Could you please use {{db|reason}} instead of {{delete}}. If you provide a reason for your speedy tag, it makes life for the deleting admin a lot easier. - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Greetings. Esrum-hillerup wasn't just a copyvio, it's a hoax! I've listed it in votes for deletion. Kind regards. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Carl Hewitt holds the copyright on this material. The material from the Stanford page comes from the biographical material he provided to them for a lecture which he delivered there. This material is covered by the GNU license.CarlHewitt 11:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ellastone, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from web sites. For more information, take a look at our policy library. Happy editing! --Cryptic(talk) 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi! Thankyou for bringing the copyright violation to light. I must admit that I did not realise that it would have caused problems! I have rewritten the article on the Ellastone/Temp page, including new information of my own (I am a resident of Ellastone), as stated in the Discussion page for Ellastone. Is the article still in violation? Or can it be relisted? Cheers. Jhomayne 16:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ellastone/Temp looks much better, thanks. In about a week, an administrator will delete Ellastone and move Ellastone/Temp over it, so the copyright violation is no longer in the article's history; if you wish, you can accelerate the process by asking one to do a speedy deletion. The easiest way to do so would be to add {{db|submitted in error - I have written a replacement at [[Ellastone/Temp]]}} at the top of Ellastone. --Cryptic(talk) 16:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you very much. Jhomayne 16:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dragon's Flight pointed out a serious omission to this proposal: that the image description page of WikiCommons should include the content of the one on Wikipedia. I have reworded the proposal to include that. Because the wording changed, I have hidden your vote; please read the new version and see if you support it now, and reinstate your vote under the appropriate section depending on whether you do. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 08:17 (UTC)
...had an improper clarification that you objected to. I've reworded the clarification to make it actually clarifying, but nothing changed to the proposal itself. Please take another look at it. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 08:27 (UTC)
PBurka pointed out that an important omission from this proposal: a band could meet WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (sharing a member with a famous band) and still be speedily deletable by this criterion. I've added a sentence to the proposal to reflect this: it now reads An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage, nor having a member that is or was also part of a well-known music group. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead. Please consider if you support this new wording, and change your vote accordingly. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 10:00 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with the requests above. Those two proposals were the only two that had an important omission and required a quick fix while there were still relatively few voters. I'm sure there'll be plenty more discussion, but no more significant changes. I've extended the voting period by one day to ensure they get their proper time. Thank you for your consideration. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 10:05 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with that minor problem. I'd tried exiting Opera and running it again, going downstairs and frying a steak, but it was only your forced reload instructions that got things back to normal. Cheers, –Hajor 7 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)
You just changed the redirect on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/P1 in suich as way as to make it point to the revcised proposal P1B. P1 is still a live proposal, please don't hide it by accident. There have been so many reverts in this area that I don't want to simply revert your change here. DES 7 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)
I only pointed it at where its target redirect (then Wikipedia:Expeditious deletion) went - janitorial work, nothing more. I have no opinion where the redirect should point, so long as it's not a non-functional double. —Cryptic(talk) 7 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)
Ok I have, i think fixed it. Didn't want to seem to be brash gove recent events here. DES 7 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)
Hi. You recently replaced this redirect with {{deletedpage}}, but didn't protect the article, so it's still receiving periodic vandalism. If it was an oversight not to protect it, could you please do so? If it was intentional, I think the page is doing more harm now than it was as a redirect, and I would appreciate it if you clarified your intentions. Thank you. —Cryptic(talk)04:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing, but don't think that it's appropriate. I've made quite a few people unhappy by pointing out low-edit voters on the proposal, and I'm still very new myself. —Cryptic(talk)02:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, I had intended to ask whichever admins happen to be around at the time the vote closes. It should be simple math but there's little reason not to ask two or three opinions on that, just to keep it formal. After edits such as this one, you should probably take Netoholic's opinion regarding this vote with a grain of sand. Radiant_>|< 09:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I'm just curious if any of the proposals for speedy deletion criteria have closed yet, just because this edit, seems to have already integrated two of the proposals, and I hadn't thought they were yet ratified. Thanks, Silles Sellis13:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on the transwiki to wikisource. Is it possible to hold off on transwiking lists and tables for the moment? I am trying to convince people that lists and tables that are supplements to articles on wikipedia should be kept on wikicommons and not wikisource. CSN03:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Since I don't follow Wikisource at all, I would appreciate it if you could inform me when this is resolved (and, if it's decided not to keep these on Wikisource, which articles they used to be so I can see about getting them undeleted on Wikipedia). —Cryptic(talk)03:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, go ahead and transwiki whatever you'd like. Things aren't moving any too fast over at Wikisource. Once everything is transwiki'd to Source it'll be easier to establish a clear policy for where all this stuff should be and then move it whereever it belongs. Thanks for waiting. CSN00:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its only in my userspace while i let people look at it and decide what they think, and I am trying to resolve that problem. What if I fix it, and move it to a proper template? Supersaiyanplough|(talk)10:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to know how, can you please move Kodocha to Kodomo no Omocha? That's really where it belongs, as Kodocha is more of a short-hand way of writing it, as opposed to the actual title. Alternatively, you could move the article to Kodocha: Sana's Stage (proposed English title), but yesterday I changed all the links (on 'list of anime', Miho Obana (author)'s page, etc.) to be Kodomo no Omocha, so it'd be easiest to just put it there. (preceding unsigned comment by195.92.168.16419:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Why was this page speedy deleted? There was a VfD. The decision of the VfD is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reading spark plugs for racing and it was to transwiki. The tag at the time clearly indicated that if it could be reworked, it shouldn't be transwiki'd. I and the original author reworked it. Furthermore, I notified all the original VfD participants of that and their comments to keep the article are now logged in the talk page. Can you please restore the article? (You can respond at the article talk page.) Thanks. Samw21:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall whether the article was still tagged {{move to wikisource}} when I tagged it, and since I was performing neither the transwiki nor the deletion, I did not compare the article to the state it was in when it was vfd'd. If it was indeed different enough that the vfd should not apply, I suggest that you list it at Votes for undeletion; as I am not an administrator, I cannot restore the article. My own opinion is that the article as transwikied still reads like a how-to, which are better suited to Wikibooks. —Cryptic(talk)23:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. You've been doing some great work transwikiing. I saw the note about using a script to do transwikiing on your user page. FYI, there is currently no Wiktionary bot; I used to have it, but the recent software upgrade broke it. Since then, I've been looking around for a replacement, and meanwhile the backlog has been building (from zero it's now at ~250). I was just wondering if you'd be willing to share your script so I can continue helping with the transwikis as well. I hope this doesn't sound presumptuous or anything in asking for a copy of your own work, but I just think I can help out. Thanks! --Dmcdevit·t 05:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
That'll be great. I'm about as fluent in Javascript as I am in any other computer language (meaning zero :), although I did make a BASIC program on my graphing calculator once), so sorry about that. I may need some instructions. Well, thanks! --Dmcdevit·t 06:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I tried out the script, but uh, I had problems on the other-wiki side of it, (Wiktionary in this case). At each of the steps, the wikification, and transwiki log and edit summaries, etc. on Wiktionary, it just gave me an error message. But it worked fine on Wikipedia. Ideas? --Dmcdevit·t 01:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I have a different username there, could that be it? Anyway, it's at wikt:User:McBot/monobook.js. When I click the edit summary tab I get
(the text of function transwiki_summary())
clicking wikify history gives me:
(the text of function transwiki_history())
And I have no "log entry" button at all. Nothing wrong at all with the Wikipedia end of it though. Maybe I messed it up somehow, but I can't figure it out. --Dmcdevit·t 20:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, it's working well. This is great script. I plan on plowing through as much of the Wiktionary backlog as I can over the weekend, though I'm pretty busy right now. Thanks. Oh and I took the liberty of adding that last little step to your instructions. Anyway, thanks again. --Dmcdevit·t 21:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oh yes, and one more thing. Transwiki to WikiNews is technically illegal, since WikiNews is public domain, not GFDL. Might want to remove that... --Dmcdevit·t 05:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for fgixing the double redirs via nn-bio. I was workign my way throught the pages that had to be fixed, you got to these before i did. Thanks. DES(talk)23:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the speedy deletion tempaltes were recently edited to remove the transclusion of {{db-reason}}, specifically {{db-repost}} and {{db-nonsense}}. I have started a discussion of this at Template talk:Db-reason#Transclusion. I am reluctant to simply revert without discussuion given recent developemts on these tempaltes, and my involvement in the TfDs and Renames. Your voice would be welcome on tjhis issue. DES(talk)18:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The GamerWiki entry was removed from List of wikis and you referred to the GamerWiki page's deletion in June. There are other, similar, sites, listed on the List of wikis, and I would like to re-list it, but do not want it to just be deleted again. If there is policy being applied in this case, then others in the list should also be removed under the same criteria. Others in the list also have a page that I used as a template to describe the GamerWiki entry, so was confused as to why this was also deleted. -- Tyagi00:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was no formal policy being applied, no; my removal was prompted by your rewrite of the article and Weyes' comment on the vfd. A comparison of list of wikis to SwitchWiki shows that our article is not remotely meant to be exhaustive, though I'm not sure what its criteria are. I rather suspect that a wiki with 356 articles and an Alexa rank currently at 2.8 million falls short of the threshold, however. —Cryptic(talk)12:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand the reasoning that GamerWiki does not currently have the traffic, content, and Internet profile for the List of wikis. However, looking at similar sites to GamerWiki on the list, namely Gamingwiki and Encyclopedia Gamia, they have comparable rankings and levels of content. So I can either re-add GamerWiki to the list, but not create an article page for it, or we can look at cleaning through the list to remove those smaller sites that have been added. -- 20:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Before you send me a note about the placement of VFDs
My goal is not vandalism. What I did to ALinkToThePast was merely to make him aware, as I had tried, that the "cleanup" template didn't need to be at the top of pages because they were too vague. We are now in discussion over this, and are trying to reach a consensus. TheAlternateReality20:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will stop adding the shadows of the empire project to the star wars films category. I changed the article itself to state that the project is the closest in star wars continuity to a movie, without actually being a movie. Sounds like a fair compromise, eh? TheAlternateReality22:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove Images for deletion notices from image pages or remove other people's comments in votes for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an image, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose its deletion, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. —Cryptic(talk)21:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IT WAS NOT A TEST. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT MY POSTS. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.21.8 (talk • contribs) apparently referring to this
Ty for telling me that AFD subpages need a start in the beggining i just follow the way it was formed in the edit page and my AFD keeps getting stuck. TY --Aranda5604:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please update your autovfd script; it's still leaving redlinks to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/whatever as the summaries on the afd daily logs. The appropriate line is
Hello, O Cryptic One. What does this kind of edit to a category label do, exactly? I'm referring to the change in the Newbery Medal cat., rather than the 2001 book cat. addition. Joyous (talk) 18:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
hi, you did undo my edit but the sentence should read Highest sustained winds as agreed in the discussion, if you are unable to change it to that, please leave it alone for a admin fixing it accordingly. If you find you changed it to the right thing, then please enter discussion.
Cryptic,
Thanks for fixing my mistake on the CSD. I must admit I'm an addict when it comes to the line break. You've given me something else to be paraoid about. ^_^; brenneman(t)(c)05:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for changing that, and don't worry, you're not intruding. I'm not one of those people who freaks out when someone edits a page in their user space. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When you put an image on the Ifd page, please post a message on the uploader's talk page. The process at the top of the Ifd page lists this as a requirement and it seems only fair. I could not find any evidence of a notice to uploader for Image:0755312635.02.amazon.co.uk.jpg so I posted an image deletion warning and relisted on today's ifd page. --Thanks --Nv8200p(talk)15:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
