No edit summary |
Betacommand2 (talk | contribs) →MfD: new section |
||
Line 855: | Line 855: | ||
=="Speedy deletion of Template:XXX"== |
=="Speedy deletion of Template:XXX"== |
||
Hey, fix the code for the message you leave - it messes up with some of discusion pages, mine at least. What's the point of this "(<tt><noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude></tt>)." in your messages anyway? And use the "Show preview" button next time, will ya? -- [[User:BorisTM|Boris]] ([[User talk:BorisTM|talk]]) 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
Hey, fix the code for the message you leave - it messes up with some of discusion pages, mine at least. What's the point of this "(<tt><noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude></tt>)." in your messages anyway? And use the "Show preview" button next time, will ya? -- [[User:BorisTM|Boris]] ([[User talk:BorisTM|talk]]) 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
== MfD == |
|||
you know the one you closed? the guy who created it is now trolling and forcing a link to the MfD at the top of [[WP:AN/]] care to clean up? [[User talk:Betacommand2|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:20, 24 February 2008
Archives |
---|
May 2006 – July 2006 |
William Schnoebelen article
Hi, I noticed your name on the protection status of this article. I've created a short bio for this guy, but as its protected I've put it in the talk page instead. I was just wondering if it could be added or if the page could be unprotected, because he is quite well known, what with his connection to Jack Chick, after all.--AmenMoses (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Voodoo Tiki Tequila - My first important article on the Wikipedia. Need your opinion
Hello MZMcBride,
Please check the draft I've created in my personal page. It is about a Voodoo Tiki Tequila article, from a Wikipedia point of view. (Suggestion are welcomed!).
I don't know what happened there, but I can certainly take care of this article. And I'm creating many others I'm currently developing.
Relevance: rest assure that the brand is very well known (is being sold 18 states and 4 countries). It would be great to share knowledge about Tequila with others.
I would love to see this brand on the Wikipedia, since this brand is one of the best 100% Blue Agave tequilas (which means true premium quality, not only from a 'commercial' point of view) in the US. There are a lot of medium quality tequila brands on the Wikipedia, so it was a surprise to me to find a protected article about Voodoo Tiki.
Anyway, I've spent a few hours making the article and collecting facts, in order to keep it 100% Wikipedia-friendly. So, please, drop me a line if you can unprotect it, at least for my account.
If you accept my article, I will keep an eye on it. In order to protect it from vandalism and related actions. Thanks! (Oh, check the article's talk page too.)
I want to become an administrator someday, I am from Argentina.
Thanks in advance!!
(talk) 19:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Kaltura - need your opinion
I believe that you had once deleted and protected the article Kaltura that I had been trying to get published. I have been speaking with UsaSatsui and per his suggestion in the deletion review for Kaltura, I have created a new page in draft mode and would like for you to review it. UsaSatsui has already reviewed it and beyond a few small changes that he thinks could help, he feels it's in good shape to submit to deletion review again, and hopefully it can be moved out of draft mode. He did however suggest that I run it by one more admin first, so I'm hoping you can help. Please review the draft I created User:Lishkee/Kaltura and let me know. Thank you!!Lishkee (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I understand and I've already started the deletion review process as well.Lishkee (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Why did you delete Delta Tao article?
please state the reason given for deleteing the article. Seems to me that many other companies are listed in this encylopedia. Zarutian (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for moving all those orphaned posts to live talk pages! Avb 12:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Question
What happened to Wikipedia:Protected titles, are we back to templates?--Hu12 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Doctor Steel
Hello, this is maybe the second time I've ever logged on to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I'm following the correct procedure. Anyway, I found your name from the talk page at the deleted Doctor Steel page. I was curious about why that page was locked. I was told about Dr. Steel by a coworker and wanted to find out more at Wikipedia, but it seems Wikipedia is silent about this topic? Maxwerx (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The Comedian's Comedian
Just curious as to why the article is protected against creation.76.84.230.183 (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
MechQuest Page
Not sure if this is the correct / proper way to go about this, but here we go. Why was the MechQuest article deleted and then protected from creation? All of Artix Entertainment's other main games have pages and MechQuest is mentioned in the main company article, so it can't be permission or something. Care to clue me in? Baseballbaker23 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit: Ah, it's more complicated than I had thought. I'll let people who know more about the system here argue over it for me and then add in anything I know once / if it's put back up. Thanks. Baseballbaker23 (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Softredirect
Hi. What exactly didn't work about contentSub? It's a defined CSS id, not a hack. — Edokter • Talk • 00:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know the text was a little too low. However the redirectText class (big font) did work. Do you mind if I put that back? — Edokter • Talk • 00:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Kazenga LuaLua
Any chance of unprotecting this page now as hes now listed on the official website here. 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Reign
Hi. You deleted Reign (role-playing game) under csd a7. a7 states A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. While it has pdf updates, the game itself is a book. --86.88.18.236 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Violation of 1RR rule on Waterboarding
Please see this edit: [1] and block Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) immediately for violating your new 1RR rule. Also, please revert his disruptive edit. (In the alternative, please don't block me for doing it myself if you don't revert it within the next few hours.) Otherwise, you will be endorsing violation of all the new rules and a lot more people will be violating them. Also they're talking about banning me from the article for three months over at WP:ANI, so I think a three-month article ban for Black Kite is appropriate. He has a disruptive editing pattern in the article mainspace and he deserves it. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since you have set new rules, how does [this fit into your structure. I edited in good faith and didn't actually change content, but only asked for citations. My edits were IMMEDIATELY reverted. So, what action will you take under these rules? --Blue Tie (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- One might say that Blue Tie has made edits that he knew would be controversial, in order to change the new regime. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, one might say that, but one would be utterly wrong and in complete violation of WP:AGF. I am not interested in challenging the new regime. On my word of honor that would never enter my head. However, I edited in parts of the article that were not part of the controversy on the talk page and I only asked for citations, I did not change any text. I believe that there are some problems of original research so I asked for cites. This is not a bad thing and does not injure the article. Generally requests for cites should not be reverted anyway.. they should be answered with citations! But when rules have been set down forbidding immediate reverts, then I do not know what to do. Per the rules, I am forbidden from reverting an act that was against the rules. I have no recourse but to bring it to that admin. I should not be condemned or impugned for following the rules -- and for seeking redress of wrongs under those rules. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, Blue Tie, I don't believe you. Asking for citations when there are none is a fine thing, but in this edit, you slap a {{fact}} tag on a sentence that cites a Washington Post article. You put the tag there because you disagreed with the Post, not because the material lacked citation. That's not what the {{fact}} tag is for, and you should have known that someone was going to disagree with your edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, one might say that, but one would be utterly wrong and in complete violation of WP:AGF. I am not interested in challenging the new regime. On my word of honor that would never enter my head. However, I edited in parts of the article that were not part of the controversy on the talk page and I only asked for citations, I did not change any text. I believe that there are some problems of original research so I asked for cites. This is not a bad thing and does not injure the article. Generally requests for cites should not be reverted anyway.. they should be answered with citations! But when rules have been set down forbidding immediate reverts, then I do not know what to do. Per the rules, I am forbidden from reverting an act that was against the rules. I have no recourse but to bring it to that admin. I should not be condemned or impugned for following the rules -- and for seeking redress of wrongs under those rules. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, you do not believe me. I do not know how to convince you. I can see where that edit would seem suspicious, so maybe its impossible for you to assume good faith. Everyone has their limits. However, I believe it is not unreasonable to question a source's correctness. In this case, I do. I have slowly, gradually come to a realization: The term "waterboarding" is not well defined and may not be correctly applied in the popular press. This is such a big problem, that even if I were editing the article all on my own, I do not know if I could get it "right" using press sources. I am not talking about "truth". I am talking about actually presenting the facts correctly. It has me genuinely concerned. This is an abbreviation of my concern, but it is my best answer to your doubt.
- Going forward though, take a look at my other edits. They were ALL reverted. But I suspect you cannot find equal fault with them. Such wholesale reverts are simply inappropriate, even in normal circumstances but under the new rules, such mass reverts without discussion should not occur and seeking remedies from authorities is appropriate. Had only that one single edit that you find troubling been reverted, I would not have fought or complained. I would, however, have sought discussion.
- Knowing this, I hope you can find yourself assuming good faith again. If you cannot, then you will be unable to edit constructively with me on that page. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Reprotect Waterboarding
Requesting your assent as the latest admin to deal with this mess: The semi-protect isn't working. Instead of handing out a bunch of blocks, which would only inflame things further, I plan to return the article to full protection. I think the article needs a good long period of full protection so all the parties can discuss things and come to agreement (assuming that's possible). Yea or nea? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- If it is protected, it should have a tag that says it is protected because of disputes. I admit I am not paying attention to whether people are edit warring, so if I say I have not noticed any edit warring that does not mean there is none. But is there really a lot? I have not seen it. And ...if the rules laid down by McBride are tried for a while (except for the first unworkable rule) maybe things will work out over time. Seems like they haven't even been given a chance. No enforcement so far. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Watchlist-notice
Yes, OBVIOUSLY, such a suggestion was some form of disruption or misbehavior. Who ever in their right mind would suggest not advertising a highly controversial process that has half the project in deep discussion? -- Ned Scott 06:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about all of that... -- Ned Scott 05:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you have provided input on. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for page unprotection
Aliya-Jasmine Sovani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I listed this on the page unprotection request page before I realized I should have just come to you, as you were the original protector. I have "adopted" user Jamierush and helped her develop this page over the last few days. I think that notability is now established, and I pretty much made her reference everything. We are prepared to debate and defend notability. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Why did you delete Dolls Place article?
I went to update the page that I created and I see that you deleted it. YFTS (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in case you haven't seen, I've responded to your comments on that talk page. Tra (Talk) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Getrag transmissions
I noticed you deleted this on January 5 under CSD:C1 (empty). This original (non-cap) category was created some time in 2005 by User:Sfoskett. A duplicate category, Category:GETRAG transmissions, was created by a user who disputed the non caps (at the same time he was also involved in several copy/paste page moves which also required subsequent repair). In this case, the user simply changed the capitalization of each categorized page from Getrag to GETRAG to populate the new, duplicate category, and although I pointed out our GFDL requirements to him on his talk page,[2] he refused to acknowledge this.[3] I've no idea whether it was the specific user, a bot, or a passing editor who requested deletion, but we now have a three year old category with no attribution to the author who properly created it. Doesn't this require an undeletion/history merge? --DeLarge (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:X10
A tag has been placed on Template:X10 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a template that is divisive and inflammatory.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Template:X10|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MZMcBride (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:X10
A tag has been placed on Template:X10 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a really hot template.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) or spin on your head. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked by a user to make it possible for him to recreate this page (see my talk page for the request). Since you protected it, I thought I'd ask you for your opinion of that idea first. The user suggests that it would be relatively easy for him to demonstrate notability; I'm happy to do whatever would result in a useful and notable page. Please let me know your thoughts, and thanks in advance for your trouble. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't heard from you on this, as far as I know, so I've gone ahead and recreated the page for the user in question. I hope this meets with your approval; if you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me, and I'm glad you're not bothered. I was the admin who deleted it the last two times, so I guess it's up to me... I'll keep an eye on it. BTW, if it makes a difference, I like the new protection system a lot more than the old one, now that I think I have the hang of it. I don't protect much, but when I want to, it's a lot easier. Thanks. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Convenor
I recreated the article Convenor as a redirect to Chair (official). You had deleted the article as csd r1. Please let me know of you have any questions or concerns about this recreation. Jeepday (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:X10
A tag has been placed on Template:X10 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a really hot template.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) or spin on your head. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Spurious <br/> in <gallery>
-- Tim Starling (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Vanishing
Hi, just addressing something, earlier you undeleted my user talk, which was completely fine. :) I've been busy lately, and some issues have forced me to stay away. In the event that I am completely unavailable, I vanish temporarily to reflect that fact. It's certainly unorthodox and perhaps not the best form, but I prefer it given the possibility, however marginal, at each break that I might not come back. I've undeleted and unprotected my user/talk pages, for now, since I may be available occasionally, but I figured that an explanation to you would be appropriate. I miss being here - I hope that soon I may return in a fuller capacity. Nihiltres{t.l} 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for clarifications re: recent changes to Template:Buddhism
Howdy MZMcBride -
If you've the time, just due to intellectual curiosity on my part and as a maintainer of Template:Buddhism, I wondering if you could help me understand the changes you recently made to Template:Buddhism (02:58, 15 January 2008). In particular:
- Is Template:! no longer appropriate to use (or perhaps it is simply not needed any more in the context of Template:Buddhism) ?
- What is the benefit of <br/> vs. <br> and is there a benefit to inserting variable spaces between the "br" and the "/"? (I'm an old GML and SGML coder and I simply don't recollect the use of the slash in this context — though this could just be a facet of my increasingly feeble memory.)
Thanks for any help,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Amazing & terrific! Thanks so much for taking the time to clearly educate me with such explicit and useful examples! I applaud your skill and kindness. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Paul Addis article
Hi. I see you recently protected the deleted Paul Addis article against re-creation.
I am considering creating a new article about this person. He is certainly notable. I would have no problem creating a well-sourced article that establishes notability and avoids BLP issues. I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Addis or the deletion log that would prohibit re-creation, and I'm a little confused about the "deprecating protected titles" notation for protection you gave here. Is there something I'm missing? If there is no special reason to salt this article would you kindly unprotect it so I may create an article; or otherwise, point me to where that decision was made so I can review it and decide whether to ask for a review. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
DjVu icon
Hi MZMcBride, you recently removed the redirect on Image:DjVu-logo.png. As I mentioned on the image page, I added the redirect so that it works with a template I created for DjVu files. When an external link points to a DjVu, this glyph shows what file type it is. Clicking on the glyph redirects to DjVu, the article explaining the file type. Do you think this is undesirable? Another option would be to create two duplicate images; one with a redirect to work with the template, and one ordinary. Please reply on Image talk:DjVu-logo.png rather than here. Regards, Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Maintaining
You've done some good work maintaining the project in the background. Keep it up. Especially the text moves, you did not have to do those, but you did.
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For your work, you sought nothing. But you see, this barnstar seeks you. Mercury at 05:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 05:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
Parser issues on Template:Citation
There seems to be an issue that will arise when Template:Citation is used under the new parser. As you are more knowledgeable about this, would you mind taking a look at the {{editprotected}} request on the bottom of the talk page? Mr.Z-man 08:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would be so kind to remove the creation protection on this page. Now that the Favre's season is over and it seems User:Starwars1955 has left, I would like to try and work on creating this article. It is needed to shorten the Favre article and goes in line with other articles of its type (List of career achievements by Michael Jordan, etc). Thanks!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah I just realized that, thanks for the direction though. Cheers!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review for Alzano Virescit F.C.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alzano Virescit F.C.. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CapPixel (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I really think you should see this.
Click here, I wanna reason with you. I think it was a mistake to protect it from recreation. Please discuss on the talk page. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
request of unprotection of Colour Revolt
I am requesting the removal of the protection that the Colour Revolt wikipedia page received. This group is a national touring act from Mississippi. They have a cd out on Tiny Evil, a part of Interscope Records. Recently they have signed with Fat Possum Records and will release their cd nation wide. They have played festivals including Lollapalooza, Purple Door, SXSW, and CMJ. The availability of this page will help better inform the public on news related to this band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpa514 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please unprotect the page titled "Adhikari"
I would like to edit this page adding new information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamey (talk • contribs) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Other location about rapid editing and blocking editors
I thought it was you who asked me yesterday whether I'd started, (or if there had been) a community discussion on this matter.
Here's a previous discussion on this particular topic: Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus
That's a start at least. :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review for Fatass
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fatass. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:X10
A tag has been placed on Template:X10 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Infobox image size?
Just out of interest, what happens if you look at an image of 257px on your browser? Salavat (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, I found out that it stretches the infobox by 1px, thanks anyway. Salavat (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Click for image
I don't know the procedure, but since I'm the only one that has touched this, can I just delete this now? That was a failed experiment I forgot about -Regards Nv8200p talk 00:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of template:Eksi
Hey,
I don't know if I'm did something wrong when I was making the userbox but from what I see, I and couple other users, namely the ones in Category:Ek$i Sözlük Contributors are using this template, so it's not orphaned. However it's also very likely that I did something wrong so could you help me fixing whatever that is? Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I get that technically nobody seems to be using it right now. Maybe we are using a different template to show that userbox but i couldn't figure out what. If you look at my user page you can see it there. Same goes for, User:Ademkader, User:Deliogul, User:Justin Case, User:Kaygtr, User:Maokan and User:Ont . Or is it another template that we are using? can you please check the sources of our user pages to figure out what I'm doing wrong? Thanks in advance. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- A-ha! now I see. Thanks for your help. You can now erase it. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You speedy deleted this, but I had already declined the speedy deletion. My rationale was "A7 does not apply to ad campaigns; even if it did, being a campaign of a notable company is a claim of importance". You deleted anyway, in contradiction of policy. Please restore this article or I will take this to WP:DRV. --W.marsh 14:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- It will be overturned at DRV... I just thought you might like to skip the red tape. Oh well, apparently not, I'll open the review request. --W.marsh 17:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Cnbox
Would you like me to just delete it? I'm the author and the only user, and I think it is orphaned now. No sense in waiting through the whole process. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:East Asian Cinema
Hello, you noted on my talk page that this Template is due to be speedy deleted. The reason it is orphaned appears to be because of the incorrect capitalisation of the word "cinema". Another template exists entitled Template:East Asian cinema, with much the same content.
The formatting of the template with the correct title (lower case "c") is insconsistent with other similar templates (e.g. Template:Southeast Asian cinema, Template:South Asian cinema etc), whereas the template with the upper case "c" is consistent with those, which probably explains why it was kept. I will format the lower case "c" template now, to match the others and you can go ahead and delete the upper case "c" template.
Cheers. Gram123 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Protected page of [[Ben Williams (Singer)
Heya there, I was just wondering; why has this page been protected? It would be great if you could UnBlock it somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnjaBenja (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Protection of the article YouTube Poop
I think this subject deserves it's own article.
Brett Hickey
Could you please unprotect Brett Hickey so I can make a page for him? See:
http://www.mojohd.com/mojoseries/wallstreetwarriors/warriors/view/brett
http://www.aegiscapitalgroup.com/team.php?teamID=1&v=s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oatmealstout (talk • contribs) 04:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
ImageMap
I'm not sure if this is a known bug (or intententional) but interwiki links don't seem to be working nicely with the newer ImageMap functions. For an example:
{{Click-fixed |image = Wikimedia-logo.svg |width = 100 |height = 100 |title = :meta:Template:Click |link = :meta:Template:Click }}
Produces: Template:Click-fixed
That's going to be a bit of a problem to replace click, since interwiki linking is a major aspect of this, and inappropriate titles are going to make the images confusing. I thought I'd bug you since you seem to know what's going on with the extension at MW :). Feel free to comment at Template talk:Click-fixed Justin chat 07:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good news, everyone! This isn't an issue - the leading colon in the link is completely unnecessary and is what's causing the problem.
{{Click-fixed |image = Wikimedia-logo.svg |width = 100 |height = 100 |title = meta:Template:Click |link = meta:Template:Click }}
- produces:
- Template:Click-fixed
- There's no real problem in the template, though ImageMap's handling of interwikis is somewhat funky sometimes. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Brett Hickey
Actually, it was you that locked the article. Wikipedia policy suggest first asking the admin who locked it to unlock it. That's why I am asking you first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=protect&page=Brett_hickey
Requesting unprotection of Islamophilia
Hi there. You protected this page a while back as a redirect to Islamophilia (neologism). Unfortunately the article is now under the wrong title - 'Islamophilia' would be a better name for it, as there is no need for the disambiguation brackets. I have requested to move the article to this name: see Talk:Islamophilia (neologism)#Requested move. I would have performed the move myself, except that the target was protected. If there is a consensus in favour of my proposed move, can you please unprotect the target and move the page there? Thanks in advance. Terraxos (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Peer review
My new mop and bucket is already getting a lot of work :D
. For the past week or so I've been working with Geometry guy on a massive reorganisation of the peer review archives and listing system. For the past three years we've been building up a massive collection of "archives" organised variously as Wikipedia:Peer review/articlename/archive1
, Wikipedia:Peer review/articlename/Archive
, Wikipedia:Peer review/articlename/Attempt 1
, Wikipedia:Peer review/articlename 1
, Wikipedia:Peer review/articlename archive
, Wikipedia:Peer review/articlename second try
and even (my personal favourite) Wikipedia:Peer review/articlename/Wikipedia:Peer review/articlename
. Obviously this is hugely problematic if you actually want to find anything at PR, especially automatically. GG's been working on a new set of listing templates that will automatically place new listings in a correctly-formatted archive, and I've been working on the task of sorting out all these dodgy archive formats. As you can see from the discussion, my bot request and MelonBot's and my contributions, it's an ongoing and fairly epic operation. Nonetheless, we're trying to be as careful as possible to avoid breaking any links for any longer than absolutely necessary. I hope this explains the flurry of activity for you. Happy‑melon 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am deleting a lot of them. But my bot is doing most of the work - and we know what happens when someone suggests that a bot be given the admin bit.... Happy‑melon 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer
Thank you for the offer to help with the mass deletion. The templates in question are those held in Category:European_Parliament_constituency_infoboxes. They are all templates-of-a-template and so have been nominated for deletion (see [4] for the discussion). So I'm updating the articles accordingly. It would help if you could massdelete the templates held under Category:European_Parliament_constituency_infoboxes and then, when theyre all gone, delete the category as well. But - and this is important - please don't do it until I've finished moving the templates. I'll give you the nod when I'm done. Thanks for the help. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Wipe them out. All of them...
Dear MZMcBride. Please initiate Order 66 on all templates within Category:European_Parliament_constituency_infoboxes, then delete the category. Use {{db-author}} by as your authority. Let no one stop you in your task. Show no mercy. The Galaxy shall be ours by sunset...(Yes, I know, but I've just spent about 8 hrs painstakingly moving and checking templates it took me days to create, so cut me some slack on the humor front...<grin>). Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thst was fast! Remind me never to upset you...<grin> Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Cats ( The red 2)
Why did you delete the page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunsa88 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:CSD#T3
There seems to be two templates around for WP:CSD#T3.
- One you did: {{Old template}}
- One that Happy-melon did: {{db-t3}}
Should these be merged into one?
Also, Happy-melon's template matches the style of all the other WP:CSD templates while yours does not.
-- WOSlinker (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I am fine with your decision. I changed it to Template:Techhistory and it is now part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology History. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 03:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:ElectricVehicleConversionIndex
This template may be deleted without my objection. It was originally created for an extensive series of articles which have subsequently been moved to Wikibooks. I trust that deletion of this template from WP will not affect its use in WB. Thanks for the heads up and best wishes - Leonard G. (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Please reconsider
Re: [5]
Please reconsider that. I'm not willing to be blocked for 3RR, but I must point out that it's not causing a disruption, nor would it even be effective in causing one. Am I adding the category because I don't trust T3? Yes, but that is not disruption, please don't confuse the two. In no way does it violate WP:POINT, not even by a long shot. You are making a connection between my disapproval with disruption that doesn't even make sense. I do not trust T3, and considering it involves deletion, which normal users like myself cannot reasonably track, why would you take away this away?
What gives? I normally get along with you and greatly trust your judgment. Why is it that I'm being treated like trash because I disagree with you on T3? Why would you do this? How could this even hurt anything? It seems more than reasonable to be able to do this, at least while it's being discussed. This is a purely technical feature. Please, I beg of you, reconsider. -- Ned Scott 08:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
{{Enginote}}
The template was created for use by {{unit of length}}. I didn't make it a subtemplate of {{unit of length}}, though, because I thought it could have a wider application. I still think it could but "could be useful" is not quite the same as "is useful". I've revised {{unit of length}} which now bypasses {{enginote}}. If it's deleted, there's also a doc page which should go too. Jɪmp 06:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
AN thread
Hi there. I linked to a diff you made, see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#The next step. I'm notifying you so you can comment there if you wish. You mentioned Beta and Nakon - how did you know they were involved? Can you shed any light on what happened here? Carcharoth (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments over there. I think you mentioned Ryan and Maxim because they were involved in the incident that indirectly led to this one, but I think the two incidents should be kept separate, really (even though I started my summary with that initial incident). I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Krimpet and Animum" - I presume by Krimpet you mean this and for Animum, you mean the undeletion and page protection? See here. Come to think of it, I'm puzzled why Maxim didn't restore straightaway. What was he doing in those three minutes? Trying to undelete? Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Old templates
Re [6]:
- I'm sorry as well. If I had reacted more calmly this would have gone over more smoothly. I'm sure that in my own frustration I said some things I didn't mean, and would like to take back. I respect you a lot, and have always appreciated the help you've given me.
- I was under the impression that TfD did consider some of the things I brought up, but if not, then it really is better that the issue be addressed from the top down. And even if so, given that it is a speedy deletion criteria, it is a likely first place where one might want to say "whoa! wait a second", if only out of instinct (for a lack of better phrasing). TfD, by it's very nature, won't be able to effect the volume that T3 can (which is obviously why T3 is a good thing as well). And while I understand that a lot went into the discussion from those involved, caution for new CSD is a pretty good idea.
- After thinking about it a lot I've come to this semi-conclusion: TfD and T3 itself isn't flawed, in respects to the concerns I brought up, but rather the thinking people have when coming to those discussions and evaluations. To help this I'll try to do a few things, such as either propose a guideline or essay, or propose a change to an existing one, pointing out the things to consider when evaluating template deletion. Then stimulate discussion and get exposure to that guideline or essay to spread awareness, maybe even a link in the TfD/T3 instructions, if the community approves. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Externalimagestest
It's no longer in use. Delete it as speedy as possible. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
{{Old template}}
Hi there. I've worked tonight on merging the best bits of our two CSD templates for T3, with the result now at {{db-t3}}
for consistency with other CSD templates. I've incorporated your time-based categorisation, although I changed the category to Category:Templates for speedy deletion and also populated it from the other CSD templates {{db-t1}}
and {{db-t2}}
, so it can serve as a central clearing house for template CSDs. Note that the combined template also requires the name of the template the page is judged to be a duplicate/instance of, so all your first batch of T3 nominations will be also categorised into Category:Templates for speedy deletion with incorrect formatting - that's not to worry, as they'll work through the process pretty quickly. I hope you like the combined template - let me know if you have any suggestions or criticisms. Happy‑melon 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about this - I completley forgot that that was in the old version I partially reverted to to restore the time-check coding. Happy‑melon 09:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deprecated templates
I don't know if it's asking for too much, but could you provide the template that has superceded an old one next time you tag a template for speedy deletion in this way? bibliomaniac15 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy templates
Ahh, can you please say why you think it should be deleted when you put on the tag? If you don't mind, please go through Special:Contributions/MZMcBride, and add the reason why to these templates. нмŵוτнτ 03:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that the template name must be given. If you have concerns about particular templates, I'm sure MZMcBride will be glad to discuss it. But in general we should assume good faith about these things. He could just delete them already, but he's trying to give people a chance to comment by tagging them for a week first. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- True... here's the deal. For some reason, they were showing up malformed on my screen (they seem to be working correctly now). All i saw was a malformed template without a reason... on a ton of templates. My thought? "AHHH! WHAT IS GOING ON!?" I didn't know what to think. Who knows, but they appear okay now. нмŵוτнτ 04:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Some modifications are being made to the live template at the moment, which has caused some breakage. Everything should be back to normal shortly. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can understand that confusion. It was because the template MZMcBride used was unsuccessfully merged with another template. I have edited the templates so that this problem should be fixed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh, okay. Before even looking who the user was, I just quickly commented on the talk page. I wasn't sure what was going on! From what I saw, I thought it was some crazy vandal stirring up who knows what. I was trying to do some damage control. Sorry if I seemed to be a little bit crazy. =) Glad it's all worked out now. нмŵוτнτ 04:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- True... here's the deal. For some reason, they were showing up malformed on my screen (they seem to be working correctly now). All i saw was a malformed template without a reason... on a ton of templates. My thought? "AHHH! WHAT IS GOING ON!?" I didn't know what to think. Who knows, but they appear okay now. нмŵוτнτ 04:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC): Thank you for the notification of speedy deletion of the Exalted template. There were (once) many more articles that made the template quite useful for navigation purposes, but all of those articles got deleted during one of my periods of absence from Wikipedia and I didn't feel like re-writing them all. As such, the template is no longer necessary for navigation and you won't have any arguments out of me for its deletion.
T3
Before I go any further, I do owe you an appology for my use of rollback last night. I am not of the opinion that it should be used soley against vandalism, but I do accept that it should never be used for potentially controversial edits, which mine clearly represented.
The fact remains, however, that we clearly have widely differing perceptions of exactly what has been created in WP:CSD#T3. I admit that when I first proposed T3, it had some of the qualities you seem to see in it, perhaps as a codification of WP:DOT, which I know you are involved with. But the final version, the one which gained consensus and the wording which is now at WP:CSD, does not. While I know you are tagging templates like {{000000}}
in good faith, my interpretation of T3 is that it simply does not justify this deletion, as there is simply no evidence that it genuinely is a duplication of, hardcoded instance of, or inferior alternative to, another existing template. I can find no template which could meet that criterion, and if there were, there are plenty of other examples from your tagging for which there is not. I do not believe there was a single template in the batch that SkierRMH deleted last night which I would have contested at TfD, or that would not have been applicable at DOT. But I also do not believe that most of these templates should have been deleted under T3, or that any more should be tagged which do not clearly meet the letter of CSD#T3.
I should also appologise for leaving the system in a bit of a mess last night due to an unexpected RL issue, but I'm not sure you would have preferred my original intention, which as you can probably see was to go through the templates you had tagged, analysing them against my interpretation of T3. For those where our interpretations agreed, I would have deleted them in the capacity of an admin; for those where they differed, my removal of the template represented a CSD contestation, an inter-user policy conflict. Nothing inherently controversial, and for which the userrights of the contestants are entirely irrelevant, except of course for my use of rollback, which rather made a mockery of that idea; so apologies once again. Apart from that, however, any editor has the right to contest a speedy deletion, with or without a rationale, either by using {{hangon}}
or by removing the template.
As an aside, I approve entirely of Carl's alteration to the two templates to permit the subsitution of |reason=
for the template name. I will continue to promote the use of the template parameter for the simple reason that it makes the nomination that much easier to administrate, but as long as the rationale is clear, it does not matter how it is presented.
So that is my position on the application of CSD#T3 - I feel very strongly that it was misapplied in many of the deletions that occured last night. A very pointy way of resolution would be to undelete/DRV all of them and list at TfD or DOT - I don't feel the need to cause so much disruption, since I would be effectively arguing only for a change to the deletion log. But we really must resolve our clear disagreement over what constitutes a valid CSD#T3 nomination if this is not to get out of hand. What is your position? Happy‑melon 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Another List of Supreme Court cases has been nominated for deletion
There is a discussion going on here. I though you might be interested in commenting due to your previous comment here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
FAlist
Hi, I speedied it. I can't remember why I created it now, but I don't think it was ever used much, if at all. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
more help with fixing images?
Hello again. I wonder if you might be willing to help the PBB effort again by making another set of systematic changes to PBB-uploaded images. An issue about the lack of a "source" was recently raised. I think an acceptable change was identified: example diff. Is this a change that you can easily make? (Note that in the added "Description" there is one field that would need to be parsed from the filename. But if that's too difficult, I think it'd be fine just to say "Gene expression pattern of human gene".) Let me know if you're willing/able! Thanks, AndrewGNF (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of various HD archive templates
Hi - I've removed the tags because those templates are substed widely. There is actually a note saying that on one of them, and the talk pages demonstrate it with a usage example using "subst:". Thanks, Martinp23 11:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm I was thinking the same thing - I was sort of hoping I just didn't know of some flashy noincluded template which could go on the main template page, as I suspect a few users might not (despite what we're told to do) look at the talk page first. Come to think of it - I'm sure I've seen such a template before... just no idea where to find it! :) Martinp23 19:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
deletion of user: User:A gx7
I don't get the CSD-U1 part. Also, could I please have a look at what was there? Thanks, — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thx — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind infinity) 21:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Hi li
No problem, it's OK for me. Croquant (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi; I just un-orphaned it; it was created during a flurry of activity before my wikibreak and was meant to coordinate a series of historical geograhpic region articles, ones that are not covered (but include) those on {{Subdivisions of British Columbia}} (which is not just about regions but also cities, more pointedly does not include all regions only major ones today...). There are some internal tweaks needed in the templates because of hidden article names (e.g. Cariboo Country and Chilcotin Country are "Cariboo District" and "Chilcotin District" because of titling issues; but in the parlance of the set of geographic regions "Country" is the usual appelation, hence their use in the template for "semantic harmony". Anyway, please un-s.d. the page; it's no longer a red-headed stepchild...Skookum1 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:X10
A tag has been placed on Template:X10 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand deleting unused fair use images, but why delete perfectly good templates just because they aren't in use?--Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is a terrible argument. If every version of a page ever is kept indefinitely, so should all perfectly good templates. The only reason to delete a template is to make way for a new one, and if one is deleted a new one will have to be created if someone comes along looking for that one. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you do not wish to discuss this with me here, I have brought up my concerns here.--Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- You really are the model administrator. In addition I have posted my question here, if you choose to respond there. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you do not wish to discuss this with me here, I have brought up my concerns here.--Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Template deletions
Hi. I created quite a few congressional delegation templates. They didn't work out as I anticipated. You don't need to alert me for the deletion of each one. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Template
Hmm....What's the replacement for the template? --HappyCamper 04:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The Game (game)
Hi, could you consider removing protection of The Game (game). Two published sources now exist. I have written a prototype article at Talk:The_Game#The_Game_.28game.29_2 based entirely on the references (links included). I don't have an account so if you want to communicate with me could you please respond to my prototype article on The Game talk page. Thanks. 202.62.97.105 (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the speedy deletion notice on the language userbox. I strongly suggest you take the WP:TFD process if you must. I also would like to remind you that language userboxes are in common usage so I feel their deletion seems unlikely. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 17:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I made it in Wikipedia for Wiktionary... I'm sorry for bothering you. --Izumi5 (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:JRC
Ah, you've found a project of mine that I've forgotten about. I made this template and forgot to put it on the pages where it belongs, hence it had no links. I've corrected that oversight and I think you'll agree there's no need for deletion now. Accordingly I'm removing the speedy delete notice. Let me know if this is a problem, or if it's bad procedure .... ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Corey Worthington
Hi, I've seen that you've deleted this article again with the summary linking to WP:BLPUNDEL. However, you didn't explain anywhere what you thought was so serious as to justify this deletion. I'd appreciate an explanation of what prompted this logic given that there was a DRV which had allowed recreation and an ongoing AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Replied here. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, first, the individual in question is 16 which is the relevant age of maturity for most purposes. He has continued to engage in long-term self-promotion which is apparently at his parents approval (if we want to start deleting all articles about child actors then go ahead). The decision made by Trialanderrors was that the DRV did favor reAfDing, an AfD which was ongoing at the time of your deletion. If our people are "speaking poorly" about him using sources then that it is a reason to remind them about BLP and if necessary to refactor their remarks, not to shortcircuit all discussion. Can you explain to me a compelling reason why I should not take this over to DRV? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm going to think this over a bit before I consider deleting it. But well sourced insults aren't by themselves reason to delete (although I'd be inclined to think that if I were writing the article I'd simply say that he was subject to a variety of insults and then include the citations). Furthermore, for many relevant purposes in the US also 16 is the age of responsibility. Generally at 16 one is responsible for ones actions. In any event, I'm not convinced that a DRV should occur at this point. The main reason for my doubt is that looking at the AfD it isn't clear that the article would have been kept. I'll think about this for a bit and then let you know. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- In Australia, 18 is the age of majority - one cannot sign contracts or enter legal agreements without parental or guardian permission, and one also cannot drink, smoke, vote or watch R-rated movies until 18. One can drive a car at 17, and have sex at 16 (in most states - 18 is still the age for some activities in a few and I believe it's 17 for all activities in South Australia and Tasmania). Orderinchaos 05:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the issue's not being taken (back) to DRV should not be understood as an endorsement of the process undertaken here, which I, like Joshua, think to be profoundly flawed; I, for one, will not take the issue to DRV because, as Joshua notes, it is quite likely that the AfD would have resulted in the article's deletion (of course, it appears that the community might, at AN, sanction a reopening of the AfD/the opening of a new AfD, and so whatever discussion the community has been obliged to have about the deletion during an AfD which, even were it wrongly begun, was proceeding well, might have been avoided had one simply permitted the AfD to reach its conclusion), and my love for process does not extend unreasonably. Joe 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm going to think this over a bit before I consider deleting it. But well sourced insults aren't by themselves reason to delete (although I'd be inclined to think that if I were writing the article I'd simply say that he was subject to a variety of insults and then include the citations). Furthermore, for many relevant purposes in the US also 16 is the age of responsibility. Generally at 16 one is responsible for ones actions. In any event, I'm not convinced that a DRV should occur at this point. The main reason for my doubt is that looking at the AfD it isn't clear that the article would have been kept. I'll think about this for a bit and then let you know. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd endorse this deletion. There was clearly no consesus in the initial DRV to recreate the article and the admin there seems to have made a mistake. The BLP concerns are legitimate, especially given the limited nature of the boy's notability. This article has now been deleted several times and every time it's been clear that the boy doesn't pass the standards set at WP:BLP. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, first, the individual in question is 16 which is the relevant age of maturity for most purposes. He has continued to engage in long-term self-promotion which is apparently at his parents approval (if we want to start deleting all articles about child actors then go ahead). The decision made by Trialanderrors was that the DRV did favor reAfDing, an AfD which was ongoing at the time of your deletion. If our people are "speaking poorly" about him using sources then that it is a reason to remind them about BLP and if necessary to refactor their remarks, not to shortcircuit all discussion. Can you explain to me a compelling reason why I should not take this over to DRV? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done, a brave (and correct) decision and a much needed one. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firmly in agreement. Sanity prevails. Orderinchaos 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
One Event is no longer a relevant argument for this. Neither is not notable. Underage has never been. May I humbly suggest that you read some of the article about this guy before making this sort of abitary decision. Here is a list that would be a good start. Fosnez (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As a former closer of a DRV involving the subject (closed as kept deleted), I have to say that I am profoundly disturbed by your out-of-process deletion and your fingers-in-the-ears mentality to significant new evidence. The comments by trialsanderrors on his talk page sum up the issues better than I can, but I agree completely with his closure to undelete and his justification for doing so. I urge you to promptly reverse your action and allow the community to decide on if the subject is notable. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Trialsanderrors. To keep discussion in one place, it's a good idea to answer only here.
I'm not exactly sure what part of WP:BLPUNDEL you used to interrupt the ongoing discussion. Before I referred the new article to AfD I made sure that 1. we cannot speak of a biography that was written against the wishes of the subject, and 2. it does not distort the series of events in a way that could be considered harmful to the subject. I'm quite positive that the subject would agree with the depiction and with having an article on himself on Wikipedia. As such, the locus of the discussion is not the core of BLP (the "No harm" provision), but the question of whether the subject is known for mainly one event, or the ongoing media coverage constitutes a case of non-fleeting notability, which is a part of WP:NOT#NEWS. The WP:BLP1E provision in itself is not a deletion guideline. I considered my decision to relist uncontroversial, or otherwise I would have added a rationale. To summarize: 1. Under the "old way" (which I no longer use), a more than 50% reasoned majority for overturning results in relisting the article at the appropriate content forum. 2. Per WP:CSD, speedy deletion is a tool used for uncontroversial deletion, not a tool to forestall discussion oncontroversial topics. This is unambiguous, and far too many admins--yourself included--consider themselves above the law on this. As a G4 deletion, the threshold of overturning is therefore much lower. 3. In considering the arguments in the discussion, I found a few "overturn" but many more "endorse" opiners did not try to familiarize themselves with the issue under discussion at DRV (whether the newly created article does not remedy the issue that lead to deletion before), and used the DRV to offer their opinion on Worthington's notability. This is a question for the content forum to answer, and the main issue under discussion at DRV, that the new article offered substantial new evidence that ongoing coverage moves the subject out of WP:NOT#NEWS, was not refuted. As such the decision to relist was clear and in my opinion uncontroversial. I made hundreds of referrals like this before. I also see no meaningful discussion about my decision here or in the AfD (two opiners weighed in with opposing opinions), so again I see WP:AN as the forum that generates controversy. In summary, I have no opinion whether there should be an article on this person or not (or I would have weighed in as editor), but I have strong opinions on the role of DRV as a decision making forum and the role of community consensus as the ultimate arbiter on community decisions, and I experience more and more aggression on the side of admins who consider their admin tools as weapons to push through their editorial opinions over community opposition. As such I see no communal or policy basis for your action and I expect you to revert it and let the community discussion take its course. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- IronGargoyle, Trialsanderrors: You mean there were 2 DRV's already? I guess that means that this discussion has been caught in a slow loop, and you do need to break out of the loop one way or the other. This is one of those times that Ignore all rules applies. It would probably be more harmful/wasteful to wikipedia to continue the loop than it is to simply stop it for now. To prevent making a long term error, might I suggest we revisit this debate in a number of months (6-12 months sounds good), and see if things are still notable then. Is that a decent compromise? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- To Trialsanderrors:
- I've responded to some of these questions before, so I may copy and paste a bit. "No harm" takes on an entirely different meaning when you're dealing with someone who's sixteen versus a full adult. In the version of the article I deleted, he was described as "a "moron,"[10] and a "brat."[2]". I don't care if there are 1000 citations for those statements, as simplistic as this sounds, it's simply not nice to call people names.
- Under one of ArbCom's ruling, an administrator may delete an article "that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the [ WP:BLP ]". I acted under that ruling. People have taken to using sources to speak poorly of the individual. That is simply unacceptable to me. I acted in good faith to what I saw was a violation of the spirit of WP:BLP. Many have, and will, disagree with my decision; however, there doesn't seem to be what ArbCom described as "clear consensus" to restore the article when it was deleted originally. As such, I've taken the highly unusual measure to delete the article immediately.
- On a more personal note, I've been expecting you to pop up on my talk page, and I sincerely apologize that we must meet under such... gruff circumstances. From my contribs and logs it's plain to see that I rarely step into DRV and XfD discussions. So, when I do, I only do so under special circumstances. I'm not trying to use my admin tools as a weapon -- that's simply unfair.
- As I told JoshuaZ, you're more than welcome to open a DRV of my decision, in fact, it's the course ArbCom suggests would be most appropriate in this case. However, my decision stands; I will not be undeleting the article or un-closing the AfD, and I humbly urge you to do the same. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- A new DRV might be disruptive. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I told JoshuaZ, you're more than welcome to open a DRV of my decision, in fact, it's the course ArbCom suggests would be most appropriate in this case. However, my decision stands; I will not be undeleting the article or un-closing the AfD, and I humbly urge you to do the same. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your BLP ruling, as Wikipedia is not censored and everything in that article was sourced by legitimate news sources, and I would argue was very fair, but I'm not going to fight it again. --AW (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if you don't think "moron" or "brat" should be in the article, take them out, don't delete the page. But again, they were in a news article, they were sourced, and this kid generated strong reactions for and against him, much like these AFDS. To me, that's part of the reason why he's notable, that so many people had such strong reactions. --AW (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Note that wikipedia will still be around in another 6 months. Would it be fair to re-evaluate the situation at that point in time? Then we'll know if this person is indeed still notable at that time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm willing to wait, but I bet if it does get created in six months, folks will say "geez! Not this again! We already deleted this twice! Speedy it!" --AW (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've re listed this at DRV as I completely disagree with deletion. I don't see a thing that violated BLP in this article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- How is anyone helped by this approach? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- What other medium do I have? As happens with a great many other topics here, I see no consensus that the article is a BLP violation. I see a number of people here disagreeing with that assertion. Discussion of the issue is necessary. But since it was closed out of hand, I guess this is another instance of "we're doing this because we want to, no go away." Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've re listed this at DRV as I completely disagree with deletion. I don't see a thing that violated BLP in this article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm willing to wait, but I bet if it does get created in six months, folks will say "geez! Not this again! We already deleted this twice! Speedy it!" --AW (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Note that wikipedia will still be around in another 6 months. Would it be fair to re-evaluate the situation at that point in time? Then we'll know if this person is indeed still notable at that time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
lows
why did you mark {{lows}} for speedy deletion? Is there another template that serves the purpose? :D\=< (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
DirecTV channel template
Hey, thanks for the heads up! You can delete the template. --Son (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
MZbride,
YOu templated my template as being orphaned. The links below the template show that it's not orphaned, but in fact is being used and was being used. I removed your template as it was in error. Just a heads up ! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Mid Cheshire Media
Please delete - AFAIK it's not used any more. Thanks. Salinae (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Template deletion
thx for letting me know about these - I've deleted both! You're the man for tracking all these down --Trödel 22:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit
Was that you that just edited my page logged out? -- Ned Scott 06:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Colloquy.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Colloquy.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Mozart Operas wide
I'd forgotten all about this. It formed part of an experiment to discover what the best format and location for navboxes containing operas by individual composers might be ... and the consensus was for a narrow box placed up at the top rather than a wide box (such as this) placed at the bottom. Delete it as speedily as you can! Best --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
User talk deletion
Did you intend to delete most of User talk:Rfc1394 in your recent edits? I was waiting for a response to a question I had left there, and I noticed that you had deleted it.
Regards,
--JKeene (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Speedy deletion of Template:Malaysian collaboration nominee
I think this template can still be useful. It is a project related template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Malaysia/Collaboration. In practice members would place this template at the talk page of nominated articles (I have used it on several occasions). But sometimes we dont (sometimes due to laziness). So since its serves a sufficiently useful purpose, deleting it would seem to be useless as there is potential that the template will be created again when the project becomes more active. So i will remove the csd template ok. But what is the meaning of putting this: <noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>. Im blur on this part. Thanks. kawaputratorque 04:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Major styles of aikido
I had forgotten all about that. It seems to have been superseded, so by all means remove it. -- Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Municipalities and Towns of Maramureş County
Thanks for the message. It is Ok to delete this template, I replaced it with Template:Maramureş County. --R O A M A T A A | msg 13:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
hi. is there a reason that this page has been protected? I am completely baffled as to why this may be so.
--Kızılderili (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
according to the log, you are the person who requested protection. Kızılderili (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
well shit. they've gone inactive. is there any other way to get it unprotected, so i can recreate the article? Kızılderili (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:GeoTemplate
That template is somehow used by Template:Coord. I'll suggest a label be added. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't bothered figuring out how the software is wired up, but it's not used directly in articles. Click on any {{coord}} latitude and longitude text (such as in the upper right corner of Charlotte, North Carolina) and you'll see the GeoHack server is using GeoTemplate. Yeah, it's weird enough that it should have been labeled earlier. At least it's not one of those traps which gets one blocked when you fall in it. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message - it was created to help out a newbie. I'll save you the seven days and {{db-author}} it. Regards. GBT/C 07:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).
Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Gunpowder plotimage
I'd like to fix it but not sure of how to .... so until I find soneone with the expertise then happy that it is deleted. Victuallers (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Apologies for the cross-post - I originally posted this on User talk:Firsfron, who I think was the original admin who protected this article. If I'm reading this protected page's protection log right, you merely updated the method used to protect it, but it looks like Firsfron hasn't been on wikipedia for a while so I thought I should bring my request to you instead. I wondered if the page could be unprotected, because I think a non copy-vio version could be added.
I don't know if it matters, but the organisation's website T&Cs state:
- "The content of the websites may be downloaded, printed out, copied and distributed in whole, or in part, for non-commercial purposes without the prior written permission of BSHF, provided that the material is reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context."
which I think means that a description could legitimately be pulled off their website. If not, then I'm sure at least a somewhat useful stub entry could be put together describing the organisation:
- The Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF) is an independent housing research charity, with work that covers a broad range of issues around housing. It has recently released reports on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and refugee housing. Previous work of the Foundation have also included work on community land trusts [7] and bringing empty homes back into use.
- BSHF runs the World Habitat Awards which are awarded each year at a United Nations event for World Habitat Day. In 2006 it was granted Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.
Thanks, 217.46.192.153 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Talk to the admin who deleted the article or take the article to Deletion review. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I removed the speedy deletion tag from Template:Missile specifications as I believe it is used through substitution. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Urgh
Dude, RTFM. :-P —Animum (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Speedy deletion of Template:VaBeachInfoBox
Have at it! That thing should've been deleted AGES ago! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:OldCopyrightProblems
A tag has been placed on Template:OldCopyrightProblems requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:OPbN Entry
Template:OPbN Entry's title and edit summary smell of my losing an edit by not noticing i'd mistyped the title. In any case, what it supported is dead. Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you opposing deletion?--Docg 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
ah to many
all your deletion logs are showing up on recent edits, not that I have a problem with that, I'm just wondering who are all of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pewwer42 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a problem, I just started wondering --Pewwer42 Talk 08:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)(so we meet again o fabled signbot)
Beware of Bot | This user is followed by SineBot |
??
A question of curiosity. I saw the deletion log and stumbled. You are deleting soooo many pages with csd u2. Can you please tell me what is this going on. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- What are you doing? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Will you please answer what are you doing? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Many pages are awaiting for CSD. Can you delete them. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume those are tagged "indef blocked user" or maybe something about AOL. The real issue is that he has been flooding recent changes for hours so it's hard to filter through recent changes. I went through his logs and he is deleted over 9000 pages. I think he's not answering because he left a bot run while he's sleeping. William Ortiz (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Main Page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
The assembly of Kosovo unilaterally declares independence, a move opposed by Serbia and Russia but supported by many western governments
Just 5 countries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by US - Jimmy Slade (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template talk:Gaeilge
I've replied on that talk page to your proposal for the speedy deletion of {{Gaeilge}}. --sony-youthpléigh 15:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks. --sony-youthpléigh 22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Main Page editing
Regarding this edit, bypassing redirects is not something that is generally done, per this guideline. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Unprotection request for Ray Foley
I believe you were the admin who protected the article for Ray Foley following repeated re-insertion of previously deleted material. As Ray Foley is most definitely now notable, having won Best National DJ at the Meteor Ireland Music Awards (the Irish equivalent to the Grammys!!), I would ask you to remove protection. Also, would you know if anyone has the original article, which was deleted, and if so, how would I go about getting it to enable me to recreate the article (with some sources/references, Etc, obviously). Thanks, --The.Q(t)(c) 12:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Unprotection request for Chapel of Sacred Mirrors
Could you please unprotect Chapel of Sacred Mirrors, I would like to start an article on it. Could you also please tell me why it is protected? Kind regards, Jason7825 (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
United States Army template
Thanks, honestly I forgot about it. I intend to begin using it immediately.--Kumioko (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Speedy deletion Template:US-LA-counties
No objection, given it's now replicated in Template:Louisiana. Tompw (talk) (review) 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:User:Bluedenim/Portuguese Empire
Hi MZMcBride
I created that template in my first days here on wikipedia. First i created a userbox just after my username, and then, when i was going to put it in one of those lists of userboxes, to be available to everyone, i couldn't. So i thought i had to created it as a template. But that wasn't the problem, it was i who cound't put it right on the list. Now i figured all out, and i forgot about it, and there are still more two or three like that one about other topics, unnecessary. It is not needed so it can be deleted at anytime. I'll try to find them and put them to deletion too. I'm sorry for your extra work.
Happy editing --Bluedenimtalk 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Shifted Kenseth template to transclusionless
I shifted the Matt Kenseth to transclusionless because I had moved it last ear as part of the userbox migration. Something must have gotten lost in the tranclusion because all of the other users who have this template doesn't show up in the links for some strange reasons. It also has a category which includes about a dozen users. Thanks for the catch though. Chris (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct. It is fixed. I reverted back to the speedy delete. Sorry about that. Chris (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:User Delica
Hi! Thanks for the notice on the speedy deletion tag. I created the tag, and its no longer used anywhere (apart from hard code on my user page, as are all my userboxes to avoid categories). Please delete ASAP, there's no need to wait for 7 days or reply to this message. :0) Richard Harvey (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
RE Template:User David Cameron
I've moved it to my own userspace (and deleted the redirect). WaltonOne 09:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Grebe header
Hi MZ: Thanks for removing that template (or at least scheduling it for removal). It's been replaced by one using the scientific name of the family, and I forgot to ask that that one be deleted. Thanks for cleaning up after me! : ) MeegsC | Talk 09:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Template
I meant to delete that a while ago. Thanks for reminding me. Regards, Rudget. 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:User crh
It is an ordinary Babel template, why do we need to delete it?! Don Alessandro (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
CSD T3
(*after edit conflict*)
Hi, MZM! Please note that per CSD T3 templates must both not be employed in any useful fashion and substantially duplicate another template. Your CSD nominations such as this one only cover the first part—you did not indicate which other template this one substantially duplicates. Templates need to meet the requirements of both parts for the CSD nomination to be valid. I'd appreciate it if you looked into this, as I see you are working on purging the templates. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, although it didn't answer my question of why you don't make sure that all CSD requirements are met before starting to actually tag things...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure MZMcBride will comment later, but I wanted to point out that there is no requirement to explicitly indicate which template is being duplicated. In this case, templates such as Template:User blank-0 could be used for the task. As always, if you think a nomination is incorrect, you can remove the speedy deletion tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to suggest that you don't do your checking; I apologize if that's how it sounded to you. My message was prompted by two such templates showing up in my watchlist in the matter of minutes; both were tagged by you. As for my suggestion regarding mentioning which templates has superceded the one tagged, that was based strictly on how CSD T3 reads—if you, the nominator, do not list which template is being superceded, then how the rest of the users are supposed to know? Since you stated above that you do make sure that all requirements are met before doing the actual tagging, then why not add this information to the tag? You'll be the first one to benefit from the reduced number of inquiries... Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:G-d
I have removed the speedly deletion tag and added the transclusionless tag you suggest.
It is impossible to tell whether anyone is actually using this template by typing {{subst:G-d}} instead of God to edit Wikipedia. Not being subject to such scruples, I could not tell you if using this template would be more acceptable, but a quick scan around shows that there are many Orthodox Wikipedians who use G-d on talk pages at least. NTK (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Template speedy deletions
You really don't need to notify me like that. If it needs to go, just speedy delete them :). -- Cat chi? 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are you nominating every orphaned template for speedy deletion? If so why? -- Cat chi? 23:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seemingly that would be "yes" and "that's a very good question", respectively. In the cause of "cleaning up old data" we're creating further "data" in the form of an equal number of talk-page discussion, and absorbing large amounts of people's time. Not much time per person, granted, but integrated over the whole wiki, a good chunk. Here, "speedy" is a complete misnomer; the not-very-lightweight process involved is really much more in the style of a highly speculative "prod", which really just serves to remove the requirement for any actual deletion rationale beyond "it's orphaned, so hey, maybe it might also be 'deprecated'". Alai (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm tagging templates that seem to no longer be of value to the project. There's no real need to keep old templates around; in fact, a lot of them seem to be test templates or templates from when users were new and unknowing. I'm (trying) to avoid templates that are substituted or are part of a larger series. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- What purpose does it serve to seek them out and get them deleted? Deleting them wastes more server resources and admin time. So I would recommend leaving them alone as they do get deleted (slowly) over time. Instead of tagging them one by one, how about compiling a list and let people process that. This would save you time as well. -- Cat chi? 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have a list; as you can see from my contributions, I do letters of the alphabet at a time. Some of the templates I've been tagging are years old. And, I don't mind the work, and I usually end up deleting the templates myself when seven days has elapsed (no admin time wasted). Also, I try not to waste server resources as much as possible (one small step: not using an annoying image alongside my user notifications). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unless there is a problem with the templates, 'deleting' them does cause problems. For example you generate an extra log that wastes server hard drive space. Of course the amount of waste is trivial at best. I really think you should leave the matter to its natural course. We have greater backlog on copyrighted images with possible legal implications. -- Cat chi? 13:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have a list; as you can see from my contributions, I do letters of the alphabet at a time. Some of the templates I've been tagging are years old. And, I don't mind the work, and I usually end up deleting the templates myself when seven days has elapsed (no admin time wasted). Also, I try not to waste server resources as much as possible (one small step: not using an annoying image alongside my user notifications). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oop, forgot one thing. The script I use automatically notifies the original creator of the template that is being tagged. I don't check who it is, and unfortunately, getting a list of pages that a user was the creator of isn't particularly easy to do. So, unfortunately, you may get a few more messages. I apologize for any inconvenience. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would probably get hundreds of messages. If you take a look at my talk page, it has been dominated bu bot talk and that does become inconvenient over time. "You have got a message" pops up and it turns out to be a bot... -- Cat chi? 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the key difference with image deletions is that there's an established effort to clean up or delete images that are "improperly" tagged. Sometimes a heavy-handed one, but one there's a fairly clear rationale for at bottom. However, "it's not transcluded and maybe no-one will object" is a much more marginal proposition. I've no objection to informing editors, and indeed I agree that it's on a balance a good, and indeed the considerate thing to do. I'm not objecting that I've personally been greatly inconvenienced, but I do think it looks to be a somewhat cumbersome and over-engineered process. And judging by results and edit rate, it's not especially discriminating, either. However, I thank you for your considerate message -- I should probably have been able to manage a less grumpy tone myself in the first instance. Alai (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear about either the rationale for deletion about the technicalities of templates. But I've fixed up the template Template:User degree/BEc and added the note you suggestedJQ (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:User PADIDIVEMASTER
Same criteria applies as:- Template:User Delica , above. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:User arn
Hi MZMcBride. I have removed the speedly deletion tag on Template:User arn because this not encyclopedic template, part of Wikipedia:Babel Language user templates; and cover only the first criteria of CSD T3. --Zuirdj (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:User WP UB Member
Go ahead and delete it...fine by me. --Son (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the tag from this template. It is substituted as part of the Bot approvals process at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved. WjBscribe 22:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Template
Thanks for the note. I have redirected it to what it was superceded by. Simply south (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Brake Fluid
Yeah, go ahead and cut that one. It was orphaned by me and unfinished. Adam850 (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
See my contributions My job is Interlanguage links.
Template:Baseball Year can not adding ja:template:by because Template:Baseball Year protect. so I made Template:Baseball Year/doc. but I cannot adding template:Documentation for Template:Baseball Year.
My English may be inappropriate, because I am a Japanese. If you discover a mistake, I want you to correct it.. --Kanesue (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy: Template:Breakdancing moves
I agree the template should be speedily deleted; it has been replaced by Template:Breakdance for quite some time. -- Draeco (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Krimpet unblock
Per the ANI discussion - sounds like my bad, and I agree that your unblock was appropriate. Thanks for reviewing it! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Templates
You overwhelm me with your tagging of templates for speedy, I swear I have deleted at least 70 templates you have tagged in the last couple days, I just wanted to say that every time I see a bunch of templates over at Category:CSD I know you are active ;-) Keep up the good work! – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Protection
Is there any good reason why you've protected Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question from being created? — EliasAlucard / Discussion 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Andre Nickatina
Hello. Why have you protected the "Andre Nickatina" page? Just wondering.
(SebastianGS (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC))
"Speedy deletion of Template:XXX"
Hey, fix the code for the message you leave - it messes up with some of discusion pages, mine at least. What's the point of this "(<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>)." in your messages anyway? And use the "Show preview" button next time, will ya? -- Boris (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
MfD
you know the one you closed? the guy who created it is now trolling and forcing a link to the MfD at the top of WP:AN/ care to clean up? βcommand 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)