Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2018

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

Template:Ymovies title

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per consensus.--Syum90 (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

These two templates have been here since 2006, no pages link to them, and they seem to be out of place on Meta. Green Giant (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted per consensus.--Syum90 (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

These two templates have been here since 2006 and 2012 respectively, no pages link to them (apart from a talkpage), and they seem to be out of place on Meta, especially since the DMOZ website became inactive in March 2017. Green Giant (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


Old request for new sister project language that wasn't filled out nor explained. Proposing user hasn't edited Wikimedia projects for over a year so they can't exactly explain the proposal. Zhangj1079 talk 22:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

What language is this? StevenJ81 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
My mistake! It's a request for a new sister project. Zhangj1079 talk 01:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. --MF-W 16:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

New request

These files were moved to corrected titles. Please remove:

Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program/Support/test2 ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 22:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Yes check.svg Done
User:Мастер теней/global.css.
User:Мастер теней/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js

Hi! Please delete this page. Мастер теней (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! I was looking for a template equivalent to speedy deletion on wikipedia hehe. Found this while watching #cvn-mediawiki. [

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

delete my user page

The following discussion is closed: Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC) --Mr.Polaz (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Akb Consultants1/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js

The following discussion is closed: Yes check.svg Done
  • Please delete this JS page which only contains spam. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg DoneAjraddatz (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Yes check.svg Done
  • Please delete this JS page created by a Crosswiki spammer, which gives advice on removing some software. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Marco Castagna 1/global.js

The following discussion is closed: Yes check.svg Done
  • Please delete this JS page, which contains only an out-of-scope, self-laudatory CV. Green Giant (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Matt Wing - Throp/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js

The following discussion is closed: Done. --Jusjih (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Please delete this out of scope JS page. Green Giant (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

deletion request

The following discussion is closed: Yes check.svg Done

auto request of new pages

Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program/Support/వాడుకరి:విశ్వనాధ్.బి.కె.
Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program/Support/వాడుకరి:విశ్వనాధ్.బి.కె.a

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viswaprabha (talk)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Done by MF-W in January. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't have any local ban policy, so what is a ban is unclear. Propose to redirect it to Template:Indefblocked I also propose to remove the "banned" option in Template:Indefblocked. For global ban we already have {{WMF-legal banned user}} and {{Community banned user}}.--GZWDer (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirect makes sense. As far as the "banned" option in {{Indefblocked}} goes, I'm substantially indifferent, but do have one question. My understanding is that in some circumstances, a community-banned user is still allowed to edit in a limited way on Meta, if for no other reason than to appeal the community ban. So I wonder if that option should stay, in order to call out a situation when a community-banned user is not even allowed that limited editing on Meta. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Clearly not necessary to worry about that. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no banning policy alike w:WP:BAN here, yes. That doesn't mean that an indefblocked user can return with another account and we'll treat that as abuse of multiple accounts. I am indiferent as long as we don't start making things bureaucratic and difficult to understand. If any user is blocked on meta indefinitely for any reason, the user is not allowed to come back in general with any account. Obviously common sense apply and if the user was blocked because of their username, then if he returns with a valid username I'd say there's no violation here. —MarcoAurelio 10:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Merge with {{Indefblocked}}, we don't actually "ban" a user locally, it's enough to either indef block or global ban. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete, you can't be "banned from Meta-Wiki". --MF-W 13:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Better to let the whole template redirect, then, especially since redirects are cheap. That will remind anyone who actually has a thought about placing a "banned" template on someone's page that it's not a correct thing to do. (But then the banned option can be removed.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that would tempt people to a wrong use of "banned" as a synonym for "blocked". --MF-W 23:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The term "banned" is already being misused.--GZWDer (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not speak English so I hope you all can excuse me for that horrible mistake. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Honestly I don't mind your usage of it. A ban is defined (in English) as an official prohibition against using a service, I think an indef block qualifies as that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete. I also think that deleting the template is better in order to avoid confusion, and also removing the "banned" option from the template {{Indefblocked}}.--Syum90 (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  • substitute and delete; to avoid red-links. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment looking at how it is being used, I would recommend that we leave it as is. This template utilises "indefblock" and it is being used supplementary to either community or WMF-legal notice to indicate to users that the account should not be un(b)locked without further consultation. Each user with this template has been banned by one of the two processes, so it is the case that a ban has been applied.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
billinghurst It's funny you say that and within the same few minutes then protect the user page of a user who's ban was a bullying tactic by James Alexander of the WMF to show the community what happens when editors stand up to admin abuse. Reguyla was routinely bullied, trolled and harassed by admins and functionaries including on this very project right in front of you and you all didn't lift a should be ashamed of yourselves. Reguyla's ban wasn't done by the WMF, everyone knows it was just Jamesofur/James Alexanders that did it. What better way to show that the term "banned" doesn't have any value here. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:3D95:A817:5B32:32B0 18:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, whatever alternate view of reality you wish to put on it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
You can discount my beliefs if you want too but if Kumioko/Reguyla had not been bullied out they would likely now still be editing at a high rate and improving Wikipedia rather than being an enemy. But not everyone in the community agrees with the decision! 2601:5CC:100:697A:A061:E024:1056:8FBD 02:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In five users using banned template, only one (PauloHelene) have local community discussion. The other four are blocked without community discussion.
  • For these "banned" users (except socks), in my opinion they may be unblocked if they promise to behave. I don't think a full community discussion is always needed. (There're no local unblock discussion of Reguyla either.)
  • For community or WMF-legal process of global ban, we have specific templates indicating it. I don't think a real community process of local ban is needed.

--GZWDer (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

    • And there never will be an unblock discussion for Reguyla because James Alexander won't allow it. It was his decision to ban them and he isn't about to admit he was wrong. 2601:5CC:100:697A:A061:E024:1056:8FBD
    Three of those accounts are WMF blocks, so there is not requirement for a community discussion. They are still banned and the template applies. I cannot comment on the fourth account, you will need to talk to Huji but it does mention another account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    billinghurst which user are you referring to? I am quite confused. Huji (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: For users banned by WMF, we already have {{WMF-legal banned user}}. For account User:ظهيری, it is blocked for impersonating of other user (and later found as a sock of Mjbmr), both are grounds of only indefinite local block, so the term "banned" should not be applicable here.--GZWDer (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we focus on the template again? This is not the place to review blocks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess the consensus is for deleting or redirecting. --MF-W 16:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I'd just note that the template is transcluded on six user (talk) pages, so if the template is deleted, someone has to address that. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I replaced the occurrences with Template:Indefblocked and deleted this template. --MF-W 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk pages deleted outside of policy

The following discussion is closed: Not done. Deletions in line with the policy & no consensus to undelete. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to request the undeletion of user talk pages I had created when I welcomed new users, the reason given for these deletions was that the deleting admin (Vituzzu) didn't feel comfortable with a user "on probation" (which doesn't exist see Meta:Probation) welcoming new users, I am simply not the only user who welcomes new users but for some reason an admin decided that if I welcome a new user that this should be deleted even though other users like Ottava Rima and Liuxinyu970226 welcome new users so deleting these pages purely because I made them without citing any policy is an abuse of tools and these deletions should be reversed. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 13:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

See also Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Abuse_of_tools_by_Vituzzu. — xaosflux Talk 14:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose undeletion. Your signature is deliberately inflammatory, and I understand why Vituzzu thought it shouldn't be included on the talk pages of new users. And since you're from enwiki, I'll give you a bit of a pass on this one, but Meta (unlike enwiki) does not have hard-and-fast policies. Our deletion policy is a guideline which gives administrators latitude in how they apply it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
How is it inflammatory? Towards whom? You can’t just make a statement and not back it up, nor did any non-steward seem to have commented about my signature being “inflammatory” before, and I'm from Wikimedia Commons (also a place where I'm one of the most active users) and the deletion of those pages at no point mentioned my signature only that I'm supposedly on “probation” (something which doesn't seem to count for users like @INeverCry: who are allowed to call users “Nazi pedophiles” without getting globally locked), my signature is the way it is to show hope to users who are currently globally locked that not all locks are forever and since there’s no Meta:Guide to appealing locks get some insight in what stewards like you do and don't like (such as using the e-mail or IRC functions for contact), so again who does my signature harm? The fact that this steward calls my signature “linkspam” (despite it not being an external link) has more to do with the fact that they do not wish to see my account unlocked rather than anything else. Why is it acceptable behaviour on Meta to keep telling people that they should’ve never been unlocked/unblocked? On any other wiki this would've been seen as harassment. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 10:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I hereby request deletion of my main page. I'll be offline for long time, so I don't want to have it out there for now. Thank you! -- --SE (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done WM:CSD#G6 speedy deleted. — xaosflux Talk 12:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Charles Matthews

An editor is removing correctly cited material to protect the reputation of a media figure they favor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2018‎

  • This is a content issue and needs to be raised on English Wikipedia rather than here on Meta-Wiki. Specifically you should try discussing on the article talk page or the relevant user talk page, and if necessary at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Neither the Meta administrators nor the Stewards can intervene in such issues. Green Giant (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia Movement

Is the Category:Wikimedia Movement anything different from Category:Wikimedia? If no, it should be deleted. miktalk 10:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Support, this is legacy of early category structure (before extracting Category:Wikimedia Foundation). --Kaganer (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Reorganized and deleted. --Kaganer (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose
Wikimedia do not have any definition, is ambiguous and can be confused as Wikimedia Foundation, or chapter that uses Wikimedia XXXX. The Wikimedia movement is the correct term for that. Is the most comprehensive one. So Wikimedia is the wrong one, but shouldn't also be deleted, should be use as a redirect.
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Following the tidy, a category redirect now exists and that seems suitable in the circumstances. Closing this.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


Please do not support the use of mass-ping (a.k.a. spam) templates like this. Either ping the exact people you want to ping, or post on Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous Wiktionary User Group and rely on peoples watchlists. --Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • delete as they should not be third party-created and added. That said, if people wish to add themselves to a list and be pinged by it, to that I have no issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done deleted per above. — xaosflux Talk 13:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 13:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


CSD G1: Patent nonsense; also userpage of a banned user. Would have added the speedy delete template but was blocked by edit filter. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg speedied  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 01:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Simon 1996/common.js

This redirect page is to a user page Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this falls under WM:CSD, Miscellaneous 1 and 2. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speedy deleted (M1) — xaosflux Talk 17:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete request - page "MISTO TRESKA" in SQwiki

Please delete page in SQwiki, because it is a personal attack against our father (dead 25 years ago). There are criminal statements against him in this article, accusations and defamations without any Court sentence to prove them. We're facing this problem since March 2018 and we have evidence for local administrators being in conflict of interests with our family, as they refuse to keep a NPOV or to delete the articly permanently. Please help us, we find it unnecessary for Misto Treska to have an article in SQwiki at all. Thank you in advance. Best regards

We requested page deletion in SQwiki since March, but there is a conflict of interest between local administrator in SQwiki “1|2|3k” and us. Please help us. The article is full of crimes attributed to Misto Treska without any Court sentence. ~31 May 2018, 21:41 CEST
X mark.svg Not done (a) this page is only for metawiki deletions, so this is the wrong venue. (b) sqwiki has many admins that could action this. — xaosflux Talk 23:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

3 redirects to delete

Technical Collaboration and subpages are renamed to Community Relations. The move has been partially done, and I need 3 redirects to be deleted so that I can link again the translations units that haven't moved.

Thanks, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Done, please use {{Speedy}} for this kind of uncontroversial requests. — regards, Revi 13:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Noted, Revi, and thanks! Trizek (WMF) (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

All content in Category:Indefblocked Meta users

Now that the category is gone, maybe we should just nuke all its entries there. Ping @Herbythyme, Trijnstel, and Billinghurst. I've been testing a deletion script recently. I can delete them all using either my admin account or creating an ad hoc bot admin account for that only purpose. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that some need to be retained, and those retained need a suitable category. Some are clear community level bans that happened through discussion and such pages should not be deleted, which is why I stopped the other day and left comment with my pings. So at this stage, my retention thoughts are anything that has a user page, and a user talk page with {{unblock}} definitely, and anything that is a size above a minimal level size (not yet worked out what size, but something that has a discussion and not just a template with warning).  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe some can be kept, but all? I don't think so. Any ideas? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
From flicking through random pages in category, there are a lot of spambots, and they should go, all of those makes it harder to see those we may want to keep. Gut feel that as a first cut we do NOT want user talk pages on list that are less than 1800 bytes, and do not contain {{unblock}}. Though we may want to get there in a couple of steps. Firstly clear just those with {{warning message}} but not {{welcome}} and not {{unblock}} and less than 1000 bytes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
And using special:massdelete gadget (s:MediaWiki:Gadget-massdelete.js) with account on flooder with a select list is how I was going to do it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it an idea to manually start deleting pages we definitely want to get rid of? Trijnsteltalk 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I can pull a list of user/user talk pages no longer than, say, X bytes long, paste the output on a file and run a deletion script for them if that helps. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please. @Billinghurst: you will communicate with MarcoAurelio about this, I assume? Trijnsteltalk 18:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Selecting all talk pages whole length => 600 bytes returns ~60k results. I guess I need some sort of join with members of that category or if anyone has a better idea? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Trijnstel: I made a query: -- does the results look right to you? If so, I can delete them. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)

The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted by billinghurst.--Syum90 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete Page on Urdu Wiki

The following discussion is closed: Not deleted, not a Meta page. Requests for pages on other projects have to be done at SRM.--Syum90 (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please Delete This Page. This was created by IP and no admin is active now. It shows on Urdu wiki main page. Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 04:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary/Tremendous Wiktionary User Group/affiliates

The following discussion is closed: deleted, opt-out lists are not okay, opt-in lists are okay  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

As Template:Ping/twug below. --Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • oppose keep it though blank it. People should be welcome to add themselves to a group. They should not be added by a third party. If that is not able to be managed by self-control then we can write an abuse filter, or have a different perspective of abuse.
  • Oppose Oppose, this is a list of people that subscribed to the group, everybody is free to join or leave the group. If anyone among […] don't want to be notified about TWUG information, please remove your user name from the list Wiktionary/Tremendous Wiktionary User Group/affiliates. --Psychoslave (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to understand what was the problem with this template. It is a useful tool for our group. If there are better way to obtain a similar result without entering in conflict with whatever the reason was for its deletion, please tell us. Thank you in advance to notify me about anything pertaining to the TWUG Face-smile.svg --Psychoslave (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at the deletion request and you will see that one of the recipients was a requestor of the deletion. So it would not appear as useful maybe you considered it to be.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

People are abusing both Template:Ping/twug and this list for spamming. Look at the formatting: What's the point of concatenating names in such an unreadable way if not to be copy-pasted to a ping template? That's the only purpose of this list. Administrators, please put a clear stop sign at such behavior. PS: I just realized the page is not linked from anywhere. In contrast to the claim above people can't opt-out because they don't know why they get spammed. (Seriously, tell me how I should opt-out from this or this?) The actual opt-in list is here. The page I ask you to delete was created by a single user, not by the people on the list. --Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone on the list has been pinged by this discussion. They should be able to remove themselves if they wish. If they don't know how, just leave a message here, and someone will do it for you. Rich Farmbrough 06:53 17 May 2018 (GMT).

Comment Comment It must be considered ridiculous that a meta admin has to be required to deal with this issue. A person complains about being on an opt-out list, and some people appear too principled to remove them from that list, expecting them to remove themself. So we come to a meta admin needing to make a decision about a deletion or not. In the end, giving that choice, I am closing as delete on the principle that opt-out lists are not considered appropriate; whereas if people add themselves to such a list on an opt-in, or give approval on a clear understanding they are being added to a pingable list.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: X mark.svg Not done Opt-in lists seem to be reasonable by this discussion. Opt-out lists are not considered desirable, and easily avoidable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This template was created to ease people life when they want to notify the TWUG. Yes, it is still possible to ping every member of the TWUG with […], but it less conveninent to use, and if everybody copy/paste it all the time then the list of pinged people won't change according to the changes made on the TWUG members. That is, the reason invoked to delete the template is the exact reason why it should be kept: with this template people can easily unregister themselves from the notifications about TWUG information, and TWUG user can use it to notify anyone currently interested to get this information. --Psychoslave (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I support this request for undeletion. Amqui (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The same. Pamputt (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment The template was abused, and went through a deletion request. So please address in your undeletion request how abuse will be avoided.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    If […] does not want to be part of this list anymore, he can remove his name from the list. I do not see how this template could be a problem. Pamputt (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    Pamputt, I believe that is the wrong approach. People obviously free to add their name, I think that it is unreasonable for people need to remove their names.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, I am not sure to understand. This template is exactly the same as pinging manually all people that are part of the user group. If they are not interested anymore by the user group so they should remove their name otherwise this misunderstanding may occur. Other people cannot guess that some people do not want to be warned about some news that may interested some affiliates of the user group. Pamputt (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe people are repeating the same ping-abuse in the undeletion request for a template that was deleted because of ping-abuse. To the administrators watching this page: Please make sure these people stop spamming any large amount of people. Thank you very much. --Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thiemo Kreuz. I understand that you do not want to be pingged anymore. Don't act. You only have to say us otherwise we cannot guess it. It is the same with the ping template. If you do not want to be pingged anymore you just need to remove your name. BTW, talking about ping-abuse is a bit abusive; I did not count but I think this global ping template has been used about once a week, so I do not think we can talk about "massive pinging". Pamputt (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
See my comment above. Rich Farmbrough 06:57 17 May 2018 (GMT).

Did you get a prior consent for being pinged en masse? If not, that definitely sounds like a spam. Signing up for a user group does not mean they grant you (or anyone else) unlimited permission to ping them. Our MassMessage works in an opt-in functionality, I see no reason why this (de facto MessMessage) ping must be opt-out. Starting a clean ping list, with being opt-in is fine IMO, just undeleting it is not. — regards, Revi 11:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Newlogo2.png, File:Newlogo2a.png, File:Newlogo2b.png

They are used at Logo_suggestions#2,_3,_4 and marked "from Magnus Manske" that I have also left a message, but their sources and licenses are not so clear. I list them here while a little reluctant to speedily delete proposed logos with uncertain sources and licenses.--Jusjih (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: With no objections raised, as these files have no licensing information they have been deleted. — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Batak Karo, Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Toba Batak and Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Sumbawa

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by StevenJ81.--Syum90 (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

All are created by the vandalizer Willy2000, with insulting sentences in their Proposal sections. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done StevenJ81 (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted by StevenJ81.--Syum90 (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This user page is confusing. As there's not a user page policy on Meta, I am going to ask the community whether this is appropriate.--GZWDer (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing confusing about it. It's vandalism. Deleted. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


special:permalink/17925246 --Roy17 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done (G1/G6, and in user's own space) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Main Page/zh-hans, Main Page/zh-hant

dupe Main_Page/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I should note that the zh-hans and zh-hant pages are not translated and disabled from translation, and they are showing as main page when selecting variations of zh in language preferences. Deleting these pages should make the translated page to show. Also should we use 首页 or Main Page/zh? 首页 used to show as my main page until the other three pages were created. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 16:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree, the main Chinese translation pages already have the variant preference selection on both traditional and simplified Chinese characters for readers, given the redundant translation pages that have left at behind doesn't make any sense on that. SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
per nom--Cohaf (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done StevenJ81 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: StevenJ81 (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk-only page

While Category:2018 Community Wishlist Survey was moved to Category:Community Wishlist Survey 2019, its talk page was left alone at Category talk:2018 Community Wishlist Survey. Since it'd add nothing to the new page discussion, I propose it to be removed. Eduardogobi (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Stop sign us.JPG

Used to show how a file page without an image uploaded looks like. (See Help:Image page#Nonexisting image) Paul Ewe (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


Wikimédia France/Finances/Dépense/2018/12/Wikimedia France/Finances/Dépense/2018/12/µFi-201812-02 Page créée par erreur. Zythème (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Faite. (For info of fellow administrators: only contributor, and deletion request happened within about ten minutes of page creation. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC))
J'ai créé deux fiches de dépense par erreur. Je propose de supprimer celle avec le titre le moins explicite : Wikimedia France/Finances/Dépense/2018/12/µFi-201812-02 Désolé poir la désorganisation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zythème (talk)
@Zythème: If you have created pages and you wish for them to be deleted not long after, then you can simply mark them as {{delete|author request}} and we can speedy delete. I am unsure whether you want the linked file deleted, or not.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Zythème (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


speed deletion general 1: no meaningful: written in japanese, "he must to be sorry for killed people by him". --Testment777 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC) also, this page is shown for wiki project, so SPEEDY DELETE REQUIRES. --Testment777 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


Status:    Not done
  • Please delete User:Norcap AS because of username too similar other site.

User:Norcap_AS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norcap AS (talk)

@Norcap AS: I see no page to be deleted. If you are referring to user accounts, they are not deleted. If you wish it renamed, please see Special:GlobalRenameRequest  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Monthly goings-on

Goings-on/March 2004, April 2004 and May 2004 are already listed in Goings-on/2004. The same happens with Goings-on/02-2005 (see Goings-on/2015). Why maintain these monthly going-on pages when they've been already “copied” into their respective annual pages? It can be seen in Category:Goings-on that every other goings-on have been issued yearly. Eduardogobi (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Eduardogobi: If they are exact replications, then convert them to anchored redirects. No value in deleting long-existing pages, and redirects are cheap.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Invitation/* and Translations:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Invitation/*

When Fuzzy moved 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Invitation to Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Invitation, it forgot to also move its translations. Because of this, they can't be edited anymore, but they still appear as suggestions when translating similar messages. I propose the removal of all these (and these) pages, since some of them contain typos (that, as I said, can't be edited). Eduardogobi (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Those pages that could be moved over could be copy and pasted IF THERE IS VALUE in doing so. Or we could see if someone could move them over from the backend.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
As a comment, it seems that the bot should be improved to move Translation: ns pages if the main ns pages are moved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal (WMF): who moved the parent pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, FuzzyBot failed to copy over a lot of translations when we did the rename of the older surveys. I asked on IRC and it apparently is a known bug. Even with sysop rights it appears you can't delete or move them manually. I do have a script I can use to copy over translations from the old locations. I will do that. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Although, I should point out that notification won't be used anymore (that was for the 2017 survey). Maybe we should just disable translations, at this point? What do you think Eduardogobi? MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I've deleted the template. I don't think FuzzyBot deleted the new translations, or the old ones... Not much I can do there :( But hopefully it's at least not showing up as needing translation anymore. Regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment That is an interesting question about YEAR pages and their translations. Do we wish to continue to have them open for translation and improvement? Or are these pages to be marked as historical and terminate translation. Even to the point of minimising further editing—which we can do by abuse filters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)