Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2008


Text pages

Best of Wikipedia vandalism

The following discussion is closed.

Shouldn't have to say much here, but this is a really pointless page (much like the enwiki BJAODN). Seems no benefit in encouraging vandalism to get into a "hall of fame". Majorly (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[]

  • delete Majorly (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Oh, please, get rid of it, condemn it to hell.   Obliterate --Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   destroy - send it back to the depths from where it came...pointless/useless cr**..--Cometstyles 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - per nom. --Az1568 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete - of no value at all --Herby talk thyme 11:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Az1568. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-06t11:20z
  • delete - such a short page is of no use --FiLiP ¤ 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Vandalism deserves no hall of fame. --Aphaia 11:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - Pointless, and not funny. - Tangotango 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Adambro 19:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Welcome, newcomers

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. No point prolonging it, it's just obvious. Let's pride ourselves on being speedy. --user:Anonymous Dissident

This page created by an anon has never been used and has no links either and it was made in good intention but it has been superseded by multilingual Template:Welcome..--Cometstyles 13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed: deleted

If someone had not made an edit to this articles talk page, I wouldn't have seen it. This is basically one of those skins used in the Gallery of user styles which is linked to a wiki which "no longer" exists so its no longer useful on meta and I'm also tagging pic of a screen-shot of that wiki in the images section :) ..--Cometstyles 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)t[]

  • Delete - per Comet. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: I just notified the creator of this article.--Jusjih 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - I don't wish to sound stupid but why is this no longer useful because the associated Wiki doesn't exist anymore? Adambro 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Weak keep - Even without the wiki in use, as far as I can see it could still potentially be used. If a satisfactory response to Adambro is brought forward I might reconsider... Giggy\Talk 04:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (abstain)[]
    I humbly suggest that it just may no longer be of any use, because it has no wiki or project any lkonger associated with wikimedia. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[]
    Has SeductionWiki ever had any association with Wikimedia, beyond using the MediaWiki software? There seeems to be a number of other styles listed which don't have live working examples. Adambro 14:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[]
    Well, we can argue semantics, but the above correction fails to assert why this should be kept and why it is any longer appropriate here on Meta. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
    Meta is not a repository of Images/skins and if the wiki no longer exist, I don't see a reason to keep the skin associated with it and there is no way of knowing if it works as well, plus if you see Gallery of user styles, you will realise that most if not all skins are linked externally and not on the wiki for download and personal apart from this one which is linked to a now defunct wiki and as per nom, it is no longer important or useful to this Project or any other project associated to Wikimedia...--Cometstyles 10:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per my two comments. Adambro 14:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Delete Adambro 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - not needed.--Poetlister 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 13:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete not useful nor interesting since not related to WMF but to a dead wiki. --Thogo (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom and Thogo. --Az1568 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[]

deleted per consensus--Nick1915 - all you want 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Minatama disease

The following discussion is closed: Page does not exist and has not existed on Meta.
  • I am the creator. There is already a very good page on Minamata disease; I mistakenly searched for "Minatama disease" and didn't find it, so created a small stub page. Soon I realized my mistake. Sorry! 01:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
    • You may be confused: both articles are not on this project. Perhaps you may think you are on English Wikipedia? --Aphaia 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Wikidharma, Diamond, Zen guide, Assume nothing, The Zen of Wikipedia, Heart, Don't be a crybaby

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per author's request

A bunch of rambling personal essays on Wikipedia policy that seem irrelevant to Meta. Many of them seem to actually be copy-and-pasted from en.Wikipedia without even fulfilling the GFDL. Dmcdevit 11:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

  Comment I already wondered what stuff that is... But if they are essays copied from enwp one could easily import the history, right? Maybe they should rather be deleted on enwp and stored on Meta? --Thogo (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I just noticed that this user was recently banned on Wikipedia, which would explain him moving everything here. I don't really see anything valuable in them. It just looks like more clutter to me, and someone had way too much time on their hands and decided to write essays instead of contributing content to a project. Dmcdevit 12:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  Comment Without giving any opinion on the whole set of pages, nor on the user, I think pages such as Zen guide belong to meta, or at least used to belong there (though maybe not in the main namespace). There is a lot of such (humorous) essays in Category:Essays, which now states "Meta-Wiki started out as a place where many people described their thoughts about Wikipedia and other topics. [...] As of 2006, there is some disagreement about whether new essays, particularly personal essays, should be added to Meta anywhere but in user space." guillom 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Dmcdevit, I'd appreciate it if you could've brought your concerns to me directly. Also, I've been blocked for a week, not banned. You also may be interested to take a look at the diff used as an example of "trolling." [1]

I came here because I thought there was a bit more openness and intellectual freedom here, and a bit more tolerance for people with a deletionist philosophy. I think that there are substantial problems with Wikipedia (see my contributions to WP:FAIL) and actually trying to edit Wikipedia has been fairly frustrating and literally "impossible" in the full sense of the word. I'm continually accused of bad faith and so on, and diligent attempts at clarifying that's not the case always fail. So, in order to avoid being perma-banned, I'm currently on a "vow of silence" with the Wikipedia community, for my own account's sake, as they don't seem to follow anything I say and I'd have to actually give up the whole idea of "improving Wikipedia" in order to maintain any kind of sanity.

My only goal now is to:

  • Finish a collection of essays on policy and Wikipedia philosophy (there's tons of such essays all across meta)
  • Contribute to Veropedia when I get back from the block.

Please, at least let me do that.

Calling them "a bunch of rambling personal essays" is insulting. They're copied from Wikipedia, but I wrote them. They are mine legally, so I can release them under the GFDL to Wikipedia, then release them under the GFDL to Meta, then release them to whoever else I want under whatever license I want.

I don't have a problem with deleting them from enwp if you want or importing the edit history, or what-have-you. Zenwhat 12:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete - Meta is a great place for essays and I have also tagged essays before which looked really stupid and well these are examples of those, I should have deleted the first one he created when he was blocked on enwiki but it seems all his essays are just Personal attacks on people on wikipedia and its founder and thats why I believe these essays are not suited for Meta...--Cometstyles 12:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Having read through most of these pages I agree with Dmcdevit that these pages are not worth keeping. They aren't funny nor useful. --> Delete. --Thogo (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Forget it. I'm deleting them myself. User:Kim Bruning has offered to give me webpspace. I'll publish them there.

I mean, frankly, this is ridiculous. How are you going to call Assume nothing a "personal essay"? Zenwhat 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Deleted them all per user request. Enough of this. Majorly (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I think I'll be an antigenderist and Ethics or Morals

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Essays that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, Wikimedia, or any Wikimedia project.--Shanel 05:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete both, per nom. --Aphaia 07:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete both per nom. --Thogo (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete both per nom. ----Cometstyles 09:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete both per nom. Adambro 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete I usually prefer to write up something specific about why I think something should be deleted, but I'll be damned if Shanel didn't sum it up quite succinctly. :) EVula // talk // // 20:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - Definitely nothing related to Wikimedia. Shanel said it perfectly. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete All per nom. Nakon 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete both - I can't see how they're related to wikipedia. Snowolf How can I help? 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Ethics or Morals has been kept there for 5 years and edited by several users. Nobody here has notified any of the authors that edited either articles. Articles on philosophy, specifically, are relevant to Wikipedia because all policy is based on philosophy, no? Zenwhat 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]
    • If the philosophy actually alluded to Wikimedia, then it would be relevant. Also, The content of Ethics or Morals was only edited by one user (Manning Bartlett). Nishkid64 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per not being relevant to Wikimedia in particular. Giggy\Talk 10:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete both, per nom. Huji 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom.--Poetlister 09:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Google searches that Wikimedia pages rank first on

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[]

This page is not being used for anything in particular, as far as I can see, and, given the number of Wikimedia projects, is likely impossible to maintain. In fact, the last time it was updated was all the way in July last year. I can't imagine these will be first page for everyone that searches for these terms, or that they will always be (The article for Anatoli Yevgenyevich Karpov is the 3rd result for me. There is not even an article for "fart lighting," as it should be).--Shanel 05:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete, unlikely to ever be maintained or to be accurate. Nakon 05:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - not needed. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, per Nakon. --Thogo (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete--Cometstyles 09:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete pretty pointless. Adambro 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Waaaaaaaay too wide open, and extremely fluid. We could be updating this all the time, and for absolutely no real benefit to the project(s). EVula // talk // // 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - Would take a lot of manpower to update regularly, at little benefit to the project. Serves no purpose. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - unmaintanable. Snowolf How can I help? 11:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - Inaccurate, incomplete, and of course hard to maintain. Huji 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Google ranks change frequently.--Poetlister 09:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - Unmaintainable. Greeves (talk contribs) 19:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Legitimate criticism

The following discussion is closed: Deleted — VasilievV 2 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[]

The author had pages nominated above that were speedily deleted. I am strongly tempted to delete this however I would prefer to have the community's views. Personally I do not see such a page as appropriate for Meta although I appreciate it is a personal essay. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete. A now blanked comment at most, that may have been needed at articles like m:w:en:Criticism of Wikipedia long ago. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-13t17:43z
  • Delete with final warning to the editor in question - a couple of those claims is either baseless or rumours created by those "BADSITES" whose only ulterior motive is to bring down the Foundation,..sorry, as mentioned above, we would love to have excellent essays on Meta but that doesn't mean we will allow such 'attacks' on the foundation and its faithful editors...--Cometstyles 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Oh, now come on. :D Zenwhat 15:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Just after one day several similar submissions were speedied per author's request with saying they would be hosted on another website, this page was submitted with a mention to a particular username. Very trollish and hardly to mix with meta purpose to build Wikimedia user community. --Aphaia 00:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - can't see how this aids community building or the coordination of Wikimedia projects. Seems to just be an excuse to list the more outrageous accusations that trolls have come up with. WjBscribe 02:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - w:WP:FAIL should take this. Giggy\Talk 10:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - no real value and not appropriate here. --AndrewCates 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - Thinly disguised, I must say. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - Not appropriate nor useful. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. I agree with all above. Alex Pereira falaê 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete as it is trollish, and probably doesn't reflect the view of several users (which an essay should do, by definition). Huji 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Herby.--Poetlister 13:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Countries of the world tables/Español

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, other language fork of a page we've agreed to delete; not needed. James F. (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[]

Spanish version of the page Countries of the world tables, which was deleted after this RfD. Korg 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[]

  • I've speedy-deleted this, as we've already had the discussion (about the English language version of the page). James F. (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[]
    • Thank you. Korg 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[]

Ban coordination

The following discussion is closed: deleted per consensus. --Thogo (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[]

This page is used for more than one year mainly for harassment of my person. My enemies constantly insert their POV and my POV is removed: breach of audiatur et altera pars. Zacheus TalkContributionsEdit counter 20:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[]

  • delete useless page, we have Vandalism reports and Drinis subpages for spambots for real cross-wiki vandalism. This, my opinion, has nothing to do with the personal war of users who recently editwared there in any way. thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete useless page, bans should be "co-ordinated" on their own projects. Majorly talk 21:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete utterly useless--Mardetanha talk 21:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete - not a well written proposal, not good enough for Meta ...--Cometstyles 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - as nom. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Majorly & birdy --Herby talk thyme 06:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete as promoting a poor outlook on banning. No thanks. giggy (:O) 06:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete per birdy. The page is not used. --Egg 08:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Not useful. SQLQuery me! 10:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - Useless. Greeves (talk contribs) 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete - Looks like an idea which came out of the blue, and wasn't even "proposed" before moving forward. Huji 10:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete — Seems like less than a good idea to me — glad to see the consensus above. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per birdy. --Az1568 08:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, unuseful. Stifle 10:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, there seems to be no need for this page. Singularity 06:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[]

Ideas on how to write about--and how not to write about--film

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. If someone will need to import it, I may undelete and give an XML dump of it — VasilievV 2 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Old unused page, should be on Wikipedia, not here.

  • Delete Majorly talk 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Transwiki or delete. I would agree with Majorly, this looks pretty enwiki-centric and has little to do with cross-project collaboration. Could perhaps become a subpage at Wikiproject Film on enwiki, otherwise delete. WjBscribe 19:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Quick delete even, as it is out of scope of project. Huji 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Quick delete I'm with Huji - out of scope --Herby talk thyme 08:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - I disagree with the speedy deletion, since it doesn't fall under WM:CSD#G7; it was not out of scope when it was created. Since it is linked from w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines ([2]), I suggest to transwiki this page to Wikipedia. Korg 10:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, looks to be for Wikipedia, not here. Singularity 06:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom. --~Innvs: 07:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, WikiProject Film on has some pretty good comprehensive pages that deal with this already. Cirt 12:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Transwiki Belongs on EN:WP.--Poetlister 12:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, I don't think anything said there isn't already said at w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines or a similar location, so another copy won't really be necessary. giggy (:O) 00:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Clearly superfluous.--Cato 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Note - Since this page is going to be deleted, transwikied or not, and might or might not be appropriate on Wikipedia, I've left a note at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films to know if it would be actually suitable there. Korg 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Transwiki on enwiki or delete. --Kiensvay 01:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete --Mardetanha talk 02:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Special:Import into enwiki to preserve GFDL compliance (texts seem to have common root?); note that this will have to wait for SUL to be fully completed. Oh, and for the importers usergroup to be activated and populated on enwiki. James F. (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete I believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) cover all the information listed at this page. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • If this is more general than guidlines at Wikipedia this could perhaps go to Wikiversity. --Emesee 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Early Muslim view of history

The following discussion is closed.

Deleted - there seems to be clear consensus here, even subtracting my vote. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[]

The article seems to be out of the scope of Meta. I'm not sure if there is any value of keeping for historical reasons. Huji 16:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[]

  • delete offtopic--Nick1915 - all you want 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Not even close to what Meta is for. Speedy? It's not an official reason for deletion, but geez, I'm surprised that it's lasted this long... EVula // talk // // 17:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Off topic, I don't see where we need this info at Meta. --Kanonkas 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Kanonkas --Cradel 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - Not for Meta. Soxred93 01:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete... not really seeing any reason to keep. giggy (:O) 05:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Wrong wiki. -- Avi 04:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Greeves (talk contribs) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Del - obviously not what Meta is for. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Question - Why do you think this page is not appropriate on Meta? Korg 23:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    • The title pretty much is self-explanatory. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[]
      • Shouldn't pages be judged on their content rather than their title (how about Don't be a dick then)? This reflection or essay is not totally unrelated to NPOV and Wikipedia; it was even linked from the Main Page,[3] so I do not think it is unrelated to Meta. By the way, isn't it somewhat analogous to Can history be truly NPOV? or Meta:Historical/Simple View of Ethics and Morals? Korg 18:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[]
        • Obviously, page content is much more important that title. Korg, many other people agree this is not appropriate for Meta. If you believe it should be included, place a keep vote. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[]
          • Ok, I've placed a keep "vote". But RfD should be more a discussion and less a vote. The fact that several users think this page is not appropriate for Meta has little weight if they do not provide any arguments. Again, could people please explain why this page is not appropriate here? Korg 18:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete — Since 19 January 2003 ??? — Not a meta issue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - out of scope for Meta - Alison 08:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - Part of Wikipedia's history. This page is not out of the scope of Meta: reflections, essays, discussions or historical pages that are not unrelated to Wikimedia's projects or principles are appropriate on Meta. Korg 18:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Contra Korg, this is not a high-level strategic essay but a very specific and arguably POV one.--Cato 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    • Please note that specific or POV essays were (are) acceptable on Meta. Korg 17:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - clearly not an appropriate item for meta. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed.

I think the page is only storing some unsorted piece of info which is not of use on Meta. I think it falls outside the scopes of Meta Huji 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]

Made by an IP 14:34, 3 October 2005 and untouched/unreferenced since except for a categorization and the rfd. I've deleted it. Kylu 21:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Not relevant to Meta. Disregarding my remark, consensus here is still clear. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[]
Also the redirect Deconstructionism and the page Deconstrucion.

I don't think this page needs to be retained. Its only contributor last edited in 2004, and his only other edit to anything else was this. The page doesn't really serve a purpose or benefit this project or any other WMF project in any way. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete, I should think. It is completely irrelevant. I am all for pages providing historical context, but this page provides no such context extrinsic from its oldness. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, concur with AD. The page adds nothing useful to Meta. —Giggy 03:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, unless someone can explain how this page is relevant to coordinating Wikimedia projects. WJBscribe (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • At first glance, maybe transwiki to Wikiversity. Or if it can fit in the respective article at WP, then maybe put it there. If it is duplicate of WP... I'd suggest a closer look at things. Emesee 08:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[]
    • I'd be highly intrigued if you could explain how a transwiki to Wikiversity or Wikipedia would be possible. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Anonymous Dissident and I'm also curious as he is as to how it would be appropriate to move it to Wikiversity or to Wikipedia. Adambro 09:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Deleteper above --Mardetanha talk 10:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Move to user space, since it can still be kept as the views of a user, although I doubt how it can help the project. Huji 18:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Not really relevant to anything, much less Meta, Wikiversity, or Wikipedia. EVula // talk // // 15:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[]

BPBack Log

The following discussion is closed.

Doesn't seem particularly useful for our project(s). Majorly talk 16:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete, I was very confuse about his content... Alex Pereira falaê 16:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete unless it can assert to how it is relevant to the project. xaosflux Talk 16:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Agree with Majorly (talk · contribs) and Xaosflux (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Majorly --.snoopy. 23:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Not seeing the usefulness either. delete ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Baleeted. Kylu 19:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

The following discussion is closed.

Tagged as {{MoveToMediaWiki}}, but its mostly outdated and redundant to extensions that do this properly. It recommends either editing the MediaWiki PHP files, which we tell people not to do or to use an incredibly insecure extension (which I removed). It shouldn't be moved to, and it shouldn't be here. Mr.Z-man 21:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete. Agree with this analysis by Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • So do I. delete ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - on the basis that the content doesn't belong either on MetaWiki or MediaWiki. WJBscribe (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Deleted. Kylu 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The following discussion is closed.

Deleting all but ru version. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[]

No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

This request also includes:

A partial copy of a content essay from enwiki: The meat of this essay is already covered on other pages. IFF this is to be kept, then it should be Special:Imported instead to maintain GFDL. xaosflux Talk 21:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[]

I'd really like to keep russian edition of this essay, which I translated. I've added other language versions only as context for russian version. I am aware of GFDL issues, so I've copied only one paragraph of english and czech text and asked to import full text in a hidden comment. As for suitability of this essay for inclusion on meta, it is relevant not only for Wikipedia, but also for other Wikimedia projects. There are lame edit wars in almost all Wikimedia projects, and this essay gives a good way to say: "don't do anything really extravagant (read: stupid) just to prove a point". In other words, if a Do not disrupt projects to make a point is relevant for meta, then this essay is relevant too, because essentially they state the same thing, first being serious, second being humorous. --Grebenkov 22:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. Agree with rationale given above by Xaosflux (talk · contribs). The import possibility is a good option if it is kept. Cirt (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - I also added to subpages of that page (Russian and Czech translations). Please note that User:Cirt voted before the addition of those two pages. Huji 18:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]
My take is the same for those. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Would prefer it was imported. Majorly talk 19:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete what the hell-- 01:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Note I've imported the prior versions of this page so this discussion should not be about GFDL anymore, just content (their just as easy to delete as the rest of the page if this ends up as a delete). xaosflux Talk 13:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep Russian version (imported by original author, no copyright problems), delete others — vvv 21:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep now that the enwiki revisions have been imported. The essay seems to me to be appropriate content for meta given that it is relevant to more than just enwiki and therefore of potential cross-project interest. WJBscribe (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per VasilievVV — Ferrer 10:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]



The following discussion is closed: deleted

The purpose of this template isn't clear but it doesn't seem very useful. Judging by the limit uses and that it hasn't been changed at all for three years, I suspect this is not needed so I propose it is deleted. Adambro 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete, does not appear to be useful. Majorly (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
    • Patrick makes a lot of template and stuff which looks unnecessary but might be useful..better to ask him first though....--Cometstyles 18:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
      I've notified Patrick of this discussion now. Adambro 18:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, users interested in seeing images enlarged can use a browser which does that conveniently.--Patrick (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - I can't work out a use for this, agree with above. Giggy\Talk 10:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - --Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - well if Patrick agrees, then its ok....--Cometstyles 11:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete currently useless. --FiLiP ¤ 11:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, currently without use, creator voted delete. Snowolf How can I help? 12:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Deleted, clear consensus in addition to author's request. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:48:31, 06 February 2008 (UTC)

T Forcedsubst

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

This template has been unused, orphaned, uncategorized, and undocumented since June 2006. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:43:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  •   Remove per nom.--Poetlister 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove per nom.--Cato 23:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove Per above --Hu12 01:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove per nom. Unneeded. RedCoat 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove - No use, orphaned, etc. Giggy\Talk 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove -what that pathos guy said :P ...--Cometstyles 21:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove No use on Meta. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Done.--Alnokta 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Tracking category

The following discussion is closed: deleted

This template has been unused and orphaned since February 2007. It was copied from the Wikimedia Commons, including broken categories and broken nested templates. It is overcomplicated and overbearing, given that its sole purpose is to briefly explain a tracking category (which is not particularly necessary besides). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:46:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  •   Remove not needed and unused...--Hu12 05:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove - not needed and not used Giggy\Talk 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove - per Mr.Shanel ...--Cometstyles 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove Unneeded here. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove per my good friend Pathoschild.--Poetlister 17:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Done. --Alnokta 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[]

User tsolyáni-1

The following discussion is closed: subst:ed and deleted, clear consensus. --Thogo (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]

This is a language template for Tsolyáni, a language constructed for the Empire of the Petal Throne role-playing game. The template is only used by its creator and there are no primary speakers of this language; I see no real usefulness in converting it to the new {{user language}} system.

I suggest it be substituted onto the creator's page, and deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:57:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Subst + Delete Non-notable made-up languages should not be babel boxes. EVula // talk // // 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • subst & delete - per nom ...--Cometstyles 05:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Per Pathoschild: Subst: + Delete. --Thogo (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Substitute and delete - Made-up languages don't generally need Babel boxes, this is not an exception. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
    O RLY? :P EVula // talk // // 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
    I said generally, there are probably less than 10 exceptions. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]
    I'm just picking on you, don't worry. That's why I said "non-notable made-up languages". :) EVula // talk // // 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Subst and delete per nom. --Aphaia 20:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • subst & delete, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • subst & delete - per nom --Herby talk thyme 11:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]


Users by bilingual fluencies

The following discussion is closed: deleted

The categories listed below were created to facilitate translation, but they're redundant with Category:Users by language (intersections possible), and highly incomplete. The categories must be added manually, so there are only 8 intersections of the many (227!/2!225!) possible intersections, each containing only one user. Several of the categories are redundant (such as Users de en and Users de en-3), and there are only five users listed in the system.

{admin} Pathoschild 06:32:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, new technical possibilities make the Multilingual users obsolete. HenkvD 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree completely with Patho. --Meno25 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Deleted per the creator's agreement. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:11:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who are active on all Wikimedia wikis

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[]

This category categorizes users who have accounts on all Wikimedia wikis, regardless of activity there. This is highly inaccurate— many wikis are locked and do not allow new accounts, many others are internal, and new wikis are created every few months so that users on this list quickly fall out of date. Furthermore, this seems to be primarily a vanity category and serves no collaborative or community purpose that I can see. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:02:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, inaccurate title. Editors will most likely never be active on some internal wikis. Nakon 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Pathoschild. ++Lar: t/c 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - I don't think it's possible for anyone to be placed in this cat, making it meaningless. Giggy\Talk 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. See Giggy. --Thogo (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
    Are you saying Giggy's meaningless? :) ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
    Are you saying he's not? ;) EVula // talk // // 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete not feasible, even if we limit the targets to all public and open wikis only. --Aphaia 09:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete, not very useful, besides of the impossibility of being 'active' on all wmf projects. best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete - though I'm on it...need to look for another cat to add :~( ....--Cometstyles 14:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, as impossible. Majorly (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom. Adambro 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, I agree with Spacebird. Alex Pereira falaê 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete How many wikis are there? Who'd have time to set up all those accounts, let alone do anything with them? And how many different alphabets are involved - Russian, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, etc?--Poetlister 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]
    Er... you'd be surprised at how easy it is. EVula // talk // // 04:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Deleted, per the snowball thing. Jon Harald Søby 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
    undeleted JHS, Please, no snowball here. Please respect the two-week policy - see meta talk:requests for deletion#At least two weeks. Hillgentleman 18:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, per above. Hillgentleman 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom Huji 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete unmaintainable. Also note, I support snowball closure. xaosflux Talk 14:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Obviously and inevitably inaccurate. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete pretty much per nom, even if I'm taking it as a target to shoot for. :D EVula // talk // // 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. Great statement, Pathos. Justin(u) 23:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed: Could've been speedy-deleted, actually. Kylu

Self. Correct version later uploaded. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-20t21:03z

The following discussion is closed: Consensus here has pretty clearly been derived already, I see no more reason for this discussion to continue. User:Anonymous Dissident

The uploader that I have notified licensed it as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, not compatible with GFDL.--Jusjih 03:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[]

  •   Remove per nom. Adambro 16:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Delete if not explicitly dual licenced under GFDL as per meta's upload page. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-25t18:29z
  • Delete per nom. NC images should not be allowed on Meta. --Meno25 00:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove per licensing concerns.--Poetlister 18:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, licensing problem. Arria Belli | parlami 02:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - per licensing concerns ..--Cometstyles 09:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom--Nick1915 - all you want 09:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Image:BICC Main building.jpg, Image:BICC Sagarmatha Hall.jpg, Image:BICC Entrance.jpg
The following discussion is closed: Deleted -user:Anonymous Dissident

I'm not particularly happy about the source/copyright status of these images uploaded by Rollingstars for use on Wikimania 2009/Kathmandu and Wikimania 2009/Bids/Kathmandu. These originally had no source and licence info which prompted me to tag these with {{no source}}. The page was then blanked on a number of occasions by this user and from his IP address. Recently the user has tagged two of the three images {{GFDL-self}}, I presume he forgot to do this on the third image Image:BICC Entrance.jpg. Anyway, after a quick search I've found all three image on the proposed Wikimania venue's website/

I am therefore slightly suspicious about the claim of GFDL-self and whilst I'll notify the user of this concern, I propose these image are deleted as suspected copyright violations. Adambro 12:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete all three while the source site does claim copyright with all rights reserved.--Jusjih 14:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - per Jujih. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Image:Volantino corso informatica 2005-2006.pdf
The following discussion is closed: speedy del, offtopic, outside the Inclusion Policy--Nick1915 - all you want 03:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]

There is a web address in the PDF but with no license. Its uploader is notified.--Jusjih 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[]

The following discussion is closed: deleted, nowcommons Image:Sonnenblume full resolution.jpg--Nick1915 - all you want 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]

As images moved to Commons are not listed at Meta:Deletion_policy#Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, I list this one moved to commons:Image:1280px-Sonnenblume.jpg.--Jusjih 20:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[]

commons:Image:1280px-Sonnenblume.jpg is now tagged a scaled-down version of Image:Sonnenblume full resolution.jpg.--Jusjih 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Image:Red sunset02.jpg
The following discussion is closed: Even if this case is not listed at Meta:Deletion policy, we no need to keep them twice, nowcommons--Nick1915 - all you want 03:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Also moved to Commons but with the same name.--Jusjih 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[]

The following discussion is closed: deleted per author req--Nick1915 - all you want 16:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Unused with uncertain license even though claimed self-made. Uploader has not responded to my inquiry.--Jusjih 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I've also informed the author on his en.wp account, where he appears to be more active than here. EVula // talk // // 05:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Feel free to del, this is a leftover from a project moved to wikihowto ZyMOS 15:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]
The following discussion is closed: Deleted. User:Anonymous Dissident

Is it redundant to Image:Flag of Somalia.svg on Commons? If delete, all relevant links will have to be changed. If keep, can it be simply tagged {{PD}} while the source is not so clear?--Jusjih 04:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete per Jusjih. --Meno25 04:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - per Meno25...--Cometstyles 04:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep Is used here to demonstrate the template, and it looks really awkward if one changes to the other picture (since that's quite larger). --Thogo (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[]
    • If keep, perhaps it looks too trivial to be copyrightable. Then I will be willing to withdraw this unless anyone has strong reasons to keep discussing.--Jusjih 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Jusjih. --.snoopy. 15:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Image:Logo dbv.gif

The following discussion is closed.

No good reason to claim "fair" use on this logo. Uploader is notified.--Jusjih 00:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[]

  •   Remove Not properly licensed.--Poetlister 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Well, there was good reason but as you deleted all the other Wikimania 2005 sponsors, it makes no sense to keep this -- Nichtich 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Please explain that good reason that was there. --Thogo (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[]
I assume that it was to give attribution to the sponsor on the Wikimania pages? :) Effeietsanders 12:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Well, that's not a "good" reason to still keep it in 2008... ;O) --Thogo (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Unless they sponsor Wikimania 2008? Wait, could they consider an event held in another country national library? Can anyone contact them and get support again? --Aphaia 05:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[]
The problem is the license of this logo, not the usefulness. In Germany there is no "fair use". They have to agree per mail to OTRS. --Thogo (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove - No need for the image to still be around. If permission via OTRS is given it can be uploaded to Commons. Giggy\Talk 04:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove — Per Giggy, no licensing, etc. Mønobi 03:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Image:Seduction wiki2.gif

The following discussion is closed: deleted

Screenshot of a wiki which doesn't exist anymore which was part of Gallery of user styles..--Cometstyles 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete - per Comet; he's got it right again ;) ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Cometstyles --.snoopy. 15:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per my comments regarding SeductionWiki.css. Adambro 14:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Delete Adambro 05:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Dead wiki.--Poetlister 13:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 13:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete see other RfD above. --Thogo (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom. --Az1568 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[]

deleted per consensus--Nick1915 - all you want 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed: Very clear consensus

Image:Error-Simple.png, Image:Answer-Simple.png, Image:Question-Simple.png,

Totally unneeded to do this with png, it can be done with text, see this for example (I am sure someone can do it even nicer), besides I can't even read the text on the images, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]

  • I can read the text there but it's highly unnecessary to have such stuff as image. --Thogo (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETE!!!! --- And the CSS version takes like 10x the text in a page to place... when the use of a SINGLE 10 character reference makes WAY more sense. Besides, the type u have in YOUR error, has no negative space above the type and does NOT fit on a line w/ type w/o screwing up the leading... Example Image that SHOULD be deleted eventually! I also would like to USE these images in a lot of my own pages/revisions... and wish they NOT be deleted. --- Dsgncr8or 14:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete, per thogo--Nick1915 - all you want 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, these can be done with CSS. The number of characters on a page isn't important; if these are used widely (which they're not), they can be created with a template instead. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:20:14, 08 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete, per thogo --.snoopy. 07:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Pathoschild. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-09t09:00z
  • Delete - per Cometstyles....--Cometstyles 09:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Pathoschild. Text should be done with, erm, text. Create a template if appropriate. Adambro 12:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Seems of little use.--Cato 22:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Thogo and Pathoschild. I would argue Meta has no consensus to accept CC licensed material, too (we are under GFDL). And generally, if you release something under free license(s), meta is not the best destination. --Aphaia 07:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Closed by --Anonymous DissidentTalk

Number1.jpg, Serjune.gif, and Genderage.gif

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, license concerns have not been addressed.

Image:Number1.jpg, Image:Serjune.gif, and Image:Genderage.gif are claimed to be copyrighted by Hitwise without a clear license, so I do not consider them safe to presume GFDL even when uploaded before 2006-12-29.--Jusjih 04:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[]

  • As I stated on my user page, Hitwise generated these images specifically for the WMF and they were published in an article I wrote for the July, 2005 Wikimedia Quarto. I hope that the editors on this page are giving due process to images and, at the very least, checking to see what articles are using them before speedily deleting them. They have historical significance and there is no reason that they should be deleted. --Alterego 04:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[]
    Then what exactly is the license please? GFDL? This page is not for speedy deletion. If you provide a clear license this talk can be closed then.--Jusjih 04:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[]
    Those images all have explicit copyright statements. --Alterego
    We do not have attribution tag. If it is what it fits, is w:template:attribution the answer?--Jusjih 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[]
    Jusjih, Where is it said that every copyright declaration on meta or in wikimedia must be in the form of a standard "tag"? Hillgentleman 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete unless the copyright is made consistent with GFDL. It currently says "While you may use the image, you must explicitly note the owner of copyright"; this allows people to copy these images exactly but not to modify them.--Cato 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Copyright != License. All GFDL text and images are copyrighted, otherwise GFDL wouldn't be enforceable. What we need is for the original source to specify the license. The copyright statements on the images don't matter, since it's obviously a new enough image to fall under Berne copyright. Ask Hitwise to GFDL/CC-BY-SA the material and we're fine, otherwise... ~Kylu (u|t) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete he's had loads of time to fix the copyright.--Poetlister 22:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Alex Pereira falaê 01:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[]

Imagepageexample2.PNG, Imagepageexample3.PNG

The following discussion is closed: Deleted — VasilievVV 03:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[]

Image:Imagepageexample2.PNG & Image:Imagepageexample3.PNG uploaded by User:Odessaukrain

User was warned that the upload commentary was needlessly inflammatory [4] however instead of replying and correcting the issues, he removed my note [5]. I'd be happy, personally, with proper sourcing and licensing and some community support explaining to Odessaukrain that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete if the copyright status of the source novel is not well explained.--Jusjih 00:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Strong Keep What does my comments have to do with the copyright status of an image? This just shows how ridiculous and empty this entire copyright process is. Kylu never mentioned where I can find these copyright tags.[6] There is no mention on this page where to find these tags.
  • Here is some more "inflammatory" comments, Kylu: Is it obvious that I have no respect for your pushy power trips, Kylu?

    Maybe someone can get of their ass and help me add the correct tag? Instead Kylu wants to exert a little authority against other users. He wastes massive amounts of time to threaten me on my page, put two tags on the images I uploaded, and add a deletion request here.

    Jusjih, how long would it take you to add the correct tag?

    Tell me which tag add and I will, then get out of my way and go harass someone else.

    I will let other wikisusers, who have never sat foot in a law classroom play copyright police and harass others, contributing nothing to this project when they do. I simply want to add content to this project. Odessaukrain 18:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[]

    Review the image upload comments:
    1. Imagepageexample2, uploaded as: This is an image which I created. If you are an deletion nazi, f*** you.
    2. Imagepageexample3, uploaded and subsequently commented as: This is an image which I created. If you are an deletion nazi, f*** you, you probably never took a intellectual property rights class in your life, and deleting images is a way for you to forget your miserable, marginalized existence.
    You've marked both here as "public domain" which, as it contains as a derivative form the complete work of art inset as well as being a screenshot of GFDL software, is clearly not public domain. You did not create the contents of the first screenshot at all, nor did you create the majority of the second screenshot.
    Also, the help pages are replicated (upon request) to Wikimedia projects, however the images are not. A new project copying the help page as-is to their own project will notice the images lacking: Replicated images should be stored on Wikimedia Commons instead.
    Lastly in regards to these images, it's the uploader who is obliged to provide the source information and license. I didn't mention tagging, just source and license. Prettying up the page with tags can be corrected by those interested in doing so, but you do need to provide both sets of information for the images to stay put.
    While you're certainly free to make what comments you'd like[7], comments such as these do not further anyone's goals nor do they constructively contribute to the project. Furthermore, your assumptions on the higher education (or lack thereof) of others does you little good in the eyes of the community. While I have taken IP law courses in college, I would not feign encyclopedic knowledge of the sort that pays the six- and seven-figure incomes of IP attorneys, whereas you seem to feel free to do the same. Please reconsider your stance and attempt to assist on Meta cooperatively with others, not in conflict with them. Finally, comments such as [8] [9]what a fucking waste of my time are indicators that, perhaps, some real-life stresses are building up and you should consider taking a break from editing for a bit. I'd rather not see someone clearly interested in assisting the project unable to contribute due to on-wiki breakdown. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Speedy Unused images, copyright status uncertain (specially the image included), and inflammatory sayings in the comment. I also would recommend to put a block on the uploader due to vandalism. --Aphaia 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[]
In fairness, Imagepageexample3.PNG is used on Help:Image page, as added by uploader. I can see a similar picture as useful, if we can move to an image page including a free image (instead of this one. Looks like an illustration from a Marcia Willett book.) I might suggest he look at image pages on Commons and upload the image there, that way it would: 1) be a known good properly licensed image, and 2) would be available to all wikis, not just Meta. If Odessaukrain can add the metadata description to add to the pic, so much the better. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Jusjih.--Poetlister 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Alex Pereira falaê 01:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom. Huji 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom. --Cometstyles 21:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed: Deleted as non-free. It's an old bid, so it's not dangerous to delete it. It may be restored after Meta EDP will be accepted — VasilievV 2 08:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[]

Tagged as speedy, tag removed, re-tagged as speedy. Under the circumstances should be brought here for the views of the community. I am merely bringing it here, not voting. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Note: discussion is   On hold until we accept EDP — VasilievVV 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Herbythyme's approach seems sensible. As the user who nominated this for speedy deletion, I do of course still suggest it should be deleted. With regards to this particular image, the uploader has provided details of the source but not made any comment about the licensing situation and the source website doesn't state that this is freely licensed. As such I consider that this is likely an unfree image and therefore not permitted by WM:IP based upon the points I've described and the widespread (ab)use of unfree images in Wikimania bids. Adambro 14:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. We should keep as a whole the Wikimania bid. If you delete images describing the bid, then you damage the document provided to the jury and to the community. Anthere 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[]
    The problem with that is you're saying it is okay to use unfree images in Wikimania bids, I'd very much disagree. In the case of this image and the no doubt many others like it, there is no reason why a link couldn't be provided to the appropriate website, something which wouldn't overly inconvenience anyone. That remains the case now just as when a bid was being made. We shouldn't be allowing the use of unfree images anywhere on WMF projects where their use cannot be reasonably justified. Adambro 23:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per Anthere--Nick1915 - all you want 02:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per Anthere. --Aphaia 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, per Anthere. --Thogo (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Here are four other images tagged by Adam that I deleted per WM:IP: Image:Harvard-campus-map.gif, Image:Hilton BA.jpg, Image:Hlsmap.gif, Image:Int-res.jpg. Note to RfD closer: if the consensus is to keep the images, please restore these four as well. Nishkid64 (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
    • I agree with Adam's rationale. I fail to see why pictures for a Wikimania bid should be exempt from our "no unfree content" policy on Meta. Nishkid64 (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Could I ask that anyone who has or intends to vote keep that they explain whether their position relates to this particular instance and is intended to maintain the bid as is or saying that they think it is okay to decorate Wikimania bids with unfree images. The problem with simply saying "Keep per Anthere" is that I've already tried to provide a response to the points she made so it would only be right to expand your keep vote to explain why my comments have been dismissed. I note that my actions in raising issue with this and the image below have prompted Anthere to propose an EDP to allow us to use unfree content on Meta and whilst I appreciate the discussions on this issue, I don't think an appropriate EDP would permit the use of this image and until it does, per the Foundation resolution, we can't host unfree content here. I'd therefore suggest we concentrate on developing an EDP as appropriate rather than focusing on this images. Adambro 14:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - I agree with Anthere to some extent: having such an image can help the document provided to the jury and to the community; however, having a non-free image for this reason is not the solution. Huji 15:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete; this image could feasibly be replaced by a free image, could it now? In that case I see no reason to be using nonfree stuff in this way. giggy (:O) 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete I can understand bending the rules a bit for upcoming bids, but once that year's decision has been made, they can be purged (and replaced with freely-available images once the event happens). EVula // talk // // 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[]

Image:Burg koenigstein.jpg

The following discussion is closed: Already deleted.

I removed the no source tag as a source is given (and interwiki link), however I don't see how this image is useful for Meta. Maybe Commons, but unused and seemingly useless here. giggy (:O) 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Comment I've now tagged it for speedy deletion since it is on Commons with the same name so there appears to be no reason to keep it here also. Adambro 08:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • And it's been deleted by -Spacebirdy. giggy (:O) 10:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[]

Image:Interior BACC.jpg

The following discussion is closed: image deleted. EVula // talk // // 04:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[]

is claimed PD but without such evidence at the source website. The same Commons image is tagged no permission for the same reason as well.--Jusjih 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete. Unless further info is provided by the uploader, in addition to permission verification (preferably through the image at Commons). Cirt 20:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I've asked Meno25 who tagged the image as public domain to clarify this situation but in the absence of any response I would support the deletion. Adambro 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • I agree with Adambro. No evidence of PD, and I don't think fair use could be rationalised here. If it is found to be free, I suggest it be deleted here and maintained on Commons. —Giggy 08:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - per Cirt above - Alison 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per the copyright arguments and anyway we don't need it on Meta as well as Commons.--Poetlister 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. The deletion of copyrighted images used in Wikimania bids, such as this one [10], does mean that the bid page is a less accurate record of the quality of the original bid. The historical nature of meta has been advanced in the past as a reason to keep such material despite copyright problems and I am surprised not to see this raised here. Is meta now at the stage where we are willing to delete unfree content even when this makes it difficult to keep archived bids as they were? If so, then I suspect there are a lot of similar illustrative images in Wikimania bids that will need to be considered. WJBscribe (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I am not sure what went on for those images, but in this particular case it does look like Adambro has attempted to get further information regarding the image's copyright status. I agree with Adambro and Giggy that if clarification is not provided, and further info on the image's copyright status is not given, then it should be deleted. Cirt 18:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Meta is a collaborative wiki, not a republication wiki. Although it's not private, the material on Meta is intended for use among the community, for dissemination and discussion. Archival discussions are important because they demonstrate where we came from, and we may draw on those for where we're going. Since the material on Meta is not/has no intention of being reused, any discussion about the removal of images should be focused on usefulness to Meta, removing if not-useful and tagging the images properly as free or non-free if they are. Cary Bass demandez 19:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I do not disagree with what you just said, but that should specifically be explained and outlined on a page locally on Meta somewhere, so that these types of discussions don't repeat themselves in the future. Cirt 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed: image deleted

[Wrong File] Hello, I had several wikis open and uploaded the image to meta instead of commons, please delete: Image:Simonbolivarbhouse.jpg . Thanks.--DamianFinol 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[]

  Done - --Cometstyles 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[]




Right to vanish

The following discussion is closed: Speedily kept

As the page points out, the "right to vanish" is not a right - nor is this a policy. It is, however, being enforced as if it were a policy, much to the benefit of trolls and vandals. Let's rid ourselves of it. --Palnatoke 21:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Keep - sorry, but that policy benefits a lot more than you think and if people don't really want to vanish but invoke this right then its their fault they get caught,I see this as a very good policy to have, it useful to those that want to leave wikis completely due to personal commitments or wikistalking..--Cometstyles 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Very useful page. Keep. Majorly (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per User:Majorly and User:Cometstyles. --Bduke 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Strong keep. This is an extremely important policy, which allows us to protect the privacy of users who no longer wish to be associated with Wikimedia projects. It exists for very good reasons. Terraxos 00:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep It is very useful page in my opinion.--Bletilla 00:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep As per Terraxos. 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Speedy Keep, the privacy of our editors should be paramount; they are, afterall, our most valuable resource. —Locke Coletc 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Speedily kept - this is a core principle of wiki-existence, and there is already overwhelming consensus to keep it. -user:Anonymous Dissident 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed: Kept — VasilievVV 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[]

An old proposal that never got any attention or even any discussion. Only one user commented on it. They said, "Is this not just sourceforge?" and the author never responded. Zenwhat 23:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Keep For archival purposes and historical interest, meta community have kept new project proposals. I think it a good tradition as well as completely compatible with meta purpose for project coordination with brain storming. This request is somehow trolling imho. --Aphaia 00:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • keep - Per Aphaia...--Cometstyles 01:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • keep - Per Aphaia. --.snoopy. 08:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per Aphaia, though I don't quite see the request as trolling. EVula // talk // // 16:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
    • Well I could have assume a good faith but it is difficult to see his other submission and voting just before this nomination. They seems to me "oppositions for opposition".--Aphaia 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
      • ???
Aphaia, I found this while surfing Special:Random. I was looking for stuff I could copy-edit and\or nominate for RfD. See my thread here: Meta:Babel#How can I help?
Please, assume good faith. Even for blocked users. Thank you. Zenwhat 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Slavopedia and its subpages

The following discussion is closed: Kept Nishkid64 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[]

This is a portal that was created to foster cooperation between Wikipedias in Slavic languages using the constructed language Slovio (see ), but it seems that its usage and maintenance is next to zero. I don't even think that it has any historical interest. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Keep - If such an interest in uniting the Slavic languge Wikipedias has taken place once, it can happen again too. Why should they reinvent the wheel then? We can keep it for them. :) Huji 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I won't oppose if those Slavic Wikimedians want to delete them. However I think an attempt of such a cross-language coordination as a historical interest. --Aphaia 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep This is an interesting idea and may be used for other groups of languages such as Finnish and its relatives.--Poetlister 13:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep as a Slavic Wikimedian :) --FiLiP ¤ 13:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, per Dungodung. Alex Pereira falaê 14:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per Huji. Renewed interest could occur. Justin(u) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed: KEPT per consensus.--Alnokta 13:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[]

Was nominated by anonymous — VasilievV 2 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[]

Keep; harmless fun IMO. But hey, the irony is mildly amusing. :-) James F. (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, that's quite funny actually. Without a reason to delete provided by the IP, I see no reason to do so. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, funny, harmless, and no reason to delete. giggy (:O) 01:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, per all above. - ~Innvs: 08:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep Per Giggy. ++Lar: t/c 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, meta is not a repository of bad jokes and nonsense. -- Jeandré, 2008-05-18t10:54z
  • Keep - also noting that the above is wrong. Meta isn't just for documentation; it's also for the expression of what it is to be a Metapedian. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - cute and funny :) ...--Cometstyles 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - Per all above. Greeves (talk contribs) 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[]

Proposals for new projects

The following discussion is closed: kept per consensus. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Nothing ever seems to be made from this page. It seems to be useless. If people want to start new projects, they can make the proposal on its own page, and not a hugely long one that no one ever looks at.

  • Delete Majorly talk 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, historical. --OosWesThoesBes 15:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Transwiki to the = deleteVasilievV 2 15:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep as historical unless merged to the current archives (if exist). --Aphaia 16:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Tag as historical. There does seem to be some interesting history in this page but I think Majorly is right that people looking to propose new projects are now better directed elsewhere. WjBscribe 19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep as historical Huji 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, historical. --Cometstyles 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Historical per most of the above. giggy (:O) 08:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per giggy & Comets --Herby talk thyme 08:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep as historical. Korg 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - keeping it a historical makes it seem like you can't do it any more. 12:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[]
    • Above, but actually signed in... Microchip08 12:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, tag as historical, for the sake of the record. Singularity 06:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, per Cometstyles. --~Innvs: 07:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per Aphaia.--Poetlister 12:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per Ooswesthoesbes. Cirt 12:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep but make it clear that new proposals belong elsewhere.--Cato 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Poles are evil

The following discussion is closed.

No consensus. Currently, 62% of people want this page gone, excluding my vote. In reality, there really is not consensus for the deletion of this file. So, the article will remain by default. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[]

A.D., Just in case somebody else starts this discussion all over again next month, let me put some flesh on your close. First of all, this is a discussion, not a vote. Secondly, most of the arguments of the list of "delete" at the beginning were invalidated or at best shown to be limited. And then, at the end, editors became reluctant to support deletion. Hillgentleman 08:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[]

The article is neither funny nor educating nor historical, but offending (and yes 'polls' were meant)... It is continuosly visited by obviously offended readers, who "vandalize" there, imho understandable. I therefore would suggest to delete the page or at least change the title to something not offending, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]

  • delete per nom, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete - bad humour, offends a culture and I prefer Polls are evil which is basically what people should be looking at..--Cometstyles 01:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete per nom. Monobi (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete It's not even funny... --Werdan7T @ 02:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Some parodies are funny; others are tasteless. This is the latter. -- Avi 04:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete — The title would be mildly funny in a talk page post (and would still be inappropriate in most contexts). I'm amazed this has lingered for most of 4 years. Post-delete, redirect as a possible spelling mistake. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • delete. I am surprised that this has been discussed before and kept. It is tasteless and inappropriate. --Bduke 07:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete; most Poles aren't evil. (In seriousness, I agree with the above.) giggy (:O) 09:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - In simple words: Poles are evil is evil! Huji 11:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - They may hold buildings up, they are not evil. Soxred93 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Yup, I don't see why this should be here more or less just offending to a culture. --Kanonkas 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Of little benefit at all. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - not amusing, just insulting. WjBscribe 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - just junk, I'm afraid - Alison 08:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Wait: The author claims to be Polish and the article Polish humour. I would like to request the comments from a few Polish folks and that everybody be aware of cultural differences and not to jump into judgement. - Hillgentleman, 20080621191533
  • Keep. Per arguments in the last few votes of deletion (this is what? the fifth?), before this new generation bandwagon started rolling. To clarify: as a Pole I find it funny and not the least offensive (although sometimes maddeningly true). Sigh.--Piotrus 20:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Let me comment from a Pole's point of view: I find this page hilarious and in no way insulting (most do, actually, but that requires you to know the background). The assumption that it's being "continuously" vandalize is patently false - since the last edit in February, the page has been attacked only three times by the same IP, which only somehow seems to have triggered this discussion. If you don't understand it, it's not a reason at all to delete it, or dismiss as "junk". Absolutely keep - this has become an important part of wiki culture (it's also massively referenced from Миша13 20:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Not offending at all; pure nonsense and self-criticism are not unknowne to Poles ;-) Picus viridis 21:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Strong keep, it's actually quite funny page. Especially rule #2, but that requires that you know what it refers to, heh. I find it quite funny that non-Poles want this page to be deleted while Poles find it funny and amusing. --Roosa (Talk) 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep . seriously, if the Poles themselves like it, I don't see how there's a problem. Pinky49 21:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep It sure is historical - as one of most beloved article in Category:Humor, as one of most disputed article on Meta, thus the most frequently listed on WM:RFD. It is a self-referential joke so I understand not everyone grasps the point, and anyway you won't be able to stand against the Polish community consensus. I bet someone already canvassed this vote on Polish community and this discussion will soon be turned over with land-sliding supports of Poles. --Aphaia 21:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep nice --Wyksztalcioch 21:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep listing it for deletion to keep them busy proving that Poles are evil. --Matthead 21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - As per nom. Is this a vote? --Emesee 21:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. Being a Pole I have been expressly offended by this article until I realized that it is there to stay with prior three unsuccessful RFDs on record. Only then I chose to perform a deep copyedit last January in such a way as to alleviate most of my negative feelings and, I put away the equally offending discussion into an archive. As it stands, the content no longer offends me, however, I’m aware of further negative reactions coming from a lot of reasonable sounding people. I’d say, if my personal opinion counts, in spite of all the work I put into this article to try to make it sound a bit more fun and witty, please go ahead and do away with it if you can. Even the mere title I'd prefer became an object of an edit war against my wishes. --Poeticbent talk 22:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per the Polish users above who think the others are being a bit thin-skinned about it all. Disclaimer: Ja nie Polski, ale jest to bardzo ciekawy język. Dodatkowe Disclaimer: Tak, to był tłumaczony przez komputer, więc jego straszliwe gramatyki i dziwne frazy. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Kylu's argument is unconvincing.--Cato 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. Quote Misza13: "Let me comment from a Pole's point of view: I find this page hilarious and in no way insulting". No wonder, since it's as clear as daylight that this isn't about Poles at all. Instead, it's an inverted complaint by Poles about being treated particularly unfairly by others. Such whiney laments only contribute to the image of the Polish community of Wikipedia as nasty and difficult to work with, so they would be much better off without it. However, I'm pretty sure it will survive this vote thanks to a strange coalition of "patriotic" Poles and non-Poles who like to frame them as exactly that, namely "patriotic" hot-heads. ;) --Thorsten1 17:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keeep - how many times it was saved from deletion? Radomil 19:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - Again? Some of you have too much time on their hands, I guess. Anyway, actually it's one of the most important historical pages on Meta and had you been over here for some time you would know it. If I were to decide, I would just move it to How to deal with Poles and revert it to some older, IMHO better version. aegis maelstrom δ 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - Polish users I know are just as amused by this as I am. -- Manticore (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Configurable Sidebar

The following discussion is closed.

We don't have information about Sidebar on Meta, because it is moved to MediaWiki's wiki (see Help:Navigation bar). Why then do we need to keep the related discussion on meta? I propose this discussion to be moved to the talk page of the appropriate page on MediaWiki wiki and deleted form Meta. Huji 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]

Request was withdrawn after significant change in the page content. Result was keep. Huji 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Imported to — VasilievV 2 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, unless anyone's got a use for it being here? Kylu 21:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Should really be transwikied and speedy-deleted. Majorly talk 22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - like all the others we have...--Cometstyles 22:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep as cross-wiki redirect. WjBscribe 15:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, per WJBscribe. Cirt 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • I think it is important to note that the current state of this page is quite different to that when Huji nominated it for deletion. As is normal practice with other pages moved to MediaWiki, this page should in my opinion be Kept, perhaps Huji might reconsider based upon the current state. Adambro 21:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Yeah, this is not what was nominated; it's since been imported. Keep the redirect anyway. —Giggy 05:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[]

I'm withdrawing the request, closing it as keep, because I'm fine with the new version of this page. I'm closing this RfD at the same time. Huji 20:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[]

The following discussion is closed.


There are only two edits to this page, the second only marking it as uncategorized. This page contains non-notable information that falls outside the scopes of Meta. Huji 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]

Moved to user namespace. Huji 12:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete no use --Mardetanha talk 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Userify it to Quinobi's userspace. He might be going somewhere with it in a manner falling under the inclusion policy. Kylu 21:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete It is nothing to do with our projects, and at any rate should be in userspace. Majorly talk 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Speedy delete - No context ...--Cometstyles 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Out of project scope. --Kanonkas 15:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - completely exterior from what meta is about. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Move to user space. Hillgentleman 16:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Speedy delete, agree with Cometstyles. Cirt 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Move to userspace. Emesee 20:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Considering he started it in 2004, I'd have hoped he'd have finished work on it by now. Assuming he has, it's not appropriate for Meta, so delete. —Giggy 05:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Maybe he's just slow? :) Kylu 20:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    I'm slow, but I can get things done in four years! :-) —Giggy 06:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Userfy - per Kylu - Alison 08:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[]
The following discussion is closed.

No consensus so Keep

Closed by Cometstyles. —Giggy 15:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[]

Content disclaimer parody

Very old page but seems to have no i think it is proper to Delete this article--Mardetanha talk 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[]

  •   Keep per ROFLVasilievV 2 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep it's funny. Majorly talk 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep --Elassint 20:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • The Wikiwikipedia's meta-article namespace is cluttered with nonsense posturing such as this page...thats sums it up   Keep ..--Cometstyles 23:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - I lol'd - Alison 02:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep; perhaps not the most useful page in the world, but I'm sure there's a hidden meaning. Somewhere. And it's funny. :-) —Giggy 05:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • I think this is an example of the humor pages we keep. Huji 17:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, meta is not a repository of bad jokes and nonsense. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-20t17:12z
  • Delete per Jeandré. Funny perhaps but I can't say that I come to Meta for humour. I'm not sure this page being funny would be an appropriate reason to keep it anyway. Adambro 18:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove per Jeandré and Adambro, not really that funny and has no links to it anyway so just dump it. --MarsRover 19:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Strong Delete How is this article funny, in my view some of the words used are offensive, as Jeandré stated meta isn't a repository and must be moved elsewhere off this site. Dark Mage 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, unnecessary. Nakon 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • I'd rather keep the parody. Although I don't find it especially funny, I think that there is no problem in keeping it as another humor page. Offensive words are okay too, but I would like to get "Wikiwikipedia" replaced by something less allusive (a stupid example: "Shmekipedia"). — Kalan ? 10:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep, as parody/historical. Cirt 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[]

The following discussion is closed.

No Consensus, Keep

Closed by Cometstyles. —Giggy 15:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[]

Wikimedians who use a regular computer

Maybe I am missing something but this seems to lack any real useful purpose in furthering the work of Wikimedia project contributors. Adambro 20:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Keep - it's a fun page. If we were without humour, we'd probably be less willing to contribute. Majorly talk 20:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    There are some great examples of humorous pages on Meta, details of the manufacturer of some user's computers doesn't seem to be one of them in my opinion. Adambro 20:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. Agree that fun is good, but I don't see what good this page is doing. Maybe because I use a laptop. —Giggy 06:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - it's not that funny and I'm failing to see the value of this to the project - Alison 08:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Interesting demographic data. Hillgentleman 01:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Although it seems pointless, I find it harmless, and would rather keep it. Huji 17:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Tend to agree with Huji. sort of keep Emesee 20:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Remove utterly useless information. -MarsRover 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per alison--Mardetanha talk 08:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, agree with Giggy. Cirt 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[]

Tell us about Northern Sami Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed: Those commenting did not agree that the content was of no use. Keep for now. WJBscribe (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]

No useful content. The creator of this page is not a contributor to the Northern Sami Wikipedia, see se:Special:Contributions/M.M.S., according to his user page, he does not even speak Northern Sami.--Johannes Rohr 15:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Keep – It seems useful as it is. Additionally, this could be developed more in the future. Emesee 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[]
In my understanding, the title "Tell us about your Wikipedia" implies, that the questionnaires should be filled out by active contributors of the respective Wikipedia, not by random passers by, who do not even speak the language, in this case by a twelve year old Swedish boy who is best know for his many bogus proposals such as for a Wikipedia in Cyrillic Swedish. I doubt that he qualifies as a reliable source for information on the Northern Sami Wikipedia. --Johannes Rohr 22:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • I understand that the page may be out of date or inaccurate to some extent, and it may provide very little information. However, I'm not convinced that it is wrong enough to be a candidate for deletion. So keep for now. Huji 19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep for now, needs to be developed further, might delete if nothing happens in a month or so ...--Cometstyles 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. Tell us about your Wikipedia does not say that you must speak the language to contribute. It could, but it doesn't, and a discussion of whether it ought to would best be held at Talk:Tell us about your Wikipedia. Chick Bowen 01:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Agree with above rationale provided by Emeseee (talk · contribs) and Cometstyles (talk · contribs) - could be useful at some point, but keep for now. Could be deleted later on. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[]
The following discussion is closed.

Kept, but I think following Spacebirdy's solution would be for the best. If she herself would be kind enough to do this, I'd be most grateful. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Wörter, die nicht in Wikipedia stehen sollten (words that should not exist in wikipedia)

die liste fuehrt derzeit viel zu viele woerter an, die ueberhaupt nicht fuer schlechten stil stehen bzw. fuer deren nicht-gebrauch es keinen konsens gibt. die liste bietet dagegen die moeglichkeit fuer sprachpuristen, unliebsame woerter als "boese" abzustempeln, da offenbar zu wenig kontrolle erfolgt. aus de:WP:WSIGA wurde die verlinkung auf die liste bereits gestrichen, siehe DS. -- seth 00:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[]

da habe ich nix dagegen. ich lass jetzt trotzdem mal den LA bestehen, weil's ja einer loeschung gleichkaeme. falls jemand der meinung ist, dass ein LA hierfuer nicht mehr noetig ist, koennen wir den aber auch gerne vorzeitig abschliessen und einfach Spacebirdys vorschlag umsetzen. -- seth 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[]
DO keep this list. It is helpful for bots in spotting articles that need attention. It cannot be replaced by Prose about good articles, which is a quite different field. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[]
can you specify which bots use it in which way? until now, the title is "words which should not occur in wikipedia" and there's nothing said about bots, which use that list. -- seth 08:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • As a note: it'd be useful if we could have a translation of that text into English, so that a wider audience can comment on this request. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]
    • I understand, however, probably this problem is very specific to the German speaking people. A rough translation:
      • seth requests deletion: the list has too many words that are not used for bad style or there is no consens for their non-usage. The link to the list had been deleted from the given link in already. corrected. -- seth 00:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[]
      • spacebirdys suggest: replace the list with a link to the much more informative article on how to write a good article.
      • seth agrees but keeps the rfd open to let others comment
      • <the rest is in English anyway>
    • best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The following discussion is closed.

Even barring my own commentary, it is fairly clear that this is a keep. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles

I am tagging this article as requiring deletion. I am aware now, that its supposed to be humorous, but even so, I consider the title (and content, to an extent) to be offensive. The page has previously been marked with a humor tag at the top, this has been removed more than once. You don't get to find out its humor until you reach the bottom. Homophobic, the creator is not, I grant you. However, in this case, if its not clearly marked as humor at the top, it needs to go. Iceflow 23:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]

  • No, it's funny. The humour is ruined by adding the template at the top. The boilerplate should to at the bottom (though I prefer the custom text) and perhaps at the top of the talk page.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Wikimedia projects have an interesting tendency to attract the GLBT crowd, and many (many!) of us have read the article and chuckled at it. I'd like to leave it as-is, myself. Kylu 01:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • It's the umpteenth time that this page is here... keep and please...--Nick1915 - all you want 02:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - but I disagree with Mike.lifeguard in regards to the placement of the boilerplate. I also would note that perhaps a rename is necessary. This page has been requested for deletion numerous times, and I'd suggest that it is likely because of its title; while the content is not meant to be inflammatory, the title as it stands without the text of the page behind it could be construed as inflammatory. I mean, after all, the title itself is making a statement that has none of the page's context to explain what it means. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
    Apparently you haven't read it then. The argument that friends of gays shouldn't be allowed to edit articles is the basic joke. The rest, while entertaining, is frosting on the cake. So, the title makes perfect sense and doesn't need to be changed at all. Per Kylu and Nick, we should consider a ban on nominating this page for deletion  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
    Yes, actually, I have read it. In my opinion, the "friends of gays" part is a footnote, really. One of the boldened examples in the second section. I suppose our interpretations differ. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
C'mon - the boilerplate on top spoils most of the fun (unless it's intended as a very ironical way of making fun of Political Correctness... ...which IMO would be more offensive than the title). Finn Rindahl 20:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. The humour is obvious from the first paragraph. If some users are incapable of understanding satire, this will be an important part of their education. I'm not aware of anyone having died of misplaced offense, so I see no need to soften or delete the page to protect users' delicate sensibilities. —Pathoschild 04:05:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It's pure, harmless fun. I cannot imagine anyone taking that page seriously, much less being offended by it. J.delanoygabsadds 20:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep On behalf of Anita Flugelhorn, Finn Rindahl 20:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Strong keep: Per the above. A little humor is a wonderful thing. --MZMcBride 20:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia needs humor and badly. Iceflow, I see where you're coming from, but it seems we're worried people will be offended rather than responding to actual offense. I feel no harm is being done here and the humorous intent of the article is more than clear. FlyingToaster 20:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete only if Anita Flugelhorn comes on and says that she feels that the article offends her in any way or Strong Keep if she doesn't ....Its a known fact that people on wikimedia rarely have a sense of humour and I'm only mentioning wikimedia because non-wmf wikis are sometimes hilarious. Try to get the joke instead of trying to read it out of context ...--Cometstyles 21:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Ehem, [11] Delete then? Finn Rindahl 21:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
well sarcasm doesn't count ....--Cometstyles 22:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep and leave it as it is. And archive this discussion appropriately, and leave a proper link on the talk:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles so that it doesn't get carelessly listed again. Hillgentleman 05:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
    Pathoschild has added that to the talk page, and (thankfully!) reduced the boilerplate.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - I, Anita Flugelhorn, appreciate a good roll in the hay every once in a while with another woman. I also like good satire which doesn't harm the project. Anita_F (aka neuro(talk)) 16:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, this says it all: "Note that there are almost no vandalism instances that say, "I AM VERY GAY" or "I, Anita Flugelhorn, appreciate a good roll in the hay every once in a while with another woman." It can be inferred that gays and lesbians are exceptionally good Wikipedia contributors, and only some of their very proud but misguided acquaintances feel the need to broadcast their friends' sexual orientation." If you are not able to appreciate the humour in it, then I suggest returning yourself to the factory with your warranty to get your humour chip replaced. ;D Mathmo 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Lighthearted essay that has been on meta a long time. WJBscribe (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep FUNNY :) bastique demandez! 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[]
The following discussion is closed.

Kept as no one other than the nom would like the deletion.--Jusjih 19:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[]

IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins/Policy ratification

Meta users aren't interested in enwiki's drama/power games on IRC. Also suggesting this be deleted. There's a perfectly good set of pages in Cbrown1023's userspace on enwiki that should be used instead. Majorly talk 23:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Delete As nom. Majorly talk 23:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Isn't this more of a "move wiki request" rather than a straight delete? After all, you're asking that it goes in enwiki space instead. -- Tawker 23:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes, but it has no place here. Hence, delete. Majorly talk 23:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep: Given that it is related to an IRC channel which is related to Wikimedia, I see no reason to delete it, unless of course there is some reason to delete all of these pages as well (I only use this argument because I really don't understand why IRC related stuff doesn't belong on meta). - Rjd0060 23:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
    • The other channels (#wikipedia, #wikipedia-en etc) are open to all users, regardless of status. This channel is for a group on enwiki, who have admin status. I don't see why it deserves a page, or why a vote on whatever you're voting on needs to take place here, when there's perfectly good space to do it on enwiki. 'talk 23:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]
      • Plenty of private channels, like #wikimedia-checkuser and #wikimedia-admin, are listed and discussed on here. krimpet 02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
        • All which are designed for multiple projects. This is for English Wikipedia primarily. Majorly talk 02:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. We're inter-project here, to serve all projects. Any project which has a problem, they're welcome to ask for help here. I've suggested, in the past, that projects with voting issues on RfAs use Meta so local checkusers and stewards may more transparently and easily assist. This page seems more of the same. Also, given that the channel does have sysadmins/staff members and stewards as welcome members (which this page is clarifying), I think it is of concern to more than just enwiki. Were ru.wikiquote or nl.wiktionary to wish to do similarly, I would have the same opinion on the matter. Kylu 00:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
    • Wait. Are you comparing Wikimedia's largest project to nl.wiktionary? If so, I have to tell you, they aren't comparable. Enwiki is able to fix its own IRC problems. If we have this "voting" page, why not have all the pages over here? Why is it just the one? It doesn't make sense. Either have them all on enwiki, or none at all. Meta people won't be interested in your voting. The only people who this is of interest to is the ops, who are all active on enwiki. Majorly talk 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
      • Yes, actually. The size of the project does not directly correspond to its importance: Frankly, I see that as an English-centric viewpoint that does not belong on Meta. Additionally, there are a wide variety of pages on en.wikipedia that more properly belong on Meta (SQL query documentation, rights documentation, to name two examples) which we should import here. If a project has need of Meta, I feel it's Meta's responsibility to do its part to assist that project in whatever way we can. Mail list descriptions are hosted here, even private enwiki ones. Why should other protocols be treated differently? Kylu 02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
        • I'm fine with it being listed, but it doesn't need its own page. We don't need your power game politics from your silly channel on here. Take it back to enwiki. Majorly talk 02:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
          • lol. Rjd0060 02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
            • In response to your edit summary, I'm not kidding. This channel has caused far too many problems; it's useful only to chanops, who can look at it on enwiki. No one other than the channel regulars care how it's run. Majorly talk 03:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
              • Go over to "your" wikipediareview, or ask Giano or Irpen on en.wikipedia. There are quite a few people who are concerned at how the channel is run but are not regulars. Usually when the goings-on there affect them. Kylu 05:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep: If anything, move the pages from Casey's userspace to here. No harm in having Meta be useful. ;-) --MZMcBride 02:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Most IRC coordination takes place on Meta. krimpet 02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep: may be useful here though I suspect its well suited for WP:IRC and I think its about time we started moving IRC related stuff to meta and maybe one day have an IRC Namespace...--Cometstyles 03:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
    • An "IRC" namespace might be a bit restrictive for future expansion. There are also other protocols and sites that may well deserve mention. Permanent Skype conversations, maillists, newsgroups, SVN sites... all of which may merit retention and documentation here, and yet don't ideally belong in mainspace. Any ideas? Kylu 03:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
      • I'd have to agree; a separate namespace solely for IRC seems strange. The namespace wouldn't ever have much potential, and it gives undue weight to IRC. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
        • Yeah, namespace is a silly idea, where do you come up with such crap Cometstyles but I do think we may need a new namespace for everything/chat not related to a wiki such as Kylu mentioned, just needs a cool yet appropriate name which will include mailing lists, chats either IRC or skype, groups etc ..--Warpath 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • A namespace for IRC is a bad idea. But I agree with Majorly here - IRC information specific to enwiki should probably go there. I also agree with Kylu that there is lots of documentation on enwiki (whether in the Wikipedia or Help namespaces) which should more properly be located here. Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki, does not need this page, since it is not to do with coordinating Wikimedia projects.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
    Yes, this should be moved to enwiki.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Majorly is mistaken (on several counts) in his nomination. In particular, #wikipedia-en-admins is not exclusively about the English Wikipedia (though primarily so), and so I placed the pages here as enwiki would be inappropriate. James F. (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[]
    • It's primarily English Wikipedia admins though. That's who it's created for. That you allow in a few guests (stewards, devs, whatever) isn't really relevant. Most who want access to the channel are admins on enwiki anyway. Others prefer to stay out. It's an English Wikipedia channel, for English Wikipedians, run by English Wikipedians, with English Wikipedia topics, so English Wikipedia is where it belongs. What else am I wrong about in my nomination? Majorly talk 23:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Strikes me as ill advised to try to chase it off Meta for no good reason. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, pages on en-wiki belong on meta. It is here to serve all wikis, just because en-wiki has pages doesn't mean others can't as well. Mathmo 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[]



The following discussion is closed: Kept — VasilievV 2 08:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[]

I feel that this template is unnecessary because on the top of every proposal for closing a project you can see "The result is KEEP" or "The result is CLOSE" or nothing; then you know the discussion has not ended yet. --MF-W 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[]

This template categorize all proposals! M.M.S. 07:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep Not everyone (like those unfamiliar with Wikipedia) who looks at a proposal for project closing will know whether discussion is ongoing. This is just a friendly little banner that clarifies just that. Nishkid64 (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep I agree with Nishkid. Please bear in mind that proposal about closure of projects attract users of other wikis to Meta, and such templates can help them find their way better in Meta in their first experiences here. Huji 15:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep Meta needs to be a bit more accessible than most other wikis, so this template has a place. EVula // talk // // 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - I too agree with Nishkid. This template serving as a helping guide for those unfamiliar with Meta should be kept for that role. Rudget. 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep We use similar templates on EN:WQ and people find them helpful.--Poetlister 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[]




The following discussion is closed: Several people agree this request should be withdrawn, which pretty much translates as keep and Oscar makes the needed license alterations. --Anonymous Dissident

Currently CC-SA-ND-NC licensed, which is not allowed per Meta:Deletion policy. However, I hope and suspect that oscar will change the license soon to a free one :) Effeietsanders 12:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[]

So why do you not simply request him in person to review the licensing instead of taking it to the forum of RFD? ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: The uploader once licensed it under cc-by-3.0 then changed to cc-by-nc-nd-3.0. [12]--Jusjih 02:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Indeed, this seems to be just a simple mistake in licensing that can be easily fixed by getting in contact with Oscar, the uploader. Gaillimh 07:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Call to withdrawal per the above comments. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Seconded--Poetlister 16:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Thirded I wish that was a word:P ..--Cometstyles 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Fourthed On Meta, we don't need real words. Greeves (talk contribs) 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[]

QuickWMS Screenshot.jpg

The following discussion is closed: Speedy kept, no reason to delete — VasilievVV 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[]

Image:QuickWMS Screenshot.jpg is used in a few articles with external links not declaring GFDL-compatible permission.--Jusjih 04:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[]

  • QuickWMS itself (and the screenshoots too ;-)) is LGPL, --Arcy 11:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[]
    We do not have LGPL tag, but we have Template:GPL, but I am unsure of the differences.--Jusjih 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[]
    It seems that everyone who makes any modification must add his or her name to the copyright licence.--Cato 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[]
    You never have to add your name to the license, but if you fail to, the preceding editor would have the rights to your addition, since you wouldn't claim ownership of your edits. Anywho, I added a LGPL template and category, changed the tagging on the page, and added a nice template-style div to the GPL template. I imagine we're cool with the image now? ~Kylu (u|t) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep Seems OK.--Poetlister 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed:   On hold till EDP accepted — VasilievV 2 08:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[]

As above. Tagged as speedy, tag removed, re-tagged as speedy. Under the circumstances should be brought here for the views of the community. I am merely bringing it here, not voting. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Note: discussion is   On hold until we accept EDP — VasilievVV 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Herbythyme's approach seems sensible. As the user who nominated this for speedy deletion, I do of course still suggest it should be deleted. With regards to this particular image, the image appears to being used under a claim of fair use but again, the WM:IP doesn't permit unfree content and we can't use any fair use material without an EDP per foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and so it should be deleted. Adambro 14:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. But if you do, before deleting such an image, but kind enough to save the text contained in it, which is part of our history and has given work to the translator. Before deletion, please make sure the image is saved on our internal wiki. Thanks Anthere 22:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[]
    • Better. I would like to ask suspension of the deletion until meta has adopted an EDP. It seems that having low quality versions of a press article talking of wikipedia on meta, could possibly fit under an EDP. Anthere
      Proposition for an meta:EDP
  • Keep while I am happy to agree on the suspension proposed. I also appreciate Herby not to have the image gone just by speedy deletion. --Aphaia 07:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, per Anthere and Aphaia. --Thogo (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Comment As per my comment above, I'd ask that we focus on discussing the proposed EDP rather than focussing on these images since without an EDP these unfree images simply cannot be kept per the Foundation resolution. Adambro 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, same as above. I wouldn't object to some undeletions taking place per Adambro once there is a stable EDP up, but that could take a while and in the meantime there is no reason for these nonfree images to be kept. giggy (:O) 01:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[]

Image:Présentation Arts et Sciences 2005.sxi

The following discussion is closed: kept

Not sure what good this is going... it seems (to me) to be inaccessible, it has a malicious software warning, and there are no pages linking to it. Feel free to correct me if there actually is a good use for it, of course. :) giggy (:O) 11:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Comment - it is an Open Office presentation file I think from the extension (as used by civilised folk who don't use M$ :)) --Herby talk thyme 11:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • This is a valid presentation file that can be opened with, and it is not orphaned.[13] Korg 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Heh, shows what I know about file types (and damn, forgot to check WhatLinksHere). Closing this out. Thanks for comments everyone. giggy (:O) 11:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[]



Template:No license

The following discussion is closed: undeleted

It was deleted without a clear reason, so I have doubts that its deletion was proper.--Jusjih 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Keep deleted. Judging by the attitude over images without licenses, I doubt this is needed. Majorly (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  •   Comment It was a long time ago! We do have "no source" which appears to have been the rationale but I have no problem with it being undeleted if people think that is required - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Undelete - We have {{no source}} as noted in the deletion log but I'd suggest that an alternative is provided for instances where the source but not the license is providing to avoid confusion. Adambro 12:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Undelete - No source and no license are completely different and both temps actually complement each other, so It would be a good idea to restore it :) ..--Cometstyles 21:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Undelete per nom.--Poetlister 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[]
    • Purely technical question: after merger of "request for undeletion", our deletion policy says something about discussion terms? Before that, we were very relaxed to undelete thing, someone says he or she needs it, then it would be undeleted unless there is a strong argument, regardless with the term of discussion. So I prefer to undelete it for now, but hesitate at the same time. --Aphaia 05:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Undelete - per all above. There's a difference between not having a license, and not having a source, so we should have separate templates. Giggy\Talk 05:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Undelete makes sense to me... --Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  • I've got to agree with Giggy that there's a difference between no license and no source, and we shouldn't cloud that difference. Worst case scenario, however, we could redirect Template:No license to Template:Nosource and make the no source template contain information about both problems. Or just have Template:Image problem and redirect them both. Discuss? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[]

closed as undeleted. As I cannot really see my rationale for deleting this it seems silly to waste community time on this. If asked I'd have undeleted it anyway - it can always but offered for deletion again if folk want to -- Herby talk thyme 08:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[]

-- April essays

The following discussion is closed: request filled

I'd like to see these undeleted and moved to the userspace of User:-- April, who wrote the first and created the second (an archive of an en.wikipedia talk page discussion). When in userspace, they won't be doing... whatever evil thing it was that made people delete them in the first place.

Obviously, they aren't especially related to Wikimedia, but I like them. Kate

They're GFDL content - you can have a copy for your own use if you like.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]
  Done per reasonable request. See -- April's userpage for the corrected links. Kylu 04:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[]