time out. But even money says it will. —Cryptic 02:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think only two have had their Reviewer right removed, so it's not worth worrying about. Just include all users 'promoted' to the user group - and agian, forget the admins, there are too many of them, most admins are not really active at all and to include them just because New Page Revoewet is bundled with the admin tool set will just make the mining slower. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quarry:query/16652 has the timestamp of the last edit of everyone who currently has an explicit patroller userright. I'll paste the results together into something more legible tomorrow. —Cryptic 04:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Alternately, I'll do it tonight. User:Cryptic/Curations since 2016-11-01. —Cryptic 04:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today/tonight - whatever part of the world you're in it doesn't matter as long as it's in a sortable Wikitable. It's so urgent I'm working 24/7 on these New Page Review issues. Just be sure to ping me please. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: It's, as I said, at [[User:Cryptic/Curations since 2016-11-01]]. —Cryptic 05:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. There are a lot of things in the table I don't understand. There are many who apparently had done curations since the New User Right, but who don't have the user right, and indeed among them are many who are blocked (I see that from a script that highlights the names of blocked editors). There are a lot of other gaps too. I don't know much about Wikitables beyond their basic functions and it would take me about three days and nights to to clean it up and manually fill the gaps, i.e. practically repeating all the work manually for each entry. Is there a workaround? As I said, the admins are not so important, but I've got to start removing the right from some of them, encouraging others, and handing out rewards to some others. Then I need to make make some extrapolations and report on the performance of the system (As far as I can see, however, it paints a pretty dismal pcture of New Page Reviewing overall, but I need to be sure). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Which gaps where? If no promotion date is shown, it's because the user was never added to the patroller group; if no last edit is shown, it's because the user is a sysop (and you said it was ok to omit them).

As for the users with curations but not the right - my best guess is that the ability to curate pages without the right wasn't turned off until a bit later. Logs for Tompw, for example, show him curating on Nov 13. —Cryptic 15:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can a seventh column with the number of pages each user with the right has manually patrolled be added (if it isn't too much trouble)? I'm curious if other users are using the right to patrol but not curate as I do. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-curation patrols are stored entirely differently. But they're stored almost identically to autopatrols, and flagged revisions, which makes them very difficult to query for - the actual patrols get completely drowned out by false positives. There's an unfiltered data set at User:Kudpung/NPR activity, for what it's worth; I'm reasonably sure that no user has done 180k manual patrols since November, as it claims. —Cryptic 15:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anaconda 3 DVD.jpg

Greetings, been cleaning up old page protections lately. Is File:Anaconda 3 DVD.jpg still in need of protection? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Probably not, and there's no need to ask me. Sorry it took so long to reply, but the WMF broke notifications for people without the sidebar yet again, and I didn't see this until today. —Cryptic 15:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cryptic. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#BACKLOG.
Message added 00:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion of The Indian Institutes of Information Technology Bill, 2014

I have been already granted permission by the content owner to publish the content on Wikipedia.I request You to undo the deletion. User:Karankhajuria22 22:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Karankhajuria22: I don't have the authority to just take you at your word for this. There's instructions for the proper procedure here. —Cryptic 10:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of the Disappearance of Gary Hayward

Hi, you deleted the page that I recently created, and I'm not exactly sure why. What would it take for the page to be accepted and not deleted? Does it need more sources? I have seen wiki pages that have no sources at all and they continue to exist. I also feel that the disappearance of this person is just as notable as other people of the List of people who disappeared mysteriously, who are under the title of "Disappearance of", so why was this one deleted since it was about the event that happened and not the person? Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Ack. My abject apologies for not getting back to you sooner on this - my life got abruptly turned upside-down around the time you asked this, and Wikipedia's been the furthest thing from my mind for the past couple weeks.

The issue isn't precisely a matter of sourcing or notability, the lack of which aren't reasons for speedy deletion; it's that the article text provided no indication of important or significance. While it's true that even a middling source is enough to stave off speedy deletion, those you cited were unambiguous directory entries. Prepending the title with a "Disappearance of" fig-leaf doesn't magically make an article not be about a person, and see WP:Other stuff exists for why pointing to other similar articles is unconvincing.

I'd be happy to restore to draftspace if you can show a prima facie case that the article might pass the WP:General notability guideline, and thus survive an eventual listing at WP:Articles for deletion; I haven't been able to find anything more substantial than variants of the dozen-odd words you already linked to. Failing that, your route of appeal is WP:Deletion review. —Cryptic 00:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Pescod DRV

Cryptic, Could you please provide a bit more information about that DRV closure? In particular I'm not seeing anything about a copyright violation. Where is the copyright issue from? Could you e-mail me the last version that was deleted? I'm just a bit uncomfortable with an A7 deletion turning into a copyright speedy with no context. Especially one at DRV. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was stated in the article's deletion log, as linked in the DRV header, though the source got cut off. It was more complex than could possibly have fit anyway: by the time it was tagged for speedy deletion G11+G12, it consisted entirely of an infobox, an introductory sentence fragment, an external link to his Linked-In page, and pasted-together paragraphs from [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. There was more text added afterwards which I haven't attempted to source, but well over half of the article was still infringing at the time of deletion. —Cryptic 00:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I wrote the article. It took me hours. None of it was pasted together. The reason it was flagged was for quotes put under the Sources section. I'd like you to point out a single sentence that was lifted. I really hope this can be resolved :).

—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 02:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know more about the grounds for deletion under G11. I have no connection with this man. I have zero interest in promoting him. You will find, if you read my article, that I include the illegal structures scandal he was part of. I think public officials running huge, controversial government projects should be held accountable. How can this be done if they don't even have a wikipedia page?

—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic, I'd still really like your perspective on this, although if you'd prefer me to stop bothering you, I'd accept that too. Either way, please let me know!

—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 05:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking, it doesn't even matter. DRV hasn't ever entertained discussions of articles deleted for being copyright violations, except where it's been shown that the source copied from Wikipedia or was compatibly licensed. Besides that, the article wasn't deleted for being a G11; User:SouthernNights deleted it as an A7 (and a copyvio) instead. A7 isn't about promotion, it's about failure to assert something that, if true, would show the article subject is encyclopedically significant.

That said, the article was definitely a G11 at the time it was tagged, since it consisted almost entirely of effusive praise of Mr. Pescod. This is to be expected, since it also consisted almost entirely of material copied from award announcements, conference profiles, and the like. It's less clearly so after you finally got around to writing any content of your own, but I don't see any mention of a scandal in the deleted revisions, contra your claim above.

And, specifically about how to hold such people responsible without Wikipedia articles - you are in entirely the wrong place. Wikipedia is not your venue for righting wrongs. —Cryptic 10:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking, it matters to me, because your perspective informs if and how I'll pursue this. If DRV doesn't handle articles contentiously deleted for copyvio (beyond the limited exceptions you pointed out), where would you suggest I turn?

As to A7, I struggle to understand how you can claim I failed to "assert something that, if true, would show the article subject is encyclopedically significant," given that I cited 14 sources, 4 of which are prominent news organisations in Hong Kong (Hong Kong Free Press, South China Morning Post, EJ Insight, Harbour Times). These four are just some of the English language sources I could find. In Chinese, he has been covered by RTHK, Apple Daily, Mingpao, over the years, among others.

G11. Deletion criteria must be met by the article as it currently stood, not by its offences when initially tagged.

Mention of scandal. Under the section "Personal Life" I wrote this, "Upon his return from his post in Brussels, Pescod and his wife bought a house in Clearwater Bay, Sai Kung, as a retirement home and investment. In 2012, Ming Pao Daily reported that several unauthorised structures had been found at this property. This negative attention came at a time when other prominent officials, including Chief Executive CY Leung, were found to have similarly illegal structures. He was Director of Housing at the time."

The source for this was Illegal structures found at housing chief's property.

Look, I know that my article was far, far from ideal, but I don't really understand why no one involved (excepting perhaps the initial tagger) is willing to let me improve on it. I put a lot of effort and hours into finding all those sources, compiling and writing and formatting. It was quite galling to have my work not just speedily deleted with no dialogue, but refused a deletion review. My apologies if what I'm doing is considered "lawyering" and I am very sorry for being a pain in the arse in general. Again, please let me know if you'd rather I take my grievances elswhere.

—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 13:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article met the conditions of A7; I was saying that that was (one of) the reasons it was deleted. I don't, as a matter of principle, approve of any A7 deletions where an independent source is cited. (There's currently a discussion going on at WT:CSD about explicitly including that position in policy.) And yes, of course the article's current version is the most important one - my point was that the initial tagging wasn't out-of-line, and that had SouthernNights ultimately deleted the article as a G11, that would have been more defensible.

No deleted revision includes that text or anything resembling it. The last revision's "Personal Life" section reads:

In the early noughties, Pescod was on the Board of the Ocean Park Corporation.
EJ Insight reported in 2014 that he was living in a 5000sf house on the Peak leased for $230,000 a month, of which he was paying just $16,000 due to civil service benefits.
He is Chairman of the Peak School Council and the Children's Heart Foundation. He is former chairman and Life Member of the Valley Rugby Football Club.

Previous revisions include only the last paragraph.

I understand where you're coming from with your frustration about the article. It's fallen into kind of a catch-22 situation: DRV won't consider it while the copyvio situation is unresolved; and the folks at WP:CP aren't going to be willing to restore and vet a non-infringing version of the article when its last deletion has an "A7" stuck to it. I suppose the way forward would be for an administrator to restore the article, edit out the quotes from your sources, revdel all previous versions, re-delete the article, and then run a deletion review as to whether the A7 (or a G11) is valid. The ideal person to do that would be User:SouthernNights. If he's unwilling to do this himself but isn't actively and vehemently opposed to it, I can do it on probably Monday or Tuesday of next week (I've been working seventeen- and eighteen-hour days for the past week, and will be until then; time on Wikipedia is time spent not sleeping). —Cryptic 02:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry regarding the misinformation on inclusion of the scandal in the deleted article. The only copy I saved of Duncan Pescod was the version I was working on at the time it was deleted, hence the mistake.

I really appreciate your understanding and patience with me on this. I will ask SouthernNights if he would be willing to implement the process you suggested. Thank you very much for the idea. I was beginning to think there would be no way forward.

Not that it's any of my business, but do take care of yourself. Eighteen hours is an awful lot!

—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 03:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like a copy of the article e-mailed to me if you don't mind. Hobit (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide you with my pre-deletion copy. Absolutely understand if you'd rather have Cryptic send it though. If you would like me to send it, you will, I'm sorry to say, have to explain to me how to send a Wikipedia user an email! —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 16:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it, thank you Cryptic. I'll take a look over this weekend. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do let me know if I can answer any questions! Enjoy your weekend! —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 02:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the article, removed all the copyright violations, and then redeleted those previous copyvio edits. I've also added the deletion review tag to the top of the page. Feel free to take this article back to deletion review. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Pulickaparambil Family

Hi @Cryptic I see that you have deleted the page Pulickaparambil family quoting copyright infringement. But the content taken from "https://www.scribd.com/doc/158019059/Pulickaparamb-Family-History" is Creative Commons (Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)). I am the authorized person from Pulickaparambil family who uploaded the document in Scribd also. May I request you to undo the deletion. User:joshypulican —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-NC is incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing, which must allow commercial reuse. See WP:COMPLIC. —Cryptic 15:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Refsize DE de 20.jpg

Hi Cryptic, thanks for deleting the page File:Refsize DE de 20.jpg on my ((db-u1)) request. I'd like to have the image deleted as well that was described on the page. However, it is still visible at my talk page (User talk:Jochen Burghardt#Philosophy of mind, upper left image). What should I do to get the image deleted, too? Thanks in advance. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just showing up as a redlink to me there (similar to "150px"). Force a reload, maybe? Or did you want the other five images there deleted too? —Cryptic 19:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! The image disappeared after a few reloads. So using ((db-u1)) on the description page is the right way to get both the page and the image deleted, isn't it? I just wanted to find out, and then issue deletion requests for the remaining 5 images, too. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-g7}} is better than {{db-u1}} for these, since they aren't technically in your userspace, but yes. —Cryptic 22:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Monoranjan Roy

The article was not for any promotion and was made in simple language. Can you please tell me reason of deletion, so that it can be rectified in my future pages. I could not see any reason mentioned for deletion of this page. Ritz082 (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)ritz082[reply]

The reason for deletion for that page is right next to the only place you could have possibly found my username: "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". You may not have meant it to be promotional, but we don't allow hagiographies that laudatory even for actual saints. —Cryptic 06:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritz082 (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC) can you please give me the article that you deleted. I might need to correct it, if I even want to re-create it so that it is acceptable and notable for wiki.[reply]

@Ritz082: Now at Draft:Monoranjan Roy. It's going to need a lot of work to make acceptable just for its tone, and that's assuming that this person meets our inclusion criteria (full version, simplified summary). Please don't attempt to move it back into the main namespace yourself. —Cryptic 00:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cryptic . I do understand that the language for this article was not as per wiki. Will not make it live without being reviewed by others after making it wiki acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritz082 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Three in a row :) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time for NoIndex

Obviously I read 90 days somewhere, but maybe it changed. Look at [10] Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it - though I'm very uncertain about the sequence of events; I wasn't active at the time - we asked for 90 days, and the WMF was only willing to give us 30. —Cryptic 20:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, I suspect the question on [User talk:Kudpung] relates to what I read or something similar. Anyhow thanks for clarifying as best you can. We'll call it 30 until proven otherwise. When does the clock start? When the mainspace page is created or when the draft was created? I assumed the first, but can't read the code. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's initially set (table pagetriage_page, column ptrp_created) as the page's oldest revision.[11] I can't find anything else that changes it. —Cryptic 21:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found where 90 days came from. This question and answer at NPP [12]. Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello why my images are deleted?

I am staff of my bank.And there is no wiki page for my bank.So I decided to create a page about our bank. So I just uploads some photos that are taken by our bank's photographer. Buy the page I created is deleted and even my uploads are all gone. Can you tell me what I need to do to fix this issue?Thanks Cryptic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poeti1102 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleted on a different site, Wikimedia Commons, not here, and it was an administrator there, Yann, who deleted them, not me; he's the person you'll have to speak to to get the images back. I did bring them to his attention, though, since both images appeared elsewhere on the web and were, to all appearances, copyright violations. I'm not certain what the proper instruction page on Commons is for this situation - I'm not very active there - but the equivalent one on Wikipedia is WP:DONATEIMAGE. —Cryptic 04:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cxt quarry request: lang-code, title

Hi Cryptic, Can you do one more quarry request for me? I'm looking to get a 2-col table with lang-code and title, ordered by lang-code. If you could, that would be really helpful, and I promise it's the last one I'll ask for on this project.

To put this into context: have you seen the page WP:CXT/PTR/By language yet? If you look at any of the lists of articles on that page (for example, #es articles) they are put together by a regex against the full wikitext of CXT/PTR, which 1) depends on editors having hand-tagged articles on the list with comments like lang-code or Flag name, and that effort is incomplete and prone to human error, and 2) is also, as you can imagine, subject to a lot of false positives (an article from French wikipedia on a Spanish subject that might provoke an editor to add "Spanish actor" to the line-item comments, say).

What would be ideal, is a two-column result with the lang-code (fr, es, zh, etc.) of originating source language in col 1, and en-wiki article title in col 2. Conditions: almost the same as CXT/PTR, but slightly more restrictive: It should show titles with the ContentTranslation tag in the oldest version of the article, where the creation timestamp is on or before the date of Samtar's db report, and where that version has an edit summary of the type generated by the tool, which begins with the boilerplate phrase: Created by translating the page, followed by a title linked to a foreign wikipedia article revision. (Not every page on the PTR list has that, for example, #13. Cadenus_and_Vanessa does not, because it's a clobber, whereas #12 International Investment Bank does: Created by translating the page "инвестиционный банк".) If you can pull the 'ru' code out of that with a substring or regex, great; otherwise the whole underlying link or even the entire edit summary, and I can post-process it to grab the lang-code. The whole thing should be ordered by col 1, lang-code (or href, or ES, if that's what ends up there).

Can you, can you, pretty please? It would make the work infinitely easier, now that we are recruiting editors with expertise in other languages. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually thought that the by-language subpage had been generated by a query, which is why I stopped tagging languages myself. Crud.

All but the very earliest of the cxt-tagged edits should be in that format. Lemme see what I can do. At the very least, I know can easily create a list of namespace:page title:edit summary, which should be nearly as good. —Cryptic 00:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cadenus and Vanessa in fact contains the only edit that has the CXT tag but doesn't start with "Created by translating the page "[[:" (see quarry:query/19219), so this shouldn't be hard at all. —Cryptic 00:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quarry:query/19218. I didn't see a way to get a date when Samtar's query ran, so I instead used the timestamp of the last article on WP:AN/CXT/PTR, Bogumił Godfrejów. The count is less than on the /PTR page because the non-privileged account on Quarry can't see the articles that have been deleted since then. Similarly, the page names will differ if the page has been moved since /PTR was created. They should be in the same, or nearly the same, order, though. —Cryptic 00:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: There's two anomalies on that query - Cadenus and Vanessa, which should come as no surprise, and Helck, which was separately translated from both de: and ja:. The ja translation was a clobber of the de one, and was reverted. Makes me idly wonder if there were other, unreverted, clobbers similar to that but from the same language twice, though I can't imagine how we'd find them. —Cryptic 01:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wowwwww... I am truly in your debt (deep bow); you have saved us endless trouble and speeded the resolution of this. I owe you. Mathglot (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated version at quarry:query/19243. The pages are only in a few different namespaces, so I made that prettier ([[User:MinecraftGameWiki/Team_BaNaNA]] instead of [[{{ns:2}}:MinecraftGameWiki/Team_BaNaNA]], for example); whether the page is a redirect (which trips some reviewers up), and the current page length (which was documented in a few entries on WP:AN/CXT/PTR, and which I suppose might help prioritizing). —Cryptic 03:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the content the same as 19218, other than prettified? If so, doesn't matter too much, as I already grabbed the earlier one and massaged it; Temp page here: WT:CXT/PTR/By language. If it *is* different, I should replace that page with your new query. Either way, I will include the new one as the go-to link on relevant pages that need to expose the results, so anyone clicking through can see the pretty version. Mathglot (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first two columns should be exactly the same, yes, unless someone happened to delete or move one of the involved pages between when they ran. That seems unlikely. —Cryptic 17:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see it has page-len and redirect flag; I had various things like that that would be useful, but didn't want to ask so as not to overstay my welcome ;-) That stuff is useful, and I'll incorporate it in the next version of the massaged page. All of this stuff is highly useful. Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germano-Japanese cxt'ed Helck

How you ever found doubly-cxt'ed Helck is beyond me. Thanks for that fix. Mathglot (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sorted the query results by name and looked for duplicates. (I also mentioned it in the section above.) —Cryptic 05:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bring to a low boil, and salt to taste

May as well salt Joseph Kargbo and Joseph kargbo while you're at it. Five A7s is probably plenty good. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They already are. —Cryptic 18:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well huh. I guess I had the log set to delete instead of everything. Sorry bout that. TimothyJosephWood

Pass/fail icons on CXT articles

Thanks for your comment about invalid pass/fail templates posted on articles. Mea culpa, insufficiently clear template instructions. I had noticed that, too, and fixed two of them, removing icons from articles, repatriating them at user talk page, and also updated the template to make that clear so it won't happen again with new translators. (Feel free to change the wording at the template if you feel it isn't clear enough now, or discuss at its talk page.)

I have 13 more of them to fix, but got swamped briefly. For current translators already evaluating, there are thirteen more I have to fix, and notify them about proper procedures, and am on it, but feel free to assist if you wish. I'll start from the top down, if you decide to do any, please go from bottom of the 13-list to the top, and we'll bump in the middle; thanks! Adding @Elinruby: Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks*43

Rather than send you 43 thanks for all the "indices from WP:CXT/PTR, strike articles here that are struck there, note page moves" I thought I'd thank you once, instead. So, thanks. Incredibly helpful. Ditto the "missing languages" wikitable. Well done. Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]