Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2010

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Dferg in topic Images
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Deleted

Articles

Latest comment: 14 years ago 98 comments45 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed: Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How does this page meet our inclusion policy? It serves no purpose and should be deleted in my opinion. Pmlineditor  ∞ 09:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Needless for Meta-wiki. Pages was imported in ru-wikinews.– Innv | d | s: 07:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Done--Nick1915 - all you want 11:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sr.wikinews Главна страна, Sr.wikinews Администратори, Sr.wikinews Ознаке чланака, Sr.wikinews Слање вести, Sr.wikinews Акдредитација извештача

Needless for Meta-wiki. Page was imported in sr-wikinews. – Innv | d | s: 07:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Done--Nick1915 - all you want 11:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Needless for Meta-wiki. This pages was imported in bs-wikinews. – Innv | d | s: 10:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

All done -Barras talk 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.

Needless page on Meta, transferred on It-Wikinews. – Innv | d | s: 11:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • This page does not seem to fit in with Meta. It is educational based and it could fit in at Wikiversity. If this page is to be kept as some kind of Meta guide, it would need some work to adjust it accordingly (right now, it seems to be missing quite a bit of the "Meta" aspects). No other pages link to it that would demonstrate its importance as a facet of Meta as a guide. Ottava Rima 18:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Deleted. —Innv {ru-ws} 03:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
So, redirect Awards to Trophy shelf, maybe add a disambiguation hatnote to that page, then add Category:Awards to the pages listed currently? It seems like a small category, three items, but there's really no guidelines on meta for such a thing that I'm aware of. Sukida 18:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
There aren't many pages on meta that I could find that would really count as "awards", so I doubt a category would even be useful at the moment. Ottava Rima 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
As another note, some people might prefer the name "Awards" over "Trophy shelf", or some may not think either are appropriate. I don't really know, to be honest. Ottava Rima 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted If anyone wants Trophy shelf to be moved to Awards or create a category, it is okay. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I am nominating this page because it should belong on Wikipedia or, at least, not on meta. It seems to have nothing to do with Meta and is an old conversation that seems to have no place here. Ottava Rima 18:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
There are a lot of pages like this which fall under the "historic" inclusion guidelines. I've noted that Meta seems to attract bits of wiki-flotsam which previously existed on other sites or was created here due to Meta's ... ah, ambiguous content guidelines over the years. Sukida 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe this piece of flotsam can be pushed back onto Wikipedia's shore. :) Ottava Rima 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted If anyone wants this for Wikipedia, they can mail me/leave me a message in my talk page. Note that there is no reason to undelete it since transwiki is disallowed in EnWikipedia. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Deleted, per no objections. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The page is antiquated, never really used, and could find a home somewhere else if it ever came up. It only had one real contributor with a tiny contribution. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This page should be deleted because it is a clear example of ill faith self-promotion of the person who presently doesn't have relevant media coverage and who wants to get it by using Wikimedia. There are many ways how Sanger could react, including saying so here before sending letter to FBI. Other reasons for removal of this page are: --Millosh 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. This is Wikimedia Foundation matter, not community matter. If Larry Sanger sent it to FBI, FBI -- not he -- should contact WMF. --Millosh 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. None of the Commons images are against US law. commons:Category:Pedophilia is about public domain works with artistic value, while the number of commons:Category:Lolicon images clearly shows that its purpose is educational. --Millosh 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. It is obvious that purpose of putting that message here is because of project obstruction and getting media coverage. (BTW, I read about this at Slashdot before I saw it here.) --Millosh 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

While I am not saying that we shouldn't talk about this matter and make whichever conclusion, I don't think that we should waste our time based on someone's fiction and wish to get some media coverage. --Millosh 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Was nominated as "speedy" delete by Millosh 16:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) with the comment "Obstructing project and self-promotion of irrelevant person." I've converted this to RFD, I don't see any grounds for speedy deletion. Surely one of the founders of Wikipedia is not "irrelevant" to the project, but in any case, other than banned individuals, anyone can start a discussion like this, and to the best of my knowledge Mr. Sanger has never been banned from this site.
Comment: Mr Sanger should be promptly blocked until the resolution of this WP:THREAT. WikiScrubber 22:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I disagree with Mr. Sanger, but I'm not a lawyer. - Jmabel 17:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
(Moved from the bottom of the page.) --Millosh 18:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

He can be banned because of obstructing project, as it is his clear intention. If it is not the case, there were a number of actions which he could do. --Millosh 18:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

About his relevancy: He is not relevant anymore and his way to become relevant again is wrong. --Millosh 18:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - This is clearly out of scope. If anything, it belongs on Commons. Meta is not a hosting site of duplication of legal threats. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This page was copied out of Standards for image use on Commons and other projects by Larry Sanger. It was originally at User talk:Jan-Bart. I suggest it be moved to the talk page of the former, or the latter. What does Jan-Bart think? Essentially I believe this material should be retained on meta, even though I would have preferred that Larry had not put it here, but it should be on a talk page. Now it is on meta, that is part of the story. Also let us please not up the drama by talk of banning Larry. It is not helpful. --Bduke 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This does sort of look like a little publicity stunt to try and get Citizendium some more traffic. Deserves ED coverage but not WM. Ty 04:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
One might indeed easily think that. But having just read Larry Sanger's follow-up reply, my view is that he is in fact sincere. -- Seth Finkelstein 05:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sincerity doesn't matter in this case, the letter only incriminates him more in his fundamental misunderstanding of what the WM project is. Flat out requesting censorship of our categories itself only further damages his standing here User:Moriarty 6:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Wrong project, the accusation is about Commons and not Meta. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Besides legal threats, there was an ad hominem attack on Erik Moeller, which I missed while reading first time; which changes things a lot (I would delete it immediately if I realized that ad hominem attack existed). --Millosh 04:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, by legal threats, you mean the part where Larry Sanger was subjected to bluster about libel and defamation, right? (somehow, I don't think that's what you meant :-(). Anyway, I sympathize with you regarding discomfort vis-a-vis the paragraph about Erik Moeller, and that affects my view of the letter overall. Nonetheless, it's possible you've made the situation worse (as prominent links are now broken). At least, that's what people are often told when they're aggrieved, often to smug rants about STREISAND EFFECT!!!. I guess we'll see, as a case study. -- Seth Finkelstein 05:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Sanger can put his letter to FBI wherever he wants. This is not an attempt to censor anything, but removal of content from one Wikimedia project based on widely accepted customs at Wikimedia projects. Before I realized that ad hominem attack existed, I was thinking that the best idea is to keep the page, at last. However, besides need for link coherency (yes, I know that and I don't like when I see something like that), keeping ad hominem attack of that scale here is just too much. --Millosh 06:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added link to the original email. --Millosh 12:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that's optimum. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Per author request and consensus. —Innv {ru-ws} 03:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

An essay created to praise the ru-wp user George Shuklin. Must be renamed at least, but really it seems as an inappropriate one for meta.--217.118.78.124 11:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I've added a note on Meta:Babel. Seems that this got ignored. --Dferg 15:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem appropriate. I thought about moving it to the user namespace, but I'm not convinced it's something the user would want there. Angela 06:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriate content. Or it's time to write "serebrism"? Nonsense. Serebr 12:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriate article for meta-wiki. --Laargo 13:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Laargo. --Bermanya 20:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As an original author of this essay, I would ask for speedy deletion instead. Many water has gone, many time. Now the essay that was actual several years ago looks like nonsense. Most of the Russian Wikipedia Community are now sharing the view which was presented in the essay. And many, many users, which were considered trolls and which behaved and viewed Wikipedia in opposite way to what was considered "shuklinist" way, are now in an indefinite block. Thus, there's no sense in keeping the essay. Роман Беккер 22:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.

Empty translation of an essay, copied from the English page 31⁄2 years ago but never translated. The existing content would be trivial to copy from Don't vote on everything if someone does proceed to make a Russian translation in the future. Jafeluv 15:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted — Dferg ☎ 12:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result: Seeing as author of these pages has a history of such disruptive article creation on a number of projects, and there is clear support for deletion I see no reason for this to sit open and waste everyone's time. As such, I have deleted all the pages with the exception of 삭제주의. Tiptoety talk 01:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

List of various pages /ko

Hi all. Following list of pages are now marked for quick deletion for almost one month with the reason "wrong and meaningless article from machine translation. see also Requests_for_comment/Ban_User:PauloHelene_globally" by Klutzy. I opened a thread here, but the input is rare, so I put them all up to normal deletion.

Hopefully it gets some input here and we get a result. -Barras talk 07:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I just replaced the csd template with the rfd template. Not all pages seems to be directly affected, some are because of transclusion. -Barras talk 07:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Pages made by PauloHelene

Hello, I request the articles made by PauloHelene and his various IPs, since the pages are made using machine translator and totally meaningless. Previous request is Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2010#List of various pages /ko. Here's the list:

I don't know yet whether the list is complete or not. ;) I tried to add problematic articles only, but other users' review will be also helpful. Thanks! --Klutzy 09:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 On hold Can we have please other people from kowiki to confirm this request ? Mardetanha talk 09:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed all of these. All of them except Bot/ko are nonsense or machine translation. - Chugun (Talk) 09:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed Bot/ko from the list. Sorry for the confusion. --Klutzy 09:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. --dferg ☎ talk 10:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't make much heads or tails out of this. The first impression I received was that it was spam for "Vmware Workstation 5.5.1 build-19175 on SLED (32 or 64 bits)" or other software; the second was as an instruction manual for mediawiki (which should be moved to www.mediawiki.org if it is). I cannot find much useful content here or in the original user's contributions either. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 12:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Tiptoety talk 19:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This boilerplate template is copied (without attribution) from the Texas Instruments Embedded Processors Wiki here. Although it may seem to satisfy the Inclusion policy for "Documentation intended to help users contribute and collaborate in other wiki projects," the content and title relate to a specific context that is not really relevant for Meta. ~ Ningauble 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as off-topic.
The following discussion is closed: Deleted.

Appears to be out of our scope, as it mentions google. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My initial thoughts were that the page was going to end up involving Wikimedia somehow and be a project proposal. From its current state, I think the author is confused and thinks that Meta is a "Wikipedia for projects using wiki software" perhaps. To the extent that we cover WMF-run projects, project proposals, and some close tangent projects that the WMF doesn't run (Betawiki for instance), this is true, but I see no WMF involvement mentioned in the page, nor has the author as of yet suggested it. Further, the author is adding material copyrighted (and not specifically released or explicitly licensed) to Meta.
Lastly, if TeleComNasSprVen would please leave Gordon a note regarding this discussion, maybe the user in question could help clarify his intentions regarding the page? :) Kylu 21:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Latest comment: 14 years ago 48 comments17 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed: delted; not useful, not really used, thus no reason to keep. --Barras talk 11:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(meaning: pre expand include size limit) was transcluded in Help:Section back in 2007, but is now only transcluded in a couple of user test pages from 2007. - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • This was copied from Commons, where it's a very useful template, but unfortunately it doesn't work here. It took me a while to figure out how it should be used, only to realize that {{int:lang}}, which the template uses, doesn't work on Meta like it does on Commons. Anyway, if I understand correctly, texts in different languages are supposed to be put on separate subpages instead of using a switch clause like this. Jafeluv 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Redundant to {{Sisterprojects}}, unused. --The Evil IP address 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Innv {ru-ws} 11:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Unused, transferred in fa-wikinews. – Innv | d | s: 05:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

deleted as per the comments above. -Barras talk 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

template:Ca font is a Catalan language template not used, not usable, obsolete, not well enough done, perhaps a test? E.g.:
Template:Ca font
-Aleator (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done--Nick1915 - all you want 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Some templates

Unused old templates, delete:

– Innv | d | s: 02:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not deleted: There is no consensus for either delete or keep this templates. -Barras talk 08:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

pp templates

Unnecessary copies of enwiki templates. Jafeluv 06:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. --Nemo 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Jafeluv 10:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not used anywhere as far as I can tell, and can only be applied to Wikipedias and not other projects such as Wiktionary; it is useless when an entire request could be written out instead of the template. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 09:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.

Looks useless. Template is not linked anywhere. --dferg ☎ talk 23:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In other language. Looks useless. Redirect to {{delete}} or... delete it. --dferg ☎ talk 23:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Latest comment: 14 years ago 11 comments6 people in discussion

Needless category on Meta. – Innv | d | s: 03:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Cat was empty. -Barras talk 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that this category is no longer necessary because of Special:UncategorizedPages. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted per previous RfD (it's been recreated with a vandalic edit), although I think that such a category would be useful because hundreds of pages listed on Special:UncategorizedPages are not to be categorized, and lots of pages with hidden or transcluded categories should be effectively categorized (see also Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta#Categories). --Nemo 08:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There's little to no useful history associated with this page; it's only contributor was a vandal, the only page that it contains is a subpage of an unrelated page. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Jafeluv 14:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Moved to Category:Brazil Catalyst Project and speedy deleted. "Global" is misleading, we don't have country-based categories and all pages are about the same project; the pages should be moved to a more comprehensible name. --Nemo 09:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Redundant to Category:Brazil. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep Keep Don't have valid reasons to delete. Metal BRasil @ # 06:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Brazil does not have its own language, so these pages should be moved to Category:PT instead (since that is the official language of Brazil. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep Keep Don't have valid reasons to delete. It's a very usage category. Metal BRasil @ # 06:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 14 years ago 19 comments8 people in discussion

The uploader blanked the images not linked from any pages. I wonder how relevant they are as I cannot read German.--Jusjih 03:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I speak German, however I don't see any connection to Meta at all, and I seriously doubt that they are useful for any Wikimedia project. Seems like this user used Meta as a image hosting provider. Delete. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 11:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Pmlineditor ∞ 10:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.

No licence specified. --Revolus Echo der Stille 08:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Comment Perhaps first ask the autor to add them? Those images are used on some other pages (the first in 7 and second in one). --WizardOfOz talk 15:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Uploader notified. Jafeluv 22:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete No response from the uploader after a week. It can be undeleted if the licensing issue is resolved later. Jafeluv 10:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. --dferg ☎ talk 10:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed.

No licence specified. --Revolus Echo der Stille 08:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Comment See above. --WizardOfOz talk 15:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Comment There are almost 200 untagged images on this project. I mention this just to draw attention that these two files are not an isolated case. micki t 10:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This is why we have {{no license}}. Jafeluv 09:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but we should use it and delete images without licence after a certain time. micki t 12:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I will tag them tonight. --WizardOfOz talk 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll help you :) micki t 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I ́ve started, but also stoped this tagging. There are much images used for chapters, such as corespodence of support. Should we tagg them all without informing the author? --WizardOfOz talk 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
We gonna make it tomorrow. First creating templates and than tagging. --WizardOfOz talk 22:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete No response from the uploader after a week. It can be undeleted if the licensing issue is resolved later. Jafeluv 10:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. --dferg ☎ talk 14:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Kept

Articles

Latest comment: 14 years ago 46 comments23 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed.

Result: No consensus, default to keep. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any purpose for having such a page. List of missing people can normally be found on at least the bigger wikis. This is seems like a not useful proposal for a new project. -Barras talk 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. – Innv | d | s: 04:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As it says, having one under the wiki unbrella means that it will be seen my more people and allows news to be added to wikinews, pictures added to wikicommons and information from wikipedia.
    And also, I do not think it is fair to make a judgement on behalf of the wiki community when the community has not had a chance to even discuss the matter, as it has not even appeared on [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.61.111.53 (talk • contribs) .
  • Question - this looks to be a proposal for a new wikispace created 22 January 2010. What are the normal lengths of time to allow a proposal to run and what about possible malforming of such proposals? I find it a little odd to have a new proposal put up for deletion almost immediately and I would like some elaboration on standards to decide on if this should be kept or not for now. Ottava Rima 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • We don't usually delete such proposals based on whether or not a few editors think they are useful. If it gets no support it could later be merged into a larger list of proposals, but meta is not paper. Sj + help translate 13:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.

Result: Consensus to mark as historical, Tiptoety talk 01:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose this page be deleted; its content is at least two years' old, and many of the links from that page are dead links. As a new user, I was trying to find information about this program, but it appears orphaned. OnePt618 06:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete here, maybe the historical banner would be good. -Barras talk 11:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Consensus to keep. -Barras talk 09:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who find this page pointless? --Popol0707 11:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I do think the page is pointless, but it's also harmless fun. Personally, I think this could better be managed as a toolserver tool (probably one that emulates bash.org). Any takers? Oh fine, I'll do it... ;) X! 14:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I vote keep, because it amuses me. Yes, that is my rationale.IShadowed 20:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Kept and redirected. --Nemo 07:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from an inactive project that is no longer necessary; the target to which it points to does not appear to have any correlation with the project itself, that is, the Proposals for new projects page is not supportive of this project over any others on the same page. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Kept. Jafeluv 07:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This draft was created in 2008 and has since been abandoned. Useless, and not consensual, as no one supports this draft at all. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn.

Just plain not funny. It's not especially offensive or anything, it's just a very poor attempt at humor at about the middle-school level, and below the threshold of quality for a WikiMedia page. It's not even clear who the authors are making fun of or what their point is, and anyone (like me) who somehow ends up here has just had their time wasted. Herostratus 04:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep per previous RfD and as historical page part of the perennial discussions about disclaimers. --Nemo 06:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, OK. I didn't know there had been a previous RfD. Tell you what. Keep the article, delete or close this RfD (I don't want to do it myself because I don't know Meta procedures), and I'll rewrite the page. It still won't be funny, but at least it will be an actual parody. Herostratus 01:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: while moved

I can find no useful history to be found in this page; the purpose that it is supposed to serve seems to have failed. Both of the categories (Category:Redirect demo, Category:Redirect demo 1) are self-redirecting redundant categories, and the demonstration that it purports to have put Category redirect demo page into both categories at once no longer works. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated it and moved it to Category redirect. This is one of the most voted feature requests, maybe it can be kept. --Nemo 09:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed while moved. --WizardOfOz talk 20:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not a meta page.

Sorry, but the project already exists Tatar Wikibooks Ильнар Шайдуллов 12:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This can ́t be deleted by an meta admin. Please request a deletion on incubator. --WizardOfOz talk 12:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Latest comment: 14 years ago 22 comments13 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed: Consensus to keep. –Juliancolton  | Talk 14:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No longer needed for tracking purposes, this is now automatically done by the MediaWiki software when a page contains the magic word NOINDEX (see Category:Noindexed pages). Can easily be replaced in the templates and the rest should be an easy thing for a bot run (just replacing {{NOINDEX}} with __NOINDEX__). Note Note: couldn't add {{rfd}} tag because the template is protected. --The Evil IP address 15:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that it's used in well over 5,000 pages. –Juliancolton  | Talk 15:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
And most of them are by User:COIBot in its subpages. This would be trivial for Beestra to fix/add to his bot. X! 14:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The current template appears to be deprecated. Even {{permprot}} is more used than this. It is general knowledge which templates are protected and which ones are not, by attempting to click the edit button, etc. If this template is deleted, I would like to request deletion of the category Protected temporarily which it is associated with. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Note also: A template {{Protected template}} appears to have superseded this one. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Closed as suggested by Dferg. --Nemo 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

An in-between template that is rarely used or transcluded; pages usually end up in the speedy deletion category or wind up here instead. Basically, {{Looks useless}} pretty much looks useless. The category Looks useless associated with it suffers from the same. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is because it works. If you search the deletion log, you'll find dozens of pages deleted after being put in this category. And there are some pages which were improved and hence removed from the category. --Nemo 08:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kept. --Nemo 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Kept. James F. (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Redundant version of Fundraising 2010/Tab. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 09:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Images

Miscellaneous

Undeleted

Articles

Latest comment: 14 years ago 11 comments5 people in discussion

Hello, I request for undeletion of the page Sei kein Idiot. It's a translation of Don't be a dick into German and has been deleted per speedy deletion in under half a day of creation for being "off-topic". When 'Don't be a dick' is within meta's scope, so is the deleted page. Said page is still unformatted and not linked in the original article, but I'll finish it as soon as possible, after undeletion. (Saldek) 217.235.234.43 10:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad, apparently, it hasn't been a speedy deletion but a regular deletion request. (Saldek) 217.235.234.43 10:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It will be nice if you log in so we have easier way to contact you. After that, we can undelete it. THX --WizardOfOz talk 10:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I can understand, why you ask me to log in, but I'd prefer not to create yet another account on another page. Is this place insufficient for discussion? I could also take a less bureaucratic approach and finish the translation and formatting and repost it then. Would this be feasible?
(I added my regular pseudonym to each of my messages, in case my IP changes; purely for identification purposes) (Saldek) 217.235.234.43 10:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
So it ́s easier to know who is behind the IP (just to be sure that is not an spammer) :). Also it is better not to show own IP if not needed IMO. You can also use m:SUL for crosswiki work. If you want, I can undelete it for you, or you can format it and add it. Don ́t forget to add de translation to the {{Template:Don't be a dick/lang}}. THX --WizardOfOz talk 10:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll finish and repost it then. Thanks for your time and for telling me about the unified login (Saldek) 217.235.234.43 11:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a free lunch. This page and its discussion were kindly deleted, while I was patiently waiting for some attention to my requests here, here, and here. Ironically the deletion occurred to have a section resolved just above the one dealing with my request, mentioned before.

Unfortunately, my posting, just below the nomination for speedy deletion, seems to have been ignored. It stated: I regret to have to report that I have been prevented, according to the above instructions, to "remove the template and discuss on the talk page" as posted on two separate locations: [3] and, perhaps more appropriately, [4].

Although no message or notification was made on my user page, the deletion kindly included a message in the summary, certainly the most visible, noticeable and appropriate place for that kind of one way dialog, stating that the page was Off-topic: please read Meta's inclusion policy .

First let's recall that the subject of the page IS about the concept of free encyclopedia being best stated as an encyclopedia livre or gratis, a matter that concerns all the Romance languages Wikipedias and then some.

Therefore, according to Meta's inclusion policy, that page is appropriate on Meta, because it contains:

  • Documentation and discussion concerning Wikimedia Foundation projects (Wikipedias, for starters).
  • Documentation intended to help users contribute and collaborate in other wiki projects (talk page already provided some examples of the confusion livre has been generating).
  • Multilingual cooperation of Wikimedia projects (all the Romance languages Wikipedias and then some).
  • Primary research regarding the development of wiki projects (concerning a project currently on Incubator which one needs to know if it's livre or gratis).

It is conceded that the page contained no "relevant essays or advocacy", but four out of five isn't that bad, is it?

On the other hand, the page contained absolutely no material not appropriate on Meta:

Thank you so much for undeleting the page at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Declined, it isn't even an essay from my view - just a personal note, quite confusing. I don't support us to keep it in main namespace. --Aphaia 22:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


Any objection in having the same page in user space? Considering that was the decision of some other administrators concerning some pages that I started, undeleting the page could be a first step before moving it to user space. All this was referred to in the links of the first paragraph of my request. I could post the content to new subpage of my user space, but have chosen not to do it, to prevent that from being perceived as an act of disrespect or an attempt to circumvent an administrator's decision. If you feel comfortable with that, could you please carry the two steps consecutively? First, undeleting that page and next moving it into a new subpage of my user space. I hope I have been clear in my request and used the appropriate terminology, if not, please excuse my unfamiliarity and inexperience in dealing with these matters in English.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 00:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Done by Pathos several days ago. --Nemo 06:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Categories

Images

Latest comment: 14 years ago 6 comments5 people in discussion

File:Paullusmagnus-logo (back of sphere).png

The following discussion is closed.
11:47, 12 December 2006 [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User Talk:Yann|talk]] | contribs) deleted "[[:File:Paullusmagnus-logo (back of sphere).png]]" ‎ (not used, no source, no licence)

All three reasons are false, this should be placed on the page when undeleted:

{{Information|Description=An image needed for rendering [[:File:Paullusmagnus-logo (POV-Ray scene).pov]] into [[:File:Paullusmagnus-logo (just sphere).png]], an old version of the Wikipedia logo.|Source=Own work |Author=[[w:User:Paullusmagnus|Paul Stansifer]]|Date=|Permission={{CopyrightByWikimedia}}|other_versions=}} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 10nitro (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

Undeleted — Dferg (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. resolved

This is the original unscaled version of File:Bookshelf-40x201_6.png, used on the www.wikipedia.org portal. It was apparently deleted in 2007 as an "unused logo". Having it available would be useful both for verifying the attribution and licensing history of the derivative(s) as well as for creating new versions. —Ilmari Karonen 17:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Support Perhaps to undelete and transfer it to commons? Here linked as a source. --WizardOfOz talk 18:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Support Please restore. I am looking for this file so I can create an SVG version of File:Bookshelf-40x20.png. --Svgalbertian 15:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Restored. Please upload it to commons. --WizardOfOz talk 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Latest comment: 14 years ago 9 comments7 people in discussion

Undeletion request

Good afternoon. Please kindly undelete the following pages of my userspace:

I think I might use them again. Thank you & sorry for the bunch of pages. — Dferg ☎ 23:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Glad to see you around again --Mardetanha talk 23:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
That was fast! - thank you. — Dferg ☎ 23:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.

5 images

Reason: Non-free software screenshot. (+ No source) I don't know the policy in meta-wiki but I think meta-wiki doesn't accept fair-use image. Thanks. Kenrick95 13:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as copy vio and per consensus here. -Barras 13:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /