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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

As mentioned at Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]

	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 Wikipedia 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.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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 Wikipedia, nor convince anyone of anything even if they were to stay. —Cryptic 13:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia article. —Cryptic 13:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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/w/index.php?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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Ruralendeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk _C 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 Wikipedia. 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)^{talk to me}[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

on a user you recently blocked.[1] — coelacan — 17:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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 Wikipedia." 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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^T § 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Goodness. That's a lot! Well, thanks for your response. Cheers, Gracenotes^T § 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Splash - tk Cryptic 21:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Side note, I've blocked your fan club for 24 hours. Mackensen (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the prot on that talk page, Cryptic. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're mean. I don't want to be your WikiFriend anymore. --24.235.229.208 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is there any way I can add the article Mcgee without it getting deleted? I mean, there are many different products on wikipedia. There was really no reason to delete my article. Can I restart it but change it so it does not seem like I am copywriting or what ever I did last time that made it get deleted? I don't know what blatant advertising means, but please, just let me add it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaron Pepin (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's not why I deleted it. Include a credible assertion of importance or significance and it won't be speedied. —Cryptic 00:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of civility in this commentary is extremely unhelpful. Kindly refrain from further demonstrations. Thank you. (→Netscott) 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The harsh language was clearly not a personal attack, but a display of astonishment. --Dschwen 18:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sometimes you have to smack a mule with a 2-by-4 to get its attention. But be cautious about going "below the line" too often. Wahkeenah 03:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Tendentious_editing_by_User:Netscott. >Radiant< 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using your spoiler script, and I like it. Just two minor points: I would like to have the ability to have spoilers initially hidden. Your script already has a variable for this, but since it's in the script itself, it's not very useful. Perhaps you could allow variables to be set in the user's monobook.js or something.

Secondly, Sometimes an article doesn't have an endspoiler tag. In this case, wouldn't it be better if things like See also sections and References did not disappear? Lots of thanks in advance, Shinobu 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this wasn't directed at me. I added all those pages from a bot created list of salted pages, not redirects. I also did this to over 500 pages, making it hard for me to check whatlinkshere on any of them. Links are supposed to be removed when salting takes place. I also do not see how this could possibly be my fault. Cbrown1023 talk 21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand it now. But still, all of the pages should have had their own "Deletedpage"s. Protected redirects are for redirecting to legitimate pages, not other "deleted pages". Cbrown1023 talk 21:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for the banner you placed on Starships!. I think it's more appropriate than the other one. It gave me a good feeling. I like creating articles, but it become less fun if I feel like I'm defending the article constantly. I feel that editors are more likely to make helpful contributions to a page (including sourcing) they are more likely to do so if they don't feel that there is a constant threat of deletion hanging over their heads at all times. Your edit is a very good compromise to the dilemma we had, and I thank you for it. Nice Job! Matt Brennen 23:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

…this edit. You can thank Tony Sidaway for that. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, that page was noteworthy and if it was in need of revision or correction, should have been put up for discussion rather than a blanket deletion without any discussion. If that page was not noteworthy, then you should also delete HSX and Newsfutures as well as Stock market simulator because they fall into the same category and have no real value to this online encyclopedia either.--DragonChi 12:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found your comment on my RFA especially gratifying. In addition to other kind words, your mentioning of Irving Crane was great—someone actually read the article and appreciated it! (it's sometimes hard to tell). Please feel free to drop by my talk page for any reason.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing out that copyvio so quickly. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dead_Awaken. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 74.72.119.9 22:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boowah. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the {{copyvio}} template it now seems obvious that I should've blanked the page (as "the previous content of this page" would imply), but since there's no explicit instruction to do so in the template, it didn't occur to me at the time (and it's also the first time I've ever had to use it). Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. I'll know better next time. Ford MF 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The canonical instructions are at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions. —Cryptic 16:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan de Lancie is commonly known by his first name, then? AvatarMN 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The company website is www.possolutions.com.au SoniaZ 15:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're supposed to add the unambiguous word "Support". (Or something else, as the case may be.) -- Hoary 10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary; my comment could hardly be viewed as anything else. (Especially with RFA still stupidly segregating supports and opposes like it was a vote.) Also see here. —Cryptic 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I never invoked "common sense" when I made the suggestion. My own RfA farce had a hiccup when one solemn soul pointed out that I hadn't "signed" my agreement to it all. Incidentally, I admired the spunk of the nominee (I forget his name; do please remind me if you happen to remember) who recently refused to answer any of the questions. -- Hoary 11:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss. He impressed me, too; I don't comment on RFAs for people I haven't bumped into beforehand, but I was quite tempted here. —Cryptic 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's him (or her), yes. (Thank you for the link.) I got to it late and thought I'd vote "support", but then I thought I really should read through the "oppose"s, and the prospect was just too boring so I surfed elsewhere. -- Hoary 11:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I call dibs on the DIBS page!

This is slightly frustrating. I had already cleared the page to be recreated by the original deleting admin provided that the original issue raised was not raised again (which it wasn't). You've listed (as the second reason for deletion) that the page was similiar to the original, which is possible, but did not pose the same problem as the prior version (in my understanding). You also listed (as the first reason for deletion), that the group was non-notable. Frankly, the group is irrelevant. The -station- is notable because it is FCC licensed, as indicated here. If this page is not to be made, so-be-it, and protect it against re-creation again. Otherwise, I'd like a better explanation. Thanks. JPG-GR 04:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of WMLZ-LP. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JPG-GR 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon (GMT time); I'd just like to know what your thoughts were when you blocked KingChronic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – the user has no contributions whatsoever, as well as no logs, and yet he/she is being blocked for Keyspam ... I've unblocked for the moment, as I see no motive for an indefinite block whatsoever; if there's some hidden reason I'm not seeing, I'll happily undo myself.

Regards,
Anthøny 11:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted revisions of HD DVD Code. —Cryptic 15:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cryptic, this is in regards to your deletion of page "factory (band)". Fairly new to wikipedia, and I realise that there was very little info in the article, however it was just a stub, to be filled in by another band member. deletion reason A7 seems to mean "unremarkable", which I'll admit may currently be the case to you, as we have only just finished recording and are therefore relatively unknown. However we were recorded by Jimi maroudis, who has worked as producer/assistant producer for recordings of such bands/acts as "the living end", "pete murray", "delta godrem", "augie march" etc, at sing sing studios, one of THE premiere studios in australia, and while it was a self funded, therefore low budget production, we have a fair bit of interest so far given the cd is yet to be distributed/promotion has not yet began. I am (honestly) curious what you would consider grounds for undeletion, and how I would go about it. please also check out our music at myspace.com/factoryaustralia (even if you dont have any intention of undeleting, you never know, you might just like it). cheers, Ben -- Jsguitarman

Please see our notability guidelines for musical topics. —Cryptic 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the reply -- Jsguitarman

Hi there, i am a fresher to wiki writing and i have been trying to do a write up on Spyware Terminator , a product i have been using recently, of course not with an intention to promote it or something, but just let users know about its existence like ad aware, spybot are there. when there were markings about 'advertising' on the page, (which was actually from one of my friends) i had it removed and rewritten. It was marked for deletion when there was no third party citations available, i was working on it and in coordination with another admin but before he didnt even know about it, the article has been deleted. he had mentioned that articles marked AFD are usually left open till the discussion concludes or something like it, i saw a couple other articles (like javapedia i am trying to edit) given a time period before it will be deleted. but none happened with Spyware terminator.

my request would be to revoke the spyware terminator that i will try to rewrite it to meet the standards . that was my idea behind posting a cleanup tag. i was under the impression that it will give an idea to others that i am trying to adapt it to wikimedia requirements.

please advise...thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rajeshontheweb (talk • contribs) 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you mean by "another admin"; no other administrator had edited the page or otherwise taken any action with respect to it before I speedy-deleted it as advertising. (I do note, though, that after you re-created the article, another administrator concurred and speedied it as spam as well.) If you truly intend to write an encyclopedia article instead of a promotion, as you say, then I suggest that

1. you look at other articles in our encyclopedia and base your writing style on them, as opposed to the back-of-box advertising copy your previous attempts much more closely resembled; and
2. you first find independent, reliable sources, and base your article solely on them. —Cryptic 04:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was dynaflow - i thought he was an admin. But if the article could be retrieved, i am interested in rewriting the article as i did not mean it to be a promotion of the product in the first place and i am not involved with the company other than that i am an active member of their forums and i use the product. i just wanted it to be an introduction about the software just like ad aware or spybot.. thanks for the help..

i see u have marked it for deletion again, please correct me if there is areas it still shows up bad advert. i am not into advertising the product, i just wanted to write an article, and i am a newbie trying to sort this advertising stuff sorted out. i sincerely am interested in redoing the article to clear the advertising statements. please highlight the lines i have missed out which are outright advert. thanks Rajeshontheweb 07:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just noticed the features section was mostly on my own research (which is not permissible) and i have removed it, if u could give us some more time and not let anybody mark it for speedy deletion, would be pleased Rajeshontheweb 08:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I consider that removing all links to Calysto static checker from 'Static code analysis', 'List of tools for static code analysis', and 'Formal verification' was snippy, unexplained, and unnecessary. Calysto is a static checker and as such belongs under those topics. Could you please let me know why did you remove them? (Several static checkers are mentioned in both categories, so the link is obviously appropriate.)

Second, when I reverted your changes, you banned my ip. This is abuse of administrative permissions.

This is really not the way to maintain Wikipedia. Those links fit well the context and I had no intention to spam (which was your explanation).

i see u have marked it for deletion again, please correct me if there is areas it still shows up bad advert. i am not into advertising the product, i just wanted to write an article, and i am a newbie trying to sort this advertising stuff sorted out. i sincerely am interested in redoing the article to clear the advertising statements. please highlight the lines i have missed out which are outright advert. thanks Rajeshontheweb 07:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing links to {{sww}}; it isn't the same template as {{Wookieepedia box}}. {{sww}} was made into a redirect into the latter template; I've undone that redirect, and am now reverting your removal of the template (at the very least, it isn't covered under the scope of the TfD). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...ack. —Cryptic 18:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, pretty much sums up my response... even after reverting the edits, I have to go back in and fix the missing bullet. What an entire mess the {{Wookieepedia box}} ordeal has been. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your nomination of this template for deletion, considering that two comparable templates are already on TfD with nothing approaching a consensus to delete. To further speedy that template, and reverse the closure of another administrator in good standing seems rather needlessly pointy, but I am perhaps misunderstanding your intentions? Phil Sandifer 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edit-conflicted on the close with David Gerard, whom I'm assuming was not aware of the previous tfd. (Which doesn't look like the one I vaguely recalled, so there may be more than one.) In any case, it was in no way a speedy keep. I find your link to WP:POINT gratuitously insulting; if anything has been disrupting Wikipedia, it's the mass insertion of these boxes linking to sites that - at least in some cases - don't even meet our criteria for an unadorned external link. —Cryptic 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you shut up Phil. Yesterday i did some work and went trough the Sister Templates category and moved this box to the External link boxes category. Apparently you picked this up and though it was a good idea to start adding it to some articles, once again showing no respect to your fellow editors by just trolling on and ignoring the fact that this thing IS being contested. At the same time you are complaining about people like Matthew who are revert warring over this, instead of being the better editor and putting your idea up for debate again. Now don't be all whiny about this close of a previously unused template. Hell I got the HarryPotterWiki one delisted for you, it's time to start looking at yourself now. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was rather incivil. I have not touched this or any similar template since the edit war with Matthew, preferring to wait for all of the TfDs to close. Any changes I made to this came before the Memory Alpha template was even created - this was, if I recall, the third one of these I made. (After TARDIS and Babylon 5, before Memory Alpha and Harry Potter) Phil Sandifer 19:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make this perfectly clear, this box was not in use yesterday !!! --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... yeah. Yeah, it was. [2]. Followed, the next day, by putting redirecting Template:sww to this, which I, once again, proposed to the relevant WikiProject and on the template talk page, to no objection. Your attempts to paint me as a vicious or sneaky edit warrior here really aren't based on anything resembling reality. Phil Sandifer 19:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my statement. I confused it with one of the others. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let me know if there's anything wrong with it? Tony 02:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Good}}, {{Bad}}, and {{Not correct}} (among others) were recently deleted, as per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 5#AfD voting templates. Cryptic was removing the templates. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you speedy deleted the "good" "bad" templates. However, the TfD rationale was inaccurate. Most transclusions of the templates were not used in XfDs, (only the last one was), rather, they were mostly used to mark list items and examples on project pages. So, you deleted templates that were in use for legitimate purposes after being given an inaccurate rationale. The names don't say "delete" or "keep" and neither do the templates. I think you should reconsider this closure. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I didn't have time to respond properly when I got the new messages banner, and have had such a screwed-up week since then that your query honesty slipped my mind.

I stand by the speedies, however; the current whatlinkshere lists are incomplete, as several of the transclusions on voting pages have been removed. Template:Bad, Template:Correct, and Template:Not correct were all used only on WP:MOS, a draft of WP:MOS in Tony1's userspace, and on many afd pages; Template:Good was additionally used on a handful of user pages - about half of which predate the template's prior deletion - and on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden. That the templates did not themselves say keep or delete isn't especially relevant if they're being used that way (and note that I also speedied two more templates created by an editor of all four of these, Template:Keep and Template:Symboldelete, at the same time). The Manual of Style and Wikiproject Sweden aren't substantially harmed by using the images directly, but there is such a strong consensus against their use as voting, especially through template shortcuts, that I feel my speedies to be completely justified. —Cryptic 04:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this template go at the bottom? It just seems like it makes it unlikely that anyone will look at it.—Red Baron 16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia, mainly. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The disambig notice. —Cryptic 16:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why you deleted the article I worked so hard on. It wasn't nonsense plus it had sources. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 19:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. G4 is not the correct deletion reason. The article wasn't identical in any way. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 19:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC) And why did you delete the pics I uploaded?[reply]

Please don't ignore me. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the red link? SalaSkan 12:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not red, it's rouge. —Cryptic 20:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete it? Counter-Strike Manager --TobykwAn 21:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says so right next to my name. —Cryptic 21:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allrighty... Care to explain it? Was it an ad. I'm confused. I couldn't have made it more objective than I did. --TobykwAn 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Planar Chaos expansion symbol.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Spyware_terminator. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cableguytk 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what just happened. Your response was not very clear to me and now i see that you deleted an already blank page...so I have no clue what that was all about. Where was the deletion "review"? Cableguytk 05:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does G4 mean? What is wrong with the page and why was it deleted without proper discussion? Cableguytk 05:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was list of dragon ball special abilities deleted?Would you please undelete it?If There was something wrong on the page will you fix it? Earthbendingmaster 22:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious if I can view an article that was deleted about a year ago. Here's all I have on it: 21:46, 31 October 2006 Cryptic (Talk | contribs) deleted "RSC Equipment Rental" (G11: blatant advertising) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Areesssea (talk • contribs)

Cryptic is not very active at the moment - you might get a quicker response at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Colemak. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Qwfpg 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure don't want ANYONE to find out about this great WGBH show, and worse, you REFUSED to give me a chance to explain my reason for creating that page...you were so anxious to delete it(TWO minutes after it was created???), and then when I said I was going to try again, I was warned by other editors(and users) about your actions, and not to do so, but instead to talk to you about it...was it just because I mentioned the show's sponsors?...or was it because...well, I don't know...please advise, because I want to restore that page ASAP...Michaela92399 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...no fair!!!...everybody who was a "backyard mechanic" wanted to know how to DIY on their cars properly, and Brad Sears was the person to do it...please heed Michaela's call and restore her page..."Last Chance Garage" was just as famous and well worth watching as "The French Chef" and "The Victory Garden"...or even "ZOOM"!...Baldwin91006 17:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(though not by me); please see this. -- Hoary 08:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am VERY sorry for having destroyed so much - I try to type while the text was marked and then could go back, SORRY. I hope you accept this apology!! OK, could you and I have a constructive discussion about my two contributions to wikipedia which where erased by you. I just wanted to know what type of extra resources, references, media or links you need to have to know if the article can be saved or not or if it really has to be deleted. I am very sorry, since I didn't have any copy of these pages!!! (as you already know I am not so professional at this, so I just ask you very humble, and I do apologize for disturbing your talk page). Could we talk here?? --NGL 15:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I undeleted the article, as I cannot see how A7 might possibly apply. Check the Google Scholar to see for yourself, and a claim of being a world major reservation system is certainly an assertion to notability. See also WP:DRV. Duja► 09:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does the article assert that it's a world major reservation system? If it had said that, or cited any secondary sources, or indeed claimed any significance whatsoever beyond being owned by a company that has repeatedly promoted itself on Wikipedia in the past, I wouldn't have deleted it. —Cryptic 10:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of IATA, OTA and SITA, perhaps, and having "Other major reservation systems" as a section?. And the first edit having an edit summary "+restart article, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_24". As for the past spamming campaign, I'm not aware about it, except by vague JzG's deletion summary. I deeply respect JzG, and hate promotional campaigns, but the article is originally from 2005. Can you please elaborate on the promotional campaign? Duja► 13:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and, P.S. I've just realized that I came out paternalizing above, for which I apologize; it wasn't my intention. Duja► 14:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with this user. The thought has struck me that they are probably a sockpuppet, as the use of templates is suggestive of someone who is axn experienced user of Wikipedia.--Peter cohen 12:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wizardry Dragon/Awards/antispamhammer For your diligence in dealing with spam, I award you this anti-spam hammer. Good work and thank you! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on the FreeSWITCH page you put tags in the title because I kept adding cites that you were systematically deleting. You said that ensuring there is more than 1 cite is a refusal on my part to "let you fix the page". I do not see removing cites to 3rd party sources as 'fixing' anything. I do see it as an attempt to say its not notable and request speedy deletion of the page.

There have been over 10 people that have been editing the page, most of them have been preserved. The mere fact that I 'reworded' content, and that I added 'new' cites while letting some of them go since the reasoning behind the deletion merits your actions.

Your comment

 "{pov} and {advert} content disclaimers, as our friendly anon declines to let us fix the article directly"

for your submission of the tags doesnt show that its done because the content is an advert or that the pov of the 10 or so people who have contributed tonight alone (note one is not affiliated with the project in any way, and is infact affiliated with a different open source project).

Your refusal to use the talk page to even discuss why you added those leaves only the comment you made that its added because I "declined" to let you fix the page - yet that isnt really declining its merely that I am editing as well, and adding in new wording, new content, and other goodies.

How does this help the WP community? What is accomplished from such actions?

Does the WP policy state that you are allowed to just tag (and retag) out of malice? Or is rewording the content on my part really preventing you from deleting all cites off the page? If you look through the revision history that is really all you did.

Please watch the WP:3RR - your close to violating it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for removing tags that the poster refuses to justify other than basically 'you were editing the page at the same time as me' ? The tags shouldnt be there if that is the only justification, and a refusal to even enter anything on the discussion page. The only thing that exists for why they were added is the commit message which can be independantly verified, along with the discussion page showing comments on other things on the FreeSWITCH talk page but not on those tags that he placed.86.92.134.171 07:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate that I prod userpages like User:Joemarcelino even if it's been recently created right? -WarthogDemon 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD states "pages in the User and User talk namespaces... may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia." The former will almost always rule it out if you're wikilawyerish. In any case, it's unlikely to be successful, for the same reasons prodding a recently-created article is usually futile. —Cryptic 03:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on that page attempting to leave a pointer to admins who deal with it in the future to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mrpainkiller7. He periodically generates new sock puppets (see the bottom of that page particularly) in order to re-create that page and maliciously impersonate people who delete it. If using the talk page of a deleted page is against policy, I apologize. However, the talk page is open to editing, and therefore if there are no objections I am going to repost my message. --Neurophyre^(talk) 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for a wholesale revert there when the questionable edits were only in the last two or three revisions. Wholesale reverts of good-faith edits aren't particularly good for fostering community interest in template maintenance. Chris Cunningham 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are broken rewrites of heavily-used templates and blind reversion when someone points out the problems to you. The onus is on you to show consensus for your change, not for everyone else to convince you it's incorrect. —Cryptic 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking to AIN, though the "blind revert" comment is cheap when I already suggested a compromise revision which would seemingly work for you. Chris Cunningham 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Belldandy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Cat ^chi? 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you hate that ACS site so bad, I found it when I was doing research for the Elmaleh article and I thought it fit with ACS. It seems like it has good content to me and some of the other sites use some of the same material he uses -- photos, etc. I am a fan of the game too and thought it would be good for people to see it. I think there is good content on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TunaWuna (talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 October 2007

There is in fact no content on that site other than an image lifted from the game, external links to other sites (the remotely reliable ones of which are already included in the article), and links to illegally download the game. It didn't even exist when you first linked to it. It falls miserably short of our external links guideline, even without considering that linking to copyright-infringing content is explicitly and non-negotiably forbidden. Not to mention your apparent conflict of interest. —Cryptic 02:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was unaware that this was the case. Sounded to me like it was a place to collect old adventures. How does Wikipedia use the image on it's site if it's not legal for him to use the same image? I looked and you can't download the game from that site; however he does provide links. I guess I don't understand all the rule yet. I just wish you would have been nicer about it like Brewcrewer. I am going to join you guys in asking the bio I wrote be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.200.3 (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Fair use#Purpose and character. We assert that our use of the image is permitted in that it is being used for informational purposes as part of a larger work; the use on that site almost certainly is not, in that it provides no content of its own and in fact aggravates the infringement by providing access to download the entire game. —Cryptic 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I would like to apologize to you. I have been visiting someone who thought it would be cute to play with my wikipedia account (since I had been making edits) and write a story about me. I just found this out tonight and I am truly sorry. All of the posts to you have been from him up unitl now because he thought I would find out what he did if the link went away that I had just put up to my ACS site. I had no idea that the game downloads were still illegal. Several sites calim they are "abondonware" and that they are legal to download. I am going to take them off of the ACS site immediatlely. My goal is, and I have been emailing people off message boards, to find any ACS adventures that are out there. I thought noting an ACS fan site for people to send in their homemade adventures on Wikipedia would be okay; I guess it is not. Still, the last thing I want to do is anything illegal so I am taking it down as we speak.

I have also changed my password on here. Sorry for the confusion. Is there away to get the other article deleted right away? I am embarassed it is even out there. I am very sorry about this. Sometimes, people don't understand the concequences of their own jokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TunaWuna (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the other article.

Regarding abandonware, we have a fairly good article which goes into some detail about the legal implications. Wikipedia policy, however, is not to link to infringing material at all, no matter whether the copyright is enforced, unless the site in question has obtained permission from the copyright holder.

Regarding the site, we almost never link to external sites until they already have content useful to our readers. The time to insert the link is after there's substantial content there, not as a means to create that content. As an aside, I'd like to note my disappointment at that lack of content, as may perhaps be inferred by my edit summary ("dead, alas") when first removing it. I was crushed a few years ago when I stumbled across my old data disks and found out that they were no longer readable. I wish you well with the site, but it's not yet ready for Wikipedia. —Cryptic 03:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on the article. If it hadn't been for this post getting deleted and the subsequent conversations then looking in my history to figure out why it was getting deleted (I thought I did not save the entry) I never would have found out what was going on when I was away from my computer. That's what you get for letting people stay with you for a few days.

That makes sense. I doubt it will be okayed, but I am going to write to EA to see if I can use the stuff on there.

Good to know it's not ready. However, I have a few people who claim they are sending me several of their homemade adventures. Perhaps once I get those from people I can repost the link. I will ask you to check it out first to make sure I am not violaiting any rules that I am unaware of. The site is still very new (two weeks old) but I have some plans to make it more robust.

Thank you for all of your time and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TunaWuna (talk • contribs) 03:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After emailing everyone who has ever posted that they might have ACS games, I now have four original user created games ans three ACS-finish-adventure-created games on the site. I have taken off all of the downloads, etc. Let me know if it is ok to be here now or not. I figured I'd ask since I screwed up with some other stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TunaWuna (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to copy some of the references to the 18xx page where they are still relevant, but I can't get the history of the DTG page like I can with the individual 18xx pages. Is there a way to get the sources from the deleted article? I would really hate to have to dig back through my printed copies. JTamplin 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.deepthoughtgames.com, www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgamenews/comments/convention_preview_essen_2006/#18xxgames1, two blogs, and two forum posts, and the following print refs:

• How, Alan (September 2006). "The Independent Publisher - interviews with Gary Dicken and John Tamplin". Counter Magazine (34): 8–13.
• "Of Dice and Men: 18xx". Counter Magazine (33): 5. June 2006.
• Walters, Neil (December 2004). "Reviews: 18EU". Counter Magazine (27). —Cryptic 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. JTamplin 01:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the edits you just did on USA PATRIOT Act - I didn't notice those issues! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I need to inform you that I've protected Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Logs link because it allows users to add code to the javascript of other users. If you are an admin, you are still able to edit it, but if you are not an admin, please copy and paste it into your userspace to continue modifying it. We can set up a message at the old javascript page telling users to change their links. If you need help, please contact me or User:Eagle_101. Thanks, --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 00:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure of the proper protocol to follow, but from what little information i've gathered, I would like to "challenge" your deletion of my Spellborn entry from 10/24/07. I can assure you that it is indeed not a re-post of previously deleted content, and is in fact a translated version of content from a German Spellborn fansite with permission from the original authors (the entry I added even included a reference to the original author's site).

Please let me know what additional steps I need to take to get our Spellborn page started. I've gathered a team of individuals who are interested in growing the content, and are simply waiting for me to have the "starter" page operational.

I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Best regards, Steve 02:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While your article clearly was not created from the old one, neither did it address any of the issues that caused the previous article to be deleted; in particular, complete lack of reliable, secondary sources (and a wiki hosted by the game's creators fails abjectly on both counts); strongly promotional tone; and no evidence of the game even having been released. Further, your mere assertion of permission from the copyright holders to release under the GFDL is insufficient; even had there not been a previous debate covering this subject, that would have been enough cause to delete the page. Instructions for obtaining a proper release are here.

Given the similar problems of the new and old pages, I'm not going to reverse my deletion. If you wish to pursue this further, the place to submit your request for further review is Wikipedia:Deletion Review. —Cryptic 03:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your prompt response, and your thorough description of how my submission failed to meet wikipedia's high standards. I will endeavor to comply with all the outlined requirements. My only concern is with your comment about the game having not been released. It is indeed still in a closed beta state - is that some sort of prerequisite for posting content to wikipedia? That (in this case) the game be officially launched, and if so, where is that stipulated? —Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalinmws (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 October 2007

Computer games are covered by our general notability guideline, which states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The notability page goes into detail about every aspect of that statement, but what it boils down to is that there has to be evidence that the world in general has found the game interesting enough to research and publish nontrivial information about it in editorially-reviewed sources. Having been released is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for inclusion in Wikipedia; however, most games don't get adequate independent coverage until they have been, since most available information traces directly back to press releases. —Cryptic 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cryptic; I reverted and left a question here. I'm not clear that the RFC is certified. The editors certifying the dispute never seem to have approached Tony1 (talk · contribs) about the issue they allege (personal attacks), there are no diffs, there doesn't seem to be any record on Tony's talk page of them approaching him about his conduct, he seems to have thought it was a content issue, and they apparently walked out of the mediation. I'm not that familiar with RFC, but it appears that they really didn't attempt to raise this first with Tony, or at least they haven't presented evidence of that. Can you have another look? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Per WP:RFC, "The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise." SandyGeorgia (Talk)[reply]

Mostly I just try to keep WP:RFC/U in sync with whether two editors have signed the certification section. (Many users forget to move rfcs to the certified list, or assume that an administrator has to do it, or think it inappropriate to move it when they were the ones who certified.) I don't tend to do more than skim the individual rfcs.

In this case, though, moving it back to "uncertified" seems to be overly concerned with the letter of the instructions rather than the spirit. The certifiers don't directly link to them trying to resolve the dispute, it's true; but they claim to have engaged in formal mediation with Tony1, and Tony1 even confirms this in his response. That the mediation failed for whatever reason is immaterial; if it had succeeded, there would be no need for further dispute resolution. It certainly seems like an adequate basis for certifying to me. —Cryptic 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the mediation was about a content dispute, they left the mediation, and now they're alleging personal attacks. I haven't read the mediation, but it seems like the RFC/U is a means of getting an upperhand in a content dispute, since they never seem to have brought the other issues to Tony's attention beforehand. Not sure how the overlap works in these situations; just wanted to make sure you were aware before certifying. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic, I entered my concerns again on the talk page, asking that an uninvolved party have a look. This case is far less obvious and less problematic than another one I witnessed in the past, where an RfC/U moved to certification that was only an overwhelming collection of diffs that showed ... nothing ... and didn't come vaguely close to meeting the requirements for certification, although the sheer abundance of diffs presented made it appear legit. MY concern is that RfC/U be used in good faith and according to the instructions, and that a group of editors should not be able to push something through with the appearance of supporting diffs, which was certainly the case in the older situation I observed. Sorry to get you into the middle of that. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I was checking up on furry fandom-related things here on wikipedia, and i saw that jay naylor's article was deleted several times (including once where it was just slander and vandalisim...) I was wondering, if i was able to write up a fairly decent and long article on him, his works, and what his works are, that it would not be deleted? He's more than a web comic artist..he's done several issues of Genus (comic) and i'm pretty sure he did an issue of Genus Male, same with Furrlough... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I deleted this, it was simply because it was a redirect to a non-existent target. While there was a vfd for it, the article consisted only of "Jay Naylor is the author of the Better Days webcomic. ¶ He also has a number of other comics on his website: [external link]", so anyone who deleted it as a re-creation would be off his rocker. Just make sure the article shows he meets WP:BIO, eh? —Cryptic 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up after me. It's my first time posting to a DRV. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You commented on the Kersal Massive deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 1#Kersal Massive). As the version of the article that was deleted had been heavily vandalised with patent nonsense and stuff made up in school (see User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal for the original page at deletion), and hence did not have a fair deletion discussion, I've created a new, reliably sourced, version which explicitly states notability at User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal2. Many thanks, Laïka 20:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit as it's showing a clip from a National Geographic show. Hope you don't mind. --NeilN 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to think it's not a copyright violation (which should not be linked to), then? —Cryptic 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging and the original is on Youtube, uploaded by what very much looks like a representative of National Geographic. --NeilN 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]