Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:43, 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

OMG. This one is spoiled too. Template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• "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)

Frankly, neither of you have handled this well. The model first contact with Ironholds would have been a great deal less confrontational, but equally, the model response from Ironholds would have been more like: "The reason why I won't do what you want is xyz, but what I can do to resolve your problem is abc."—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 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)

So Ironholds does not support any solution. Then this would fail the first treshold at REFUND. -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)About WP:REFUND: in the intro, above the table of content, twice is stated that DRV is the place to go when editors talk page (i.e. Ironholds's in this case) does not solve it. If Ironhold were in a solution here, I wouldn't mind giving it equal weight as being resolved. But alas, not so. So it stays here. -DePiep (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Undelete (this and the other three) and list at TfD. The purpose of most speedy deletion criteria, G5 included, is to avoid pointless discussions for obvious cases. Here, an editor in good standing is making a reasonable objection to the speedies, and clearly wants a discussion. Let him have it. This discussion is clearly would be much better handled with the template and history in full view, and with the participation of editors interested in templates. No criticm of the deleting admin for performing the deletions, but if a speedy (excepting G9, G10, G12, F7, F9) is contested by an editor in good standing with a plausibe story, then undeletion and listing at XfD should be done by default (just as if the CSD tag were removed). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  Really? Because I was under the impression that the purpose of G5 was to enforce WP:DENY. Nice to find out I was wrong. Ironholds (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Before someone else says it WP:DENY as an essay is something we are unlikely to enforce, and G5 pre dates the creation of WP:DENY. It's there to enforce WP:BAN --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

At this moment, the only one laughing is the banned editor. So far for denying. -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ironholds, yes WP:DENY is a good reason to delete banned editors contributions, if done quietly. However, once a contest by an editor in good standing has been raised, WP:DENY is already moot. Better to send this matter to TfD where the focus will be on technicalities of the template, on a need for a past or replacement template os something. If we stay here the discussion is unfocused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I consider Ironhold's action an inappropriate use of the rules. DENNY is perfectly appropriate policy, and should be pursued, but wWhat he should have done after deletion, is re-created the template or made a substitute. The solution at this point is for someone else to do so. If copyvio is a concern, let it be done by manual editing. When two policies conflict, the one that should be followed is the onethat improves the encyclopedia . Another way of looking at it is when DENY conflcts with Copyright, Copyright is more important. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Subthread: about WP:COPYVIO

Deleting admins Ironholds (starting here at DRV ) and User:Gfoley4 (Gfoley4 in a different but quite parallel db-g5 topic ) point to the possible problem of WP:COPYVIO when copyediting code back into public WP. However, since the four templates are either fully recreated content (as Ironholds has noted : "DePiep's contribution was to remove it all and instead include the /doc page" -- bingo) or a Simple, non-creative lists of information, namely the well-published ISO 15924/Unicode alias list, which is not a "creative expression". For sure, manual recreation of such a list would yield the very same list. So no copyvio to be claimed, and I might add that any cooperative admin who does deletions and calls COPYVIO, could have come up with this constructive outcome too. -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment for this page (ignore the others for now) if the content at deletion was merely inclusion of the documentation, then it appears the easiest solution is just to recreate it with the inclusion and ignore the history which is presumably not relevant to the new content. I can't see how that can raise any objection ? --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Surely it's about attribution. We shouldn't use people's contributions without crediting them.—S Marshall T/C 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly, S Marshall. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Did one follow the note and link to Simple, non-creative lists of information? And btw, Gfoley4, you deleted the page that has no content any more from the banned user. As explained above: recreation is possible while contributing the content correctly to the sole (last) editor who according to Ironholds did all the content, and who is not banned. Deleted content & banned user stay out of view and we do not have to attribute (now this is COPYVIO well read). Solved. And here are the current results while I am waiting for anything constructive. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Nothing to do with attribution, which we often seem to get rather obsessed with, we attribute as part of the copyright license requirement, once we stop using the work of someone in an article then the requirement vanishes. That is the case here, we don't need to undelete, just recreate the page with the simple inclusion of the doc page, which is pretty much all DePiep's work, there is nothing to attribute to anyone else. For the other stuff then we'd need to look closer which, I would suspect as DePiep points out that the work in question doesn't qualify for copyright protection (I can't see it so this is guess work) and so we wouldn't need to attribute anyway. Simple lists of facts etc. are not copyrightable, in the US they do not recognise sweat of the brow. It also sounds like the kind of stuff which could be more or less "automatically" generated from the ISO source, merely formatting up to fit in the template structure. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. Given our template format and the factua information ,there is essentially no other way to do it.

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)

I never said that was the case; I was explaining why I referred particularly to your edits, which were also in some cases the only edits. Ironholds (talk) 13:50, 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)

One more, which added...81 characters. Ironholds (talk) 16:22, 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)

And barring the 0-dropped numbers that DePiep added, I added exactly HALF of the entire template. If Half of a template is not a substantive contribution, I don't know what is.

Furthermore, these template calls are being used in a WikiProject infobox, which is currently broken. I've commented out the calls while we wait for an admin to restore those templates, but breaking things to uphold a vendetta is not good practice. That's what a What Links Here check would have revealed to an admin thinking about what he was doing: a template that was in use in hundreds of writing system articles. VanIsaac_WS 22:42, 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) -->

You already did this at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_14 Dream Focus 14:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the correct location for the deletion review since it was started on August 16. The other one should be closed. Calathan (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• 117.211.83.245, WP:Register and request userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the edit history of this page, it looks like User:Kook2011 tried to create this deletion review but accidentally placed his text inside a comment. IP user 117.211.83.245 then tried to fix the the deletion review. I don't know if User:Kook2011 is the same person as the IP, but perhaps it could be userfied to User:Kook2011. Calathan (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Are any of the citations found reliable sources? You can post them on the reliable sources message board, and asks. Or do any of those sources already have their own Misplaced Pages article? Did the person meet any of the requirements at WP:ACADEMIC? Dream Focus 14:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)