Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2010

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Simple page

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

  • Support Support. I think this page meets the criterion "General - 1. No meaningful content or history" of speedy deletion. Q/0/k 10:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment However, it demonstrated the fact that it succeeded in being present in Wikimedia for almost three years, as it is stated: "a very simple page to demonstrate inclusion". Very funny. Q/0/k 10:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have served an historical reference purpose. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete a test page... Majorly talk 16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - No real meaningful content or history. Tiptoety talk 03:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ru.wikinews Мандаты, Ru.wikinews С нейтральной точки зрения

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

Yes check.svg Done--Nick1915 - all you want 11:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sr.wikinews Главна страна, Sr.wikinews Администратори, etc.

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)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done--Nick1915 - all you want 11:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bs.wikinews Početna strana, Bs.wikinews Uvod, Bs.wikinews Administratori

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

All done -Barras talk 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed.
  • Result: Closed; no objections after one week and several precedents of such pages being deleted. Pmlineditor  08:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It.wikinews Wikinotizie:Contrassegni degli articoli

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

Quest for gender-neutral pronouns

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    Deleted. —Innv {ru-ws} 03:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


  • I am nominating this page because it seems to be better suited to being a category if it should exist at all. The page as it stands now is redundant as long as Trophy shelf exists. Ottava Rima 18:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg 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)Reply[reply]

William Shakespeare/How to upload Shakespeare to Wikipedia--a good cause

  • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Well, maybe this piece of flotsam can be pushed back onto Wikipedia's shore. :) Ottava Rima 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg 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)Reply[reply]

Young Jacobins

  • I am nominating this page because it should belong on Wikipedia or, at least, not on Meta. It seems to be something that was derived from a Wikipedia group that normally has a page in the Wikipedia namespace. It serves no purpose on Meta. Ottava Rima 18:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes check.svg Deleted since no one objected. Pmlineditor  10:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of potential business sponsors

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, per no objections. Pmlineditor  08:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Sanger's Message to the FBI

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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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.Reply[reply]
Comment: Mr Sanger should be promptly blocked until the resolution of this WP:THREAT. WikiScrubber 22:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, I disagree with Mr. Sanger, but I'm not a lawyer. - Jmabel 17:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Moved from the bottom of the page.) --Millosh 18:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)
  • Remove as out of scope. It's kind of funny, but not worth being kept. --თოგო (D) 10:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, it's part of the history of the project and will be useful to cite if someone else makes similar accusations. Tisane 01:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong project, the accusation is about Commons and not Meta. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete to use a phrase which hasn't been seen on Wikipedia in many years, we need to de-larrify this. -Nard the Bard 03:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete this obviously frivolous complaint (neither Category:Lolicon nor Category:Pedophilia appear to be in any way problematic and certainly have some educational/historical value), except perhaps to keep it around per WP:LUC. WikiScrubber 22:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I've added link to the original email. --Millosh 12:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose that's optimum. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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.-- 11:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - I've added a note on Meta:Babel. Seems that this got ignored. --Dferg 15:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Inappropriate content. Or it's time to write "serebrism"? Nonsense. Serebr 12:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Inappropriate article for meta-wiki. --Laargo 13:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Laargo. --Bermanya 20:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]

Meta:Не устраивайте голосований обо всём подряд

The following discussion is closed.

Empty translation of an essay, copied from the English page 3½ 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)Reply[reply]

Deleted — Dferg 12:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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.

Anti-wiki/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Advertising proposal/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Conflict-driven view of wiki/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Darwikinism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Delusionism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Dispute resolution/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Edit wars/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Essentialism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Events kit/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Events/FAQ/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Exopedianism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Factionalism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

IPA/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Incrementalism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Mediation/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Meta:Index/Information and statistics/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Metapedianism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

OTRS/introduction/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

OTRS/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

OTRS/personnel/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

OTRS/review/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

OTRS/volunteering/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

OTRS/소개 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ombudsman commission/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Planet Wikimedia/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Planet Wikimedia/ko/Scope (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Post-Deletionism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Precisionism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Press kit/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Source of conflict/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:Conflict/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:OTRS/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:Outreach/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:PD notice/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:Philosophy/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Timelines/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Vision/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

What Mediation is not/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

WikiCityGuides/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Wikianarchism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Wikicollectivism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Wikiculture/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Wikidemocratism/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Wikifaith/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Wikimedia Commons/ko (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

과장광고 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

다국어주의 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

배쇄주의 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

삭제주의 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

실존주의 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

위키대학 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

위키백과 갈등 철학 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

즉결주의 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

포섭주의 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Hopefully it gets some input here and we get a result. -Barras talk 07:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete All of these pages(except 삭제주의, rewritten by User:ChongDae) are written in broken Korean, and some pages are not even translated completely. These pages can be misunderstood, so I think these pages should be deleted and rewritten in proper Korean. - IRTC1015 (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete --dferg ☎ talk 10:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per IRTC1015. –BruTe talk 12:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete not Korean, only meaningless Korean. --Kys951 16:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete OMG. I can't understand some of these articles even though I'm Korean. It's not Korean article, just 'Translatorean' article. - Chugun (Talk) 16:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    P.S. Delete all except 삭제주의 because it was reviewed at least a time by other user. - Chugun (Talk) 07:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete except 삭제주의. I reviewed all the others only to find that they are a set of nonsense translations. --Puzzlet Chung 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Except 삭제주의. I don't like machine translation.(I think this is machine translation.) --Idh0854 12:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete all. They need to be properly translated by a human. Machine can do so much, and can even increase the work of translating, ironically; as the user has to go through the entire article and correct and proofread it. AGiorgio08 16:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Except 삭제주의. this article(삭제주의)is only one of not machine translation. machine translation don't hav copyright, but this is nonsense.--Betalph 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As the requester, sorry for disruption if there are more appropriate way to request deletion. I also want to notice that the list is not complete. (I gave up at the time :) These articles are made by User:PauloHelene, but he used many IPs e.g. Special:Contributions/ and there are quite many untagged articles yet. I think WikiCityGuides/ko shows sufficient evidence for this request. It is actually not needed to be translated, and you can see the translated article contains even Angela's comment. It seems that he has never read his contribution at all. He just runs machine translator and paste the result to this wiki. --Klutzy 07:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete and should block his IP range. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Time2wait.svg On hold Can we have please other people from kowiki to confirm this request ? Mardetanha talk 09:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reviewed all of these. All of them except Bot/ko are nonsense or machine translation. - Chugun (Talk) 09:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed Bot/ko from the list. Sorry for the confusion. --Klutzy 09:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. --dferg ☎ talk 10:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to install and configure Vmware Workstation 5.5.1 build-19175 on SLED (32 or 64 bits)

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 if it is). I cannot find much useful content here or in the original user's contributions either. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with Wikimedia or MediaWiki to me. Jafeluv 13:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: we have lots of technical pages on different topics and some are very strange; that's why Meta is beautiful. I don't understand this page, but I supposed that it was meant to explain how to prepaare a virtual machine to install MediaWiki or something similar (hence the categorization). --Nemo 20:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per Jafeluv. --dferg ☎ talk 22:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Deleted. Tiptoety talk 19:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

Speedy deleted as off-topic.


The following discussion is closed: Deleted.

Appears to be out of our scope, as it mentions google. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
  • Delete --dferg ☎ talk 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: This certainly looks out of scope to me – it seems to be a start or fork of a Wikipedia article about the book. (Although in this case is not a wiki, I note that the second item at Meta:Inclusion policy, "Documentation intended to help users contribute and collaborate in other [non Wikimedia] wiki projects," is rather open ended. Perhaps it should be clarified somewhat.) ~ Ningauble 22:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]



The following discussion is closed: delted; not useful, not really used, thus no reason to keep. --Barras talk 11:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(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)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - I can be wrong but I'm not sure I see usefullness on that template, actually. — Dferg 12:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - it probably could be speedied, but RfD is so quiet so it is nice to have it here. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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

Template:Fa.wikinews آغازه

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

Yes check.svg deleted as per the comments above. -Barras talk 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Ca font

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)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done--Nick1915 - all you want 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some templates

Unused old templates, delete:

Innv | d | s: 02:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I can see potential uses for all these. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok. If you know about uses these templates, please arrange their. – Innv | d | s: 10:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per JC. Pmlineditor  16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe you can clarify where you see potential use? I can't really find something... -Barras talk 16:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At first glance, home can be used to list shortcuts and thus it is useful. About the others, I don't see any use for Fl. Pmlineditor  16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK. The one should be kept and the others? More input please! -Barras talk 09:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Evdr is a warning template. Left can align text to the left hand side. Others don't seem useful. Pmlineditor  09:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - if these are kept, it would be nice if the template pages had a help statement that shows what the templates actually do. Otherwise, other people may think the templates do not do anything. Ottava Rima 15:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not deleted: There is no consensus for either delete or keep this templates. -Barras talk 08:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pp templates

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

Deleted. --Nemo 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed: Deleted.

Template:Participantes (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Looks useless. Template is not linked anywhere. --dferg ☎ talk 23:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

  • Comment: Couldn't it be translated and taken into use? (The language is Russian, by the way.) It's often a good idea to separate clear copyvios from other deletions, and the template is used in many projects with that name. Jafeluv 23:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure I see wide use for that template. Even if we get a copyvio it can be easyly tagged with our {{delete}} template. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for commenting. --dferg ☎ talk 23:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm, agreed. It's probably not needed after all. {{Delete}} works just fine in the few copyvio cases we get here. Jafeluv 14:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete As we are not a content project, but project for documentation, I can´t see a need for this template. But if there are more votes pro, I can translate it. --WizardOfOz talk 09:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deleted. Pmlineditor  10:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Category:Russian Wikinews

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

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


I think that this category is no longer necessary because of Special:UncategorizedPages. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Category:Unstable versions

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. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Deleted Jafeluv 14:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


Redundant to Category:Brazil. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Keep Don't have valid reasons to delete. MetalBRasil @ # 06:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Reply[reply]


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. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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


File:Funktionenschema.png and File:Funktionen im Detail.png

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Deleted Pmlineditor  10:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed.


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

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)Reply[reply]
Uploader notified. Jafeluv 22:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg 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)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is closed.


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

Comment Comment See above. --WizardOfOz talk 15:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. mickit 10:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why we have {{no license}}. Jafeluv 09:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but we should use it and delete images without licence after a certain time. mickit 12:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will tag them tonight. --WizardOfOz talk 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll help you :) mickit 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
We gonna make it tomorrow. First creating templates and than tagging. --WizardOfOz talk 22:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg 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)Reply[reply]

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




The following discussion is closed.

Result: No consensus, default to keep. Pmlineditor  11:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom. – Innv | d | s: 04:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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 (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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed.

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


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)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't delete here, maybe the historical banner would be good. -Barras talk 11:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed: Consensus to keep. -Barras talk 09:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I think so, yes. Pmlineditor  11:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 Any takers? Oh fine, I'll do it... ;) X! 14:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I vote keep, because it amuses me. Yes, that is my rationale.IShadowed 20:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - It has its place in Meta scope; "pointless" is not a reason to delete it (nor, in fairness, is amusement a reason to keep it). –Juliancolton | Talk 23:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per fr:User:Popol0707, just as pointless (or possibly even more) but kept too... Yes, that was me making some kind of a POINT. Seriously, this page and its equivalent in french are useful page to get people to know each other a little better, useful too to get the community (and especially the IRC community) together on a long term. Alphos [bother me] 12:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - it gets quite a lot of activity and it combines so many different wiki related material that meta seems to be the only real home for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed: Kept and redirected. --Nemo 07:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement of Principles

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

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

  • Oppose Strong oppose: several users edited and commented this page, which is obviously in Meta's scope. We don't delete such pages. --Nemo 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Nemo. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - I think it is within our scope. --dferg ☎ talk 22:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content disclaimer parody

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)Reply[reply]

  • Keep per previous RfD and as historical page part of the perennial discussions about disclaimers. --Nemo 06:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]

Help:Category redirect

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. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
  • Weak delete because IMHO the page does not provide too many information but I agree with Nemo it is one of the most voted feature requests. --dferg ☎ talk 22:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. It's in scope (compare redirect and soft redirect) and potentially useful now that the information is up to date. Jafeluv 10:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Proposals for closing projects/Lithuanian Wikipedia and Wikibooks are corrupt

  • Delete Let's not feed the trolls. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment Perhaps just close it? --WizardOfOz talk 22:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, close and archive. That's what we do with failed closure proposals, whatever their actual merits may be. Jafeluv 01:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Jafeluv and WizardOfOz -- Quentinv57 (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Daft - not a candidate for speedy at all. Per the others. --Herby talk thyme 13:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I suggest to move the page to a better/more neutral title. This "are corrupt" isn't really the best phrase in a title. -Barras 09:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's a "list of corrupt administrators" within that page that needs to be dealt with also, barring wholesale deletion. Kylu 21:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to RFC space, neutralize content & title, remove personal attacks, remove list of X/Y bad people, close and archive. --dferg ☎ talk 14:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Closed and moved to RfC with neutral title, removed a list of corrupt admins; didn't neutralize the whole content because I don't know how to do so; I would let the proposer write a new, acceptable request for comment. --Nemo 13:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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



The following discussion is closed: Consensus to keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Just a note that it's used in well over 5,000 pages. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • As the template is highly used, I doubt that it's useful to delete it. The template doesn't hurt and to keep it is much easier than deleting and rewrite the bot. Barras talk 20:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just find it funny that a while ago someone insisted on putting this template on one of my talk pages. I said no thanks and had to explain to him why I don't want to care.  :-) Hillgentleman 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How about this- if you remove all uses of it you can have it deleted. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - I see no hurt keeping it, but a tons of work to remove all instances where the template is used and delete it... — Dferg (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note also: A template {{Protected template}} appears to have superseded this one. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Template:Looks useless

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. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Kept. --Nemo 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fundraising 2010/Tabs

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

Redundant version of Fundraising 2010/Tab. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't see the need to delete it. It's not hurting anything from being around and if those using it don't need it anymore, they can delete it themselves or redirect it to the other version. Cbrown1023 talk 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks like it's in use. Jafeluv 07:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • /Tab creates 56 tabs; /Tabs sets their messages. This is the English default set of tab labels. It is intended that each language has its own /fr etc. version of this utility template to make translations easier. In fact, /bn is correctly translated, but you have highlighted that /cy, /ko, and /zh-hans still need their own set of tabs. James F. (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]






Sei kein Idiot

Yes check.svg Resolved. --WizardOfOz talk 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 10:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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) 10:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Ok, I'll finish and repost it then. Thanks for your time and for telling me about the unified login (Saldek) 11:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no such thing as a free lunch

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.


Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]

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.


Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 00:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done by Pathos several days ago. --Nemo 06:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]




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).Reply[reply]

Undeleted — Dferg (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Yes check.svg Resolved. resolved

This is the original unscaled version of File:Bookshelf-40x201_6.png, used on the 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)Reply[reply]

Support Support Perhaps to undelete and transfer it to commons? Here linked as a source. --WizardOfOz talk 18:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Restored. Please upload it to commons. --WizardOfOz talk 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Glad to see you around again --Mardetanha talk 23:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was fast! - thank you. — Dferg ☎ 23:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

  • Delete - Yes, agreed. Windows software is copyrighted. Meta does not accept fair use and the minimis does not seem to apply here. --dferg ☎ talk 23:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Agreed - on Commons I'd have deleted them speedily. --Herby talk thyme 08:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Per Herby, more for SD while copvio. --WizardOfOz talk 09:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per above -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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