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)) ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

... 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. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 November 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ken Takakura, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

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

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

...Which madness where? —Cryptic 09:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry thought it was obvious [[1]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/2024 June 6 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll offer up this post-delisting oppose as counterargument. (4 or 5 years?) —Cryptic 18:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well I'm learning how to deal with new article review, so thanks for the help. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

I've done the former. —Cryptic 17:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Context: User talk:Kikichugirl#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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. Thanks again... JMHamo (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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|url=insert URL here)), 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)[reply]

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]

((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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Very useful. Thanks JMHamo (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]