Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 27

Template:User no GFDL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

Per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_3#Template:User_no_GFDL this template was nominated for deletion and no consensus was reached. And then, just today, with NO discussion whatsoever an admin deleted it. This was nominated for speedy deletion behind my back WITHOUT notifying me. I had no way of knowing that it was even nominated until it was removed from my user page! This admin accused it of inciting a breach of policy, and this was declared to be false in the deletion log by several other users.CyberGhostface 22:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - here's the original template. Note it even had a category attached - David Gerard 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Template did not have an encyclopedic use, so at minimum it should have been userfied, and even then it probably should be deleted. VegaDark 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It was userfied. (See below.) That was speedily deleted, too. Apparently, this box expresses a very dangerous idea! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, divisive, polemical userbox, runs counter to fundamental policy. Devid Gerard's instinct is right here, this needs to go, at least form template space. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Should have been zapped on sight. That template was an abuse of this free project's servers. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• I deleted it. I boggle at the second part of the nominator and creator's assertion. I refer the honorable gentleman to WP:TFD#Template:User_no_GFDL, where I noted "grossly inappropriate and a direct incitement to violation of Foundation policy. It's as inappropriate as "Wikipedians against Neutral Point Of View". Or "Wikipedians against Wikipedia". Anyone who would use this template is on the wrong project and should think really hard about how their own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation" and others' comments note such as "It abuses the resources of a free encyclopedia to agitate against the encyclopedia's founding principles", "One of the elements of the fair use defense is that no alternative image exists. It's hard to argue that you're not infringing someone's copyright massively if you put their property onto a top-ten website when you had access to an alternative" and "Disruptive for it incites people to make wikipedia liable for copyright infringement". The viewpoint that a poor GFDL image is to be preferred to a high-quality fair use image is Foundation policy - David Gerard 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And, by the way: I'm a staunch fan of fair use as appropriate - talking about things requires quoting them, and that applies to images as well as text - but your viewpoint is completely at odds with what Wikipedia is about, implicitly and explicitly - David Gerard 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Long overdue really, comparable to "Wikipedians against NPOV" as stated on the TfD. – Steel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - And I deleted the recreation under userspace for exactly the same reason as David gives above. The template directly contradicted our image policy. It simply has no place on Wikipedia, likewise for any other template, category, anything that directly contradicts policy as this template did. -- Nick ^t 22:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Goes against everything we are supposed to be trying to create here. I nominated it for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#T1) at the same time and was accused of assuming bad faith. Isn't that ironic? Keep deleted. — CharlotteWebb 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, divisive template. If you don't like a website's foundation policies, the solution is to find another website. I don't send emails to puppywar.com saying that puppies aren't cute and demanding they change their focus to kittens, I go to kittenwar.com. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I wasn't aware of it being speedily nominated. The nominator in question never notified me and the whole thing went behind my back so I was not able at all to make a statement. I only found it out that it was ever contested at all when someone removed it from my userpage.

Some quotes from the deletion review " It's only stating your personal preference, we all go along with the rules but we don't always like them - this is just our little way of saying that while we abide by the rules, we may not personally agree"; "wouldn't have that template in my user space, but free speech principles allow for a user to express his or her disagreement with policy. The display of the template is not in itself a violation of policy, it merely states that the user does not like the policy. There are loads of userboxes in use where editors express their dislike for wikipedia policies, and yes even laws. Examples Users who prefer serial commas, french periods, split infinitives, etc. and Users who oppose death penalty, support legalizing cannabis, etc. Its all free speech, and not causing any disruption to wikipedia, community-building, editing or readers. No harm, don't fix it, if it ain't broke. Just because concensus has been well-established for the policy this template states the user does not like, does not give us cause to develop into an Oligarchy, and root out that which opposes our concensus."

And as for disagreeing with some of Wikipedia's rules means I shouldn't be part of a project...please. Does that mean someone should leave America because they disagree with its stance on gay marriage? Give me a break. I've made over 7500 edits and I've created over 20 articles. Don't tell me that because I disagree with some of Wikipedia's rules that I should just leave.

Either way, if this stays deleted I'm going to make "This user supports fair use" userbox which shouldn't be considered 'inflammatory' as it states a simple opinion without deriding others.--CyberGhostface 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There already exists a "this user disagrees with the image policy" userbox, which is quite acceptable. Nobody is asking you to leave Wikipedia, so stop with all the dramatic fluff, it never helps the project. -- Nick ^t 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Anyone who would use this template is on the wrong project and should think really hard about how their own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation". If thats not asking me to leave I don't know what is.--CyberGhostface 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting you should think really hard about how your own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. If they're reconcilable, great! If not, well. - David Gerard 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have missed the part where it was necessary for contributors to agree 100% with all of Wikipedia's policies?--CyberGhostface 00:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said or meant. The free content thing is much more fundamental. As I said, it's comparable to "Wikipedians against NPOV." - David Gerard 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your appeal to "free speech" is a completly overstated. It's not that we want to forbade you to disagree with our policy, we just don't want you to use our resources for doing that, at least not that way. Put that userbox in your personal blog and nobody here will ask you to change it. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia's instance on "serial commas", "french periods" or "split infinitives" are not among it's core values. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• undelete people opposed to foundation policy shouldn't be told to shut up or leave... there's an important difference (which seems to be going over people's heads) between stating an opinion against policy and actually acting against that policy. Many people have gone on the record as being opposed to or at least questioning core policies like WP:V and they weren't told to leave, in fact discussion of core policies is helpful. Also, content that has survived an XFD should almost never be speedy deleted. But for a free project, some free speech/free thought should be a good thing. The userbox alone will never make anyone violate core policy. --W.marsh 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy is fine, rewriting is fine... not a userbox I'd ever use (not that I use userboxes in the first place). It's just this "you aren't allowed to express disagreement" mentality that I find annoying. --W.marsh 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete userfied version - As per previous discussion comments, I did create a userfied version. This, too, was speedily deleted by the same people responsible for this deletion. The idea this userbox contains is not so dangerous as to warrant this "extermination." Jenolen ^{speak it!} 01:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Create something a little different There are other ways of emphasizing the valuable aspects of this point of view. for example, "This user would prefer not to use low-quality free images if there are much better fair use ones available." given flexibility in how to interpret the differences between a proposed replacement, that might sometime make sense--and I think is actually closer to what was the intent. People can express their views about what they think is the appropriate direction for WP, even if the stretch current thinking a little. But one of the problems with a userbox is that it implies a formalized and inflexible approach. DGG 02:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

  That's an interesting idea, although I don't think your wording quite gets out of the "against fundamental Wikipedia policy" valley, to coin a phrase. If a suitable, though low quality, free image exists, likely using a non-free image cannot be classed as fair use. Two factors in the fair use defense cut in here: if there is no other suitable alternative, this tends to strengthen the fair use defense, and if the quality of the non-free image is low that also strengthens the case. If you're going to say "I want to use a high quality image that doesn't belong to me even when I owe a suitable low quality image", then that tends to blow a big hole in the legal defense. So while there may be an acceptable alternative wording, this isn't it. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it depends somewhat on how good and bad the two images are, because below a certain point an image isn't really "suitable". wording can always be adjusted. The principle that one can advocate drastic change in policy and still contribute if one follows policy is important also. (FWIW, I definitely do not myself think we should change the present image policy)DGG 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

• Overturn. Unless somebody is going to be harmed by its continued existence, things which survive an XfD should not be speedy deleted. Period. I don't know why that is even disputed. -Amarkov moo! 05:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Delete message contrary to foundation mandated policy. If you don't like building a resource as "free" as we can make it, you have the right to fork and the right to leave. --pgk 06:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. Garion96 (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia...which permits fair use. And I'm a bit more partial to letting "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" speak in these matters. I actually think the whole "Encyclopedia" mission is critically fundamental to getting the whole "free" mission off the ground. As has been said many times before, you can't have "Wikipedia - The Free Enclopedia" without the encyclopedia. It is quite easy and popular, however, to have it without the "libre/free" aspect prized by so many, from Jimbo, to the Foundation, and down. It's sad their quite puzzling message about GFDL utopias, and how we should have no concern over turning over the rights to our creations, so that others can make money off our work, is getting trampled on by the popularity of the site, because believe me, no one is rushing here desperately looking for the latest free content photos of American Idol contestants, or free images showing actors who depict people's favorite characters, out of character. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Permits fair use under strict guidelines, one of those being that no free alternative is available. Not sure what the rest of your argument is about, seems to be suggesting we should court popularity of those who want to view unlicensed photos. There are 1000s of places on the web people can get those and in abundance complete with gushing writeups about the celeb/person/thing, I'm not convinced any are coming here for that (or at least I hope they aren't) --pgk 10:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But people have taken the "no free alternative" clause to mean as no fair use as long as something that could possibly be used exists, whether or not the quality is abysmal, and whether or not it even belongs in the article. My opinion below expands upon this, but the truth of the matter is that there are not free images that would have been acceptable before the recent GFDL utopia move, that are now suddenly acceptable better something terrible than *gasp!* something fair use. There are also scores of images that have simply been deleted, leaving articles without those images and without a free alternative. Sometimes these are deleted under the guise of "no free use" and sometimes they deleted under the guise of "there must be something free use out there, find out". Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
        • No they've taken the policy as what it says, none available or could be made. This is not unreasonable our goal is to make a free encyclopedia, if we applied the standard to the text we'd just rip off other peoples text saying "no free alternative currently available", that would simply not cut it for a free encyclopedia, neither does it for images. Realistically in some instances having a non-free image and someone judging it to be better than a free image will mean we never get a free image, not a good situation. "Better" in wikipedia's purpose (to produce a free encyclopedia) will mean a free image in actuality is always "better" since it is moving us closer to our goal. Personally I'm much more a words than pictures person, I prefer reading the book to watching the film, to me if an article about "Jack Sparrow" has or doesn't have a picture is of little real consequence, if the article is well written having a picture doesn't add substantially to the article and if the cost is that we are moved further from our goal (to produce a free encyclopedia), then I'd rather have no picture. (In actuality actors appearing in character aren't a depiction of the character, they are a depiction of the actor playing that character, in many cases the true depiction of the character only ever appears in words and is usually fairly vague). But all that is merely a diversion from the subject of this, the foundation mandates what is an is acceptable for unlicensed material, if we don't like it then we can exercise out rights... --pgk 11:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Having followed only small parts of the fair use v. FREE debates, I found that the need for everything to be free really was outweighing the need for the encyclopedia to be good. There was an enormous discussion about whether a free image of an actor posing on a red carpet could be used for an article of about a character in a show, or the show itself. The need for this encyclopedia to only use free images started becoming so important that the discussion began to get more and more specific. Everyone agreed that an image of Johnny Depp would not acurately portray Jack Sparrow, but what about all of those actors who play characters and don't significantly change their appearance for the role? (Yes, there was a long discussion about actors v. characters and where their images were indistinguishable) It didn't seem to matter to people that images of charaters were not replacable by GFDL content-because something that looked similar was available.

Fair use has always been strict and always been a last result. And that's how I read this userbox--GFDL is important but not as important as a good encyclopedia. This userbox doesn't say throw out a GFDL picture for a marginally better fair use picture. In my mind, the big issue on Wikipedia is GFDL images that are dreadful, or just above when there are really good fair use images out there. Because of recent changes, we're changing what's acceptable in quality, and in my mind that isn't ok. And, I don't see how expressing this, on a talk page or a userbox is dangerous to Wikipedia. I also don't understand all of the people who think that this should be repharsed or that this can be easily expressed another way. This is someone's opinion, and telling them that they can easily express it by saying something similar, or that their opinion should be edited is bizarre IMO. Now can this userbox be used for multiple opinions that range and differ? Sure. There's a reason that there are tons of versions of userboxes. Because people want to express their opinion about something or inform people about something and find that the current version or versions of a userbox just don't fit their needs and they need something slightly different.

Leave it userfied if need be. But this isn't a danger or anything ridiculous like that, and the template is encyclopedic, so that excuse doesn't wash either. It's a userbox relating to how a user edits on Wikipedia and what they believe on Wikipedia. It conveys an opinion on a key Wikipedia issue and depending upon the editor, explains where the editor is coming from when they make certain editing choices. We don't have to like everyone's opinions on issues, and we don't have to like the principles that guide their editing. But they are free to express themselves through userboxes. The only harm I can see coming from this userbox is that that comes from userboxes in general, more so because this issue is devisive and users are acting hotheaded about this. Editors who use userboxes are letting other editors know their opinions and their behavoirs, and these can, and often are, used against them. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and userfy. There's nothing divisive about expressing an opinion on policy matters. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - I tried to userfy, and this was, as pointed out above, also speedily deleted. Would this require a separate deletion review? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Disruptive for it incites people to make wikipedia liable for copyright infringement. Should any user have the urge to complain about policy they can do so, but having a tempalte sticker to facilitate undermining wikipedia, no. And finally, becuase it mislead users to complain about something that doesn't happen: there cannot be a fair use alternative if a free image already exists -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 13:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment. The userbox was deleted in accordance with CSD:T1 - "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." - one only need look at this debate to see that the template was/is divisive and inflammatory. If a userbox shouldn't have been deleted, there's always going to be widespread support for it's recreation. That's not the case here which leads me to only one conclusion, it was a perfectly valid deletion. -- Nick ^t 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No, what was divisive and inflammatory was the deletion. And saying that there will be widespread support for something's recreation if it shouldn't have been deleted is absurd; and goes completely against the presumption in favor of keeping that we are supposed to have. -Amarkov moo! 17:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • We are not supposed to have userboxes. They are tolerated, which is different. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't say that we were supposed to have userboxes, I said that we're supposed to require a consensus for deletion, not keeping. Unless there's some rule that userboxes don't get that protection, the fact that they are only tolerated is irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question - Nick, you're refering to the template space version, right, although I assume you'd have the same problem with the deleted, userfied version? To review: This user would prefer not to use free images if there are better fair use ones available - hardly seems the kind of rallying "call to arms" that requires this kind of extermination from user space. Template space, fine -- but user space? I think this is an OPINION aqbout a Wikipedia policy that is constantly evolving, and just because it has recently veered sharply in one direction doesn't mean that it's not someday going to veer sharply back. Regardless, the campaign against the userbox to me is yet another example of how the entire campaign against certain types of fair use -- primarily the so-called "non free" images -- is at risk of doing serious and irreparable harm to Wikipedia's primary mission, which is, as we all know, to be an Encyclopedia. You can't have a "free" encyclopedia without.... the encyclopedia. And when it gets harmed, the "free" mission is jeopardized. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Inflammatory rejection of basic policy (would a template attacking NPOV have lasted as long as this did?) --CComMack (t–c) 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. 1ne 20:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion You don't get to use wikipedia resources to say you hate what Wikipedia stands for. We are a free-content encyclopedia. Don't like that? Go elsewhere.--Doc^g 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: That anyone could !vote to keep this abomination - even in userspace - shows a deep confusion of ideas and a complete failure on the part of a lot of new editors to grasp the fundamental principles Wikipedia was founded upon. And I don't mean things that can be "decided" on in a pseudo-vote or with a userbox. This userbox is as contrary to the way Wikipedia works and what it is here for as "Users against NPOV". You don't get to vote out free content winning every time any more than you get to vote out NPOV. The question is: what can we do to get the point across to these editors who have apparently completely missed what "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia", as found on the puzzle-globe logo at the top left of EVERY PAGE ON THE WIKI, means? Short of telling them to go away and find a wiki that doesn't have that as a fundamental ideal. I welcome your thoughts - David Gerard 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - Much of this may in fact be thought of as a failure of Wikipedia administrators to properly apply project goals equally, evenly, logically, or consistently. I know I was certainly caught off guard when several images I had worked with admins to properly source, tag, and label as promotional were suddenly deleted. It is entirely fair to say the enforcement of Wikipedia "rules" and principles has changed, and changed dramatically when it comes to matters of fairly using promotional photos. And while this may have been the policy from the start, it was administrators who were helping to undermine it. They didn't get it, so why should we be surprised when others don't? The fact of the matter is, when I began contributing to Wikipedia, we'd never use a blurry, poor quality GFDL photo in place of a properly sourced, properly tagged fair use promotional photo - and yes, that was "wrong," and yes, enforcement of that is a lot stricter now. But it is a CHANGE... It is NOT something that has been enforced evenly, since day one, and so HAVING AN OPINION about this part of the project that is contrary to the current enforcement practices is not only reasonable, but should be both tolerated and respected. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm getting tired of the people going that because the rules are contrary to the opinion being stated, that stands as valid grounds for its deletion. Its stating a simple opinion, one that you don't happen to agree with. It is NOT endorsing people to deliberately break the rules, but rather for people who just aren't crazy about it. Those stating that its meant to incite anarchy are just being overtly paranoid.--CyberGhostface 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Something I've learned from Wikipedia... if I wanted to get everyone who was pro-death penalty to leave America, what I'd do is outlaw pro-death penalty bumper stickers. Yeah. --W.marsh 23:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question to those people who say this should be deleted because it disagrees with Foundation policy. Arbcom is the highest form of dispute resolution because the Foundation made it so, and a consensus that wasn't would mean absolutely nothing, just as with this. Does that mean that we can't express criticism of the arbitration process, either? And then does that mean that we go to Citizendium's idea, where you must agree with those policies considered fundamental to edit? -Amarkov moo! 23:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Directly contrary to both Wikimedia Foundation policy and US copyright law also factually inaccurate. As has been said here before: If a free version exists, there is no fair use version, only copyright violating ones and the free ones. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I seem have to missed the part where it stated that none of us weren't familar with the rules...its just that we aren't crazy about them.This goes for all the other tiresome "Endorse deletion because of the Wiki-policies" comments.--CyberGhostface 02:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment' Actualy Z-man is incorrect above. The existance of an available alternative is only one of the aspects of whether something is legitimate fair use under US copyright law, and usually not the most important aspect. it is perfectly possible for soemthing to be legally fair use even if a PD or GFDL alternative exists. Whether Wikipedia choses to use such images, even if it legally could, is another question altogether. We rule out lots of things that are almsot surely leagally fair use, because we have made a choice to do so. That choice is one we can always discuss, and that in theory we could change or modify. DES ^(talk) 02:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Part about copyright law notwithstanding, this template is still contrary to a core belief/concept within the foundation. Its in the 4th sentence of the Foundation main page: "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content" (also part of the Mission statement). This isn't the kind of rule that one can just be not "crazy about," this is part of the fundamental ideal that the project is based on. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as divisive, inflammatory, and unnecessary. We wouldn't allow a template that said "This user endorses POV pushing" or "This user believes in making personal attacks." For those who want this particular "I endorse not following core policy!" template, I'd encourage them to review what "free" means in the context of "the free encyclopedia." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In re all of the people who keep saying that this goes against policy etc, what about all of the userboxes that express how people react to vandalism? Some of those userboxes quite clearly express that those users do not WP:AGF, and those userboxes are about actions, not opinions, and yet those userboxes are allowed. Of course, we don't like vandals and it's not like that's a divisive issue.

This is an opinion. Disagree if you want, and cite what you want, and it may be divisive to you, but please realize that there are people who feel exactly the opposite, and who feel that it is the deletion itself that is divisive. Perhaps your reading of WP:CONSENSUS says to tell everyone who disagrees with you to find a different place to edit, but my reading says that I need to recognize that there are always going to be people who seriously disagree with me, and whom I seriously disagree with. Not allowing others to even express their opinions under the guise of "policy" and "divisiveness" doesn't build a good encyclopedia, free or otherwise. And it completely ignores the spirit of trusting millions of people to get online and click edit. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• • That's a variation on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I'm sure many here would happily see such boxes gone. --pgk 08:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I assume you're referring to my comments on other userboxes, not the rest of what I said? If so, that's the point exactly here. These are opinions, but nothing has happened, because the people who disagree create opposing userboxes, the way good Wikipedians with too much time on their hands are supposed to solve things. Administrators aren't vandals--in fact, many administrators don't AGF with vandalism and I'm many probably use those boxes. Even for administrators who are unhappy with that practice, they let others' express their opinions, even though those opinions and actions are against policy etc. and they simply create userboxes of their own, and practice good faith and fight for it. But they don't fight for it by tfding or speedying those userboxes as divisive or against policy, even though those are userboxes where users blatantly state that they are acting against policy. We've drawn a line between opinion, between statement of POV, practice, humor, whatever, and actually behavoir. We've said that it's ok to express you're wikiopinions; about you as a wiki editor. That's what this does.
    • My comparing this userbox to others isn't othercrapexists. I'm simply trying to point out that lighting the torches to run people out of town whom you disagree with is against the spirit of Wikipedia, is against policy, and for the most part, is against general practices. If this type of deletion doesn't happen to similar templates, you can't just pull out othercrapexists. Articles and templates are supposed to be treated the same way, governed by the same policies and guidelines and practices, and unless a new policy sprung up overnight, or consensus suddenly changed, or those templates are also going up for deletion, it is perfectly acceptable to ask why identical things are being treated differently. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • This kind of deletion does happen to other templates, if you find one which is inappropriate you are more than welcome to tag if for speedy deletion or nominate it for TFD. The fact that no one has reviewed every single template and removed the crap does not excuse the existance of any other template. That is what othercrapexists is about. Who is "lighting torches to try an run you out of town?", I see some pointing out that this town is not the town you appear to think it is. wikipedia is not a democracy, social networking site, experiment in personal expression of free speech etc. . The foundation have set certain policies which are fundamental to the project, if those are contrary to your own view of what the project no amount of bumper stickers are going to change that. --pgk
        • Clearly you missed all of the comments saying "leave this site". And I'm not talking about social networking or any other crap. I'm the first person to say, not here. Does this have to do with Wikipedia? Yes, so the whole Wikipedia is not myspace thing is beyond irrelevant. In fact, if it were close to being relevant, this userbox wouldn't have been in danger of being deleted, because it would be a userbox expressing an opinion, possibly controversial, but not Wiki!controversial, and it's for the latter that it was deleted.

        • "Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed."

        • This is constructive. It is not trying to get people to go against current policy, or endorsing action against current policy. In fact, if I used wikiboxes for my wikiopinions, which I don't, I'd use this not because I disagree with policy, but because I disagree with the dreadful enforcement of it and I'm frankly too lazy to make a new userbox and I think this would suit my purposes just fine. Most people aren't hopping mad about fair use, they're hopping mad about it's enforcement. What I'm mad about is that no one even seems to recognize what's going here. There's the problem of one extreme, that is people overreacting and saying "go elsewhere if you disagree". And equally problematic is the other extreme, anytime someone refers to the former they are asked what on earth they are talking about. Forgive me if the torching metaphor was dramatic, but I don't think it mischaracterized the types of comments that have been received here. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Telling you that if the project is not the project you thought it was (i.e. A free, not partially free, not free so long as we "like" the text/image, encyclopedia) and that you are free to fork or leave is not running you or anyone out of town, or telling you to leave. You'd get the same reaction if you wanted to scrap NPOV or make it become a social networking site, or a democracy etc. etc. "I'd use this not because I disagree with policy" - I can't see how you can square this user box with the first point of the fair use policy "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". If you endorse that policy then this userbox clearly doesn't represent your view point. --pgk 16:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion, endorse no-consensus TfD closure The template states a point of view respectfully. What kind of place is this if it can't give a few pennies' worth of bandwidth to criticism of its policy? Live and let live. Kla'quot 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, that TFD would be the previous TFD. So this process-related justification misses a step - David Gerard 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was referring to the TfD that started Feb 3 and was closed on Feb 13. Is the "step" you're referring to the TfD that started April 27 and ended on April 27 with your speedy deletion? For reasons I hope are obvious, I put more weight on the first as a measure of community opinion. Kla'quot 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • BTW, the deletions from both template space and user space were out of order, but I think it's OK to undelete only the user space one. Kla'quot 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete userfied version (not the version in Template space), for the reason I voted "keep" last time around: It's convenient to have a place listing the users whose image uploads need to be monitored especially closely. —Angr 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ya got a point there - David Gerard 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ooh, I love vague threats like this! More, please, more! Tell me how you're going to be keeping a close eye on me, please! This time, though, use a German accent, like an old World War II movie villian? "Ve vill be keeping a very close eye und you...." Do all people who disagree with User:Angr's extreme views on fair use qualify for "special monitoring"? Side note: His userspace includes a box calling for the elimination of fair use images; that's not currently EN policy, but is an advocacy box which expresses his feelings and desires about which direction Wikipedia policy should move toward; this is apparently allowed to exist unmolested, but other boxes, with other views, should be stifled? It's ridiculous, undemocratic, and unWikipedian to call for the deletion of one view, but not the other... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, since you asked, the easiest way to keep an eye on your uploads is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Jenolen, and the easiest way to keep an eye on my deletions is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Angr. —Angr 06:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion - last I checked (it has been a while) this should be in user space anyhow... --T-rex 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but allow user to recreate it in user space. This is a userbox problem; I don't think we need to discuss copyright issues to resolve it. Xiner (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As previously noted (and buried in among the comments above, you may have missed it) I did create a userfied version. This, too, was speedily deleted by the same people responsible for this deletion. I suppose that would require a second deletion review, which seems quite tiresome, so I'd rather just deal with this one. And the case, so far, seems to be an admin arbitrarily speedily deleted a userbox which had previously survived the proper deletion process. That's more wrong than the preference stated by this userbox... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Also, speedying deleting within one day WITHOUT notifying any of its users and having a biased admin do the deleting is pretty unfair and very sneaky. At least last time abu notified me before he nominating it and there was enough time for everyone to speak their opinion. I wasn't even on a computer when the whole thing went down nor was I even aware that a discussion was going on in the first place. I think the closing admin should keep this in mind when going over this discussion.--CyberGhostface 16:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This merely allows an editor to state his or her position on Images. It is ONLY designed for use in a user page and doesn't violate user page policy. If we keep this deleted then I feel that we might as well removed ALL userboxes. Kc4 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn Deletion This template actually deals with something real that most Wikipedians don't seem to get. GFDL is NOT designed for images. I have asked a number of times how all that carp on GFDL applies to images and NEVER gotten an answer--because no one knows, because GFDL is NOT designed to be used with images. KP Botany 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and userfy The action of deleting this box, which is only used in user space, is an example of oligarchical or paranoid overreaction. Editors have the right to express their opposition to wikipedia policies; martial law has not been declared by Jimbo. This box does not use up wikimedia resources to any appreciable exent. If the resource usage was truly an issue, we'd be getting rid of a whole hell of a lot more user space stuff than this tiny little box. That argument simply does not pass the smell test, people! My comments in the TfD were quoted above, but not attributed to me, so I reproduce them below: Jerry 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (Strong Keep) I wouldn't have that template in my user space, but free speech principles allow for a user to express his or her disagreement with policy. The display of the template is not in itself a violation of policy, it merely states that the user does not like the policy. There are loads of userboxes in use where editors express their dislike for wikipedia policies, and yes even laws. Examples Users who prefer serial commas, french periods, split infinitives, etc. and Users who oppose death penalty, support legalizing cannabis, etc. Its all free speech, and not causing any disruption to wikipedia, community-building, editing or readers. No harm, don't fix it, if it ain't broke. Just because concensus has been well-established for the policy this template states the user does not like, does not give us cause to develop into an Oligarchy, and root out that which opposes our concensus. Jerry lavoie 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and userfy, per badlydrawnjeff, Clayoquot, and my own comments on the February TfD. Also, whoever speedied this needs to be smacked for doing something out-of-process. A no-consensus TfD result in February doesn't become a speedy delete in April without further discussion. -/- Warren 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist userfied version on MfD. Despite the heated debate, I think that a rough consensus exists that this is not an appropriate use of template space. But because the balance of harms in userspace is slightly different, I think that a new discussion is better than a speedy action. Eluchil404 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and, having userfied, relist on MfD (where keep as userfied should be in order) per badlydrawnjeff, Warrens, and Amarkov. A userbox that non-disruptively expresses an opinion as to where the priorities of a particular project or the Foundation writ large ought to lie cannot be understood as divisive and inflammatory, such that speedying was plainly inappropriate here. Whilst procedural issues themselves counsel relisting (viz., because we generally interpret CSD narrowly and take issues to XfD where there is non-trivial disagreement amongst the community as to the applicability of a given criterion for speedy deletion, and because DRV, IAR notwithstanding, is properly concerned with process), it should be observed that we absolutely should not suggest that a contributor whose fundamental beliefs contrast with the policies of the WMF might do well to consider taking his energy elsewhere, if only because we need only care about whether that user's contributions benefit the project as it is; I, for one, disagree in part with Mindspillage's free is better than good formulation, and will continue to advocate for the Foundation's tweaking its fundamental goals and overarching principles but nevertheless continue to contribute productively and constructively here within the confines of extant policy. Joe 21:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well said, Joe. If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you were a lawyer, student of law, paralegal, or sailor. All jokes aside, I fully concur with the proposal you have made, and appreciate the thoughtful, if not eloquent, manner in which you expressed it. Jerry 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. While we allow users' personal opinions within the userbox arena, an opinion that runs contrary to the goals of the Foundation should not be allowed whatsoever. I would feel absolutely the same way if someone made a userbox that said "This user thinks the GFDL sucks and everyone should copyright their material" ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is a response to pkg from a discussion above, and to everyone else who says that having opinions against policies isn't ok:

Jimmy Wales quote from Wikipedia:Userpage:

"Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed." (emphasis added)

Userbox restrictions from the Wikipedia:Userbox page. The emphasis is added:

"All items in template and user space are governed by the civility policy.
         * Userboxes must not include blatant incivility or personal attacks.
         * Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive.
         * Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for political campaigning.
Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes."

This userbox clearly isn't meant to be inflammatory or divisive, it doesn't political campain, it's not civil and it's not a personal attack. It simply states that the user would prefer to use better images as the marking point for articles rather than free first. It doesn't speak about action, it's simply saying that this user would prefer a change in policy. Or, depending upon how you read it, just the way that the policy is enforced.

And finally, other accepted userboxes that express politely and less-politely people's opinions against policies. You'll notice that some of these go so far as to express actions against policies. Trust me, these are only a few:

Anti AGF opinions:

This user despises vandalism and reverts it with extreme pride.

This user has a zero tolerance policy on vandalism.

Anti copyright:

This user respects copyright, but sometimes it can be a major pain.

This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive.

This expresses a viewpoint. I would prefer to eat macaroni and cheese, but I'm allergic. That doesn't say I do eat macaroni and cheese, or that I will or that I'm encouraging people to eat macaroni and cheese, allergic or not. That simply tells people a little about me. There are two things different here. One is that the qualifier that keeps the first thing from happening can change. It may not, it may have no chance, but it probably has more chance than the allergy (leave science out of this people I know there are things you can do, and you know, soy cheese). The second difference is that this box has to do with Wikipedia which actually makes it relevant to a userpage. It's an opinion. And I'm not quite sure why it upsets and scares people so much. The people who use this userbox clearly understand that Wikipedia is a free project--they are just expressing dislike of the extent to which that goes, or dislike of how it's enforced. You can disagree with something without leaving. I disagree with Wikipedia. I disagree with my family, with my friends, with lots of people. However, I express my thoughts, and I don't just walk away anytime I think differently than someone else. That's generally what most people in life do. And some people express their points of view through userboxes:

This user prefers making userboxes to arguing with other editors.

But however Wikipedians decide to express their views, or not, the idea that they should leave the project if they "can't get what it's about" or "disagree with the core principles" is really ridiculous. If they disagree, and express views that are contrary, then they clearly get what it's about. And if they disagree but decide to stay anyway, then good for them. They'll manage to get along in the real world because they've figured out that things don't always go their way and they can work for something and express their opinions and sometimes it just won't happen. But if everytime they attempt to express their opinions this happens, they probably won't stay very long. Not because they have issues with the ideas of Wikipedia, but because people seem so afraid to let the ideas stand for themselves that they attempt to squash everything that they think opposes Wikipedia in some way, going against the policies of Wikipedia themselves and going against Wikiprinciples themselves. You may get rid of a few more vandals and dissidents faster, but what's the point? You can't uphold rules and ideals if you don't follow them yourselves. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Question I understand that there was a second Tfd that went speedy. I'm confused why there was a Tfd at all if it was going to be closed so readily by the person who opened it, why it just wasn't put up for speedy deletion. Because as far as I can tell from reading that second Tfd it was closed on IAR, and not snowball Iar either. I'm also confused as to why the deletion log does NOT point to the second Tfd as to why it's deleted, and I'm assuming the whole Woohookitty deletion was an error as it was self-reverted a minute later? Can anyone weigh in on exactly how and why this got deleted? (not why it should or shouldn't be but what went on) Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Looks like mall security is out in force again. In any case, the point of this userbox is to shape opinion, not to undermine the Foundation or other contrived crap offered in defense of the deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Another example of a userbox criticizing policy is Template:User anti-anon. We have this on several hundred userpages, it's over a year old, and the project hasn't imploded. Kla'quot 02:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.

• Overturn, certainly the userfied version should not have been deleted. Mathmo ^Talk 05:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. W.marsh's argument above deserves to be cited:"people opposed to foundation policy shouldn't be told to shut up or leave... there's an important difference (which seems to be going over people's heads) between stating an opinion against policy and actually acting against that policy". This is indeed a fundamental point. Miss Mondegreen goes further, with remarkable clarity, stating that "We don't have to like everyone's opinions on issues, and we don't have to like the principles that guide their editing. But they are free to express themselves through userboxes". I am not sure that I can agree on the latter, since granting First Amendment protection to userpages may create unmanageable conflict. Still, this is a very relevant issue, which is popping up in other MfDs, with unpredictable results. Stammer 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted perhaps because it became corrupted. It was a longstanding sourced article. mervyn 21:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, looking at the deleted article, although it has external links at the bottom of the article, many of them are spam, and there are absolutely no inline citations, even for very controversial statements. I generally view Jimbo deletions as WP:OFFICE-type deletions (I know this technically isn't, but still), and I wouldn't even think of undeleting this unless I had privately had a discussion with him about why he deleted it in the first place. Looking at the article, I wouldn't want it undeleted anyway. I think it has a better chance if it is recreated from scratch. I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as it was meticulously sourced. Undeleting the old article would be a very bad idea in my view. Mak (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Leave it dead unless you have spoken with Jimbo about very good reasons it shouldn't be - David Gerard 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but it should be possible to create a totally new, fully sourced article. He was well known in Scottish Football circles, having a stake in Dundee Football club, so there's going to be thousands of pages on he and his business via online newspaper sites. -- Nick ^t 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Deletion seesm to have been out of process. Going back a few versions, the links in the version of 13:06 ET, 19 December 2006 appear to provide reliable sources for most if not all of the statements in that version. If this is an OFFICE action, it should be marked as such. The subject seems to be controversial, nbut there seem a wealth of links in fairly recent versions to support the article. inline citations are better, but according to WP:CITE they are explicitly not required. if we want to change that policy, let's do so clearly and openly, with a proper policy proposal The most recent version appear to have mucked up the sourcing a bit, but still cite several articles from major newspapers that support much of the content. There may be sections that are unsourced and should be removed as per WP:BLP (I havenb't reveiewd all that throughly), but ther doesn't seem reason to delte the entire article. If this is overturned, perhaps it should be moved to userspace until it is properly cited and unsupported sections are removed. DES ^(talk) 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, not to advocate special authority for any particular user ... but did you happen to notice which admin did the deletion? And although I've disagreed with David Gerard today about other matters, I suspect in this discussion he knows what he is talking about. Newyorkbrad 00:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes i did. If Jimbo wants to mandate a policy of requirign inline citations for bio artilces, or even all articels, so be it. I might disagree, but that would be that. But if that is going to be done, ist should be done clearly and explictly. Simialrly, if this was deelted due to complaints or other info at the foundation, it should be marked as an OFFICE action, and that woudl be a completely different matter. If he didn't in any way indiacte that he was actign in a special capacity, then hsi edits hsould be subject to exactly the same kind of discussion and possible reversal as any editors, and his admin actions as those of any admin. i stand by waht I said, versions fairly recent in the hsitory contain sources tha support the mnjor statemetns in the article, so this doesn't look to me like a BLP issue. I don't see a valid reason to just delete, unless "But it was deleted by Jimbo" is such a reason. Maybe ther is a good reason there, but i haven't seen it yet.

• allow recreation unless specifically barred as an office action or something to that effect. But... this guy seems to meet WP:BIO in spades... [1], [2]. Just a matter of citing the sources in an article. By virtue of this guy's... uh, life story I guess, he seems quite spectacularly difficult to write about accurately though. --W.marsh 02:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If this were undeleted (to presereve history) moved to my user space, and not moved back until there were inline cites for any controversial or negative statements, what woulkd people think? (Note that I have never edit this art in the past, i have no bias on the subject, in fact i'd never heard of the guy until this DRV.) DES ^(talk) 03:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Like I said before, I don't have a problem with a clean re-creation of this article, but I don't see the need for a badly sourced and clearly problematic article to go back into the mainspace. When an article is undeleted, the history is there for all to see, ridiculous assertions and all. I've seen enough requests for specific versions of articles to be deleted on OTRS not to want the history of this article viewable by the public. I'm not saying it's oh-so-horrible, but I don't see what we get out of undeleting junk. Mak (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • My point is that, with the possible exception of the last few revisions, this does not look like junk to me. It is sourced (or most of it is), the sourcing is simply not inline. I also don't se this as "clearly problematic". I cna see selectivly deltign a few revisions, but not the huge number of revisions that look perfectly fine to me. DES ^(talk) 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comments. - my plea for undeletion was based on him being a significant figure in English law; the article had expanded and gathered many good citations over time (tho I'm sure not enough); and could easily be cleaned up and worked on without needing a total deletion. Not being an admin I can't currently view the most recent edit problems which seem to have resulted in the unannounced deletion, but can they not be overcome?. --mervyn 07:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at a cache, I see that it hasnt got proper inline citations, but the extlinks do carry good refs, so citation can easily be improved.--mervyn 12:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to echo mervyn's comments - I hadn't seen the article for some time (and can't see it now either), so can't comment on what it had become, but there is considerable information out there on this guy, and therefore no reason why a sensible, properly referenced article can't exist. If this is a sourcing problem, I note that the Clerkenwell crime syndicate (a more controversial and "unwise to write about" topic it would be hard to find!) lacks inline citations for the majority of its statements. The summary nature of this deletion just smacks of a lack of transparency in the way this has been handled. There are processes to deal with pages that are "mostly unsourced mostly nonsense". Anilocra 14:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  I might indeed have to smack you. :-P If the article has been deleted by Jimbo, it is likely that the lack of transparency is entirely intentional, duh! Think potential libel? --Kim Bruning 16:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yesh, I agree. There's a reason he deleted it without further comment. We should let it rest. Jimbo doesn't know all, but he sure knows a lot. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with a recreation, but anyone with a chip on their shoulder about either this guy, or me, should kindly steer clear of it. I see no reason to undelete the previous version, which was a mess. A short, simple, factual article with extreme attention paid to sources (and making sure we stick to JUST what the sources say), ALONG WITH a serious attempt at neutrality (i.e. not a random recitation of controversial allegations plucked without context), and this could be a decent article.--Jimbo Wales 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the prior versions, say back in dec (about 6 vers back) Tjose look better to me, although they still need work. Would you agree that such a version could be the basis of a factual, proeprly sourced article. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. If Jimbo doesn't have a problem with its recreation, then we should just userfy it and recreate it when proper sources are cited. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, you're being dense. There's no need to undelete the history or put it in userspace. Just recreate it from scratch. If you really want I can grab the list of sources and put them in your userspace. Mak (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being dense. I personally don't give a crap about this article, I was just trying to make the recreation easier. Why the hell would you be opposed to that? Unless, of course, you're in the game of making illogical arguments, and if that's so that's fine. Oh, and if you're going to userfy it, userfy it to DES, not me. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If I rewited from sources, i'll do a history undelete, as my resaon for doing a rewirite would be to preserve the history. If it were anyone but Jimbo who had deleted this, i would be strongly tempted to undelete, userfy, cleanup and source myself -- but probably that would be a bad idea anyway, since this came here. I don't want to wheel war. i do want to see some principled (and specific) reason why this should stay deleted, or else an indiaction that this was done under OFFICE procedure. DES ^(talk) 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you see Jimbo's comment just above? Newyorkbrad 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be anything but an office action. Unless Jimbo's account got hacked. But I don't care about history, and I don't care about the old article. I just suggested userfying it because it would make recreation easier. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen Jimbo's edit, but now I have. He didn't say or even hint that this was an OFFICE action, although it sounbds very much as if her has BLP concerns. (Office actions are supposed to be explicitly labeled as such, to avoid confusion.) I do care about history -- that is an important issue here, normally. If people are ok with an undel and cleanup, with the most recent few versions selectively deleted, i have volunteered. But I won't do that unless ther is concensus here that that would be ok. I agree that the final version would need to be throughly sourced, and clearly stick to the sourced facts, and to WP:NPOV. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to check that with Jimbo to make sure that it doesn't just get deleted again? Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, I don't care who the heck deleted it, if this wasn't an office action, then it was out of process and completely inappropriate. Jimbo begs us to treat him just like any other editor when he's not acting in an official capacity. We should show the respect he deserves by doing what he asks and judging this case on its merits. I see a too-long article with too few references, but that's a justification for pruning, or maybe AfD; certainly not a speedy criteria! Frankly, I'm very puzzled, and hope Jimbo takes the time to explain his apparently-insupportable behavior. Xtifr _tälk 19:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oohhh... I'm just gonna sit back and wait for the wheel war. This should be fun. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of any unsourced or poorly-sourced biography of a living person, especially if negative information is present. (If we must have a process reason for doing so, call it speedy deletion G10.) The article before was basically an attack piece, and very little of the attack material was sourced. The recreated material does far better at neutrality and sourcing, and looks fine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Woah, that's a new definition of CSD#G10. Also, what about the reportedly better revisions in the article history (I can't see the history; I'm relying on the reports from others that cleaner versions exist) ? It is a big discouragement to good editors here to know that if they write a good version of an article and someone else dumps bad stuff in it later, the good will be deleted with the bad. Kla'quot 03:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This is a clearly notable person, the article had adequate sources (at least it had when I was protecting it against vandalism by its subject[3]) — the only problem with it was that the subject (whose status and character have been amply covered in the press and other media, and commented on by High Court judges and the like) wanted the facts in it to be removed, as they were unflattering. The deletion was out of process, and I can think of no good reason within Wikipedia policy to have deleted it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:BLP--Doc^g 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  I don't understand; which aspect of WP:BLP do you think was violated? All of it? Surely not — but then which part or parts? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Request I can't see the history. Could someone please email me some of the versions that we're talking about here? Kla'quot 03:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Sourced and notable. That took about thirty seconds to verify. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore There is no doubt that he is a notable person in the UK at least. Haddiscoe 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Milo Emil Halbheer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I found this on CSD patrol and was editing it whan another admin delted it. It was unwikified and unsourced, but IMO it did claim notability, and now clearly does, albiet not major notability. I undeleted it and cleaned it up. i also moved it from the original name of Milo emil halbheer, so that is where the delete log will be. I bring it here for review. DES ^(talk) 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, though, theoretically it's already been overturned, but I don't think there's a need to list it, and there's really a need for a DRV -- the subject does assert notability and is no way qualified for an A7 deletion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am bringing it to DRV so as not to simply undo another admins actions without discussion, to help determin whether this article needs an AfD, and to help establish that this sort of articel shouldn't be speedy deleted. Take a lookate the inital version -- does anyone think that should have been speedied? DES ^(talk) 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I figured that was the case -- and absolutely not, the page should not have been speedied. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I was the one who speedied it. I'm fine with the restoration of the article though. Maybe it was just my reading of the article, but the original version was too broad. Things like "numerous exhibitions" don't necessarily equate to notability. An exhibition could be at a county fair or a world famous museum. There were only 11 google hits. However, "louvre in paris awarded him with the title of a masterpainter = maitre." was probably enough to give it notability which I guess I overlooked. DES has clarified quite a bit of the wording from the original version, which helps substantially. If someone else still doubts the notability, it can go to AfD. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I want to be clear, I am sure that PS2pcGAMER acted in good faith, and this is not intended to be in any way a criticism of that usere, just of one action. The origianl article did sound much like the all too common vanity articles we get, and was unsourced and caontained a number of peacock terms. I cna understand pushign the deelte button, i thought about doing so myself when I fert saw the article on a second read it looked to em as if there were clear claims of notability, and so I looked for sources. (Not too many online, but there were some). I want to urge people to think twice before deleting, that is all. DES ^(talk) 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close; AfD optional since A7 obviously did not apply to the current or any past version of the article, DES's undeletion was unquestionably the right thing to do, and the article remains undeleted.

  DES, if you want to "help establish that this sort of article shouldn't be speedy deleted," this doesn't seem the right forum in which to do so. I agree that there are trillions of improper speedies done every day (OK, maybe just millions), and that's an issue you can take to AN/I or the Village Pump or even Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, I suppose, but making an example out of this particular improper deletion at DRV, when you've already undeleted it, seems WP:POINTy. Pan Dan 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Didn't mean to be pointy, the guidelines seem to suggest that when overturning another admin's delte, it should usually be taken here if not put on AfD, didn't want to wheel-war. In the past, such discussions at AN or the pump have asked for evidence from DRV, if I recall correctly. DES ^(talk) 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't take it personally, although I do feel that a message on admin's talk page would probably be a better approach. A direct conversation about an admin's action, to him/her I think would make a bigger impact on getting people to be more cautious about deleting under A7. Along the same lines I'd drop a message with whoever added the CSD tag as a friendly reminder. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry DES, I shouldn't have so quick to bring up WP:POINT. However, since the deleting admin has now agreed to the undeletion, would you agree with a super-speedy close, or do you want to still use this DRV to make a (non-WP:POINTy) point about improper speedies? Pan Dan 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I have no objection to closing at this point, the issue ahs been raised in a public forum, and can be linked to if the more general issue is discussed on AN or the pump or wherever. Sorry if I seemed discourteous, such was not my intent. I will drop a direct msg to the tagger as suggested. This can be closed unless anyone else thinks further discussion is warrented. DES ^(talk) 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

One eds. opinion is as good as another eds. and that hold true for admins as well. If something is kept from speedy that anyone --admin or otherwise--doesn't like, they are welcome to bring it to AfD, which is much better than starting out here. If people make what one thinks consistently bad decisions, talk to them about it. If they make a mistake once, there's no need to press the point. But not starting out here. DGG 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Jason Kaplan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Putting this Howard Stern show producer and cast member up for DRV simply because there was no consensus to delete. 3 "keep" votes and 2 "delete" votes. Anticipating the Wikipedia is not a Democracy arguement, all the editors supported their stance beyond "just a vote." This warrents a review.--Oakshade 10:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As the admin who closed this discussion here's my reasonings as to why I chose deletion over no-consensus. The arguments for deletion were based on the policies WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:N. There was no supporting references/citations to address the concerns raise in the nomination. The essay WP:AADD covers the basis of the keep arguments with use of WP:PEACOCK terms to add emphasis, and capitalizations of opinions to add further weight to the position. Gnangarra 10:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The article reads as personal opinion, there is no compelling claim to notability, and Keep arguments were variants on WP:ILIKEIT. No, nobody has "inherent notability" be association with anyone else, what's needed are non-trivial independent sources of the sort conspicuously absent from this article. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist for a better judge of consensus. He absolutely meets WP:BIO given his role on the Stern show, but the lack of sources at the time is compelling enough to not make me want to endorse a flat-out overturn. A google search seems to show enough to establish the notability his role provides, and having a recognizeable role on what was the most popular morning show on radio is something that simply can't be ignored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The outcome of the AfD was, plainly, that Jason Kaplan does not pass WP:BIO. As User:Jreferee pointed out, notability is neither fame nor importance. As for consensus, it doesn't really matter how many people show up at an individual AfD to vote yea or nay, what matters is the strength of the arguments based on policy. Pan Dan 12:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse clearly did not meet WP:BIO, per Pan Dan, and per JZG the only arguments for it seemed to be ILIKEITs. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Which particular keep arguments were ILIKEITs? --Oakshade 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Relist as per badlydrawnjeff. DES ^(talk) 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, non-trivial coverage by independent sources not demonstrated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is a compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. No citations from independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking. —Ocatecir ^Talk 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless sources are provided sufficient to pass WP:BIO. I have to admit that I was surprised that sources hadn't already been provided, and even more surprised when my own fairly-lengthy search came up empty. I found a lot of places where he's credited as photographer, but otherwise, outside of the Stern site and the blogosphere, I could hardly find even a passing mention. I won't be a bit surprised if sources do turn up, but at this point, I cannot claim to be convinced that they will. Xtifr _tälk 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RoboImport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

speedy was improper Beganstory 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Please indicate why you think the speedy was improper to prevent a speedy close. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: You took the words right outta my mou--er, the keys right offa my boar--uhm. Bah. What Kinu said? Wysdom 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Well, A7 doesn't technically cover software... does it? --W.marsh 02:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• You've a point, but it might have just been mistagged--that is to say, that the contention was "NN", be it fish or fowl. However, it seems to be somehow related to PicaJet which is being discussed in AfD [4]. Perhaps there some kind of 'Recreate/merge' solution? If PicaJet survives the AfD process? I don't know--substantial work needs to be done to PicaJet, and without seeing the article being discussed here, it's hard to say what a recreate/merge might add. Wysdom 03:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list. A7 does not cover software. Was it spammy? If it was it should have been deleted under G11. But the deleting admin cited A7, which is only used for a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Has it been listed before? The page has been thrice recreated and thrice speedied--now salted. I mean, I have nothing against giving this due process, but I'm beginning to suspect the contributor isn't acting in good faith--which I guess means I'm not assuming good faith--for which I apologise. Bear with me a moment, though: Honordrive created PicaJet (now being discussed in AfD). No other contributions. Armypower joins WP out of the blue to defend PicaJet in AfD (and to list Softpedia--biggest proponent of PicaJet products--for reversal in this forum). Beganstory creates an account today to argue for the overturn of RoboImport's deletion--mounting an argument very similar to Armypower's (improper process). Not sure who created RoboImport, since it's not part of the deletion log... But I'm willing to bet my swanky new laptop it's a single-purpose recent account. As I stated on the PicaJet AfD: I want to assume good faith and all, but I smell socks. :/ Wysdom 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If the admin was aware of the PicaJet connection and what appears to be hoisery seeing to promote PicaJet products on all fronts, I can sort of see the logic of A7. Wysdom 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, though, software does not fall under A7. And as for AfD, one would hope that a closing admin would be able to see past SPAs and sockpuppets. If not... well, we won't go there. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list, invalid A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No claim of notability, spammy and promotional, deleted a couple of times and each time re-created by a different single-purpose account - as indeed is this DRV request, see Beganstory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Generic unsourced spam article. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• It's really hard to see the deleted version surviving an AFD... "RoboImport is a digital photo utility program published by PicaJet. It can be used to auto-organize and auto-rotate photos. It also can be used to add location information to a photo. time-limited shareware." and that's it. If there's any reasonable argument it could be expanded with sources, then by all means undelete and relist. --W.marsh 12:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it could with the proper eyes. That's not what this review is about, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, given the fact it has been speedied several times before, and is from an SPA, I'd argue that it could even fall under general housekeeping....G6, because the deletion would likely be non-controversial (given it's past).⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Multiple improper speedies don't mean anything, and being an SPA is completely irrelevant - there is no violation in being an SPA. Given that the deletion is being challenged, it's obviously quite controversial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Request: Could an admin or other user so empowered check Beganstory v. Armypower v. Honordrive v. (insert user who created RoboImport here)? I think we can all agree that a deletion challenged by the creator's sockpuppet isn't controversial, de facto. If I'm wrong about the sock puppetry, then I'll support an "overturn and list" on principle. If I'm right, however, I submit that listing this on AfD is a big waste of time. Wysdom 16:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and lsit on AfD. A7 simply does not apply to software, nor should it. This may or may not be notable, that is what AfD is for. DES ^(talk) 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• So call it G11, spam article created by single purpose account, re-created by multiple sockp[uppets of single purpose account, deletion review requested by yet another sockpuppet. Or - wait! - we could undelete it, waste five days on AfD and give the sockpuppeteering spammer what he wants for a bit longer. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you really think this is a blatent ad, i won't argue further. I wouldn't have speedyed it as such, but that is arguable. DES ^(talk) 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'sd have to see the content. The SPA argument is irrelevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I pasted literally everything but the URL in my comment above... it really wasn't anything that would survive an AFD unless essentially rewritten. --W.marsh 12:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Picajet, for which it will provide some badly-needed content. I don't think there's enough for two articles, but probably one solid one would be kept. I know merge isn't actually one of the options here, but why go in circles over proper procedure when there's a common-sense solution on the merits? Technically, withdraw the DRV and merge the content in, and then defend the unified article.DGG 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That was my first thought--until I saw all the sock-puppetry going on with both articles. PicaJet is being discussed in AfD, itself, and probably won't make it. Let someone else--who hasn't made nine (at last count) SPA sock puppets to author, recreate, and argue to keep/recreate this info--submit a new article on these subjects. There's nothing worth preserving in either one, as far as I can tell--not to mention that this whole "Army of One" reeks of COI. >.> Huh. I appear to have finally decided. Wysdom 03:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong endorsement of deletion. Strong evidence of bad faith, COI/spam, sock puppets--see all my preceding comments. It's unfortunate that this wasn't done "by the letter", and I think nits are worth picking in some cases, but this article so plainly needs to stay deleted that listing it on AfD would be a waste of everyone's time and effort. IMHO. :-) Wysdom 03:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant Endorse deletion, even though I think we really need to start cracking down on admins misapplying A7, I think we need, even more, to continue whacking wikilawyering, puppet-abusing spammers. I see no point in undeletion simply to immediately re-delete as G11. Even if it would make the logs look more tidy. Xtifr _tälk 02:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

List of non-instrumental songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

New Page, Old title Work permit 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This article was speedly deleted, I assume because it has the same title as one that was deleted in the past. My bad for choosing the same title and noting that in discussion page. This article is different in scope and definition. Specifically, it is limited to billboard top 100 hits (so it will be small and manageable) and has a clear definition of inclusion with no subjectivity (which apparently the old article did not).

• Keep deleted. How much different from each other can two articles with the title "List of non-instrumental songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics" really be? Does limiting it to top-100 songs really constitute a real and substantial difference? Not in my book it doesn't. Herostratus 06:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AFD here. Wikipedia is not a data dump. >Radiant< 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Canonical listcruft, the basis of any such article has been debated and consensus was that it is unencyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above, unencyclopedic topic with previous deletion consensus. VegaDark 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I fail to see (1) how limiting the list to Top 100 songs makes it any less indiscriminate, and (2) how that limitation should be self-evident in the title of the article. JuJube 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The old list appears to have been so huge that "Firefox 1.0 and latest IE hang for a long time while trying to display the page". The limitation to top 100 songs obviously reduces the size of the list considerably. Perhaps the article should be renamed to List of Hit songs with titles that don't appear in the lyrics.

I fully understand the argument that the article is "unencyclopedic", "canonical listcruft", and that "Wikipedia is not a data dump". But these arguments would then be valid for just about any article in Category:Dynamic_lists_of_songs.--Work permit 17:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, I don't believe that limiting it to Billboard 100 would address all the issues raised at the AfD. I might, however, be convinced to change my mind if shown evidence that the topic has been noted by reliable sources. Because without that, the name alone constitutes original research. Xtifr _tälk 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• endorse deletion If limited to billboard top 100, it would be a copyvio. The place to see the billboard top 100 would be a billboard franchise, not wikipedia. The list is unencyclopedic, impossible to manage, and provides no real benefit to the reader. Jerry 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)