| Revision as of 11:15, 16 August 2011 editIronholds (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers79,705 edits →Template:ISO 15924/name: add← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:22, 16 August 2011 edit undoIronholds (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers79,705 edits →Template:ISO 15924: sureNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ::''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. -] (]) 11:06, 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. -] (]) 11:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::Not "replacing" - ''removing''. Do not put words in my mouth. Please explain what "WLH" refers to? ] (]) 11:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC) | :::Not "replacing" - ''removing''. Do not put words in my mouth. Please explain what "WLH" refers to? ] (]) 11:12, 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.—] <small>]/]</small> 11:15, 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.—] <small>]/]</small> 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 , which not only defeats the point of ] but is also a ]. ] (]) 11:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 11:22, 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 so. DePiep (talk) 10:35, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Template:ISO 15924/name
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)
Template:ISO 15924/alias
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)
Template:ISO 15924/numeric
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
1) No valid reason for deletion and Article can be modified by[REDACTED] 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) -->