Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006

(Redirected from WM:RFD/2006)
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Aphaia in topic No consensus
Shortcut:
WM:RFD/2006

Deleted

Articles

Previously tagged as speedy, with the comment "Pretty obsolete". Korg + + 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like legitimate content. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant to meta, IMHO. --Paginazero 16:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Created and emptied by an anonymous user, not relevant to meta. --Paginazero 16:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Not relevant to meta. Previously tagged as speedy. WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Non-meta content --Walter 11:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Not meta related. WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Not meta related. --Mdangers 09:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Not meta related. --Mdangers 09:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Not meta related. --Mdangers 09:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Do not know what it is but it does not look it it belongs here --Walter 01:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 03:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC) non-meta stuff, article --Walter 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Close as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 03:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC) This is a list of computer commands not related to the wiki. Xaosflux 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

made by anon in one edit, no links to it. technical, see no conncection whit Wikimedia/Mediawiki --Walter 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not meta related, created by anonymous User:203.240.254.231, probably by mistake. --Paginazero 07:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep: created for the Kalmykian Wikipedia --Taichi - (?!) 23:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't they be at the test wiki at Test-wp/xal then? Chick Bowen 15:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Probably better to move to that as a part of test wiki. --Aphaia 06:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. My vote is move to Test-wp/xal/?????????, Test-wp/xal/?????, Test-wp/xal/????, Test-wp/xal/?????? ???h?, Test-wp/xal/???, Test-wp/xal/???h?, Test-wp/xal/??????, respectively. Chick Bowen 00:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Strike that; they seem already to be there. Delete or redirect. Chick Bowen 00:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Concur with Chick Bowen. --Aphaia 06:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Copy-and-paste of an old version of the French Wikipedia's main page. Useless, orphan and obsolete page. Korg + + 10:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Non meta-related. Been sitting with a transwiki request tag for a month. xaosflux Talk 02:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 20:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated with meta, orphan page. --M/ 15:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia-article --Walter 09:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 02:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Unrelated to meta, could it be useful somewhere else, at least cleaned and wikified? --M/ 22:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 02:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC) No idea what it is. Does not look very wiki --Walter 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And also Image:Eriko.jpg. Article, non-meta stuff. Waring given to user. --Walter 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not give the warning to the user! You put the warning on User:Bakaneko3; it should go on User talk:Bakaneko3. --Kernigh 07:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am cleaning/arranging LanguageXx.php pages, which they are not used on meta anymore. So these are old subpages of an obsolute Language page. So keeping just the main LanguageIs.php page should be enough for that warning purposes fir this language. --Dbl2010 06:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be the readme of a program called "par_reader". Does not appear to be at all related to MediaWiki or Wikimedia. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ad, unnecessary proposal? (See talk page). Previously tagged as speedy. Korg + + 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

encyclopedic, non-meta article. oscar 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a hybrid of oddity and advertisement. I don't think I can say anything else about this one. -.- // Pathoschild (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've copied the content of this page into Talk:Wikiversity/Old - I don't know where the content had come from, but there is only one version of the page in the history, so it was obviously copied and pasted from somewhere else in the first place. It's not a big deal, but it's just reducing the amount of archived talk pages we have for Wikiversity. Cormaggio @ 10:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems best to just leave it where it was and delete the new page you created. One is worth keeping, but there's no pressing need to change the name. - Taxman 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just to explain, Talk:Wikiversity/Old and Talk:Wikiversity/Archive existed already - I didn't create a new page or a new name, I've simply merged them. I want the one which had no history (ie which had itself been copied from somewhere else) to be deleted. Cormaggio @ 07:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; it's a simple housekeeping task, and doesn't really need much discussion. // Pathoschild (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) non-meta article. oscar 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) non-meta article. oscar 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) just an image, non-meta. oscar 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Added the contents. how it looks now?

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Currently under deletion at en wikipedia and en wikibooks. The author is using meta to publish his own work. Others articles include:


  • Delete all Infinity0 21:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not using meta to publish my own work. I created an outline of a project which will be sincerely collaborative. It's a candidate for deletion at wikipedia because somebody flagged it as a suspect neologism. The discussions at wikibooks indicated that this project would be best at home on the Meta. I sincerely believe that this project will be right at home here, that it is not simply "original work." --Wikitopian 21:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You call this an anarcho-capitalist project. I don't think that sort of project is appropriate for a neutral website such as wikimedia. You say discussion at wikibooks? Really? Then why does the talk page not exist? Infinity0 21:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I will respect a concensus that this doesn't belong here if it doesn't belong here. You need to settle down and avoid flatly accusing me of deception when you haven't done your research. The conversation at wikibooks which I mentioned was under the deletion log, not in the talk page. It was suggested that I move the project to mediawiki. I'm not trying to "pull a fast one" and would appreciate it if you didn't make this a personal attack. Thanks. --Wikitopian 22:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the person who made the suggestion did not know the project was anarcho-capitalist in nature, as you have only explicitly stated so on the talk page of anarcho-capitalism. Infinity0 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete now that creator has set up it's own home. - Taxman 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. MaxSem 17:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Who forgot to close this? Closed as delete. MaxSem 10:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an essay about a rock band, which should be incorporated into any relevant Wikipedia article and deleted on Meta. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an essay about a Wikipedian's teen rock band, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly meta-unrelated, delete. IMHO speedy deletetion should be considered, in clear cases like this. --Mdangers 22:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be discussion from Wikipedia:Talk:Feminism, moved to the Meta-Wiki because it was unwanted there. As a user on that page stated, "The meta is not a place to spout off on any subject you like, but exists to discuss Wikipedia related issue." // Pathoschild (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It seems to be just some unwanted rubbish that was dumped here. The original material is presumably still in the history of the relevant talk page on en, and can be retrieved and userfied on that wiki by anyone who finds it of value. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, it is excerpts from the talk page moved to Meta to continue the discussion about what should not be allowed to happen in articles: the over-simplification of an article topic splitting into two opposing views, rather than collaborating to present both views within the article. The original events occurred in 2001, and for the next 3 years people added to the discussion on meta. Over-simplification is apparently still an issue on WP - Amgine / [1]] meta 06:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a discussion from Wikipedia about an article that has since been deleted, probably predating the last loss of deleted revisions. This has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki, with the exception of one probably-deleted article. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Christianity, and has no relation to the Foundation or any wiki. We could archived somewhere on Wikipedia, perhaps w:Christianity. In any case, it doesn't belong on the Meta-Wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an essay about various philosophical fields, and has no relation whatsoever to the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a rant about biased media attention in the United States, and has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is plenty of external referenced material on this subject that can be used as a resource, and it seems to have only a glancing relevance to any Wikimedia projects. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a essay which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. If it's notable, it should be moved to Wikisource before deletion. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not project related, alerady on every other wiki. xaosflux Talk 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Sj 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a definition only. en:Framework and wiktionary:Framework already exist. - brenneman 10:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

German, a book review or more likely just an outline of a book to be written. IMHO nonsense, author is looking for a place to publish/gather interested parties -> mentioning of the term "wiki". No meta relation, delete. --Mdangers 10:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Spanish. Article about Microsofts Xbox. No meta relation, delete. --Mdangers 10:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Spanish. A biography. No meta relation I can see, delete. --Mdangers 10:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Bio, not meta related. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 19:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a general discussion about media bias which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic page about a non-notable neologicism, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a manifesto of Anarchism moved to Meta because Wikipedia didn't want it. It has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a collection of one user's opinions about reality, and has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is one post cut out of context urging participants of an edit war to discuss on an inexistant subpage. This not at all Meta-worthy content. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an essay about Israel-Palestinian politics which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an essay that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I have no idea what this is. It looks like a misplaced sandbox with random content copy and pasted from other pages. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

He is the one who laughed, and called foul jeers... Til Eulenspiegel 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

An article in Spanish about an MBA program run by a University. Is not related to Wikimedia. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is a copy of the page w:fiu-vro:Internet. Does not belong on meta. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not appropriate for Meta. It would be more appropriate for Commons or Wikipedia. // Pathoschild (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Don't move elsewhere if the source and license status remains unknown. Angela 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look meta-related to me, but maybe it is? Just another star in the night T | @ | C 01:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkish pages?

Should be moved to English Wikipedia. Informed creator via user talk page. --Pmsyyz 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some medical stuff (in Germen?) unrelated to meta. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed German, no proper article, though. Moving to de: would require total rewrite. delete --Mdangers 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that this article is covering some sort of computer game for the C64. I am quite sure it is in Italian. I am immensely sure it doesn't serve a purpose in meta. --Mdangers 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the relation of this manifesto to meta. --Mdangers 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated to meta. Not sure if it should be transwikied. Originally speedied it myself, but maybe it is useful to someone... Just another star in the night T | @ | C 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Swedish or so. Does not like it is Meta or Wikimedia related, have inforemd anon who created it. --Walter 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A list of annoying things, unrelated to the project. Naconkantari 02:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a short story about life as a (very rich and media-awash) Canadian which has no relevance whatsoever to the Foundation or any wiki. There is no historical significance that I can see. // Pathoschild (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

These category titles are inconsistent—Category:IT also exists. I suggest eliminating this category and all categories that have just one letter capitalized and instead use the categories with both letters capitalized. Alternatively, Category:IT could be deleted and this one used, but we should be consistent. --Spangineer[en] [es] (háblame) 19:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Short biography, not project related. xaosflux Talk 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Should be on en: if anywhere. Sj 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Is a straightforward question about Wikiversity, which I have moved to Talk:Wikiversity. We don't need an infinite number of Wikiversity pages - there are already enough! Cormaggio @ 06:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks suspicious to me; created by an anon almost a year ago. --Spangineer[en] [es] (háblame) 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see relation to meta, seems to be HP internal stuff. delete. --Mdangers 10:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This article does not appear to have any meaningful or relevant content. I cannot identify the language to translate it and verify. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- The IP address who created it is registered in Norway (querry), so I'd say Norwegian. Other than that, I agree that there is no purpose in keeping this entry. Redux 05:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This page was created by an anonymous user. The content was edited that one time only, at which point it was down; "The reasons are ... and ...". The content hasn't been updated in the roughly fifteen months since creation. // Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be just a furious logorrhea. villy 20:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tails of this, it seems to be an account of some technical problem, let me know if this page belongs on meta, as I am just starting to edit it and don't fully understand it yet. (from Wikipedia) Prodego talk 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This article does not seem relevant to the Wikimedia Foundation or any wiki. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This article has absolutly the same content as Ang.wikinews Hēafodsīde. I've chosen Ang.wikinews Héafodsíde because there were more than one author. --Red Baron 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the use of this page. It seems to be a discussion consisting of a user's question, a brief answer, and a thanks. The talk page consists of a link to Category:TechSoup Surveys. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I really wanted to speedy, but i don't think it meets any of the criteria. I guess it could plausibly be merged into the project proposals, but it really isn't one. Best to delete. Tuf-Kat 07:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like legitimate content. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look like legitimate content, unless it's a particularly small sub-substub. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Article in Turkish, seems not meta-related. MaxSem 20:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Blank Skanwiki pages

The following Skanwiki pages were blanked by Boivie when they moved the content to another page, but are still transcluded to Skanwiki/Utvalgte artikler/December, 2006. I'm not sure whether or not they're still useful.

// [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody thought it's a userpage? MaxSem 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not meta-related. MaxSem 07:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not meta-related, no point of emulating MSDN here. MaxSem 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not meta-related ancient page. MaxSem 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not needed on Meta. MaxSem 11:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic article, copied from WP. MaxSem 11:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This orphan, unrelated to meta, (auto)biographic article is not present in russian language Wikipedia, and it doesn't appear in the list of deleted articles. Transwiki before deleting? --M/ 08:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny bio of a future senator, delete. MaxSem 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete, content copied from [2]. MaxSem 10:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Previously tagged as speedy, with the comment "irrelevant for Meta, wrong namespace". Korg + + 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No consensus reached - closed as keep by default. MaxSem 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a legitimate page? it looks rather short. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - This page is now wiktionary:ja:Template:ja. It is why this is so short, and this should keep as a record of ja.wikt. Kzhr 02:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Could you explain why this page is needed on Meta, if it has been moved to Wiktionary? I don't understand what you mean by 'keep a record of ja.wikt'. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not needed here, superceded by {{#language:ja}}. MaxSem 09:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Truly historical page. Pathoschild, jawiktionary was once closed and meta hosted refugees. This page is a part of those exile and attempt to reconstruction. Not the page itself is important, but its history is important. For further information, see wiktionary-l of February 2005. --Aphaia 10:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    Please define the history; a blank page with no information attached (preferable using the standard header) is meaningless and can't be added to the historical project. I'm willing to do so research, but it'd help if you'd write down what you know first. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    I claimed 日本語版ウィクショナリーの整備 and its all subpages deserve since histories and diffs of their pages (you can see from "history" tab) indicate how the project had been developped in its very early stage. I don't expect you have a sympathy to those pages as deeply as the Japanese Wiktionary community members, but it is not meaningless for us. I ask you to retrieve your word on the above. Personally I feel disrespected and dishonored. You now declare our attempt to revive an endangered project and its relics "meaningless". --Aphaia 10:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    I apologize for any offense you may have taken over my personal opinion. I do not believe that anyone's efforts are meaningless; however, historical pages are essentially meaningless if the community is not aware of any meaning. The Meta-Wiki does not only belong to Japanese Wiktionarians, just as it does not only belong to English Wikipedians. Pages should not be kept simply because they mean something undefined to a tiny part of the community; on the other hand, I see no reason they can't be kept if their significance is explained for the rest of the community, and they are integrated into the Historical project. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    I think I explained on the above. If you are not satisfied, please read related wiktionary-l discussion, and some related pages. I don't expect you delete because my explanation is insufficient to you. Please try to understand the history of community before quesrtion. Meta pages does not only belong to English Wikipedians but we allowed to keep pages which are principally related to them and them alone. I don't understand and agree on that those pages created after lingual divisions need to be "grobal" attention and worthy to keep, but other language pagees not. --Aphaia 02:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete, made dated soft redirect to SVN. MaxSem 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Outdated and useless. Korg + + 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. MaxSem 14:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion:

--Wai Wai 21:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant. --Aphaia 11:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this original research or something? It's not Meta-related and does not seem to fit Wikipedia's purpose too. MaxSem 10:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to retrieve the content. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from a user talk page concerning a proposal that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. I propose it be archived back into the user talk page, or moved to the community discussion archives. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive back --Swift 00:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Moved and soft redirected. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is discussion related to International logo contest. I propose the content be merged and redirected into that page's discussion page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merged and soft redirected. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Farsi version of Translation or its attempt ... no substantial content, and could be a deletion candidate.--Aphaia 18:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted MaxSem 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

...but delete this one. +sj | help with translation |+ 06:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. Delete. I see no purpose or humo(u)r in this list. It is little more than a sandbox. - Tangotango 09:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Delete I cant see the purpose either. --Dbl2010 15:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Delete, no meaningful purpose. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Delete --Swift 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Delete, no meaningful purpose. --Tone 14:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Delete. — Timichal 08:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. delete Exclusive categories tend to become unwieldy because of the universality of negation operator. drini 14:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have no relation to Wikimedia projects. --Swift 08:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. MaxSem 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seemed to be created by an anon as Eu(Basque) version of TR, but there is only one line and no update since then.

Closed as delete. MaxSem 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Italian version of TR, the anon editor who created seemed to misunderstand what was/is TR though. The page seems not to have been used since then.

Closed as delete. MaxSem 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a notion that should've been placed in the village pump. Is useless now. I don't see the historical value as the process went different at the end. (First real meeting was on sept 11th 2005, association set up in march '06) -- Effeietsanders 06:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. MaxSem 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Previously tagged as speedy, with the comment "Original author seems to have left this page, no context or description of any kind". This page seems unrelated to Meta or MediaWiki. Korg + + 17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. There is a vague description on the talk page. Seems the person wanted to document his installation of the MediaWiki software. If at all, this should belong on http://www.mediawiki.org/, but there simply isn't anything there to transwiki. --Swift 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete; doesn't seem to serve any purpose any more. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete. MaxSem 08:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an image and a table around it with a play button, has no real links to it, seems to be replaced by Template:Music:Lilypond example. --Rory096 20:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Useless in its current state. MaxSem 18:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as a broken redirect.Timichal 11:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

non sense redirect imho --Dario ^_^ (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as offtopic/test.Timichal 11:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

non sense page --Dario ^_^ (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

non sense page --dario vet (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Serves no purpose in its current state. Dmcdevit 08:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No meaningful content for Meta, since it apears to be an encyclopedia article. Dmcdevit 19:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted.{admin} Pathoschild 02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 05:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense article in a made-up language. 90.240.59.7 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

PR/*

The following pages don't seem to have any usefulness, though I could be wrong; I've notified the contributor. They seem to be a forgotten part of Category:Press. There is no relevant content at PR.

{admin} Pathoschild 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all. I'm not sure how these could still be useful, as they're not linked from anywhere and have not seen any significant activity in as long as two years for some of them. The Washington Post and Red Herring pages are already mentioned on Responses to the press. --Coredesat (en.wp) 22:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moved to User:Sj/PR and deleted. They have historical relevance, as records of old communication; not needed in the main articlespace. Thanks for helping keep meta clean and beautiful :) I believe there are some external links to the washpost page, so I left it as a redirect. +sj | help with translation |+ 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed, moved to the user namespace. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic. This serves no purpose here; it's someone's personal essay. Dmcdevit 07:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedily deleted, Criterion for speedy deletion G7 (clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation). —{admin} Pathoschild 02:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be advertising for an unrelated project. Dmcdevit 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Also its talk. --Aphaia 13:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedily deleted, Criterion for speedy deletion G7 (clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation). —{admin} Pathoschild 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about. It doesn't refer to any Wikimedia position (I think) and so is irrelevant to the project. Dmcdevit 05:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed per Coredesat. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This unwatched list was created in March 2006 and contains only one user. It does not seem to have any particular historical or social value. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is orphaned, unwatched, virtually unused, and I fail to see any usefulness or relevance. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A mini-essay with no relevance to the Wikimedia Foundation; I propose that it be moved to the author's user space. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A page for bragging about one's past exploits. It is unwatched, orphaned, uncategorized, virtually empty, and I see no usefulness, relevance, or historical significance. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Pages intended to bring a dispute about userboxes on the English Wikipedia to Meta. They are unwatched, orphaned, uncategorized, and I see no usefulness, relevance, or historical significance. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, that dispute seriously doesn't need to be on Meta. --Coredesat (en.wp) 02:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both --.anaconda 12:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for the former and   Support for the latter (useless snippet from a deletion log)! All those groups, associations, etc. have to be treated under a common criteria.
    I can only say that the userboxes controversy is popping up here and there. At least it got rather inflamatory debate on bg.wp, although not so hot as after Kelly Martin's action. IM(nsh)O the debate has to be brought on Meta, all arguments to be sorted in order to be readable and understandable, and to come out with a recommendation across all WMF-projects (chances for consensus for a policy a negligibly slim). Actually I am not sure whether this avalance can be stopped, it had to be dealt with years before I joined WP. -- Goldie ± (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, since these are likely to cause more harm than good, and are imported from another project for no potential community-building purpose (and oddly, still containing language like "object to rampant, mass unilateral deletion of Userboxes" which doesn't apply to Meta). Dmcdevit 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not meta related. --Dbl2010 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, disputes on the English Wikipedia are not relevant here.--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --dario vet (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This list is ancient, unwatched, orphaned, uncategorized, virtually unused, and I see no usefulness, relevance, or historical significance. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This nomination was successful and the page is deleted. Dmcdevit 09:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Subpages have been deleted as well. --.anaconda 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

These pages (see prefix index) seem to be far out of date and redundant with Special:Sitematrix. The information on the few created subpages only include such trivia as "unused", "Main page created 7 July 2005", and "Medium-sized Wiktionary", and is almost certainly far out of date as well. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(Nominating these as suggested above.) These pages have no relevance to the Wikimedia mission, and are only serve a divisive purpose. As well, I would point out that for a community that aims for the neutral point of view, partican pages like these are only counter-productive to community-building. Dmcdevit 13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 16:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason as above, these pages are counterproductive to Wikimedia's mission, and are neither community-building nor relevant to any Wikimedia project. 13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 16:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This page apparently lists usernames and IP addresses used by an AOL proxy server user. It has not been updated since June 2004, has no historical value, and may encourage vandal notoriety. Since AOL now sends XFF headers to the Wikimedia Foundation, AOL vandals are no longer an unusual problem. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An English Wikipedia content dispute that has spilled over onto Meta. I don't see the relevance. Dmcdevit 09:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by politics

Sorry for the mass nomination, but I think it makes sense here. This is the list of all politically explicit lists of Wikimedians, which should be deleted, per #Wikimedians who do not support G.W. Bush's policy, Wikimedians who hold more polite opinions of George W. Bush, & Wikimedians who hold less polite opinions of Shrub above, as being divisive and irrelevant to Wikimedia, and not related to any project's community-building. these are only the politically partisan lists. Dmcdevit 18:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete except Antivegetarian Wikimedians. I assume voters didn't see that and considered as another political one. IF this is not the case, it can be deleted too. --Dbl2010 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: transwikied, made soft redirect

91.76.11.4 18:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a reason for deletion. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 11:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Unused, maybe a test? Delete --???????????? (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 05:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain It was used for sorting fiu-vro articles when a test wiki was run on meta. I am not a zealous supporter, but reluctant to delete lang categories from meta. --Aphaia 11:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 11:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's irrelevant, and unused --???????????? (Reply|Spam Me!<strong>*|RfS) 05:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This category contains two pages, each of which is also categorised to another category (respectively Lists of Wikipedians and Humour). I don't see the usefulness of this category itself. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned and empty category. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned, only contains one article. This would probably be best merged into Category:System admin handbook. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned and empty categories. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of this; there's no such category for version 1.5 or 1.7, for example. The category is also currently orphaned with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category apparently serves to categorise 1 page linking to a so-named tool. It is currently orphaned with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is empty and orphaned with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is orphaned and redundant with Category:User dv. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

These categories are all orphaned. I can't understand the language they are written in, so I can't decide whether or not they're useful, and where to categorise them if so. Any help translating these would be appreciated. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. means "Geography" in Kalmykian.
  2. MediaWiki help in Russian.
  3. "May, 9 2005" in Serbian (looks like articles for sr.wikinews).
  4. "Kalmykia" in Kalmyk.
  5. "Russia" in Kalmyk.
Del empty cats, ask serbs if they still need their news, punish everyone who could even think about deleting Russian help. Bwa-ha-ha! ;) MaxSem 21:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

These categories are all unused. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is unused. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is unused. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is unused. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is orphaned and unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is orphaned and unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is orphaned and unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is orphaned and unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is apparently related to Techsoup.org, not the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its wikis. It is orphaned and unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is unused with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is orphaned, unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This one should have been deleted with {{foreign}} but wasn't. Ambush Commander 21:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Do we really need this kind of fair use on Meta? I can imagine a reason to use the logos of a companies that collaborate with Wikimedia. Probably covers of some books related to WP are justifiable too. But money... What for? MaxSem 21:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unused, has the same content as Ang.wikinews Hēafodsīde. --Red Baron 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

See note. In addition, according to deletion policy, they are submitted to RfD, and there are very small numbers of documents none can read, I am not sure if we need such a template. --Aphaia 04:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Keep; this is a viable alternative to listing a potentially good page for deletion. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. Template could be applied to Çewlıg / Bingol, which appears to be about the city of m:Bingol and would therefore not be relevant to meta. The template is useful, though it could be reworded. Jude(talk,contribs) 06:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Struck my keep, change to Delete as per Anthere and Angela's valid concerns. Jude(talk,contribs) 14:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You say could? このテンプレートをどうしてもこのままつかうというなら、私は全部の英語ページにこれをはりますよ。私には外国語なんだから正当な使い方でしょ? --Aphaia 09:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The wording of it is easily fixed. This is a wiki. The implication that the template will be placed on any page the editor desires assumes bad faith. すみません。日本語はわかりません。 Jude(talk,contribs) 12:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep English is the most widely used language here, like it or not. So this template is very useful.--Shanel 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment one thing that could be useful here is to translate this into non-english languages and that link that somehow from the main english one for "foreign" editors. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Category:Checkme of foreign language
    • Unless renamed in a decent non-biased version, this template should go. Meta is not english. Foreign is english for many editors on meta. Anthere 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meta is very much not only for English content. I can see this be misused and placed all over English pages in protest if it isn't quickly removed. Angela 14:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No language is foreign to meta. There's a much simpler way to avoid listing potentially good pages for deletion: don't list them. -- Tim Starling 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I created the template, I basically came across some pages in really obscure languages (like Basque) and was puzzling over whether or not they were relevant to meta. I decided that this was a different checkme. I forgot that Meta is multilingual. My apologies. At the very least a rename is in order. However, I don't agree with the spirit of Tim Starling's comment that the best way to avoid listing potentially listing good pages for deletion is to not list them. That implies that most foreign language pages are good. They aren't. Keke be Kerzıki ra, for instance, would seem, from the translation and the layout, to be totally unrelated to meta. It isn't: it's probably meant to be part of the Zazaki wiki User:Mirzali is pushing for. It seems to me, then, it should be renamed and categorized accordingly. Foreign is the wrong way to put it, but building multilingual infrastructure is difficult! :-) I think this template helps. Ambush Commander 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per request. - Amgine / [4]] meta 23:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This template is redundant with {{subst:dated soft redirect}} (which places {{soft redirect}}), which also categorises the page to the appropriate dated Soft redirects subcategory. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This specific soft redirect template is redundant with the more standardised {{subst:dated soft redirect}}, which also places the page in the appropriate dated category. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

template:Hacker toc (edittalklinkshistory) was used for the former (planned) 5th part of the handbook. There were never more than two real help pages in this part, I've added them to the 4th part (system admin handbook). The template is unused and categorized as looks useless for some weeks. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omniplex (talk • contribs) . -- Omniplex (w:t) 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

template:DIRMARK (edittalklinkshistory) is a slightly different predecessor of magic word

  1. REDIRECT Template:Xpdn !=
  2. REDIRECT Template:Xpdn. The UTF-8 is what we see behind tidy, compare mediazilla:6219. -- Omniplex (w:t) 00:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For what? Anyway such a large template for causion might not be helpful for any purpose, if it contains something significant. --Aphaia 04:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

For what, here? Meta is a discussion place and it is redundant for those pages to warn in this manner. On the other hand, it is unthinkable our policy which goes live but have a discussion for revision would have such a template. --Aphaia 04:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete. MaxSem 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Previously tagged as speedy, with the comment: "Replaced. Not used anymore." Korg + + 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete.Yes I replaced it with new and more advanced template with better name. Template:Admin data. And it was used only on 1 page. --Dbl2010 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Dbl2010. --Aphaia 09:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

Logo for WrestleMania that has nothing to do with meta. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, especially from a redlinked user who uploaded it with the summary "asdasdd". // Pathoschild (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Unused images

These are not used anywhere. If they are needed because they are linked to, they should be tagged with {{not orphan|[[pages]], [[linking]], [[to it]]}}. If they are historical, they should be used and documented at Meta:Historical. These should only be listed a few at a time so that RFD isn't overwhelmed.

Keep for all files which are not images actually. The reason I stated on an EXCEL file. It could be appliable for other similar files. --Aphaia 09:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
File:Category sort example.png This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Greek problem screenshot.png This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Firefox 0.8 error-kirbymeister.jpg This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:WP0001.jpg This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Screenshot-cosimo.jpg This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Poem-bug.gif This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. It looks blank to me, and is redundant with Poem-bug.png. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Poem-bug.png This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:BlankfazescreenshotBlueboxskin.jpg This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. It is redundant with BlankfazescreenshotBlueboxskin.PNG, which is used. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:ComJimmy.gif This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:Beer.gif This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Goings-on jt.png This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Nohat-logo-X-id updated.png.jpeg This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Nica-acceptance.jpg This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Ln1.gif This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. This appears to be one user's upload test. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:SergeAlard.jpg This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:EricRaymond-flipped.jpg This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. Furthermore, it has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons as EricRaymond-flipped.jpg. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Wikipedia-Ecke.jpg This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Wikipedia-Ecke-Umfeld1.jpg This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please delete these three images (above). I created them and they did not suit the page I was working on and are incorrect versions. The one that works is now called Image:Hindustaninames.png and is being used on the Wikipedia Encyclopedia Hindustani page. Thank you.

This is an unused image from Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Acording to reply from its uplader, this file is already moved to foundation or there is no need anymore. --Dbl2010 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Acording to reply from its uplader, this file is already moved to foundation or there is no need anymore. --Dbl2010 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Acording to reply from its uplader, this file is already moved to foundation or there is no need anymore. --Dbl2010 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It is no image, but an MS-EXCEL file. It was placed under Image-namespace only due to technical restrictions. If it is linked, then it is possible to be linked as a page or image but by its URL, and for the latter case MediaWiki give no way to detect it. All "images but not images at all" type files should be kept unless there is a way to detect if their URL is linked or not. --Aphaia 11:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Btw, Acording to reply from its uplader, this file is already moved to foundation or there is no need anymore. --Dbl2010 01:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No source, no licence, self promotion. Might be for Wikipedia, not Meta. Yann 10:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedily deleted, Criterion for speedy deletion G7 (clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation). —{admin} Pathoschild 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unused images

These are not used anywhere. If they are needed because they are linked to, they should be tagged with {{not orphan|[[pages]], [[linking]], [[to it]]}}. If they are historical, they should be used and documented at Meta:Historical. These should only be listed a few at a time so that RFD isn't overwhelmed.

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Nohat-logo-X-nn.png This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unused image from the pre-historical times, seems to be copyrighted. MaxSem 10:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ow hell, deleted as per {{no source}}. MaxSem 16:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This image isn't used almost except Translation requests page ... and there the proper and official Wikipedia logo is supposed to use, not this version. It changed a look & feel of pages and causes a trouble on translation. --Aphaia 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete. I suppose it has little use, and can be confusing.Voice-of-All 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- per Aphaia and VoA: we should keep it as simple as possible whenever we can. Redux 18:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename, interesting past logo design. --Pmsyyz 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename. Why should we delete the part of history? -- mzlla 15:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems out of place here. Perhaps move to Wikipedia? --Kingboyk 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
rename :) --Dario ^_^ (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename. +sj | help with translation |+ 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So, discussion is now closed. The consensus is "keep and rename". However there is technical difficulties; images cannot be moved as other pages. So the interest to keep "a part of history" may not be fully satisfied. We can save it and uploaded under a different title, and delete the original in purpose of renaming; at that time the history of the original one will be however simply lost.
I am not sure if it is your aim and moreover I am not sure my environment fits to deal with it properly (specially keep the original image resolution). So I would like to leave it for sysops who finds a neat solution. Good luck; --Aphaia 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What I have seen done on Commons and elsewhere is to paste a copy of the history of the old image (showing the users and dates) into the description of the new image. Alternatively, there are rumors that image renaming is coming "real soon now"... would it be worth waiting a bit? Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 02:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unused images

The following files are unused, orphaned, and with no incoming links. Files that are useful should be categorized and linked to; please don't claim vague usefulness unless you can suggest where it is useful. (To keep discussion neat, please place comments under the appropriate header, general discussion just under this paragraph, and comments about a specific image under that image's bullet. Thanks.) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and uploaded with meaningful history to commons:Image:Wikipedia schema.png. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Unused test files

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unused logos

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unused photographs
Unused miscellaneous files

Deleted the remaining pages. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Other

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC) personal agenda which has nothing to do with meta. oscar 02:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

LanguageXX pages All of them

These all Language pages are obsolute since 2 years ago or so. For forwarding to right direction, these pages have been kept until now. But I guess they are not needed anymore. It will be a nice cleanup for meta. --Dbl2010 21:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete Hilfeumleitung

A collection of redirects from Help to German help pages in namespace 100 = Hilfe. For the 43 listed obsolete redirects 41 have no backlink at all. Two have only a single irrelevant backlink, the one I recall is Help:Installieren. -- Omniplex (w:t) 11:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Reinserted after it was delisted under "groups", maybe because the title Category:Obsolete Hilfeumleitung was misleading:
Of course the category doesn't exist as long as nobody creates it, but the 43 unused stoneage redirects from Help to Hilfe exist, disturbing Special:Allpages for the Help namespace. -- Omniplex (w:t) 22:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The 43 redirects were killed using the WM:DP speedy procedure. -- Omniplex (w:t) 07:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Merged into the budget, no content. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

An old orphaned page with content moved to Wikipedia long ago. MaxSem 18:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This page only contains an image, and has no incoming wikilinks. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Old page, redundant with the Complete list of Wikimedia projects. MaxSem 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the purpose? MaxSem 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete

User page of someone who is not a contributor to meta - his sole contributions here are his userpages, userpages of his IP and attempting to find support at AIW for deletion discussions on en.wikipedia. The user page's only purpose is self-promotion and has nothing that helps to advance Meta or any other Wikimedia project. The user happens to be indefinitely banned from enWiki, but after discussion with User:Amgine I understand this isn't really relevant to Meta. I would still say that I'm fairly sure Meta isn't a free web host, so "it's a userpage" isn't sufficient reason for keeping if the userpage doesn't belong to a contributor and doesn't have anything to do with the project. Delete. --Samuel Blanning 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • a group of users, upset with this person's misbehaviour on en.wp, are stalking the user's pages on multiple WMF project. User's page does not differ in content from thousands of other WP users, or violate user page guidelines on Meta. Deletion request appears to be vindictive and personally motivated. - Amgine / m | n 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    You're acting as if their intentions are bad. I wasn't involved, but it seems Gastrich has rightfully earned a ban for going out of his way to disrupt the community. Part of that seems to be efforts to promote his own websites. It seems to me that if you go that far to cause trouble repeatedly you lose the right to be judged as if you've done nothing. This 'well it wasn't done here' seems a little odd in the sense that we're all one foundation working for the same greater good. - Taxman 21:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you, Taxman. I'm very surprised that legitimate, long-standing contributors to Wikimedia projects are being accused of "stalking" and have been threatened with blocks to defend someone who has been banned from the only Wikimedia project on which he had a significant presence, and has never used Meta specifically for anything but creating a userpage and disrupting another Mediawiki project by attempting to swing a discussion by canvassing for "votes".
    Operating under the temporary presumption that I am not going to be blocked after all for commenting on this matter, the French page has a section which rules out webhosting and similar issues as does the English one. The userpage is not in compliance with either guideline. JoshuaZ 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    [Re: Samuel Blanning 21:57 2006-09-19] There is no need to prove that the userpage complies with any guideline; it is quite enough that it does not violate any applicable guideline. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    According to all that this wiki currently has on userpages on this wiki, the English and French pages are specifically named as pages that should be looked to for guidance on the suitability of userpages. I don't see how it could be possibly be clearer - unless, of course, Meta had an explicit policy on userpages, which it shouldn't need. Meta is a relatively small wiki, with relatively few userpages, and common sense and the guidance of what happens on other Wikimedia projects should be enough. That is what user page itself implies. The English Wikipedia page says "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian". I can't quote a language I don't speak well enough, but the French page certainly has the same thrust. This page is not about Jason Gastrich as a Metian (or whatever the term is); he isn't one, so that would be very difficult. This page is about Jason Gastrich. --Samuel Blanning 23:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    User page is a descriptive page, much like Administrator or MediaWiki, and not policy. Although decisions on small projects are often based on common sense, it doesn't seem to apply here; only one of three active Meta users in the discussion thus far have favoured deletion (Naconkantari favoured deletion, Amgine and myself have not spoken either way). I don't oppose deletion; I may yet argue either way. However, any discussion should be centered on Meta alone. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    "Although decisions on small projects are often based on common sense, it doesn't seem to apply here". No further questions, your honour. --Samuel Blanning 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Your sarcasm is misplaced and your misunderstanding apparently deliberate. Common sense must be common, which is not the case given that "only one of three active Meta users in the discussion thus far have favoured deletion". As of now, only one of four active Meta users have favoured deletion— any 'common sense' thus derived seems to be neutral or favour keeping. Perhaps you should put aside flippancy to discuss with the Meta community. // Pathoschild 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    This meta only, everyone else go play elsewhere your comments aren't welcome here is very strange. We're all working on the same projects, and every editor in good standing should be heard exactly the same way. Everyone who has made good contributions has earned the right to be heard and not dismissed. Meta is just that and is here to serve the projects, not be a separate fiefdom. - Taxman 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    It's been pointed out to me that Meta's page on userpages says that en:Wikipedia:Userpage and fr:Aide:Page Utilisateur should be read "for more information about appropriate content". If Amgine is done casting aspersions on my good faith, perhaps he can explain which guideline User:Jason Gastrich complies with, because it definitely doesn't meet the English page. I admit however that my French isn't good enough to fully understand the French one. --Samuel Blanning 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Taxman: Here is the reason it is being considered not in good faith - please note the dates and anon IPs:
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=316950&oldid=274799
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=343027&oldid=342380
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=347376&oldid=347158
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=348665&oldid=348104
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=349268&oldid=349256
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=349406&oldid=349348
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=349412&oldid=349408
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=354740&oldid=353414
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=357606&oldid=356234
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=363328&oldid=361456
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=366550&oldid=366225
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=366813&oldid=366807
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=367101&oldid=366820
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=436014&oldid=367273 [4 separate edits which defaced then blanked the page]
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=436515&oldid=436403 [Speedy tag, which it clearly is not]
    As you can see, people have been attacking this user page for 6 months. It is difficult to keep in mind good faith, but as I have stated here I do assume the people involved in doing so are acting in good faith. Their actions have not been within the bounds of appropriate edits on Meta, however.

    So far as has been brought up in this discussion, there is no basis in policy for deleting this user page. It would very handily win a request for undeletion, imo. It would greatly help the cause of those opposed to Mr Gastrich's continued presence in Wikimedia projects if they addressed how this page is itself deserving of deletion, rather than attempting to force their will via vote-stacking. Please keep in mind that while en.wp is a great project, decisions made on and about that project do not have any specific influence on Meta other than showing what en.wp has decided regarding this user. - Amgine / m | n 04:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    I find your lack of faith disturbing young Skywalker. I'm continually amazed that you would focus on this user being "attacked" and other users coming in response to legitimate concerns being "vote stacking". Even if there was vote stacking, if there was anyone from en.wiki that thinks this user wasn't problematic they could come here too. I find it amazing that we basically have a longstanding good contributor that has gotten blocked for leaving a message on Aphaia's talk page while you're defending one of the worst detractors from what we are trying to accomplish that we've ever had. Even if that wasn't why Aphaia blocked him is still looks bad since he's disagreed with her here and he can no longer participate in this discussion. But if common sense isn't enough and you want policy then fine. Even if you discard what we're here for and the guidelines in User page, then the page's deletion is perfectly covered by the deletion policy's criteria for speedy deletion 'General' number 7. And before you say but that applies to all userpages, I agree. And if any userpages including my own are not suited towards building free content then there's no problem deleting them. - Taxman 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Also note that even if out of process attempts to deal with this situation have occured before or attempts where the users in question did not explain well why they were removing material from Gastrich's page, that has zero relevance to whether the page should actually exist on Meta. Either Jason's page meets criteria for a Meta user page or it doesn't. Either we should let Jason use Meta as a free webhost or we shouldn't. I think the answers to these questions are clearly "yes" and "no" respectively. JoshuaZ 03:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. User has one edit outside of userspace and userpage is not related to Meta. Naconkantari 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll post a moderate opinion and say Remove the links at the bottom of the page. Especially the one to LBU which isn't to LBU at all. Uncle Davey 22:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    As for the rest of the debate consider - his only contribution outside his sockpuppet Ruth Ginsling (talk) and his page has been to recruit inclusionists, and that's strictly forbidden under the terms of his Wikipedia ban. Uncle Davey 22:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Penalising a user for violating another project's rules sets a dangerous precedent. Rules on other projects are not necessarily rules on this project, and whatever circumstances or motivations pushed someone into bad faith on the one may not exist on the other. Any deletion in this case should comply with Meta's policies, or after discussion centered on Meta. Note that User page is a descriptive page (much like Administrator or MediaWiki) and not a policy.

    This userpage should not be deleted for behaviour outside Meta or for violating policy that does not apply to Meta. If necessary, feel free to propose a local policy on userpages, and existing userpages (including this one) can be adjusted to conform. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    We're not attempting to penalise a user for violating another project's rules (and describing his actions as such, or as "misbehaviour", is a fabulous understatement - Jason Gastrich has indisputably caused more disruption to the largest and most high-visibility Wikimedia project than anyone else during my time there). We're attempting to delete a page that the Wikimedia Foundation has no interest in hosting. --Samuel Blanning 23:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    That isn't an entirely clear statement. The Wikimedia Foundation has no interest in hosting either User:Samuel Blanning or user:Pathoschild, but I'd certainly oppose deleting either of those. The question is whether it is against the interests of the community, of the project, or of the Foundation to host them. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    We can have users blocked or banned on one project and contributing to another. This does not mean we need to be blind about a user's past behavior on those projects. Jason's behavior on the English Wikipedia and on various internet fora are more than sufficient to see that he has no interest but his own self-promotion, is not a productive Wikimedian and will never be a productive Wikimedian. The page he has up now is for self-promotion and self-promotion only and there is no chance that he will ever be useful on Meta. Just because projects are separate doesn't mean we cannot use information from them to guide our actions. JoshuaZ 00:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    There's nothing inherently wrong with self-promotion; most users participating in this discussion have lengthy content about themselves on their userpages. Usenetpostsdotcom has a prominent link to his website both on his userpage and in his username, and has no contributions beyond harassing this user (which led to his brief block). If the problem is self-promotion, what is the line between Jason Gastrich and the users participating in this discussion? If not, is it whether or not users not contributing to the project should have userpages, and what is the line between Jason Gastrich and Usenetpostsdotcom, both of which exclusively edit Jason Gastrich-related pages?

    None of these questions have been been answered or any precedent set on Meta that I'm immediately aware of (with the exception of blatant vandal userpages). I'm hoping the two weeks of this discussion will be enough for many editors (both active and visiting) to note their opinion so that we can answer these questions. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    If you're thinking the problem is just self promotion then you're not looking into it. This case is not far off from saying Willy on Wheels has an account on Meta and your response amounts to since he hasn't vandalized here yet, no worries. - Taxman 12:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    I see nothing inherently wrong with a good-faith account named after a trite vandal meme (assuming they managed to slip through without being blocked on sight). If they ever did vandalise, they'd be promptly blocked and their pages deleted. // Pathoschild 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    If it was a good faith account I'd consider agreeing with you. - Taxman 17:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    PS, that wasn't meant to be as rude as it may have come out. It was meant to be more literal than in your face. Just meant I'd consider the issue of not worrying about an account named after a vandal meme. Sorry if that came out badly. - Taxman 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Meta is the collaboration place for all Wikimedia project and related production including MediaWiki. There are many users whose only edit is their user page on this project, and it gives meta no harm. Unless an user is banned from the entire Wikimedia project, he or she has a good reason to have his or her user page on meta. We allowed once a user whose edits are obviously limited to only his user page to continue editing until his edits took over meta RC and thus untorelable for some other users, and bothered their activities. This case is different from that apparently; a user whose edits per day is only one or two bothers no other. In my opinion, those who try to use meta admin as their personal tool to satisfy their personal vengence is more harmful for coordnation both on the community layer and the foundation layer. --Aphaia 07:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    I think what people are saying is that due to the egregiousness of the user's actions that they probably should be banned from all Wikimedia projects. At the very least, considering the clear intent to cause harm and actual harm caused, he shouldn't be treated like an innocent. - Taxman 12:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Is there clear intent to harm Meta or, through the editing of his Meta page, harm other projects? If so, please provide links or other evidence demonstrating this. Any deletion otherwise is punitive rather than preventative, which goes against the spirit of most projects' policies. // Pathoschild 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    No it isn't Pathos. You are missing a serious point- Gastrich has no intention to contribute to Meta and is simply using the page for self-promotion. This should be clear from the nature of the page and his past actions. Thus an intent to harm is irrelevant - he cannot use Wikimedia resources as a free webhost. Period. Even if your comment about an intent to harm were necessary he has already demonstrated it. His first action on Meta was to attempt to votestack on .en [5] and he has already engaged in sockpuppeting here using User:Ruth Ginsling. Again let me emphasize that although there is ample evidence of intent to harm that isn't what is most relevant, the use of Meta as a webhost for his self-promotion is. JoshuaZ 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Please see (quoted below) the hate-filled trash Gastrich posted about wiki on his personal blog that is linked on his user page. Arbusto 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I promise to be a productive and rule-abiding editor on Meta. Thanks to those who have posted even-handed and rule-abiding comments. Thanks, Jason Gastrich 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Is Ruth Ginsling your sock puppet? Arbusto 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    You're welcome, but you need to come clean about Ruth Ginsling. Uncle Davey 06:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    I guess I'd be curious as to how participation at this site is any less being "unequally yoked" than it was at Wikipedia. I think that this is good cause to question motive, along with the other causes. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.207.57.81 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. The user page is solely to promote himself. He has made NO EDITS for any articles. As the userpage guidelines says "Details about yourself generally should not go in the main namespace, which is reserved for encyclopedic content." This is a violation of that policy. Also keep in mind Uncle Davey has often supported Gastrich, and he makes a good point. Arbusto 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Arbusto, that was not the real Uncle Davey. Someone stole my ID on here, and you are taking your ammo now from someone who is, I'm sorry to say, a bad faith fraud. Theox 20:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, crossed out based on Josh's findings. Arbusto 02:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The users who wish to keep this self-promotion should know what Gastrich has written about wikipedia on his website. This page (note the index page is linked on his user page) [ url changed to jcsm.REMOVE-THIS.org because of the spam filter. --83.253.36.136 23:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC) ] claims the

    unbelievers wanted sensational, ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and in many cases incorrect information included and some others and I insisted on including the truth and excluding that nonsense. This opposition met us head on and I was eventually banned for one year. I don't see myself returning to Wikipedia because I have shaken the dust from my shoes. In fact, we even decided to end the Wiki4Christ.com web site that was sending Christians to Wikipedia. It is an awful place for Christians who sincerely want the truth fairly represented.

    Is it acceptable for a wikipedia user page to link to a page and a user who claims Wikipedia is an "awful place for Christians"? Arbusto 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    This is serious. In this google post a few hours ago[6] Gastrich is attacking a user for removing Gastrich's spam.[7] Note in the google post he even revealed someone's real name, another breach of wikipedia policy. Arbusto 01:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Actually attempting to reveal the True Names of Wikimedians is a general foundational issue. It is unacceptable on any project and in so far as it has foundation implications should be treated roughly equally everywhere. In any event, this is yet more evidence that Jason has no interest in helping Meta or any other Wikimedia project. He simply cares about us as a vehichle for self-promotion. JoshuaZ 01:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Personal attacks and off-wiki harassment is an extremely serious offence. I suggest community ban. MaxSem 06:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Gastrich has no reservations about personal attack and off-wiki harassment. - 72.207.57.81 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. His only "contribution" to a Foundation project is at en, where he is banned and has just had a request to return soundly rejected. He has no business here and we don't provide free web hosting. --Kingboyk 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just too much. I've not seen any evidence the user is here for anything but disruption. Promoting personal views is not what we are here for. - Taxman 17:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Can you please point to any disruption this user has engaged in on Meta? - Amgine / m | n 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    I liken this (pardon the exaggeration to make the point) to someone who has shot 12 people in Canada, but since they haven't shot anyone in the UN building we should let them inside with a gun because well, they haven't shot anyone here. Most of the response is above though. - Taxman 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a personal attack (follow the link that thisuser added). Arbusto 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)