![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
All of the other deletion processes have an archive system by date, so I'm a little confused as to why the
MfD archive only goes by month, and doesn't have carbon copies of the discussions like the other deletion processes (even TfD does it by date despite having very little nominations per date). Also, why are the closed discussions listed at their end dates (also unlike the other deletion processes)? For the sake of consistency, I have two proposals as to how this can be remedied, with only one major difference in-between them:
What are everyone's thoughts so far? I'm currently neutral on this discussion, but my opinions may change based on the opinions of other users. ToThAc ( talk) 19:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
So I can't be bothered to vote on all of these individually, but please do notify me if someone nominates the entire remaining "portal" namespace in one fell swoop. ― cobaltcigs 08:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. ― cobaltcigs 23:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
There seems (to me) to be an odd non-closed entry from July at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Steven Clifford (disambiguation). Could it be closed please (my preference would be: wrong forum). Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 20:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rocordman, I nominated two pages for deletion. Apparently, this doesn't work the same way it does in AfD. Could somebody who'd more familiar with the MfD process details than I am please fix things up for me? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Why are userboxes in the template namespace nominated here instead of at Templates for discussion? I would like to have a proper explanation for this. (I am currently not pushing for it to be changed, however.) Geolodus ( talk) 14:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Will someone please take a look at the archive? I think that the bot is disordered again, and has logged the same archives over and over again. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The date groups for October 20 and October 19 are out of order. Does this matter? Will the bot correct this, ignore it and proceed anyway, or become confused? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Geolodus ( talk · contribs) recently added the following hatnotes to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter
“ WP:MFD" redirects here. For deletion of modules, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.
" WP:DFD" redirects here. For the failed proposal, see Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion.
and has reverted [1] my removal of them.
Both should be removed as useless and misleading clutter. MFD is the main shortcut for WP:Miscellany for deletion. No one with introductory knowledge of XfD can reasonably expect it to mean Modules for Discussion, and modules got to TfD meaning that the permanent mention of redirecting here is misleading about which XfD covers modules. Same with Disambiguation pages, which go to AfD. If there is any serious confusion between “Drafts for Deletion” and “Disambiguations for Deletion”, the answer is a disambiguation page. However, use of DFD is negligible. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed a bunch of userspace drafts nominated for reasons that don't seem to have a basis in policy.
As a reminder, sandboxes are for experimenting, learning, and drafting articles. Hence they are not indexed and not subject to most of our content guidelines (like notability). We have valuable CSD criteria to delete the promotional junk, attack pages, copyright violations, etc. Apart from that, there's WP:STALE. Importantly, this primarily applies to inactive users. I see multiple nominations of userpages and drafts right after creation. That's a major WP:BITE problem.
If the user is inactive, and the page doesn't qualify for CSD, and it hasn't been submitted to AfC, then ask if your problems are solved by blanking the page. (Personally, I don't think this accomplishes much other than disenfranchising editors less, given nobody who isn't undertaking userspace maintenance tasks will ever see it, but it's permitted by WP:STALE). For a userspace draft, MfD is for when it doesn't qualify for CSD and is problematic even if blanked. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Anyone here think this is MfD worthy? I’m on the fence about this one. CoolSkittle ( talk) 18:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front_matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the red link to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals as unneeded clutter, or in X to Y terms, change
From
Filtered versions of this page [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion]] include: * [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts]] * [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals]]
To
Filtered versions of this page [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion]] include: * [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts]]
Thank You!
User:SmokeyJoe - User:Snaevar is right. The information for MFD says that MFD is the forum for TimedText. I think that should be changed, and that TimedText files should be considered to be files and discussed at Files for Deletion, but this is the correct forum for now. I think that it should be changed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that I know the answer, but would like to be sure. A draft BLP was created on a non-notable person, Draft:Suhas Tejaskanda. The draft was declined twice and resubmitted twice. The author of the draft then became auto-confirmed, and created a copy of the BLP in article space, Suhas Tejaskanda. The article was then nominated for deletion, and the AFD will run for seven days. I declined the draft a third time. (I now see that I declined it on 'exists' grounds, and I probably should have also declined it on 'bio' grounds, but the reason for the decline is not important.) My question has to do only with having the draft deleted. I have put a note to the closer in the AFD asking that the draft also be deleted if the article is deleted. My question is whether this is the right way to bundle the nomination of the draft along with the nomination of the article. I think that if I tried to tag the draft either for {{ MFD}} or {{ AFD}}, the templates would sense and display template use errors. In this situation, should the reviewer of the draft simply request that the closer of the AFD also delete the draft? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Just thought I would advertise a quarry I found useful for book namespace cleanup since a few people here seemed interested in the book namespace when I nominated a few in December. quarry:query/46732 finds all books with no article of the same name meaning that many of these are about non-notable topics or one of the many hundreds of test books stemming from when the book creator was in the sidebar of every single article. I found that over a third of the ones I looked at probably should be deleted. Do what you want with this information. -- Trialpears ( talk) 18:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
RE:
If a clear consensus has not emerged, consider relisting the discussion:
versus
Relisting at MfD is rarely needed, do not do so without a good reason. Reasons include important new information, or a need call back early participants to an unexpected new argument.
I changed the first to the second, Godsy ( talk · contribs) Reverted [2].
I think the first has served poorly and should be replaced by the second. The first serves to attract inept newcomer NAC-ers into relisting any old discussion that they don't know what to do with. No admin or other experienced closer needs to be told to "consider relisting" at the top of technical instructions on how to relist. The sole purpose of the line is to tempt someone into performing the relist. It gives no information about what to "consider". The change removes the empty statement, and gives example considerations.
I think it is desirable to discourage pointless, comment-free relists at MfD. They DO NOT attract more attention, but the opposite, they hide old discussions among the new. The prevent backlog alerts from advertising that there is a backlog. When relisted inappropriately, they delay a timely close by an experienced closer. Inexperienced closers should not be relisting difficult discussions, even if they could relist with a meaningful comment, they would do better to !vote or comment.
I note that there has been a rash of inappropriate pointless comment-free MfD relists lately, and that Godsy is one of the culprits. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wikipedia:DFD. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Wikipedia:DFD until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
BDD (
talk)
17:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, due to a mistake on my part I didn't list Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force forks here. I have today, but Legobot removed it, so now I'm in a real pickle. Any advice on what to do now...? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Obviously putting a notice of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Userspace drafts of banned sockpuppet Oliverdrinkstars57 on the banned editor's user talk page wouldn't be helpful to HIM, and it might invite disruption.
In situations like this, is there a standard practice of posting an "after the discussion closes" notice on banned editor's talk pages, to aide in research later if there is suspected sock-puppetry? I'm trying to balance informing future editors (good) against "grave-dancing" (bad). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 19:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
following the guide, after completing step 1 i'm supposed to add this here
anyway, WP:XE is actually the worst thing that has ever been on this site. uh, wait, um. i don't think that's a valid reason. uh. how about the essay is actually dumb, like, just use they. it's not that f*cking hard. this was created in 2014 but feels like it was created in 1960 like holy sh*t this is the most offensive thing ever. and like I know wikipedia is not censored but this is actually wasting space. like, if someone literally titled an essay wp:(racial slur) (you know what word i mean) would people be saying that wikipedia is not censored about that? would people want to keep that up? i don't even know. 24.236.225.133 ( talk) 06:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I've got a situation where User:Dwid hellion, who goes by the same name as a singer in a well known band called funnily enough Integrity (band), has been repeatedly warned for vandalizing, disruptively editing and conflicts of interest with almost 500 edits on his own band page going back to 2009. All this is now up for discussion on the NPOV noticeboard. A similar situation involving a new account with only two edits that occurred earlier this month resulted in the user being blocked indefinitely, so I don't think Dwid's user page is going to be around much longer.
I have also discovered that this user has made a draft for a biography page based on himself. This is unambiguous promotion and should be deleted immediately.
The suggested remedies for "Deleting drafts in other people's userspace" on this project page all appear to be ineffectual in this situation:
I feel that deleting this draft in this instance is warranted but I am unable to justify it using anything written on this policy page. Can we get some discussion going and perhaps add something new to that section? Thanks. Kire1975 ( talk) 02:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Kire1975 ( talk) 19:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This project page is informative, but the instructions on how to nominate several related pages in an umbrella nomination require improvements. The instructions are suited for individual nominations and currently do not provide any helpful info regarding the steps one should take when listing the pages in the discussion entry itself (which is given an arbitrary name by the nominator). Personally, I searched for previous similar discussions to see how it was done, found several different formats, and picked the most appropriate one. I recommend giving detailed instructions for listing MfD group nominations. Bezrat ( talk) 17:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello,
Please could you list the page Wikipedia:When sources conflict for discussion with the following rationale.
"This page is a completely redundant fork of Wikipedia:Conflicting sources which was written by a newcomer that seems to have fundamentally misunderstood the policies they were writing about and have confused Verifiability, truth and the existence of different opinions. The advice given by essay is a combination of confusing and nonsensical (what does "Verify each source" mean? where would you report sources as inaccurate?) and just flat out wrong ("show every source and use all of them" is not the correct way of dealing with this - you should represent all well covered mainstream views in accordance with due weight, not every source you can find). I see no need to have two essays covering the exact same issue and reaching the exact same conclusion (Write according to NPOV) when one of them deviates so far from accepted practices. I propose that this essay should be deleted and it's shortcut retargeted to Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. See also the TfD discussion related to it's associated clean up template and this discussion at wikiproject clean up."
Thank you, 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 10:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
User:UBX/User drinks Coca-Cola is being discussed, and all pages transcluding it have the deletion template with a link to a nonexistent MFD for the user page; these are now 636 of the 730 pages in Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion. Transcluded pages are usually templates and the TFD template is a different style and links to the correct page. Is there a version of the MFD template that resembles the TFD template, or should there be "noinclude" tags around the MFD notice? Or would it be better to use TFD instead for the purpose? Peter James ( talk) 19:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This article should not be deleted quickly because it is the product of the author's mind, because there has always been and continues to be differences between people about the darkness or light of objects, and if no reason has been recorded for this issue, there is no reason to deny it. This is because no research has been done on it or the research done has not been concluded. Although this article is short, it has been the result of months of field and library research, and in a nutshell, it is a fair amount for the general public and states the cause of this phenomenon, which is a hypothesis that can be examined. As we all know, most of the world's most important discoveries, including Avogadro's law, Einstein's theory of relativity, etc., seemed to be born of the human mind at first, but after much research, they were officially proven. But today, with the Internet and numerous encyclopedias, this type of article can be made available to others so that conclusions can be drawn much faster, because researchers can communicate much more easily. In fact, having this article in Wikipedia can make this material available to many researchers, and we can all conclude this in consultation with each other, so that the path to the turbulent path of knowledge advancement is faster. Therefore, I ask you to publish this article for at least a month and then delete it if this is not successful. With respect: parmida pirgourabi 91.98.180.81 ( talk) 08:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This edit seems suspiciously like pre-empting an underway deletion debate. I've asked at the deletion debate itself whether this is proper. - Bri.public ( talk) 14:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there some reason the table of contents has to be so far down on the page? On my laptop, I have to scroll through four whole screens before reaching it. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 18:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion (books) § Mark process as historical. --
Trialpears (
talk)
08:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone list the page Wikipedia:Copy and paste at MFD for me with the following rationale?
This essay is supposedly about the old copy and paste box that used to appear at the bottom of the edit window, which in the days before JavaScript was widespread you would use to insert characters by copying and pasting them into the wikitext. The essay, in its entirety, consists of a statement that the box exists, a substitution of the interface message, and a statement that it may or may not appear depending on your preferences. I genuinely cannot tell what the supposed use of this page is, it doesn't provide any information that isn't in the interface message itself. These days the box is essentially redundant to the Edit toolbar, with this box only appearing on browsers that have javascript disabled. A rough count indicates that this essay currently has ~ 10 incoming links (that aren't maintenance related), about 7 of which were obviously intended to be targeting WP:COPYPASTE, one from another essay and the remainder being left in comments from the essay's creator. This was previously nominated for deletion in 2016, which was closed as no consensus. I propose that this should be either deleted or userfied, and this page and it's three redirects ( WP:PASTE, WP:Paste, WP:Copy/paste) retargeted to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources.
192.76.8.91 ( talk) 17:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, could someone list one more page at MFD for me please? The page is Portal:Nickelodeon and the rationale is as follows:
"Badly outdated and abandoned portal that has failed to attract a community of maintainers. Most of the content in the portal was created by a single editor between 2011 and 2014 and has been mostly abandoned since.
The portal contains 50 selected articles, all created between 2011 and 2014 with minimal updates since. All are in need of some maintanance, e.g. Nick@nite contains a logo that hasn't been used since 2012, outdated timeslots from a decade a go, The Penguins of Madagascar contains no mention of the second or third series and reads like the show ended in 2010.
The portal has 10 selected biographies, most created in 2011 with a couple of later additions in 2014. All are badly outdated - seeing a blurb like this which shows an image of a 20 year old, focuses on a TV show cancelled in 2007, contains outdated award counts, states that their latest film is something that was released in 2011 and talks about what they were doing "as of 2010" linking to an article on a 35 year old actor is jarring, to say the least.
The portal has 10 selected pictures, which are also showing their age. The most recent awards ceremony features dates form 2009, and there is no indication that the subject of this photograph was redeveloped in 2017. One of the photos was deleted as a copyvio 6 years ago and hasn't been replaced.
The portal has 5 "did you know sections", all of which focus on tv shows from the late 1990's to the late 2000's. There doesn't seem to be a single fact from the last decade included.
The news section contains a single item from 2012.
The "In this month" section doesn't contain anything more recent than 2014.
The Wikiproject the portal advertises as a hub for collaboration doesn't exist anymore, it was merged into Wikiproject television last year due to being unsustainable, and is currently semi-active.
The "Quality content" section contains an error message.
The "Things you can do" section instructs readers to tag articles with a deleted template.
The portal averages 760 page views a month, which is good for a portal, but this still represents only 0.6% of the page views of the article on nickelodeon, which receives over 118,800 page views a month.
Overall I just don't feel that a portal full of content related to what this tv station was doing a decade ago is performing it's function as a hub and a showcase for our nickelodeon related content. While it does attract some readers it has completely failed to attract maintainers, and is now badly showing it's age."
Thanks, 192.76.8.91 ( talk) 17:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Some updates to the "What may be nominated for deletion here:" section:
Thanks, 192.76.8.91 ( talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 192.76.8.91 ( talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I've rarely been to this area. Can one obtain a consensus to undo a deletion, here? GoodDay ( talk) 21:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
No idea what I am doing wrong, but every time I copy and paste the templates it all goes wrong. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I don’t nominate drafts or redirects for deletion very often, and Draft:Delete me Telfer is both. Apparently that confused me. Thinking I had nominated the target article for deletion, I created a second nomination for the entry linked above. Can someone get rid of the duplicate nomination? Thanks! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 22:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, please could someone list Help:Simplified tutorial for discussion with the following rationale? Thanks, 192.76.8.80 ( talk) 19:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
"A badly written and confusing tutorial, produced by a brand new editor who has since been blocked for disruptive editing and a general lack of competence. Apart from the obvious point that brand new editors with massive competence issues should not be telling other people what to do the text of this tutorial is useless and would not help any new editor getting started.
The tutorial starts with a two paragraph introduction, the first paragraph "helpfully" tells us that wikipedians are human, while the second is a massive bold notice about a mark-up language that Wikipedia doesn't use, which incorrectly tells readers that the text is written in mediawiki (as far as I'm aware the markup language has always been called wikitext).
The next section is "Practicing editing" which includes the good suggestion to practice in your personal sandbox, and the terrible advice to create pages on Test Wikipedia. Test wikipedia is used for testing new versions of mediawiki, writing articles there is a terrible idea for all kinds of reasons (the devs reserve the right to delete everything without notice, all the templates you need won't exist, you'll be using an experimental and often broken version of mediawiki, if you create a page an importer will be needed to move it over here etc).
The next section is "Start an article" which contains the confusing instruction that you can create a new article by Open a invalid link that looks like a normal Wikipedia article URL
, that's not something I would expect to see in a simplified tutorial. It tells newcomers to use Articles for Creation but doesn't explain how. The fact that new editors won't be able to create main space pages is given as a footnote after most of the instructions. This section also contains the statement If somebody tries to create a new page outside the "Draft" namespace, the page may be moved to the Draft namespace.
, which is confusing without context as to what would cause a page to be moved to draft space (moving all new pages to draftspace regardless of their quality was one of the things that the creator was blocked for). As a final point creating new articles is about the most complex piece of content creation you can do on this site, we shouldn't be telling newbies reading a simplified tutorial to jump straight into creating a new page.
The final section is "Format text (WIP)" which says that you use apostrophes to make bold and italic text (again, without explaining how) then directs you to look in the creator's sandbox for examples of formatting.
About a half the text here is so poorly written and confusing that any newbie looking at it isn't going to have a clue what it's saying, a quarter is blatantly wrong and the remainder is pointless waffling that doesn't add anything of value. This tutorial provides no information on any of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines (like verifiability, Notability, Reliable sources ...) which isn't surprising given that the creator doesn't seem to understand them. Anyone trying to use this as a guide for getting started is going to be left confused and with major gaps in their knowledge. I suppose this title might make a good redirect to something, but given the number of help pages we have for beginners ( WP:The wikipedia adventure, Help:Getting started, Help:your first article, Help:Introduction etc) I'm not sure where you would point it, especially since I'm not seeing any of them actually trying to be a simplified tutorial. 192.76.8.80 ( talk) 19:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)"
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022.
Evad37 [
talk
00:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, could someone please list the page Wikipedia:Injured Wikipedians for discussion with the following rationale?, Thanks, 192.76.8.77 ( talk) 22:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be someone's attempt to make a modified version of Wikipedia:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia, but I can't see any use for it. The introductory text makes no sense (why is conflict of interest relevant here), there is no conceivable use for project building and it isn't a good humour page either.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone list Wikipedia:Entertainment theater for discussion with the following rationale please? Thank you. 192.76.8.70 ( talk) 03:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Brand new project space page that seems to be trying to be a cross between the teahouse, a wikiproject and the community portal. The text at the top of the page is near nonsensical, and a look through the page history makes it clear that even the creator isn't even sure what this is supposed to be. This is redundant to the teahouse, wikiproject entertainment and the community portal which do much better jobs of being a place for newcomers to ask questions, discuss entertainment related articles and link to community resources respectively. I can see no reason to have this odd hybrid page, it serves no useful function while having the potential to confuse newcomers and as such should be deleted.
The vast majority of drafts that I am seeing nominated for deletion usually receive a response something along the lines of "Why did you nominate this? It would have been deleted under G13 anyway," implying that the process wastes everybody's time (which it likely does). With this being the case, why are drafts being nominated for deletion, and what is lost by simply allowing the speedy deletion process to take place? Would it be worth drafting some guidelines that dictate when a draft should and should not be nominated for deletion? WaltCip-( talk) 16:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I've tried and failed twice to do this myself, but I think /info/en/?search=User:Dhruv4wiki/Partap_sehgal needs to be considered for deletion. CT55555 ( talk) 20:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, please could someone list the following pages for discussion? Thank you! 192.76.8.78 ( talk) 19:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Page 1 Wikipedia:Legal Bans
Rationale:
A page created by a self admitted sock puppet which was in turn created to perform actions that would get their main account in trouble, this poorly thought out policy page aimed to create a "legal bans" noticeboard, where people who had committed crimes could be listed as "people who should never have a Wikipedia account". Having created the policy page the creator began filling the page up with the names of random non-notable criminals, with no evidence that any of these people had ever edited Wikipedia. The content in the page history is problematic from a BLP and Attack page perspective. The talk page of this policy consists of various admins and users trying to decide if the content falls under some deletion or oversight criteria, and various editors criticising the proposal from a BLP perspective. Some random editor's list of "The worlds worst criminals" is not suitable content for a Wikipedia project page, And the proposal is a non-starter because we do not require editors to use their real name. 192.76.8.78 ( talk) 19:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Page 2 Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Siavash777
Rationale:
Innapropriate and malformed long term abuse page, the only content here is a broken template substutution. The subject of this page, Siavash777 has only three short blocks for edit warring and is in no way an LTA. The creator of this page, Kabirat, was involved in an active edit war with the subject when they created it [3]. It is unacceptable for editors to make bogus LTA pages about editors they are in conflict with and maintaining an LTA page about an editor that is not an LTA represents a WP:Personal attack. 192.76.8.78 ( talk) 19:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Page 3 Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/78.150.154.148
Rationale:
Malformed and inappropriate LTA page created by a brand new user on their second edit. The vast majority of this page is a failed template substitution which had all it's parameters filled in with rubbish. The infobox contains some information on the supposed "abuser", which consists of 6 IP addresses from the same subnet. The supposed habitual behaviour that requires an explanation to spot is "Repeatedly changing the facts and figures". The edits that supposedly qualified the IP user as being labelled as an "LTA" consist of a few dozen disruptive edits to the article Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film). over the course of 3 months. This entire "LTA" situation was eventually resolved by semi-protecting the page. We do not need LTA pages making every time an editor with a dynamic IP address is mildly disruptive - this page is complete junk and there is nothing here that would qualify the IP as an LTA. 192.76.8.78 ( talk) 19:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, Could someone please list the following two pages for discussion? Thank you! 192.76.8.78 ( talk) 19:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Page 1 Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/120.188.37.200
Rationale:
Useless, malformed, almost blank long term abuse report created by an editor who has now been blocked for their disruptive attempts at vandal fighting. The page contains a single sentence with no useful information. The IP range in question made a few hundred disruptive edits over the span of a few months before being range blocked. There is no need to document this editor as an LTA, and even if there was this page is completely useless in its current state. 192.76.8.78 ( talk) 19:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Page 2 Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/86.17.18.75
Rationale:
Utterly ridiculous "long term abuse" report for an IP address that has made 20 edits. The IP that is the subject of this report has never been blocked or even received a warning. The edits from this IP are the mix of productive edits, Unproductive but good faith and vandalism that you would expect to see from any dynamic IP address, and based on the range of styles, editing methods and topics it has obviously been used by multiple people. The only section of this report that has been filled in is "Targeted areas, pages, themes" where the creator of this page has just made a list of all the pages this IP has ever made any kind of disruptive edit to, something that anyone can get from the IP's contributions page. The IP here is blatantly not an LTA and this page should be deleted. 192.76.8.78 ( talk) 19:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Good day! In what way can I delete a template ( Philippine name) and moved to Family name hatnote instead. I know it sound insane but I think this is only my way to avoid confusion regarding resemblance between the said template and Spanish and Portuguese templates, and also the presence of the letter "Ñ" especially in the surnames as well. RenRen070193 ( talk) 04:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to MfD long-term inactive WikiProjects? Two examples would be WP:BITASK & its branch WP:BITSE, which have been inactive for over a decade. GoodDay ( talk) 03:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy ping:
Serial Number 54129.
Hi, can anyone nominate this page for deletion- User:Serial Number 54129/To do list
Reason - Violates WP:SMI by obstructing the top 50% of the screen in mobile web. This is transcluded in their talkpage, which makes it impossible to edit. Search bar, watchlist button, contribs, history and add topic button are all unclickable from User talk:Serial Number 54129 in mobile. They also have an image in the talkpage which hides the standard disclaimer, terms of service and other links at the bottom of page. This is disruptive and should be deleted. 2409:4071:E99:79F4:0:0:4388:8303 ( talk) 06:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I tried twice, but keep messing it up. I think user page User:Metro2fsb should be deleted as it looks like a wikipedia article, but it's not. I assume this message pings the user I'm talking about and I already mentioned this on their talk page and during a discussion on my talk page CT55555( talk) 04:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I come here to nominate User:Ewan junior for deletion because it is an old copy of Super Junior and appeared as a fake article, (also note that the user hasn't been editing since 2014) but after I read the guideline, it says that I can actually blank the page myself. Is that actually permissible? Should I open an MfD request instead? Lulusword (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
There's a fair amount of discussion being had at WT:LLM and elsewhere about the validity of AI-generated content. Does anyone have any general opinion about what to do if such content is brought to MfD, from draftspace or userspace? My instinct is to think it should be considered as harmless unless it contains a clear copyright violation or BLP issue, same as I would consider any material written by a human that has similar issues to what text generated content often has. However there are a lot of deeper potential issues being highlighted in discussion that show that computer-generated text drafts can often be irredeemably unsalvageable, and it's not like a human put (much) work into it so there's not really the layer of "consider the person's feelings if it's not hurting anyone" that's raised in the WP:NDRAFT essay which is often cited when people bring drafts to MfD. I don't know, maybe a speedy criteria will soon exist and then no one will have to think about it too deeply, but I figured I'd dump thoughts here regardless. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 08:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)