If I ask something of you on your talk page, I'll watch it so I see any replies there. If you want me to ping you with each reply, please say so.
(If you're another admin coming here to see if it's ok to undo something I did, I won't be offended if you don't ask me first. But I may be aware of some context that you aren't.)
Thanks!
I would like to second Daniel's closing statement at this DRV. I found your commentary very helpful and well-argued and I hope it will give guidance to many others as to how the G4 criterion should be interpreted. Sjakkalle(Check!)08:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - logs
Perhaps I've forgotten how to find prior deletions, but this article that you just moved to Draft, and it's prior deletion is not showing a reason in our Curation tools. That's why I created the TP - to allow some discussion about what is happening. Atsme💬📧14:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Closer of The Peel Club DRV declined to output atrribution history as text--said to talk to original deleter--and so did the original deleter--said that I should have done it while the page was still up and now they don't want to mess with it; said that I might find someone else to do it. It makes sense to say that I should have done it anticipating the page's re-deletion. But I first envisioned a redirect with history kept. User:SmokeyJoe also recommended that, noting that the page has been irreversibly merged. You noted that an alternative method is available (presumably a talk subpage with the history as text). Would you ehhm do the needful? —Alalch E.09:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cryptic, as I've mentioned at the EFN discussion, I'm here to request 3 filtered queries to get me started. 1. Can you make one that lets me see redirects of a specific year? 2. Can you make one that lists redirects with a certain word in the title? (Example: Since I've got experience categorizing Journal redirects, I'd start with one having Journal or journal in the title.) 3. Can you make one that lets me see redirects that redirect to an article that is in a specific category or its subcategories? (Example: If I want to see redirects to articles in this cat or in its subcats.) Thanks for taking a look at this. Nobody (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to all three. The second is easiest. The third is fastest and most natural, at least for a specific category; once you start asking for entire category trees, things can break very quickly - many categories eventually include nearly every other category as a descendant. The first is the slowest, and most awkward, and probably not terribly useful. It's not in general detectable when a page was made a redirect, at least not before the "new redirect" tag existed; the timestamps of the first and last edit can be found, but aren't necessarily relevant, and they're no help in narrowing down the query - every single uncategorized redirect in mainspace needs to be found first, and then filtered for its timestamps.If you've got lists of words or regexes to search for in the titles, or categories (and depths in their trees), I can take a look in maybe twelve hours; it's late here. Also WP:RAQ is better for this than my talk page, though it's still likely to be me answering. —Cryptic05:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a bit short on sleep, but mostly irritated by OwenX's claim that talking to the deleting admin first is not just required, but policy, when it's deliberately not even process.And now irritated that WT:DRV's archives are screwy and mostly unlinked from WT:DRV itself and not linked from each other at all, and I can't find the last discussion about it. But the gist of the most recent consensus is, if I remember it correctly (and that's a big if) - that some editors would be intimidated into not asking for review at all if they had to go to the same person who deleted their page and who they see as an antagonist and let them gatekeep. —Cryptic21:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see it differently but agree that DRVs essence is providing a credible fair platform to reassess decisions. That said, you seem to have upset Frank Anchor further down the page and that’s not usually your style. SpartazHumbug!21:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I'd not commented there for a day and a half, so didn't think that's what you were talking about. Genuinely crotchety about the continued attempts to make unanimous three-week-long deletion discussions unable to delete pages, when the initial reason for WP:NOQUORUM was to stop people closing them as no consensus. (Archive I was looking for was at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2020/September, fwiw. Whose bright idea was it to set it up so it's mostly one section per archive page? Sheesh.) —Cryptic22:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say delete the NOQUORUM shortcut and eradicate any instance of the word "quorum" in PAGs (no significant instances that I'm aware of; it's in that section's header however, and headers should merely describe and not color the actual content too much even in policy pages). It's unhelpful figurative language. —Alalch E.00:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declining a CSD nomination is exactly why I believe that CSD must be a dual key event. Each of us has a firm idea and I am content that the mop and bucket overrule the editor proposing CSD. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're still up and about, I'm wondering whether you could also take a look at File:Dubai Towers Istanbul.gif and File:Houston Tower.gif. Neither file has any source information or a copyright license, but the uploader has already removed the speedy deletion template once. It's also unclear whether they're official images or just made up stuff; so, I'm not sure they could even be converted to PD or non-free. The uploader also keeps wanting them to be displayed at their full-size in Houston Tower and Dubai Towers Istanbul which seems way too big for Wikipedia's purposes. I tried to make the images display smaller once, but was reverted. I've made them smaller again, but am not sure whether there's another better way to do the same thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither have any encyclopedic value, and should just be removed from the articles regardless of size. The first one's going to eventually be speedied as an F4. Second might be pd-simple, but I wouldn't raise a ruckus over its eventual F4 meatbot deletion, and would take it to FFD if it were declined. —Cryptic01:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I promise, there will be a day when I link correctly and don't otherwise break syntax and you don't have to clean up behind me. In the interim, feel free and with my gratitude. Thanks for all you always do. StarMississippi23:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't get how attempting to write a biography, using the template outline we provide for new users to attempt to write biographies, is unrelated to Wikipedia's purpose. Yeah, it's an autobiography and will probably turn into a resume once there's more than just a name and a birthdate filled in, but the one's not forbidden and the other hasn't happened yet. —Cryptic11:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Smarty LLC
You were a bit hasty in your deletion of the Smarty LLC page. I was working on further information and the page was deleted by the time I tried to publish the update. Jknacnud (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly those were a couple links, but there is far more content. Perhaps I will just complete the article in a separate document before posting it to Wikipedia, since editing in place apparently makes it ripe for gleaning by moderators that are hungry for speedy deletion fodder. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jknacnud (talk • contribs) 01:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mink (manga)
Thank you so much for your assistance. I did not realize the version in my drafts was the original article with the entire edit history from 2005 and remade the article on my own. My mistake! lullabying (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
