User talk:Cryptic/archive-2
Moving versus copying
As one of the editors who does the actual work, your contribution to the discussion at Template talk:Move to Wiktionary#Move_vs._copy would be valuable. Uncle G 15:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikilinking dates
Recently, I edited International Talk Like a Pirate Day by removing the wikilink on the second mention of September 19. I see it as over-wikification. You re-wikified it to "allow date preferences to work". You cited Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) as justification. I don't see where it says that every instance of the same date need be linked just to allow for date preferences to work. Could you point out this part of the guideline? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 20:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- My cite was a shorthand explanation of the feature; I hadn't bumped into you before, and didn't know whether you were familiar with it. I was tired when editing and had not noticed that the same date was already linked earlier in the paragraph as well. While there's something to be said for consistency - someone who has his date preference set shouldn't see "19 September" right next to "September 19" - on a second reading, the extra date is redundant and I have removed it. Is this acceptable? —Cryptic (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
That'll work! Dismas|(talk) 09:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
User and Talk Page Vandalism
Thought you might want to know that your page was repeatedly blanked today. Several users helped out in the various reversions. If you are making vandals mad, you must be doing something right!? See you around the site. Psy guy (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Marine da nang blotches
Spot on! Yes those are the two blotches I was referring to. Actually, for the top left one, if you look left a little more, there are a few diagonal streaks there as well :) Thanks for editing the photo. Enochlau 13:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks for your support at my RfA. I was a bit surprised at the level of support. I hope I live up to your expectations. -R. fiend 16:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not trying to sway your vote, it just seems you may not have had full information when voting on the featured picture candidate Hijab. Please see my comment there. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
AfD closings
Hi there. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile companies recently, but don't seem to have deleted the article.
Also, I've noticed that you haven't been substing {{vfd top}} and {{vfd bottom}} in your closings. General practice is to subst these, not so much to reduce their impact on server performance (which is probably minimal; most people don't spend too much time paging through the old vfd logs), but because they contain comments saying what to do if an article of the same name is afd'd again - namely, not to erase the old discussion. It's especially problematic because the templates, until, recently, contained backlinks to Template:vfd top and Template:vfd bottom, which makes it impossible to find unsubsted instances through What Links Here (unlike, say, if you had been using the shortcuts from {{vt}}/{{vb}} or {{at}}/{{ab}}). —Cryptic (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out that I forgot to actually carry out that deletion. I've just remedied it. As for the "subst" and stuff, well, I've never fully understood what the "subst" means, but I'm happy to use it if that's what one's supposed to do (well, not "happy", I've discovered that AfD closings take long enough without adding more typing to the process, but I'm "willing", anyway). Now, it was difficult to tell from your message, but are the shortcuts you mentioned acceptable? That would be even better (less typing instead of more), and I'd be genuinely happy to use those. -R. fiend 16:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Subst: causes the template tag to be converted into the template's contents when the page is saved, instead of staying "{{vfd top}}" and being converted each time the page is viewed. For a practical example, see this diff. Using the shortcuts is better than vfd top/afd top, in that a bot could conceivably be written to fix them, but there isn't a bot that's currently doing this so far as I'm aware. (Sorry about the extremely delayed response; I've been tied up in real life.) —Cryptic (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Deletion Review
Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks. Titoxd(?!?) 02:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio instruction box
Thanks for spotting the error in the copyvio instruction box- I copied it from WP:CP, I should have checked it twice before notifiying 50 or so people :)--nixie 00:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- It wasn't an error in the box, but a change to the template to make urls with an equals sign in them work properly. (Though changing all of your talk page messages was probably overkill, since if the "url=" is omitted, it still works about half the time.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Another problem with the CSD A8 notice- it should say Blank the page and replace the text with {{db-copyvio}} where it currently says, on their talk page, add {{db-copyvio}}. I'd appreciate your help adjusting them again.--nixie 01:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you make the change at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header, I'll go through and mirror it to the user talk pages. I'm a bit leary of changing it myself, given that I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and haven't received a reply there, and that I was one of only six who opposed this speedy criterion. (I still think it's a bad idea. I poses potential harm in the form of articles that don't strictly qualify being speedied, and only minimal benefit in that WP:CP will look shorter, but no actual work will be saved except when the person who initially identifies the infringement deletes it himself.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the leave the text visible part was added to the message- it does not make any sense since as you pointed out the admin will have to check the age and so on anyway- it was also not mentioned in the proposal as far as I know. I think CSD A8 has some potential to help with the WP:CP backlog- very few admins actaully clean up the WP:CP page, to delete 1 days entries takes 1 or more depending on the server lag. If A8 sends 20% of a days copyvios to speedy it will make quite a difference- and will spread the workload a bit more evenly between admins. Just as I was about to remove the instruction - I can see that you have done it, I'll handle the question from any confused people that got the message. Thanks.--nixie 02:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
On images
Thanks for the advice on the eye picture, I regret not being able to read the message before. You're doing a great job! Hearth 02:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)