Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2013

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



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

Some pages

Justincheng12345 (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. It is being done by the Job queue. It may take some minutes. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Draft Privacy Policy December 21 2010

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like an outdated draft translation of the WMF's privacy policy that never was completed. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete, no links go there, and the page looks like a half-finished translation attempt. --MF-W 13:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • delete, just a draft, untouched for more than two years! a×pdeHello! 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

Dimilki was deleted, so the list of supporters (only the proposer?) is not useful. Non-admins can't even find out what is being supported, due to the deletion. You can check the deleted content of Dimilki. πr2 (t • c) 16:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. SJ talk  18:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

It seems to be a translation-status template, but it is not linked from any pages. Also, the links on the right side seem broken. This is the only edit on any WMF wiki by the creator of the page. πr2 (t • c) 03:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Done, and really could have been a speedy under no meaningful content at all. Courcelles 14:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

WMAU FDC Progress Report

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by MF-W. Theo10011 (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid progress report and appears to be created by someone not speaking for the chapter. WMAU did not receive funding from the FDC so they did not need to submit a report. In addition, I do not believe this was submitted by colleagues in WMAU and it appears to be edited by Mr. Boumaza Mohamed in Algeria. I am requesting this deletion as the FDC support team member. Please let me know if there is further information that needs to be shared in order for this to be deleted. KLove (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg deleted --MF-W 00:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wonga and the Wikimedia Foundation

Seems to be advertising and/or a hoax. I can't find anything online linking Sue Gardner to PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pages in Category:Mass content adding dictionary?

The following discussion is closed: The result is delete. --MF-W 02:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I usually don't consider myself a deletionist, but I find these pages useless. They all (or mostly) seem to just be the English and Serbian interwikis of articles about countries. So, all this information is already available on Wikidata. And I don't think they're very historically important. What do you think? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, not useful; clutter. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Useless clutter that isn't needed and doesn't contribute anything to this project. Razorflame 02:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleting now (manually). Other sysops can help. All pages btw are/were also in Category:Mass content subproject Countries of the world which should probably be deleted after the pages are gone. --MF-W 04:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

To speed up the process, I just deleted them all. I don't think I messed up. ;) PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The empty categories are now gone too. Trijnsteltalk 10:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia dreams

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Trijnsteltalk 10:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Unused and unexpanded since 2004. Quiddity (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete: Indeed nobody bothered to contribute a story to this page. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Really no content worth keeping there. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles

The following discussion is closed: keep, no consensus to delete, suggestions for renames should be made on the essay's talk page — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The label humour appears to be being used to conceal disparagement about a group of people. The title alone is offensive, and is not a matter for schoolyard laughter. Instead it is the stuff of which bullying is made. If we replace the word gays in the title with Jews or with Blacks that shows with some precision how offensive this trash piece is.

This is a contested Speedy Deletion. The rationale given was "G7: Pages or media files clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation or to the Wikimedia editing community, unless they have a known and definable historical context." and that has been contested on the basis that there is some sort of historical context. If abuse of a class of society is a historical context for Meta I am appalled. if the fact that it has existed here for a while is a historical context than I an astounded. It appears to have survived prior deletion discussions, held when the world was less wise. Now, perhaps, it will be judged to have had its day. It needs to be deleted as discriminatory trash, not worthy of even consideration for being in this site. Meta requires a better standard by which it holds itself. Timtrent (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  • The joke here is that the page does not intend to discriminate against gay people, but makes fun of (typically school-aged, I guess) vandals who write stuff like "XYZ is gay" on pages. The page ironically describes them as if they were "overly proud friends and acquaintances of gays and lesbians". It also goes on to describe how one can conclude from this kind of vandalism that gay people are in most cases very valuable editors etc. The title might require getting used to; but it's clearly humourous. See also Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2013#How_to_deal_with_Poles. --MF-W 13:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The title is inherently offensive. Such material does not "require getting used to" it requires deletion. Jokes that require detailed explanation tend not to be funny. Meta ought to be above schoolyard so called humour. Timtrent (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    Did you read the whole page? It's obviously intended to be humorous. As MF-W said, it even says that gays are valuable editors. Friends of gays are only one of the groups discussed, the others being typing students, the curious, etc. - the type of things you see vandals adding to articles. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "A rose by any other name..." or, to paraphrase, "Shit still stinks". Yes, I read it. I understand satire, and, gosh, even irony. I also understand schoolyard trash. I note Kephir's conditional clause. I love clauses like that. They are along the lines of "if you are not with us then you are against is."
So why, pray, does the article title single out friends of Gays? Why not the other classes referred to? Ah, because they are an easy target, perhaps? Because it was fashionable in some little redneck area when this dreck was created to disparage gays? Timtrent (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably for historical reasons, and to make it more surprising at first. The page was created in 2004, nearly a decade ago. It has been moved to Editing Restriction Policy multiple times, and each time it was reverted. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The alleged humour of 2004 does not cut it today. Things change. Things change beyond all recognition. Humour, if this is humour, changes. It isn't surprising, it's offensive, and is so whatever minority group you pick on unless that minority group has, itself, been invented. Indeed the alleged humour element vanishes the moment you offend someone. It is not clever to upset folk and claim the so called 'humour exemption'. Instead it's a form of hectoring and bullying and is to be deprecated. Pick on, perhaps, three armed green haired elves, they seem not to exist, but pick on a real minority at your peril, that is the message. For the record, I despise political correctness, too. I am simply plain and honest good old fashioned offended by this so called humorous item. And, if the so called historical context is that folk have fought to preserve it since 2004, then it is high time maturity arrived here. Timtrent (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:Cyberbullying#Typical_presentation_of_cyberbullying_on_Wikipedia covers some of this in quite some detail. This is not the 'simple vandalism' considered by the perosn penning the supposed humour piece, but is a gross misunderstanding of cyberbullying. Timtrent (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, actually ... Cyberbullying is a real problem, and this is a valid concern. Do you you think that Meta should not satirize cyberbulying? Maybe we could add a note at the top clarifying that we are very much against cyberbullying and linking to that page above. Do you think the only solution is complete deletion? I agree with Blue Rasberry that this page is actually against this type of vandalism/cyberbullying. We need to have some fun in the projects, but we should not do so at the expense of any group (not that it's intended to be offensive). PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename or delete - The rule of thumb that I use with things like this in real life is does the satire fit? Does South Park making fun of any community stir me up? No. Does a news network mocking a community stir me up? Yes. The difference is context - and after pondering it - I agree that it just looks bad - regardless of the context - and should be deleted. The reality is that some will judge a book on its cover - and the cover of this one is bad - and not one that represents Wikimedia - which is what this site is generally about. If the article was "Friends of blacks should not be allowed to edit" or "Friends of Jews should not be allowed to edit" - I would have similar objections. The notion that it was acceptable once or that it hasn't been noticed in five years seem like weak arguments. Bring up why it wasn't noticed for five years or why it was kept last time - implying that nothing changes or that something flying below the radar makes it acceptable do not convince me personally (vandalism that makes it 18 months is okay to keep? I think not). I think folks doing outreach to the LGBT community for Wikimedia projects would be embarrassed if this came up in a conversation (I would). There is probably a wiki out there for this article, but I do not think that Meta is the place. Even as humor, I do not see what value it adds to the site. Perhaps a compromise would be renaming it to a more neutral schoolyard attack term? "Friends with coodies should not be..." I recognize that sounds a little "politically correct" - but I also feel it does not hold the same schoolyard context as it did in 2004 - luckily - so why should we be contributing to its revival? --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    PS. I am reclaiming its shortcut for a more meaningful use. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    Renaming the page is a possible compromise. We could also add a note about the context of the page, if you think that would help make the page less offensive. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    I think that addresses the concerns of it not being appropriate in its current form, leaves a trail of the evolution of the topic, and allows the "humor" to continue - only in an updated form. I suspect someone more clever than I can suggest a new name that if anything, makes it more humorous. I don't see anyone here particularly defending that "gay" must be a part of the joke (which would seem silly to me) - there seems to be more protective attitude towards the overall "joke" and preservation of that article. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 17:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If you don't get the joke, stay away from the page, and certainly don't try to have it deleted. You might end up making a fool of yourself. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    That is silly logic. What are your objections to renaming the page? The joke does not work unless "gay" appears in it? Refusing to consider any changes sounds more foolish to me than discussing a page on a public website with an audience of millions of people. Why bother reviewing any pages for deletion? Do not like that page full of spam and vandalism? Just don't visit it. That seems flawed to me. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (after edit conflict) Why do I get the feeling that I have just been bitch-slapped. I am perfectly well aware of how to make a fool of myself. I have done so before and will do so again. Indeed I reserve the absolute right to make a fool of myself as often as I choose. This, however, is not one of those times. Humour is something very different from this page. Your thinly veiled threat of some sort of personal feeling of inadequacy for daring to quarrel with this page is noted, though. Now slap me again. Timtrent (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Would renaming make it less offensive to you? What about adding a note about the historical context? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • To rename it you also need to remove the offensive editing history and all versions prior to any renaming. Are you up for that? And are others here? That seems unlikely at best. There is no historical context to this. It is simply a pile of steaming ordure that has been here far too long. It and all its prior versions must go. It is, all of it, offensive. Timtrent (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Removing any trace of it is perhaps not the best approach. I do think there is merit to "yes - we did this thing - but this is how we have evolved." --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete all How to Deal with Poles is equally offensive. We are writing an encyclopedia, not social networking with our buddies, or that is the purpose. Schoolyard humor does not benefit the creation of the encyclopedia by pandering to the humor, supposed, of the most juvenile editors. So, schoolage editors are aware that gays and Poles were once the target of attacks and think calling attention to this through low grade humor is okay, takes the sting out? It doesn't take the sting out, ever. Are there humorous black and Jewish or other essays also? Identify and delete them all. There is nothing funny about reminding gays and Poles and blacks and Jews that once, not so long ago, there would have been a bite to the essay and you would have been the target of the bite rather than a "feel good" we know they used to hate you joke. I have no doubt these were written by editors and maintained by editors who never felt that bite. The complaining editors will hesitate because they know damn well that a complaint will get them singled out as the only one complaining, not able to take a joke, a poor sport. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC))
    • AfadsBad, through all your comments there seems to be the implication that this essay makes fun of gay people, while it actually ridicules those making fun of gay people. Is this unclear from the essay (if so, the essay may be refined further to make this clearer, while hopefully retaining the humour), or is there a point to your argument that I'm missing? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It is low grade humor and offensive and trivializes gays. Really, whoever wrote it came up with this line, "Mr. Carpenter at Hamilton High likes to suck big wangs. Pass it on!" Calling attention, through satire, to the fact that gays and Poles are the subject of abuse is, indeed, mocking gays (and Poles). You see anyone satiizing how straight white Protestant males are mocked in article vandalism? Satire, good satire, mocks the dominant paradigm. Satire that mocks those already being attacked is a fail --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
  • Keep. This is Satire - "[...] using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society". This page is as difficult to understand as w:WP:REICHSTAG, and not in need of censorship. Quiddity (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry but Reichstag passes the Batman test.mThe writers of this essay probably could not recognize the Batman test if kapowed with it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
  • Keep If you find it offensive, close the browser window. Legoktm (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete!. (disclosure, I was the one who took the issue) While I was looking for user boxes, I stumbled upon a soft redirect on en-wiki. I took very strong exception to this page, and it is not funny at all. I may not have any sense of humor, but it is unfunny, and unoriginal. I am the one who started all of this, and it's me who brought this issue to en-wiki, which has now crossed into meta. Despite not wanting to go to meta, I went ahead and did so anyway. It is lame, and is a waste of bandwidth to have this unfunny, mean, article... --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form The message behind this is valuable to the community and is beneficial also to LGBT editors and allies. I have done enough vandalism patrolling with en:Wikipedia:Huggle to have experienced that a significant amount of the vandalism which happens on Wikipedia is teasing with accusations of someone being gay. This kind of vandalism is completely inappropriate and it needs to be addressed in some way, and the "Friends of gays should not edit Wikipedia" page is the most clever and appropriate proposal I have seen to address this very serious problem in a way that lots of people understand. It is a bit funny to state it in the way that it has been stated but it is true - vandalism commonly consists of inserting the statement "x is gay" into a Wikipedia article. This seems to happen internationally by English-speaking Wikipedia vandals from various countries. I feel that vandals do this because they feel that it makes them clever, and the "Friends of gays should not edit Wikipedia" notice is a message that communicates to everyone that this kind of vandalism is not clever and is unwanted. Also, it helps the LGBT community and allies on Wikipedia because it directly acknowledges that this community is disproportionately targeted for vandalism and abuse, and deserves to have their own protective policies. To delete this page would make LGBT communities on Wikipedia less safe. Perhaps this policy could be renamed, restated, or revised, but it should not be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I Really, really hope you read the article. This article is offensive, times have changed. Are you really serious? This, for reasons already disclosed on en-wiki (soft redirect to here) is unfunny, mean-spirited towards its target audience. I'm going to go so far as to say it is hate speech, really. I suggest you really read it again, and give me an honest reason why this thing should stay. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I have been referencing this article for years. I do a lot of public presentations and I cite this policy to describe typical vandalism on Wikipedia. I am heavily involved in the gay rights movement and I am entirely serious that I think that this page defends the integrity of people whom I represent in the LGBT community. You have a different perspective that I want to respect but this page meets a need that I have. It was created in 2004 and almost 10 years later it still serves a purpose. the page needs updating and cleanup but should not be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you tell what you find so offensive about the content of the article? Is it that it stresses that unfortunately "x is gay" is often used in vandalism? While that is offensive, it is also true. Deleting this essay that stresses how ridiculous it is to use that as a vandalism won't help against that. Or am I missing the crux here? If so, could you help me understand? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete or, if truly historical treat like en:Mein Kampf is in France. Delete unless it has clear historical value. If it is kept, it should be renamed and prefaced with an educational statement, "shock-protected" by a show/hide template, and protected against change or renaming. Davidwr/talk 18:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC) see below Davidwr/talk 22:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (here from an en-wiki discussion) Rename and possibly add context at top - the bottom two sections are clearly a satire, but I can't tell with the first (5 types of vandals) section. I don't think the humor template is enough to let that sink in, so adding more up top may help (alternatively, just remove the bottom two sections, since it's much less humorous that way). In any case, without speaking to offensiveness or not, the title is too narrow in scope for the article, and should instead be something more along the lines of "The 5 groups of vandals". Ansh666 (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to see this kept. I don't really mind seeing it renamed, the name is offensive. It is chosen to be offensive. It is supposed to elect a "What?!" response. I could go into the meta issue, go in to why this title is offensive, and, for example "typing students should not be allowed to edit articles" (or possibly "people with abnormally large penises should not be allowed to edit articles") would not be, or at least less so. But I won't because that doesn't address the actual problem: this title is genuinely hurtful to at least some people. And it needn't be. I love this humerous essay, but it can just as easily be renamed to "typing students, the curious, critics, people with large penises and friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles", or something new entirely. I'd hate to see the content go though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete or revert to last edit before second editor touched it, rename, mark as historical, and protect, and possibly move to a user sub-page of the original author. See this version which was the last version before someone other than the original author touched it. The humor is somewhat clearer and the insults much less offensive. Davidwr/talk 22:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    Why revert and userfy? Meta allows essays related to Wikimedia projects, and humorous content related to Wikimedia, in the mainspace (ns 0). See WM:4WP for some more differences between Meta and Wikipedia. Also, why should it be protected? It gets almost no vandalism. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "Mr. Carpenter at Hamilton High likes to suck big wangs. Pass it on!" So, we are going to keep a funny essay that equates being gay with the sucking of large penises? Because, after all, there is a lot of evidence that that is what sexual preferences are all about, specific acts of sex. Does the humorous essay supporting straight folks indicated they like to suck small penises? My point that not belonging to the mocked group, you may not see the offense, should not be ignored. Ths essay is not funny. It is insulting and trivializes gay men. This is in the padt version, linked. I wasvhoping for better. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC))
  • You can edit it to be less offensive, but please at least leave in a few examples of vandalism for each group. Actually, is there anything else you could change to make it less offensive but keep the same general meaning? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • May I refer you to en:Wikipedia:Cyberbullying#Typical_presentation_of_cyberbullying_on_Wikipedi please. This attempt at humour on Meta trivialises cyberbullying. That term was probably only in the process of creation when this piece was created. The world has moved on. Editing it will prove again the old adage that it is impossible to polish a turd Timtrent (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    Note that AfadsBad already removed this particular example. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • On careful reading of the item you will see that instances which remain. Mr Carpenter and his alleged interest in large penises may have gone, but others remain. The Mr Carpenter accusation would, if there were a Mr Carpenter and there is a Hamilton High at which he teaches or even attends, be simple libel. Timtrent (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • But since both Hamilton High and Mr Carpenter are obviously fictional examples that isn't an issue, now, is it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you are stating the obvious here. They have gone. Were they obviously fictional? I have no idea. Nonetheless, the item as a whole has no place here, Carpenter or no Carpenter. Satire, if it is to work, has to be far higher quality than this stuff. Otherwise it becomes a satire on the intending satirist. Timtrent (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I still have no idea why you respond so strongly about an essay ridiculing people who use gay as a slur. Do you propose we take them seriously? Or should we not talk about them at all, and pretend they don't exist, while in reality we spend day in day out cleaning our wikis of these slurs? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • May I refer you to en:Wikipedia:Cyberbullying#Typical_presentation_of_cyberbullying_on_Wikipedi please. What we need to do is to talk about these people rationally and in a way that requires us to take them and their nasty little ways seriously. The alleged humour in this piece downgrades them to irritants whereas their 'work' is nasty and insidious. Humour is also used to dehumanise groups of people. This piece has a dual action. It slurs LGBT folk in its title, and in its content it treats cyberbullying as an amusing pastime. What astounds me in equal measure to your surprise at my feeling that this item is bad to have here, is the people who think that, because it is in some degree constructed to seek to amuse, it is valid. If I am not careful I may find I am invoking Godwin's Law. I hope we stay clear of that. I react strongly because it is a badly offensive item, seriously misjudged, even by the humour at the date of origination. I find I am repeating myself. Timtrent (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid we'll never come to an understanding then. I refuse to give anyone engaging in cyberbullying any serious consideration. Their nasty and insidious work needs to be reverted immediately, and their accounts blocked, but never will I take them seriously or give them serious consideration. I'd much rather continue to make fun of them. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should consider a discussion about this away from this discussion, on a user talk page? I understand your thinking here. Mine differs form yours because, simply, of the immense harm that cyberbullying can do, and does, daily. These nasty little bullies need to be taken seriously and stamped upon, not laughed at. But now, I hjtink, you seem where I am coming from. Timtrent (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • After all, what is to be taken seriously when children kill themselves after being cyberbullied? Everything. It is a very serious issue that deserves far better consideration than this. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
  • Taking quotes out of context distorts things: The text in the very old version in context reads: ... Wikipedia is not the place to publicly announce a friend's sexual orientation or proclivities. Some examples: ... "Mr. Carpenter at Hamilton High ..." (ellises added). Davidwr/talk 20:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Timtrent: I understand that this page is very offensive to you and that you want it deleted, but I would like to know what you think of the hatnote I added to the page. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @PiRSquared17: It is an improvement, yes. But I go back to the issue that you cannot polish a turd. I note (above) that you, too, are mindful of cyberbullying. Ignoring for the moment whether that (previously considered to be simple vandalism) statement "Fred is Gay" is inherently offensive (not because it accuses Fred of being gay, but because it is a accusation per se, and is thought by the issuer to be a slur), "Fred is Gay" falls into the category of cyberbullying and is far more unpleasant than simple vandalism. Indeed, if Fred were to be gay, and had chosen to be in the closet, a "Fred is Gay" campaign could out Fred (even if in no-one's mind but Fred's) and cause Fred to harm him self. (I include Freda where I mention Fred). If Fred is happily heterosexual, even then, at a vulnerable age or time, Fred could be driven to self harm. The UK has seen one lad's high profile suicide. Googling Suicide of Dominic Crouch will reveal the unpleasant facts here, fats which took the lives of Dominic and of his father by their own hands.
So, in answer to your question, it scratches the surface, does your italicised text. I need to make it clear. I do not find this material offensive because I am gay. I have very broad shoulders. I find it offensive because I find this type of material in whatever context to be offensive. And yes, I find the article on Poles to be offensive, too, for similar reasons. Timtrent (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Offensive? Bullying? What the heck? I am openly and happily gay and I don't find this page offensive at all. I laughed a lot several times when I read this page for the first time and I see no reason to delete it. It is a humorous description of an accurate event on most Wikipedias. It uses satire to describe a type of vandalism by trying to find a logical conclusion of the reason of such edits by adding a humorous tone. What's bad about it? Nothing. — ΛΧΣ21 02:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep To be honest as a gay man I've always found this one of the funniest pages on meta, which is admittedly a low bar at times. This comes from a man who HATES when gays throw words at each other that we would never (or rarely) accept from an outsider (fag/queen etc) . I think it exposes some of the ridiculousness of both on wiki vandalism and school yard name calling in general. I will fully admit that many pages, including this one, are likely to upset or offend some. This is usually the case because they don't completley understand the context in which it was done, but that in no way means that we should abandon everything that could possibly offend. There is certainly a line where it's too much, and where a bit of 'self censorship' is a good thing, but overall we as a project and a movement have strived to lean deeply in favor of keeping things, even when they may offend some (Pictures of Muhammad, porn (ok, naked pictures sometimes bad porn) etc). I do not think this arises to a level suitable enough to override that default position. Jamesofur (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Pictures of Muhammad and porn are encyclopedic content for a western encyclopedia. That is what we are doing here, writing an encyclopefia. What article is this essay in? Much humor is controversial, and Wikipedia is not a diverse community. It is simply one more way of excluding non-white, non-male, non-privileged, non-Western editors to include reidirects to schoolyard humor written and appreciated by the limited majority. --(AfadsBad (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
      • Could you explain how this essay has any bearing whatsoever on race, sex, monetary position, or being western? It sounds to me you're lumping a whole lot of things together that are not at all related to this essay. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
        • It has a lot of bearing that a juvenile essay on a site dominated by affluent white males would poke humor at non-majority members of the culture then try to shame those who don't see the humor. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
  • Keep largely per Jamesofur and context, which some people from other wikis may not understand, I suppose. --Rschen7754 06:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I do not find it funny and I think there's too big of a risk that these gets taken badly by people. --Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I tried to clarify the essay a little (taking away some of the humour) of the original by adding a little clarification. I hope this helps to find some middle ground, but in case it doesn't, do feel free to revert it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename or Delete - Utterly irrelevant "humour" that doesn't belong on Meta; it may be more palatable with the name it originally had, prior to the inappropriate move back in 2007; but even then, it's still offensive to some people - and highly so. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete It should have been deleted or renamed when the previous AfD rationales were "The title is fine because when you read on, you see how it's all in good fun." Lousy rationale. The title should be changed, or better still, the whole thing deleted, pronto. It is immediately offensive, and reading the content doesn't negate the damage. I don't think a title of a similar ilk would be tolerated if it were about Jews, Africans, rape, etc. Not for an instant. "Sure, it's about child molestation, but when you read on, you see how funny it all is." Ha! Not for an instant. So, is the content appropriate? Let's test: " The last and most active group of vandals is, unfortunately, overly proud Muslims/Jews/Afro-X/younameit..." Swap in any group on Earth that is attacked and ask if that's appropriate. If the argument is that if you don't like it after reading the title, close the page tab, too late. That's even worse. If the argument is that it doesn't offend, well, it offends me, and I'm saying so. How many does it need to offend to be deletable? Okay, I see about half who are weighing in here saying it offends. How many have read it since its creation? Sounds like a lot of people have been offended. Err on the side of caution. There should be a good reason to keep, not the other way around. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd have absolutely no problem with "The last and most active group of vandals is, unfortunately, overly proud friends of Muslims/The rotund/Jews/Afro-X/younameit...". Note that it doesn't say anywhere a problem with overly proud gays, but friends of gays. When you say people make the argument that if you read on, you see how funny it is, I think you misunderstand what is being said. When you read on you see that the essay denounces the behaviour. That it is additionally funny is incidental. Nobody here seems to have a problem with changing the title, so please lets consider that changed to something less offensive, and only consider the mertis of the essay. Finally, I have no idea how there is a parallel to child molestation here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, the child molestation reference was a bit off-track. My point was that sensitive topics and humour don't mix very well. As for the difference between "friends of gays" and "people who are gay", well, there's not a lot of distance there. It's still an attack on a group. Consider "Ban Mexicans..." and "Ban friends of Mexicans..." The latter is also offensive because of what it infers. The point is don't attack groups that get picked on for the sake of humour. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep it but I prefer to change and rename It's a very common vandalism that people add "X is gay" to a BLP just because rumor has it! As a gay I don't feel offended when I read that but I prefer not to see it. So I think renaming to something like "Wikipedia doesn't need gaydars!" or "You can't say someone is gay because you know no matter who strong is your gaydar" Amir (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    That's not really the point of the essay, and most people don't know what that means. (I had to look it up, at least.) PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename as this is suppose to reference the stupid shit people say, it should be accurate in the form perhaps of "ur mum is gay!" or "ur so gay!" (improper spelling wrapped in quotes)... Technical 13 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename. The main point of this page is not that vandals often write "Brandon is gay" or similar but that they vandalize to test whether the wiki can actually be edited. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't find the deletion arguments compelling. While the nominator suggests that this page is discriminatory, there is no world (of which I am aware) in which "friends of gays" are a suspect class. While I appreciate Timtrent's efforts to improve Meta-Wiki, I'll politely suggest that he perhaps meaningfully and substantively contribute here before attempting to "raise the standards." Joining a project (Meta-Wiki or otherwise) seemingly with the view that the project is sub-standard and in need of fixing is a bit distasteful and off-putting, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Patronising, much? Shit still stinks, mate. I'm not here to improve this place. I saw this alleged humorous piece and saw the reek and foul stench above it. A shit heap stinks whatever its location, and this is one heap of shit. It was a Wikipedia soft redirect that brought me to this pile of ordure, no great zeal, but, when I got here, I found it. And when I found it I saw that it must go. It's kind of you to say you are being polite. You aren't. You're just defending the indefensible. Timtrent (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You're like the firefighter who shows up... nine years late. Is there a name for that? THANK GOD YOU'RE HERE. SAVE US. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay - let's try and keep things civil. Please both stop. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 04:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename. While the content is reasonable, the name projects a much more hostile intent and projects a very unfriendly image. It is possible to have the essay without having it at its current name, especially since the name makes the essay sound a lot less reasonable than it actually is. (And the last thing we want to be is judged by our essay titles.) harej (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename. As a gay man, I've never found the article to be that offensive. In fact, the very fact that sexuality could be easily substituted out in the content of the essay for some other characteristic like religion, gender, body shape or whatever else is the junior school insult-of-the-week shows you exactly why I think it isn't particularly offensive. Perhaps I just have thick skin. Now, the name hasn't particularly offended me either (some Wikimedian friends teased some time after I came out that they are no longer allowed to be friends with me lest they be forbidden from editing), but taken too literally it certainly leaves something to be desired. If someone can think of a better name, we should consider changing it. And, no, I can't think of anything better. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page is really offensive. It breaks the spirit of curiosity, consider to be an hacker is evil (for example “2. I am not curious about the way things work. I do not tinker with or take apart machines or other apparatus to see how they function. I never pull up curtains, check out strange noises, experiment, tinker, hack, or otherwise show curiosity or a quest for knowledge.”). It lets people imagine Wikimedia projects are a bureaucracy when you have to fill some criteria to be allowed to contribute (even if here there are humor requirements , it lets in the unconscious a trace of requirements to meet). It points people to discriminate them. This is very sad. --Dereckson (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It also discriminates against people with big penises, typing students, and people with any opinions about anything at all. Unacceptable! Keφr (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your point - but wish you had framed it in a more constructive and respectful way. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 01:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page is subtle, and I am not really buying into the arguments that it is in any way offensive. Changing the title in order to change the focus into less controversial aspects of it may be appropriate. vvvt 13:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subtle enough, and explaining a typical form of vandalism. --~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beetstra (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2013‎
  • Rename and rewrite. Having read it twice now, I have to say that "subtle" is not the word that comes to mind. Confused, cryptic, and carelessly written are more like it. I first encountered the essay a long time ago after following a soft redirect from en.wp. In re-reading it now, my conclusions remain the same. Yes, it is clearly intended to be humorous, and the offensive title was likely devised not in order to be offensive per se but rather to shock people into actually reading the essay. So what? Whether the offensiveness is gratuitous or not, it's still offensive. And when one has groped one's way down to the section of the essay that explains the title, what does one find? A passage that makes light of a particular kind of pervasive vandalism that not only places ugly graffiti in articles but has the potential to contribute to misery in the real world. I doubt that anyone who hasn't been bullied and tormented because of their perceived sexual minority status can fully understand this, but try to imagine being the recipient of such abuse on a daily basis, then picture yourself in a classroom with your peers and finding that one of them has plastered "Billy Is Gay" on the Wikipedia page that the whole class is looking at. I guarantee that Billy doesn't think it's the slightest bit humorous, and there are a lot of Billys out there; sometimes they jump off bridges and whatnot. Not funny, not something to make light of. Rename the damn thing posthaste, then rewrite it (stubifying if necessary in the interim) to convey its rather inconsequential message in more lucid prose that doesn't trivialize the potential of certain vandalism to victimize a vulnerable population. Don't touch the second paragraph, which is quite perfect as is—and even succeeds in being humorous. (Wish I'd thought to quote it during the PC Wars.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Renaming suggestions If a rename/rewrite is selected - we seem to lack a better title. It may be putting the cart before the horse, but since there are a lot of smart eyeballs reading this while the discussion is active, figured it may help explore if a rename is even possible. Here are some are a few to kick things off: --Varnent (talk)(COI) 01:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Friends with secrets should not be allowed to edit articles
    • Opinionated friends should not be allowed to edit articles
    • Friends don't let friends drunk edit articles
    • No one cares who your friend is sleeping with
    • Outing your friends in articles is not as clever as you think

I'm personally fine with the current title and the content (I personally don't even like hatnote I added), but to make it less offensive, renaming is fine. Here my suggestions:

    • The five types of vandals
    • Editing Restriction Policy
    • (Pick one of: Typing students, Men with large penises, Critics, The curious) should not be allowed to edit articles

Note, however, that renaming will make it much less funny to those who find it funny currently, and probably won't satisfy the people who find it offensive either, so this seems to be a no-win situation. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I am not thrilled with the title for reasons I have already stated. However, I appreciate that the article itself has some value. My main concern is that the title is something that stands out far more than the content - although I recognize many others have problems with the content - so I may be the only one that finds it a good compromise. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 02:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I (and others) obviously do not want the page to be offensive, but think the page has satirical as well as historical value, so I would be very pleased with such a compromise. I would like to see comments from others on the compromise, and how much would need to be changed to make it less offensive to the LGBT community. I also noticed that a few LGBT people have explicitly stated that they do not find it offensive, and even find it humorous, which further complicates the situation. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken about it complicating the situation. It does not. One's orientation should be irrelevant to whether an item is offensive in the same manner that one's race or religion should be irrelevant. What it does is trivialises cyberbullying. Additionally the title is inherently offensive. No community should be pandered to. but, simply, no segment of society should be put in the way of being offended either. And cyberbullying should be eliminated. Timtrent (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Delete in its entirety! Delete is the best way, as it it offensive, and furthermore is not really helping the project. That is enough of a reason to delete, but it's also unfunny and old. It wasn't funny back then, it isn't funny right now. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You only get to vote one time. Sticking "note" in front of it doesn't mean you can say the same thing twice. Sven Manguard (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename and keep. I understand the humorous purpose of the text, but the title will always seem to be offensive for those that are not aware of its intention, which will likely to be clarified after reading it all. There is no reason to cause this first reaction on people, nor forcing them to read everything to understand it. We should remember that its is a multilingual project and we have to take care with what we are writing, specially for non-native speakers like me that may easily misunderstand these not-so-clear-jokes.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 04:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete or rename The title is offensive, whether you tell people it's not supposed to be or not. Why would keeping this title be worth possibly offending someone who sees it? What about people who aren't native English speakers? They might be offended and not understand the warning or the so-called "humor". INeverCry 04:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has a slightly subtle but humorous point to it that is important to preserve. There is no offense here, people. The page does not set out to offend friends of gays, and anyone who bothers to read it will understand this. In addition, the nominator's use of offensive language does not endear me to his cause at all. This, that and the other (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I do want to point out that we will never come to consensus on if it is "offensive" as that is a personal judgement. NO ONE is qualified to say if something will be offensive or not to everyone. Unless you speak over a hundred languages and have studied a few hundred cultures - it is not really possible. I want to encourage people to say that it is not offensive to them, or who they think it would or would not be offensive to. Saying universally it is offensive or not offensive does not add much. Clearly a number of people are offended, and a number of people are not offended - so any blanket statements have already been proven false. As a midwestern US LGBT community member - I have asked around - and folks in my culture group/area were offended by it. Friends of my working in DC and California who are LGBT found it humorous. There seems to be some personal experience variations in if people find it offensive or not. I am not personally easily offended - so I do not personally find it offensive. However, as someone that works with LGBT victims, I can absolutely see how they would find it offensive given the experiences they have had being attacked for being LGBT, fired from their jobs, experienced oppression from their friends or family, etc. This is pretty typical for cyberbullying - so I go back to that a reasonable size of people find it offensive and another reasonable size of people have no problems with it - anyone disputing that is simply not calling the others in this thread real people I suppose - so I go back to is the article's value high enough to not worry about offending a group of people - and I think that is the real question here. If your answer is that the value is not so high that it is worth offending current or potential volunteers - then a change should be made. If you do not care about offending or scaring away volunteers for whatever reasons - or believe the article's value is so high that it should be protected at all costs - I think those are opinions that would help more than people trying to make universal assessments of its offensiveness level - which we will never get consensus on. I also appreciate folks weighing in on if a rename would potentially solve a reasonable portion of concerns (obviously no solution will solve all concerns - that is not possible - so a compromise it is). Do the folks who like the article find the title important to its content and context? I appreciate that they see value in the contents of the article - but is the name a part of that? Is it the overall tone they like or is it really a perfect piece as written? I understand very well why people do not like it, and I understand why people find it valuable overall - I am less clear on people who are opposed to any changes to it - as some seem to be. Would a name change do anything to appease folks who are truly offended by it? --Varnent (talk)(COI) 17:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Counting the votes above I see 9 outright keep votes and 19 delete/rename/keep but rename votes. A straight keep without renaming would be against community consensus. INeverCry 20:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Obvious joke, hilarious article, no discrimination based on sexual orientation present. Offended persons should be advised to look somewhere else. If people are so offended that they might have some stress-related medical injury as a result of this being here, I guess I could live with a different name for the page, though I think it is completely unnecessary. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Largely per Ajraddatz and similar comments. Renaming would also work, but I see it as unnecessary. If we do rename it, how about "No one cares about how large your penis is" or "Please do not vandalize Wikipedia to compensate for your tiny, tiny penis" or some sort of dick joke along that vein. Sven Manguard (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Ajraddatz said. -— Isarra 00:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment INeverCry raises a good point, what about non-native-English speakers? This isn't American juvenile Wikipedia. It is for the entire English speaking world, including new speakers and learners. Or do they also get an,"If you're offended by my ridiculous juvenile humor being hosted by a world wide encyclopedia project, too bad?" Why don't users who want to social network their humor find another site to host it on? --(AfadsBad (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
    • You do realize that this makes fun of "juvenile humor" attempts? --MF-W 14:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
      • In a very juvenile way. INeverCry 20:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
      • All over Wikipedia you have discussions about Wikipedia losing editors, not retaining experts, lacking women, having a Western bias, and I see a silly essay like this, silly and offenssive and juvenile, and I have to ask why this is on an encyclopedia. What does this have to do with writing an encyclopedia of the world's knowledge? Nothing. But the fight to retain has everything to do with the problems of Wikipedia. It's either an encyclopedia or a juvenile social network for Western guys to hang out. This essay only belongs in one of these. And every time someone who doesn't belong to the Western boys club complains about one of these insulting juvenile essays and decides that Wikipedia really is a hostile place for 90% of the world's people and leaves, then go ahead and congratulate yourself for making this place so friendly for the few who appreciate such juvenile humor. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
        • This is on Meta, not Wikipedia, not that that justifies keeping the page in and of itself. This page describes an actual trend among vandals, not something made up to offend LGBT people. I don't see how a relatively harmless page like this is driving away female editors, or editors from the "Global South". If the page is offensive, would renaming it be enough to fix the main problem? I don't see any men with large penises or typing students complaining about discrimination. Would adding a note to the bottom fix the problems you see with it? You could add your perspective on this issue to another page, as we allow essays in the mainspace here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh, I can't find the introduction to juvenile social networking link and description for meta. This is all I find:
          • "Welcome to Meta-Wiki, the global community site for the Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement in general. Meta-Wiki's discussions range from coordination and documentation to planning and analysis of future Wikimedia activities.
          • Other meta-focused wikis such as Wikimedia Outreach are specialized projects that have their roots in Meta-Wiki. Related discussion also takes place on Wikimedia mailing lists (particularly wikimedia-l, with its low-traffic equivalent WikimediaAnnounce), IRC channels on Freenode, individual wikis of Wikimedia affiliates, and other places."
        • Oddly, when I go to Wikimedia and its goals, I also fail to find the "support of juvenile and second rate social networking essays, but find this instead:
          • "The Wikimedia movement consists of the people and groups of people sharing common goals and activities with regard to creating and supporting free knowledge educative content."
        • And, of course you don't see it, as I said, because those who don't belong to the majority don't get to say what offends them, because it doesn't matter. All that matters is what offends the majority; you know, tyranny of the masses, and all that crap.
        • The page is not descriptive; it is sarcastic, meanwhile uses offensive languages and 100% unnecessary commentary. I think that the authors decided upon penis size goes well to the ultimate goals: not educational, an opportunity to offend disguised as a bad essay.
        • Can I add a note that says "this piece of juvenile crap should only be taken as the views of the author and does not in any way represent the offended parties?" Or a note that says, "in spite of this juvenile piece of shit, Wikipedia and Wikimedia have educational goals?" Maybe one that says, "Ignore the "Not a social network" essay, because, actually it is one?"
        • And, good hits with your reply. It's nice to see something done so well. Too bad what I didn't get to see is your editing an article well, instead. Yeah, majority rules, even if it is a juvenile group contrary to the goals of the encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC))
          I agree with you on some points (such as encouraging LGBT, women, other minorities to contribute). Have you read WM:NOT, specifically #3? Note that this is only a guideline, and that WM:IP is a policy. It could be argued that this page is a humorous essay and/or documentation of common vandalism. Feel free to write a hatnote, but it should probably be written using nicer language. I personally agree with Ajraddatz above. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Agree with what, his/her mocking people who are offended by an offensive juvenile essay about large penises and sucking them? It's not funny; it is badly done satire from some movie also full of fart jokes. Har har har. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC))
            Well, how is that? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC))
  • Keep, this is not making fun of people who are gay, this is making fun of people who vandalize pages with calling someone "gay". And realistically, anyone visiting Meta probably understands Wikimedia humor to some degree. Just because our projects are serious does not need to mean they are humorless. Seraphimblade (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to keep or rename as per Ajraddatz above, but I would be fine with deletion to keep peace and to make it less offensive. I would really rather keep it, though, as I think it meets some of our policies and guidelines (see above) and is historically important, even if it has a hatnote and a different title. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion right here is how bullying works

You pick something offensive. Target an underrepresented class with it. Get your friends in the majority class to side with you when the victim complains, then pick off a few people from the underrepresented class also to join you in bullying their fellow class members. Keep telling the victim they are the problem, they must be medically ill to be offended, no sense of humor. This is bullying. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

This sort of argument is funnier than the page in question itself. Which underrepresented class are you talking about? People who have gay friends? Men with large penises? Or was it the African and female contributors who you indicated were being driven away by the very existence of this article? If you look at the opinions above, you'll also find that the majority of people here want some sort of change of the status quo, so obviously this isn't a majority hurting that minority which you are talking about. Who is the victim here then, the majority of the people who want some sort of change? How exactly is anyone bullying anyone else here - by expressing their opinion that the article contains no discrimination against any group of people, and the feeling that it easily fits within Meta's inclusion policies? Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Possibly those darn losers having strokes because they cannot handle a joke? Uh huh, surprise, it's you down here attacking. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC))
Nice straw man, but I'll clarify it anyway. I wasn't commenting on people's sense of humour, how they can handle a jokes, etc. I wasn't suggesting that anyone was having a stroke. I was commenting on how worked up people seem to be over this minor issue, and suggesting that a rename would be a possible compromise for that, though I don't think that a compromise is needed. Now, you said that bullying was happening - please address the content of my comment and explain who exactly is being bullied here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Your comment, way up there, was the type of comment that is easily construed as being of a bullying nature in that it was dismissive, broadly, of anyone who disagrees with your suggestion that the piece be retained. Bullying is complex and depends upon two parties, the issuer of the action and the recipient. Either may construe it differently, but, generally, the recipient feels bullied even when the issuer had no such intention. Thus you will see at once that I am not accusing you of bullying since I am certain it was not your intention. Rather, I am explaining how your remarks are capable of being construed thus. The online world is difficult for such things, and it is a sensitive area. The piece trivialises cyberbullying, an area I have referred to before. It is worth getting worked up if, by doing so, one can influence others to understand something they did not previously understand. I know you had asked AfadsBad, and I am sure they will give you their own answer. I felt you might like to see mine, too. Timtrent (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that we are standing in the schoolyard, you've announced to everyone supporting you that the issue is minor, and you have your fist raised while backing me into a corner demanding I prove you are wrong, showing everyone how inappropriately worked up am over an issue that you have proclaimed minor, I am going to take a pass. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC))
Yeah, the minority of people here voting keep must be pretty threatening to the overwhelming majority voting for some change. You might want to withdraw that accusation of bullying unless you plan on backing it up. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you have both demonstrated quite ably how bullying is perceived as such by the recipient. That does not mean it has taken place, it just means that a recipient has perceived it as such. This is probably a good time for each of you to disengage. In the event that you have, instead, asked me to withdraw an accusation of bullying, I have not made, one, I do not make one, and I have no reason to make one. If my words were capable of being construed as one I apologise without hesitation, for it was not my intention. Timtrent (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Closed Closed as keep, there is no consensus to delete the article. That said, there are some who take offence at the article at the name. Suggestions should be made on the article's talk page for renaming suggestions, and similarly components that are seen as more highly offensive within the article should be suggested for editing on the article's talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


Template:Non-administrator observation

The following discussion is closed: Yes check.svg Deleted; red links will nicely serve the purpose for past usages by the creator. --Nemo 11:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need a template for this? As the template doc says, there's no requirement for non-admins to identify as such. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  • No, we don't. If someone wants to point out that he is not a sysop in his comment, he may simply do so in the text instead of using the template. Since there will most probably also be a reason if you specifically want to say that you are not a sysop, you can explain that rationale there then as well immediately. --MF-W 13:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it would make sense if it was in response to a "I need an admin's help" or "please grant me x" userright" request, for clarity. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems as if this construct of template and redirects is created and only used by User:Makecat. Please get rid of it. a×pdeHello! 18:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a concept from enwiki that should not be brought over here. --Rschen7754 08:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Burn it with fire. Snowolf How can I help? 08:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Nom Alpha

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, unused template, as per this discussion. Savhñ 19:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Unused template. Just a piece of text in french. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Please keep alphabetical order when adding your name to the list" - unused, and obviously that can be also written directly. It would even be better to always do that (or subst the page) so it's clearer for people when editing. But I don't see any reason for the template, it's not like this sentence must be written numerous times per day on pages. --MF-W 02:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Some templates

The following discussion is closed: Deleted the unused template, the page does not seem to have existed ever. --MF-W 15:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Công cụ (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Cờ ngang trên Trang Chính (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Vietnamese translations of some fundraising & meta stuff, but unused templates back from 2005. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

This template seems to be completely redundant to Template:Languages, and in most cases the pages should probably just use the Translate extension. --Yair rand (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This template is widely used, including localized page names mixed with links to other Wikimedia projects (see Template:Other languages/Bureaucrat as example). It can be removed only after the reconciliation and standardization of all these cases. You volunteer for this work? I will help you. --Kaganer (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This reminds me of all the fixes we had to do to clean up the help namespace translations a while ago. I'll volunteer to do this, but only if other users do it too. πr2 (t • c) 21:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, these same issue, but much more widely ;) ---Kaganer (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
We mainly need some template wizardry to choose how to make our templates translatable, complementing Meta:Translate extension... Kaganer, can you help with this? Then there's a lot of marking for translation, which I can help reviewing/cleaning up as I've done already, and all the import of old translations. --Nemo 08:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe not here to discuss it? Issue for replacing Template:H-langs to Template:Languages related mainly with process of pagenames standartizing. --Kaganer (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me know if I can help with this, but I agree we shouldn't delete this until we remove all uses of it. Thehelpfulone 15:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
If you need a bot for this I offer MABot's service for that. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Progress report? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's only used on User/User talk pages, except for being an example template in some template documentation (not very important). PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Since there's been no change, I've redirected it to {{languages}}, but it probably should be deleted. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cờ ngang trên Trang Chính

The following discussion is closed: Deleted as it is unused. -Barras talk 13:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Old but unused. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unused, unnecessary template. LlamaAl (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)



The following discussion is closed: Both pages deleted. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Useless category, implicit group. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe also delete Template:User autoconfirmed - by these same reason? --Kaganer (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Ugh, yes. Nominated too. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, this just promotes hatcollecting in my opinion. --Rschen7754 10:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete, nonsensical stuff. --MF-W 10:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed per above. –BruTe talk 14:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Countries; Africa Economy

The following discussion is closed: It was done by Thehelpfulone. --MF-W 14:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The title doesn't really explain what it means, and it currently contains no pages. Note: The text content seems to be a few facts/statistics about the East African Community. If this was the intended purpose, we can create Category:East African Community instead. πr2 (t • c) 12:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete; unneeded. Might as well fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion. --MF-W 14:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't unused for over a week (see [1]), but I suppose it could've fulfilled one of the other criteria. Can this be marked as closed? πr2 (t • c) 14:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:(-ALL-), Category:Templates:(all), Category:Templates:Incubator

The following discussion is closed.

I don't think we need these on Meta-Wiki, but I'm hesitant to speedily delete them. They seem to be Incubator-specific. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Weird. I believe someone copied template:Test wiki (which I now deleted, as it was unused and is also quite useless here) from incubator:template:Test wiki, and also copied the whole "category tree" the template was in. Can be deleted without doubt. --MF-W 03:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I deleted them now. --MF-W 22:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


File:Bug in template.PNG

The following discussion is closed.

I request deletion in good faith of this file which I uploaded myself to illustrate a problem which no longer exists. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 14:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deleted. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

File:2008503 Halprin 16high resolution 2.jpg

The licence, CC-BY-ND 3.0, doesn't meet the definition of a freely licensed work. Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy point 6, projects without an EDP can't host files which don't meet that definition. Also, the licensing policy prevents people from uploading non-free photos of living persons, and this person seems to be alive. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. File:Matt Halprin Nov 2010.JPG is both more recent and available with a free licence. No comment on the licensing policy otherwise. Deryck C. 16:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Special:ListFiles/Francis Kaswahili

The following discussion is closed: Clear copyvios are deleted, the ones left are marked with "no source" or "no license" but are still in use. Trijnsteltalk 12:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots of different camera models, many images in web resolution, some found elsewhere on the Internet (examples: File:Naurastorey.JPEG, File:Around the Impala.JPEG), at least one image (File:Elephant Family.JPEG) with EXIF indicating that it was taken by someone other than the uploader. It's getting a bit tiring to search for all of the user's images on Google, so I suggest that we simply assume that all of the images by this uploader are copyright violations. The images also lack source and licensing information. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Note Speedy one have gone - they are copyvios IMO too. Off line for a bit but I'll look at the others when I get the time - they are certainly questioable. --Herby talk thyme 14:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Note The uploader has been building Wikimania 2014 bids/Arusha and this is where all the images are being used. Some are copyvios, but many are being copied from freely licensed media on Wikipedia or already exist on Commons. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 16:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Comment Maybe we should also check whether the text there is fine. I see that some sections (for example Wikimania 2014 bids/Arusha#About Arusha City) have been copied from w:Arusha (in this case from the section "Industry and economy"), although without acknowledging the source and thus violating the attribution requirement of Wikipedia's Creative Commons licence, since the authors aren't attributed in any way at all. Looking at the history of the page, it seems that text has been deleted from there because of copyright violations. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I've removed a few more where the EXIF indicated some ownership that was not acknowledged and some tiny web grab shots. However there are still quite a number of images that at best are not attributed properly unless the uploader has a large number of cameras. --Herby talk thyme 18:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Nearly all grabbed from the internet: tripadvisor et. al. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Note I've tagged a few more as copyright violations. Some of the files had been grabbed from Commons or other websites. Not sure what to do with File:The surviving African Hero’s.jpg. Strictly speaking, it is a copyright violation, but it is at the same time being discussed at w:WP:PUF. Not sure if you wish to wait until the discussion ends there. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for the work on this - I've deleted the tagged ones now. There are still a few like the ones in hotel bedrooms and a few others that are questionable if only because of the varying EXIF info. --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, all files are missing source and licensing information. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Progress report? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems that most files have been deleted by now. The only ones which are left have been tagged with {{no license}}, which means that they can't be deleted as they are all in use. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Will mark this as resolved then. Trijnsteltalk 12:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)



This revision should probably have its edit summary deleted as a BLP violation. There is no evidence that the information about the other editor is correct, and even if it is correct, it is not something which should normally be posted on a wiki page. Other revisions by this IP should possibly be deleted as harassment. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Boring vandalism, I don't think this needs to be revision deleted. --MF-W 00:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ & Special:Contributions/Chen_Menqing_&_Ye_Heze

These user's edits were only adding improper images several months ago, and was confirmed as a LTA in Chinese Wikipedia. Please Revdel or Oversight these edits.--GZWDer (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW this has been handled. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Kegns is proud of being a Fifty Cent Party member.

It's a improper user name. Please Revdel.--GZWDer (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I already blocked this in April. You should probably make oversight requests private, because you're just drawing attention to the username. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I did revdel, but I'm not going to revdel each revision of the RFD page, and only stewards can hide users. Consider this done anyway. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete profile page

Hi, I would like to have my profile page deleted. Thanks! Joyson Prabhu Holla at me!

Yes check.svg Done PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Cape Town/4-12-2013-BidTeam-Meeting

Hello, please delete this page. It is an accidental duplicate of another page and so is redundant. Thanks.--Discott (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Discott: Yes check.svg Done! In the future, you can use {{delete}} for speedy deletion requests. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)



The following discussion is closed: Sj moved it to userspace. Theo10011 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Люа Твардовська

All of the created pages are unrelated to Wikimedia projects and contain almost zero encyclopedic content. They look more like main and subsidiary pages for some historical wikiprojects. --Microcell (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of content here and it seems not to be in English. Could you say something more about what this is? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, a part of those pages resemble instructions which are common to the main pages of minor wikiprojects ("how to edit a page"; "our projects" with either external links or links to already deleted Meta pages). Further on, they include testing markup together with copypasted novels in Ancient Greek. Looks like she was trying to use Meta for creating a Ukrainian-language version of another site dedicated to hellenistic astrology. Obviously there's nothing that could help Wikimedia projects. --Microcell (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Was the user notified and asked to provide info about why the pages were created here? Nemo 21:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I see only this message of Mathonius of 15 May. After that the user contacted Mathonius and he never did anything on Meta-Wiki anymore. Trijnsteltalk 13:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, that message contains a request to send her back a copy of the deleted page by e-mail, for she had no access to the material anymore. I suppose an admin will have no difficulty retrieving and sending the content if asked by the author. --Microcell (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the pages to the author's userspace. They seem to be an attempt to translate another website; while it is not within the scope of existing Wikimedia projects, it could be, and there's no reason to prevent a userspace draft. I left her a message. SJ talk  17:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems resolved after Sj's intervention. There is no cause to delete this from someone's userspace. If there are no objections, ~I will remove this request. Theo10011 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ja.wikinews メインページ

The following discussion is closed: Kept and marked as historical. Trijnsteltalk 12:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Must be an old version of ja wikinews (created in 2005). I don't see a need for this as ja Wikinews exists. Techman224Talk 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This was part of the old Wikinews incubator, cf. Ang.wikinews Héafodsíde, He.wikinews מזנון, etc. I think we should just archive them and move on. They might have interesting history (or for CC attribution). PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    How about we put a soft redirect/interwiki redirect/historical hatnote on the Main Pages of these and delete all the subpages and templates? We should move stuff to the Incubator first if the project wasn't created, as was done for ang.wn. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I added a historical note. I don't have an opinion either way guys, so it's your call. ;) Theo10011 (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep as historical archive. Deryck C. 00:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Valenciano

The following discussion is closed: Kept. Trijnsteltalk 10:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No useful content. IP asks for new code for Valencian and it gets a reply from an user who tells it to request the code to ISO. It's that simple. Tokvo (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  • There is no reason to delete that. --MF-W 00:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Per MF-W, no need to remove it. Might be of some use to someone someday. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

How to deal with Poles

The following discussion is closed: Kept, no clear consensus for deletion. Addition to be made to clearly put article into context. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I found this page offensive and incredibly racist.

  • Delete. Abstain but Modify (adding the historical context) Per disscusion with AFBorchert below85.202.44.245 12:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Read its talk page. --MF-W 13:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I've read it, anything else? I guess if it was to offend Germans, you would be raging now like in the latest century. 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Lies! We Germans have so much humour nowadays! --MF-W 15:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure the author only claim to be Polish but in real he is not. Alas, the article's too propagandic to be humuorous. GERhatER (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete I fail to see how this page would be within Meta's scope. Meta is typically used for global and cross-wiki matters, but this page seems to be something else. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    Meta is also used for essays (Category:Essays) and Humour (Category:Humor). Humour includes such pages as GAY, which could also be offensive to some people (in that case, friends of gays). But it isn't offensive, because it's just supposed to be funny. Nowadays, however, what you described is what takes up most of the new content of Meta. If you include WMF stuff as "global". PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep To deal with Poles by deleting them takes me back to the 1940s, and I would hate to do that. Let's deal with Poles by letting them have this page; they all get it, and it was obviously written by a Pole. I have to laugh at people crying "RACISM!", when the Poles themselves find the page quite funny. Russavia (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I’m myself Polish, and i don’t get it at all. Ï¿½ (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Of course my comments apply to every other Pole except for the nominator, who obviously doesn't get the humour. :( Russavia (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Also, prepare for a #9 -- incoming!!! Russavia (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete: Even if it wasn't intended as an attack page on a particular group of editors, it can be seen this way and is thereby not acceptable at Meta per WM:IP. I know that it has apparently been created by a Pole but that does not change the possible perception of this text. See also this related DR at en-wp which provides some background to the creation of this page. I would possibly understand if this text would be somewhere at en-wp to which it relates to. But at Meta it is out of context. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you tell me why the page in wikipedia you have mentioned was deleted if the result of the debate was no consensus? 12:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you also provide some wider context to the cited dispute? Was the Szopen's article connected with Witkacy's Black Book which contained nicks and IP adresses of the anti-Polish users? 12:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The page was deleted in April 2006, nearly a year after the refered discussion took place in August 2005. There was no second regular DR for this. If another discussion took place, I do not know. I've refered to it because of the statement by Witkacy in whose namespace this page lived:
This page [i.e. the deleted Black Book] is intended as an archive of anti-Polish behaviour on various WP pages. Many Wikipedians assume bad faith solely because the wikipedians they oppose are Polish. It is commonly accepted that Poles are nationalists, anti-Semites or simply morons. Such views are promoted by numerous people here, whether conscient or not. In the past this behaviour has led to the creation of meta:How to deal with Poles. [..]
From this I concluded that How to deal with Poles was created after a series of conflicts that took place at en-wp in 2005 or earlier. In my opinion, the article as it stands now at Meta without the context that lead to its creation appears offending. I think that, if this should survive for historical reasons, it is best moved to en-wp and augmented with an introduction explaining its historic context. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It slightly changes my point of view. In addition to what I have been told recently (e.g. that saying a city was Polish for approximately 400 years is POV) I will change my vote. 11:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Neither of these cases appear offending to the unaware reader. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: What about this one to friends of gays? PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest to delete this as well. The previous two attempts (1, 2) failed unfortunately. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a quite famous historical page. Plus, it is not racist - it is antiracist (and sarcastic). After all, probably more people should learn how to deal with Poles... ;) aegis maelstrom δ 08:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Sidenote: Wikimedians did have their fair portion of harsh interactions with some users - this was their response and picture of what was happening.
Don't you think that this historical context should be presented in a small introduction? Meta is an international site and the historical context did not take place at Meta but at en-wp. And without knowledge about the context, the irony detectors are not fully enabled with the consequence that the text appears to be offending for the unaware reader. Otherwise we wouldn't have the fifth DR for it by now. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Offensive, no matter how it's understood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ypnypn (talk) 8 August 2013, 21:35 UTC
  • Keep, with the caveat that some historical context should be added to the start of the article. As it is, there is a large potential for the page to be misread (or just read, actually) as being racist, so the intent should be clarified if the page is kept. I'll do some research into the circumstances leading to its creation and try and add that section myself, if there are no objections. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept I have kept the article as there is no clear consensus for deletion. As it is a very aged article, and has been through a previous deletion discussions see last at Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006, and others from essay talk page the argument for deletion has to be unequivocal. The historical context is important, and that should be added briefly to the heading of the page (suggest a head notice that discusses Meta-held essays, and points to the corresponding talk page) and a more meaningful explanation on the talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)











Not undeleted


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not undeleted. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Competence test

Wikimedia Competence test Not G1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rancalred (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2012‎

What was it? πr2 (tc) 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It was some sort of quiz to show your "competence" in WMF projects, with questions that went all like "Do You Put Babel Boxes On Your Foreign Wiki User Page(s)? [+5]" or "Do You Edit Wikipedia Because You Enjoy it? [-5]". Over 100 points meant that you should be a sysop! --MF-W 13:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose undeletion, the article could be deleted as G7 (out of Meta's scope, read the inclusion policy). Thehelpfulone 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, not really... We do have legit pages like this somewhere, like wikiholism tests. However this is rather trollish. In the spirit of "Did You Just Userfy Some Frequently Edited Articles Just For Points ? [-100 , And A 24-hour Block]", we could restore if user swears to userfy it and then block him. ;-) --Nemo 08:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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