Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:51, 10 April 2007

Closure of TfD discussion on {{Greene}}

I see you just closed this discussion. I would agree with you that there was no consensus to delete; however, I think the clear consensus was that the content did not belong in template space, but should be moved to user space. I have no problem with that resolution, which should have been implemented. Agent 86 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus on whether it should be userfied or kept outright - dead even support for both, in fact, even assuming everyone who wanted it deleted preferred userfication. This is why I closed it as no consensus instead of keep, despite overwhelming support not to delete. —Cryptic 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my request. I've posted a comment about this at WP:AN, if you care to look or comment. Agent 86 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please join in on the conversation...

...and perhaps explain where said consensus exists? Seriously, please. It looks bad to just keep reverting and not explain your edits when you haven't chimed in, and the consensus isn't there. The other places he even mentions in the initial note were all reverted back, too! --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (web)#Bringing this in line with larger consensus - and in accordance with your "best case scenario", in fact - it was thoroughly discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Let's discuss the relationship between primary notability criterion and other criteria. There, I see 100% - 1 support for the change, and not inconsiderable support for going further - that is, requiring the primary notability criterion plus one or more of the secondaries. Just how long do you plan to filibuster against it? —Cryptic 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel I'm filibustering at all, actually. There is a good deal of pushback against the change in your first link mainly because of the lack of consensus, and you're misrepresenting my "best case scenario" to boot - I'm referring to having all "notability" point to WP:N instead of the individual, and we aren't ready for that, obviously. Moving on, your third link does not come close to addressing the issues at the individual pages - discussion at WP:N cannot circumvent discussion at WP:WEB, it doesn't have special powers or veto power over the individual criteria, and there isn't 100% support for the change, or one person opposing, or anything like that. The consensus does not exist to make such a drastic change to our criteria, period. Why must you move against consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:HistSource

Template:HistSource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you..

This new template functionally does the same as Catholic-link which was deleted. I just put it up for TfD and notified all users who took part in the old vote, but I am not sure if it qualifies as speedy, since the new template is functionally the same as the old one. I would hate to be playing wack-a-mole with JASpencer, he also created Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which also functionally does the same thing as the old Catholic-link template. -- Stbalbach 00:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fix anchor

Interesting... doesn't an anchor with a space in it work in your browser? It seems to work fine in mine. >Radiant< 15:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It didn't when I tried it from the diff, though it is now (both looking at the old revision, and in the diff). I'm thoroughly confused. —Cryptic 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of an AfD decision you commented on

This AfD you commented on is currently on deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Indeed Percy Everett was never a speedy deletion target. I'm glad you saw it my way too. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

CHICOTW

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
In the past you have edited Little Italy, Chicago. This week it has been selected as the WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the week. Each week a Chicago related article in need of attention is selected as the Chicago COTW. Feel free to come help us improve it towards the quality level of a Misplaced Pages featured article. Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Peekvid and Peekvid.com

Hi there. Sorry to trouble you but could you please unfreeze Peekvid and redirect it to Peekvid.com because the current situation is a little silly.

Yours,

David Spart 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking 71.99.92.66, as I was frightened of getting into a bunch of reverts which would lead to myself being blocked, which I didn't much want to occur. Bobo. 13:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If the edits are disruptive enough that reverting them with the administrator rollback tool is justified - and they were; irregardless of the whether the page title should have the diacritic or not (a legitimate content dispute), a line at the start of the article saying, in prose, that it should be at the other title is useless at best or trolling at worst - then there's no reason to worry about tripping 3rr. If you'd blocked him or semiprotected the article yourself, I can't imagine anyone would have so much as raised an eyebrow. —Cryptic 03:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your clarification and your dealing with the user while I was reverting his edits. Bobo. 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

vandalism on the QANTM page

how can you call informing people about the truth vandalism, i would really like to know, because you have it all wrong —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metil ed (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

i can see where you are coming from but, people need to know, would it be better if i write the information in a more formal manner, maybe under a new section of the qantm page. i am not trying to cause trouble rather inform people of facts that they will otherwise not know until its too late.

This material belongs on the page only if it can be verified from reliable sources. Stray anonymous complaints will neither be allowed on Misplaced Pages, nor convince anyone of anything even if they were to stay. —Cryptic 13:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ok fair enough, but the fact that i am a student their already makes it reliable does it not, how to i go about getting it verified, qantm id cards, to prove im a student, more detailed description of the situation.

or should i just give up because your not going to let me post this

Please see our reliable sources and no original research policies. Insistence from Some Guy On The Internet that he is a student, and thus whatever he says must be true, is insufficient for inclusion in a Misplaced Pages article. —Cryptic 13:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

and thus some dude who has no affiliation whatsoever with the company decides that he is right, even though he has no clue, that is supposed to be reliable aswell. its the same dilema that never ends, i could establish myself elsewhere with some fancy name and credentials and have more of a chance of being believed, but because im honest and trying to do a service to the community i am by default considered some guy who thinks he is right. so this make me wonder how many other wiki pages are subject to such in justice. well no point trying any more because its clear that you know everything, in fact you know what im saying is not true, and you know that im not a student and you know that im just here to cause trouble. but i have no idea how you can know that. hmm i wonder do you have any reliable sources to back those claims up. i think not. just a thought next time you jump to conclusions. have a nice day

"What links here" counter

Hello Cryptic, I saw your response on User talk:Uncle G. I am familiar with the 5000 trick but unfortunately the "what links here" I'm after is in the hundreds of thousands and that's not a practical method to arrive at a number. If it isn't too much of a bother to modify your software to do something like that it would be appreciated. I created and have extensively developed Template:Tnavbar and now I'm quite curious to know to what extent it has been adopted here on en. Misplaced Pages. Some time ago I hand counted using the 5000 trick up to 100,000 and then just let it go. Thanks. (→Netscott) 12:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, hrm, my function's not really the best way to go about it, then - it just uses the 5000 trick itself, and knows enough to keep fetching more whatlinkshere pages until it runs out. It won't be any faster or less hard on the servers than if a human was doing it, and 100,000+ links is well past the point where getting a count this way is a good idea.

IIRC, the from field (or was it offset?) in Special:Whatlinkshere used to take a numeric offset, not an article id, so you used to be able to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/User_talk:Cryptic&limit=500&from=15000 and get a list of the 500 backlinks starting at position 15000, but annoyingly enough that doesn't work anymore. Grng.

What you really want is to be able to run a query like "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM pagelinks WHERE pl_namespace=namespace AND pl_title='title';", with namespace being the numeric namespace (e.g., User talk: is 4) and title being the page's title sans namespace (e.g., for here it would be 'Cryptic', not 'User talk:Cryptic').

(This will only count non-template-transclusion links; to get a count of those, you want "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM templatelinks WHERE tl_namespace=namespace AND tl_title='title';" instead.)

Going on the assumption that you don't need a fully-up-to-date count - I can't imagine that pages with 100,000+ links change by much all that often, or that an exact count is crucial - then anyone with a toolserver account should be able to run the query. The toolserver's database is about a month out of date, as I understand it.

If you do need an up-to-date count, you'll have to try to pester a developer into adding this to Special:Whatlinkshere, or to a separate special page. It might be a good idea in any case; people are probably just looking for a count in a fair number of whatlinkshere queries, and I can't imagine that fetching a full list of pages is easier on the system than just the count. (On the other hand, the wiki I have handy to test this on only has ~1000 pages and my sql experience is decidedly on the slim side, so I could be totally off.) —Cryptic 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

{{unbv}}

Hey ... I went ahead and retargeted {{unbv}}. It makes sense as a redirect. I have gone through the block log for the last month and it has no uses in that time. Also, looking at the history for that redirect, it used to be redirected to something similar to the new template. Please feel free to change it back if you think retargeting it is a really bad idea, but if nobody has used this redirect in the last two weeks and it has no current transclusions, I think we should be ok. --BigDT 20:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your assistance on that autoblock, cryptic. Derex 12:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ruralendeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Have a look at contribs, seems like a vandal-only SPA. Found RFA pretty early on in his career, eh. – Chacor 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. Guess I should've just left it alone and let someone else dig through the history, eh? --Cyde Weys 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay RfC strawpoll

FYI, I didn't really want to use a hidden version for the archive of the straw poll. I may have moved too fast and in too many steps, but I did switch it to a non-collapsed version on my own. My using multiple edits to avoid edit conflicts probably contributed to your sense that I was hiding the material, and I should have stopped and taken to time to find the perfect archive templates instead of using the collapsed ones while I looked for better. My apologies to you. GRBerry 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Condom picture deleted!

You deleted this image today with the summary that it had no image. It had an image for years, and was used in both the condom and birth control articles. Any idea what could have happened to it? Lyrl _C 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted on Commons. The actual image was (so far as I can tell) never on Misplaced Pages proper; the page at Image:Condoms_by_Morrhigan.jpg started out as a misplaced {{sxc-warning}}. —Cryptic 04:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, that makes sense. How disappointing, though. Lyrl _C 15:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Misplaced Pages. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 04:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting

I was just in the process of reverting my self - I hadn't noticed it was a closed Rfd as it had only been open for 12 minutes. - regards - Munta 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of TOMS shoes

You probably should have at least opened the topic for conversation prior to deletion. It doesn't make any sense to simply delete an article for no good reason. I rewrote the article today, because originally it was written like an advert. The company has been featured in Vogue magazine, Time magazine, the Los Angeles Times, Star Magazine and other popular journals. To cite rule A7 as if the organization is insignificant is unfounded, and at least should be a topic of debate prior to your abrupt decision to delete it. - Deron Dantzler 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I did see that it was rewritten, but the article still didn't claim importance or significance. This isn't a judgement on whether the company actually is important and significant or not, but a triage of whether secondary sources are likely to exist. The article cited only the company's own website and a YouTube video, of all things; had it mentioned the Time or Vogue stories, or indicated that it was anything other than just-another-company that made just-another-corporate-donation, I wouldn't have deleted it. I'll restore it forthwith. —Cryptic 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for not citing prior. - Deron Dantzler 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

request indef and talk page protection

on a user you recently blocked. — coelacan — 17:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the case for user page protection - and certainly not for an indef block - based on that remark alone, especially since he's made positive contributions in the past. If he starts to go berserk again after his current week-long block runs out, I'll extend it then. —Cryptic 03:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my pages?

It seems that you are deleting pages because they are not linked but I don't get a chance to link them properly. Please advise. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdbuckley (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Music notability

Hi, I sent this message to a previous admin but anyway. I received a message regarding the deletion of the G-Unit Radio series albums. Apparantly, it failed the notability guidelines. However, the guidelines say that "the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Misplaced Pages." The album guidelines simply state that albums by notable artists are considered notable. I first created the article without knowing it had been previously deleted. Then I received a message from Fram saying if they are to be re-created, it should state how it is notable. Thus, I re-created the page showing how it's notable by virtue of that fact that the artists are notable (as said in the guidelines). I honestly don't see how this is breaking any rules. Spellcast 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Square (slang)

That idiot vandal is back today. I reverted him once. You might need to semi-protect again, if he persists. Wahkeenah 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Emcee T article recreated (?)

I suspect that EMCEE T (MC T) is a recreation of the article above which you deleted in January. I found the other spelling (Emcee T) when I attempted to move the EMCEE T (MC T) article to properly name it. Could you take a look?--DO11.10 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Saw your note, have posted with the other admin who was listed (User:Trialsanderrors) Thanks--DO11.10 22:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

BattleMaster game page

Please tell me why did you delete the page of BattleMaster game? I did explain clearly in the discussion why I restore this page. If you missed it then you can read also on Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion p.# 11 "Battlemaster game page". Shortly, why THIS game page is deleted while the others are kept? WHAT should I do to keep this page. Give me an example of the MMOG article that fills all the necessary requirements, because atm I don't see any difference between BattleMaster article and other articles from MMOG category. So, what are the rules? Are there any rules for articles about the games? Merewyn 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, you deleted and protected my article. But I asked for something. TELL ME what should I do to make this article compatible with any rules and KEEP it?? Merewyn 17:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be ignored....

An editor has asked for a deletion review of BattleMaster. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Merewyn 11:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks..

.. for the talk page revert. I owe you one. Cheers, A Train 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD pastel boxes

Eh, in this edit you stated that "People make hopeless cases for unneeded changes to this policy literally all the time". If you think that the clarification to R2 is hopeless, please say so on the talk page. Otherwise, perhaps you were only referring to the A7 change. I added the R2-related box, but someone else (gah) mimicked me with the A7. So if there's any reason why the former is unneeded and hopeless, either say so, or make sure the edit summary works for everyone :) Thanks, Gracenotes § 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It was mostly about the A7 change, and I probably shouldn't've been so irritable when I removed them, but I'd been up for thirty hours. :) —Cryptic 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodness. That's a lot! Well, thanks for your response. Cheers, Gracenotes § 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (web)

Thanks for the cleanup! --Kevin Murray 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

{{{ ?

Hello. Seeing as how you're reading my talk page, and I've not been very active for a while, could you tell me what {{{ ... }}} means? What did the header of the edit to my talk mean? Why is it useful? Is there somewhere I can readify it? So many questions! Splash - tk 20:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an artifact of Template:Spam-warn-deletion (and most all of the other I've-just-tagged-this-page-as-a-csd warning templates). What happened was there was a big fight over whether these warning templates should automatically include a section header or not, and as a compromise it was made to only appear if a "header" parameter was supplied to the template. Then someone got the bright idea of making the header name configurable in the template using a "header-text" parameter, but still providing a default value so that users of the template didn't have to explicitly use the parameter. The problem is that, when a template is substed using default parameter, the source wikitext for the template isn't fully substed, so you get {{{header-text|]}}} instead of just ]. —Cryptic 21:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I 'see', thanks. Talk about spoiling the broth. I'm sure that there was once a feature in MediaWiki that allowed the use of a keyboard for leaving simple messages to people you wanted to talk to. Should ask for that to be re-enabled. :) Splash - tk 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Packing Slips

Cryptic, I know you're not around too much (nor am I), but I was hoping you could take a quick peek at my recent packing slip entry, since I made an inclusive ref to it within drop shipping. Thanks! --LeroyWilkins 04:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note

I'm mystified by how you reached the conclusion that you did in your oppose comment. As I've stated repeatedly during this RfB, I see the end goal as an opening up of RfA to users of lesser experience who get turned away because of editcountitis-style opposers. I've long argued that RfA set standards too high (arbitrarily) and that it kept moving the goal posts. I'm not running to shoehorn in the cabal's own nominees (to coin a phrase); the present crop of bureaucrats hardly needs any help doing that. As I said in my reply, please oppose me if you disagree, but please disagree with me first. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)