Jump to content

Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2015

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Meta:Requests for deletion | Archives
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Matiia in topic Pages

Deleted

Pages

Latest comment: 8 years ago48 comments25 people in discussion

Pages created by User:Naresh Krishna Raja

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result is: All deleted. — Revi 13:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This user and their sockpuppets User:Naresh Rajad and User:Sri Krishna Raja have made vanispamcruftisement pages on dozens of WMF wikis but have never made a single constructive edit to any of them, so their user pages have no value to the project. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, they are not globally locked, so they are still definitely allowed to have a userpage... (not saying that we delete the pages of locked users automatically, but still...) --Rschen7754 04:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the template as being out of scope. The others are cruft, and of little value. We could keep them and not fuss, or we can delete them and not fuss.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
For the closing admin the delete and not fuss variant might be simpler… –Be..anyone (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Module:Subpages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result is: deleted, as no usage, and per nominator. — Revi 13:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing uses this, and the software update rolling out this week breaks it, so nothing can use it in the future anyway. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Draft PEG request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result is: deleted by MA. — Revi 10:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/WM_EE/Lobbying_for_Freedom_of_Panorama. This project was approved as part of an existing grant. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@AWang (WMF): You can use {{delete|Reasons}} for requesting speedy deletions. So, this page is no longer needed? Best, -- M\A 10:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi M. Thanks for the tip. Yes, this page is no longer needed. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted :-) -- M\A 17:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

私が管理者にならない100の理由

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I believe this document written in Japanese is just joke and not appropriate even as an essay, should be deleted. The title means "The reason why I decline sysop nomination", but the problem here is in the content of the page, not in the subject. There are no links to this document. --Penn Station (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think a speedy would probably be ok for this, and the time period for an RFD has passed so deleted, thanks. Thehelpfulone 00:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Grants:PEG/Test_/_Test

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a test draft proposal and is no longer needed. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. Hi Alex. Please use {{delete|Reasons here}} next time. —MarcoAurelio 18:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi MarcoAurelio. Thanks for the tip!. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome :-) —MarcoAurelio 22:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Grants:PEG/Rberchie/WikiNeedsGirls

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The same grant request was funded through the Inspire Campaign. This is a duplicate. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete. See above. —MarcoAurelio 18:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Grants:IdeaLab/participating of women in female page is antecedent to men....

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Keep: I don't see any consensus to delete the page. — regards, Revi 08:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's barely comprehensible. It doesn't seem to make any practical, clear suggestions at all. GKFX (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete? As far as I can understand, it says that women should be allowed to edit before men on the wikis, and that'll cause a psychological mechanism that'll make more women edit. Yeah, I don't get it either. Origamite (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep at least until the end of the campaign when we can be certain it is abandoned. The user on another wikis has made it know that they need help copy editing when they write in English. Talk page comments were harsh and might have made the editor leave for now. Hopefully with encouragement they will return and we can help them get their idea written down. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
After talking with User:Mehdi ghaed by email about the idea, we decided to change the name to Grants:IdeaLab/Acknowledge women's expertise to better express the idea. We also made the wording for the solution more clear. At this point I can see no justification to delete. Sydney Poore/FloNight 21:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete, one non-eligible steward vote and one incomprehensible grant page aren't promising. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment I appreciate the vigilance that the meta community has had in handling deletion of joke and bad-faith ideas in this campaign - so important! But, although we may not yet understand this one, to me it looks more like a good faith idea from a contributor who may lack strong English skills, but was bold enough to try to start getting thoughts down anyway. IdeaLab generally encourages trying to help improve these kinds of contributions rather than shutting them down right away. Siko (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Above+below, if you'd simply write "keep" instead of "comment" the "no consensus to delete" would be more obvious.:tongue: –Be..anyone (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Yes, I would also request that the Meta community allow this idea to stand. There have been plenty of short stub ideas submitted to the IdeaLab, during the current campaign and antecedent to it: this one actually contains more information than many. And since Idea creators don't own IdeaLab ideas, there is always opportunity for others to continue to develop the content that's in place now, according to their own understanding of the proposal. Best, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect but the page in question is Grants:IdeaLab/Acknowledge women's expertise. — regards, Revi 08:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia maintenance tasks

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. —MarcoAurelio 22:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A nine year old page consisting of three links, two dead, an no explanation of what it might be for. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Meta:Orphaned articles & Co.

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Old looking-useless 2003 stuff with no historical relevance IMHO. —MarcoAurelio 18:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC). Addendum: these pages can now be found on the Special: namespace, automatically updated. —MarcoAurelio 18:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Grants:PEG/WUG-CN/Chinese Wikipedia Education Program and Grants:PEG/WM ID/ESEA Meetup 2015

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Since those page will not be open anymore, I request delete them. Thank you.--Liang(WMTW) (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Elitre_(WMF)/Sandbox2

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. --Base (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please delete unneeded sandbox:

By user approval - request, reply --Kaganer (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edited, since I'd like to keep one of those. TY. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Though I am yet to hone the skill of deleting translatable pages. --Base (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Th.wikinews pages

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Syum90 (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please delete unneeded draft pages:

Website th.wikinews.org was created in December 2005‎ and closed in 2011. See discussion. But all content was moved into this site, and no sense to keep these drafts created in 2005. --Kaganer (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Old pages related with some sr-wp mass content adding

A page about the event on Wikipedia 15

The following discussion is closed: Done. Matiia (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia 15/Events/Sri Lanka is probably copied from Wikipedia 15/Events/Colombo, Sri Lanka. So it may violate CC-BY-SA. Therefore, please delete the article Wikipedia 15/Events/Sri Lanka.--Psjk2106 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Templates

Latest comment: 8 years ago19 comments11 people in discussion

Template:T user 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result is: deleted. — Revi 13:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Old, unused template, not much use that I can see either. See Template talk:T user 1 also. -- M\A 23:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Template:T user 1 is really obsolete. Just in case, be careful with Patrick's old templates, some were (or still are) used to illustrate esoteric Wiki-markup features on pages in the help namespace (+ old i18n help namespaces.) IOW, always check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:T user 1 (example). –Be..anyone (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, can be deleted. - Patrick (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Template:Steward requests/Page importation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Deleted. Just poke if/when it has be restored. Trijnsteltalk 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Unused template. @Brackenheim: --Glaisher (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The page can be deleted. Perhaps it will be used again, when the SUL finalisation is over and there is a global import-right (similar to the global rename-right). Kind regards, --Brackenheim (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Break templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No longer useful due to the deployment of HSTS.--GZWDer (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

no usage, delete it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.' —MarcoAurelio 10:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Template:Fair use rationale + Template:Fair use rationale/doc

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Syum90 (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This template suggests that files may be hosted in violation of policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Unfree bid media

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Syum90 (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This template suggests that files may be hosted in violation of policy. Currently unused because all files using the template were deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Permission

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Syum90 (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Invalid copyright tag, see WM:DP#Images, point 1. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Category:Weekly IRC meetings

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. —MarcoAurelio 17:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the title is too vague, and this seems to be a duplicate of Category:Communication Projects Group - Meetings anyway. I propose to merge this category into the latter. Perhaps a redirect should be left? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

After seeing it's content, I think it's a duplicate, I think it's should be merged.--AldNonymousBicara? 07:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
you shoukd leave the redirect.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I've recategorized the pages in Weekly IRC meetings to the Communication Projects Group - Meetings category but I don't think there's a need to leave the redirect. The title is too generic and Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Weekly_IRC_meetings has nothing except this page. IMO, we can just delete the category page. --Glaisher (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:User Ar

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Let's hope the extension is fixed. —MarcoAurelio 18:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice there are a lot of empty language categories like Category:User Ar. Most were created by Babel AutoCreate around January 2014. The category is currently empty as are a lot of others. Do we need these? IMO we don't really need these categories unless someone is actually claiming that language. Reguyla (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as unused duplicate of Category:User ar. And I think all other old, unused language categories should be deleted, especially when the language code is capitalised (because it shouldn't be). PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    The #babel: extension is rather braindead since January, 2014, when it started to be case-insensitive, happily creating a mess on Commons out of BG (bitmaps graphics editor, a user ability) and bg (Bulgarian, a user language), and a few similar sets, forcing a revert to the old Template:Babel system for affected users.
    Meanwhile I created bitmap-1 + 2 for the BG-1 + 2 issue, but the #babel: extension output is still far too ugly, Meta is the only place where it actually works and looks nice. Sadly with a red link on global user pages on almost all other projects. Summary: Make sure that you actually kill the correct set of empty categories, otherwise this thingy automatically creates its own cruft again. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    Because of this 1.8.2 2014-01-05 Case insensitive, breaking some user templates. mw:Extension:Babel#Releases?--AldNonymousBicara? 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 8 years ago86 comments24 people in discussion

File:Blackwiki.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deleted; per consensus. ~ Nahid Talk 04:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of scope IMHO and unused. -- M\A 17:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. --MF-W 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Barbara_wmf.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Copied from foundationwiki, where...:

  • 19:55, 6 September 2008 Sean Whitton (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Barbara wmf.jpg (Former employee, no need to have this, removing to avoid any potential problems with keeping it.).

Unused image, unlinked. Perhaps not even worth of transferring to commons so requesting deletion. -- M\A 18:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete. --MF-W 00:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete, does not more exist at the source with the reason quoted above. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus to delete, minimum time frame has passed. Thehelpfulone 00:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Merthyr Tydfil town centre granite bench.jpeg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
deleted, out of scope

This is an unlicensed and unused image that does not appear to fit into the scope of Meta. It can't be moved to Commons because it is unfree, and it can't be moved to a Wikipedia because it won't fit some non-free criteria. Green Giant (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion request should do the trick soon… –Be..anyone (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Aye, I'd have tagged it for speedy deletion but I didn't think it fitted any of the criteria. Green Giant (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Stop hand.svg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Local copy of c:File:Stop hand.svg. Was imported here because we used it on local interface. That's no longer the case except on two old CN banners from 2011 which are no longer in use and can be deleted as well. I propose to delete this file and let the commons file work here instead. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 14:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

All files in Category:Unfree Wikimania bid media files

The following discussion is on hold: until an EDP is discussed and set up Trijnsteltalk 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations. Meta-Wiki does not allow unfree content. Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and the result of a previous request for deletion on fair use files. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't they just be speedily deleted per WM:CSD#G5 or WM:CSD#I1? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
If not, just delete them. Files like this shouldn't be on Meta, as the project doesn't have an EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
What's an EDP? Is it like an NDA or more like BBQ? Kaldari (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
An exemption doctrine policy QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC) .
  • I've come to discussion because one of the files I uploaded as part of WM2013's bid is being nominated for deletion. My first point would be that this deletion request is effectively trying to overturn a convention which has been on Meta for years - working documents of Wikimedia events, which don't fit Commons' licensing criteria, are uploaded to Meta locally. So it isn't a deletion discussion that we need - a policy decision at Meta:Babel must precede this deletion. My second point is that, what do we do with future Wikimedia events which require inline quotation of non-CC-BY-SA-compatible media for logistical reasons? Deryck C. 15:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Notice of this discussion has been given to mail:wikimania-l [1] and chapters-l (private mailing list for Wikimedia chapters). Deryck C. 16:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that Meta needs an EDP; but I don't think that policy discussion should be used as reason to delete images in active use - it is simply a reason to set up an EDP as soon as there is an obvious need for one. As Nathan points out below, not being able to host documents that are used on other projects is contrary to the purpose of having Meta in the first place. As long as media posted here are acceptable on any of our projects they should be acceptable here in the same context; to enable coordination Meta should have the least restrictive of all wikimedia-project EDPs. –SJ talk  04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There has been never a convention to host copyrighted files at Meta, simply a "couldn't care less" and lazy actitude about them on that area and many others. Per the bunch of discussions we already had on this topic in the past, no one is really interested in mantaining multimedia files as Stefan2 points out. Less talk and more actions, please. If you are really interested on setting a EDP for Meta that's fine; but I'd like to see a decent proposal. Because everyone that wants to keep this (currently) copyright violations hosted here simply opposes the deletion with groundless arguments but does nothing else, such as not proposing a draft EDP, for example. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer seems pretty straightforward; Meta is a site, not a project. It's a place for cross coordination between projects, not a project itself, and therefore isn't subject to the licensing resolution. The result that virtually all Wikimania or chapter related documents would be deleted is absurd on its face, so let's find a way to avoid that instead of speedy deleting files that are in current critical use. Nathan T 16:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Meta is a project as every other is. Meta is subject to the WMF resolutions unless there's an explicit exemption on the resolution itself. Those files are copyright violations and should be erased completly. Chapters should feel free to create their own sites (WMF provides wikis for them) to upload their documents if they want to, as some of them already do. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
MarcoAurelio, I find your use of the phrase "copyright violations" disturbing. That the files are not CC-BY-SA compatible (in violation of current Meta policy) doesn't mean they're violations of copyright. As far as I understand, all the files in the category are used with permission or fall within fair use (which is acceptable by law regardless of project policy). Deryck C. 22:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Home page of Meta: Welcome to Meta-Wiki, the global community site for the Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement in general. Meta-Wiki's discussions range from coordination and documentation to planning and analysis of future Wikimedia activities.
Like Nathan wrote, meta is not a wikimedia project, it's a coordination site, per definition file host on meta should be the one that do not belong to commons.--Charles Andrès (WMCH) 15:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The words "project" and "site" are not mutually exclusive. For example, Wikipedia is a site, but it is also a project. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think what we're really trying to achieve with these discussions is very simply the tidying up of all media files hosted on Meta. Files that can be moved to Wikimedia Commons should be moved to Commons and then deleted from Meta (as is standard practice when you move a file to Commons). Any other files should either be properly licensed (now I see work has started on an exemption doctrine policy) and sourced, or deleted. Giving uploaders a reasonable time frame (30 days?) to provide source and licensing information once the EDP is in place, after which remaining files should be deleted seems reasonable to me. In the mean time we should work on getting an EDP for Meta and where possible start the transfer of CC-BY-SA and similar licensed images from Meta to Commons. Thoughts? Thehelpfulone 23:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If the files have been specifically created as a specific component of the bid for hosting Wikimania, then it would seem that they are provided to the Wikimania bid committee as records and such they should be retained as records for archival purposes. I would see that the letters have been provided in that context and should be retained, they clearly have valid historical perspective. If we have a policy/procedure that did not consider such record retention then it is clearly flawed and should be updated to allow this to occur. If the files are supplemental to the bid, eg. they are stock items and not part of record, then we should consider their deletion. I note that where the winning bids have a requirement for these images, they should consider moving them to the corresponding wikimania in line with the appropriate copyright restrictions. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think, whenever and however possible, as many of these files should be kept as we can for historical purposes. Even a bid that did not win has historic value to people working on Wikimania. The visuals that go with those bids - like the letters and hotel layouts - can be valuable. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 00:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Comment I propose that this be closed as no consensus as an overarching proposal, and those who wish to propose individual files can do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Support closure. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Not possible: All projects are required to follow wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No discussion in the last few months. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

How can we move forward? I don't see consensus to delete, but it might be required. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
One way to move forward is to adopt an exemption doctrine policy and see if the files match that policy, but the discussion at Meta talk:Exemption doctrine policy has been stale since August. Without an exemption doctrine policy, I don't see how we can keep the files. File:Entrepreneurship index 2010.gif is probably below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I've tried taking a stab at establishing an official guideline myself, located at User:TeleComNasSprVen/sandbox. The notice at the top of the page Meta:Fair use says that in order to revive the proposal: "...you may use the talk page or start a discussion at Meta:Babel". However, the extant problems are that the talkpage for that proposed policy page is unwatched by many, thus the discussion there would simply become inactive again, and Meta:Babel has also become quite inactive recently, with not many people commenting there at all. If discussions would go stale so quickly like this, how can we come to a proper consensus conclusion about what to do with these images? Or how to properly implement a policy that is needed to satisfy Wikimedia's licensing resolutions, which are applicable to all Wikimedia wikis? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Naturally speaking, per the licensing resolution, discussions about the status of nonfree images default to delete rather than keep, contrary to what normally happens in discussions concerning other content. So please, do not close this discussion yet, we may still need these images. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This image for example looks like some sort of public theatre or auditorium. If it indeed was designed to be used as a public theatre, and not merely used only for the Wikimania conference in the Netherlands, it could qualify for moving to commons under Commons:Freedom of panorama#Netherlands. Only problem is deciding what license the original uploader Mwpnl releases the pictures under; unfortunately though he's been inactive since 2012. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The original uploader can only license the picture if he is the copyright holder. Image now tagged a "no source". Unfortunately, per the deletion policy, files with insufficient legal information can only be deleted if they are unused. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait @Stefan2: why'd you tag it as having no source? It's clearly indicated on the image description page as originating from Tuschinski theatre, and the license is marked "Copyrighted with all rights reserved". I'm not seeing the insufficient lack of legal information that you are talking about. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The text "auditorium 2 of the Tuschinski theatre" only tells where the photograph was taken (auditorium 2 of the Tuschinski theatre) but not by whom (a visitor? the uploader? an employee?). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Then it'd technically be lacking authorship information, but then can't we assume it's Mwpnl who uploaded the picture? In any case, without an EDP looks like most of these are going to have to go regardless anyway. It's too bad no one has tried to take their own gander at it, or look to see what could be improved from the current language at Meta:Fair use. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It currently doesn't say where he got it from. Maybe he took it himself, maybe he got it from the owner of the building.
Meta:Fair use does not seem to cover many of the files in this category. Meta:Exemption doctrine policy misses the condition in wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which forbids replaceable content when it talks about "Reports, financial statements, letters, and other documents" as such documents are replaceable by a freely licensed summary of the documents written by someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Progress report? I understand we should accept an EDP such as this proposal or this draft. Maybe Peteforsyth could assist here? Trijnsteltalk 12:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you would think of me, but I have not given this much consideration since it came up for discussion before. I have just given the two links you (@Trijnstel:) provided; I am generally impressed, they both do a good job of laying out the relevant issues. I'm not sure how I can best help. It seems that the people who produced those two files might want to put together an RFC or similar? If any of them would like some feedback before publishing a formal RFC I would be happy to take a closer look. Also, I'm not sure why there are two separate proposals; from my quick read, it seems that the substance of the two is pretty similar, just with different formatting. It might be worthwhile for them to either settle on a single draft to propose, or else make it very clear how the proposals differ, and what is at stake in choosing one over the other. I will keep an eye on this page in the near future, but feel free to ping me again if I miss a comment. -Pete F (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've outlined a very general approach toward putting these two draft policies up for community review and possible adoption, here: Meta talk:Exemption doctrine policy#General support Any feedback? -Pete F (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This deletion request is over a year old; it's time to discuss the proposed EDP drafts. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree. I'm officially putting this request  On hold until an EDP is discussed and set up. Plus, we shouldn't forget this. Trijnsteltalk 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Both, this discussion and the proposed EDP one are stagnated. Attempts to get this unlocked at RFH have been futile. How much time do we need to wait to get a decission over this, with things as clear as wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy? - In claris, non fit interpretatio... No policy = no fair use. Sorry, but IMHO it's as simple as that. It's been clear that this community don't have any interest in developing and approving such a policy. Thanks. -- M\A 16:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Almost two years and still no agreement. It is sad to see that eight years since the WMF resolution, there are still numerous wikis like Meta that still don't have an EDP but do host hundreds of thousands of unfree files. For me the obvious solution is to move free, licensed images to Commons and unfree, useful images to a NonFreeWiki. The whole approach of hosting these unfree files locally has create a confused and confusing mess. Support NonFreeWiki and solve the problem. Green Giant (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The rule is that we must either get an EDP, or delete the content no later than 23 March 2008 (about seven years ago). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm still interested and the EDP draft looks ready. How do we get it enacted? Deryck C. 10:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Per the discussion about fair use I just closed on Meta:Babel ([2]), fair use should not be allowed on Meta. It might be wise to proceed with the deletion of these images therefore. --MF-W 22:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Finally, a decision! Have you taken into account the points raised by User:NickK ? 46.254.186.36 03:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Projects.png

This image was sourced from sxc.hu when it was uploaded in good faith but the link now goes straight to a Getty Images website, which has a very restrictive license. The last archived version does say there are "no usage restrictions" but there is no image so it is difficult to verify. The license at the time appeared to allow free re-use but does say images cannot be sold without written permission. The file is in use on Meta, but I'm not sure how strong a case could be made for keeping it. Green Giant (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Comment: Please fix {{WQ-2-header}} as you see fit. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment Comment If the image was not in use, sure, though as the sites have all changed, then I am not going to say that it wasn't suitably released. Ideally, have WQ replace the image in their template and we can remove it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: there appear to be several images from the same source that should be deleted as well. I have replaced them with free images in all the pages that were using them except one, Translation requests/NL-1/En: because it is protected. Please could you replace the following images on that page:
  • Image:Projects.png with File:Wiki-project-icon.svg
  • Image:Interview2.png with File:Microphone.svg
  • Image:Press2.png with File:News.svg
  • Image:International2.png with File:Globe.svg
  • Image:Endnotes2.png with File:Notepad icon.svg
Thanks in advance. I'll nominate them all for speedy if there are no objections. Green Giant (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Interview2.png

As for File:Projects.png, this image was sourced from sxc.hu when it was uploaded in good faith but the link now goes straight to a Getty Images website and there is no image. The website has a very restrictive license. The last archived version does say there are "no usage restrictions" but there is no image so it is difficult to verify. The license at the time appeared to allow free re-use but does say images cannot be sold without written permission. The file is still in use on Meta, but I'm not sure how strong a case could be made for keeping it. Green Giant (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Comment as above  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Stopx.png

I propose that this file be deleted and replaced with the same Commons image (File:Stop x nuvola.svg), which is move-protected and upload-protected. P.S. I added the {{RFD}} template to the talk page because the file is protected. Green Giant (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: can you please replace it now? Matiia (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

File:TieredDR.png

Unused. See also File_talk:TieredDR.png and WM:PPM. SVG version avalaible at File:TieredDR.svg. —MarcoAurelio 13:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

All files transcluding Template:Fair use rationale

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Syum90 (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It is stated on the file information pages that something in these films is non-free. I haven't checked what this non-free thing is. Per Project:Fair use, non-free content is not permitted on Meta. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

All files using Template:Permission

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Syum90 (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Invalid copyright tag, see WM:DP#Images, point 1. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Latest comment: 9 years ago24 comments15 people in discussion

My own common.js and vector.js user subpages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Deleted by PiRSquared17 on 22 February. Trijnsteltalk 17:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I request deletion of my user subpages User:Syum90/common.js and User:Syum90/vector.js. Thanks.--Syum90 (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Syum90: Done. In the future, it would be better if you use {{delete}} for speedy deletion requests and RfD for more substantial/controversial requests (although I doubt anyone really cares where you post obvious stuff like this). PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: thanks. Does the template {{delete}} work in .js pages?--Syum90 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Syum90: Assuming the .js pages here work like those at the English Wikipedia, the template won't display, but if you look at the bottom of the page, the categorization will work properly and the admins will be able to find it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've tested common.css here and elsewhere as /* {{speedy}} */ or similar, because one global.css is good enough for me, it always worked, and ECMAScript for common.js uses the same style of comments. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Philosopher: yes, the categorization works, I've tested it at MediaWiki with my common.js page.--Syum90 (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:CSharp-Online.NET

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Deleted. Trijnsteltalk 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I found this while reviewing invalid user pages. There's no such user, and the page seems somewhat spammy. On the other hand it was created in 2006, when pseudo-user pages for anonymous users on Meta was still a thing (note an incoming link from a manual signature). Might be historical? Listing it here since I'm not sure. —Pathoschild 04:04, 03 March 2015 (UTC)

I would presume this is a misplaced user page creation by User:CSharp-Online.NET Editor who has a non-unified account on en.wiki with a user page created about the same time. Suggest it is deleted. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Delete User: Dark Bane

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Somebody can delete my user page?. was made time ago and i don't know why, but added confidential information about me. User: Dark Bane thanks. --Dark Bane (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please simply put {{delete|author request}} on your page. You can also blank the old content. I dare not touch it, maybe Dark Bane as of 2015 and Dark Bane as of 2010 is something I don't grok. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Done Glaisher (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:129.175.185.16/global.js

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

IP global js subpage.--Syum90 (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Problem solved, speedy deletion by Tegel. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Module:HtmlBuilder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Replaced by the Scribunto builtin mw.html. Nothing on Meta uses this module anymore. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted tnx. —MarcoAurelio 09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Eljan96/global.js

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Offtopic, not js code.--Syum90 (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted --Stryn (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:SMA BHAKTI PRAJA ADIWERNA/global.css and User:Sma bpa/global.css

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic, not css.--Syum90 (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Stemoc.--Syum90 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Éduarel

Hello,

I want to delete my personnal page. --Éduarel (talk)

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Unused (obsolete) translation units from Grants:PEG

Please delete some unused (obsolete) translation units:

This may be performet through Special:PageTranslationDeletePage, but this requires admin rights :(--Kaganer (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Kept

Pages

Latest comment: 8 years ago24 comments17 people in discussion

Grants:Friendly space expectations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mistakenly created - speedily delete request by author.

Done - NOTE: Page is being replaced - do not delete again please. ;) --Varnent (talk)(COI) 20:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikicensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Kept and marked historical. —MarcoAurelio 12:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Page has had no content added for ten years: it consists of comments on four surveys dated 2004, surely overtaken by numerous more sophisticated Research projects. Linked to once at Research:Resources. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wiki Loves Pride/uk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This translation is nothing more than just a vandalism:

Вікі любить гей-паради - Wiki loves gay parades;
Традиційно в червні та жовтні лесбійки, гоміки, бі- та транссексуали (ЛГБТ) всіх країн влаштовують тусовки присвячені субкультурі ЛГБТ. Це чудова нагода попіарити збоченців на весь світ. - Traditionally the months of June and October have been opportunities for the lesbian, fags, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities from all around the world to arrange parties dedicated to LGBT subculture. A global opportunity to perverts from all around the world to become well-known.

etc... — Meiræ 02:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Meiræ:, thanks for pointing this out. Would you be able to edit the page to correct the translations instead of us deleting the translations? You should be able to edit the translations through this link. Thanks. Thehelpfulone 23:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @Thehelpfulone: Unfortunately not, I only have basic understanding of ukrainian. If I were able to help with correct translation this request would never have been filed. — Meiræ 11:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism has been removed, so I withdraw my request. Thanks to Biathlon and Saint Johann for their help with translation. — Meiræ 19:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed: Kept. -Mh7kJ (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Enwikipediathink

This essay was rightly moved to a less inflammatory title three years ago. There is no benefit in retaining this redirect, which has barely any incoming links and is an insult directed at a specific WMF project. That's not what meta is for, rather the opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I think enwikipediathink should not be deleted, as it is the title under which the page was originally written and is the much more proper title, as the majority of users exhibiting "bigwikithink" definitely come from enwiki, not dewiki, frwiki, etc. --MF-W 16:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Your argument does not refute either of my points, that this has very few incoming links and is directly insulting a specific project, which I am saddened to see being supported by a steward. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this redirect should not be deleted. It is a well known and valid term for phenomena that has rooted itself within the WMF wiki's. In fact IMO the term ENwikipediathink is more accurate than the current title since it is the biggest wiki ever. Also for the reasons that MF-W states, we would lose the history. Reguyla (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not see this as an insult directed at enwiki. --MF-W 00:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense translation

The following discussion is closed: Fixed, no deletion required.--Syum90 (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please remove or delete Harassment_consultation_2015/sv. Someone has tried to use machine translation, but the result, including the page title, is merely nonsense. (I don't know how to "tag" such a page for deletion, therefore I post a request here instead.) Thanks! /NH 12:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • 'Harassment society 2015'? What's that? I agree that the so-called translations on this page should be deleted. Google gives me a better translation than this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, now there is a proper translation, so no deletion necessary and this is Fixed. /NH 22:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Templates

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Template:User Meta-Wiki

The following discussion is closed: Kept, no consensus. Matiia (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Of course users who employ this template have an account here: this is redundant to having a userpage itself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    As most recent editor, I would point out that a userpage here appears as a global user page on other wikis. I have this template in "includeonly" tags so that it only appears on other wikis. Additionally, about a dozen or a dozen and a half other users have this template on their user pages. In any event, I see no reason whatsoever why it should be troublesome to have this template here. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Images

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

File:Kit right arm cukrownikchybie.png

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nothing to do here.--AldNonymousBicara? 07:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please remove these two instances (currently version and archival version) - pictures. Both not used. -- G\M 11:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The file is on commons:, you need to request it there. --MF-W 17:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed: Kept, no consensus for delete.--Syum90 (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Unused files

Moved from Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.--Syum90 (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Unused files - Why do we need these files???, necessary to remove them.--6AND5 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There might be normal links to some of them. In that case, it may be useful to keep the files. I don't think that it is useful to list the whole set as a mass nomination. If some files are missing foreseeable use, please nominate those files individually instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Undeleted

Pages

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Rule of diminishing replies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Restored by Pete F.--AldNonymousBicara? 18:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool -- I've now restored. -Pete F (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Templates

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

multiscript collaboration

Status:    Done
PAGEID: 6552284 · links here · purge ↺ · REVISIONID: - · permanent link
https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=1231#multiscript_collaboration
੭ ੧੨ ੧ ੧੪
੨ ੧੩ ੮ ੧੧
੧੬ ੩ ੧० ੫
੯ ੬ ੧੫ ੪
7 12 1 14
2 13 8 11
16 3 10 5
9 6 15 4
transcription of
the indian numerals
most-perfect magic square from
the Parshvanath Jain temple in Khajuraho

Hi! Some years ago (in January 2008) I received a picture about a most-perfect magic square from the Parshvanath Jain temple in Khajuraho. According to magic square#India Magic Squares and Cubes By William Symes Andrews, 1908, Open court publish company the square is more then thousand years old / from the 10th-century. There is an additional text above the square. I hope to receive a translation and/or additional details about this text from contributors on languages from India.
Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007#4x4 type squares dates back on my work on meta before 2007. It contains a list of nested templates up to a dozen levels deep and data of all 384 transformations from one most perfect magical square to another most magical square which are mutually undistinguable. Because each such transformation contains 16 relocations of the 16 matrix cells the total of 147.456 values are lost and unavailable to generate usefull SVG files and / or Lua code.
https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-perfect_magic_square provides transliterations for a dozen of ISO 15924 scripts as Latn including Roman numerals and binary, Deva, Guru, Arab, Armn, Beng, Grek, Gujr, Hans · Hant · Jpan, Hebr, Knda, Kore, Mlym, Taml, Telu, Tibt and maybe some more. The wiki source code can be used for articles / stubs in languages using these scripts. Fonts are not optimized and all comments are welcome at the test subdomain page [5]. Thanks for all your efforts in advance!
Beside the listed templates also the talk pages, some categories and probably a few pages from other namespaces have been deleted in 2007. Please restore / undelete all revisions of these pages to enable access to the lost data. Thanks in advance for your support! lɛʁi ʁɑjnhɑʁt (Leri Reinhart)
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 07:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

support

opposition

comments

rakonto 15 in Esperanto created on the same subject in 2009 and uploaded as OGG files some days ago
  • Comment Comment
In order to have access to the 147.456 values included / partly coded in the transformations of the 384 mutually indistinguishable most-perfect magic square of order 4 Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. there are the following solutions:
  1. restore / undelete the meta pages permanently
  2. restore / undelete the meta pages for a definite period of time (I suggest six months)
  3. import the meta pages to testwiki: rights or test2wiki: rights or b:eo:Main Page rights (i.e. to Vikilibroj en Esperanto!)
  4. provide administrator rights at meta for a definite amount of time to לערי ריינהארט
    in order to access the content
  5. restore the pages and tab them as {{historical|2007}} template:historical · T · /doc
Best regards lɛʁi ʁɑjnhɑʁt (Leri Reinhart)
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 14:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
updated 18:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean this? Meta:Administrators#Temporary_sysop_status?--AldNonymousBicara? 13:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


Thanks @PiRSquared17 for your help! I looked at special:PrefixIndex/user:Gangleri and special:PrefixIndex/user talk:Gangleri and I found https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=8390752 again.
template:4x4 type square/shift right one column is one of the few blue links at https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=8390806 i. e. at user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methods = transitions = morphisms. It is hard to find all relevant datas from 2005 (the year of the first Wikimania). As far as I recall there have been all 384 most perfect magic squares in a table (list). The list is template:4x4 type square/T/all. As you can recognize all talk pages are missing / not restored and there are more red links.
Can you skype? My nickname is "irelgnag". I am either "gangleri|back" or "ganglery|away" at freenode.net #kavehoyz.
Thanks @PiRSquared17 for your work! Can you please transfer also category:4x4 type square. note: there was no category talk:4x4 type square. Thanks in advance! Gangleri alias בײַ מיר ביסטו שיין (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@לערי ריינהארט: Done PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @PiRSquared17! Gangleri alias ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 04:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot @PiRSquared17! ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 22:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Images

Miscellaneous

Not undeleted

Pages

Templates

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Undefined

The following discussion is closed: Not undeleted. —MarcoAurelio 13:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This template was deleted two days ago, but it is transcluded in a hundred of pages. See for example Template:For Thanks, IKhitron (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Template code was
<gallery>
Example.jpg|Caption1
Example.jpg|Caption2
</gallery>
It looks more like a test rather than a useful code to me? Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 17:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There are just 2 transclusions in place of the nudred an hour ago. I believe somebody transcluded it in some template which was transcluded in the hundred, and fixed it now, after my request. Thank you, IKhitron (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Images

Miscellaneous

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2015&oldid=26753696"