User talk:Cryptic/archive-2

Moving versus copying

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

Wikilinking dates

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

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

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

User and Talk Page Vandalism

May you be blessed with good mental health in light of wiki-stress!

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

Marine da nang blotches

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

My RfA

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

Hijab

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

AfD closings

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

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

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

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

Deletion Review

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

Copyvio instruction box

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

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

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

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

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

On images

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

Re: Smokabong

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

Spiders vs Housefly

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

X1LLa

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

Re: Ancient TFDs

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

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

2110 bolton wanderers

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

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

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

Aschinger

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

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

Scripts

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death note

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

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

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

Image:Indian Railways Map.gif

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

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

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

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

Margaret Turnbull

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

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

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

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

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

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

Band Of Thieves

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

Jessica Buttriss

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

Missing Step III of Afd

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

Mr Frew

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

Please do have a barnstar

I, Lord Bob, hereby award you this Working Man's Barnstar as a token of appreciation for your ceaseless and thankless labour listing orphaned AfDs in their proper place.

Vandalism.

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

No Day/No Night

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

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

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

Orphaned fairuse templates

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

Icons in stub templates and fair use

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

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

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

NAM!

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

Maryville Middle School

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

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

Template talk:Support

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

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

My votes are all right and do not need your fixing. It's the template that needs fixing as someone apparently forgot to use the <includeonly> and <noinclude> parameters. So, be so kind as to think twice next time you call me a vandal. Halibutt 08:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD entry

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

{{Db-repost}}

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor David Ashmead

You noted that this listing had been orphaned (and I see how I forgot to put in the pg= parameter in the template), but there were five votes before your comment, so I'm wondering how they got there, especially as they're from users who are known to frequent AFD. I doubt they'd have found it just by accident... strange. Anyway, thanks for listing it properly. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Protected against re-creation... or is it?

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

reverting the blue mary image

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

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

Sorry about that, I'm very new to this version of web writing (for lack of a better term). I did not mean to write over the image how I did and will not do so again. I have been contributing images that I've found on sites and have marked them (credited the sights) as best as I can (some images were acquired some time ago). Just trying to spice up some of the entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstorres (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I see you've met my stalker...

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

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

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on Gay Pubs in Leeds. We admins sometimes do so many afd closures at one sitting (40-50 at times) that it's easy to miss something like that on one. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(cat scratches) 12:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bin.gif

I see that you labeled Image:Bin.gif for a possible copyvio, and didn't add an entry to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 October 29. Therefore, I would like to know why you think it is a copyright violation. The license looks good to me. -- SoothingR 13:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it on the 22nd, so it's on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 October 22. The license reads, in part, "You may not distribute them in anyway [sic], for profit or otherwise, without our prior written permission." It doesn't get much clearer than that. —Cryptic (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I guess I misread the whole text. The part that reads "You may use it freely in your own work and within your institution or organisation"`must have make me misunderstood. However, I guess you can delete the image anyway. It's orphaned anyway, and the purpose which I uploaded it for is gone. -- SoothingR 13:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McCabe

Please be more careful about what you delete. Thomas McCabe was not from a commercial content provider, so it was in no way a speedy. —Cryptic (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while the American Society for Quality is a nonprofit, it is a "commercial content provider" (as stated on Wikipedia:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Articles) because it offers, in it's own words, "offers technologies, concepts, tools, and training to quality professionals, quality practitioners, and everyday consumers." [2] This content is only provided for a cost. I was very careful when I looked at deleting this article and only did so b/c it was less than 48 hours old, from the website of an organization providing commercial content, and met all the other criteria. Just because an organization is a nonprofit doesn't mean their content isn't commercial. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The American Society for Quality is certainly not in the business of selling the biographies of those who are invited to speak at one of their conferences. Taking so broad an interpretation of "commercial content provider" would make anything appearing on the web page of nearly any company to be speediable. If you read the proposal that led to this specific wording you'll see that it was crafted specifically to avoid this idea.

The fact that the exact same biography appears on the web page of another conference [3] strongly implies that the ASQ does not own the copyright to this bio at all. It may well have been written by Mr. McCabe himself and provided to both of these organizations, and not beyond the realm of possibility that he also posted it to Wikipedia himself. Compare the first revision of Carl Hewitt, which was also a bioblurb that appears next to his name as a speaker at several conferences (as well as the Stanford page I cited in the copyvio template). As it happens, in that case it was the subject of the article who wrote the blurb, provided it to the conferences, and posted it to Wikipedia. It is exactly this sort of situation that a week of limbo on WP:CP is intended to catch.

I do owe you an apology for assuming you hadn't checked, though. Stretching of the speedy criteria is one of the few things that truly bothers me on Wikipedia, and this one's a particular sore point (I was one of only six who opposed it). My blood pressure goes up whenever I see "copyvio?" show up as the comment in the deletion log, and I find articles improperly tagged for A8 nearly every time I can bring myself to look at CAT:CSD. (The most recent was Sunatori.com, despite them selling pens, not advertisements for them. The most ridiculous was [name removed for courtesy reasons], whose source was a personal geocities webpage.) There isn't really any recourse, either - I'm not going to list them at WP:VFU, since I don't want copyvios to be undeleted, of course, and so few articles on WP:CP are salvaged that it's safe to assume that any article that I did raise a stink about wouldn't be one of them. —Cryptic (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on the discussions that lead to the term "commercial content provider." I'll keep this in mind in the future. I will say, though, that I agree with the editor who said that this seems to set up a different standard for commercial content providers--i.e., commercial speech is given higher protection than noncommercial. Still, commercial entities are more likely to sue, so I guess that's a good reason to clear their stuff out ASAP. Best, --Alabamaboy 02:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• RealPlane page has been updated since your AFD vote. Tr9ccc 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote. . . And what now?

As I said, I've never done a VfD before (this is my first) and I was wondering, when does the discussion turn into a reality, ie, a deletion or merger? I suppose the answer is different depending on which it is? Thanks. ElAmericano 03:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the current backlog at WP:AFD/Old, it looks like it might take as long as another four or five days. Or it might happen sooner, if it catches the eye of an interested administrator before then, but it almost certainly won't be closed before tomorrow. —Cryptic (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure if I had to do anything or not. - ElAmericano 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahoots AfD

OK, ok, ok. I was going to tag it {{afd}} but was rather tired at the sime so I forgot to. Sorry. I'll try to remember in the future. :-) --WikiFanatic^Talk Contribs 21:57, 1 Nov 2005 (CDT)

Possible admin nomination

Hello Cryptic, I came across your name recently and saw that you've been here a while but are not an admin. I then began reviewing your contributions to Wikipedia against my rather strict nomination standards and I'm pleased to tell you that you passed. In fact, I can't believe you haven't been nominated already. You've done a very large amount of work at WP:AFD (I count nearly 1200 edits in this area alone), and have been active in a lot of other admin appropriate areas, includinf WP:MD, WP:RFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD and more. Plus, you've been active in discussions on criteria for speedy deletion and also on featured article candidates. I especially liked a comment you made about the never ending schools keep/delete debate ([4]). I've reviewed about 100 of your comments made on user talk pages and have found you very level headed and cool under stress. Plus, you're quite willing to make comments to other admins who make errors and are very polite in the process ([5]). You already work in contentious areas, and as you said ([6]), you don't get stressed easily; a great quality for an admin. I expect you would make a fantastic admin and would make great use of the tools. I'd like to nominate you, but before creating the nomination page for you I wanted to find out if you're be interested in being an admin and if you would like me to nominate you? --Durin 21:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's very kind of you to offer, and I won't refuse; however, you may want to reconsider after reviewing this rather ill-considered edit. And, um, I've barely touched WP:MD or WP:CFD, haven't made any edits at all related to WP:FAC that I'm aware of, and most of my work at WP:AFD has been so botlike that I'm now in fact running a bot to do them, so your praise above is a bit embarrassing. —Cryptic (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that edit was bad. It raised a good point, and was done without being insulting. On edits...I found 7 edits to WP:MD. So, you have made contributions there. Not as much as AFD certainly, but it's there. Same for CFD (8). With respect to Featured Articles; I misspoke. I meant featured pictures (121 edits). Part of being a good admin isn't necessarily being an expert in all admin appropriate areas. It's about being aware of those areas. You've demonstrated that. Your emphasis is in AFD. There's nothing wrong with that. Having a bot to aid you in that work is a plus, not a minus. I am aware of Crypticbot. I think the fact you created it and run it is a plus. I intended to include mention of it in the nomination statement. I don't see shortcomings here. What I see is an editor who has needed the admin tools for a very long time, is very qualified to have them, and does not have them. With that in mind, and your acceptance above, I'll go ahead and create the nomination. You're not required to accept of course :)

In moving this nomination forward, please follow these instructions I crafted for nominees I have nominated. Following these instructions helps to ensure a smooth running RfA. The first candidate I ran through under those instructions and my guidelines went 27-1-0. You're the second since I crafted them. I fully expect the results will be similar. You're also aware of WP:GRFA (you made some typo corrections there) which is good, as it will help you in the RfA process.

The nomination now exists at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cryptic. Please remember to officially accept the nomination and answer the stock questions before posting it at WP:RFA. Again, be careful to follow instructions. Proceed slowly; there's no deadline. Congratulations on nomination! --Durin 13:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The nomination already has 3 support votes (including mine), 2 from people who stumbled across it, and it's not even been accepted/posted yet! Wow. --Durin 14:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latest update: 48-1 so far. Obviously you'll pass with flying colors. If I might suggest, I would not respond to the sole oppose vote. The person in question is the subject of some controversy, and he's not raising any significant point in your RfA. I reviewed your stance vis-a-vis deletionist/inclusionist and found you to be an extreme of neither. If you were an extreme, I would not have nominated you. I'd just let Silverback's comment go uncommented on. --Durin 01:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank-you for expressing your confidence in me at my recent Request for Adminship. The final result was 40/0/0, and my "superpowers" have now been activated. I look forward to helping out with the development of the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk • contribs)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

moving AfD subjects

Whoops, yeah, you're 100% right. I know better than to leave redlinks hanging like that, and should have been more careful. Thanks for the heads-up. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]