Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion/Archive 1

message: This has happened before: well-meaning admins don't read the category text, or at least not the section labelled "important note". The latest deletion:
* 10:49, 11 Oct 2004 Fuzheado deleted "Template:Nonsense" (content was: '') (from the deletion log)
* 20:33, 11 Oct 2004 Angela modified "Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion" 
Please be careful in the future, being mindful of the instructions. Thanks, • Benc • 06:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental template deletions 

message: When I go to CAT:CSD, it redirects to the Category, but there are no articles in it - not even , et. al. When I go there through the link on WP:CSD, everything works fine. Is this an error in category redirects? --Golbez 07:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes. It seems that redirecting to a category only displays the text in the category, not the actual categorized material – ugen64 03:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect broken? 

message: This is ridiculous, I am going to make a new template specializing on speedy candidates in the form of obscene images along with new categories with disclaimers. --SuperDude 20:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: for the record,  was promptly deleted, and the above does not represent current policy. DES (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pornographic images 

message: As you've probably noticed, there have been a a few new delete templates that have been created recently, including , , , and . Most of these new templates have been nominated for deletion, and are currently being discussed at Templates for deletion. BlankVerse ∅ 18:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New delete templates 

message: I do not see why there is a need for a full explanation on each template on this category. Having a list of them is fine to make it easier to keep track, but having two screenfuls of it is a bit too much. It should probably go somewhere on Wikipedia:Template messages instead. --cesarb 01:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is a better and fuller explantation than the one on WP:CSD currently. perhaps it should move there? DES (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: I have a question about patent nonsense. Back when I was but a wee young editor, other users explained patent nonsense as being random gibberish, whereas actual English sentences, however useless, were not actually patent nonsense. Now that I am an admin and deleting CSD's, I see a lot of articles tagged for patent that I dont think fit the definition as it was explained to me by others. However, reasing the actual patent nonsense page, I see two definitions, the first, "Total nonsense - i.e. text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. ", which I think well described nonsense as explained to me, and also "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it.", which is of course a bit gray, imo. So, for example, would the following text from an article tagged as nonsense actually be nonsense, in the opinion of others? 
"Textual analysis when refering to the Constitution is analyzing the text. Breakdown what the words mean word for word."
I think that fits A1 just fine, but I'm a little iffy on that being nonsense, and I'd like some outside opinions before I make a campaign of leaving Nice-O-Grams on people's talk pages explaining what is and isn't nonsense. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not patent nonsense as is strictly defined in policy, nor is it the patent nonsense as is widely used (which is a lot wider definition, and probably for the best). I'd deleted it as a very short article though. --fvw* 06:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  patent nonsense 

message: Questions re db-attack (CSD A6):
# would it be worth identifying db-attack-tagged articles separately from other CSDs (perhaps a subcat?), on the grounds that these are (almost) always clearcut, and that these should be processed with particular urgency?
# is it me or is there no particularly suitable template message to put on the talk page of someone who creates a db-attack article? Is it worth making one, and if so what should it say?
Rd232 talk 22:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like  for articles?  Good idea.  Use  as a starting point and adapt it for articles that attack the subject.  (But make it softer, like  or  )- Tεxτurε 22:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please do not use Wikipedia articles to make personal attacks. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, take a look at the welcome page.  Thank you. 
I considered a link to WP:NPA (as in ) but I don't think this would really be helpful here, since we're talking about anons attacking other people they know offline, not Wikipedians. (If a Wikipedian is the subject of a db-attack article, we already have .) Incidentally, I'm suggesting to call the template  as part of a new naming scheme I proposed at Template talk:Test. Rd232 talk 10:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please do not use Wikipedia to create nonsense articles; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, take a look at the welcome page. If you'd like to give free reign to your imagination please check out the Uncyclopedia here. Thank you.
Rd232 talk 16:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (with article title as parameter, like ): . Rd232 talk 18:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Db-attack 

message: We need a template called  for hoax pages.  Hoax content doesn't seem to be specifically invluded in any of the existing templates.  FranksValli 08:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By hoax I presume you mean a serious and deliberate attempt to fool Wikipedians into accepting invalid information. Mere mucking about with what is clearly nonsensical is covered by WP:CSD G1; but a serious hoax shouldn't, AFAIK, be speedied, because if it isn't obviously nonsensical it doesn't fall under CSD, and should be AfD'd. If it's a serious hoax by definition it takes some research or specialised knowledge to reject, and therefore isn't nonsense - it's just untrue, and this is not speediable. Rd232 talk 12:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoaxes are not coverd by any of the existing templates, because unless they are open/obvious enough to be considered vandalism, they are not covered by any of the existing criteria. There was discussion on this point recently on the talk page of WP:CSD. As the criteria stand, a  template, unless its wording was narrowly limited to haoxes that are self-admitted or otherwise may be considered to fall under vandalism would be proposed for deletion on TfD right away. (Even if it were so limited I might nominate it for deletion, because such a misleading name wmight well casue lots of invalid speedy tags.) Hoaxes are not, in general, subject to speedy deletion. DES (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Really it's only if it's patent nonsense (G1) or vandalism (G3) that it can be speedied. The "process is important" people show up at every juncture when we try to add/expand speedy categories. Stifle 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need <nowiki>{{db-hoax}}</nowiki> 

message: I'd like to prioritise deletion of db-attack articles; I think a nasty attack article being queued for deletion for 12 hours instead of being deleted ASAP is substantially worse than a pointless vanity or nonsense article hanging around a while. Prioritising could be made by possible by having the relevant CSD template additionally add the article to a permanent subcat of CSD, which those who wish to prioritise can check first. (Note additionally - otherwise it would force people to check the subcat, rather than being an optional extra way of structuring the CSDs.) Thoughts? Rd232 talk 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me, an additional cat on the template used to mark attack pages would do no harm that I can think of (people could still delete them out of the main category if they find the subcat unwieldy), and while there is no guarantee every attack article is tagged witht he "right" template, it would still help out some when the cat is backloged. Speedyable copyviois might warrant such a subcat too. I'll say go for it. If someone can think of a good reason not to do this we can always revert the template and delete the cat later, no biggy. --Sherool (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Cheers (wikibreak is more intention than achievement) :). Thanks for going ahead with it. Rd232 talk 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Db-attack subcat 

message: Template:Tsd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Tsd. Thank you. --Wcquidditch | Talk 13:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Tsd 

message: Previously, pages such as Wikipedia:Template messages/All and Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion were showing up in this category due to the use of the speedy deletion templates on those pages, even though this effect is not intended.  I am presenting the following solution: for a test pages where the actual categorization is not wanted, simply add the parameter "displayonly=" when calling speedy-delete templates, which will then show the template visually without categorizing that page.  For example, instead of the regular , use  on those pages (the "=" sign must be included).  I've edited all speedy deletion templates and currently the new parameter works with each one.  The changes should be transparent; editors can keep using the same old syntax without noticing problems.  Thanks to Nandesuka for temporarily unprotecting Template:Db-reason for editing.  Shawnc 08:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing a categorization bug 

message: I added the template to the "article" Steve Pie, and it is not in the list here, nor has it been deleted.  Perhaps there is a problem related to that last coding tweak? MSJapan 19:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what's going exactly, but I changed  to  and now it appears. Rd232 talk 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been soem technical editing onn the speedy delte tempaltes recently, and that may have mucked up the category mechanism for a time. DES (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I gather that all speedy requests end up here, but.... 

message: I have added a quick reference. I also used a trick to allow you to hide the reference and/or the preamble.
To hide the preamble ("There are a few, special cases ... Attack pages for speedy deletion"), put in your monobook.css:
 #catcsdhide { display: none; }
To hide the quick reference:
 #catcsdhide2 { display: none; }
To cause the quick reference to appear at the same font size as normal, instead of rather small:
 #catcsdhide2 { font-size: 100% !important }
Yours, r3m0t talk 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't we just have the top part ? Or use some javascript template that has a quick button to hide?-- talk  15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small redesign 

message: You can use delaid (which works on Firefox and monobook, and probably other configurations too) to help you clear out this category. r3m0t talk 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, this script rocks! Not sure how people who reading the logs will like it, though. I usually like to put something in the edit summary to justify the deletion. howcheng  {chat} 06:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! By default, alt-clicking will prompt for a reason, but you can set it to always prompt, or to prompt unless you alt-click. :) r3m0t talk 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful script 

message: Just though I'd mention that it's back up, for those of you who have gotten used to it beeing down and stopped checking :) --Sherool (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gmaxwell's orphan report 

message: I had no clue this existed. Is there a page where there is some discussion about the use of this template? It says it's currently a test, but I have a few questions. Thanks. --ZsinjTalk 04:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Db-notagsupplied 

message: Did anyone see a statement about this and the asociated change in 'See also'?  I was tempted to speedy delete, but decided to check here first?  Speedy deletes don't require endorsements.  They simply need to meet one of the conditions, multiple users supporting does not change that fact. Vegaswikian 20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, WTF? Talk to User:King of Hearts, I guess, since he created it. The category description page doesn't reference any proposed policy or process, but uses proposal-like language. android79 20:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I don't think it's necessary. Delete? Gflores 00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Endorsed candidates for speedy deletion]] 

message: I listed the above article for CSD G4, but the template doesn't link the the AFD discussions. It can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob (Weird Al Yankovic song) (2nd nomination). Mikker (...) 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on [[Bob (Weird Al Yankovic song)]] 

message: Just how long should a CSD (criterion for speedy deletion) be listed under CAT:CSD before there is considered a "backlog." I've seen maybe 30 items here and there be considered a backlog, while I've seen other editors see 50 and consider it next to nothing. Now, I can understand if there are 100 things that are tagged for CSD, but is there a certain threshold between normal operations and the creation of a backlog? Thanks. --ZsinjTalk 07:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may not be the most helpful answer, but I'd consider it a backlog if there are still items left after you have done as many of them as you are willing to do at the momement.  If there are more left, then add the backlog tag, otherwise, don't.  If you are not willing to do any, don't add the tag, individually find someone who will do some(i.e. on IRC, or via WP:AN, etc...), and will then add the tag if they don't finish... Hope this helps... JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an admin, so I can't delete any articles, but I still check this page to see how things are.  Generally, I'll put the backlog tag on if there are more than 50 items total and take it off if there are less then 20. Timrem 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, regular editors can help by closing old discussions and listing the work to be done at the correct section of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Working on the main article.  Anyone can update articles to delete or rename the category they use.  Once everything is done, list the category in the to be deleted section which I believe is the only part that an admin actually needs to do.  Vegaswikian 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A second point about the backlog.  It is not just the items listed.  The Closing in progress: section currently has 5 days of discussions to be processed.  In my opinion, anything here says there is a backlog.  Vegaswikian 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused.  Are you talking about "Candidates for speedy deletion", or something else? Timrem 19:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's talking about WP:CFD, not sure why. --Rory096 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeframe for backlogs 

message: I reverted a bunch of these, since they don't qualify under WP:CSD.
Plus, there's an entire Category for language redirects. — Deckiller 20:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Character redirects

message: For last few days, I have been concentrating on this category, and have deleted a number of entries recommended for deletion. However, I sometimes found entries not suitable under speedy deletion nominated for speedy deletion. While I understand that it is a matter of personal perception, I request editors to please nominate entries for AfD if they are not very familiar with the topic and the contents. --Bhadani 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am repeating my request in the context of the page: Llangain. The editors placing the speedy deletion tag are requested to probe a little deeper. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well with that article, it was probably best if it was started fresh anyway... It was very clearly a speedy candidate, and any fixing of it, while possible, wouldn't take anything from the old version anyway, and so wasn't a reason to keep the original attack page. --Rory096 07:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually Prod should be used if it is not likely to be contested.  Many admins have removed the speedy tags and replaced them with a prod or AfD notice.  In some cases, they have even edited the article to fix problems.  Just because an article is nominated does not mean it is a valid nomination.  Vegaswikian 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your sentiments, in general, and also emphasize the userfulness of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion; I often turn speedies into prods.  When I find a particularly unsuitable speedy tag (or actual deletion), especially one in which the issue is non-notability, I point it out to the editor who placed the tag (or did the deletion) so they can improve in the future.  Finally, I note that  was quite appropriate for Llangain at the time it was added; nothing would have been lost by deleting it and staring it afresh, although of course it's also in fine shape now. -- SCZenz 22:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A request

message: Wait a second.. why are all these user talk pages listed for deletion? --Fang Aili  talk 14:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A vandal with an AOL IP added the speedy deletion category to the sockpuppet and AOL templates. I've removed it from one, and someone else removed the other. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  user talk pages 

message: All members are invited provide comments on a proposal that may modify the current CfD process. The proposal is posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia jurors. Folajimi 03:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've got the wrong page here. -- SCZenz 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed modification to process. 

message: I jsut removed the use of this tag.  I find having a gallery on this page is helpful for 2 reasons: It helps identify corrupt/missing as well as obvious attack images; and it sorts the images away from the articles.  Even if these are non-free images; having them appear on this page as a method for their correction or deletion seems much more helpful to the project then not displaying them out of a licensing concern (if thats why this was added). — xaosflux Talk 21:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am adding the __NOGALLERY__ tag to every category which is displaying thumbnails, per FUC #9. This has been discussed here and here, between some other places. If anyone believes the tag should be removed from another category, please do drop me a line so that I can accumulate the complains and present them to the Fair use page (or post them directly in the Fair use page) to keep the revertion stated and prevent future tag insertions. I believe that, if there is broad consensus, it would be possible to create a list of pages where this tag should never be inserted. -- ReyBrujo 21:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the speedy reply;  I certainly understand the fair use requirements' and think that page is a good exception; is there an existing category/template that can be used to tag a apge as a fair-use exemption? (please reply on my talk or at CSD talk) — xaosflux Talk 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No category nor template that I know of; the main page consensus must have happened years ago. I believe this could be talked in the Village Pump, where it may receive more feedback. However, I suggest first dropping by the Talk page of the Fair use page, where the idea for the NOGALLERY tag was thought, discussed and/or reported first. I can post a note there with the idea of creating a template, category or list with "candidates" for NOGALLERY exceptions, to later be discussed at the relevant places. -- ReyBrujo 21:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>__NOGALLERY</nowiki> 

message: Hi. I'm not an admin, but I created a framework on the top of this talk page which lists recently deleted articles. 
You have to add nominated entries by hand, but as soon as an admin deletes the page it automagically appears in red above. Is this cool, or what?! --Uncle Ed 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The markup was interesting, but by the time I found it all the links were already deleted....hmm maybey they weren't, but I removed all of them to clear the reds, if there were nodisplay's I must have removed them as well. — xaosflux Talk 02:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently deleted

message: A redirect being used in someone's sig (redirecting to his old sig page) was marked as speedy for being a broken redirect. They didn't put it in a noinclude, and it made everywhere he'd signed show up on this list. I finally found the original source, and deleted it, so now there aren't speedy tags all over, but the places are still on this list. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Pages that don't appear on CAT:CSD were cleared out. -- ADNghiem501 07:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tons of errors showing up 

message: Would it be feasable for images to be put into a subcategory? They are kind of distracting (in screen spoace and bandwidth use) for those of us just loading this page to handle article/userspace speedy deletions. --W.marsh 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Images are CSD candidates too, what we need is for more admins to help out deleting / delisting them as aproprate, not hiding them away in some subcat because they are "distracting". It's not rocket sience, either the image fit a speedy deletion criterea or it doesn't, and if someone screw up we undelete images now so no big loss. As for the thumbnails: Well there is the __NOGALLERY__ tag, not sure what the consensus is on using it here though. --Sherool (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all fine and well but I'm just interested in handling article CSDs. Seperate categories just make sense... I would think it would make it easier to do images if you didn't have to scroll through potentially 50+ article listings to get to the images. --W.marsh 21:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, think its easier with them not thumnailed. But what would be really helpful is if a few more people just threw in a hand deleting a few each.... --Robdurbar 10:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have just asked a user who has tagged many images now on commons with a speedy tag to please stop doing so. They may be speedily deletable, but putting them in the category here just delays the deletion of the more urgent speedy candidates. Kusma (討論) 11:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with the nogallery on here, but it seems that if we are goign to count all of the image subcats for orphans/no copyright/etc, this page will be endlessly backloged, do they really belong here? — xaosflux Talk 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Is there a way for me to view a chronological list of articles that were speedily deleted in the recent past?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Special:Log/delete, pretty much everyting that does not mention a deletion debate or simmilar process in the summary is a speedy deletion. --Sherool (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of speedily deleted articles?

message: Please make sure if you speedy delete an image you also check to see if the image has a talk page, and speedy that as well.  I've encountered about a dozen image talk pages with no image page just looking at the 100 most recent changes to image talk pages. VegaDark 10:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image talk pages

message: People seem to have wildly differing opinions on what counts as backlog to this page. Can we all agree on a specific number of articles/images/both, at which point we'd consider CAT:CSD backlogged? -- Steel 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO 50 - 100 is acceptable, as 200 is not a backlog, but a major problem. feydey 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who upped it to 200 articles/images , though looking back that's way too high. Though I don't think it should be too low else this page will be permanently tagged with the backlog notice which defeats the entire purpose of it. -- Steel 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 100 is good, BUT, I think Images shouldn't be counted or included HERE unless they are attack/obvious flaw images.  The other speedyable images (miriad of licensing issues) should have their own page. — xaosflux Talk 02:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There's nothing wrong with 50, the number that was accepted for a very long time.  If that means that there will permanently be a backlog tag here, that's a problem with the articles not being deleted, not the definition of a backlog. You don't fix that by changing the amount of articles needed for a backlog, you fix it by promoting more admins or finding more existing admins to clear the backlogs. Is this really how we want to deal with our problems now? Just change the definition of a problem so it's no longer one? --Rory096 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the backlog tag is to attract the attention of admins who wouldn't normally have noticed/done anything about it. Having the page permanently tagged as backlogged defeats the whole purpose of the tag. On a tangent, I wouldn't really consider 50 a backlog. That's just my opinion though. -- Steel 19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, which is why the page shouldn't permanently be tagged as backlog. That doesn't mean, however, that we should up our standards when the amount of work to be done increases, it means we have to work harder. --Rory096 00:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: This thread was moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship because it's more appropriate here.
Simultaneously sent to wikiEN-l
I just saw the current message above the backlog tag at CAT:CSD. It reads:

When did it become acceptable to have 100 articles or 200 total things in CAT:CSD? Since we now have backlogs more often, that means we should raise the criteria for what is actually a backlog? Is this why we're unnecessarily raising our standards on RfA, because if we don't have as many "backlogs," but still have just as many pages waiting to be processed, then we don't need as many admins? This is appalling. We might as well stop promoting admins and just delete the backlog tag, then we wouldn't have any "backlogs" and nobody would have to do anything! Wouldn't that be nice? Ugh. This is just silly. We need to stop dicking around and start actually being productive. We're here to run an encyclopaedia, not pretend we're doing so and accomplishing absolutely nothing. --Rory096 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor are we here to inflate our self-importance by thinking it's clever to oppose people on RfA. — Werdna talk criticism 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I am hard-pressed to find somebody willing to go through the chinese water torture that is RfA on english Wikipedia at the moment. Let alone somebody who'll actually pass the damn thing. — Werdna talk criticism 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Can we all stop acting as though the sky is falling. Thanks. -- Steel 14:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've been through worse, and been through it before.  I'd be mighty useful during the day on these backlogs, but I don't stand a chance in hell of promotion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *It is better to light a candle. I've found a second person to nominate, I hope s/he'll accept. >Radiant< 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Then you're simply not trying hard enough. At this moment, there are 14 people and one bot trying to gain adminship. So the suggestions that noone is willing to try RfA are patent exaggeration. -Splash - tk 18:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *15 people (and 1 bot) on the RFA main page doesn't mean that they will all pass.  — Moe 02:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is exactly not what Werdna said, though. -Splash - tk 15:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, but they need to be relisted (some never get any comments in their initial 5 days). Relisting is something admins end up doing if no one else does, and it's a time-consuming process, eating up time admins could spend actually closing AfDs. I thought this was clear in my initial post. --W.marsh 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are some AfDs that simply cannot be closed properly without first relisting them. I did the best I could with September 25 but I simply don't have the time it would take to close this last monster. I don't think what we need to help conquer the AfD backlog is more admins to close AfDs: what we need are more admins who are willing to close contentious AfDs. I was just as guilty: after feeling that I was hung out to dry in a single DRV, I took a break from closing contentious AfDs to reduce my Wikistress. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. But the fact remains: we have plenty of good, experienced admin volunteers who are willing to close AfDs (and they close many of them!), but not enough who are willing to close difficult and contentious AfDs. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is something I've considered for the future. I just wasn't ready to ask if it would be OK for me to do so. I guess I'm afraid of making a mistake that would hurt me in the future. Like others, I would only want to do things that I would get my head lopped off. Perhaps, we need to remeber we are all volunteers, we all have feelings, and we all sometimes need to release stress in a way that others don't need to experience.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, closing contentious AfDs can be pretty stressful when you encounter people who have a vested interest in the article being kept in its whole form (or want to see it deleted). I suppose that's why there aren't a whole lot of people doing it (and why I quit doing it for a while). Heck, I even came up with a ratio about it. :-) But it would be a really nice thing if we have some thick-skinned admins who are willing to take the flak and close these AfDs, because seeing the eight day backlog was what convinced me that I should return to closing contentious AfDs, even though, to be honest, I didn't really want to do it that much. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely amazing 

message: Just a thing non-admins could do, if they're interested in helping out and showing that they will work on admin backlogs: Go through old AFDs that haven't been closed yet, find ones with few or no comments where you think a closer isn't going to be comfortable making a decision yet, and relist them on today's AfD page (make sure to remove them from the old AfD page). This doesn't require you to be an admin, and it's something that admins will eventually do anyway with many of these AfDs, so if you do it first, they can spend more time actually closing AfDs. Also, closing consensus keeps and merges is something any uninvolved Wikipedian can do if they want, and those are a bit more time consuming to close than simple deletes.
My point here is that it's regrettable that RfA is such a nightmare for some people, but I think some candidates can get over the hump if they show they clearly are cut out to be admins by doing admin-like work. Of course this is not the only thing non-admins can do to show they're cut out to be admins (I think I'm on the record supporting all the non-admins in this thread), but for others it's a good way to help out. 
I bring this up because there's currently a huge backlog in closing old AfDs, which I'm working on, but it's really beyond what any one person can realistically deal with at this point. --W.marsh 15:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but they need to be relisted (some never get any comments in their initial 5 days). Relisting is something admins end up doing if no one else does, and it's a time-consuming process, eating up time admins could spend actually closing AfDs. I thought this was clear in my initial post. --W.marsh 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are some AfDs that simply cannot be closed properly without first relisting them. I did the best I could with September 25 but I simply don't have the time it would take to close this last monster. I don't think what we need to help conquer the AfD backlog is more admins to close AfDs: what we need are more admins who are willing to close contentious AfDs. I was just as guilty: after feeling that I was hung out to dry in a single DRV, I took a break from closing contentious AfDs to reduce my Wikistress. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. But the fact remains: we have plenty of good, experienced admin volunteers who are willing to close AfDs (and they close many of them!), but not enough who are willing to close difficult and contentious AfDs. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is something I've considered for the future. I just wasn't ready to ask if it would be OK for me to do so. I guess I'm afraid of making a mistake that would hurt me in the future. Like others, I would only want to do things that I would get my head lopped off. Perhaps, we need to remeber we are all volunteers, we all have feelings, and we all sometimes need to release stress in a way that others don't need to experience.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, closing contentious AfDs can be pretty stressful when you encounter people who have a vested interest in the article being kept in its whole form (or want to see it deleted). I suppose that's why there aren't a whole lot of people doing it (and why I quit doing it for a while). Heck, I even came up with a ratio about it. :-) But it would be a really nice thing if we have some thick-skinned admins who are willing to take the flak and close these AfDs, because seeing the eight day backlog was what convinced me that I should return to closing contentious AfDs, even though, to be honest, I didn't really want to do it that much. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: The quick reference lists "I8: Attack Images" and "I9: Identical on Commons" while there is no longer an I9 at WP:CSD. We should probably change one or the other so they coincide. Why didn't we leave I8 as (This criterion has been superseded by G10 and is kept for historical reasons.) and keep I9 at I9, as we did with A6? Hope this makes sense,  DVD+ R/W 00:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick reference (I8 & I9) 

message: So it won't be recreated? Looks like this one might need it Santo Calarco. I'm a new admin helping out here and I know it's possible to do, just can't find instructions. --plange 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you figured it out. —Centrx→talk • 04:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, User:Blnguyen notified me on my Talk page :-) Just so I make sure I'm doing things right, was I right to salt that page? --plange 04:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was right. Also, it would help if every time a page is salted a few old ones were removed (See Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages#Administrators), but that's not obligatory. —Centrx→talk • 05:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you salt a page? 

message: Up until yesterday or today, the images here in :CAT:CSD showed up as thumbnails, below the alphabetical list of other pages. Now they're mixed in the alphabetical list, with some under "I" (for "Image:") and some under "?".  This makes it a little more difficult to deal with the speedy image backlog.  Image file names aren't very useful indicators of the content, and I know some editors/admins "specialize" in investigating and processing certain types of images (celebrity publicity photos, sports photos, etc.). The large number of images also clutters the non-image page list.  Can the thumbnails be restored, please? Thanks, --MCB 07:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for it was because page loading was horrendous when the image backlog was large. I tend to think it should stay this way, but if there is some good reason to be able to see the thumbnails before going to the page...? —Centrx→talk • 08:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the thumbnails are very useful, but I agree that page load times were getting pretty long. On the other hand, when processing stuff here I don't reload the page very often. Occasionally that means something was already deleted or removed from the cat by the time I click on it, but that's not a big deal. --MCB 18:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: All the images sorted under "�" (𘚟) are stuff tagged with , usualy by the uploaders themselves by picking a "wrong" license from the upload list. The ones under "I" for image are tagged using various other deletion templates (typicaly corupt images, vandal stuff or redundant images). Not having the thumbnails actualy makes this destinction easier to see. Though the thumbnails do have some benefits too, especialy if you "specialise" on deleting corrupt images or fixing logos and cover art mistakedly uploaded as "non-commercial only" or whatever. --Sherool (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The segregation of the  items is in fact useful -- but I guess you have to know why they're sorted that way... perhaps a notation on the category page would be helpful. Personally, I think the existence of the noncom license choice itself is a bad idea, and would prefer to see it removed from the list of licenses. What possible good can it do to permit the user to choose a license that will result in speedy deletion of the image they uploaded? But I guess there's a place for that debate rather than here. (I've seen it, but not sure where.) --MCB 18:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not very happy with the by-permission and non-commercial images showing up here, either (perhaps they should go in a subcategory?), but the situation is much, much better than the pick-a-license roulette we saw before they were put into place.  You wouldn't believe the number or type of images that showed up in :Category:GPL images when  was the default choice. —Cryptic 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images no longer displayed? 

message: I have speedied quite a few pages today. Since this is the first time I am doing it, can someone please review some of my deletes and let me know if I should be doing something differently -- Lost(talk) 18:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have time to look through them more carefully later on today, but two things jump out at me from glancing through the logs (and are sufficiently general enough that I'm posting them here rather than your talk page, which is really where this belongs): copyvio deletions should name the site or source they're infringing (so non-admins can see that it's not a public domain or GFDL source or a mirror), and libellous material from attack pages and the like should be blanked from the deletion summary. —Cryptic 19:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted and will do so going ahead. Thanks -- Lost(talk) 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice needed 

message: Ehem... the category is already included in the exceptions... any reason people add/remove it? Speed issues, maybe? -- ReyBrujo 01:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOGALLERY again 

message: What should one do if a speedy delete added to a page is removed by the person who created the page.
This happened with Katti.<BR>
Markco1 03:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Delete Removed

message: Hi there, hate to be a pest but not quite sure how to correct this situation.  I speedy-tagged Jack ramond samuel evans back on October 22, and it has not been dealt with one way or the other.  Given the content (reads like a schoolboy prank on a classmate), it would probably be good to clean this one out.  Thanks. Risker 14:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it, but it didn't show up in the category. Cheers. Lectonar 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This one got missed over a month ago 

message: This doesn't say anything about how to list candidates for speedy deletion.  Is this even the right place?  Here, someone just delete this junk please, Jake Nickless.  It doesn't even deserve one of the tags.  KP Botany 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding any deletion tag, such as , to an article will list it here automatically. Usually, though, you would use  to explain why it should be deleted. timrem 02:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  It doesn't really say that anywhere, that that's what you do, just add the template to the article.   KP Botany 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to list? 

message: If one is not an admin, and one wishes to contest a speedy deletion of a page not your own, how should this be done?
(for that matter, if one was the author, and it is still taged after "hangon" & you wish to contest it, what is the proceedure?)
DGG 05:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you just add a tag for speedy deletion (listed towards the bottom of this page Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion), with your reason for the request, see my question above.  I'm not sure.  Wikipedia pages are bad about instructions for people who don't already know how to do something.  KP Botany 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are not the one who created the page and it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, you can remove the tag, leaving an edit summary explaining why you are doing so. If you are the one who created the page, do not remove the tag. Instead, add  below the speedy tag, then explain on the article's talk page why you believe the article should not be deleted. After this, an admin will review the circumstances and decide if the article does or does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. timrem 23:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: howto contest 

message: A number of speedy deletes have been done recently on pages being creates as part of the List of years in poetry.  The deletes included one page with a hangon note and reference to a discussion on the topic, and cost the better part of a morning's worth of effort.  Please, do not delete these - each year takes significant work to create and substantial work is being done by multiple people to build the list.  Does anyone know if there is a way to restore these? Sam 20:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that these were also deleted without notice to me as the creator of the pages - one should always provide a note to the page creator.  Sam 20:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can request an undelete at Wikipedia:Deletion review. It sounds to me like someone was unduly zealous. Denni talk 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That page has plenty of redlinks. Can you give some examples of pages which were speedy deleted? --TheParanoidOne 11:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One deleted and now restored was 1130 in poetry - I believe I have now restored the deleted ones.  (I was working mostly on the 9th century in poetry yesterday; you'll see most of the work to date has gone into the 20th century in poetry, which is quite well populated.  Unfortunately, I have no way to be sure I've replicated all the work. Sam 12:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly Agressive Speedy Deletes 

message: I see a half dozen user pages in this cat, but when I visit them they have no speedy tag and ain't in any cats.  What the heck is going on here? ---J.S  (T/C) 19:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This happens when a template or other transcluded page changes categories - the category pages won't be updated until the transcluding page is edited.  Null edit them and they go away. —Cryptic 23:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Purging them should work as well. (click link on how-to) --MECU≈talk 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User pages 

message: How long should an article be listed at SD before it is deleted? What is the practice or custom?DGG 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They can be deleted immediately — that's why they're "speedy". Tyrenius 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no time limit.  In practice it is based on the number of entries and if an administrator is working there.  If I'm cleaning out everything under the letter S and a new one appears, if could be deleted in seconds.  If the category has a lot of entries it could takes many hours.  The practice is to delete on sight if the administrator agrees with the classification.  In some cases an administrator may take another action like; PROD, AfD, removal of the template, or leaving for an administrator who is more qualified to pass judgment. Vegaswikian 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: time at SD

message: This is exactly the words of the person in charge of the website where I obtained the picture:
"You may use the picture of the church and you may reference the link to
the Formosa page of our website if you wish."
I think I probably put the wrong license on it. It's uploaded now, how can I fix the license so the picture won't be deleted? JimmmyThePiep 00:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get help here: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Tyrenius 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Speedy Deletion 

message: What's with these, I keep deleting and they keep coming back. The page they link to appears to have a history with a different name. Certainly acting like a hydra, and I don't have the tech skills to sort it. jimfbleak 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: H&L images

message: Admins -- please don't delete these.  I will edit them all to remove the copyvios from the plot summaries. NawlinWiki 13:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law & Order episodes 

message: I've read everything I can regarding the policy for deletion of talk pages.  I'm curious what people who haven't recently read the policies think those policies are?  I think I'm seeing a large gap between how they are being interpreted, and how they are defined.  Mathiastck 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk pages 

message: Talk:Mom Slides Down the Chimney is a talk page with no associated article, but the text of the page is that of an article. It has no history and no log. Something's up there, and while the article is lacking context, it's not bad enough to be a speedy-delete candidate on its merits. ShaleZero 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedily deleted as G1 and G8, and possibly A1. The article makes absolutely no sense, and it's in the wrong place (it does have a history, it was just created in talk namespace). No glitch. --Coredesat 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent glitched page listed for speedy deletion

message: To the masses: what do you make of Sammy t3h Snake and Sammy the Snake? --Fang Aili talk 15:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: Any objections to a seperate subcategory for CSDA7 articles. I really like the subcategories (too bad it's needed though), and since quite a lot are tagged for A7 it would be practical. Garion96 (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personaly I don't see a problem with having a subcat for every criterea. However make sure the articles still also appear in the main cat, a lot of people prefeer to have everyting in one place rater than having to check multiple categories. --Sherool (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like more subcats. --Fang Aili talk 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I just made it and added it to some templates. Need to check if I got them all. The articles will still appear in the main cat. Garion96 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategory for A7 

message: hiyas. I've been an admin for some time, but I've never been quite clear on whether or not I should nominate speedy deletions, or simply do it myself. Historical revisionism (Japan) was nominated for deletion over a year ago, and the consensus was to delete. It has since be re-created, and contains no content of value. In this case, and in future, may I simply delete things that fulfill speedy deletion criteria, or should I nom it so that an admin who's more objective on the matter, more removed, can process it? Thank you. LordAmeth 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin privileges 

message: Is there some sort of  tag that I could hit this page with (: VectorPotentialTalk 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Now there is one... :) I thought in those cases it was customary to simply commence some serious nagging at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Femto 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, sometimes I think we might need one of those, especially when there are over 300 articles waiting in here... – Riana ঋ 06:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over 200 pages waiting to be deleted!! 

message: Is it time to split off all of the image nominations to a separate category?  Most of the introduction on the pages is taken up with list of image deleting related lists.  Then there is the images themselves. Vegaswikian 07:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's time for some more admins to help clear out the backlog of images. The categories are on this page for a very good reason: so they don't get forgotten. There are literally hundreds of images that have been awaiting so-called "speedy" deletion for several weeks. If more people would help delete them, the "Images/Proposed deletion" section of this page would be greatly reduced. —Angr 09:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeh, with so many admins around, I'm surprised that a lot more don't seem to want to do the grunt work. Maybe it's because doing the images requires a little more knowledge of how things work - in particular, fair use and the plethora of image copyright tags. enochlau (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's that, there's also the fact that deleting images means you have to remove red links from the articles where they were used (which is incredibly time-consuming, but you'll get yelled at if you don't do it), and there's the fact that deleting images means dealing with the onslaught of "Why did you delete my image?" messages on your talk page. It's a thankless job. —Angr 06:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are are things like WP:NPW that can help with the redlink issue. It's not streamlined for image deletion, but it works ok most of the time (some infoboxes still cause problems). Maybe we should consider improving the "admin howto" on image deletions. It does seem to be a problem that many admins seem to consider image deletion to be something complicated and scary. Most of it is actualy pretty stright forward, does it have a source? If no then delete etc. (allowing for some common sense in cases where the source is obvious and should just be inserted instead of deleting it).  --Sherool (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off images? 

message: I made drop-boxes for the various image subcategories to reduce the clutter.  Hope people like it.  Mangojuicetalk 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice. Thank you. --Fang Aili talk 19:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, big improvement thanks --BozMo talk 19:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I like it =) Thanks. enochlau (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop-boxes 

message: A7 is being used for short nonsense pages for which G1 or G2 could more appropriately be used, and it makes it somewhat harder to sort usefully.DGG 09:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just drop a message off to those people who are tagging them then... they may be new at it, and might want some guidance. It definitely won't be administrators who are doing it wrong though, because admins would just zap it without tagging it =) enochlau (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: right category

message: Why are certain admins so hellbent on leaving the backlog tag uncommented, even when there are less than 10 pages displayed on this category? Apparently it's due to the dated deletion categories... since when? Did we agree on this or something? Why the hell would we care about something entirely unrelated to CSD? —Pilotguy (go around) 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "entirely unrelated to CSD"? Those dated deletion categories contain hundreds -- by now, possibly thousands -- of images that need to be deleted right now. They are all speedy deletion candidates, no less so for being in lower categories than CAT:CSD, and no less so for having been speedy deletion candidates for more than two weeks. If the "backlog" tag bothers you, help get rid of it by clearing the backlog of images awaiting deletion. —Angr 05:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was helping with one of the more atrocious image baklogs, I'll get back on it soon hopefully. I agree with Pilotguy, there should be a backlog tag here when there's a backlog here. Those other places have their own backlog tags. Grandmasterka 01:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those aren't "other places". Those are part of "here", because they are all candidates for speedy deletion. They belong in this category, and as long as they haven't been deleted, this category has a backlog. —Angr 06:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Naive". For saying that there is an enormous backlog of images awaiting speedy deletion when there is one. You as a "responsible" admin should not remove the backlog tag just because you "don't give a fuck" about images. —Angr 11:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is better if the backlog tag is not here, but on the specific image categories. That way, the attention of the hypothetical admin who checks for the backlog tag is drawn to the images instead of the general CSD category when the latter is not backlogged by itself. I think putting the backlog tag here because other categories (that happen to be linked form here) are backlogged is actually counterproductive. Kusma (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see a need to remove the articles as quickly as possible since the longer they exist, the more likely they are to be copied to a shadow and remain there forever.  Then we have garbage articles out in several places, that are no longer on wikipedia but do exist in other places with an attribution back to us.  I don't believe that the images are as likely to be copied unless they are included in an article.  Vegaswikian 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of images tagged for deletion are copyright violations. Keeping them here puts Wikimedia in legal jeopardy. Deleting them is much, much more important than deleting the "Joe Blow is a really kewl guy!!11! LOL!" kind of article that gets listed here. —Angr 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the backlog tag should definitely be on the individual categories instead of here. Why draw admins to C:CSD where they'll work on deleting "Joe Blow is a really kewl guy!!11! LOL!" articles when they should be deleting images found in separate categories? timrem 19:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: When those image categories were added, I seem to recall comments about being able to use a bot to delete them and not needing admins to do extra work.  Why can't we use a bot?  Do administrators need to remove the redlinks left behind?  Vegaswikian 20:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No we can't have a bot automaticaly delete everyting simply because someone added a scertain template to it. We need a human to check to make sure the image actualy meet a deletion criterea just as much as we need to for articles. With the possible exception of orphanded fair use images (would be fairly easy to automate a a check that a) Image is tagged as fair use b) has been tagged as orphanded for 7 days. c) Does not have any incoming links). Not that such a bot would be likely to be approved anyway, there is a deep seated fear of bots with admin tools. --Sherool (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the suggestion was for a bot to remove red links after the image has been deleted, not to have a bot delete the images. —Angr 04:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, on a side note, in my experience with the no-fair-use-rationale backlog, most of the images I found during my time there could be kept and be perfectly acceptable, if someone had taken a few seconds to write a fair use rationale. (I ended up writing quite a few of them.) I have a feeling there might possibly be a way to coax people to learn more about fair use images before uploading them, so we don't have such a backlog... Grandmasterka 10:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog tag 

message: (I moved this from Wikipedia talk:How to fix cut and paste moves where I had originally posted it.)
The article Cracker (pejorative) was copied to Cracker (white) by User:Ray led the way without any explanation or talk.  I tagged it with .  The tag was subsequently removed by users Uncle Otama and Otama's Dream, who based on user name and creation 15 minutes apart, are almost certain sock puppets, I suspect of Ray led the way.  The attention of an administrator is requested please.  Thanks.  - Dan D. Ric 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the fork and redirected it to Cracker (pejorative). —Angr 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article [[Cracker (pejorative)]] copied to [[Cracker (white)]]

message: Regarding the frequent addition and removal of __NOGALLERY__...  note that you can go back in history and view the other version, and get it to show up exactly the way you like, so it's not really necessary to flip it back and forth.  --Interiot 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOGALLERY warring 

message: The title says it all, really. See here. Picaroon 19:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of relevance to those who do image speedy deletions 

message: Talk:8 Foot Sativa is listed in this category, but I can't figure out why. I've looked to see if a template it's using is causing it, but some of the templates it lists as using don't appear to even be used on the page. Any ideas? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this page listed here?

message: Anybody know what gives with :Image:P1020541.JPG or :Image:Crys5.JPG (or a few others I noticed)? They have speedy delete (redundant) tags on them, and on their description pages they claim to be members of the appropriate delete categories, but they don't actually seem to be in the categories when I look at the listings. Yes, I tried to purge, but maybe didn't do it right? Staecker 12:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd.  I'm not sure, but it may have to do with :Template:Db-redundantimage, if someone wants to take a look. VegaDark 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization bug? 

message: I have been going through User:AlexNewArtBot/BadSearchResult and creating quite a few speedy notices. If anyone finds I am being overly broad, or using the wrong notices, please fill me in, Thanks! -Ravedave 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy-ing 

message: Many album entries have been listed in this section. But when I visited these pages, nothing seems to have speedy deletion on them. No categories, no templates tagged or any other transcluded page in them tagged for deletion (which is common cause for this kind of issue). Aquarius • talk 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, problem was pointed out in WP:AN. A anon placed db-author on  Aquarius • talk 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in User Request section 

message: So far, at any rate. Suggestions for other candidates welcome. 
*deleted as (no citations or references and no claim to notability). Medical scientist. As the article clearly says,  Fellow of the Royal Society and OBE. I omit the name of the article to protect the careless.   DGG 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why protect the careless? In my opinion these people are nothing better than vandals, who deserve to be hauled over the coals. Rubywine 09:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we have to live together, & this is better done by teaching people than by embarrassing them. I did in fact have a productive discussion with the editor involved.  DGG 08:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Careless speedy of the year

message: The user 74.220.207.95 has recently marked a large number of LGBT-related articles for speedy deletion on the grounds that they do not assert importance or significance. In no cases were the tags justified. The contributions of this user consist almost entirely of speedy deletion tags placed on articles about significant LGBT websites. It is blatantly obvious that this individual is motivated by homophobia, so his/her tagging is effectively a form of vandalism. I do not know where else to go to report this misbehaviour, so I am requesting that all future speedy deletion tags placed by 74.220.207.95 be speedily removed! Rubywine 09:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Malicious homophobic usage of speedy deletion tag

message: I'd like to propose the NOGALLERY tag be added to the starter templates for the image subcategories. I've gone and added links to the bad old ones tool in each of these so an admin using that tool will be able to see the image anyways. The NOGALLERY would save bandwidth and speed and since an admin using the tool will see the image there. If you want to see the tool in action, look at :Category:Images with unknown source as of 22 June 2007. I think using this tool will speed up deletion since it also displays the image description information and other information (last edited). Anyways, does anyone have a valid reason to display the images in these subcategories? I'm working on getting an image red link delinker to make it easier for admins to delete as well. MECU≈talk 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bad old ones tool is this? If so, how does it work? If I do it the old fashioned way, I much prefer thumbnails to already give an indication what do to with the image. Garion96 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about including a prominent link to a prior revision that features galleries? I'm not sure that C:CSD is that huge of a bandwidth hog since only admins regularly use it. And I agree with Garion96: thumbnails make it much easier to prioritize and recognize closely related deletion candidates. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that currenly almost all the speedy deletion image categories are having the nogallery. Admittedly there was no big discussion here, but it doesn't seem that it is agreed that this is handier. I think it's really unpractical. Can it be changed back? I was reverted when I removed the nogallery on a few (I thought I encounteted a mistake on a few but...). Garion96 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOGALLERY on image categories 

message: I've tagged Mengal,Asif Mengal with variously  and  but they keep being removed. This is getting tedious so could someone please treat them as tagged and take a look? Many thanks. ROGER TALK 10:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of fighting about it, why not just AFD them and let it get settled that way? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Cos I'm very new at this AFD, PROD, CSD etc lark, and it hadn't occurred to me. Thanks, I'll do that. ROGER TALK 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  They look like speedy candidates but if someone puts up a fight, just let others get their views in. It takes a while to get all this stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag removals

message: Quite a few User pages are present in CAT:CSD.  It appears that Template:hidden-delete-reason has been added to several of these pages; the presence of the user page appears not to be indicated on the page itself, and the presence of the template is in a listing below the edit box when opening the page for editing.  Any comments on this?  I haven't seen this before, myself. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like many of them were the result of deletions regarding User:Cool Cat/CVU2-1 by an admin that didn't check What Links Here too closely.  I'm having my bot run a cleanup. — xaosflux Talk 02:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently a ton of other User:PickAColorCat pages that are popular are getting deleted causing this problem as well, I've cleaned up a few, restored a few.  I don't really care if they get deleted, but What Link's here is there for a reason! — xaosflux Talk 03:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been the topic of a brief discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of a lot of User pages 

message: The tracker for :Category:Disputed non-free images only indicates a 16-day backlog, to July 1st, but there is actually a backlog going back to early June.  Does anyone know why those June categories aren't showing up? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the template doesn't work properly if people clear the categories out of order. --Ajm81 00:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the template should work just fine if the categories aren't cleared in order, but it only goes back so far in its check.  Since there is a backlog going back over the maximum, the template is missing it.  It might be a good idea to manually include a link to the oldest backlog category for now.  Mangojuicetalk 12:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing backlog at Disputed non-free images 

message: I have several times encounterd cases where users placed a  tag next to a notice of a speedy tagging on their talk pages, rather than on the page tagged for the speedy. I have just drafted  as a standard message to users in this situation. Feel free to use it as appropriate. DES (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template:HangonUse 

message: Apparently many users are now linking to the pages in this category in various kinds of lists.  This is making it more difficult for admins to look for real links and see if cleanup of links in other articles is needed.  Any suggestions on getting this stopped or is there really some value? Vegaswikian 06:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LInks to a mess 

message: I've been cleaning up the punk record labels category, and so far have had at least ten pages speedy deleted.
I imagine there are a plethorea of these here. If anyone is looking to do some speedy deletes this is the place.Hoponpop69 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd probably get a better response over on WP:AN; when the CSD backlogs get insanely high, that's generally the place to drop a note. I'd help out, but I'm at work. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lots of candidates for speedy deletion here

message: I just deleted 2 images listed in the general category that were tagged G12. Then I just realized that images have their own set of tags and usually require a 7 day waiting period. In situations such as these, should I have changed the speedy tag to  or  or whatever was applicable? One image was claimed as the author releasing into the public domain, but the image had a website's watermark on it. What would you have done, experienced admins?-Andrew c [talk] 20:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll occasionally apply G12 in cases where the image is clearly copyrighted, but has been "released under a free license", since none of the image speedy deletion apply (I3 is for licenses improper for Wikipedia rather than invalid licensing. It's a questionable use of G12, though - It's worthwhile to check the image's use before using this method, since it might be well-used if converted to fair use. Nihiltres(t.l) 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  g12 speedy applied to images 

message: I'm curious about why a bunch of image talk pages that are tagged as ineligible for speedy deletion have shown up here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit is why they are.  I have reverted that edit.  It looks like the issue has cleared itself and those pages are no longer showing up in this category.  Metros 12:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for following up by placing a query on the editor who instituted the change.  I had suspected the appearance might have had something to do with an edit to a template, but I didn't have time to follow it up when I placed this comment. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ineligible Image Talk pages appearing

message: Are we needing to delete so much important articles due to the mods perception of thier importance? I for one started making an article today it was up for deleion 5 seconds later and i wasnt even finished with it. Do these mods have no life or what??? I would really like to know why on earth these articles are "unnessecary", when they involve highly influentual metal music artists that the mods have prob never heard of —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronix (talk • contribs) 
:Its up to editors to provide independent verifiable sources that bands meet  the notability guidelines. Its especially important to do precisely because admins may not have heard of them, and rely on the article to assert notability through independent references. Jimfbleak 10:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Equally, it's up to us admins to make sure we're not biting newbies. We were all new once, struggling to understand the policies. I cringe when I remember some early edits. Having an article disappear in a flash is quite dispiriting, especially for newbies. --Dweller 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why userfication of obviously good faith but totally inexperienced new article contributions is a reasonable course to take in some cases.  Unfortunately, the general assumption (due to the need for speed) is that new articles that don't measure up are just junk across the board.  I'm as guilty as the next admin on this count.  --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And a friendly message on a newbie's talk page does wonders. --Dweller 09:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh Yes, Dweller is very right. There has been some debate at RFA recently as there is a bot that now advises usersof SD. Personally I'm all up for making sure that anything tagged for speedy is taken to the editors talk page by a real human editor. Very often a new article is an accounts first experience with Wikipedia, and I believe the spirit of WP:BITE should invlolve real editors advising and counseling good faith new members with their work. Pedro |  Chat   10:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uneeded deletions

message: The page User:NeilTarrant appears in CAT:SPEEDY, but in looking at the user page I am not seeing where it is so tagged.  I'm bringing this up to see if someone else might be able to resolve this question - of whether the page should or should not be here, and if it should not, why is it here? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why (technical) is this tagged for deletion? 

message: Please could you delete Travellers' Club ? I moved the article from Travellers Club to Travellers' Club and at an expert's request, have just moved it back to Travellers Club. I can't get to the unnecessary Travellers Club page to nominate it for speedy deletion ! thisisace 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why delete that? It is a perfectly acceptable redirect now. The page is here, by the way : ). shoeofdeath 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd think that in this case, Travellers' Club is an alternate way of spelling/searching for the title, and is probably helpful as a redirect. Ariel♥Gold 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Travellers' Club

message: Is it a good idea to link this tool from all of the image deletion categories?  It flags every image as "Not used anywhere!" regardless of whether or not the image is actually in use.  I deleted about 10 "orphaned" fair use images before realizing that the thing was lying and that they weren't really orphaned any more.  We at least need a warning label. --B 12:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, is User:Magnus Manske aware of the issue? — xDanielx T/C 18:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bad Old Ones Tool" 

message: Has any thought been put into doing some kind of time sort for this category?  In other words, articles tagged for a certain length of time would be segregated to different areas.  I don't know whether this is feasible with the software, but I can think of several reasons why this would be helpful.--Kubigula (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time sort 

message: Currently, the category is filled with Irish writers who are not and never have been tagged for speedy deletion. I've encountered this in lesser scale before and wondered why it happens. Does anyone know? --Moonriddengirl 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:VPT#pages stuck in a category and . —Cryptic 15:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see! Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is currently the case with various leaders of the Conservative Party of Canada. DGG (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] sometimes aren't 

message: I'm curious to know what is the biggest backlog that CSD has reached before? Phgao 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What amount of CSDs qualifies it to be an admin backlog? Phgao 14:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow! I thought yesterday was bad, at about 150 articles! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See the top of WT:SDL ;) Resurgent insurgent 04:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nearly always a backlog here! I normally get it down very low or sometimes clear but it grows again within minutes. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last week I waded in when the tally was at 111 articles; three hours of hard work later, it was at 110 articles.  <sigh>  BTW, well done G-Unit to get it down to zero, even for a moment!! Accounting4Taste 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess its just a question of being glad it wasn't 1291! Still, I think I've only ever seen the category empty twice - and that only lasted a matter of seconds... WjBscribe 02:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1291! Must have been some vandal/nn apeshit going on. bibliomaniac15 03:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interested 

message: Why have a load of India-related articles suddenly appeared here? I can't see tags on them to suggest that are CSD. e.g. India itself.--Michig (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have something to do with this template - ; though I don't have the technical expertise to figure out what the issue is.--Kubigula (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  India-related articles appearing in this category 

message: The St. Estevam article has been up for months, and is a direct copy violation of some Ph.D's post on a usenet board. This needs speedied ASAP, as it's already been up for far too long. Bellwether BC 12:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent action for a copyvio 

message: redacted...evidently he's trolling.Legotech (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do you put stuff like this? 

message: Ahhh, so many templates. LET'S GET TO WORK! нмŵוτнτ 04:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeehaw! We just kicked that template backlog's ass! bibliomaniac15 05:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, while I went to clean my dishes, you had deleted them all. Kudos! You deserve a cookie!  нмŵוτнτ 05:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, I'm tuckered out. Think I'll go to sleep. bibliomaniac15 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: I noticed that there was some discussion about how it would be useful to have candidates sorted by time added. This  query does this for you. In the example given I've excluded all candidates under 2 hours old as well. Unfortenatly its not that user friendly. The output is in xml. This could be sorted out by using some javascript to dump the info onto a subpage if so wanted. josh (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Sorting 

message: Put back North Shore Women for Peace. Wasn't there a New York Times article explaining its relveance?!. Jidanni (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest you take it up with the deleting admin first, . Failing agreement there, try WP:DRV.  This page isn't the forum for undeletion requests.  BencherliteTalk 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put back [[North Shore Women for Peace]] 

message: No more speedy stuffs! bibliomaniac15 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? It was empty? Enigmamsg 17:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooray! 

message: Nobody seems to touch :Category:History merge for speedy deletion anymore now that it's been removed from the main speedy cat. It's very annoying. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: History merges seem to take more effort than the other CSD criterion. Nakon 02:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but they still have to be done. Tim White has been sitting there for days. Perhaps the "for speedy deletion" part should be removed from the category name. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History merge 

message: For some strange reason, pages with Template:Sandbox are listed in this category. What's up with that? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be fixed Give it a little time and the category should empty out a bit. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Sandbox 

message: A lot of templates for speedy deletion are not actually listed at :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. For example, :Template:Routeboxwa is not listed, but has been tagged since 29 March 2008. You can find others at Pages that link to Template:Db-t3. It might be the seven day waiting period, but that doesn't seem to be the situation for :Template:Routeboxwa and other templates. GregManninLB (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates for speedy deletion Db-t3

message: I've just deleted Prince Chewy as A7. The article consisted solely of the fact that the subject is a black and white cat, so there was no evidence whatsoever of notability, but I've just realised there's no specific subsection of A7 to deal with pets, etc. Is this something that ought to be addressed, or do we treat pets as persons, or what? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted any number of Mr. Fluffykins and Woodles articles and rationalized it as A7.  I see no need to get hung up on the letter of "person" - animate being works for me.  My dogs think I'm an unusually gifted dog who can drive cars and open cans, so I might as well return the favor and call pets people for speedy deletions.  Acroterion (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my interpretation, A7 is the "obvious non-notable" criterion. The wording doesn't matter; look beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. If there's any or questionable notability, bring it to AfD or prod it. If it's obviously non-notable, A7 it. Nihiltres{t.l} 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: But, your still a dog right? 71.193.2.115 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pets as A7? 

message: But, they indeed had the copyright explicitly spelled out...
Why bother with all the verbage and policy? Just say ( as you clearly intend ) If this image is NOT earmarked to our standards, we will delete it without notice.
All the rest is hiding the truth. No letter, no sprit, just play by your rules or DIE! ( and get your images deleted ...)
There are also problems with the pages with image deletion, but hopefully the dirtbags will fix them. 71.193.2.115 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  After my images got speedly deleted for no copyright 

message: This is the least backlogged I have seen this page in a long time.  Even nowcommons is caught up.  Kudos to those doing the clearing!--Kubigula (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, :C:CSD has even been empty for a few seconds. Cenarium Talk 14:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: With two threads recently on the admin noticeboard about the supposed backlog on here, even though by traditional standards it was well under control, would it be a good idea to put somewhere in the wikicode what the traditional backlog is (which as far as I'm aware is 100 articles and/or images). Harryboyles 06:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is possible to clearly state what a backlog is.  If it has 50 articles and an admin is working on it, does that make it a backlog?  If there are 40 articles and no admin doing work, would it, being under a limit, make it no backlog?  I guess there are to many issues with picking a right number.  Maybe the best that we can hope for is to have a bot control this.  We set a number in a template that the bot reads and changes it as needed.  Oh, and does the backlog include images? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of what a backlog is 

message: Why is User:WiccaIrish listed as a candidate for speedy deletion? Enigma message 05:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same question for User:Basilwhite Enigma message 05:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely because a template that was transcluded on those pages had a speedy tag on it at the time. VegaDark (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Hi. I just created a page, Contrafactual history to serve as a redirect to Alternate history, but in between the time I created the article and the time I posted the redirect,  tagged it for Speedy Deletion under CSD A3 within six minutes. I applaud the user's - to coin a phrase - speedy attention to the matter, but perhaps a bit more patience could have helped matters? Is there any sort of time between creation and nom for speedy deletion in place? Had I stopped for breakfast before inserting the redirect, I might have had a devil of a time re-creating the article. - Hexhand (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the version that was tagged. An honest mistake, but most definitely an A3 candidate. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: , hmm. Yep, i should have used that. Good to know for the future. Sorry if I was seeming like StaticGull was a cad for tagging it; it just seemed quite sudden. - Hexhand (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Good to know, this just happened to me, too.--Diotemaheartsphilosophy (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to stop a speeding request for deletion 

message: Seems like someone is running a bot to add a fair use rational tag does not exist on the page, and placing many images  up for deletion, though a fair use rational does exist in the image description.  Perhaps the bots AI should be improved, or everyone of these should be verified by hand.  We should not needlessly purge information from Wikipedia. —Slipgrid (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use Rational Bot 

message: You know how we love shortcuts: C:CSD is a nice abreviated shortcut of CAT:CSD, which in turn is an abbreviation of :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.  Well, I wanted to get to CAT:NNSD, so I typed in C:NNSD, only to find it doesn't exist.  So, I create the redirect page accordingly.  A little while later, I notice in the non-notable articles a redirect page up for deletion... C:NNSD.  I looked to see who nominated, and it appears that it is self nominated!  I've had a look at other redirects, and seen  on there.  I've added that to see if it made any difference, but no.  Any thoughts? StephenBuxton (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All better.  It just needed the colon to disable the category.  Metros (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for that! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: And above too.  We don't want this in itself!  lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia CSD is shooting itself in the foot! 

message: No images seem to be going in the category anymore; shoul dit be removed from the CSD page and the new dates stop being made, or is there still a use? Wizardman 01:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a good idea. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Images with no copyright tag 

message: Quarterback Justin Roper I nominate to remove him. He is NOT Notable. Need Admin help to remove him  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.206.56 (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't really qualify for speedy deletion. If you want to create an AfD, I would be happy to help you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Not Notable Person 

message: *In the speedy-delete template , I am tempted to suggest inserting a statement Category:Dbmove, and a corresponding new entry in the subcategories line in :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which would show all the pages which someone wants deleted to allow a page move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category of speedy delete? 

message: The newly created article Columbia Records discography will become very long and unwieldy because this record label is over 100 years old and is one of the most prolific in terms out output thus possibly making this article way too long with even a quarter of the complete discography listed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well seems to be a bad idea for an article but that isn't a speedy deletion criterion. I remember the user from a year ago, was completely uncommunicative about others disagreeing with his ideas for music related list. So i'll try a speedy redirect and talk to them--Tikiwont (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate for speedy delete 

message: Post Turtle was surely tagged too hastily - ONE (1) minute after initial post - while page still being composed and linked.
FoolesTroupe (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over Zealous Deletion (was Post Turtle) 

message: Given that CSD I8 has been modified quite a while ago to allow immediate deletion, I suggest we merge :Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons category and :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons into :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to streamline and facilitate such deletions. Comments welcome. (cross-posted here, CAT:NC, CAT:NCT, and WT:CSD) —kurykh 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hi all. I'm proposing that :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons is merged into this category. I note that this has been proposed before, but apparently not discussed or acted upon. The reason that I think this merge would be a good idea is because it centralizes the items needing speedy deletion, such that they will be seen by more people. I've seen large backlogs develop in the other category without being noticed, whereas if it fed into this category then that shouldn't happen. Is there any reason why the merge shouldn't go ahead? Mike Peel (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We had this already a few months back. Simply, many of the images in that category do not meet CSD:I8 for various reasons, including that the licensing isn't the same, the information hasn't been transferred correctly, etc. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many images and articles that currently come into this category don't meet the CSD criteria. We simply turn the CSD down. I don't see that as a show-stopper. Mike Peel (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The number of items in :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons is already listed here, most of the other image backlog categories are usualy cleared out quite speedily so I don't think it's an issue of people not seeing them. The main problem is that a lot of admins just don't "do images" for one reason or other. On top of that I8 is the most complex image criteria (you need to check several things both here and on Commons before pulling the trigger), and also the least urgent (the only consequence of not deleting is usualy that we see the local copy of the same image instead of the Commons one). So I think the backlog is more due to it beeing relatively slow work not considered terrebly urgent rater than people not seeing that there is a backlog there. --Sherool (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I'm concerned that some of us admins when not being as careful as usual will delete them without checking the details. Don't tell me it never happens. :) DGG (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing that [[:Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons]] is merged into this category 

message: Let me know what you think guys, and feel free to revert.  I'm adding anchors to the transcluded pages (excluding image-related cats) so that when you click on for instance "Contested", you don't have to scroll down to see the pages that are contested, the page will scroll down for you. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying out anchors 

message: Could I get a hand getting Solomon Dell speedy deleted? It's patent nonsense vandalism (shows a photo of a racoon and says it's a person in costume, amongst other silliness), but the author keeps removing the speedy deletion tag. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gone. BencherliteTalk 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I'd be interested in a list of the IPs that edited the article, so I can track down any related vandalism like this and revert. Also, our joker has recreated the talk page with a question. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solomon Dell 

message: Can be deleted.  It's being replaced by a non-javascript application. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)  17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Bob the Wikipedian/virgo.js]] 

message: I tagged this more than an hour ago... Lugnuts (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any chance speedy could actualy mean speedy? 

message: 2013 UEFA Champions League Final - Unsourced, messy. Jamie (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion request 

message: We need many more active admins to help with the backlog. I've been at it for hours and I've barely made a dent. Enigmamsg 03:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the first time in ages, it's not reporting a backlog. This calls for a party! Enigmamsg 17:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insanity 

message: Why do admins patrol/delete new pages when there are almost 200 "old" pages here waiting for attention? WWGB (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of articles in this category varies wildly, from 200 down to 0 at the moment as I type. Patrolling newpages can help prevent this category filling up and also helps to ensure that a large proportion of bad pages are caught rather than just passing under the radar. Splash - tk 15:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This is in reference to Template:CSD/Subcategories but I think it would get more input here.  Is there a deliberate reason for placing the Purge link where it is currently located?  I find that it would be more useful at the bottom of the template so that you can see it if you use the back button to get back to CAT:CSD (while you're looking at the current list of articles).  Thoughts?  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Purge link placement

message: Many of the current pages are only listed as a result of a template used on certain userpages being sent to TfD. Not sure how to deal with those. Remove the template? Enigmamsg 05:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice job on keeping the backlog down 

message: Admins who patrol here regularly may be interested in a new Toolserver tool that lists pending candidates for speedy deletion. At the moment the display is primitive, but I hope to make it more flexible.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New tool 

message: A number of cartoon related channels are appearing on CSD for some unfathomable reason (unfathomable to me, at least!).  There is a discussion about it at: WP:AN#Kids programs in C:SD ?. Stephen! Coming... 09:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alert: A number of cartoon channels are on CSD 

message: I notice that the category is displayed in alphabetical order, wouldn't it also be useful for them to also be displayed in order of nomination? I guess it's not possible or practical or it would have been done already? Anyway, I don't know how common it is for things to get overlooked for a long time, but Fighting Fantasy: The Warlock of Firetop Mountain has been there for three days now, and one I nominated myself recently was there for more than a day. This clearly isn't speedy in anyone's book... Miremare 17:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting Fantasy: The Warlock of Firetop Mountain 

message: Why are pages that transclude Template:UnsignedIP (instead of using subst: like they are supposed to) showing up in :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? IronGargoyle (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd bug

message: Talk:Tea Party protests/Archive index is appearing in this category, but for the life of me I can't work out why! Even when I blanked that page then purged the category it still remains. Any ideas what's going on here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A redirect is tagged for speedy deletion, that's why. BencherliteTalk 12:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page that can't be removed? 

message: I've tried and failed to find where the transcluted Db-g8 and Db-meta is coming from, which is placing this page in CAT:CSD. Can anyone else? Peter 11:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well obviously someone did, as it's not showing for deletion now... Peter 16:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Strategy]] 

message: Hello. I've noticed that two templates (Template:Districts of Sri Lanka, Template:Provinces of Sri Lanka) that were tagged for SD are not automatically included in this category. Anyone knows why? Rehman(+) 01:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . Rehman(+) 01:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not in category 

message: I'm not seeing cats showing up here. Rich Farmbrough, 23:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain further?  There is a 96 hour holding pen to make sure that they are eligible for speedy deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Maybe it's just lag, because they have been deleted... but I have the monthly maintenance categories set up to CSD themselves if they are empty and over a month old. Amalthea threw some doubt as to whether this would work - so I dug around, and changed them to exclude the 4 day wait (Bad idea? Good idea? If they are needed Femto Bot will re-create them.) and could see the cat on the page, and did some purges and stuff, and purged CSD - but they didn't show, and CSD has special display for it's subcategories, so I wondered if that was responsible. Rich Farmbrough, 05:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with a bot deleting maintenance categories under G6.  If they are tagged with the normal speedy tags they go into the holding pen.  If you directly tag them for the category, it should work.  I'll admit that I have not looked at the templates there in a while. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They are getting catted and deleted - I happened to see one getting deleted on recent changes, and checked with the deleter. I guess it was category lag. This way they virtually delete themselves, (this one had one edit - ever, which is as it should be) - it would of course need an admin-bot to delete them. Thanks for your comments. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: I rather think that any admin worth their salt would not delete this category. I'm very tempted to remove the banner telling admins not to delete it, as it does take up a bit of (vertical) space. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Don't delete this cat" notice 

message: Can someone explain why the "M"s are now shown after the "W"s? What happened to alphabetical order? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetization 

message: I have created a conversation about this category at WP:CSD that can be found here. OlYeller21Talktome 19:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub categories 

message: In most cases, subcategories of Speedy Deletion candidates will register as backlogged if they have a certain number of member articles. This threshold is set at 50 for the Spam and NN categories - and for the Attack Pages category. Now, while some categories can fill over time, the attack pages category is usually empty - and when it does get articles, they're processed pretty quickly. This is good, we don't need attack pages lying about. Since I started speedy deleting, I doubt I've ever seen more than 10 articles in the attack category; it's never, to my knowledge, even approached 50. So I wonder - could we lower this threshold to some really low number? I was thinking 4 or 5, but 10 would work if needs be. The idea is that it should be easy to trigger a backlog on this category, due to the nature of its contents and the speed with which we should be handling them (whether to delete quickly or decline quickly). Thoughts? UltraExactZZ  Said ~ Did  22:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds reasonable and I would support it; but you might want to advertise this proposal on more heavily watched pages in order to get more responses. It Is Me Here t / c 21:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A much better idea is to encourage every admin you know to install User:Ais523/catwatch.js and have csd:attacks included on it. I delete a lot of attack pages and the main reason is that they appear on my watchlist the moment I open it--Jac16888 Talk 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Backlog of Attack Pages

message: Template:Matlock was tagged for WP:CSD#T3 14 days ago, lists that it is in :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unused redundant templates yet when I go to the categories, it says it is an empty category for the second one and isn't listed in the first one either.  Not sure how these are slipping through the cracks. Technical 13 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've declined this, see my edit summary. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can explain why the CSD T3 tag doesn't work right if anyone cares.  I just started trialing a bot to fix the same problem with CSD C1 tags.  --j⚛e deckertalk 02:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Matlock]] 

message: There is a cross-wiki discussion in progress as to whether c: should be enabled globally as an interwiki prefix for links to the Wikimedia Commons. If the proposal gains consensus this will require the deletion or renaming of several pages on the English WIkipedia whose titles begin with "C:", including one or more redirects to this page. Please take a moment to participate in the discussion.
There is also a related discussion on the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#C:ATT to which you are invited to contribute.
Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments: <code>c:</code> link prefix for Wikimedia Commons 

message: removed the following text from the page: "" I reverted, thinking what while it may be that Jni doesn't need to see that advice, having done so many deletions, admins who delete a bit less often (and especially new admins) can find the reminder that it is possible to inadvertently quote part of an attack in the log entry when deleting an attack page, and that this is to be avoided, helpful. I don't see any downside to keeping this here, those who already know it aren't harmed at all. Now, per WP:BRD I am bringing the matter here for discussion. Does anyone else have a view on whether that text should be removed from the category page or not? DES (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The CAT:CSD page has too much text that consumes vertical screen space for no real reasons. Categories like this should be fast to reload (or purge) in browser, and more importantly fast to eyeball search. There is no need for detailed explanations for deleting admins on the category page itself, even while being of some use for new admins; as the instructions about mechanics of deletion can go to somewhere else. Single sentence reminder is sufficient. Some time ago, there was even a warning not to delete the category itself, like any deleting admin would be stupid enough to do that! BTW, even if I by mistake quote content in deletion log entry, I most likely won't bother to go through a silly dance of restoring page, deleting again and rev. deleting the earlier entry, just because some instruction creep note says so. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions for attack pages 

message: It seems confusing that there appear very similar categories:
*:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories and
*:Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion
When I find a category that is empty and has no pages assigned to it and classify it as CSD C1, it appears in the second empty categories category, not the first. The first is empty right now but the second one always has empty categories waiting for deletion. I just hope admins realize they are both categories and, if it makes sense, maybe they can be merged. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The two categories serve different purposes. If you look at , you'll see that it initially places tagged categories in the latter category, and moves them to the former after four days have elapsed. The former category will frequently be empty, as the categories listed there are reviewed for speedy deletion. - Eureka Lott 00:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  Speedy only applies if the category is empty for 4 days.  The two categories provide a way to track the 4 days.  So while some may be empty for more they 4 days they are all empty for at least 4 days. There is no way to easily trace when a category was emptied without this system. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't realize this, Eureka Lott and Vegaswikian. I greatly appreciate the clear explanation of the difference between the two. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 15:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD C1 

message: Please don't delete the page Vijesh Rana,wThis is about a real person,who is an actor,dont categorize it under hoax article,I m trying to create vijesh rana wiki page but you guy z deleted it,prevent me from making this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha1988 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted "as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" not as a hoax, and as it's been re-created so many times, it's 'protected' from editing. It can only be re-created by showing an administrator evidence that the new article will pass our notability policies. Peridon (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you notice you are responding to a question asked over 7 months ago? It has been quiet here :) I think obviously misplaced sections of talk, like this one, are best to archive to history early on, lest someone thinks this is the place for challenging speedy deletion decisions. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I did notice, and checked to see if someone had been removing things. How often does this page get archived? I notice that the top thread goes back four years... Peridon (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vijesh Rana]]

message: Hi, could you mind giving me the article content from LR Apps so I can write it out in a text editor so it doesn't get deleted while im writing it, thank you.
CompanyDude (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  LR Apps 

message: A: In 2012.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q: When was an article about a painting that sold for almost a third of a billion dollars in early 2015 nominated for speedy deletion? 

message: Add parent category :Category:Wikipedia deletion.
103.6.156.167 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This category is categorized in :Category:Speedy deletion, which in turn is categorized in :Category:Wikipedia deletion. Categories follow a "tree" structure on Wikipedia so this isn't necessary. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 13:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2015 

message: A bot request for automating the tagging on G8 CSD's is currently open at: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Josvebot_12#Determining_automated_G8_tagging_strategy.  Please comment on that request if you are interested. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 15:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automating G8 tagging 

message: Currently we have both :Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories as well as :Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion.  the db-c1 template adds pages to the latter, although the former claims it is supposed to add them to that category.  Currently the first category is linked from the main CSD page which shows there is no backlog, when in reality there is because pages are going into the other category.  I'm not sure which we would rather use, but having both is confusing especially as they both claim the db-c1 template adds pages to them. VegaDark (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty categories 

message: It has been suggested that a bot be used for the deletion of monthly maintenance categories when they get emptied, in order to save the time of G6 taggers and deleting admins. Participate in the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bot_to_delete_emptied_monthly_maintenance_categories]). 103.6.159.67 (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot to delete emptied monthly maintenance categories 

message: The article linked below is such an obvious candidate for deletion. I'm unsure how to navigate the deletion process. --Lasalleexplorer (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I add or suggest a candidate for deletion?  

message: Has anyone else also noticed a large number shown under G6, but almost nothing in the actual category itself? I've noticed it for many days now, and finally decided to clear my cache. It's still there, and still there through other browsers. Rehman 09:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghosts in G6 

message: Pls check.
I guess this is a speedy deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Kaiser
Dcddiegxo1e3d (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pls check 

message: Candidate for speedy deletion: Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury
G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose 103.233.122.80 (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Wikipedia:CAT:CSD and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#Wikipedia:CAT:CSD until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:CAT:CSD" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: My CSD listing tool is back from the dead; now at . --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD tool 

message: Just wanted to say that I apologize for the amount of pages I nominated for CSD. I condensed all of my artist userboxes into one formatted page to clean up and organize my userspace. The old files as such need to be deleted, and I wish I had just started with the master page based on some examples I found in the extensive galleries. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience, and thank you for your time. TNstingray (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD pages from my userspace