Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2003

< Meta:Requests for deletion | Archives
(Redirected from WM:RFD/2003)
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Anthere in topic Deleted
Shortcut:
WM:RFD/2003

Note: This archive was created by painstakingly viewing the edit history of Meta:Requests for deletion revision-by-revision. The content has been added, but the recently added deletion details need to be corrected using Meta:Deletion log. The content also needs some reorganising to fit into the correct sections.

Deleted

Latest comment: 18 years ago67 comments6 people in discussion

Articles

Dinah Webster

zero content —unsigned by MyRedDice (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2003

Myra Joy Aronson and Personal experiences

—unsigned by MyRedDice (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2003

Condom

offtopic on Meta Giskart 15:13 12 Mar 2003 (UTC)

Famous gay lesbian or bisexual people

Giskart 23:05 13 Mar 2003 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Giskart 10:04 29 Mar 2003 (UTC)

Initial mirwin repy

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2003

META-ENCYCLOPERDIA

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2003

META-SANDBOX

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2003

META-SAND BOX

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2003

Page to delete

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2003

Oaks

—unsigned by 81.49.198.207 (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2003

All time favourites

—unsigned by 80.13.220.6 (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2003

Many pages

???

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2003

(no interest clearly striking me :-)) —unsigned by Anthere (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2003

Ben Finney

(redirect leading to a non existant page) —unsigned by Anthere (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2003

CATEGORY SANDBOX

(empty, no history valuable) —unsigned by Anthere (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2003

Libel pit

(created by a hard banned user) —unsigned by Daniel Mayer (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2003

(I object to this deletion, see talk page) —unsigned by 81.248.0.138 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2003

Wikipedia:Raincloud

restore after request; not a interesting page only one edit ever in its history and it is a redirect to User:Maveric149 —unsigned by Walter (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2003

(Long name)

List of people who need to burn in Hell for all eternity, not for real reasons, but just because they pissed me off —unsigned by 81.248.0.138 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2003

ΎΓΕΙΑ

a test of my Giskart Walter 10:39 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wikicide

As stated on en, this article is absolutely of no interest to anyone. Thus, it was moved here. —unsigned by 81.248.0.134 (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2003

It's not true that it is of no absolutely interest to anyone, and I find it disturbing that a claque of wikipedians felt it so important that this stub article should be brushed under the carpet rather than moved to Wikipedia:Wikicide and developed into a sensible discursion on the subject. However, I do not object to it being deleted now. It's only a stub after all. GrahamN 16:58 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Language.php.new

—unsigned by 81.249.66.88 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2003

Palestinian territories

—unsigned by 81.249.66.88 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2003

Content Conventions (French departments)

—unsigned by 81.249.66.88 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2003

Alanis Morissette Irony

Meta is not for this type of personal essay. --Eloquence 00:01 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Spice Boys

sounds like a joke to me —unsigned by 152.163.252.232 (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2003

stardate

Blanked by the person who wrote it, it was a definition. Meta != Wikipedia != Wiktionary. Paullusmagnus —unsigned by Paullusmagnus (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2003

Ionic bonding

(reste de wikibook) —unsigned by Anthere (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2003

Ben Franklin/Electricity

personal page or vandalism —unsigned by Paullusmagnus (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2003

Hello

asks us not to kill the trees —unsigned by Paullusmagnus (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2003

Craven Destiny

not relevant to meta —unsigned by Anthere (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2003

Antifactionalism

—unsigned by 81.77.3.209 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2003

Talk:Factionalism

—unsigned by 81.77.3.209 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2003

Factionalism

—unsigned by 81.77.3.209 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2003

Talk:Darwikinism

—unsigned by 81.77.3.209 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2003

Faction

—unsigned by 81.77.3.209 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2003

WikiParty

—unsigned by 81.77.3.209 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2003 —unsigned by 195.92.67.69 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2003

Wikipedia needs trolls

—unsigned by 81.77.3.209 (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2003

  • Disagree. It is an perfectly reasonable, though obviously not entirely in accord with community ethos.

The above points are mine. : ChrisG 15:19, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Música

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2003

Musicas Jolkloricas del Mundo

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2003

Musica Jolklorica de Colombia

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2003

Bambuco

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2003

Editors and Dictator

To be deleted immediately:

VijayPark

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2003

Housing society

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2003

Kaasar Vadavali

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2003

Dialectosdelespañol

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2003

Como se le pone acato a cambiar un churrerue'datos en una Pagina

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2003

Jolt In Jasper, Texas!

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2003

Articles by a banned user

Request for immediate deletion:

I disagree Cimon. Deleting perfectly reasonable articles that have their place on meta, just because of their author is not a good idea. After at least 2 years, it is also perfectly clear that deleting these articles will not change anything to the fact this user is posting them anyway. I certainly support deleting articles when they are vandalism, bad, or offensive; but these ones are not. At the same time, I will also add that I sort of resent that no one is taking care of people who are just posting inappropriate content to meta, just because these are not hard banned. Anthere —unsigned by Anthere (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2003
You can disagree all you want Anthere but the fact remains that 142.177 is hard banned and everything he writes here is going to get either reverted or deleted. If you have a problem with that then take it to the person who authorized this - Jimbo. But before that read my responses to GrahamN on the undeletions page.[1] --Maveric149 —unsigned by Daniel Mayer (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2003

The fact remained that hard bans are not enforced wikipedia wide, that a banned user here is not banned there (we have some en banned editing fr, while fr banned edit en).

The fact also is that apart from the english wikipedia, other wikipedias decide their bans themselves, not by Jimbo decisions (though I try to have Jimbo becomes the neutral last chance for the banned user).

The fact is as well that some en users also support keeping banned users articles when they are good, and "kidnapp" them to give them another author, and that is tolerated.

The fact is that the custom to revert and delete on sight is practice to get rid of the banned user, and after 2 years, it should be pretty clear that such a technique is not always efficient.

I promote keeping good articles and rejecting bad ones as a way to show what is "ok" and what is "not ok". That is a classical way to teach kids as well.

I also say that you had accepted for his ban to be managed in such a way that relevant stuff could be kept and that the ban was enforced again just because of his attack on such a distateful person as RK. The fact remains that I have difficulties to recognise that such a person is banned when RK is not, and feel it is offensive to all those who have been insulted by RK.

And I will also add that Jimbo is willing to try other ways to ban people than you all only waiting on his decision as you do.

And will also ask why are you all accepting that things that are irrelevant to the place are pasted here. I have spent many hours cleaning up the place even in languages I do not manage because no one is doing it. Is that the most efficient thing to do to run after "meaningful" article, while letting inappropriate things accumulate ?

I will also end up saying that meta is meant (was meant perhaps ?) to receive all wikipedias, not english only. And that to my opinion, english stuff here is not necessary for english wikipedia only, but is international. And I think it wrong that the pages in international english are only meant to follow english rules while other wikipedias have developped other rules. There is a point where the space shared should be managed commonly, not by one pedia only. It is not because we use your language for more easy discussion that we must necessarily follow your rules. I fear the last discussions I have seen around are just going in that way. The discussion started by Erik here is just typical. The "that is not the way we do on en" or the "we must do this way to avoid surprising people" is not nice; Please Mav, I would like that some consideration is given to that point, and that discussions occur if we do not agree. Because if we consider that here everything written in english is under english wikipedia minion, we should have to differenciate english articles from international articles. The other way is to discuss it together, and to admit that perhaps all rules on english wikipedia do not necessarily apply here, but rather depends on which people work here, and give energy here. - Ant —unsigned by Anthere (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2003

The main banable offenses were done here, on meta (just look at the history of my talk page!). The ban is effective here as well. Just ask Jimbo. End of story (please read my second response on the link I provided). --Maveric149 —unsigned by Daniel Mayer (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2003
Is "End of the story" all what I will get for the points I raise ? I suppose that is what you call discussing. I do not. Non discussed and solved points will come over and over. —unsigned by Anthere (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2003
He is hard banned for stuff done on meta as well as en.wikipedia meaning he is banned at least in those two places. What is there to discuss besides that that pertains to this thread? Your other points have little to do with the subject of this thread (which is the reverting of material placed in by a hard-banned user). Just because there is other stuff to delete does not mean that we should just let this slip by. --mav —unsigned by Daniel Mayer (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2003
So, for now, I will only ask you a question Mav. Where was it ever discussed on meta, that all edits by a banned user had to be absolutely deleted on sight, whatever their contents, even on talk pages of users accepting these edits, and that everyone agreed with that ? —unsigned by Anthere (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2003
It was discused on the mailing list. Like it or not, that is where real policy is decided. If you want the above listed items to be restored then take it to Jimbo. --mav —unsigned by Daniel Mayer (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2003

Meta-Wikimedia:Pages à supprimer

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2003

Wikipedians_who_are_students_or_alumni_of_McGill_University

off topic personal page Archivist 00:55, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Does not fit with the description of what Meta-Wikimedia is about neither does ice cream flavour (choc ice :) ) Archivist 01:30, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Descriptions can be incorrect: they can be written by people who are trying to change things, or may be obsolete, or just euphemistic. Keep. -- Tim Starling 08:41, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Anträge für Auslassung

(redirect to this page, wrong translation into german). --elian —unsigned by 217.89.11.120 (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2003

MySandbox

no point as there already is a sandbox page Dori | Talk 00:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Vandalism

Wikipedia banned users club

  • By hard banned user 142.177. It is also trolling. Request immediate deletion. --Maveric149 19:43, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I've deleted this. As this may be regarded controversial by some, here's my justification:
    • Point 4 from the "candidates for speedy deletion" section of the Meta:Deletion policy: "Pages created and edited solely by a banned user, after they were banned. This is controversial!" states that such a deletion is allowed, though controversial.
    • The policy goes on to say that "Another reason for keeping the page, or undeleting it would be that the new page is a page of quality, and that Meta will benefit of that new page." I don't feel that this applies to the page I deleted. It is not something which will benefit Meta, and in fact tries to do just the opposite by encouraging behaviour which would be considered damaging to Meta. *Angela 20:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Deleted by Anthere 00:20, 18 January 2004. // Pathoschild (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Created by 142. Suggest immediate deletion. Angela 22:57, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • Yes. Delete. But I would like to see what Anthere has to say first. --Maveric149 04:24, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)~
    • May I extract a couple of points about the "private property" first, to put it in the talk page of another article ? ant —unsigned by Anthere (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2003
    • I think that would be ok, though I'd suggest you use your own words to do rather than quoting it verbatim. Angela 22:04, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Deleted by Anthere 00:20, 18 January 2004. // Pathoschild (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Googlebot

Angela 05:36, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Liberty Meadows

move to en? Angela 18:08, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social club

Either needs page history restored, or deletion. —unsigned by 193.132.150.21 (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2003

    • I tried to make this into a real article about Wikipedia as a community. I even tried to address the pros and cons of personal relationships on Wikipedia, with some constructive ideas as to how to alleviate the cons. It's not genius work, but it's an attempt to make something worthwhile, and possible a seed for further discussion. So, I'd like to see it not deleted. --Evan 17:57, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The new page is great and should not be deleted. I don't think the history should be restored as the current page does not relate at all to the content that is in the deleted versions. Angela 00:26, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Kept by Anthere 23:59, 29 February 2004. // Pathoschild (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia in other language

Dittaeva 17:07, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Other

user:chd/wikipedia:Diskussionsseiten

see Wikipedia:Diskussionsseiten —unsigned by 141.84.26.96 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2003

Image:Fifths.png and Image:Fresnel2.png

—unsigned by Anthere (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2003

I can't delete these two ones. No delete link Anthere —unsigned by Anthere (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2003

Image:UGorm030802-1.gif

a mistake, a new .png is in place —unsigned by Gorm (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2003

Image_talk:UGorm030802-1.gif

(as above, content moved accordingly) —unsigned by Gorm (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2003

Paullusmagnus logos

Image:Monkeys.jpg

—unsigned by 81.249.66.251 (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2003

Image:Fluto1.jpg and Image:Fluto.jpg

—unsigned by 81.53.49.208 (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2003

Image:Looktrick.png

Angela 04:38, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:Youssefsan/opinions of participants

old page that is not up to date. --Youssefsan 10:48, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Image:Interwiki fig1.png

One version of  . Uploaded it twice :(( Clicking here will delete it Hashar 15:10, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Kept

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Articles

The Magnificent 5

—unsigned by MyRedDice (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2003 why should this page be deleted?? its at meta-wikipeduia, a site where personal essays can be written, as stated on the wikipedia page about metapedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.81.26.44 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 22 April 2003.

Essays by Saprtacus

A lot of Saprtacus meaningless essays is still in the database, see http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Saprtacus&oldid=5395 and http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Saprtacus&oldid=5394 maybe we should go ahead and delete all of them ? Christian List —unsigned by 80.13.220.6 (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2003

Deletion management redesign

Page which will probably never go anywhere. Might as well be deleted. —unsigned by 80.13.220.205 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2003

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2003&oldid=27588779"