Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2020

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

Template:Mega-super-support

The following discussion is closed.

Template:Mega-super-support (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

{{looks useless}} to me and is unused. Similar case as Template:OPPOSE. I can understand that we may want to create a less serious atmosphere here sometimes, but I'd prefer this kind of templates don't mushroom on Meta. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent creation, and I would agree with the sentiments expressed. The strength of someone's support would have no impact on my decision making compared with the argument they produce.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with MarcoAurelio. In retrospect, I think it will be better to create in my userspace next time. Is it possible for userification? If not I will agree to it's deletion. Apologies.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Sure it's possible. No objections to userfy to your space. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Moved and I think this can be closed. I author blanked speedied the documentation.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Symbol strong support vote.svgSymbol strong support vote.svgSymbol strong support vote.svg Mega-super-support deletion. --Rschen7754 07:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Jose txitxi

Improper use. I tried to use {{Delete}}, but I was stopped. --HVL talk 22:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  • @HVL: Thanks. The reason why you are stopped is non-autopatrolled users are prevented to edit other users userpage by an abuse filter. I will add autopatrol to your account for you to tag it. Yes check.svg Done--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage and HVL: that filter should have told you to just place the tag on the associated talk page for follow up. — xaosflux Talk 16:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Thanks for the elaboration, yes, the abusefilter-disallow text will point them to use the talkpage rather than here. In general, this will be the approach and not by granting the autopatrol user right. I granted them the autopatrol is mainly due to the trust that they are a sysop of a large wiki (ptwiki) and won't vandalize or screw up things here. That said, I know their edits here are quite low, less then the usual threshold that we usually grant (I personally will grant around 50 - 100 edits at least). With this valid use I am considering this as an IAR action and I believe they won't abuse the right in general. I hope this explains. Thanks. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

‎User_talk:FNAFPUPPETMASTER/Archive_enwiki

The following discussion is closed.

User_talk:FNAFPUPPETMASTER/Archive_enwiki (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Out of scope for meta, per meta isn't a global appeal court and this seems to be existing here for no good clause. Out of scope--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete: Such archives only brings unnecessary drama on meta, plus from a user perspective I see no benefit of this here. Anything that hasn't happened here should not be archived here. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Author asked for deletion. Deleted per G6.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Killarnee/archive/wiktionary/1

The following discussion is closed.

Oben steht, dass man hier in jeder Sprache einen Antrag stellen kann. Ich hoffe, es gibt Admins hier auf Meta, die Deutsch können.

You can find an English translation below. --Udo T. (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Auf der genannten Seite wird die Benutzer-Diskussions-Seite von User:Killarnee aus dem de.wiktionary angeblich archiviert; eigentlich eher gespiegelt bzw. dupliziert. Das Original befindet sich unter wikt:de:Benutzer Diskussion:Killarnee

Da aber hier auf Meta die Vorlagen aus dem de.wiktionary überwiegend nicht vorhanden sind bzw. eine ganz andere Funktion haben, werden dadurch natürlich einige Diskussions-Beiträge nicht korrekt wiedergegeben. Außerdem hat der Benutzer eigene Anmerkungen hinzugefügt. Mal abgesehen von Sinnhaftigkeit dieser Kopie stören mich dabei einige Aspekte:

  • Auf dieser Seite sieht es auf den 1. Blick so aus, als ob ich und auch noch 2 andere Benutzer aus dem de.wiktionary dort mit Killarnee diskutiert hätten. Dies ist aber natürlich nicht der Fall und ich möchte mich in aller Entschiedenheit dagegen verwahren, dass meine Signatur hier auf Meta auf einer Benutzer-Unterseite auftaucht, auf der ich nie etwas geschrieben habe. Ich sehe hierin mein Persönlichkeitsrecht in starkem Maße verletzt; immerhin sind es meine Signaturen, also meine Unterschriften, die ich auf dieser Seite aber nie gesetzt habe.
  • Auf der zu löschenden Seite ist es auch, anders als auf der Original-Seite im de.wiktionary, nicht möglich, anhand der Versionsgeschicht überprüfen zu können, wer genau was und wann geschrieben hat. Theoretisch könnte der Benutzer dort den Diskussionsverlauf abändern und damit verfälschen, was auch durch Einfügen einer Fußnote bereits geschehen ist.
  • Darüberhinaus sehe ich in der Seite auch einen URV-Verstoß: auf w:de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechte beachten steht in 2 Sätzen folgendes:
„Nach der Creative-Commons-Lizenz „Namensnennung, Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen“ und der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation, der alle Wikipedia-Artikel unterliegen, muss die Information über die Originalautoren stets erhalten bleiben. Diese speichert die MediaWiki-Software in der Versionsgeschichte. Ein einfaches Cut&Paste von Text in andere Artikel ohne Hinweis auf die Autoren ist nicht gestattet.“
Dies dürfte meiner Anischt nach sinngemäß auch für Diskussions-Seiten gelten.
  • Und zu guter Letzt ist noch ein weiterer Aspekt zu beachten: Auch gemäß Meta:What Meta is not Punkt 9. (Meta is not a big truck) und/oder Punkt 12. (Meta is not a storage room) ist die genannte Seite zu löschen. Man stelle sich einfach nur vor, Millionen von Benutzern aus über 700 Wikimedia-Projekten würden alle ihre Diskussion-Seiten hier auf Meta rüberkopieren und damit quasi spiegeln bzw. duplizieren. Es lässt sich wohl leicht abschätzen, dass man dann für Meta sehr schnell die Datenbank-Resourcen extrem erhöhen bzw. ausbauen müsste...

Zusätzliche Info: Ich habe den Steward Schniggendiller auf seiner Diskussions-Seite schon deswegen angeschrieben, da ich der irrigen Annahme war, alle Stewards wären auf Meta auch Admin, was aber wohl nicht stimmt. Die dabei entstandene Diskussion kann unter User_talk:Schniggendiller#Ist das auf Meta zulässig? nachgelesen werden.

--Udo T. (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Wirklich? Das alles hatten wir doch schon bei Schniggendiller. Was hast du nur für ein Problem? Bitte Admins, sagt ihm er soll endlich aufhören. --Killarnee (TRP) 13:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
jetzt ich auch noch :) Ich bin insofern von der Sache betroffen, als der erste Teil auf der Diskussionsseite von Killarnee von mir geschrieben ist. Killarnees Einstieg als Autor im wiktionary war nicht so geglückt, wenn ich es mal so formulieren darf. Was sich dort, im wiki, als ein Geflecht von Links und archivierten Versionen verschiedenster Edits zeigt, das in einem Umfeld von Hinweisen, Hilfstexten und Anmerkungen steht, ist hier eine Kopie mit Rot-Links und ohne Hintergund.
Ich verstehe Killarnee, der frustriert ist, weil wir seine Edits nicht so akzeptieren. Er will das Ganze ausserhalb dokumentieren. Das ist nachvollziehbar, aber letztlich sinnlos, weil sein Problem mit dem wiktionary nur dort gelöst werden kann. Nicht hier.
Ich verstehe Udos Löschantrag, der keine anderweitige Veröffentlichung seiner Originaledits/Unterschrift sehen möchte, die ja hier auf meta ua aus dem Zusammenhang gelöst sind.
Meine Meinung ist, die Kopie mit den Unterschriften aus dem wiktionary hier zu entfernen und durch einen permanenten Link auf die damalige Version der Diskussionsseite mit genau den Beiträgen zu ersetzen. mlg Susann Schweden (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Das alleinige Setzen eines Links zur Disk.-Seite auf de.wiktionary wäre völlig ok, mit nichts zu beanstanden und regelkonform. Ob es sinnvoll wäre, müssten andere oder Killarnee für sich selbst entscheiden. --Udo T. (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Killarnee: I am not asking specifically about this Wiktionary archive but to all of them, why are you making copies here on meta? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I see you are very curious... Don't worry, I'm not ignoring you, but my changes after your ping were just one thing I wanted to do quickly, and then I wanted to quit, so I decided to write to you today. I also have a real life. To answer your question, have a look at Schniggendiller's discussion page, we have already discussed all of this. If you wait a few more days you can delete the page, I will tell you why. --Killarnee (T12) 13:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The page can now be deleted. If you want to know why, check out my user page in a few days. --Killarnee (T12) 18:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Killarnee, Yes check.svg deleted per discussion and author request.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Flavius1

The following discussion is closed.

please delete my page. Flavius1 (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Flavius1:Yes check.svg Done. The {{db}} tag is enough, no need to file a request here the next time, just tag and we will get to it.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I will know next time. Thanks. --Flavius1 (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Resource Center of Wikimedia (Canada)

I don't know what this is, but I strongly suspect it can be deleted without issue. --Yair rand (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Speedy delete - general housekeeping, has no value, created by IP. ~riley (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposals for closing projects/Vote Wikimedia

Wrong venue. => 2405:9800:BA30:C21A:C5A0:2F98:CA72:C0F5 05:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment: the discussion says:

I think this wiki should be closed because when I checked recent changes there were no edits in the last 50 days. Arthurfan828 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a project, it's just an administrative sub-page sorta thing. You can't use this process to have it closed. Seb az86556 (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Dagu89 (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done - speedy delete per CSD#G1 - this is an improper filing/page created in error with no valuable content or history. ~riley (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE)/common.js

The following discussion is closed.

The redirect loads my stuff twice and create extra traffic. Can you please delete the redirect? --Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thiemo Kreuz: deleted. —Sgd. Hasley 12:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 12:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

PhpDoc

This page is tagged to be exported to mediawiki.org, and it could be, but mediawiki doesn't (no longer? not sure if it did) use phpdoc; we use doxygen, which is similar, but not identical, and it is already documented at, eg, mw:Manual:Coding conventions/PHP#Comments and documentation. I propose that PhpDoc be deleted from metawiki; if others want the documentation to be kept, I'll import it to mediawiki and mark is as outdated. So, can it be deleted, and should it be imported there first? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Support delete, after import. If someone goes looking for this information, it's not going to be on Meta. ~riley (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Import and delete --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Imported to mw:PhpDoc --DannyS712 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Deleted per consensusCamouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Q91183632

The following discussion is closed.

Hello, could someone delete that thing which is crosswiki spam. I have no idea how to deal with such entries. Thank you DLXXXIII (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. DLXXXIII, this page is only for Meta deletions. Please nominate Wikidata items for deletion at d:WD:RFD. —Sgd. Hasley 17:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 19:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sewepb/common.js

Please delete my old Usersubpage, which was created because of my renaming. I cannot edit the page and use the template for speedy deletion because it is a .js-page. Thanks --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneCamouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ameisenigel: For such pages, you can also choose to tag the talkpage for our attention, with reason G6 author request and a short explanation. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Nostalgia Wikipedia

Wrong venue, no meaningful contents. 2405:9800:BA30:C21A:1414:8567:BF99:FD6C 05:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted as nonsense. --MF-W 16:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Meetup/UNC/chapel hill then and now2019

The following discussion is closed.

It was created using an RFD template, remained in RFD category for months. Since there was no active nomination I disabling RFD tag. Apart from that it's not used anywhere plus there's no content. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

SDeleted per CSD G1. It has no valuable content, seems to be a test page that serves no purpose. —Sgd. Hasley 02:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 12:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:AccueilBabel

The following discussion is closed: deleted.

Prior to my lint fixing, this template was not edited since 2004. It is currently only used on one page, that does not been edited (excluding bot edits) since 2008. This could be easily substituted. --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC); amended 02:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleted per nomination, only transclusion substituted. —Sgd. Hasley 13:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

AIW related templates

Template:AIW moved

Prior to my lint fixing, this template was not edited since 2005/2008. It is only currently used on one page that does not been edited (excluding bot edits) since 2008. This could be easily substituted. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Substituted and deleted. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:AIW disambig

Prior to my lint fixing, this template was not edited since 2005/2008. It is only currently used on one page that does not been edited (excluding bot edits) since 2008. This could be easily substituted. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Substituted and deleted. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:AIW still deleted

Prior to my lint fixing, this template was not edited since 2005/2008. It is only currently used on one page that does not been edited (excluding bot edits) since 2008. This could be easily substituted. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Substituted and deleted. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:AIW deleted

Prior to my lint fixing, this template was not edited since 2005/2008. It is only currently used on four different but closely related pages that have not been edited (excluding bot edits) since 2008, 2005, 2009, and 2008, respectively. This could be easily substituted. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Substituted and deleted. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:AIW in progress

Prior to my lint fixing, this template was not edited since 2005/2008. It is only currently used on two pages that have not been edited (excluding bot edits) since 2008. This could be easily substituted. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Substituted and deleted. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:AIW redirected

Prior to my lint fixing, this template was not edited since 2005/2008. It is only currently used on one page that does not been edited (excluding bot edits) since 2008. This could be easily substituted. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Substituted and deleted. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:AIW merged

Prior to my lint fixing, this template was not edited since 2005/2008. It is only currently used on two pages that have not been edited (excluding bot edits) since 2008 and 2009, respectively. This could be easily substituted. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Substituted and deleted. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:AIW kept

Prior to my lint fixing, this template was not edited since 2005/2008. It is only currently used on three related pages that have not been edited (excluding bot edits) since 2008, 2009, 2008, respectively. This could be easily substituted. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Substituted and deleted. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Ft

The following discussion is closed: deleted.

Only use of this template is its own talk page. Prior to my lint fixes today, it was last edited in 2008 (created in 2006). --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. —Sgd. Hasley 18:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Flow templates

The following discussion is closed: deleted.

Useless given that Flow is no longer installed on this wiki. * Pppery * it has begun 15:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. —Sgd. Hasley 17:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Archive for converted wikitext talk page

The following discussion is closed: deleted.

While this is used in one place (Research talk:ORES paper/Archive 1), and thus wasn't included in my other batch, it could easily be substituted on that one page, and has no possibility of being used on any other pages since Flow has been uninstalled. * Pppery * it has begun 15:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Substitute and delete per flow uninstall. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Done. —Sgd. Hasley 18:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User:MOTORUP_Engine

Seems to be linkspam, that is copied over all wikis, where the "user" logged in/created an account. Annabel (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Jarash

  • Please undelete my user page. I requested it to be deleted back in 2016 because of idea to individualize userpages in each wiki. Now being autopatrolled in Meta I think it makes sense to have a user page here. --Jarash (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jarash:Yes check.svg Done.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with Poles

The following discussion is closed: Kept, no clear consensus for deletion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Humour page that is decidedly not funny, nor has it been. This comes from a discussion on EN.wiki on deleting a soft link to this page, see [1]. Not that I'm trying to be the fun police, I think humour is critical to smooth editing and I've read as many Poland ball comics as the next person, but I fail to see how this page is funny or helpful. It seemed to be a joke on the "Polling is evil" essay, but that seems poorly traveled, and last edited ten years ago. From my perspective on EN.wiki, this page is very backwards, and is a bad look for Wikimedia. This page has been the target of past contention, see the last deletion discussion in 2013. CaptainEek (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's humor, and many consider it quite funny. (Pretty sure that it's a take on "Polls are evil", btw. The original name of the page was "Poles are evil".) (I still want someone to also write a similar page on interactions with Czech users. :) ) --Yair rand (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an attempt at humor, and I'm not going to judge the creator's sense of humor, but there's no point in having this. Considering this page has had controversy in the past (see the old discussion pointed out by the nom), I'm not sure meta wiki is the best place to keep around potentially contentious humor. Hog Farm (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC) (visitor from EN.wiki)
  • Delete. Would we keep How to deal with Jews? Do we really want people to think it's funny to make jokes about ethnic groups? It might be ok if it was a major group that wasn't the target for bigotry, but that's not true of Poles. Doug Weller (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any humour that's good to keep wouldn't need that disclaimer at the bottom. Oh, and reading through it, every one of those "humorous" points just made me cringe. I know humour is in the eye of the beholder, but it's a warped eye that sees any here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. An outsider who stumbles here might not get the reference and issues would ensue. Also, per Boing! said Zebedee the disclaimer kind of ruins the whole gag and is further evidence that this isn't suited here. John M Wolfson (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Bigotted essay based purely on the weak attempt on humour that the name for a native of Poland is a homophone of poll. Not funny and not required. Voice of Clam (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as utterly inappropriate for any wiki, much less a wiki that aims to include all cultures, Poland included. --Rschen7754 06:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Just say no. Buidhe (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep it is an interesting piece of wiki lore we do not want to lose. That being said we do need to indicate it more clearly that this is a nonsense page to talk about on evening wiki meetups rather than an actual discouragement of actual Poles from contribution. --Base (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. On English Wikipedia this page would have been speedily deleted as an attack page. It don't see any reason why it should be kept here. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Hog Farm, Doug Weller, Voice of Clam, Rschen7754, Buidhe, and Ammarpad: It's "Polish humor", apparently. The author, User:Szopen, is Polish, and each time this page is proposed for deletion, it's been opposed by many Polish editors. There are arguments to be made in favor of deletion, but I'm pretty sure this page doesn't actually offend any Polish people, so causing offense is not among them. --Yair rand (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I think part of the issue is that it can easily be questioned "If a humor essay can cause offense to some editors, should it be kept up on the project, since it's not necessary or strongly related?" Even if most Poles don't find this offensive, I don't think this helps create an environment conducive to building an encyclopedia, but that's just my opinion. Hog Farm (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: I'm working under the assumption that there aren't any editors who are offended by this. --Yair rand (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you presume to speak for all of them (not just one or two?) --Rschen7754 07:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: (I assume this was directed at me?) I'm not Polish, and I can't speak for anyone. This is the sixth time this page has been nominated for deletion. Of the Polish users who have supported keeping the page, many (Szopen, Halibutt, Datrio, Roo72, Qviri, WarX) are no longer active, and I suspect it wouldn't be appropriate to ping the active ones (Piotrus, Fjl, Kpjas, D_T_G, Julo, and Aegis Maelstrom (current president of WM Poland)) to allow them to speak for themselves, per canvassing rules. --Yair rand (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there would be any problem with informing Polish users who might want to say something about the proposal. This proposal surely attracted attention from en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poles are evil already anyway. --MF-W 16:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: Do you think it would be okay to ping all the Polish editors who have previously commented in RfDs of this page? --Yair rand (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why it could be not ok. --MF-W 22:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Halibutt would certainly vote but sadly he's not with us anymore. Kpjas (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. This text obviously has nothing against Polish people and does no harm: indeed it's useful for Polish people, otherwise we wouldn't have Polish users linking it from their userpage. For those who only recently joined the Wikimedia projects and may have missed it: this is an important historical document which helps understand a phase of the Wikimedia projects circa 2004 when there was a significant influx of new Polish users on English and cross-wiki Wikimedia projects. There are entire books written on this phenomenon and how communities deal with it. The essay happens to be about Polish users but really has nothing specific about the Polish: it contains useful advice on how to deal with any significant group of new users on the wikis. I know that it's rare nowadays to see many users join our projects at once, and it looks like we're long past the times when we needed to learn how integrate new users in our communities, but this is a skill that may be necessary again in the future, and we need to preserve learnings from our past time of rapid growth, otherwise we'll just repeat the same mistakes. Nemo 07:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as unfunny and bigoted with no redeeming qualities. Tavix (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This page is only offensive on the most glancing, problem-searching read. This is a whole bunch of faux outrage by people apparently being offended on behalf of a group that doesn't appear to be so. That said, I really don't care if some obscure and marginally funny humour page remains on Meta or not. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    Now that the plwiki crowd has showed up to confirm that they are, in fact, not offended by the page, I will vote Keep Keep. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. No benefit for Meta.--Jusjih (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense.2405:9800:BA30:C21A:79D5:89D1:59CD:9E28 09:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pinging Polish participants of previous RfDs for this page: @Datrio, Roo72, Qviri, WarX, Piotrus, Fjl, Kpjas, D T G, Julo, and Aegis Maelstrom:. --Yair rand (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Er, yeah, so, that's a blast from the past. I'm not really offended by it, but personally I currently don't think this sort of stuff should be written new, and to me it doesn't seem of great historical value. (Yes, there's lessons to be drawn from cultural conflicts resulting from influxes of new users. No, this isn't the best way of keeping such records.) I wouldn't mind seeing it deleted. Maybe Uncyclopedia or somesuch place would like it? If not deleting, the closing of the 2013 request for deletion suggested "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." - this doesn't seem to have happened and would probably be a benefit. --user:Qviri 01:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Qviri: I suppose people like @Piotrus: and myself can offer historical background, explanation and context on the talk page or elsewhere. Kpjas (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Kpjas: I have since added a really basic intro in https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_deal_with_Poles&type=revision&diff=20104609&oldid=20029762 but feel free to amend or add more. --user:Qviri 00:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a cultural history of Wikipedia (Wikimedia...). It's en:WP:BJAODN level, but so what? We should not deny our history, even if not all of it is not up to what we today consider best taste or practice. (I am Polish, btw). --Piotrus (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Piotrus' vote. Besides for me it is quite funny and brings back my fondest memories. Just to put my vote into perspective: I was an (inactive) member of Nupedia, has been in the original (English) Wikipedia from the start and co-founded the Polish language WP and Wikiquote. --Kpjas (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Ok, so first, this isn't making fun of Poles. It's making fun of the things that Polish editors have to routinely deal with. And if you're a Polish editor you immediately "get it" because you literally see these "arguments" and "strategies" ALL the time ("we can't use Polish sources on Polish topics!" <-- how come no one ever goes to, I, dunno, Canada-related articles and starts insisting that all Canadian sources from Canadian related articles must be removed?) . Is it funny? I dunno, humor is subjective. Some parts are, some others are kind of awkward and clunky and probably not very woke by today's standards. But yes, it's part of Wikipedia history and should be kept on that basis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep It makes me laugh every time I come across it. Really don't understand how this page seems offending to so many people above – I'm not offended and I'm Polish. In case of deleting, I think this page should be imported to pl.wiki. Wostr (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep it is a part or Wiki history and it does not offend us as Poles masti <talk> 09:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Does not offend Poles. Instead, it documents the (historical?) approach part of enwiki users to Polish editors, sources etc. Therefore this is a very useful page. I am not surprised that this page has been removed from enwiki. It is very uncomfortable for this community. However, it's better to change the user's behavior than to delete critical pages. --Piotr967 (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep it's a part of history :) Gdarin | talk 17:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: I have now added an explanatory note, so that the idea to add one isn't lost for 7 years again: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_deal_with_Poles&type=revision&diff=20104609&oldid=20029762 Please feel free to improve as I'm surely missing some of the context. --user:Qviri 23:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • You guys should totally keep it. It is as funny and inoffensive as How to deal with Afro-Americans. Radagast13 (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC) PS. Sorry, I cannot find the blue link, can someone help me with it?
  • Keep Keep per Masti, Neonek12 (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep! It is humorous and I believe that it wasn't written to offend anyone. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per the previous discussions. This article is a part of our collective wikimemory, it also describes a number of systemic cognitive biases and failed policies (e.g. en.wiki all sources are equal but English language sources are more equal than others) in Wikiworld and serves as a handy reminder. BTW, I am always impressed with a number of people failing to recognize sarcasm. aegis maelstrom δ 06:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep It may not be extremely funny but it is a part of history, and it may be educational for those not remembering growing pains of the polish wikipedia. Additionally this serves as a humourous cautionary tale - as a catalog of behaviuors to avoid. Ptj (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, possibly move to userspace. I'm surprised by the lack of editors coming to this discussion to say "I'm offended by this page". So I think the page is probably okay. Some editors have also pointed out that this page is worthwhile satire of an era past when Polish editors felt marginalised by English editors. Deryck C. 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, and Redirect to Polls are evil. I didn't even realise it was meant as a bad pun on 'polls' until I came here. I thought it was just just humour about dealing with people from different cultures. Wittylama (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: TheSandDoctor Talk 17:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hər cümə 1 saatlıq etiraz

Political instrumentalization of Wikimedia. This page is a petition written in Azeri language to request a regular strike on wikiprojects due to the political situation in Artsakh. Personally I am shocked: the editors at the origin of this page should be blocked indefinitely. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Shocking political instrumentalization on Wikimedia... --Benoît Prieur (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Pretty radical of you to say "the editors at the origin of this page should be blocked indefinitely". Also, it wasn't due to the political situation in Karabakh, but the murder of an Azerbaijani toddler and her grandmother by Armenian Armed Forces. I'd question your POV regarding this topic. It seems that you want us to be "punished" for our political opinions, as users, not article editors. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, an another misinformation given out by you, we were not calling for others to strike. Instead, we announced that WE WILL BE STRIKING in the given time. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep The various language sections of Wikipedia are almost entirely in the interests of justice and impartiality. I see this clearly in national issues, mainly in the Armenian and Russian Wikipedia. For this reason, I do not understand whose interests the deletion of the petition serves--Qolcomaq (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't want to see Wikimedia becoming a political instrument, for whatever reason. Vorlod (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I would suggest moving it to under RFC and then closing it since it is over 2 years old. --Rschen7754 18:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as off-topic for Meta. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Off-topic activism. --Yair rand (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely off-topic. Esteban16 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Off-topic.--Turkmen talk 00:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg deleted --MF-W 11:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: MF-W 11:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter

The following discussion is closed: Kept.

Similar to above. This page, as it stands, is clearly not about documentation or coordination of the activities of Wikimedia projects, and is non-neutral advocacy in an area unrelated to Wikimedia projects' activities. --Yair rand (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep This nomination is the most outrageously tone-deaf thing I've seen for a long time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • speedy keep. Disingenuous nomination. Many pages on Meta document the coordination of political advocacy campaigns undertaken, or supported, by Wikimedia groups. Wittylama (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Keep the page focus should shift towards campaign for enriching our projects with materials that document the movement, rather than have the spotlight on the (albeit rightful) sentiments of the movement itself. --Base (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I think this would be helpful and would address some of Yair rand's concerns. Uberlibris (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
      Varnent, could you as the author of the page make this happen, please? --Base (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Echoing the sentiments of Pigsonthewing and Wittylama, this is an unfolding campaign in response to a movement with international repercussions. 80.111.219.157 11:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Smirkybec (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I believe that this is a very worthwhile project to coordinate contributions and improvements on the Black Lives Matter movement. It is also very timely, given that it is a highly topical issue with global impact. Uberlibris (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, same as previous votes. Tha page may need some minor rework but no reason to delete. What part is supposed to be « non-neutral » ? or « unrelated to Wikimedia projects' activities » ? (most of the page is a list of Wikipedia articles, who are obviously part of the Wikimedia projects). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 11:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • keep disruption of collaboration efforts tends to cast doubt on the good faith of the nominator. Slowking4 (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As long as the changes Base suggested happens, I have no opposition keeping it. Otherwise I don't know. — regards, Revi 13:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Note for the closing admins: Possible recruiting at https://t.me/WikimediaGeneral/15754 and https://www.facebook.com/groups/WikiLibrary/permalink/1657048684456110. — regards, Revi 14:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Heya @-revi: That’s an English Wikipedia template. :) Is there a Meta policy on recruitment you could reference to make your point? Ckoerner (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Meta doesn't run on a codified rule over everything — some are codified, some are unwritten, some are common-sense business. I know it's an enwiki template, left the link here to let them know there's an external forces on this discussion, so they can make an informed decision. — regards, Revi 14:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep A worthwhile project coordinating work on unfolding events. Preferable to make revisions or rework as required rather than deletion. Smallison (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. What the fuck is wrong with you? Gamaliel (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • please avoid incivility. You're a grownup; you can disagree more articulately. Ijon (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
      • i kinda agree, however this is the kind of POV proceeduralism where an f-bomb is appropriate. tends to bring wikimedia into disrepute, and reported in slate.Slowking4 (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy keep. Don't be ridiculous... -Another Believer (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, sigh -- meta has a long history of documenting shared initiatives across different spaces in the movement -- not sure how this would be different from other topical initiatives, Sadads (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Are you serious? --ToniSant (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, but separate free-knowledge organizing about BLM and all the related issues listed (which should stay), from protest organizing, discussion groups, donation opportunities, etc., which should find more suitable places to organize in. This page on Meta should focus on organizing Wikimedian work on this topic, not the activist work of people who happen to be Wikimedians who care about racial justice etc. (and I am one). Ijon (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy keep. This is insulting and is one of the reasons Wikipedia has difficulty engaging and retaining editors who are not White men. Bridges2Information (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Nominating rationale does not hold up to scrutiny at all. Even at the time this was nominated, the page clearly is framed in terms of organizing and encouraging edits to relevant topics areas on Wikimedia projects related to this movement. Is WikiMed non-neutral because it actively calls attention to and seeks to remedy gaps and known problems/controversies with medical content across Wikimedia projects? Of course not. Similarly, as BLM calls attention to issues and gaps in content related to Black communities in the United States we should not be placing undue scrutiny on efforts to make improvements in these domains. I JethroBT (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that it should be possible to discuss the request without attacking the requester. Do we have rules on Meta that give us orientation here? Do we need more rules? Could the page be renamed in a way that it expresses more the topics to be dealt with? Are there precedents? How about if other external movements would do the same? Would we welcome, e.g., a page about/by Greenpeace, or Fridays for Future, or the Kolpingwerk, or a political movement/party? The comparison with WikiMed is not quite compelling as WikiMed is a Wikimedia Affiliate. / I would like to see a productive discussion about these issues in order to make Meta a better platform. Ziko (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
i'm not attacking the nominator; i just note that it is not a good look. reasonable people might draw unflattering conclusions about this action. whataboutism is a distraction. the pattern of behavior of showing up at new attempts to organize editors, and asking for a rename, is becoming tiresome, don't you have another tactic to disrupt content creation? rest assured content creation organization is curtailed on meta, most of it happens off-wiki for this reason. Slowking4 (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I support renaming it if seeking to keep it, but we need possible ideas. Racial equality matters? Police accountability matters? Governmental accountability matters?--Jusjih (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Ainali (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Useful documentation page, important to help people engage in Wiki projects in the future and above all I agree with many that it is best in all cases to make revisions to the existing page than to delete it.--Hbmtl (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Saying that the page is "not about documentation or coordination of the activities of Wikimedia projects" is clearly untrue. There is room for improvement, but I don't see any reason to delete it. Nihlus 22:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep The page looks similar to many other pages where people are organizing collaborations and follows within the type of pages that are on Meta. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. What is wrong with you?--Jorm (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Looking at the page now it's clearly appropriate for meta, directing users to contribute by creating articles, uploading files etc. It details editathons and lists groups who contribute and support in this area. Parallels can be draw to the Sustainability_Initiative and Gender gap pages. I think it makes sense the deletion nominator ( User:Yair_rand ) withdraw this request. Seddon (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep for all the reasons above - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Speedy KEEP. 180.6.142.215 03:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Shanluan (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC) The page aims to help grow documentation of a historic movement and there is precedent for it's type on Wikimedia along with other reasons mentioned above.
  • Keep: The page has sufficient material of co-ordination, and a good starting point for anyone interested to work. Please see the "contribute" section. It is in scope. Regards. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC) and +1 to what Ijon wrote, focus more on the Wikimedia, and the knowledge creation.. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: We need more folks using Meta (instead of proprietary closed social media) to coordinate work in the movement. This should be encouraged, not discouraged. Neutral advocacy isn’t a thing. The basis of our movement, of sharing knowledge freely, is non-neutral! Ckoerner (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Images in particular need to be preserved for the public record. Not just in the precarious ambiguous social media world. This page is useful to centralise coordination of that. Irtapil (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Since this is Meta there is no speedy keep, but keep nonetheless as a valid group to promote diversity in content. This nomination was incredibly tone-deaf. --Rschen7754 19:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - This page is clearly within Meta's scope, and I agree with Rschen that the nomination is incredibly tone-deaf. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy keep, we are preparing to organize events in other Wikipedia languages. --Camelia (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy keep we are using this page to coordinate events generating content so deletion would quite disrespectful for the people who have been working on the subject Nattes à chat (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm lost for words. Amir (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, tendentious nomination - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep This page appears to be for cross-project coordination for adding to or enriching content of articles relating to the topic, rather like Wiki Loves X. Surely people don't have to form a user group like Wikimedia LGBT+ or hold a conference like the Wikimedia Diversity Conference or a webinar like WikiForHumanRights Webinar in order to host coordinating activities here. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(Gets back after a couple days.) Um, okay. An army of canvassed people and some personal abuse. Rather unexpected. I had thought to perhaps make light of it, but I really don't want this to be an environment where "show no fear" is a necessary or expected response, so I'm going to be honest: That hurt.

On the actual topic of the RFD: I have no objections to pages on Meta for coordinating Wikimedia's efforts to neutrally document movements/events. The only things on that entire page that are related to that are the links in the "Contribute" section. The rest of the page is largely advocacy for something that is not about allowing people to develop free educational content. In particular, the section at the bottom contains only links to external activism sites, and the top is full of what I assume are slogans. In theory, the page could be modified to be in-scope for Meta (ideally after a rename, along the lines of Jusjih's comment), but that would involve replacing most of it. Meta-Wiki, like every Wikimedia wiki, is not a soapbox for general political advocacy. --Yair rand (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Agree, the lengthy block of User:Pigsonthewing appears to be bureaucratic and unhelpful. This action by @TheSandDoctor: should be reversed.
    Agree Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles should be deleted. We don't have to keep outdated comedy childish rubbish of no external educational value for historical reasons, that is not the purpose of Meta, nor the purpose of Wikimedia. These types of essay are deliberately offensive and build on racist and homophobic tropes in negative ways, regardless of the original motivation. The rest is blather, and under scrutiny reflects extremely badly on the peanut gallery of "regulars" that defend these types of deliberately offensive local essays. (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - If the issue is neutrality then deleting is no answer. If it was then we would have to delete all Wikiprojects and pages because someone dislikes the subject; socialism is non-right-wing politics, Pakistan is India’s supposed enemy, technology is hated by certain parents, I dislike Chinese companies, some wannabe tech reviewer hates Nokia (whaaat??), almost everyone with a functional brain hates Trump and so on. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. = paul2520 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
(note: I've been bold based on this discussion, and concluded that the consensus is obvious. I've removed the template. I'm surprised nobody arrived at this conclusion earlier - you're not going to see a more obvious consensus anytime soon. Effeietsanders (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC))

Kept.MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Zaka 47

Purely self-promotional page, looks like the author intended it to be a personal website. --Drm310 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Was G7 speedy deleted already. — xaosflux Talk 18:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles

The following discussion is closed: kept; no consensus for deletion. Discussions about renaming can be had at WM:PPM. Sgd. —Hasley 20:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This essay deliberately uses outdated offensive tropes such as the following sentence "I myself may or may not be homosexual, but I do not know anyone else who is gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgendered, or otherwise queer. Additionally, I have no friends who fall under the following categories: savants, female dogs, people who tend to lose a lot, the mentally handicapped." Clearly the reference to "female dogs" is a deliberate way of saying "bitches" and the reference to mental handicapped is trying hard to offend all readers who do not wish to laugh at the idea of mental disability.

The essay is outdated. It does not fulfil any part of Wikimedia's educational mission and it is fails to meet Meta:Inclusion policy per "Dedicated attack pages" and Meta:NOT per "not an experiment", "not a battleground" and "not a storage room". In addition the essay fails to meet the Wikimedia Foundation WMF:TOU per "You support a civil environment and do not harass other users" and hosting the page on meta does nothing to "furthering the mission of the shared Project."

Previous deletion discussions for reference, the most recent being 7 years ago: 2007, 2008, 2013

-- (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as proposer and based on my awareness of how essays like this, damage improvements to Wikimedia projects by the Wikimedia LGBT+ community and WM-LGBT+ user group. (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. This page has nothing to do with offending people. It is the opposite in fact — it mocks the offenders. It is outdated, in terms that it was created in response to Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles which was a long time ago. But it still has its use, as it is not uncommon for people to propose some exclusion criteria for the users and this page illustrates the absurdity of this. The page falls under essays clause of inclusion policy at the least. That being said it would certainly help to expand the disclaimer the page has. --Base (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
These points have been before. Please recognize that the essay and its title is offensive and hurtful for many LGBT+ readers and volunteers. This should outweigh that some user might want to laugh at the use of the words "homosexuals", "female dogs" or "mentally handicapped", without thinking that using this language for jokes is homophobic, misogynist and harmful to mental disability regardless of the normal views and identity of the person laughing. Those not laughing have a sense of humour, it's just that this essay is not funny. -- (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, while I do not think we should censor satire I certainly want people who just as myself see the article title and have a "WTF" reaction to be able to get a gist of point being made. This was also true regarding the Poles article if that is what you are referring to. I agree that the words you mention are used in their offensive shades here, but that is the whole point, they are used as an illustration of how the vandals use them, and just as with other types of vandalism the article describes it is quite aptly. --Base (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The unfunny fact is that even this year I have had multiple transphobic and homophobic death threats, this is a reality for our WM-LGBT+ community and the risk that supporters of the WM-LGBT+ user group take by existing here. If you tried creating an "humour" essay with the words that the vandals troll me with as an "illustration", you would be quickly WMF globally locked. It's just out of scope, outdated and not funny, our community is overdue to chuck out trash like this. -- (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename. In the main the content is fine, and of relevance. The title, however, is unacceptable. It may have been intended to be "funny" but this kind of "humour" does not work in writing and with a diverse audience. The same points it is making could be made without the offensive title. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, I was wondering if this would pop up again. I think it is very clear from reading the article that it isn't actually offensive to anyone, and the title only seems to be offensive to people with gay friends. But whatever, just rename it to "Typing students should not be allowed to edit articles" or something related to one of the other categories of vandals that won't draw continued debates over renaming/deleting the page every six months. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be really decent and civil to stick to facts, rather than sarcastic fakenews and gaslighting in order to marginalize valid concerns? "Deleting every six months" should read "Deleting once in seven years". Thanks. (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh Fae. Such a lovely person to interact with. Look on the article's talkpage, it's more than every seven years. But it doesn't matter. Let's rename the page, remove content that could be offensive, and get on with our lives. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
A sincere apology for existing and having an opinion. You carry on, as a member of the ombudsman group you are the expert in Wikimedia civility so no doubt you are perfectly correct in using this vote to make an ad hominim attack on my character to marginalize my concerns to "win" your point. -- (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The only thing I take issue with is your (apparent) need to stir up drama and exaggerate statements. I think it's a fair argument to say that the page name taps into some undercurrent of homophobia for shock value (there's a reason why the page didn't reference one of the other groups of vandals when it was made all those years ago). I really don't think it's a dedicated attack page or a battleground. And I'll just skim over all the ridiculous accusations and exaggerations you've made against me in your last two comments. The page is a relic from an older time with less knowledge of unconscious bias, and I agree that the page should be changed, though I think that renaming and some modifications to the current content will be sufficient. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Glad we agree this smells of an undercurrent of homophobia. Homophobia is a great rationale for deletion, let's hope more voters believe that stamping out bigotry of any kind is a good idea, even if this particular humorous essay format appeals to Wikimedia "regulars" who have voted the same "keep, it's a joke" for literally over a decade. -- (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz The shock value is a large part of the humour, so to preserve the humour, the only acceptable rename is "Men with big penises should not be allowed to edit articles", in my opinion. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename. I think it's a stupid page, to be frank. But agree a bit more with QuiteUnusual, and like Ajraddatz's suggestion for such a new name. = paul2520 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe start a new page if addressing vandalism is the real topic. Ziko (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ziko Given that you don't give a reason for deletion, may we assume your rationale is "per nom"? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I think that the title is offensive, and not necessary to make a point or explain the topic. Ziko (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Ziko, thank you so much for replying. However, if your issue is with the title, that could be adequately addressed with a move - so I don't see why you would be for deleting the whole page. Could you explain a bit more? Thanks from PJvanMill (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename and move to a subpage containing hoaxes with a trigger warning about sexual content. I do think it was meant to mock some obscure and pedantic not to say aggressive arguments about vandalism, nevertheless there are some people in an inclusive project who would not appreciate stumbling upon such witty expression of freedom of speech, especially the ones mentionning the size of "editors equipment", not to mention some people here are obviously not happy with the "funny title ". I also think that some people who dont have English as native language might just not see the joke and puns and take it seriously. Also, the fact that the issue keeps coming back throughout the years means it has not be resolved. Nattes à chat (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • delete sophomoric without redeeming social value. instead of projecting motives upon vandals, perhaps author could summarize actual evidence. Slowking4 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4 Its redeeming social value is humour. Some humour to distract from all the misery (such as the misery that is deletion discussions, see for example this very one) is good, and something I dare say we do not have enough of. Not everything has to be serious and strictly useful. PJvanMill (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
"it was a joke" is now deprecated as transparent trolling, i.e. [2], [3], [4] i know a good joke when i see it, such as this community intends to be civil. Slowking4 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4 You've linked to three examples of Trump seemingly saying something in seriousness and afterwards saying that it was a joke. This page, on the other hand, was clearly a joke from the start. If you think that this page was created with the intention of making people feel unwelcome, I don't know what to say to you. Also, please don't bring Trump into this. PJvanMill (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
when a rhetorical tactic is disgraced by overuse in high places on the public stage, then all people might not want to use that tactic, regardless of their motivations and intent. changing the subject to intent is another tactic. when people tell you your joke flopped, then it is time to deprecate it, not archive it for posterity. the joke archive is here. [5] Slowking4 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4 So me pointing out that it's humour and arguing that there is value in humour is the same "rhetorical tactic" as using "it was a joke" as a bullshit excuse? Confused regards from PJvanMill (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
lengthy discussion about conduct
@PJvanMill: your comments in this vote are reading as increasingly hostile, sarcastic and uncivil. If you have nothing constructive or factual to write, or are trying deliberately to provoke reactions for sport, please find a laddish locker-room environment to post your penis jokes, away from Wikimedia projects. Thanks in advance. -- (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@ I genuinely don't get what Slowking is saying, so I'm asking for clarification explanation/justification. It would also be appreciated if you gave some clarification justification where I've asked for it below. Thank you from PJvanMill (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
When an account with relatively low contribution history is disrupting an LGBT+ related discussion with gratuitous sexual jokes, then badgers other participants in a vote, that's a form of gaming the system because it is guaranteed to put off less courageous LGBT+ contributors from expressing opinions for fear of being targeted, and it is gaslighting those concerned that this essay is bad for Wikimedia and humiliating for LGBT+ contributors, who deserve more than being laughed at with penis jokes when discussing the removal of an essay that clearly promotes bias.
This behaviour is representative of the well documented systemic bias to these topics that pervades Wikimedia communities, especially some of our smaller projects, but that does not mean that everyone here should be expected to tolerate it, or pretend that it is anything other than what it is, and the hostile environment it creates. -- (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@ an essay that clearly promotes bias Again, as I said below, this really isn't clear to me at all, and it would be great if you could quote a few offending lines from the page and explain how they promote bias.
it is gaslighting those concerned that... If you knew what gaslighting actually was, you wouldn't use the word this way.
badgers other participants in a vote I am questioning others' statements in this discussion, because I don't think they make much sense. Maybe I was a bit too snarky with my questions here and there, I will try to contain my contempt for bullshit a bit more. But questioning others' logic is simply a normal part of a discussion.
who deserve more than being laughed at with penis jokes You seem to have the impression that I am having fun with this discussion. I am not - in fact, I hate taking part in this discussion, but I feel like I have to because I think deleting this page would be an absurd step, in the wrong direction. Unkind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
no, not bullshit - worse you are trolling editors with 5000 times your edits. your conduct here is absurd, and raises questions about your credibility. your conduct makes clear this is trolling and not humour. Slowking4 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, Slowking4, but your conduct here has been much more absurd. I disagreed with your position that the page has no redeeming social value and made a serious effort to have a discussion with you, explaining why I thought humour is valuable. And what did you do? You compared me to bloody Trump of all people, excusing himself with "it was a joke". That is absurd, it is a total non-sequitur and it comes closer to trolling than anything I've said in this discussion. Unkind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing can be gained by continuing to preserve this travesty. In what I can only assume to be a triumph of humor, this essay suggests hiring "private investigators to do background checks on prospective editors" to determine whether they are affiliated with PFLAG. Now, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays is a real organization. I shouldn't have to remind anyone that we live in a world where gay people often conceal their identities lest they be stoned to death or bullied to the point of suicide.
The biggest problem is that the title of this essay, purposely chosen for shock value, misleads editors into believing that it is an official policy. The proposal Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles links to this essay as an “alternate proposal”. Tips for resolving interwiki conflicts has a link to this essay, saying "You may also encounter vandalism - friends of gays sometimes vent their frustration in foreign languages. Be bold and fix it." On the talk page for Möller's Law, this essay is cited as a precedent for keeping other "potentially objectionable content". As far back as 2005 an editor commented "When I first saw the title I was actually a bit shocked and thought the title itself might be a result of vandalism".
The problem of misleading links to this essay is compounded by all of the redirects. Right now Friends of gays, Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit, Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit pages, Friends of gays should not edit Wikipedia, Editing Restriction Policy, and Vandals should not be allowed to edit articles all redirect to this page. Gay redirected to this for several years and GAY redirected there for 15 years. Since links to Meta from other Wikipedias appear as blue links, it can appear that editors are linking to a genuine Wikipedia policy. [6][7] On the English Wikipedia, admins have cited this essay when they've blocked users.[8] Deletion is a better option than renaming. If this essay is renamed and a redirect from the current title is left behind, concerns over misuse of links will not be addressed. gobonobo + c 07:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You can vote how you want, but your statement is factually incorrect and should be corrected. The page is offensive because many people, including many of our LGBT+ volunteers and readers find it offensive. Continually saying otherwise and stating their reaction to this offensive essay is not real, is the definition of gaslighting. This essay is deliberately designed to cause offense, so it is a plain simple fact that it is offensive.
The nature of the deliberate offense is implicit and explicit homophobic and misogynist language and tropes. The essay is not educational, and it is not "historical". Continuing to host this essay on Meta, and ignoring the homophobic bigoted content because "it's funny", promotes homophobia and perpetuates an environment that is hostile to LGBT+ contributors.
We do not host essays that are "satire" that make fun of stereotypes of Jews or black people, and we cannot pretend that Wikimedia does not have a serious systemic problem of being hostile to queer and genderqueer people while the fact that this essay exists is a case study illustrating that our "regulars" adamantly refuse to see it happening in broad daylight, and therefore are deciding to refuse to take any action to remove hostile bigotry. (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@ We do not host essays that are "satire" that make fun of stereotypes of Jews or black people Where, exactly, does this page make fun of stereotypes of gay people? I've read the page, and do not see this anywhere. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@ I also do not see how the page promotes homophobia; in fact, it seems to be mocking homophobia if anything. Yet another thing that I do not see in the slightest is This essay is deliberately designed to cause offense. What are you basing all of this on? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep It can be marked as historical or deprecated, but this is historically significant. This page might be the single-most discussed LGBT guideline on Wikipedia and this is not without reason. A very common type of vandalism on Wikipedia is when one friend posts another friend's name, saying "Billy is gay" in a Wikipedia article. In the United States and Europe much of society has tired of the gay jokes and these kinds of discussions, but in a lot of the world, this kind of humor is still new and in practice. The time to deprecate this essay is when most of the world really is tired of these jokes, but for many people, posting that someone is gay on Wikipedia is still fresh and original humor. This humor is so frequent that I think it is worthwhile to keep this page to acknowledge that we have seen it, and thought about it, and . I even wish this page could be developed with serious research about LGBT vandalism and attacks on Wikipedia, because right now, this is one of the few places which document the LGBT experience and culture of personal attacks here.
Potentially useful developments:
  • Do informatics research to query all of Wikipedia to identify, count, and categorize articles where a vandal posted the "X is gay" joke; publish a paper about it; use for publicity and to teach civility.
  • Support a reporting and counting system for all sorts of LGBT harassment. It happens a lot, there are few safe place for users to document this on wiki without being attacked further.
This page is one of the few long time records we have of LGBT harassment on wiki. I agree that the humor is inappropriate, but the alternative of having no documentation of LGBT harassment is even more inappropriate. Sometimes bad humor makes it okay to talk about difficult subjects. Whereas people might get harassed for complaining about attacks on LGBT people if they did it in a serious way, here with the compromise of humor we have a historical record of a problem which I do not wish to lose.
Also: The WMF brings in US$130,000,000 / year in funding and this budget is growing 10% a year. The WMF in general reports almost nothing about their finances, but another useful intervention would be to ask and receive a report from the WMF on how much they invest in response to harassment, what budget goes to LGBT community, and what part of the money goes to wiki community programs versus paid staff WMF projects. So far as I know, in the billion dollars that the WMF has collected, the total budget allocation to support LGBT projects over the past 20 years is approximately $100,000. Donors give to the Wikimedia movement to promote tolerance and the WMF uses the wiki LGBT community to solicit donations in advertising, but at the same time, the respect of a financial commitment is not present in the relations between the WMF and community. If anyone wanted to see one of the most prominent outcomes that has come from the sum of WMF support for the Wikimedia community, then this essay is probably the best thing the WMF has been able to produce. If anyone is ashamed of saying that, then instead of deleting the history, a response that I would like more is demanding funding from the WMF to support global LGBT communities of editors and readers to better represent and organize themselves.
In general, demanding money from the WMF is an excellent community response to many challenges, because Wikimedia donors give money to support community programs more than all other reasons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand perfectly well why you want to use this as evidence of systemic homophobia on Wikimedia projects to waive around as a banner to get more LGBT+ projects funded, however I would believe this a bit better if the closure of this DR were to recommend that the same offensive bigoted bullshit is written in the format of "jokes" about other persecuted minority groups. With that in mind, please go ahead and create:
Targeting us queers for systemic abuse and nobody else is not just a freakishly masochistic rationale and a bad use of WMF resources, as it's then harder for Jews and black people to get project funding, based on your own logic that Wikimedia hosting services must continue to be used for homophobic jokes. -- (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Neither of those articles exist because "NAME is a Jew/black person" was never a common type of vandalism; "NAME is gay" was. The page was created as a reaction to that sort of homophobia, in a joking way that reframed those comments as a proud compliment rather than the insult they were intended to be. Humour has often been used as a way of deconstructing and diminishing prejudiced behaviour, and my read is that this page attempted to that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that. Virgins might also work, but isn't as common. Rename to "Typing students should not be allowed to edit articles" or "Pets should not be allowed to edit articles". — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 23:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I have seen quite a bit of "[name] is a jew" with some other slurs mixed in, though I probably see that disproportionately often as I am Jewish, and that vandalism is usually one of a handful of LTAs directed at me. If it was more common, as with "[name] is gay", I'm not particularly offended by such a title. The content itself isn't remotely homophobic, and actively criticizes that very common sort of vandalism. The title, though a joke about the homophobic vandalism and is not homophobic itself, can be considered offensive by some. I've left a comment in favor of renaming below. Vermont (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Label it historical per above. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep-ish - I am completely sympathetic to the point Fae is making. The title is jarring at first, and takes some reading to understand its context. However, to re-factor the old adage: the antidote to confusing speech is more speech. Specifically, contextualized speech, explanatory speech and clarifying speech. The fact that Bluerasberry speaks to the meaning of this page in the LGBTQ context is powerful, and I had not been aware of before. What I am aware of - I remember in 2004 when this page was first created, because I was on the front lines of vandal fighting and new pages patrol. In IRC we were noticing this was a pattern of vandalism for foolish and sophomoric bored kids in high school and it was Tim_Starling who noted this on a large scale. Therefore, I can indeed attest to its historical nature and that as a part of Wikipedia history, it should be somewhere in our pages but with a heavy dose of qualification - it's historical, it's not meant to document actual advice, and shortcuts pointing to it should be severely limited because it is neither a practice nor a phenomenon we are promoting as a community. -- Fuzheado (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I wonder what the opinion of @EvanProdromou: is? Also, the original revision had a note: Note: If you've read this far, you should probably have already figured out that this is a parody. If not, well, it is. The original author has nothing in particular against typing students, curious people, or friends of gays and lesbians, nor against gays and lesbians themselves. The original author (65WPM) is in two of these three groups and would be prohibited from editing under these rules.
I can sort of guess which group they didn't belong to. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 04:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the mystery: at 65 words per minute, I am no longer a typing student. --EvanProdromou (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
And there I was, asking myself why I couldn't find any trace of User:65WPM. Doh! — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 05:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The original author has nothing in particular against (1)typing students, (2)curious people, or (3)friends of gays and lesbians, nor against (4)gays and lesbians themselves. The original author (65WPM) is in two of these three groups. Perhaps we should add "counting student" to the list. Alsee (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alsee: No, the groups that are referred to are the first three. nor against gays and lesbians themselves is just a side note and not part of the collection. Otherwise the line would have read "The original author has nothing in particular against typing students, curious people, friends of gays and lesbians or gays and lesbians themselves". Of course, reading is a learned skill. (I couldn't resist biting Face-smile.svg) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename and include a note of the previous title on the page. It's a useful essay, originally titled not on editors' homophobia but on that of common vandals. When the context is understood, I don't personally find it offensive, though I understand some people do. When I first saw it a few years back I was more than a bit surprised, but a read of the page explains both the title and the subject. There's useful content, and as such I oppose outright deletion, but the title is offensive to some, so I support a rename. Vermont (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am the original author, although the essay has been edited by many others since. It began as a parody of other proposals to block large segments of the population based on anecdotal evidence. The central premise is a willful misunderstanding of the homophobic slurs some vandals use, interpreting them instead as misguided expressions of pride. The joke was never that good and hasn't gotten better. I appreciate all the support it's received, but I think this page needs to go. --EvanProdromou (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@EvanProdromou Would you care to give an actual rationale instead of just invoking your non-ownership? Thank you from PJvanMill (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll leave it to others to decide whether the page should be deprecated or just transformed, but if deprecated, it should be marked historical rather than deleted. It has clear historical value as an indication of 2000s attitudes toward homosexuality as Bluerasberry explained above. Sdkb (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep This page is clearly not hostile towards LGBT people - it's a humourous page about vandalism and the title is part of a joke. No good reason to delete. PJvanMill (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I would also support renaming to "Men with big penises should not be allowed to edit articles". PJvanMill (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Bluerasberry, Fuzheado, Base, and Marco. Clearly not a homophobic essay. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename The article itself is clearly satire, but the name as it stands should not be on meta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoozaz1 (talk)
  • Delete, or alternatively rename, mark as historical. I found it amusing when I first read it 15 years ago, but it hasn't aged well. I would suggest userfy is also an option, though I see the original author has !voted delete so there might not be a user willing to take it on. If anyone has concerns that it might be interesting to some future researcher of Wikipedia, I'd guess this page must be archived somewhere, so doubt that's an issue. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    And before someone comes along and asks me to expand on my reasoning, here goes: It's hardly an attack page, it's obvious no offence was intended, and this LBGT wikimedian isn't offended by it. If you understand the context then you probably have to try quite hard to be offended by it. But not everyone does or will understand the context. The 'friends of gays' joke relies for its effect on the idea that homosexuality is inherently hilarious, which in itself is a form of latent homophobia. All in all it creates an unwelcoming environment. To people arguing "well, it's funny, we should keep it": Firstly, it's not actually that funny. Secondly, and less subjectively, I believe we should put a very low weight on humour as a factor in determining what content stays. Humorous essays that make a valuable point without being unkind, and without making us look like jerks to people who don't understand what Wikiculture is (or in this case, what it was like in 2006) - those can stay. But if it's not helping us achieve our goals, don't keep it because it's funny. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The 'friends of gays' joke relies for its effect on the idea that homosexuality is inherently hilarious, which in itself is a form of latent homophobia. Chris Keating, thank you for bringing this novel argument to the table! It is interesting to think about the assumptions that are made about what is funny. I do not agree that the joke assumes the reader finds homosexuality inherently funny, though - I would say it only assumes that the reader is somewhat familiar with vandalism and knows that calling someone gay is a thing that some vandals do.
To not everyone does or will understand the context: even with only the information that it is the title of a WM meta-wiki page, it is instantly clear that it is not serious, except to someone who thinks WM is a big group of bigots. The probability that someone might read the title without the necessary context to not take it seriously seems so small to me, that I think it is hardly a reason to remove the page. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: Inbefore Fae jumps in, my "thank you" for your novel argument is not sarcastic, it is also not fake politeness, it is 100% sincere; I think you make some good points.
off-topic
@PJvanMill: I think you've made your position quite clear throughout the discussion; there is no need to continue responding to new comments. Other people can make their points, and the closing admin will consider all of the perspectives given. Thanks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Ajraddatz, I am not doing this to restate my position. Chris Keating makes some good points that haven't really been made before. What the closer cannot do is imagine how the discussion would go if certain perspectives were played out against each other; if we can have an actual conversation about CK's points, that will be of value. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
You're bludgeoning the discussion, making it difficult for others to follow, and not adding much value beyond restating your position. If your name is popping up near almost half of the comments, you're too engaged. Just take a step back; other people will ask questions if they must be asked. Thanks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz I would dispute that my comments do not add value, I am asking what I think are important questions. If I were saying the same things over and over again, you would have a point, but I am not. Parts of the discussion that do not add much value can always be put in a collapse template. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it's decided that rename+label as historical+userfy is the best solution, the page can be moved to User:Alexis Reggae/Well-endowed men should not be allowed to edit articles. Doesn't require active maintenance anyway, so no big effort. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep of course, per Fuzheado, Bluerasberry and pretty much everyone else above. Also, several of the concerns have been addressed by recent edits. The title is very useful and educational in that it helps users combat common fallacies and cognitive biases which often damage Wikimedia discourse, such as the very common post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments about supposed causes of damage to the wikis. It's therefore also a very useful protective tool for us gays and other possible victims of such irrational biases. Knowledge is rarely gained without some difficulty, of which the shock of learning something new is an example. Nemo 12:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename. The page title is, at best, clearly an attractive nuisance (this is at least the 4th deletion nomination). At worse the name is problematic in that there is no way to know it is satirical unless&until one actually follows the link and reads. I also want to emphasize the significant difference between homophobic content and content that satirically mocks vandalism (including mockery of homophobic vandalism). I think it perverse for anyone to claim offense at the latter pretending that it equates to the former. Alsee (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename to (e.g.) Sign this form to prove you aren't a vandal without leaving a redirect. The current title is both offensive (for reasons Fae and others have already discussed) and misleading: the joke has always been about more than people who say "Joe is gay". The first edition of this page already refers to "typing students" and "the curious". One of the features of this joke page is the "form" in the middle asking people to promise absurd things relating to common types of vandalism, which will make a nice new title. Moving the page to a title that keeps it funny for regular editors but doesn't refer to any particular category of people will allow preservation of this clearly marked joke, but minimise offence to our many editors who are gay, cheerleaders, typists, or whatever other category of people that this page could otherwise be named after. Deryck C. 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What Deryck said, though a redirect seems appropriate. The URL that has been around long enough that external links point back to it, and noone should see the title unless they're following such a link. –SJ talk  22:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Mw13ie517mac.jpg (revision from 2004-05-24)

Potential copyright infringement. Internet Explorer layout is and was not free and it's not de minimis. Meta prohibits Fair Use. Could be kept if cropped. The purpose of the file was to illustrate a bug in the MediaWiki software. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't knew c:Commons:CropTool worked for other projects as well. It was a glad surprise. I went ahead and removed the potentially infringing material. Perhaps we shall focus only on the previous uncropped file revision from 2004. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Cropped and previous revision RevDel'ed. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

End-of-year_/_final_report

I was so eager to get started that I did not realize it created on a generic page rather than project subpage. I've moved my draft, but I think we can delete the redirect. Thanks The other Kiwix guy (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. --MF-W 16:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 17:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Book of Odes

The following discussion is closed: Not for Meta-Wiki

On 1 Aug 2020, Cambridge Scholars Publishing published my translation of the Chinese "Book of Odes" (Shijing), one of the earliest literary monuments in any living language. This is, as far as I know, the first new translation since the 1950s; when I published a small selection of the translations in 2006 one Chinese reviewer was kind enough to write "This is the only readable translation I have found, certainly the only one that makes these ancient poems enjoyable to read". My book has the unique feature that alongside the English versions, it spells out alphabetically the poems as they sounded in the original Old Chinese, restoring the rhyming and other sound-play which are lost if the words are read as modern Chinese. Accordingly, it seemed reasonable to add a one-line reference to my book to the list of translations in the Wikipedia article "Classic_of_Poetry", so that Wikipedia users who are interested could discover my book's existence and perhaps judge it for themselves. I did this on 24 August 2020; seven hours later, another Wikipedia user undid my insertion, with the comment "it's not from a major press, so let's wait awhile and see how it's received before adding it". This to me is not a reasonable excuse for suppressing a citation of the book; if it is not listed within the Wikipedia article on the Chinese original, it will have little chance of being "received". I am not sure about the significance of the status of the publisher, but in any case, after everything that has happened to the British publishing industry in recent decades, it would be hard to argue that CSP is not a major press, unless "major" is code for "American": CSP seems to be one of the foremost independent British academic publishers still standing. I request that my revision to the article "Classic_of_Poetry" is reinstated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dick G. Hatch (talk) Please sign your posts using --~~~~ at the end of them.

@Dick G. Hatch: It looks you are referring to this edit that got reverted. You should discuss the matter on the English Wikipedia with the editor that removed your edit. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 14:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:JK.TREDRS

Purely self-promotional page, looks like the author intended it to be a personal website. --Drm310 (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This meets WM:CSD, so you can go ahead and tag it with {{delete}}. PiRSquared17 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ] 06:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ] 06:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias by language macrofamily

The following discussion is closed.

List of Wikipedias by language macrofamily

To be blunt, this page is pseudoscience. The "macrofamilies" detailed are hypothetical and lacking in linguistic evidence. The largest group, Nostratic, is described on en-wiki as "a controversial and mostly rejected hypothetical macrofamily". The second-largest, Austric is described as "proposed," and "remains unproven." The third largest, Dené–Caucasian, "is viewed as doubtful or rejected by nearly all historical linguists" (excluding one specific connection). Congo-Saharan is such an obscure idea that it is a redirect to a section that says only that the only proponent of the theory came to reject it later on. Armenid Amerind, the last one, is described on en-wiki as "rejected by the majority of historical linguists as spurious." This is a non-existent classification of languages and shouldn't be on meta. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It says Amerind, not Armenid, but other than that minor error this analysis is on point. These groupings are not widely accepted by linguists. As for whether it warrants deletion, Meta-Wiki doesn't have policies on original research or verifiability, but that doesn't mean the page has to stay. At the very least, it should probably be edited with a disclaimer that it's based on highly controversial assumptions. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Deleted - After 3 weeks since the listing, without any keeps . There is consensus that this page isn't suitable for meta as the groupings are highly controversial and rejected by linguists across the spectrum, hence, failing our inclusion policy #4 as such contents can be deemed quasi personal essays . It also fails #1 as such original research might be better suited for Wikiversity which allows original research as acceptable content. I will state that we do accept some essays, per inclusion policy too. There is no content in this essay which characterize the development of wikis as although a wiki higher in a list might seems more developed, the fundamental premise of the listing is based on unaccepted yardsticks defeats this purposes. This essay is best marginally but mainly not relevant to the movement as a whole as compared to the rest of them. Hence, the result is Delete with no prejudice of temporary restoration for transwiki to Wikiversity. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Unknownfauser

User:Unknownfauser

User page of a departed user that appears to be at least a borderline attack page (no objection if another admin wants to speedy under G9) following an indef block on thier homewiki (fawiki). Recommend deletion without prejudice for recreating in line with the inclusion policy. — xaosflux Talk 23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems so similar to one other user (Ruhubelent). I suggest we give them the latitude to complain (which is what we do here on meta usually, I hate it but then there are endless pages like that), but not on global userpage. Revert to last clean version and Move this complain to user subpage. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Moving it seems reasonable to me. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I !voted but since the nom states that they are fine with no prejudice for recreation, I will carry out my proposed movement of the content to a subpage and revert the userpage to an acceptable manner. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Afrotometria

The following discussion is closed.

What does it have to do with Wikimedia?--Jusjih (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. Sgd. —Hasley 11:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 13:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Starburst1415

The following discussion is closed.

WM:CSD#G7 - not suitable for any projects, also violates WM:IP which doesn't accept personal blog-like page. However, the edits reverted when I added SD request by corresponding user. --Semi-Brace (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment Semi-Brace It appears that Billinghurst has removed the unsuitable content. As modified the userpage seems OK. If the content is restored then deletion would be appropriate, but as-is the page appears allowed by policy. 𝒬𝔔 20:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Deletion of global user page is not really a viable option for a good faith editor, pages that should by preference be modified to scope rather than deleted. Attempts to get a page within scope should be the primary aim. Wherever possible we should guide, not beat people with a blunt stick.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems OK at this point; I'd like to withdraw. --Semi-Brace (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Sgd. —Hasley 00:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 00:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)