User talk:Cryptic

Thanks!

I would like to second Daniel's closing statement at this DRV. I found your commentary very helpful and well-argued and I hope it will give guidance to many others as to how the G4 criterion should be interpreted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - logs

Perhaps I've forgotten how to find prior deletions, but this article that you just moved to Draft, and it's prior deletion is not showing a reason in our Curation tools. That's why I created the TP - to allow some discussion about what is happening. Atsme 💬 📧 14:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should show up if you go to the page where it was actually deleted, 2024 FIBA 3x3 U23 World Cup – Men's tournament. (And if not, they're definitely here.)

Anyway, I followed up on the talk page of the user who pasted it there, as it wasn't their first cut and paste move. —Cryptic 15:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what happened now. I was looking for a deleted article (AfD) when it was actually moved to Draft. Thank you! Atsme 💬 📧 16:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh

here and apologies if my first template set the bot off to begin with. I wish our robot overlords ate problem editors! Star Mississippi 02:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was me moving the templates around that set it off. Not entirely surprising, but since it's also an AnomieBot that splatters the irritating redundant {{pp}}'s all over pages that get protected, I was hoping for some lenience. —Cryptic 02:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of The Peel Club into Glasgow University Conservative Association

Hi. Closer of The Peel Club DRV declined to output atrribution history as text--said to talk to original deleter--and so did the original deleter--said that I should have done it while the page was still up and now they don't want to mess with it; said that I might find someone else to do it. It makes sense to say that I should have done it anticipating the page's re-deletion. But I first envisioned a redirect with history kept. User:SmokeyJoe also recommended that, noting that the page has been irreversibly merged. You noted that an alternative method is available (presumably a talk subpage with the history as text). Would you ehhm do the needful? —Alalch E. 09:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list of authors is sufficient - WP:attribution does not require blame; WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution. You could get a full list of editors from the api even as a nonadmin (like so; sandbox), but I'll pare that down a bit by removing non-content edits: Hellenistic accountant, Cylinder8837 and Paul W up to the afd; DowryOfMary, Paul W, Hellenistic accountant and Alalch E. for the recreation over the {{tempundelete}} during DRV. The two versions appear textually unrelated at a glance, but it wouldn't be burdensome to attribute Cylinder8837 too. —Cryptic 13:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did this: Special:Diff/1246261416. Do I need to put this text anywhere else? (e: put it directly on the talk page too) —Alalch E. 22:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it's put in an edit summary in the merged-to page. —Cryptic 12:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect query

Hi Cryptic, as I've mentioned at the EFN discussion, I'm here to request 3 filtered queries to get me started. 1. Can you make one that lets me see redirects of a specific year? 2. Can you make one that lists redirects with a certain word in the title? (Example: Since I've got experience categorizing Journal redirects, I'd start with one having Journal or journal in the title.) 3. Can you make one that lets me see redirects that redirect to an article that is in a specific category or its subcategories? (Example: If I want to see redirects to articles in this cat or in its subcats.) Thanks for taking a look at this. Nobody (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all three. The second is easiest. The third is fastest and most natural, at least for a specific category; once you start asking for entire category trees, things can break very quickly - many categories eventually include nearly every other category as a descendant. The first is the slowest, and most awkward, and probably not terribly useful. It's not in general detectable when a page was made a redirect, at least not before the "new redirect" tag existed; the timestamps of the first and last edit can be found, but aren't necessarily relevant, and they're no help in narrowing down the query - every single uncategorized redirect in mainspace needs to be found first, and then filtered for its timestamps.

If you've got lists of words or regexes to search for in the titles, or categories (and depths in their trees), I can take a look in maybe twelve hours; it's late here. Also WP:RAQ is better for this than my talk page, though it's still likely to be me answering. —Cryptic 05:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll put some things together and list it at WP:RAQ. Nobody (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Checking in

You seem unusually crotchety tonight. Everything ok? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a bit short on sleep, but mostly irritated by OwenX's claim that talking to the deleting admin first is not just required, but policy, when it's deliberately not even process.

And now irritated that WT:DRV's archives are screwy and mostly unlinked from WT:DRV itself and not linked from each other at all, and I can't find the last discussion about it. But the gist of the most recent consensus is, if I remember it correctly (and that's a big if) - that some editors would be intimidated into not asking for review at all if they had to go to the same person who deleted their page and who they see as an antagonist and let them gatekeep. —Cryptic 21:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see it differently but agree that DRVs essence is providing a credible fair platform to reassess decisions. That said, you seem to have upset Frank Anchor further down the page and that’s not usually your style. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'd not commented there for a day and a half, so didn't think that's what you were talking about. Genuinely crotchety about the continued attempts to make unanimous three-week-long deletion discussions unable to delete pages, when the initial reason for WP:NOQUORUM was to stop people closing them as no consensus. (Archive I was looking for was at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2020/September, fwiw. Whose bright idea was it to set it up so it's mostly one section per archive page? Sheesh.) —Cryptic 22:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its been that way since the very beginning. Its driven me mad for over a decade. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh its 18 years since I started contributing to DRV. No wonder I feel so out of synch myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I managed to find WP:VFU within my first week after registering. [1] —Cryptic 22:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete the NOQUORUM shortcut and eradicate any instance of the word "quorum" in PAGs (no significant instances that I'm aware of; it's in that section's header however, and headers should merely describe and not color the actual content too much even in policy pages). It's unhelpful figurative language. —Alalch E. 00:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is impressive :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken query

My copy of https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/79597 no longer works for me. I get zero editors. Did something change? Did I forget to do something? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles is empty (and deleted) now. —Cryptic 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. It's "pages" instead of "articles" now. Thanks. I've got my list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]