Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:39, 16 August 2011

16 August 2011

Template:ISO 15924

Template:ISO 15924 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

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 so. DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Notified two editors

• "Wikilawyering" is "using the rules to produce an utterly perverse result". It is not "applying the rules precisely as they are written, for the purpose they were intended" which is what I did. The fact that each page serves a purpose does not matter for the reasons laid down in policy; and no, I did not pre-clear speedy deletions with anyone who might possibly find them awkward. That is not what we do. I will address the specifics of each template at each DRV entry. For ISO 15924, fellow admins will see that the content started at 1,226 byes. DePiep's contribution was to remove it all and instead include the /doc page (which is covered below) - hardly a substantial contribution, or even, really a contribution at all. Ironholds (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Replacing all content is not substantial ... nice. Checking for usage is not about clearing with persons, but at least hit the WLH button. All in all, even whithin your just-the-rules claim, you could have decided opposite. Leaning to the negative is a choice you made. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not "replacing" - removing. Do not put words in my mouth. Please explain what "WLH" refers to? Ironholds (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so "what links here" - again, there is no obligation to do that (it'd be utterly ludicrous if there was) because whether or not the content is useful is not a factor. Ironholds (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think that Ironholds was technically within his rights to delete the template under g5, but once he'd exercised that right, it then became his responsibility to co-operate with editors' attempts to fix the various broken pages arising from his speedy deletion.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sure, and I'd be happy to do that - although it wasn't originally suggested to me, I was just told "you have broken templates, please restore the things you deleted". I'm not quite sure how DePiep expects me to fix the templates except by copying-and-pasting the deleted code, which not only defeats the point of WP:DENY but is also a WP:COPYVIO. Ironholds (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter when? Even after it was mentioned to Ironholds, they keep tight to the negative.

Since I cannot see their history, I have no access to Ironholds arguments in this (see also the other templates below). I request someone less involved review the whole history when claims are made re substantiality. For example, contributions of other editors may indicate serious stuuff.

Curiously, on my talkpage Ironhold rubs it against me that I cannot see the history, concluding I "admit" that I do not know about it. -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

DePiep, the entire point of DRV is that uninvolved users give it a looksee. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There does not seem to be a substantive issue here: User:Ironholds was right to delete the templates under G5. The "significant contributions" is a bit of a red herring. Ironholds acted appropriately within the scope of G5. That the template no longer existing raises problems for other articles may be an unfortunate consequence of a G5 deletion, but that's not "wikilawyering" nor does it mean that the deletion was inappropriate. The point of WP:DRV is to contest when closers/admins make the wrong decision at deletion. This wasn't the wrong decision per policy. The issues which might follow a G5 deletion of a template are a WP:REFUND issue which can be resolved by any admin and doesn't require DRV of the admin's decision. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand DRV and REFUND so that this is the right place. -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I introduced the word wikilawyering when talking about the denied reversal, not the original deletion. COPYVIO was not introduced by me at all. I just asked for support in recreating the templates. -DePiep (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how saying "no; I was correct to do it" constitutes "wikilawyering"? Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You cherry pick rules "I am allowed to" when it suits you, and "I don't have to" when it does not suit you. You introduced COPYVIO. But hey, looking forward: what solution do you propose? -DePiep (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Which rules have I cherrypicked, precisely? And yes, I introduced WP:COPYVIO - because you made a request which would have created a copyright infringement. How's this for a solution; you try for WP:REFUND and stop claiming that anyone who doesn't do precisely what you tell them to do is obviously shirking their duties, acting improperly and wikilawyering? Ironholds (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So do I understand that Ironholds does not oppose REFUND? If not, I cannot state "uncontroversial" there. If any other editor could take that step, that would be great too; clearly I might be on a side. -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I do not oppose you attempting to use refund. I'm not going to make any comment on whether or not it's a good idea. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:ISO 15924/name

Template:ISO 15924/name (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

See above -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

For ISO 15924/name, fellow admins will see that the content started at 3,956 byes. DePiep's contribution was to add an extra 1.5kb, comprised entirely of numerical ISO codes for the specific names - hardly a substantial contribution. Ironholds (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So adding ISO code or numbers in an ISO template is not substantial? And if I remember well, I also added notes on as-of checking. Which is, re ISO, quite relevant. And I doubt if the edits in these templates are by me alone. -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, there are also contributions by another user which were substantially reverted by your changes. Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverting can be a substantial edit too. There even was cooperation, and the result was an improvement. Now my questions are: why do you personalise the argument, and what else does the history say that might be opposing your argument? -DePiep (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how I'm personalising the argument. Could you explain? Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Here on this page: you leave out other editors contributions, you focus on my edits only. If there was any development through history, you do not mention that. Part of the editing was: using it in other templates, sandboxing, just every day template jobs; you have not looked into that as possible relevant edits. At my talk page, you create a logic that I would have "atmit" I don't know about page's (to me invisible) history. And this, again, only about my edits: "but you have not made such edits to these pages". All of this: it shouldn't be about me. -DePiep (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• When you make statements like "I also contest that there were "no substantial edits" (db-g5) by others, since I have edited and reused these with these templates " - you make it partially about your edits, particularly since in the case of some templates - such as Template:ISO 15924/alias - you were the only contributor other than the banned user. Ironholds (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Substantial edits can be made by any editor, not just the contesting editor. -DePiep (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:ISO 15924/alias

Template:ISO 15924/alias (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

See above -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• For ISO 15924/alias, fellow admins will see that the content started at 2,605 bytes. DePiep's contribution was to bring it down to 2,492 bytes, which was done by...removing all the spaces'. Not a substantial contribution. Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I recall there were more edits. -DePiep (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:ISO 15924/numeric

Template:ISO 15924/numeric (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

See above -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• For ISO 15924/numeric, fellow admins will see that the content started at 2,190 bytes. DePiep's contribution was to allow for default switching through, for example, replacing 20 with 020, and so on. Not a substantial contribution. Ironholds (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I did not replace 20 with 020, I added it. Which is, in template world, relevant. So I changed #default output. In template world ... that is quite relevant. -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Vivek Kumar Pandey

Vivek Kumar Pandey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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) -->