User talk:Cryptic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Gold Mercury International Award[edit]

I saw you changed the visibility of previously-deleted copyvio versions. Would it not be better to just remove all versions dated before 12 March 2012‎? They had all been deleted, and then a fresh version of the article was started on 12 March 2012. I don't know how difficult that would be, or whether it is important, but that would make the history look the same as if the article had not been speedied in the first place. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Copyvios don't get restored, even for temporary review at DRV; my doing so was an error that needed correction. The other revisions are comparatively harmless, and potentially useful in that they illustrated the troubled history of the article, especially since the deletion logs are now disconnected from it and hiding at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Gold+Mercury+International instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Gold+Mercury+International+Award. I think it's very clear looking at the history of the article that the 2012 version was started from scratch, both from the gap in revision dates and from your edit summary, before even looking at its text. (Plus, deleting large numbers of revisions is annoying—each one needs to be individually clicked.) —Cryptic 15:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
O.k. no problem. It just looked a bit odd. I will keep it on my watchlist this time. I suspect there will be more efforts to puff it up. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Savi Gabizon[edit]

Hi my page was automatically deleted because some of the article was similar to an external site. i don't own the site, but i was the one who wrote the info there (it's an Israeli films database), like other sites that need the information about that Director and films that contribute to the Israeli culture. more than that, the article at wikipedia was translated from the Hebrew-wiki-page, so it is just translation. i have changed as much as i could the text at the external site, but the update takes 4-10 days.

it's a bio about this person - movies he made, prizes he won and where he grew up - there is no much "play" with the info way of writing. you will also find plus-minus similar info at IMDb site, where i updated his info too.

please help me get that page back online. check the details and information. what to i need to do next to have that page in English wiki too? thank you חנה ושרי - ייצוג יוצרים ותוכן (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha - I see that that site has changed. Given the copyright notice at its bottom, there really wasn't any other option open to me. I've restored the article. —Cryptic 18:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

T H A N K Y O U!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by חנה ושרי - ייצוג יוצרים ותוכן (talkcontribs) 05:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Page reverted[edit]

Hello,

I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you.

I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats. I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited.

I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.

My best,

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 05,02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in the article, and generally make a point of not responding to massively-crossposted messages; but at a cursory glance, Cirt's reversion was at least defensible. Once you get back from your block, try a listing at WP:RSN. —Cryptic 07:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hilarious[edit]

... this. I didn't even think to check whether it had. I assumed that someone doing so would close the DRV... but of course if they didn't know about it. Nicely done. Thanks mate. Stlwart111 22:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit[edit]

ThaddeusB (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

3rr board[edit]

Can you stop the madness, please check the edit history. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

...Which madness where? —Cryptic 09:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry thought it was obvious [[1]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks like he's making baseless accusations against you. Just figured I'd let you know in case you haven't seen it. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 10:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand you want to assume good faith but the comments on the edit boaards, you and the user name Poo for me too ie P004me2 makes it pretty difficult to do that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Saw both of those, yes; but it'll be less disruption in the long run if he can be talked down instead of just blocking a sock army (if P004ME2 really is SummerFunMan, and not just someone else stirring the pot). He's clearly frustrated, and understandably so; and the current version of the article doesn't have the edits everyone else was objecting to in place. —Cryptic 10:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems that I'm not getting a reply, so I thought I would check here. Nope, not SummerFunMan. But I did ask you on my talk page, Cryptic, how you got attracted to my talk page. However, I see now how that happened (by Hell).
I guess I should be asking you, HiaB, how you got attracted to that part of the 3RR/EW board from what looks like nowhere. So yeah, Hell, what attracted you there?
P004ME2 (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The magic checkuser 8 ball confirmed the farm. 18:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah well. I tried. Too little too late. —Cryptic 01:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Riedel Communications Article[edit]

Actually it would be nice to talk with you about problems with my site. I can not understand why you keep deleting my article about Riedel Communications. I tried to fix it but instead of opening a discussion the site was deleted immediatly...We have no problem with the copyright here as I am working at Riedel, the english Version is a translation of our german page (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riedel_Communications) and this page is not marked as advertising...--BeyondTime (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

A) Our encyclopedia is not your free billboard, and B) your marketing and legal departments will probably have a problem with you releasing your marketing material as free content. —Cryptic 11:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

At first It´s not your encyclopedia, it´s a encyclopedia for ALL. If I look through all the other articles about companys our article compared to that is not advertising at all...And all materials and informations in these articles are legal and free content. Maybe it is a solution to contact the company Riedel Communications in this situation to see what their opinion is about that. This article descripes the company Riedel. As with many other wiki sites already... The articles describes the company, the products and milestones. Is it prohibited to name events in which the company was involved in the past? I do not think so! Normally articles do not get deleted asap, you work together so that you have a nice article in the end. If thou you do not feel in a position to help us with that and instantly delete our article again and again, I would like to talk to another person about that.--BeyondTime (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. The place to do so is Wikipedia:Deletion review. The instructions there are more complex than they need to be; the short version is to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 3 and edit it to add {{subst:drv2|page=Riedel Communications|reason=(replace this with your reasons for undeletion)}} ~~~~ at the bottom. —Cryptic 13:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ron Duncan[edit]

Can you please restore this article [2] so that it would make it easier for individuals to see when going through the AFD process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_Duncan_(martial_arts)_(2nd_nomination) Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How about no? You've had enough bites at the apple already, and it doesn't belong at afd anyway. —Cryptic 10:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Hi. Thank you for taking the initiative to remove that RfA. It was a totally unprecedented way of closing one and I'm not sure that simply eradicating it from the records is the best way to go, but we have been getting a sudden short sharp wave of inappropriate nominations over the last four weeks or so. That said, I don't think our criteria are absurdley high. In the absence of any easy way to defrock sysops who go astray, in this post 2007 era I believe them to be about right. All the best for 2015. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll offer up this post-delisting oppose as counterargument. (4 or 5 years?) —Cryptic 18:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
You just happened to choose a comment from an editor, a very young one, whose own 3rd RfA tanked monumentally just 48 hours ago. All that candidates are required to do is demonstrate an acceptable level of maturity, civility, helpfulness, a good knowledge of policies, some solid content work, a clean block log, and some all round experiece in meta areas with not too many mistakes. It usually takes a year and 4,000 edits to achieve all that. Some admins might have far exceeded those norms when they ran, but simply because they never really considered being admins until it was suggested to them. Old-age pensioners like me for example, who had already been around on Wiki for about 6 years and 30,000 edits, and certainly not looking for recognition for work on a web site. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he was a couple standard deviations above the norm, and in retrospect my reply here was a bit flippant. I hope you'll agree, though, that some exaggeration was appropriate in the context of my original comment on RegistryKey's talk page (which is what I've been assuming you were referring to re: rfa norms). —Cryptic 19:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Under the cicumstances I think your exaggeration was as legitimate (in a different way) as my rather harsh outburst as the first opposer on that RfA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Hi there again. Just wanted to enquire how did you reach this conclusion? Any diffs that I missed? Thanks for keeping a watch on this. Wifione Message 18:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The twitter link on the original author's userpage contains his full name (matching the username, but the confirmation is nice). Linkedin profile lists it as a former occupation. He's made legitimate edits since posting that article, so I wasn't about to identify him there at DRV. Might be problematic if the article gets restored, though. —Cryptic 18:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I guess you could remove that comment if you can to ensure it's not problematic. To be precise, the original author has self identified himself on the web. So even if you do not remove the comment, it's alright. Your call is as good as mine on this. See you around. Wifione Message 18:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issue articles[edit]

Reviewing new articles by banned users I came across a bunch that are marked with copyright notices. The creator is indef banned for copyvio. I tagged for delete, but maybe that is wrong? Legacypac (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If you had half a brain you'd see that A) I was the one who identified them as likely - but by no means certain - copyvios, and B) I was the one who blocked him, and C) if you can see his name in the article's history, he obviously didn't create them in violation of his block. They're not speedies. Sheesh. —Cryptic 06:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I'm learning how to deal with new article review, so thanks for the help. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That was intemperate, and I apologize. (By way of excuse, it's fairly late here.) But a {{db-g5}} is always going to be a controversial tagging, and essentially never correct in the absence of sockpuppetry. If your script can figure out the original user's talk page to put a notice on, then the article was pretty much by definition created before the banning or blocking. Besides, the blocking admin could have, and just about always will already have, deleted the articles in question at the same time he blocked. —Cryptic 06:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm just using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPagesFeed and the tool provided. See 10,000 pages to review so I focused on the blocked and banned users figuring alot of them would be deletes. I'll use other tags then. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sabina Altynbekova[edit]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabina Altynbekova, it says that "Anyone who wants to create a redirect at this title is free to do so". Why was the article for "Sabina Altynbekova" deleted AFTER I created a redirect to Kazakhstan_women's_national_volleyball_team#2014_Junior_Asian_Championships? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't a redirect when I deleted it, and I'm embarrassed to say that, while I read the entire AFD to be sure it still applied to the re-created article, I entirely missed the closer's statement that a redirect was OK. I've restored and protected it as such. —Cryptic 17:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Reply - Thank you. I recommend however, that the path be Kazakhstan_women's_national_volleyball_team#2014_Junior_Asian_Championships (or Kazakhstan_women's_national_volleyball_team) instead of Kazakhstan_women's_national_volleyball_team#Junior. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I've done the former. —Cryptic 17:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Winmel Garcia[edit]

This has been re uploaded again. Perhaps more needs to be done? 49.197.25.5 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this, .5; I've protected the title this time. —Cryptic 01:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ardnacrusha[edit]

Where and when was the request for the move made? For some reason I can not find it. The whole move is a bit strange as people in Co. Clare refer not only to the village but also to the dam as Ardnacrusha. To be true: with the dam being the better known one outside Co. Clare. The Banner talk 20:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The move request was a tag on the Ardnacrusha disambiguation page itself; my role here was merely clerical. If you truly dispute the move, then move the article back to Ardnacrusha (village) and ask for an undelete of the disambiguation page at WP:REFUND. (I'd normally offer to undelete myself, but my network connection is starting to act up again, so that would probably be a lot slower.) —Cryptic 23:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, as far as I remember I have objected against the move but the discussion has now disappeared. The Banner talk 23:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


THIMUN Foundation article[edit]

Context: User talk:Kikichugirl/Archive 2#THIMUN Foundation G11 complaint

Hi Cryptic, many thanks for the comments. I do agree that there was too much puff in the article I submitted. The external links were actually there largely as citations. Being new to creating articles, I was unsure how to insert them as such. I assume that the links connected to THIMUN affiliates are inappropriate, and will delete them. You suggest that 'nearly every paragraph' was G11, yet the bulk of the article past the introduction and history seem very innocuous to me. Am I missing something? Please bear in mind that the majority of traffic for this article will be high school students looking to familiarise themselves with THIMUN rules and procedures.

It seems that creating rough drafts for my personal use (practice) in the sandbox is wrong. Would that page have been deleted from my user space? If not, could I create a draft there and then request feedback?

Many thanks, Moseley101 (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you've already re-created it at your user page, so you clearly have a copy of it offline. You're probably better off working on it there instead of on Wikipedia until you're at the point where you need active feedback. There's no need to worry about getting the formatting or such right.
As an aside, the draft was actually less objectionable at User:Moseley101/sandbox, and I suggest you move it back there. —Cryptic 22:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Pickled Pepper Productions[edit]

Hello Cryptic.. regarding Pickled Pepper Productions Ltd., it was created by User PickledPepperProductions (talk · contribs), so I thought there was a clear COI and probably a User name violation but I see you've added the AfC template now, so I have no issue letting it go through the process. Thanks for all your mop work :) JMHamo (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've blocked him for his username (which won't matter, since he hasn't edited in almost a year), and no, the article's never going to make it into mainspace like that, but at least it's neutrally written. No harm letting it sit around unindexed for six months, and I'd never be able to justify G11ing it. —Cryptic 02:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks again... JMHamo (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Username block[edit]

I would argue that this block on Idcworld-jmc (talk · contribs) is inappropriate. WP:UN states that, while account names implying ownership by an organization are not allowed, account names indicating a person at an organization are OK (third bullet under WP:ISU). Clearly, this account name indicates user JMC (J. Michael Cobb) at IDC World. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I blocked because the name was promotional (WP:UN#Promotional names), not because it implied shared use. I'll readily admit that the block template I used wasn't a perfect fit, but I couldn't find a better one and wasn't up to devising a custom one on the spot. —Cryptic 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'll quote the WP:UN page, this time from the Promotional names section:
  • Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. TownvilleWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see under Usernames implying shared use below.
The policy seems to allow for names that imply that the user works at a particular place. I'll agree that this user was using Wikipedia to promote himself (and possibly his company), and that his article was rightfully deleted, but I don't necessarily agree with the username block. It's a moot point now as the user has apparently picked a new name, but it's a point for future consideration. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

William Sullivant Vanderbilt Allen[edit]

At 14:53 on 15 January 2015 it seems that you deleted this page as G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. This seems incorrect because:

  1. WP:G12 states that this only applies "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. ... For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as ... where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems."
  2. The issue of copyright was raised at the earlier AFD and there was no consensus to delete.
  3. The matter has arisen afresh as evidence at an RfA. You were an earlier supporter of the candidate and so are acting while involved.

Please can you therefore restore the content. I suggest that you userfy it for me because, as explained at the RfA, I have identified further sources and so can readily improve the content while removing any copyright concerns. Andrew D. (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Noninfringing content was de minimis:

William Sullivant Vanderbilt Allen (1860 - 1931) [...]

He was a member of (or at least seen in a photograph in the Smithsonian collection sitting amongst) the Society of American Artists, Jury of 1890.[1] [2]

== Works ==

An evening by the lake [3]

  1. ^ http://npgportraits.si.edu/eMuseumNPG/code/emuseum.asp?rawsearch=ObjectID/,/is/,/108707/,/false/,/false&newprofile=CAP&newstyle=single
  2. ^ "A New York Girl Who Was in Favor with Duke of Clarence". Chicago Tribune. 17 January 1892. p. 12. Retrieved October 9, 2014 – via Newspapers.com.  open access publication - free to read
  3. ^ http://www.flickriver.com/photos/39907211@N03/9576230512/

{{DEFAULTSORT:Allen, William}} [[Category:American artists]] [[Category:American painters]] [[Category:1860 births]] [[Category:1931 deaths]] [[Category:Vanderbilt family]]

(All prose added by User:Gaff.) The remainder of the article was the entire prose contained on [3]. Is that sufficient for your purposes?

My reading of User:Dennis Brown's AFD close is that the copyright issue was overlooked. (I'm pinging him as a courtesy, though he's currently inactive, and there's no reason to expect him to come out of retirement just to comment on this.) The claim of involvement doesn't pass the laugh test, and if anything, it paints the candidate in a poor light and directly contradicts my own statement of support. —Cryptic 18:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I already have a copy of the page as it was. Using cut/paste copying to recreate this text is not good practice on Wikipedia because it fails to re-establish the history which we require for attribution — see WP:CUTPASTE and WP:COPYWITHIN. Please userfy the article or follow the instructions specified in WP:G12. Andrew D. (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not going to do that, since your subsequent edits have made it clear that your primary intention is to make some sort of point at MelanieN's RFA. Attribution via edit summary is perfectly sufficient, as you would know if you had read the all-caps shortcuts you patronizingly posted here before doing so rather than after. If you insist on this, WP:DRV is thataway. —Cryptic 18:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    I have asked for a deletion review of William Sullivant Vanderbilt Allen. Because you speedily deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 clock[edit]

Hello Cryptic, could you please add the AfC creation template to Nuur dugle, Somalia as I am not entirely sure how it's done. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. There's documentation at {{AFC submission}}; in particular, {{subst:AFC draft|creator's username}} is the incantation you were looking for. —Cryptic 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Very useful. Thanks JMHamo (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Better Decisions Forum Article[edit]

Hi, I would like to understand with you how should I re-create the article about Better Decisions Forum. It's not a promotional page about company, product or persons. I wanted to create an encyclopedic page about a series of conferences related to business, academic and technology topics (just like TED Conference) related to Decision Making process. All the event connected to the Forum are free and there are different independent articles about the events. Maybe the structure of the article wasn't right, can you give me any advice? EddyWilly (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi EddyWilly. While it's true that Legacypac tagged the article for deletion because he thought it unambiguously promotional, that's not why I deleted it. Rather, your article had almost the opposite problem: it didn't say why the organization is important or significant.
The guideline that the article will eventually have to pass for inclusion at Wikipedia is listed (in verbose, excruciating detail) at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The short, short version is that the organization will need to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of it (which is our general notability guideline).
For now, however, you don't need to show that - the expedited ("speedy") deletion process I used on your article only allows us to delete when an article doesn't even imply that it might meet those guidelines. Any statement that plausibly indicates that additional research would have a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability would suffice.
I'm willing to restore your article as a draft for further work, and this is what I recommend; let me know if you want that. Alternately, you can just create it again as you did before, so long as you say in your article why the organization is significant - preferably, including independent reliable sources, so that other volunteers don't have to find them for you. —Cryptic 18:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Both reasons have validity. I encourage you to read the guidelines and resubmit with appropriate adjustments. Good luck and thanks for contributing. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Cryptic thank you for your explanation. I would like to do as you recommend and start working on a Draft version in order to properly modify the page before publish it again. Can you please restore it as you suggested? EddyWilly (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. It's at Draft:Better Decisions Forum. —Cryptic 11:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Morgan (English footballer)[edit]

Hello, could you please semi-protect Adam Morgan (English footballer) as an IP keeps reverting me to add unsourced info to the BLP article. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's one IP, and his changes aren't derogatory (regardless of whether they're sourced or correct). Let's see if he stops after your warning; otherwise, the correct action would be to block, not protect. —Cryptic 21:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks... JMHamo (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I have just been reverted by the same IP again... diff. This is getting annoying now. JMHamo (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Bumped up to a final warning. Take him to WP:AIV if it happens again; you'll get a faster response there. —Cryptic 05:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Misee Harris (actress)[edit]

Cryptic, My humble request to you restore the wiki page of Misee Harris (actress). You said on editors summery "G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page" and "It was previously been deleted by a discussion" I agree with you. It was deleted for lack of reliable references but this new page was created with new contents & references based on recent development. Can you please check again the contents of the article & reliable references. It's okay , you can remove the re-direction , please don't delete the whole page!

Dr.Misee Harris is a notable subject.Can you please re-check? Thanks Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khocon (talkcontribs) 04:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Khocon. I've taken another look, and I stand by my re-deletion. The re-created page uses different references than the one deleted at AFD, but most are from the same publications, and the remainder appear similar in character to me and I don't think they would have made a difference to the AFD outcome if they had been in the article at the time.
It didn't help matters that the prose was substantially the same between the two versions, nor that it re-created at a different title. Both always make it look like the intent was avoid scrutiny, whether or not that's actually the case.
I don't think that you're going to be able to convince me, so your route of appeal is at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The instructions there are more complex than they need to be; the short version is to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 3 and edit it to add {{subst:drv2|page=Misee Harris (actress)|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misee Harris|reason=(replace this with your reasons for undeletion)}} ~~~~ at the bottom. —Cryptic 05:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Cryptic, It's okay. Thanks for your help & support. I will use your instruction. Honestly , Misee harris deserved a wiki article! Give me some suggestions then or so it is possible to restore it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khocon (talkcontribs) 05:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Helping New Users Barnstar Hires.png The Helping Hand Barnstar
For covering a new editors ( Y ) Deunanknute (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Rocksbd[edit]

Rocksbd is evading your salting of their band page by creating another, Recent (Bangldeshi Band). They seem intent on promoting their band. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I kind of expected it, and so had his contributions open in another tab with the intent to check again in an hour or so. I've blocked him; with any luck, that'll gets us at least a day of autoblocking. —Cryptic 16:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Dave Huddart[edit]

(Deletion log); 04:35 . . Cryptic (talk | contribs) deleted page Dave Huddart ‎(A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): A7: Bio with no explanation of significance. Also an expired WP:PROD with (not-so-great) rational "why is this here?")


See you have a sense of humor. And great reading comprehension. I was trying to be different and hopefully amusing. why is this here? Is another way of saying he was not wiki worthy aka not notable. But I guess those are lousy reasons to delete an article. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The autogenerated rationale ("Expired PROD, concern was: why is this here?") showing up in my logs would have been embarrassing. (Even more so than the double A7 I ended up with. I was trying to ensure the prod part didn't get truncated, so wrote a shortened version of the generic drop-down A7... and then forgot to disable the generic one, making truncation even more likely. Nice going.) —Cryptic 16:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Haď Čarem[edit]

Hi Cryptic, I got notif, that You thanked me :-) thank You for the thanks. I just try to confirm that it was for my PROD (hardly anything else, yet as not being admin, I do not see who prceded it and deleted it). Frankly, I wasn't quite sure by what measures, what procedure I should choose on this type of issue (AfD? PROD? just hoax or what?) and what description to give.

The think is the article became an issue on Czech Twiter, til one moment one my colleague at work notified me and we both studied it.It seemed fishy right away, but being written in such a manner, it wasnt easy to disprove. Fortunatelly other Wikipedians took part in it actively and disproved the literary sources at library. (and I just hoped there would not be needed any scans of the journals, for it would take even more troubles and times)

Would You have recommended me different approach? Procedure?

I would be most interested who did write it and why. It looked like some attempt of University professor of history to showcase how such a thing can survice on wiki. But at the same time he would benefit mostly if he would new our procedures, so he choose the best sources and topic to make it difficult for us.

Well the article was mess, yet a bit fun in a awkward way too, so I archived it in one of my subpages to look upon :-). User:Reo On/To do/Haď

Have a good time

Petr aka Reo + 11:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was for that article, if the thanks notification got broken (I seem to recall that they used to if the article got deleted afterwards, but thought that got fixed?). The prod process was fine, given your thorough explanation; if you'd just said something like "hoax" I'd have kicked it to WP:AFD. —Cryptic 11:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


Semcad[edit]

Hello, I would like to support the article I just wrote yesterday.

02:34, 30 January 2015 Cryptic (talk | contribs) deleted page Semcad (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

The article looks like an advertisement of a product from a company. However, I was looking for information about the article I wrote months ago, and I never found it. That is why I wrote the article, Semcad is a tool that scientist uses for simulating magnetic fields and the lack of information about it is a shame in this area. I'm not related to the company who produce this tool at all. I just want to give a reference for future scientist who want to use this tool (Semcad) in order to show the that it exist. Similar pages are:

I want to improve the page later on, and add categories like history and more references.

Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marloncitopr (talkcontribs) 17:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You wrote one sentence describing the software and five saying how great it is. That one sentence ("SEMCAD is a commercial 3-D FDTD-based full-wave electro-magnetic & thermal simulation software.") isn't sufficient for an article; the others have no place in an encyclopedia, especially one like Wikipedia that adheres to a neutral point of view. Further, you provided no evidence that the software meets our criteria for inclusion.
The two articles you link, particularly the second, aren't paragons of neutrality either, but see WP:OSE to see why that isn't a very persuasive argument. If you're looking for articles that are legitimately worth emulating, try looking through the lists at Wikipedia:Featured articles or Wikipedia:Good articles/all. —Cryptic 06:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

52d Troop Carrier Wing move[edit]

No discussion on the talk page of this move and you move because another editor requested it? Read the history of the article. This is not an uncontroversial move and pretty clearly violates WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME "the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names." Check out the page history, where a reason was given for the reverse move. The 52d saw combat under the "from" name and was a partially manned unit under the final name. I'd revert your move, but for some reason I get a message saying that it was already reverted, although it hasn't. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What it looks like from here:
  • There's still no discussion on the talk page, because you're complaining in the wrong place (and to the wrong person).
  • From the history, it looked like the article had been recently moved away from the title chosen by the article's creator and author of 100% of its substantial content.
  • Ktr101 had been unable to move it back himself solely because of technical reasons, namely categorization of the redirect.
  • There should be no such technical reason preventing you from moving it back, since there have been no edits to 52d Troop Carrier Wing. Instructions are at Help:Move. —Cryptic 06:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
As Cryptic said above, don't shoot the messenger as this is my doing and they innocently walked in to help out. I requested the move because I have almost never seen UNITNAME used before, and was trying to update all ANG unit pages so that they made sense and were easily accessible. Feel free to revert it, but I figured that it would be best suited under its final name, because I have almost never (ever, possibly) seen the common name used in ANG articles other than this instance. Considering that now all the unit histories have been moved to their respective locations and some outright lies have been corrected, it is easier having things be more cohesive at this point than disjointed and all over the place. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As before, Cryptic may have some permission that I don't (a technical reason?). There is some reason I can't move it back. When I do so "The edit appears to have already been undone." appears above the editing box, and the usual description of the edit to be undone does not appear in the edit summary box. A preview shows no change to the page. Since Cryptic made the move I can't undo, I presume Cryptic can undo it, so that's why I posted here. Had I been able to revert the move, I would have and discussed it on the talk page. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    It sounds like you're pushing "undo" from the history page or diff or your watchlist. That's not going to work; you have to use the move-this-page feature. In any case, I'll move it back and let you two hash it out on the talk page. —Cryptic 01:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting removal of redirects[edit]

I can't understand why you are reverting the removal of a redirect that is preventing the posting an AfD. With the redirect in place it reposts the ol group AfD to the AfD log. I'm I doing this wrong? Legacypac (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The first step in renominating an article for afd is not to blank the previous discussion. I don't use Twinkle, but I can't imagine that it gets it wrong when used properly. —Cryptic 14:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Aww, I am not blanking the discussion. I am blanking a redirect to a group AfD on the page where the individual discussion goes. Without that step you get this closed discussion reposted and no new discussion page because of the redirect instead of this listing [4] and proper listing with this page created [5]. As best I can tell your reversing the blanking does nothing significant because there was never a discussion on the page (just the redirect to the group AfD) and the new discussion page has 2nd Nomination on it. Maybe it is different for Admins but this is the only way I found that works properly for us little people with no powers. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Being an administrator has absolutely nothing to do with it. You're responsible for your contributions, whether you make them manually or with a tool. Nobody retranscluded the redirected old afd except you. —Cryptic 14:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe Wikipedia is doing the transluding. I even did some testing and deleting the redirect was the only thing that worked. Anyway, if you can't explain what I am doing wrong, please don't change my actions that result in everything working correctly instead of being messed up. Legacypac (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
No. Nobody made this edit except you. If you are incapable of using your script correctly then renominate the articles manually. —Cryptic 15:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Further testing shows that the redirect needs to be removed, the new AfD done, then the redirect restored so that the old AfD is correctly linked. This is caused by the BUNDLE process. I will proceed accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly the issue - I add Caroline Scott - manually or with TW and the old AfD is transcluded on to the page. Further testing shows that the redirect needs to be removed, the new AfD done, then the redirect restored so that the old AfD is correctly linked. This is caused by the BUNDLE process. I will proceed accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────All you have to do is transclude the current afd on the daily page, as you eventually did here. There's absolutely no need to touch the previous nomination's page. —Cryptic 15:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That edit became possible only after removing the redirect. I suppose it is possible to do the entire nom manually, but that's a ton of work. Legacypac (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It's three edits. Nobody has a problem with this except you. —Cryptic 15:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You try doing the noms manually over and over and then get back to me on that. The redirects you added are not in the directions for bundling. Do you know if they are correct? Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course I know they're correct. What wasn't correct was to blank afds already in progress with other editors' comments on them, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Agron, point articles at blank afds, as you did with Bridget Wilmes, or to leave articles on afd with no afd tag on them at all, as you did with the the overwhelming majority of articles in both of your mass afds. —Cryptic 16:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

Hey, Cryptic. I just saw this edit [6], and I understand that it's about maintenance and deleting unused versions of non-free images. Was all of the rest of the paperwork for existing uses of the current version in order? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I must admit I was a bit alarmed at the number of uses, but they all seem to have rationales. I don't see anything obviously wrong. —Cryptic 14:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
That's probably because WikiProject University of Florida did a better job at creating individual articles for its notable sports teams, including its women's teams, unlike most other families of sports program articles, which drop off pretty quickly after football and men's basketball. The current uses were the result of a compromise several years ago whereby we agreed to remove all uses of the Gator head logo from season, rivalry, bowl game, and championship articles (literally, more than 100 others) where they were in use at the time. We use secondary text logos for all Florida Gators articles other than the main team articles, and I've done my best to patrol and enforce that compromise ever since, which usually requires giving a brief explanation to any newbie editor who thinks we should use the Gator head logo everywhere. Most newbies and drive-bys accept that, and move on; they're usually a little bit intimidated by the non-free use rationales on the logo file page, as well the logo talk page explanations and warnings regarding its proper use. Which is exactly what we wanted.  : )
Suffice it to say, we continue to diligently enforce the compromise. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Collinson – Ambivalence[edit]

I see you recently were instrumental in removing the article on Ryan Collinson on notability grounds. To that effect, you apparently used the PROD procedure. I must have missed seeing the article during the indicated time period. If I had, I can’t honestly say if I would have opposed the deletion nomination or not. My interest in this issue is simple: I wrote the article!

It is said that the classic definition of ambivalence is watching one's mother-in-law driving off a cliff in one’s brand new Cadillac! That’s sort of the way I felt when I discovered the article was deleted. I've always felt somewhat embarrassed at having written it. My one and only interest in the subject himself was that he appeared to be a rare target of opportunity for me to finally create an article on Wikipedia as opposed to merely editing articles. He seemed to meet the notability guidelines at the time.

I had never even heard of the kid until someone, knowing my (rather causal) interest in theater, sent me a You Tube link in which the boy performed one of his numbers from Billy Elliot, the Musical. I discovered that he hadn’t yet had a Wiki article, did what limited research I could and wrote the article to which a few others later made minor edits and additions. The article largely remained mine alone. Thus, my regret at seeing it deleted, my one and only article! I also liked the idea that the subject was so young. Should he eventually become a major entertainment figure, then I could have had the future satisfaction of having created his article “way back when” as if I had anachronistically "discovered" say, John Travolta in his salad days, and that the article would have endured long after I leave the scene.

On the other hand, I understand your point and, I must confess, I am somewhat disappointed in the subject from a personal perspective. In an effort to update his article with hopefully further professional credits, I followed his Twitter tweets for awhile and was bemused finding myself instead following the youthful ramblings of, well, a kid, a typical kid seemingly more bent on impressing his juvenile tribe than contributing to the world of “art” or even concentrating on learning the niceties of the English language, one might add. Alas, I discerned no glimmer of Mozart in him, though I wish him well in the future.

To be fair, however, I’m uncertain if his seeming dearth of recent professional accomplishments is more a function of a lack of offers or his personal desire (or that of his parents') to concentrate on his professional and academic education with the intention and hope of resuming an active career as an adult if such an opportunity presents itself.

On the other hand (I’m beginning to sound like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof), he did have the lead/title role in a major theatrical West End production of a musical encompassing a score by Sir Elton John, which makes him more notable in my estimation than many subjects of Wiki articles that I have encountered. This seeming lack of consistency is one of the downsides to Wikipedia that I have noted.

Still, and again, although I am uncertain if I would have objected, I would respectfully suggest that should you use the PROD method of deleting an article in the future, that you might drop a note on the talk pages of the article’s creator and major contributors (if any) simply as a courtesy for them to weigh in before any action is affected.

By the way, just out of curiosity, what made you take an interest in this article one way or another? Reading your user page, you seem as unlikely to be reading it as I was to write it!

Best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid my interest in the article was merely clerical - while I did end up being the one to push the delete button, my role was only to make sure the rationale for deletion was reasonable and that nobody had objected to deletion. It was Kartoffel07 who proposed it for deletion with the rationale that eventually ended up my deletion log; I was just the poor guy working through the backlog at Category:Expired proposed deletions.
I do know where you're coming from with respect to not being able to find articles to create. By the time I first discovered Wikipedia in... probably late 2003?... my areas of expertise, and my primary areas of interest as a reader (which have zero overlap with the first), were already well-represented. By the time I actually started editing, there was no hope left at all.
In any case, at least your brand new Cadillac was fully insured. PRODs are lightweight; all you have to do to get back articles deleted by them is ask. If you decide that way, either I can do it, or (and this way will usually be quicker) you can ask at WP:REFUND. —Cryptic 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt, most courteous and helpful reply. It’s most appreciated. Upon reviewing the Wiki editor’s user/talk pages that you referenced, I find his or her motivation suspect. Nevertheless, the embarrassment portion of my ambivalence—admitting that I actually wrote an article on such a subject while my primary interests are physics, metaphysics and history just to have an article creation credit within my Wiki editorship history—has prevailed. Therefore, let us stand on the legal principle of stare decisis and take no further action.
I wish young Mr. Collinson all the best with his entertainment career and in life in general, and should he prosper mightily one day within his field, I shall leave it to one of his youthful fans to restart his Wikipedia profile either by resurrecting this article or starting anew.
Thanks again. I sense a kindred spirit!
Very best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete the value I wrote about "leverate"[edit]

Dear Crpytic, I would like to know why did you delete the value I wrote about "leverate". The information I provided about this company was fully supported by pro. websites of the FX Industry (Leverate's industry). When you answer, please give a private answer. Regards, N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadavavni (talkcontribs) 16:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Naadvavni, I won't give you a "private answer". Wikipedia doesn't work that way.
I deleted this article because, as you put it, it had no value to an encyclopedia. It was irredeemably promotional, rife with impenetrable marketing doublespeak like "turn-key solutions provider"; no paragraph would have survived unchanged in a neutrally-written encyclopedia article. In short, you have mistaken Wikipedia for either a free billboard or a business directory, and should thoroughly read our FAQ for companies before making any attempt to bring this article back.
Furthermore, while it is abundantly obvious to a Wikipedia editor that you work for this company, either directly or as some sort of advertising consultant, you did not disclose that, as required by our Terms of Use. This is non-negotiable.
Lastly, I have severe doubts as to whether the company meets our inclusion criteria. Nowhere in the text of the article was there any indication of any sort of lasting importance or significance, and the provided references were all either interviews or had the character of unedited press releases. If your company is truly notable, someone else will eventually write an article about it. —Cryptic 14:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Pynchon Image Deletion[edit]

Context: File:PynchonYearbook.jpg

I noticed you deleted the image of author Thomas Pynchon on the grounds that it violated Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, since Mr. Pynchon is still living and therefore a free photograph could be taken of him. However, this fails to take into account the fact that Mr. Pynchon is a recluse who has never made a public appearance and hasn't been clearly photographed in nearly 60 years. I understand the rationale behind deleting non-free images of living people, but in this case it seems exceedingly unlikely a free image could ever be taken of the subject to to his secrecy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.28.135.149 (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally agree - I think we're far too strict in our application of the non-free content criteria, to the detriment of the encyclopedia - and this puts me in kind of a weird position, in that I'm forced to defend a position I don't actually hold. However, I'm confident that this deletion meets both the letter and spirit of policy, as well as precedent in its application.
It's true that we've used non-free images fair-use imagery for living people before. The canonical example is J. D. Salinger, where we used File:JD Salinger.jpg for years before the subject's death. (Special:WhatLinksHere/File:JD Salinger.jpg makes for interesting reading.) Those cases only have a superficial resemblance to Pynchon's, however, and don't apply. Most importantly:
  • Pynchon, as discussed e.g. in the "Photographing Pynchon" section of this article, is not a recluse in the usual sense of the word; he actively shuns journalists, but that's not the same thing.
  • There's an official navy portrait that could be used instead, which is in the public domain. My understanding is that this is the image that used to be at File:Pynchon.jpg (deleted images from that era of Wikipedia can't be viewed even by admins, so I can't be certain), which was deleted primarily because the uploader didn't explicitly detail his source.
  • The yearbook image was uploaded with a copyright tag that permits use where the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, and with a fair-use rationale that stated in part "The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work." The former is no longer true (if it ever was; I haven't checked); there's no mention of the photo in the article text. The latter is, of course, nonsense - the article is about the person, not the photograph. I also note that the uploader did not object to the deletion, which he was well aware of (as shown by the formatting edits he made to the image description page during its 7-day grace period).
You can appeal this at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you want. It'll probably get a fairer hearing there than if I undeleted it myself and sent it to Wikipedia:Files for deletion; discussions at the latter tend to be poorly-attended and one-sided in favor of the NFCC-hardliners. But I don't think its chances even at DRV are good.
A better bet would be to scan the navy photo from one of its print sources and upload that, this time with all the i's dotted and t's crossed so the folks at Commons don't delete it over a technicality again. —Cryptic 16:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I enjoyed the snark![edit]

That was wonderfully amusing snark on the silly, thankfully-now-deleted TUN faux article page! I am the Oink that nominated it for deletion. Also interesting to me:

  • better than even odds it was written by an attorney, and
  • not one, but two WP Admins were involved in creating/ fluffing it up!

I shall try to create to compose a barn star of Delightful Snark Giggles. You will be the first recipient!

--FeralOink (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

PROD of Ranger Boats[edit]

I just logged back onto WP after an absence of several weeks, and found that you had applied a PROD to Ranger Boats, and subsequently deleted it on expiration. No quibbles with the procedural move, but there are numerous sources which establish Ranger as the largest manufacturer of bass boats in the world. Was their independent support of this in the article? Maybe not -- can't see for sure since that article is gone -- but to not have an article about the largest manufacturer of a significant genre of boat seems to be just plain wrong. I know it's the author's job (and I can't remember if I was the original author or not -- I'm guessing I was) to establish sources, but a Google search turned up plenty of evidence that would establish notability.

I intend to re-establish the article, as I have time, and this time I will include more independent sources. Please do not interfere with the creation process -- I don't have the time to devote to WP that I once did. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As a contested proposed deletion, I've restored the article per your request. Your rancor is (at least partially) misplaced, however - it was User:Andy Dingley, not me, who nominated it for deletion, as shown on your talk page. —Cryptic 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Read the PROD text, "Serious lack of independent sourcing to establish notability. What notability there is would seem to depend on being the innovative developer of the bass boat. However that article credits a different inventor, 20 years earlier."
I don't believe a boat maker article can support WP:N if it's entirely self-sourced, as this was. The claims have also been made that they invented the bass boat and (here, unsourced) that they're the world's largest manufacturer of bass boats. However bass boat challenges the invention claim and there's no indication that they have been or still are the largest manufacturer. There needs to be sourcing, and really independent sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

discussion on Sageworks article[edit]

Hi, there's some active editing and discussion going on about the Sageworks article at Talk:Sageworks, and you're invited to participate. Some editors commenting in the recent AFD have already been invited by another editor, and i am just making a point to contact the others, including you, to avoid any appearance of selectivity. --doncram 22:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Foundation for Excellence in Education[edit]

It's a shame I did not know this was getting deleted. I would've explained why it is notable...Zigzig20s (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, prod's get restored on request, so I'll do that in a moment. (I must say, two minutes was the fastest such request I've seen.) Don't suppose you have secondary sources to add to the article? —Cryptic 00:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I may be able to find some. I can't stay online right now, so I will add some tomorrow. Please leave a note on my talkpage as a reminder. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Convertible Debt Shuffle[edit]

Please can you explain precisely why you deleted our contribution on "Convertible debt shuffle"?

I understand that this is a new term, which is correct, but in the same way the Option Pool Shuffle was "new" a few years ago. And is now commonplace. Codifying this term will raise the mechanic to startups and small companies, and assist them when negotiating with VCs. We don't stand to make any direct benefit from it become an accepted term.

Separately, if you felt the article was overly partisan - which we disagree with - then please suggest appropriate edits. Not a deletion.

--Swfindlay101 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As stated in my deletion summary, as well as by User:Wikidemon on your talk page when he nominated it, the article's subject violated Wikipedia's policy on on neologisms, and its content violated Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and on promotion.
You repeatedly say "our" and "we" above. I take it, then, that you are financially connected with the reportally website that the article promoted? If so, I draw your attention to the Terms of Use that you agreed to by editing Wikipedia, specifically §4.7, Paid contributions without disclosure; and to our local policy on editing with a conflict on interest. Either way, you should also be aware that we prohibit the use of user accounts by more than one person.
Articles deleted via the prod process are normally restored on request. I am explicitly declining to do so in this case, both because you confirm the basis of deletion as a neologism yourself above, and because the article met the criteria for expedited ("speedy") deletion even without the prod. —Cryptic 18:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

--All I was trying to do, was help other startups by sharing this term and related findings. I will wait for others to write a similar article later, once it's considered main stream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swfindlay101 (talkcontribs) 15:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Stewart Little[edit]

Please give me some feedback why you deleted the website of my housing cooperative. We are one of the first co-ops in New York and the first one in Ithaca. We are a member of North American Students of Cooperation and an important part of the Cornell college culture.

You can find some references about the co-op here: [7]

And about the house (page 62): [8]

Many other coops have pages on Wikipedia that haven't been deleted. Kaimast (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply. My internet's been spotty for most of the day, and while I saw your message shortly after you left it, I only got connectivity back about two hours ago, and had forgotten it by then.
The article at time of deletion was:
Stewart Little is a cooperative located in Ithaca, NY. It was founded in the 1950s and is usually home to 14 people<ref>http://stewartlittle.org/</ref>. Its name is a play on the book Stuart Little and on the fact that its address is 211 Stewart Avenue. While not owned or associated officially with Cornell University the majority of its residents have always been and are graduate students.
which doesn't assert any kind of significance and doesn't include any third-party sources at all.
I don't see any mention of the co-op in your first link, and only trivial coverage of it in your second, so I don't think they justify an article in mainspace. I can restore the deleted version as a draft for you, if you like; but it's probably going to need much more substantial coverage to be approved. Let me know. —Cryptic 03:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I will gather some more sources and build a draf here. Would be nice if you could check in in a few days and give me some feedback. — Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Hey, I'm so sorry. I thought about emailing you yesterday but I saw the actions were a few days old so thought it best not to bug you. Can't see a link to it here, but suffice to say, absolutely nothing to do with you or your decision. I promise that makes sense somewhere. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing family photograph[edit]

Regarding your removal of a photograph [ 16:11, 22 February 2015 Cryptic (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Anita Ekberg with Johnson family bus.jpg (F11: No evidence of permission for more than 7 days)]. That was a family photograph taken by family and included as part of history. What was your justification? Thank you for answeringJendaAJ (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@JendaAJ: As Diannaa posted on your talk page, we need a license release from the copyright holder - apparently the Vernon Oliver and Anne Beckwith Johnson estate? - emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Site policy doesn't let us simply take a third party's word for it. —Cryptic 22:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Cryptic, Very quick reply!!! The photo is in the book “Home is Where the Bus Is” for which I have full copyright, publishing & subsidiary rights. That includes the photos in the book taken by family members. No? JendaAJ (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@JendaAJ: If it's already been published somewhere else, that's another situation where we need an email sent to the permissions address, mostly so that we know you are who you say you are. This is to protect you as much as it is to protect us.
As to whether that means you have the rights to relicense the image - I don't know, and couldn't know without seeing the agreement that they made with you. They may have only granted you the right to publish, but not the rights to allow others to publish or modify the image.
I actually don't have the authority to restore the image in these circumstances. If you send an email with that license release to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, they'll be able to sort you out. —Cryptic 01:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Romoving Tigran_Tsitoghdyan_with_his_painting_from_Mirror_series.png[edit]

Dear Cryptic. I'm writing to you concerning the deletion of the file Tigran_Tsitoghdyan_with_his_painting_from_Mirror_series.png on 10 Feb, 2015 15:55 I have forwarded the permission of the author of the photo (who is actually the person to whiom the article is dedicated) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, nevertheless later you have deleted the image. Could you please explain why? If the email was not received I can forward it to you once again and would kindly ask you to restore the image in the article. Otherwise please let me know what went wrong. This is my first experience at Wikipedia, so i'm kind of lost a bit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamik.m (talkcontribs) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hamik.m: I've very sorry - I overlooked the {{OTRS pending}} template on the image page. Entirely my fault. I've restored the image. —Cryptic 01:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Isaac Mattern[edit]

WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehkingofsweg (talkcontribs) 03:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE BEEN PLAYING FOR THE CELTICS IN 1980. —Cryptic 03:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

George Savvides[edit]

Hi. Where would I find any discussion about the proposed deletion of this page? It completely escaped my radar, which, as the author, rather concerns me. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There wasn't any discussion, just a tag on the article which had gone unobjected-to for a week (as is the nature of the proposed deletion process). I'm actually surprised that User:Bishonen didn't notify you; I did less checking of the formalities than usual because I trust her judgment. Prods are restored upon request; I assume you want that? —Cryptic 00:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Weren't you watching the article, Jack? Anyway, thanks for the ping and the vote of confidence, Cryptic. The subject isn't notable IMO, and I'm surprised Jack, an experienced editor, would think it is. Where is the significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources? Or the widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the subject's specific field? But shrug, never mind, recreate it, it'll only join all the other non-notable bios. I'm pretty disillusioned about them, and it's hardly worth my trouble to take it to AfD. Low-profile articles of this type don't usually get sufficient, or much of any, attention there, which is not surprising. We seem to expect our users to do a lot of cumbersome busywork, such as to read and opine on all sorts of boring AfD's and similar, but most won't; they want to do things that interest them. Such is the nature of a volunteer-created project, and I don't blame them. I want to do interesting stuff too. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC).
Yes, User:Bishonen, I was watching it, in the sense that it was one of almost 9,000 articles on my watchlist. But how can we discuss the notability, or otherwise, of an article that no longer exists? You may, despite your tiredness, remember all the details of its sourcing, but I'm afraid I don't, not at this remove (I see from my records that I created it in May 2009).
Yes, User:Cryptic, I accept your offer. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the restoration. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Operations Research Society of South Africa (ORSSA) page deleted[edit]

Hi I would like to know why my page on the Operations Research Society of South Africa was deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berndtlindner (talkcontribs) 16:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Berndtlindner: As the deletion summary says, it was proposed for deletion for a full week with rationale "no evidence of notability", and nobody objected to its deletion in that time.
Please be aware that "notability" as used here is Wikipedia jargon: it's a reference to our inclusion criteria, and is closer in meaning to "noted" than "notable". The guideline that the article will eventually have to pass for inclusion at Wikipedia is listed (in verbose, excruciating detail) at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The short, short version is that the organization will need to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of it (which is our general notability guideline).
Your article didn't provide any such sources; it linked only to the organization's own websites about itself and about its journal. To my reading, it didn't even say anything that implied the organization might have been noted, so User:RHaworth (who proposed the article for deletion) could have immediately deleted the article himself under the expedited ("speedy") criterion A7. Instead, he gave the article a week to give you a chance to supply sourcing.
Articles deleted via the proposed deletion process are normally restored upon request, so let me know if you want that. I advise against that in this case unless you have in-depth, independent sources to add to the article - as it stands, any administrator could immediately delete it again; and even if none did, it seems likely that the article would be brought to our formal deletion process, and a deletion there would be substantially more difficult to overcome.
Alternately, I could restore the article as a draft. That would protect it from most forms of immediate deletion; however, it would need to be approved by an experienced editor before being republished - and, again, that's unlikely unless much better sourcing is provided. Still, that's what I advise in this case. Let me know. —Cryptic 01:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about moving pages[edit]

Is it possible for normal users to move a page without leaving a redirect? Or is that only something an admin can do? It's mainly the reason I didn't just move it back instead and decided to tag it for speedy, I wasn't exactly sure what to do in that situation. Thanks for your reply. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Only admins can suppress the redirect. However, you could have moved it back if you had done so immediately rather than tag the redirect for speedy deletion. A redirect pointing at the source of a page move, with only one revision, won't prevent a move. Best practice would have been to move back to User talk:Manojmkn and then tag the resulting redirect at Wikipedia talk:Madangarli for speedy deletion. —Cryptic 06:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense, I'll try in keep that in mind if I ever come across a similar situation, thanks for the help. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Thanks for deleting that accidentally created redirection page for me. It is very very frustrating not being able to fix simple problems myself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Pish. Thanks in turn for the article. Deleting redirects is trivial in comparison. —Cryptic 11:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of page[edit]

Ebartey (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Hi everyone, I created a page and I need you to delete so i could start another or if you could help me in resposting. The name of the page is Rev Ismaila H.Awudu.

@Ebartey: About the only way you're going to be able to convince folks that it should be kept is to find compelling evidence that this person meets our inclusion criteria for biographies—which means finding significant coverage in multiple independent reliable source and presenting them at the article's deletion discussion. Yunshui already summed up the article's prospects fairly accurately the last time you asked (now archived here), to which I'll add that the article gives no reason whatsoever to think such sources might exist (which is why I deleted it the first time).
Sorry this reply took so long; my network connectivity has been plain awful. —Cryptic 22:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Unblock request[edit]

Howdy, the UTRS team has received an unblock request for User:Tinchojos requesting reconsideration of the indef block you placed on their account. The editor admitted that they made a mistake in not replying to the copyright notifications and is requesting an unblock with the promise that it will not occur again. Since you were the blocking admin, I'd like to get your opinion before taking further action on their unblock request. Thanks, Nakon 01:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm dubious. File:Mt. Namcha Barwa.jpg is deeply troubling; it seemed to me like he knew what he was doing was wrong, and tried to hide it. Uploading copyvio images because you don't know any better is one thing; active deception is another. I presume he has a good explanation?
But if you think he deserves another chance, and want to unblock and keep an eye on him, I won't oppose. —Cryptic 02:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the edit was quite deceptive. The editor admits that it was deceptive and they assert that it won't occur again. I'm prepared to unblock the account with the stipulation that if they upload any additional copyvio material, they will be subject to an immediate indef block. I'm leaning towards a final-warning unblock but wanted to run it by you first. Nakon 03:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Go for it. You don't need my permission. —Cryptic 03:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Kanai Hiroyuki[edit]

I really don't see the point of these edits you made here and to my user sandbox page you kindly deleted. If I had wanted to retain the page history, I could have simply moved it into mainspace myself. ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I history merged because User:Philafrenzy had edited it enough that attribution needed to be preserved. —Cryptic 17:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about CDH Proton Center[edit]

Hi, my page CDH Proton Center was deleted, can you help me understand why? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IChevako (talkcontribs) 20:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@IChevako: It was proposed for deletion by User:Speciate for a full week, and nobody objected to deletion in that time. His full rationale didn't fit into my deletion log; it was:
A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
CDH Proton Centernews, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines.
Please don't be offended by the word "notability". It's Wikipedia jargon, and doesn't have its usual meaning; instead, it's a reference to our inclusion criteria (brief summary here; full version here, in mind-numbing detail). Most articles that aren't overly promotional or just plain nonsense get deleted because they don't have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.
Much of the article was sourced to the Center itself (either to press releases or directly to its website); those sources that were independent were all local in nature. I honestly don't know whether the article would survive a formal deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or not.
Articles deleted via the proposed deletion process get restored on request; so let me know if you want that. —Cryptic 22:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
This is for all of the hard work you do, especially deleting files! I'm sure it gets tiring, but your work is much appreciated! Corky | Chat? 02:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Riedel[edit]

A new articles was written to replace the Riedel Communications copyvio article that you deleted on November 28, 2014. I was asked on OTRS to move it in place of the prior article, and I did. If you think it's not OK, please let me know. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

At a glance, it still looks fairly promotional (though probably not at a speedyable level), and seems to match what I remember of the brochure. The problematic claim of winning Emmy Awards is still there, too; it's somewhere between false and deliberately misleading. (The company won minor subcategories of the Sports Emmy Award.) I'll have time to look at it more closely on Monday. Thanks for letting me know. —Cryptic 20:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:LOTR TNBT Cover 713px.jpg[edit]

You deleted this as F5 but the file seems to be in use, so maybe the deletion should be undone. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • File:TNBT on roof of Capitol Records.jpg also seems to be in use in the same article. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    I've restored them. Not sure how that happened; I check both the file page and whatlinkshere for F5s, and can't imagine how I missed it on both for both images. —Cryptic 20:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Engineers CC - Roslyn Harbor, NY.jpg[edit]

Hi, just a question: you removed an F11 from the file File:Engineers CC - Roslyn Harbor, NY.jpg and put an "OTRS pending" on. Do you know if that OTRS ticket actually has substance to it? I'm asking because this editor has reuploaded this same image about half a dozen times despite multiple deletions since mid-February, always claiming he had what sounded like a "for-Wikipedia-only" permission from the owners, and apparently entirely unwilling to react in any way to the information that that was not enough. I gave him an explicit block warning on 5 March [9] not to re-upload it another time, which he ignored with this latest upload on 17 March, so I'm rather tempted to go ahead and block him now, unless somebody can confirm he actually got a new and improved license for it this time. Fut.Perf. 14:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator observation) On the file information page, the uploader wrote A copy of the permission email from Mr. Gold was emailed to "permissions-enwikimedia.org" on 3/17/2015. This implies that something has been sent to OTRS (unless the uploader forgot to include an @ sign in the e-mail address). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No; as Stefan2 says, I was only using the template to document what was already written on the file description page. I don't have OTRS access so can't confirm whether it's actually true. —Cryptic 19:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Ritter[edit]

Someone brought it to my attention that a page discussing my work as an artist and writer has been removed. Why? This page has been maintained by people I do not now and it has existed on wikipedia by many years. Thank you, Don Ritter (not the politician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.50.18 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If you were able to figure out that it was me who deleted it, you were able to see the reason I did it, to wit: "Expired WP:PROD, concern was: limited use of third party sources and does not seem to meet notability criteria for academics.". —Cryptic 22:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

LEAP Africa Logo.jpg[edit]

You deleted a file called LEAP Africa Logo.jpg and I am wondering why. This image has been removed several times but I have asked the organization that owns it to send an email to wikipedia permitting my use, which they have done several times. I don't understand what I should do now.

Leapsandbounds (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Leapsandbounds: It was labelled as a non-free image, which policy only lets us use if it's in an article, not a draft. Mere permission for use isn't sufficient; it has to be under a fully-free license. —Cryptic 22:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cryptic![edit]

Hi, I don't know how I could change the username. Can I ask for your assistance? Wikipedia 22:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian Cinematographers (talkcontribs)

@Iranian Cinematographers: If you're still around, you'll need to follow the directions at Wikipedia:Changing username. —Cryptic 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix Global[edit]

Hello, I noticed you deleted an article concerning Michael Featherstone for copyright violations in January, and as a new article on Phoenix Global (the company founded by Michael Featherstone) has been created I thought you may be able cast a watchful eye over it. The subject appears notable, and there are many reliable sources documenting issues around the company and Mr Featherstone. There was a lot of copy and paste material in the article and it certainly did not appear to be written with NPOV. I've had a go at cleaning it up, but would appreciate your thoughts on it and the revisions made so far. 79616gr (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@79616gr: I don't remember the Featherstone article at all. Phoenix Global doesn't look at all promotional, if that's your concern; if anything, it reads towards the negative side. I haven't looked at its sources at all, so can't speak as to whether the third and fourth paragraphs are undue weight. —Cryptic 22:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. There's been a lot of revisions on the article since I sent you the above note, and some helpful admin oversight. How it reads now compared to then is far better. Thanks for looking it over. 79616gr (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

File:All Men Are Mortal, 1946 French edition.jpg and File:Drakengard2ground gameplay.jpg[edit]

Would you consider reverting the changes made by Theo's Little Bot to File:All Men Are Mortal, 1946 French edition.jpg and File:Drakengard2ground gameplay.jpg where you revdeleted the previous versions? The images were already at a sufficiently low resolution before being resized, and all the bot did was introduce unnecessary resizing artifacts. Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 17:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator observation) Note that File:All Men Are Mortal, 1946 French edition.jpg was mistagged as 'non-free'; it is in fact {{PD-text}}. Concerning File:Drakengard2ground gameplay.jpg, did you take a look at the article in which the image is used? The user who put the image in the article arranged so that only 200×150 pixels are used, but the full-size image currently has 365×273. It seems that the image can be reduced further, as the extra pixels aren't in use anywhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Ahecht: What Stefan2 said, pretty much. The deleted versions of the Drakenguard ranged between 20% and 45% over the normal size guidelines, and there wasn't any justification stated for the larger size. We'd get the clearest image in the article, where it matters most, if it were resized to exactly 200x150.
    As for the book cover, I'm surprised I didn't notice it; I usually try to catch pd-text images and untag instead of revdelete them. (Except for company logos, which I'll cheerfully reduce.) I got a database error when I tried to undelete it just now, and I'm going to continue to be unavailable for the near future, so feel free to get another admin to restore it. WP:REFUND routinely handles this sort of request. —Cryptic 22:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please restore this image[edit]

Please restore the following file for which I plan to provide a fair use rationale: File:Pocket PC 2000.png Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

(Already handled elsewhere, if anyone's idly curious. —Cryptic 22:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC))

Deletion of my page[edit]

I just saw that my page has been deleted on the terms of "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Please let me know the content that looked like advertising so that i can modify it. My aim was to create a Wiki page with no intent of advertising.

Abhinav0712 (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In a word, all of it. What you wrote read like a cross between a marketing brochure and a press release, and did not bear even a passing resemblance to an encyclopedia article. (Like Yunshui already told you.) You should read our conflict of interest guide; in particular, our terms of use, which you agreed to by editing Wikipedia, forbid paid editing without disclosure. —Cryptic 10:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Indian Larry image[edit]

Hi Cryptic, per your request to reduce an image: [[10]], I uploaded a reduced image but have screwed it up a bit and need your assistance. The new image that I submitted to replace the previous image is here: [[11]]; and then I managed to submit another orphaned image that needs to be deleted. Thanks Evenrød (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate taken care of, thank you. —Cryptic 02:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter Landrock[edit]

Hi Cryptic, question on the deletion of Peter Landrock's image (File:Peter Landrock.png). I sent a request for permission on Sat, 16 May 2015 09:55:58 +0200. Here is a pdf version of my mail: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14845022/Email%20requesting%20release%20of%20Peter%20Landrock%27s%20image.pdf . Here is the ticket: Ticket#: 2015051610007766 What went wrong? --ScienceGuard (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@ScienceGuard: There's a template that needed to be added to the file description page to let patrolling admins know that an email was sent; otherwise, we have no way to know. I've restored the image and placed the template. —Cryptic 14:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about my mistake and thanks for correcting it. Now that the photo is back, I submitted the complete article for review. --ScienceGuard (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Faridsimaika.jpg[edit]

Hi Cryptic, Why did you delete the picture I uploaded of Farid Simaika? This is a picture owned by myself of a deceased relative. There is no copyright involved (as this is my picture). Youssef Simaika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youssef simaika (talkcontribs) 17:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Youssef simaika: Because, as the bot informed you at User talk:Sherifbichara, the image page didn't say who owned the picture or what its licensing status is. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images. If you're the copyright holder, then putting one of the tags at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses on the image page will suffice. ({{GFDL-self}}, {{PD-self}}, and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} are the most common; in the latter case, you'll also need to add a statement that you're the copyright holder.) Do be aware, though, that just because you own the physical photo and that it's of your deceased relative, that doesn't necessarily make you the copyright holder; those rights lie with whoever took the photo, unless he explicitly gave them to you.
I'm restoring the photo based on your statement above, but you still need to be the one to put the license tag and statement of sourcing on the image page within seven days. I can't take that action on your behalf.
You should also know that we generally prohibit the use of more than one user account. Please pick an account name and stick to it. —Cryptic 21:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bear on the Square Mountain Festival[edit]

Will you restore my pages: 15:29, 31 May 2015 Cryptic (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bear on the Square Mountain Festival (G13: Abandoned AfC submission; copyvio pasted together from various sources)

I write the website, which is used for the event schedules and changes for each year. The intention of the Wikipedia pages is to record the structure of the festival and some history of events over the past 19 years. thanks Davemoser123 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Davemoser123: As Tokyogirl79 already told you here, none of us has the authority to restore this content without a valid license release. And, as she also mentions, we wouldn't do so anyway, as the draft was far too promotional; it would have to be so thoroughly rewritten before it even began to look like an encyclopedia article and not an advertisement that the external copyright wouldn't apply. —Cryptic 16:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for helping cleanup and patrolling. :) PawanAhuja (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Block User[edit]

This user User:Sonusn07itsme is continuously removing speedy deletion tag over a copied article. He has copied the article from Ankit Fadia and replaced his name with his own. Help. Thanks PawanAhuja (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocking's not necessary here (or at least, not yet). I'll keep an eye on him for a bit. —Cryptic 09:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi, would you restore this deleted non-free logo [12]? A n00b incorrectly replaced it with an image they uploaded to commons that was deleted as a copyvio (it's a logo). Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. —Cryptic 18:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Amos A. Phelps[edit]

Hi, I would like to know why you deleted the entry I made on Amos A. Phelps. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.120.112.150 (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It's still there at Draft:Amos A. Phelps; I only cleaned up the redirect that was left over at Amos A. Phelps when User:Non-dropframe moved it out of articlespace. I have no opinion at all on the draft itself; it's not the sort of article I normally work with. —Cryptic 13:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
65.120.112.150, Cryptic, My apologies, I'd thought I'd left 65.120.112.150 a message regarding the move. --Non-Dropframe talk 22:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Vegenaise[edit]

Hi, can you please help me figure out how to modify and edit my page you took down. The last thing I want is to break any rules or not follow Wiki guidelines. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FYH Oscar (talkcontribs) 01:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Same answer you already got here. —Cryptic 01:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Just stopping by to say thanks for the delete of the requested page! Best, Pax Verbum 05:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

FullTimeDevils[edit]

Hi Cryptic, you recently deleted the FullTimeDevils page I created due to A7: No credible indication of importance (web content), I've re-drafted the page and added various references from national news outlets. How should I go about submitting the updated page for review? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furious Mythical Beast (talkcontribs) 20:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Furious Mythical Beast: If you're certain it passes our inclusion criteria (full guideline for web content; simplified general criteria), just create the article again.
If you want someone else to doublecheck it first, create it as a draft at Draft:FullTimeDevils instead, and add "{{submit}}" (with the curly braces) to it. It'll take a while before someone gets to it (the backlog is around 3 weeks), but the article will be protected from most forms of deletion until it's published; this is what I usually recommend. —Cryptic 03:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Screen NSW[edit]

Hi Cryptic,

You recently deleted Screen NSW page. I believe I can answer your concerns with the page. The reasons were listed as:
1. It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.
2. It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant.
to address them in order:
1. The pagee is not advertising anything or any of the above. Screen NSW is the state government funding body for film and television production in the state of NSW, Australia. I used the copy from its website which states its mission statement and government function. It is not a company so it doesn't make money or advertise.
2. I disagree that the page foes not indicate why the subject matter is important. It is important because Screen NSW is the NSW governments funding body for the TV and Film industry in NSW. There are many similar government bodies listed for Australia and this is one of the largest. Below are three other such government bodies listed for Australia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Screen_Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScreenWest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_Victoria

It would be fantastic if you could let me know what would make this page better rather than deleting it as it is a page that many Australians in the screen industry will find a useful reference point. It would be great to have this on Wikipedia shortly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellyprawn (talkcontribs) 03:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to mirror organizations' web pages nor reprint their press releases; it publishes encyclopedia articles. What you wrote was much, much closer to the former than the latter. Whether the organization is for-profit or not is irrelevant; otherwise, they wouldn't need to pay a PR department.
If the article was indeed copied from the website - it was so egregiously inappropriate for Wikipedia that I didn't even bother to check - that's another reason why we can't host this material. —Cryptic 09:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Threewave Software[edit]

You recently deleted Threewave Software but I am not able to find any record of any discussion about whether the page should be deleted. Could you direct me towards where I might find a record of the deletion discussion? BananaLanguage (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As stated in the deletion log (which I presume is how you found out that it was me who deleted it), it was deleted via the proposed deletion ("PROD") process. There wasn't a formal deletion discussion; User:DissidentAggressor nominationed it for deletion with the rationale that eventually made it into my deletion comment, and nobody objected to deletion in more than a week. Apparently the article had survived for years based on unreferenced claims that the company had worked on many specific games, but our articles on those games contradicted the claims, and nobody was able to find any external evidence of them. —Cryptic 14:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Test Deletion Notices[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you were doing some categorization work with my Sandbox and test deletion tags. If the page was categorized by those tags, would it still be deleted despite the warnings on my Sandbox itself, the Sandbox Talk Page, AND my User Talk page? Why does categorization even matter to begin with? It's just a test. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wiki you now, Wiki you later!: It wouldn't be deleted unless someone really wasn't paying attention. It still shows up as a speedy deletion request, though, so every admin patrolling CAT:CSD has to look at it, determine that it's not a real request, and move on. I was saving them (and, more to the point, me) the trouble of doing so. —Cryptic 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Dated categories[edit]

FYI, I saw you manually created yesterday's permissions dated category. I have filed a BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/B-bot 5 in hopes of being able to provide a backup to Hazard-Bot (if it does return) or a replacement (if it is gone for good). --B (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of my uploads.[edit]

Three files I uploaded were deleted by you giving a reason - (F5: Unused non-free media file for more than 7 days), which actually is not true. The images were used in articles from few days. They were orphaned without any reason by a member known as 'Project FMF' and were speedy deleted with wrong reason. I need an explanation. AkshayAnand (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@AkshayAnand: Short answer: I've restored them. (File:WWE '12 Cover.jpg, File:WWE '13 Cover.jpg, and File:WWE 2K14 Cover.jpg, for any interested onlookers.) They'll still need to be put back into articles, or they'll be deleted again in another week.
Long answer: Project FMF (talk · contribs) falsified the dates in the orphaning templates, saying that they'd been orphaned variously since June 20 or 21 when they hadn't been orphaned until yesterday and hadn't even been uploaded until June 25. This isn't something that's normally checked for when deleting orphaned nonfree images; there's no easy way to tell for sure what article an image had been in (if any) or when it was removed, and the overwhelming majority are tagged not by a human, but by User:B-bot. Lying about the date in order to manipulate an admin into deleting the images early—almost immediately, in fact—and apparently in order to gain advantage in a content dispute is beyond the pale, and I've blocked him for a week for it. —Cryptic 08:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou very much. And, for your information, this isn't the first time Project FMF orphaned these images. I have uploaded official cover arts that contain publisher logo and ESRB rating; since they are non-free, they have been resized as per rationale and are used in the relevant articles. These articles about WWE '12, WWE '13 and WWE 2K14 previously had the art work only, which could not be called as a cover art or a box art. I had uploaded these images and replaced the existed images which Project FMF had reverted to, in the articles. He is after my uploads from then on. AkshayAnand (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tineye usage[edit]

Would you be willing to take a minute and teach me how better to use Tineye? I use it in Commons work a fair amount but in all cases the image is there and I can click on the link that runs the Tineye search. I was worried that providing the Wikipedia URL would not be sufficient and it wasn't. Can you explain how you identified what information to feed to Tineye?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I just clicked on the image on the image page, getting this, pasted that address in the form on the front page of tineye.com, and then pasted the link for the search results (which tineye says will expire in three days) on WP:NFCR. The link you gave seems to be an interface to search within a webpage and then do a search on the image there; it's not one I was aware existed. —Cryptic 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that was easy. I saw the URL for the result:
http://tineye.com/search/ee5ad52343b3608876de2d84ea107de42dc6b6f3/
And thought you somehow created "ee5ad52343b3608876de2d84ea107de42dc6b6f3" which you fed to the search engine. I tried your steps and they worked I guess I'll have to try to re-create what I tried to see what I did wrong.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)