AmendmentNumberOne (talk | contribs) →[[09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0]]: it seems Thatcher131 speedy deleted it originally |
|||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
*'''Keep deleted.''' One, terrible title. Two, a needless content fork. There is no compelling reason to think that this exploit needs to be split from [[HD-DVD]], where it is already covered. Three, while an article on the exploit may be warranted, it ''may also'' be a violation of the [[WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act|Section 103]] of the DMCA to post the actual code of the exploit. There is no particular reason to wait for an office action; we don't need to publish the code of the exploit and we certainly shouldn't make it the title of an article. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 01:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep deleted.''' One, terrible title. Two, a needless content fork. There is no compelling reason to think that this exploit needs to be split from [[HD-DVD]], where it is already covered. Three, while an article on the exploit may be warranted, it ''may also'' be a violation of the [[WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act|Section 103]] of the DMCA to post the actual code of the exploit. There is no particular reason to wait for an office action; we don't need to publish the code of the exploit and we certainly shouldn't make it the title of an article. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 01:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep deleted''' per reasons stated by Thatcher 131. '''[[User:Sr13|Sr13]]''' '''([[User talk:Sr13|T]]'''|'''[[Special:Contributions/Sr13|C]]''') 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep deleted''' per reasons stated by Thatcher 131. '''[[User:Sr13|Sr13]]''' '''([[User talk:Sr13|T]]'''|'''[[Special:Contributions/Sr13|C]]''') 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
: Thatcher131 was previously involved in speedy deletion of the article, although he did not disclose this in his above comment. -[[User:AmendmentNumberOne|AmendmentNumberOne]] 02:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Undelete''' - The title is the now notable number the article would be about. The number is notable because the DMCA has been misused, in clear violation of United States 1st Amendment law, to censor the number. It also notable because there are now multiple sources that refer to the number and its censorship, although some of those articles are themselves being censored. Should Wikipedia censor itself because of the threat of future censorship? Of course not. The article title is not illegal because of the 1st Amendment and it is not a copyright violation because it is a title. This number is a valid encyclopedia topic and article title. -[[User:AmendmentNumberOne|AmendmentNumberOne]] 02:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete''' - The title is the now notable number the article would be about. The number is notable because the DMCA has been misused, in clear violation of United States 1st Amendment law, to censor the number. It also notable because there are now multiple sources that refer to the number and its censorship, although some of those articles are themselves being censored. Should Wikipedia censor itself because of the threat of future censorship? Of course not. The article title is not illegal because of the 1st Amendment and it is not a copyright violation because it is a title. This number is a valid encyclopedia topic and article title. -[[User:AmendmentNumberOne|AmendmentNumberOne]] 02:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Redirect''' to the [[HDDVD]] article. That's what I wanted to do when I got to the page; create a redirect.--[[User:Planetary|Planetary]] 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Redirect''' to the [[HDDVD]] article. That's what I wanted to do when I got to the page; create a redirect.--[[User:Planetary|Planetary]] 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:34, 2 May 2007
2 May 2007
User talk:Pce3@ij.net
- User talk:Pce3@ij.net (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Pce3@ij.net|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
I have moved the following from "History only undeletions" because of the discussion it generated. Nardman1 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- User talk:Pce3@ij.net - User block log says "Exhausted community patience. See talk page." but the page was deleted. Nardman1 13:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- User pages of indef blocked users aren't kept around. John Reaves (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- What harm would restoring the page history do? Nardman1 21:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- It would recreate a page that it has been agreed upon should be deleted. John Reaves (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Who agreed? Nardman1 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It would recreate a page that it has been agreed upon should be deleted. John Reaves (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I want to see that talk page, like the block log says. :) Nardman1 02:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that your curiosity is sufficient reason to undelete a page. John Reaves (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I want to see that talk page, like the block log says. :) Nardman1 02:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Casual Science
- Casual Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Article is not using a website template/infobox, it is an organization or non-profit community, thus it is not required to meet the Website article criteria. There are thousands of other articles with less popularity and notability as mine, surely popularity isn't the issue. JimCS 01:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reject undeletion The deleting admin gave a clear reason why the article was deleted in the deletion log: The organization in question does not meet criteria A7 in our criteria for speedy deletion. Your reason to undelete isn't very good as well. Sr13 (T|C) 02:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
This hex string about a HD-DVD process key used to decode DVD, possibly allowing illegal copying. The article itself is about the info and controversy about DMCA notice being sent around the net asking people to remove it (including those who merely posting about the discovery of such number.) More info here
I nominated this article for deletion due to notability concern (and nothing else, a Google search suggests a possible legitimate topic). An admin then speedy deleted it along with the AfD itself. The reason is mere "DMCA will not be happy". I interpret this as a possible legal threat. From my understanding, it is not libel, and it does not satisfy any of the CSD criteria. Even if it is a possible violation of DMCA, that's not the job of an admin to speedy delete it - that's the job of WP:OFFICE.
If an admin chose to speedy delete this, I will being the case to Admin board and a possible WP:RfAr.SYSS Mouse 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Horrible name for an article; all useful information from it should be added to Advanced Access Content System instead. --cesarb 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Even if it is, it is not proper to speedy delete it. SYSS Mouse 00:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Hmm. Does that mean this page is about to be oversighted too? I guess I can write what I like here, then. Fnord. – Gurch 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep deleted It doesn't qualify for speedy, and it should be a WP:OFFICE issue... but why undelete it so we can delete it later? I'd like to throw in that mention of the article's name is required to discuss it, so it should not be oversighted unless the wikilawyers receive a notice and decide to cave to it. Please don't cave wikilawyers. --Auto(talk / contribs) 00:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which law are we breaking? Take breaking copyright law with the key; and on a less prosecutable level, there's discovering and releasing the key. I doubt that spreading the key is an offense, and at this point, certainly not an actionable offense, although the latter is less relevant. It may be an issue of notability, but why salt it? We don't know what the future will hold. GracenotesT § 01:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can request for unsalting if new information is provided. Generally takes five minutes or less. Rockstar (T/C) 01:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, because it was deleted by a formal deletion process and with policy. Oh wait... GracenotesT § 01:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks to me like it was deleted because it was a violation of the DMCA. And, given what I know about this aritcle, it was. Rockstar (T/C) 01:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Distributing a device that decrypts a DVD, or initially releasing the exploit, seems illegal. But this? GracenotesT § 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks to me like it was deleted because it was a violation of the DMCA. And, given what I know about this aritcle, it was. Rockstar (T/C) 01:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, because it was deleted by a formal deletion process and with policy. Oh wait... GracenotesT § 01:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can request for unsalting if new information is provided. Generally takes five minutes or less. Rockstar (T/C) 01:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which law are we breaking? Take breaking copyright law with the key; and on a less prosecutable level, there's discovering and releasing the key. I doubt that spreading the key is an offense, and at this point, certainly not an actionable offense, although the latter is less relevant. It may be an issue of notability, but why salt it? We don't know what the future will hold. GracenotesT § 01:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- er, redirect to a better title? I haven't seen the article so I can't comment on it's merits for undeletion. Nardman1 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ha, good point. Can you imagine typing this into the search box? Rockstar (T/C) 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I could, and it hasn't even been around for that long. GracenotesT § 01:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I know I haven't mentioned this, but I think that it would be fine as a redirect—I don't think it's notable as a mathematical number, but it is subsumed by a seemingly notable event, worthy of a section in an article (let's see what happens, though.) GracenotesT § 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- My guess is someone who already knew what it was would c/p it into the search box. This info is on other websites, no need for us to have it. Nardman1 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ha, good point. Can you imagine typing this into the search box? Rockstar (T/C) 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. One, terrible title. Two, a needless content fork. There is no compelling reason to think that this exploit needs to be split from HD-DVD, where it is already covered. Three, while an article on the exploit may be warranted, it may also be a violation of the Section 103 of the DMCA to post the actual code of the exploit. There is no particular reason to wait for an office action; we don't need to publish the code of the exploit and we certainly shouldn't make it the title of an article. Thatcher131 01:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per reasons stated by Thatcher 131. Sr13 (T|C) 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thatcher131 was previously involved in speedy deletion of the article, although he did not disclose this in his above comment. -AmendmentNumberOne 02:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Undelete - The title is the now notable number the article would be about. The number is notable because the DMCA has been misused, in clear violation of United States 1st Amendment law, to censor the number. It also notable because there are now multiple sources that refer to the number and its censorship, although some of those articles are themselves being censored. Should Wikipedia censor itself because of the threat of future censorship? Of course not. The article title is not illegal because of the 1st Amendment and it is not a copyright violation because it is a title. This number is a valid encyclopedia topic and article title. -AmendmentNumberOne 02:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to the HDDVD article. That's what I wanted to do when I got to the page; create a redirect.--Planetary 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)