| Revision as of 06:15, 16 August 2011 edit117.211.83.245 (talk) →Vivek Kumar Pandey: >← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:35, 16 August 2011 edit undoDePiep (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users294,285 edits ISO 15924Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude> | <noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude> | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| :{{DRV links|Template:ISO 15924|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Template:ISO 15924|article=}} | |||
| Four ISO 15924 templates group discussion here, see below. All four were speedy deleted for {{tlx|db-g5}}. Asked the deleting admin to restore, reply was negative . (Some were deleted by other admin - I notified )<br/> | |||
| The four templates are now part of a well-used and well-versed set relating writing systems. The deletion creates redlinks through well-used templates, see ] and ]. I also contest that there were "no substantial edits" (db-g5) by others, since I have edited and reused these with these templates (of course, I cannot point to such edits now). And, since it is about a template, "editing with" as in transcluding can be understood so as well. Then, I find the response by the deleting admin not constructive.<br/> | |||
| a. they did not check for usage of the template,<br/> | |||
| b. did not act to solve that graciously beforehand,<br/> | |||
| c. may have wrongly claimed there are "no substantial edits" as per db-g5,<br/> | |||
| d. the declining editor starts wikilawyering without helping to keep or reproduce good templates at all.<br/>They should be restored (by speedy). To be clear: I do not need temporal restoring and then having construct a way around it or so] (]) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | |||
| :{{DRV links|Template:ISO 15924/name|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Template:ISO 15924/name|article=}} | |||
| See ] -] (]) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | |||
| :{{DRV links|Template:ISO 15924/alias|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Template:ISO 15924/alias|article=}} | |||
| See ] -] (]) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | |||
| :{{DRV links|Template:ISO 15924/numeric|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Template:ISO 15924/numeric|article=}} | |||
| See ] -] (]) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| :{{DRV links|Vivek Kumar Pandey|xfd_page=|article=}} | :{{DRV links|Vivek Kumar Pandey|xfd_page=|article=}} | ||
Revision as of 10:35, 16 August 2011
< 2011 August 15 Deletion review archives: 2011 August 2011 August 17 >16 August 2011
Template:ISO 15924
Four ISO 15924 templates group discussion here, see below. All four were speedy deleted for {{db-g5}}. Asked the deleting admin to restore, reply was negative . (Some were deleted by other admin - I notified )
The four templates are now part of a well-used and well-versed set relating writing systems. The deletion creates redlinks through well-used templates, see Category:User Cyrl and Khojki. I also contest that there were "no substantial edits" (db-g5) by others, since I have edited and reused these with these templates (of course, I cannot point to such edits now). And, since it is about a template, "editing with" as in transcluding can be understood so as well. Then, I find the response by the deleting admin not constructive.
a. they did not check for usage of the template,
b. did not act to solve that graciously beforehand,
c. may have wrongly claimed there are "no substantial edits" as per db-g5,
d. the declining editor starts wikilawyering without helping to keep or reproduce good templates at all.
They should be restored (by speedy). To be clear: I do not need temporal restoring and then having construct a way around it or soDePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Template:ISO 15924/name
See above -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Template:ISO 15924/alias
See above -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Template:ISO 15924/numeric
See above -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Vivek Kumar Pandey
Deletion review for Vivek Kumar Pandey
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vivek Kumar Pandey. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. on their talk page.
Vivek Kumar Pandey
1) No valid reason for deletion and Article can be modified by wikipedia contributor to fulfill the need to be notable. 2) Admin ignorance of many Indian IPs who were familiar with Vivek Kumar Pandey> 117.211.83.245 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC) -->