User talk:Cryptic/archive-15

This page is an archive. Please do not edit it.

Request for help with a query

Last year, you helped me by creating this query. I tried to copy it and run it myself to get an updated report, but it appears that the database schema (or whatever the lingo is) has changed, making your query fail to run. I tried to use the documentation and T299417 and a bit of logical thinking to create an updated query, and I got a query that doesn't give error messages, but it never finishes running. I know very little about SQL, so parsing exactly what the query is doing and how to update it is beyond my skills. I have left my new query running for hours with no results. If you have a minute, could you please take a look at the two queries and try to figure out how to update your query from last year to account for the database table changes? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JOIN linktarget ON lt_id = tl_target_id

Also, the "fork" button works more cleanly than cutting-and-pasting the query. —Cryptic 14:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that worked well. I wasn't sure about using "Fork"; I thought it might create a query in "your" space or modify your query in some way, which I wanted to avoid. I will use it in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Block

Why you left no block notice?

Your block came without any warning per WP:BEFOREBLOCK.

I am already trying to resolve this issue here. The block is unnecessary and you should overturn it. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because your talk page is a fucking mess that actually managed to crash my browser when I tried to edit it - archive it already - and because I wasted time trying to find a block template that works cleanly with multiple-page partial blocks.

I'm not going to unblock you. There was and never will be a time when it would be appropriate for you to make the edits you did to either page. —Cryptic 18:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Page blocked for following WP:DENY, without warning. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry you got dragged into the Kalki Avatar and Muhammad mess I’ve been dealing with this month. It’s unpleasant. You made a very reasonable block and should not have to defend yourself against big walls of text from a clique of editors. At the same time, it’s clear you have broad support from other admins and the broader community.

You acted with integrity.—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah

I found Category:Disambiguation message boxes. It includes {{number disambiguation}} and {{Letter–number combination disambiguation}}. What are your thoughts on the templates and specifically {{Letter–number combination disambiguation}}? Do you think {{Letter–number combination disambiguation}} should be reconciled with {{Disambiguation}}? Iterresise (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask on WT:WPDIS. I don't actually work with disambigs much. —Cryptic 11:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regex search queries

Hi, I've been trying to figure out how to use complex wildcards in my Wikipedia searches without breaking things and thought you might have some insight. For example, I want to return pages that have words ending in "pillai" (because I stumbled across several Indian surnames ending in "pillai" that were prepended with Catholic given names, and what is that all about!) where the 4 characters immediately preceding that string cannot be a non-letter... I came up with insource:/[a-zA-Z]{4}pillai/ but that is throwing the "timed out, only partial results" error that instructs me to simplify my regex. Thoughts?
Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use Wikipedia's search, so I've got negligible first-hand experience. That said, the received wisdom from Help:Searching/Regex#Use regexes responsibly is that insource:// shouldn't be used by itself. —Cryptic 12:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently non-regex insource is indexed, so insource:pillai insource:/[a-zA-Z]{4}pillai/ works. —Cryptic 12:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh that makes sense! I guess I was thrown off by the instruction to simplify the regex. Maybe one day Wikipedia's search function will accept my scribbled FSA directed graphs as input and I won't have to learn occult symbology or hope an obscure DAB page exists to find things... JoelleJay (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Feinstein

The rule regarding deaths of prominent persons clearly states "Exceptions to this rule are made for prominent persons who died in office (such as Pope John Paul II and Omar Bongo) or other instances where the death in itself has a major impact." (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_the_Current_events_page_works#Other_guidelines)

There are two exceptions provided: Prominent person who died in office, or prominent person whose death in itself has a major impact. Senator Feinstein clearly falls under the first exception. 2603:6080:B207:AE70:A867:DDB2:96A4:B832 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feinstein was neither a pope nor a decades-long head of state. Being a legislator for an extended period is not unusual, neither in the US nor elsewhere in the world. Dying in any office is plainly insufficient. —Cryptic 16:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. I saw that you participated in a discussion on a similar topic. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The requested coffee

I never do WikiLove, but this just seemed fitting since we both need it per our DRV comments this morning. ;-) Star Mississippi 15:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Volumes of Ninja Hattori-kun

Hello, Cryptic,

The article counts in CSD categories are often off by 1 or more pages and in this case, you restored and then redeleted this draft. But we delete hundreds of expired drafts each day, how did you discover it was this one causing the problem? Just wondering what you can see that I can't. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

quarry:query/69117 (or 68892). —Cryptic 02:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Why you delete a draft after refund to draft? G8 doesnt apply here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_October_11) And G4 excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark21K (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't in draft. Which you know, because it was you who moved it back into mainspace. —Cryptic 20:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted both. "The Wikipedia page Draft:Christopher Schläffer has been deleted on

21 October 2023 by Cryptic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Schl%C3%A4ffer.

Editor's summary: G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent

page: Christopher Schläffer

So the question is, why the speedy deletion in mainspace and why not restoring the draft after it. Mark21K (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the mainspace page because you moved it there with only trivial changes immediately after a DRV endorsed its previous deletion. Nothing was deleted in draftspace except the broken redirect left from moving it. I chose not to exercise discretion by moving it back to draft because it's clear that your purpose isn't to improve the article, but to solely to get it back into the main namespace by any method you can. You're welcome to bring my G4 up at DRV again. Don't expect as much sympathy there as you got last time. —Cryptic 20:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this clarification. However I reviewed the changes made during the deletion process and there were 4 request to add reliable sources which have all been followed and done. I therefore am of the opinion that all requests for reliable sources (there are now 21 reliable sources in total) have been fulfilled and notability is clearly given. It would therefore be great if you could restore the draft and indicate which other changes you would see as required so that I can work on that. Going through another DRV is the last thing i am in mood for. Mark21K (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to do that. —Cryptic 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cryptic, I would like to ask for your advice as you might have seen me participate in the deletion discussion in this case. I am unfortunately not a well-versed editor yet and a lot of these processes are new to me. However I was aiming to make the article better during the deletion process by adding sources where this was requested by some contributors. To my mind the article meets the criteria of notability and also reliable sources but you seem to see that differently which I fully respect. Could you therefore kindly give a hint what you would expect so that an article can be published as I would like to put some effort into that. And would this have to be done based on the existing draft or in entirely new attempt, which of course would also override previous contributors? Best, Verify.now (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined deletion

Hi, I hope you're doing well. I noticed your recent edits on the article Rylan Brownlie. The issue isn't limited to today; the article was created just three days ago with two unreliable citations, and it didn't adhere to WP:ATHLETE. During the curation process, I moved it to the draft at Draft:Rylan Brownlie following WP:DRAFTIFY, and the mainspace page was promptly deleted. However, the creator of the article then made a new one in the mainspace for the same player, adding some more citations that still weren't significant. Most of these citations appear to be profiles and entries. I tagged the page for speedy deletion and added a redirect to the draft. In cases where a user isn't following the AfC process and adds the article again while ignoring the draft, it's important to maintain a consistent approach to uphold Wikipedia's content quality standards.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 14:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is not a speedy, and the creator is allowed to contest draftification like that. Your recourse is to bring it to AFD or make it into a (non-speedyable) redirect. —Cryptic 16:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thanks for your nice solution to my question in Wikipedia:Help desk#How to find out the edit count of pages with templates?. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reinstate a draft

Dear Cryptic. I'm writing in regards to the following draft that was recently deleted by you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ira_Vouk I believe the reason for deletion was Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Is it possible to undelete the article and place it back into the Draft space for further enhancement to meet the wiki requirements? I previously submitted it for a review and it's been declined a couple times. Reasons stated:

first: not adequately supported, not formal tone
resubmitted with corrections, declined again: no more issues with the tone but not enough sources with significant coverage
resubmitted adding secondary sources with coverage, now declined with the reason: not formal again, deleted

This person meets the notability requirements, based on the existence of media coverage of her life and work that is independent of the subject. She also has published books and research papers. There are reviews and citations of those works that were also cited in the article. Those were all added yesterday to the latest version, which got it declined and deleted for being too promotional. Perhaps I overdid it with the sources. So I'm requesting another chance to review it with wiki experts in the help channel before re-submission.

To address the "advertising and promotion" concern: I didn't write the article for myself. I used to work with this person a while back and I have been admiring her work for over a decade, along with thousands of people in our industry. I feel she deserves a wiki page and that probably shows in the language I use when describing her. She is a notable figure in our space with a large following. I just need to understand how to phrase it to make it sound non-promotional.

I'm still hoping to be able to publish it as I've put a lot of effort into it. I would appreciate it if you allowed another chance to fine-tune the article to meet wiki standards.

Please ping me when responding, if you can. Thank you for your consideration. Faminalizblr (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Faminalizblr: Jimfbleak already gave you specific advice and restored it for you once on October 14. It had already been so promotional in tone that Wikipedia would not host it, even as a draft, and individual administrators are authorized to delete similar pages on sight. Your edits after his undeletion only incrementally improved the draft at best, and in some ways made it even more promotional; I think it's clear that you're unable to write neutrally about this person. (That's not a value judgment; most people in situations like yours cannot do so either.)

Under these circumstances, I don't think it's in anybody's best interests to restore this again for you to attempt to work on it more - not yours, not Wikipedia's, not Ms. Vouk's - and I'm not going to do so. You can formally appeal at Deletion review. —Cryptic 20:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic Thank you for your prompt response.

I understand your argument and respect your opinion.

May I ask for advice then? I would appreciate it if you could help me understand how to proceed in this situation, rather than simply appealing the deletion, which may result in the same outcome.

When Jimfbleak restored the article, I rephrased and restructured it with his help and to his satisfaction. He encouraged me to resubmit it for review because he was OK with the result (you can see our correspondence in my talk page).

The next reviewer didn't find the article promotional but asked for more relevant secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject.

I searched for those and added them, which resulted in your decision to delete the article.

So it appears that there's some level of subjectivity in the decisions, which makes it hard to pinpoint what exactly prevents this article from meeting Wikipedia standards.

Would you be able to help me identify what specific phrases in the article appear to be promotional? Or is it more of the sources used to support the material? If the latter, which of those sources are not considered reliable?

I have read all the related FAQ articles about the language/tone and types of sources that need to be used and I did my best to meet those standards and address reviewers comments but they seem to contradict each other.

I would greatly appreciate your help, if you could.

Sincerely, Faminalizblr (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is the same as I gave above - I don't think you should be working on an article about this person. Creating new articles is hard enough already - we generally don't advise new editors to do so, but instead to work on existing ones - and people are almost universally terrible at writing about subjects they're personally connected to. —Cryptic 18:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response @Cryptic.

Sorry, one more question. Something that I'm not grasping as a concept (I apologize if it's a stupid question). Wouldn't it make sense for a person to have some interest in the subject they're writing an article about? For example, I'd like to create more articles about people and organizations in hospitality as I believe our industry is under-represented on wikipedia. I'd prefer writing about that, vs biology for example. But what you mentioned above technically makes me disqualified from writing about the subject I care about.

I'm not sure I get the logic. Is there something I'm missing? Faminalizblr (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a wide difference between writing about a subject you're interested in and about a subject you have a conflict of interest in. —Cryptic 19:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes sense.

I don't feel that I have a conflict of interest though. Perhaps I just need more practice writing in a more neutral tone.

Thank you for your advice. I appreciate your time and your responsiveness. Faminalizblr (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship

from the Birthday Committee

Wishing Cryptic a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- Ezra Cricket (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to restore a draft

Dear Cryptic, I am contacting you regarding the article: Draft:Immigrant Invest. I ask you to do a favor and restore the article in the Drafts zone. I'll rework the article. Thank you! MazzDak (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't at all a close call, and it would need to change very drastically to no longer be deletable-on-sight. To even come close to borderline - and that's the borderline between being immediately deleted and merely rejected as a draft, not the borderline to being accepted as an article - I'd think half of the lead and the History sections would need to go, the Services section reduced to two or three sentences at most, and the Publications, Conferences, and Memberships sections removed entirely. (And another administrator still might legitimately delete it then.) I'm reluctant to restore. I'd be willing to mail it, if you enable an email address in Special:Preferences, but be aware reposting anything resembling this version will just get deleted again and increase scrutiny of any later versions. —Cryptic 22:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eintracht Frankfurt historial.png

Hi Cryptic. I have closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 November 6#File:Eintracht Frankfurt historial.png as per your suggestion to crop out the non-free logo on the right. When you have a moment could you please take care of that? Thanks, FASTILY 06:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Children Society

This is Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smiley Children Society

initially how can we download the deleted article, so that it can be stored with references, and added in Wikipedia when it gets notability

second thing is, is it not possible to move the page to draft space and add the information and keep for admin approval,

Thanks CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty one-sided afd. Someone at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion might... maybe... possibly be willing to email it to you, if you make it clear that you want it emailed - not restored - and promise not to attempt to put it back on Wikipedia. I'm not. The time to start thinking about an article is after something becomes notable, not as a vehicle to get it there. —Cryptic 11:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERM?

In your edit summary you mentioned WP:PERM. Did you mean to say I posted in the wrong place? Because WP:PERM says "This is not the place to request review of another user's rights. If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard." So it's unclear for me why you linked WP:PERM? Or was that meant as a hint for the user as to where to request the right in the future? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was directing them there to regain it; I gave the full name of the page in the edit itself. —Cryptic 06:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had opened the page history and assumed the last edit (by you) was the "yanked" comment, but between loading the page and opening the history the discussion developed further. I'm not paying sufficient attention it seems, sorry for the confusion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Regarding this comment [1]. He's reverted 3 separate edits of mine I've edited Wikipedia since 2007 and were the situation reversed I wouldn't argue that wasn't a violation. You appear to imply that if I were to undo his edits in 3 consecutive edits that would be OK. Can I just check that is your implication and the intention of the restriction? I ask because it overturns all of my understanding of 3RR, so much so I'm considering requesting a clarification at WP:AE W C M_email 10:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's right out of WP:3RR: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." WP:1RR incorporates that language by reference.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's OK to revert them back, but it's no worse than reverting all of their edits in a single one of yours. Does pose a risk of someone editing another part of the article in between, though. —Cryptic 10:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. W C M_email 11:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your commentary this morning, I appreciate the redirection of my mistaken understanding of policy. Could I beg a favour and ask if you wouldn't mind keeping an eye on my talk page for a while. I suspect some false accusations are headed my way. W C M_email 16:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My AE report of bludgeoning a DRV

I didn't notify any of the other participants in the DRV because I didn't want to be accused of canvassing, and I don't think that I have ever reported a user at Arbitration Enforcement, because often I am trying to mediate a dispute in these areas. I agree that leniency, as in a logged warning, is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox company change

Hi Cryptic! Thanks for the response here—do you know when/how the imagestyle parameter addition can be merged into {{Infobox company}} so it can be used in that article? — Bilorv (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually still live in Template:Infobox company/sandbox; I had meant to revert it from there by now. I think making an image with a non-transparent background is the better solution, and not just because of the poor margins - imagestyle isn't really meant for top-level infobox templates. (At least, that's how I understand it. I don't work with infoboxes much; I've always thought them an eyesore whose primary purpose was to make it easier for Google to profit off our work. Though I guess Wikidata's their preferred method these days.)

If you really want the parameter merged in, though, make an edit request on Template talk:Infobox company. I'm not going to edit the live template myself. —Cryptic 18:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it. Thanks. — Bilorv (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns Regarding Unsubstantiated Edits by User '79a' on Arlyzinho BR Article

Greetings Críptico,

I would like to report that the user "79a" is editing the article Arlyzinho BR, adding non-factual information without supporting references. As the original author of the article, based on research, I am concerned about the user "79a" attempting to link information without specific reference data to substantiate their claims. I kindly request a review of the situation, as this is notably compromising the quality of the content. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Zp124 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You came to me, specifically, about this - why? —Cryptic 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cryptic! Confirmado na pt.wiki e reportado no meta. 79a (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What made you think this was a good idea?

This article was deleted repeatedly, recreated multiple times under multiple titles to avoid the deletion, deleted and s saltethen d, grudgingly and baselessly allowed back into draft space, moved into mainspace without review or approval under a new title to avoid the salting. Why did you unsalt?it. You should resathisinonsense non-notable, unreliably sourced fancruft. t. Banks Irk (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It already existed when I unblacklisted it; all my edit did was make it possible to create the talk page. AFD is ---> over there. —Cryptic 04:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. What a mess. Banks Irk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly how the deletion and salting was evaded? Anybody with pagemover rights can just ignore salting? User talk:Extraordinary Writ/Archive 9#Why was this fancruft nonsense undeleted? Banks Irk (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already aware of that (and had commented there previously). Let's keep it in the one place. —Cryptic 02:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Would have sent a beer but it's only 9am where I am, so a tad early for that. ;)

Thanks for dealing with the music academy mess, appreciate it! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunh. I've never had, or even heard of. (Confused it with baccarat between seeing the summary and the image, and was wondering why someone would put that in wikilove.) Looks unhealthy, so must be good. —Cryptic 09:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's good, alright. Maybe not the stale stuff you usually get in shops, but if you're ever in Turkey, they have pastry shops specialising in this stuff, and it's to die for (and I don't even like sweet stuff, especially). You do need something to cut through the sweetness, though, such as tea... or indeed my personal favourite, the aforementioned beer. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just so you're aware: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Melodica Music & Dance School. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi Cryptic, today I wanted to reach out to you and clear the air a bit. I note that you had asked me a question on my unsuccessful RfA. This was not an honest, acceptable answer and now, I wanted to explain why. In my userpage's (deleted) page history, there was content which I had wanted people to not see, as it could have led me to being doxxed/my IRL, personal identity being found out. At that time, I had considered a variety of answers which I had thought, "Would this be a good, acceptable answer?" and "Would this answer be problematic?". But ultimately I just went ahead with the lie and it turned out to be a very bad idea put forth by myself. Sure, I would've gone with another answer (that I now realize that it's acceptable) but I just didn't think it would be a good idea at that time to say answers such as, "Yeah, I had bad, weird stuff in my deleted userpage history". That's why I lied about this per those reasons; I'm sorry I had done so; I will definitely try not to do so again. At that point, the opposes kept coming and I realized per the lie and the other concerns pointed out on my RfA that I wouldn't be a trustworthy, competent administrator. I understand that you think I'm untrustworthy with the additional advanced tools at that time and currently, but I have felt the need to reach out and explain myself and this for a while now. I, however, do appreciate that you had asked this question because I'd taken some time to self-reflect thereafter on that situation and how to deal with similar situations. If I can't be honest, I'm truly not ready to run. ~ Tails Wx (he/him, aro ace, 🐾) 00:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If as you say there's identifying content in your userpage that's just deleted, you should get it suppressed - explain your position to oversight and they'll likely comply. I can email you the deleted history to facilitate this if you wish. It's not primarily an issue of administrators being untrustworthy; it's the risk that one won't realize that the content has privacy implications.

As I said in my oppose, leaving the question unanswered would've been fine. So would've been contacting me privately and explaining (not straightforward since I don't leave email enabled, but I'd have responded to a "Hey, can I mail you?" message here). Answering with what looked like a transparent lie - and it almost doesn't matter that it turned out to actually be one - was never going to be the right call, though. —Cryptic 12:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Yes, feel free to email me the deleted history of my userpage; I'll include that in my email to Oversight.

I understand about the fact that I could've left the question unanswered, but much to the approval of other users I just decided to answer it. I also decided to post here; and although I didn't think of asking to email you (as you noted above, I could've done so) admitting to lying on-Wiki would be, in my opinion, a more suitable idea. I agree with you that it was not–and never– a good idea to lie, especially on an RfA. As such, I'm clearly, undoubtly disappointed in myself for doing so, and I realize: I threw away my chances at passing and lost a substantial amount trust in the community. ~ Tails Wx (he/him, aro ace, 🐾) 15:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sent, split over two messages. That was rather longer than I'd expected; the last entry in the first message should have timestamp "2021-12-20T21:59:45Z" and edit summary "/* Storms tracked */ Spacing". It would probably be easiest for Oversight if you gave them ranges of timestamps (like "everything between 2021-02-23T12:29:18Z and 2021-10-20T21:13:56Z"), but they can work with revids too, or "please suppress all the revisions that mention my name, Jim Smith" if they have to. —Cryptic 16:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if there are edit summaries that are problematic too, not just revision text, you should mention that specifically. —Cryptic 16:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll sort these out and send them via email to Oversight as soon as I can. ~ Tails Wx (he/him, aro ace, 🐾) 17:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Kogan Page deletion

Could you tell me why you deleted "Valeria Kogan"? Was it the language I used or the content or something else? Oirish baguette (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both. It was unredeemably promotional and bore no resemblance to an encyclopedia article. —Cryptic 17:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for patiently correcting my errors and misunderstandings. It's a relief to know that you are willing to tell me what I've got wrong. I hate being wrong, and I love that you help me fix my mistakes. Thank you so much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Basudev Sunani

I don't understand why it was deleted, if the objection was phrases like "for his insightful poetry, thought-provoking essays, and impactful activism." - these were part of the sources and could have been removed. Basudev Sunani is an influential poet writing about oft-ignored subjects in a language that doesn't see much presence on wikipedia anyway. Miximon (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a matter of isolated phrases; there was not a single sentence that was not promotionally-written. Removing them would have left the article blank. Part of the job of an encyclopedist is converting biased sources into neutral prose; if you are unable to understand that, you should not be editing in mainspace at all, let alone creating new articles. —Cryptic 21:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest management: Case opened

Hello Cryptic,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User rights weirdness

Hey there, I was looking at your user rights page and it seems for some reason a click was registered to change your rights, and I have no idea why that happened. Just wanted to let you know, as everything should be changed back to what it was before. Sorry about that, it may have been a misclick of something odd. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have made a mistake in accepting a speedy deletion of Chloe Lewis (figure skater)

I think you have made a mistake in accepting a speedy deletion of Chloe Lewis (figure skater). As far as I can see that conclusion of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1 was "relist due to socking issues". The problem being that Big Money Threepwood was a block-evading sock, and his/her contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloe Lewis (figure skater) was therefore invalid. Please could you self-revert.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV doesn't have a conclusion yet, and the page was identical to the version deleted at afd except for formatting. —Cryptic 12:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(notified at user talk) What a mess. The AfD was so short on policy-based discussion. Cryptic, no rush, but would you restore the article back to draft? I think it was original AfD nominator Bgsu98 who moved it back into mainspace for what it's worth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I felt my original nomination was flawed and that the article in draft format met the criteria for notability. I did not, however, have access to the original article so as to compare the two. As to the statements that the statistics tables were unsourced, I added appropriate links to the article (in the External links section), which serve as the source. I had reformatted the tables for Logan Bye (her former partner), so I brought those over as well, since we are in the process of upgrading all tables on the figure skating articles through the Figure Skating WikiProject. I apologize for the mess I have apparently made; I was genuinely trying to fix my mistakes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(via edit conflict, and can't follow up since I have to leave shortly) Yes, it was Bgsu98. I hadn't noticed that they were also the afd nominator, just that they were the same user who'd made the non-substantive edits on the 20th.

I think, at this point, it would be better to leave it well enough alone - the drv is already overdue to be closed, and is reasonably likely to either reopen the old afd or list it anew. If I move it back to draft now, it would in either of those cases just be moved back to mainspace again for the duration of the afd. If the drv is closed as endorse, I'll redraftify it then. —Cryptic 12:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For this. [2]. And yes, the whole N tildes for a signature thing is a built in booby trap, though I still manage to get it wrong even far too often when I'm not typing in a hurry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Moruf Oseni

You recently deleted the page 'Moruf Oseni'. I'd like to know what can be done to improve the article so it can be in the mainspace Michael Ugbodu (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cryptic, I would really appreciate a reply on this topic so I can rectify the concerns you have on the deleted article. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Deletion review for Moruf Oseni

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Moruf Oseni. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Deletion review notice Michael Ugbodu (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Re: Resistance (Star Trek) – it never occurred to me that I could turn {{italic title}} off to use {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}! Thanks, now I know. You got to it before the Help Desk even answered me. — TARDIS builder^✉ ★ 16:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution for Trump image

@Cryptic How's it going bro.

On the image of the Trump shooting, you said that "Low quality isn't required to comply with NFCC" but like, it does tho, right?

Number 3b: "Low-resolution, rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used..."

Maybe there's something I'm missing here. TheWikiToby (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the version I uploaded and the one FMSky did are of sufficiently low - essentially the same - resolution. NFCC3b doesn't require that we go further and intentionally introduce artifacts into images the way I accidentally did; the fidelity and bit-rate mentions are primarily aimed at audio files (and I suppose probably video too, though I haven't adminned in that area). —Cryptic 00:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. I always interpreted it as saying we should have images at the lowest resolution possible while still being recognizable. TheWikiToby (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EFS Facilities

Thank you. I kept looking at it and thinking "clear close" and then realize nope, can't implement. Let me know if there's anything further you need from me. Star Mississippi 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is. A call on which namespaces (there was some disagreement on whether to blacklist at all in Draft: or not) and whether to effectively semiprotect or fully-protect. My read is to either semiprotect or do nothing in draft and draft talk:, fully protect everywhere else. —Cryptic 15:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Let me know if I missed any titles. It's a little messy. Star Mississippi 16:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you to create-protect the titles - the DRV itself shows that's going to be ineffective, and it's not like anybody was going to create the exact mispunctuated title Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group L.L.C ever again. I was asking which namespaces to blacklist in, and whether they should be blacklisted to a level equivalent to either semi-protection or not-quite-full-protection. —Cryptic 16:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ahh apologies, I misread My read is to either semiprotect or do nothing in draft and draft talk:, fully protect everywhere else and wasn't aware of the distinction in blacklist levels and thought you meant they should be protected in tandem. I agree with the distinction you propose as an established editor may see potential in working in draft space but it needs more review than AfC since a prior DRV suggested DEEPER. If I'd realized I'd closed that DRV I might not have acted here, but there was no established dissent. Do you want me to undo the protection? Happy to if it impacts blacklisting. Star Mississippi 16:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The salting won't interfere, it'll just make any creations have to pass both the blacklist rule and the salting (so you'd need to be extendedconfirmed to create Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group or Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group L.L.C, but only autoconfirmed to create Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group ha ha you can't stop me you wicked deletionists). —Cryptic 17:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*snort* on the latter.

That makes sense as no one newer will be versed enough to overcome the reasons it has been deleted Star Mississippi 17:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance templates

Good afternoon. Do navigation boxes such as {{navbox}} and {{infobox}} count as "maintenance templates"? How about {{HMM}} or {{album}}? I want to make sure that I am not omitting the wrong things either. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The unifying factor of maintenance templates is that they're meant to be removed after corrective work has been performed on an article. Navboxes and infoboxes aren't.

So no, if you were under a topic ban from "adding maintenance templates, broadly construed" - and that's the kind of wording this sort of ban usually ends up with - then I personally wouldn't block you for adding those. Further, while another admin might block you for adding them - especially the latter two, which "feel" more like maintenance templates even though I don't think they quite are - and even though such a block would probably be overturned, it's a grey enough area that I don't think the blocking admin would be seen to have been acting improperly. So I'd be reluctant to add them were I in your position.

I wish I could point you to a simple rule, like "don't add or edit or create redirects to any template descended from the Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates tree", but like most categories on Wikipedia, that gets too muddled too quickly. Even templates like {{agree}} and {{edit fully-protected}} have that maintenance cat as an ancestor, and I don't think any admin would block you for ones like those. —Cryptic 20:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance and clarification! --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two other simple guidelines:

If in doubt, don't.
If you are still keen to add a template, discuss it on the talk: page first or discuss it with another experienced editor. Even if this is then questioned later on, possibly (as noted above) considered as block-worthy, then it would as least give you strong mitigation in your favour.

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification and assistance! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things I haven't thought about in a long time

[3]Thanks for making me feel old:) DMacks (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]