User talk:Ceyockey/OtherDiscussions

Belated agreement
re: Your ole post in Template_talk:R_to_section

''My gut feeling is that there is little substantive difference between Template:R from subtopic and Template:R to section. What is unfortunate is the merger of concepts underlying Template:R from subtopic and Template:R with possibilities as it is a truism that almost all tolerated titles and named concepts have the possibility of becoming an article though there might be a very small probability of this taking place. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me'' ) 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd never heard of R from subtopic before this, but I agree. There's maybe a gnats eyelash of difference between the two. In general, I've been tagging the section linked to with Redirectstohere as well, so there's an back notation (no link) suggesting changing the title is a bad idea! You might think about working the aliased name into the redirects documentation page. Cheers! // Fra nkB 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bele Chere
Fine, that's fair, I restored it for you. I still think it's blatant advertising (CSD G11) though, so I'll speedy it if you don't improve it within a reasonable amount of time. Sound reasonable? Nihiltres ( t .l ) 16:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted)


 * Thank you for restoring the article. This (permalink) is the version after my revisions. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By way of explanation - I realize that the typical path for stalling a PROD is to remove the PROD template and the typical path for a speedy delete is a holdon-template. I added a holdon to the PROD, and should have explained this, because I felt there was the possibility that the article could be preserved in some fashion, but I did not know at that time what form the final product after some minor work would be.  If I had not found sufficient material to support retention in some form, I would have deleted the thing myself thereafter.  I am a bit surprised at the form it is in now, half of it devoted to the impact of the festival on business in Asheville and the why behind the impact. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good now, nice cleanup job. Sorry for being a pain earlier, my misunderstanding must have been dreadful for you. Nihiltres ( t .l ) 22:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted)


 * Dreadful? No, not nearly so. Don't hesitate to delete when you encounter something you think should be - or to contest deletion if the tables are reversed.  This was a simple case where my coming very late the article and not providing ample explanation combined with your looking one way and not both when crossing the street ... which everyone does a lot of the time.  No problems - I'm just glad that my gut feeling was right in the end.  There'd be plenty of egg on my face if it turned out I couldn't find anything out there to build the article on.  Regards, --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted)

automated delsorting
Hi, in regards to this, do you plan to write the bot to do this? If not, I'll put together a proof of concept that we can run on a few topical areas. John Vandenberg 16:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

GCAT/River Sharks
The team is primarily a high school team, although there is training for lower levels/ages as well... the youngest on the team are only six or seven, and the amount of swimmers increases proportionately to age. Though, I must say, you're right... the website is not at all descriptive... and I don't know whether you can IAR and say that it is a high school swim team without a verified 'source' =( And yes, if it isn't clear, I'm on the swim team.  =)  Go GCAT. The Black Ash Lad 13:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually... it is a privately owned swim team. It has no affiliation (as far as I know) with the GCISD school district. So it isn't technically a 'high school' swim team either, then... The Black Ash Lad 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

R from surname
Your work on the template is probably correct, but it really messed me up. I was doing a lot of work subcategorizing Category:Surnames, trying to empty the cat, and this really pushed me back. What can be done? Is it possible to edit the template that allows it to be subcategorized? All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you didn't understand what I was saying it is probably my bad, I don't explain myself well. If you look at Category:Surnames you will see the "cattrim" template requesting that the "This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large..." Well I was doing just that: depopulating the category by trying to subcategorize the surnames that were included in Category:Surnames. For example, if McQueen was categorized as Category:Surnames, I changed the cat to Category:Irish surnames. The new template doesn't give me a way to go into the template and subcategorize the surname.


 * I noticed that you started a discission on the talk page of the template, but in all honesty I had a hard time understanding what you were saying. Template programming is not, at the least, my expertise. All the best,  --Brewcrewer (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that you reverted your edit. But shouldn't that mean that the Category:Surnames should revert back to its original form? --Brewcrewer (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What's an "edit cycle" ?--Brewcrewer (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Also, I was kind if hoping that you would leave the redirects in Category:Surnames but have the template allow me to subcategorize. If that can't be done, I don't think that you should revert your edit. It is probably more important that the redirects have some sort of surname cat on them then for the Category:Surnames to be emptier. I am sorry if I am driving you crazy with this issue. This is unfamiliar territory for me. --Brewcrewer (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Woo Hoo! I tried one and it worked. Great job! --Brewcrewer (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Verisart
Hi @Ceyockey! This is regarding the Verisart that's marked for deletion. Do you think this page has a chance to stay? There are already two editors who voted for the page to be deleted. Please advise. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * At the moment there are only two firmly reliable sources, the one from TechCrunch from 2019 and the one from Bloomberg Pursuits from 2018. The Artsy source from 2022 is borderline.  Looking at the article with ONLY those three sources, the piece might be able to squeak by, but really need to find a couple more of the same caliber.  The deletion request has only been in play for two days.  There's still time. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)