diff --git "a/en/label_masked/wikinews/train.csv" "b/en/label_masked/wikinews/train.csv" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/en/label_masked/wikinews/train.csv" @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ +text,outcome +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Category:Trucks: Category:Trucks [ edit ] Ehhh, long time, no use of DR. I don't expect killing an encyclopedic category like this to be a difficult decision. -- Brian McNeil / talk 19:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [ edit ] Just for the truckers in this DR . -- Brian McNeil / talk 22:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm 'bundling' Portal:Trucks/Wikipedia with this, despite the fact that it's been set up in a bizarre way that doesn't even use the category (i.e. suggests a cut'n'paste by someone with no knowledge of DPL). -- Brian McNeil / talk 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I've no objection to the bundling. Agree it suggests dearth of DPL knowledge. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 22:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello I creator portal ; w:Portal:Trucks an french category fr:Catégorie:Camion . FrankyLeRoutier ( talk ) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes [ edit ] [MASK]! [MASK]! [MASK]! 100% encyclopedic category. Who ever saw a ""Truck news"" section in a paper — other than one that comes in a plain brown wrapper. :P -- Brian McNeil / talk 19:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Yup. Encyclopedic through and through. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 20:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Confusing. -- LauraHale ( talk ) 03:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Wikinews:Story preparation/North Korean leader and dictator Kim Jong Il dies at age XX: Wikinews:Story preparation/North Korean leader and dictator Kim Jong Il dies at age XX [ edit ] He died in December 2011, a story that Wikinews didn't cover despite having this (unreferenced and clearly forgotten) draft sitting around. As the window of opportunity for this story has been missed, there's no point in keeping it around. Bencherlite ( talk ) 12:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [ edit ] [MASK] Actually we did cover his death... just not using the prepped article. See North Korean leader Kim Jong-il dead . -- Patrick M (TUFKAAP) ( talk ) 15:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Shame that nobody added that article to Category:Kim Jong-il , which is what I checked. Would someone care to do the honours to save me adding a protected edit request? The fact that the death was covered without using the ""prepared"" story strengthens my view about the general uselessness of such items. Bencherlite ( talk ) 11:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes [ edit ] Please vote using [MASK] , Remove , Neutral , or [MASK] followed by signature speedy candidate -- Brian McNeil / talk 14:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] speedy candidate Ooops to missing the story but clearly no longer relevant. -- LauraHale ( talk ) 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Unsourced drafts are reasonably useless, and trying to compete with the mainstream for big events is largely pointless with the real strength being the wealth of under-reported events that can be reported better. As such, I'd have been inclined to [MASK] this even if the author(s) hadn't forgotten about it and allowed it to stale . Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] How much of Category:Prepared stories do you feel like nuking? Most of the stories in there appear to be unsourced drafts, or useless, or both e.g. Wikinews:Story preparation/(Island country) evacuated, vanishes beneath sea , Wikinews:Story preparation/Former French President Jacques Chirac dies , Wikinews:Story preparation/Wikimedia founder Jimmy Wales dies aged XXX . I'll tag a few others as ""abandoned"" and see what happens. Bencherlite ( talk ) 10:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] We've been mulling over, for some time now, housecleaning the story-preparation section. On the only modern occasions I recall where prepared story templates were actually used, they prevented us from publishing because they had been prepared without sourcing. We may want to consider overhauling the whole concept of the section to make it compatible with review (perhaps with something similar to the ""script review"" concept we've been using for Crtew's weekly audio briefs). -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I've tagged over thirty ""story preparation"" pages as {{ abandoned }}, some dating back over five years. Most of the pre-""prepared"" obituaries could be deleted without fuss if we had a new proposed deletion criterion that said something like ""5. Prepared stories for future events (including a person's death) with inadequate references for existing facts"". Thoughts? Bencherlite ( talk ) 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I could quite happily go with a PD criteria on unsourced prepwork. Probably need an SD on ""prepared, unused, event now past"". -- Brian McNeil / talk 14:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes to PD and SD. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm uncomfortable frying long-untouched interview ideas (and, by extension, possible features/investigations) as {{ abandoned }}; two days' notice seems a tad cruel on things that may or may not be revived. I have just fryed one that was my own from god knows how long ago. Events that have passed seem suitable, and a speedy option seems sensible (I've nommed a pile of such before and they were deleted without controversy). I'll make exact suggestions for WN:PROD and WN:SD additions in a minute on the Water Cooler; in answer to the question, I'd prune a lot of the prepped stuff. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Prepped stories were good in the pre flagged revs days. Not so much now. Granted they could be useful again as long as they're at least backed some sourced information. -- Patrick M (TUFKAAP) ( talk ) 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Template:Citequote: Template:Citequote [ edit ] This is a Wikipedia-style template that doe not fit our workflow, and its existence can only serve to occasionally confuse some newcomer. -- Pi zero ( talk ) Remove as nominator. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 11:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Totally Wikipedia-ish. Why did it even end up here? Diego Grez ( talk ) 22:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Not something we really have a need for. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Template:WhatAmerica?: However, there clearly is a consensus that if we are to have this template, we aren't to use it in its present form. . Template:WhatAmerica? [ edit ] Bad taste? Probably. This was meant as a rather pointed joke and, seemingly, didn't come across that way. However , this is a recurring problem in that United States citizens self-identify as ""Americans"". With Wikinews intended for an international audience, the point being made rather bluntly by this template needs taken on-board by contributors within the United States. -- Brian McNeil / talk 02:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Do [MASK] the template on the grounds of taste as mentioned by the nominator. I'm all for a separate discussion on this point as a matter of style. Where do we start that? Crtew ( talk ) 02:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] About this template: it is opinion disguised as editing, it is a misrepresentation of Wikinews’ style guide (which may be further grounds for [MASK]), and it is condescending in tone, visual style and substance -- Crtew ( talk ) 16:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] About the term American : One can at the same time hold an international mindset, refer to a people by what they call themselves, and self-identify as an ""American"" without contradiction. The premise of the template and the self-nomination above is that it wrong to ""self-identify"" as an American and by doing so a writer doesn't have the ""proper"" mindset. Self-identification : Just because U.S. citizens call themselves ""Americans"" doesn't mean they don't recognize that others in the western hemisphere also use the term. That's not an issue. The template does not show any kind of understanding for the meaning of the term as it is used in the culture. Self-determination is also a concept that should also be reflected in policy. For example, most would never think of calling Tibetans ""Chinese"" out of respect for their rights. Like it or not, people who live in the United States use the term ""America"" and call themselves ""Americans,"" and that's not going to change anytime soon. America is even part of the country's name (U.S.A.). The term USians , which has been used frequently at Wikinews, is an imaginary term and nobody inside the United States or around the world uses it. Is it the proper use of Wikinews to invent a term and impose it on an entire people? Is Wikinews displaying a counter-bias by raising concerns over the term ""American""? Furthermore, I've also seen the term Amerika used at Wikinews. This can be derogatory depending on its source, target and usage, and it similarly should never appear in editing comments. I'll raise this in the style discussion later, but if you scan the Wikinews style guide , you will find the term ""American"" several times. Either editors should change the Wikinews style guide or refrain from bringing their own issues into critiques. -- Crtew ( talk ) 16:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] I've several comments. We are an international publication and, verily, shouldn't insult the rest of the supercontinent by calling the US ""America"". There's more to it than that, a whole horribly unhealthy US-centrist mindset. I note that BRS's criticism of the article was not limited to the use of the word, but was in fact about omission of significant facts merely because they weren't about USians — learning to avoid such bias is part of learning to be a Wikinewsie, and learning not to call USians ""Americans"" is part of learning to avoid such bias. The template is therefore slightly off-target as it focuses solely on the word usage, while what is likely needed is a template addressing a somewhat wider point; it would be advisable to succinctly mention the word along the way. Since the template is single-author, and ""author request"" is a speedy-deletion criterion, and the author is an admin, the author in this case can simply [MASK] it. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] Crtew's argument is difficult to follow. So far as I can determine, xyr argument is that it's okay for him to use something that some people find insulting becuase other people do it, but if anyone dare respond, that is condescending and unacceptible. I find it difficult to believe someone so clearly intelligent could make such a fallacious argument; so, what am I missing? (It's probably something quite obvious, being me.). I also find the concept that Wikinews invented the informal term 'USian' to be hilarious, as equally do I find the notion that one should not use a(n instantly recognisable) German word in an edit summary. (It is also used in Czech, Danish, Dutch, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Swahili, Turkish, and a few others according to Wiktionary. It is also the title of a song poking mild fun at symbols of US culture.) I find it extraordinary that using an alternative based on the name of a country is 'inflicting' but using the name of two continents to mean a country is not. I also believe, but do not know, that USian originated amongst USians. Too unknown for mainspace, but instantly udnerstandable outside of it. Equally, the template as-written is more inflamatory than useful and needs modified (and shrunk. It's huge.). That is not in itself a reason to [MASK] but it is an issue that prevents it being used as-is. Much though I did smirk at the wording, it isn't going to have the desired effect. Where is this meant to be used? On contributors talk pages? That needs figured out. What nobody here seems to be discussing is that the use of 'America' is a relatively minor issue. It's an annoyance and a pet hate, and I do point it out when I see it, but it's just a question of finding something less ambiguous. I wouldn't use it to mean the American nations collectively, either; same reason. Ambiguity. It's a simple case of word-replacing and any templated message should be understated to reflect that. Accordingly, musch downsizing required. Another thing nobody has mentioned is that we all use 'America' to mean the US. We do. I do. Often without realising it. It's usually pretty clear and (apart from maybe a mild dig) I don't mind it in discussions etc. Mainspace should strive to be absolutely clear and the easiest thing to do is avoid the word entirely. If we are to take the recent article as an example, there were a lot of other nationalities involved. If one of them was, say, Brazilian then we'd have real confusion on our hands. Given how ignored the other nationalities were, such a situation wouldn't surprise me. We must always remember that the the US anexing of the word 'America' to mean a single nation is not malicious, and neither are individual uses. It's not the best inspiration to cite, that article; it had much more serious problems when I reviewed. I would usually replace 'America' when editing; if that's the only problem with an article, it will tend to get passed. There's also a bit of ignorance going on here, which is much more easy to sort out. (We are all ignorant about many things, and WN has a steep learning curve, so there's nothing wrong with this. I always hesitate around using 'ignorance' because of the negative connotations; I'm not saying it as a put-down.) The only namespace that matters as far as careful phrasing goes is mainspace. When a sense of humour is totally banned I will replace the Main Page with porn, leave, and never return. If we're going down the self-identification route, I note there are Amerikans here who self-identify as USians. I also cannot think of any other ambiguous self-identification. The evolution of the word's use is, frankly, unfortunate. This is too ungainly for a DR. We should have this on the water cooler, and return here only if we can't agree a way to sort this template. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] with five minutes work, I've traced use of ""USian"" as far back as 1987 — the year I first got Internet access. Invented? By-and-large all words are; but this one most-certainly is not a Wikinews invention since this project didn't come into existence for another seventeen years. Moving forward a little under two years, I'm going to excerpt from a discussion that precisely sums up the problems of those outside the United States with attitudes emanating from within the country: [...] +> > > As for Henry, as a non-citizen +> > Henry is a citizen of Canada. I am a citizen of Australia. +> > I fail to see what +> > the relevence is. The net is not a U.S. dominion. +> You picked out an insignificant part of my entire paragraph, quoted it +> out of context, and blew it up far beyond anything I actually said. +I'm sorry if you're upset, but I'm tired of the USAcentric attitude that +pervades the net. As an Australian living in, and materially contributing +to, the United States I'm exquisitely aware of the casual parochialism +of many USians. Casual prejudice is prejudice still. +I'm also tired of people bashing Henry, or supporting the people who bash +him by taking their position. He's one of the clearest heads on the net, for +all his faults. And he has them. +But if you must criticise, there are far more valid places to start from +than the irrelevant point of his nationality. You're just reinforcing +the USian attitudes towards foreigners... attitudes that harm the USA, by +the way, as much if not more than the foreigners in question. +It's insignificant to you, but not to me. The fact that it's insignificant +to you is itself part of the problem. Oh well, you probably never thought +of it as a problem. I trust you will now. +Can we put this behind us now? — Peter da Silva April 3, 1989. I've quoted this in it's entirety, because I've participated in, and seen, this self-same discussion played-out for pretty much the entire 20+ years since Peter's complaint as above. It is a deep-seated point of irritation that originates within the United States. The 1987 use? By an 'American'. An 'American' somewhat uncomfortable with the claiming of citizenship of the supercontinent. This, perhaps is the crux of the matter. You are saying that Mexicans, Canadians, Columbians, etc., etc. are not 'American citizens'; they most certainly are! What they are not, is Citizens of the United States. As to the Style Guide? ""American"" is used frequently as the generally-accepted name of what is "" American English "" (less-so for ""American"" date formats), and that's somewhere we do not want to have people from this side of the Atlantic taking the discussion and giving their frank and forthright views on the topic. Sorry for the length of this. To call 'throwaway', imprecise, use of America and/or American Cultural Imperialism is likely putting the case in-extremis; but, reading that Wikipedia article after the above might make it more clear why a great number of uses of 'America[n]' are close to, if not an outright breach of WN:NPOV . -- Brian McNeil / talk 06:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] More on USian : Alright, I acknowledge I was inaccurate above and that the term ""USian"" has apparently been around for many years. My intended point, though, was that hardly anybody uses it. My Google search brought up ""Urban Dictionary,"" which is not a reliable source, and others that had the same problem. The Wiktionary entry designates ""USian"" as ""rare"". Personally, I have heard exactly zero people use this word outside of Wikinews. The use of a term that is out of the mainstream is not likely to bring credibility but rather marginalization. Crtew ( talk ) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I find all this talk about the provenance and prevalence (try saying that three times fast) of ""USian"" a jarring nonsequitur. It makes me wonder what issue you think is being discussed. The [MASK] about Tibet also invites the term nonsequitur and suggests parties talking past each other. Much of what you write below probably can't be properly understood without identifying the miscommunication; in fact, my sense is that until we sort out the miscommunication, all attempts to discuss the original issue (cultural insensitivity) will go sideways. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 21:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] About geography and naming : By calling U.S. citizens “USians,” people are not acknowledging the reason why people there adopted “Americans” in the first place. The ""United States"" is different than other countries in the western hemisphere or countries around the world in that the first part of its name doesn't refer to a place but to its bond as a nation. The ""... of America"" part, is the place in the full name that is meant to point to a place. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians don't share this naming situation. The use of the place was decided around the founding of the nation when the country's people were emerging from a revolution and beginning to form a nation. So the United States is not ""annexing"" the term ""America"" in the present tense. My impression is that the use of the word ""USians"" is a form of complaint or apology that is directed at the power and influence that the U.S.A. has displayed in more recent history. The vast majority of people around the world use the term ""Americans"" for U.S. citizens, and there was a history of its use before the argument of cultural imperialism”. Crtew ( talk ) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] The preposition ""of"" acknowledges that people who live in the states do not believe they are the only people who occupy or have a claim to ""America"". Crtew ( talk ) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] The term USian also has NPOV problems. Crtew ( talk ) 20:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] Or let’s be consistent : “UKians”? Crtew ( talk ) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not seriously proposing this. Crtew ( talk ) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] Style : I reject the notion in the template that the term ""America"" for a place or ""American"" for a people is an insult for reasons stated at the top and above. At the same time, I would agree that it is not precise. ""U.S."" is the widely accepted adjective. I would tend to prefer the use of U.S. citizen(s) in place of Americans, but I can see using ""American(s)"" in clear situations (e.g., ""Americans turned out to vote today to choose which candidate will be their next president"", when the story is clearly about, hypothetically, the U.S. elections.). Alternatively, I could see someone writing ""U.S. Americans"" for international consumption. Crtew ( talk ) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] As for the noun, the use of U.S. or U.S.A. is standard and would be the best usage. But when there is obviously no ambiguity, everybody knows that the U.S. is the place mentioned, I see no problem with saying America. Crtew ( talk ) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] Were there no ambiguity that ""America"" referred to the United States of America then this link wikipedia:America would be a redirect to wikipedia:United States . (I know, Wikipedia not considered a reliable source). So, returning to the "" Wikinews articles must be written for an international audience"", it must be considered that the audience may include people who could not find the US on a map, but could find the wikipedia:Americas on a map. -- Brian McNeil / talk 22:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to be absolutely clear here, nobody is proposing using USian within articles! The discussion here seems to have been misinterpreted; my input is intended to, 'pointedly', drive home the point that ""America[n]"", on it's own, should be avoided. If this is not a given in a journalism course, I'm surprised. If students aspire to write for, say, The Washington Post , TIME , or seek employment outwith the US, then they will encounter this problem with the use of the word(s) ""America[n]"". That self-same 'problem' exists here on Wikinews . -- Brian McNeil / talk 01:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] The template became an issue because a person trying to submit an article used the term ""American(s)"" and also the stories selected by that person appeared to the editor to be selected primarily for a U.S. audience. I agree with the second part of the editor's evaluation; story selection should be undertaken with a global audience in mind. The above discussion only addressed the use of ""Americans"" as problematic. A template was then placed on the collaboration page about the use of the term ""American(s)"". The template, in my view, was offensive, but it also stretched Wikinews policy into areas that doesn't seem well documented. We need to have a style discussion elsewhere. But as a further point of clarification, the person who wrote the article was summarizing an Associated Press article that used ""American(s)"" in the article. Moreover, the item ""American"" is listed in the Associated Press Stylebook as an ""acceptable description"" for U.S. citizens. Crtew ( talk ) 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] Wikipedia search : A search on ""American"" brings up a disambiguation page, while a search on ""Americans"" brings up a page that equates ""American"" with U.S. citizenship. Crtew ( talk ) 16:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikinews is not Wikipedia . Wikinews is also not the Associated Press, though I'm sorry to hear they've made that mistake. The template is somewhat acerbic in making its point, but calling it ""offensive"" puts me in mind of the US radical Christian right claiming religious persecution when told they can't use the government to impose their religion on everyone else. I only brought up Wikipedia because it was mentioned above. When I did that search on WP:American, I was actually taken to the United States Project page. Crtew ( talk ) 18:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm still boggling over the bit a while back about Tibet. The closest thing to an equivalent situation re Tibet would be if a contingent of Tibetans were insisting that Tibetans, and Tibetans alone, should be identified by the unadorned term ""Asian"". The point was about self-determination. Each people should decide what they are called. We're having a policy discussion. A lopsided one, with you taking one position and experienced Wikinewsies taking another. Afaics, having a policy discussion seems to have been the main reason this deletion nomination was made (as I've pointed out, the nominator could have speedy-deleted the template at any time under a bog-standard speedy-deletion criterion). Ok, let's [MASK] it! Crtew ( talk ) 18:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't take this as a fundamental disagreement with editing at Wikniews. I actually agree with the vast number of edits made and see how the process leads to a better product. This is an issue that doesn't require the experience at Wikinews that others do. Let's open this up as a style discussion. Crtew ( talk ) 19:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Pardon me for being blunt, Crtew. You haven't got a leg to stand on, with this. You're arguing in favor of not bothering to be precise, and of doing so in a culturally insensitive way. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not what I've been saying. The term ""U.S."" with ""citizen (or variant)"" is specific but can be clunky in use as writers don't always refer to a person but a collective noun and other nationalities (""the British"") don't necessarily have to take the citizen (or variant) as a qaulifier. Most people understand what ""American(s)"" refers to in cases where there can be no ambiguity. It would be confusing to write about the ""American position,"" for example when talking about a meeting between members of the Organization of American States. However, in a story about a meeting between U.S. and Chinese officials, it wouldn't necessarily be wrong or confusing to write the ""American position."" I didn't say it would be confusing, although sometimes it would be. I said it would be imprecise and culturally insensitive . In the hypothetical situation you describe, saying ""American position"" instead of ""US position"" would be completely gratuitous; the only (almost certainly — hypotheticals are treacherous) reason to prefer ""American position"" would be morbid cultural imperialism. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 19:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] The w:American disambiguation page on Wikipedia does not list U.S. Citizen as first, instead conceding the point my template crudely made: An American is, "" A person or attribute of one of the nations of the Americas "". -- Brian McNeil / talk 18:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I see that as making my point too! An ""American"" can refer to people in the hemisphere but also to people from the United States. Both can be true at the same time. To the vast majority of people this is not a contradiction or an insult. To make it an insult is to gloss over history, culture, and linguistic uses of the word in context. Crtew ( talk ) 18:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Aussie Foreign Affairs Minister says no change in USA travel advice: -- Pi zero ( talk ) 11:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Aussie Foreign Affairs Minister says no change in USA travel advice [ edit ] Established editor started a review, removed a key verifying source. The review was not completed for 24 hours. It appears almost completely certain any subsequent review will have to wait at least that long before getting another review. Demoralizing as a writer and as a reviewer who is feeling overwhelmed by the student situation, and zero intention of resubmitting this article because I know it will not get reviewed in a way that will pass any timeliness criteria. This is one of those cases where writing feels like being set up for failure. Comments [ edit ] Votes [ edit ] Remove -- LauraHale ( talk ) 01:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",speedy delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Boston Marathon rocked by 2 explosions near finish line: -- Pi zero ( talk ) 11:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Boston Marathon rocked by 2 explosions near finish line [ edit ] Duplicate adding zero to the already-published article. -- Brian McNeil / talk 06:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [ edit ] Votes [ edit ] Remove Just needed to get the message across; quit subbing this 'stub' for review. -- Brian McNeil / talk 06:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Hopefully it'll be deleted as abandoned before formal DR process can complete, but just as well to have the formal process in parallel. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",speedy delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: File:Maoist attack on the train near Kamalur railway station Dantewada Chhattisgarh India.jpg: File:Maoist attack on the train near Kamalur railway station Dantewada Chhattisgarh India.jpg [ edit ] Unused file and licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.5. Doesn't exactly qualify for speedy deletion as an unused fair use as far as I know and it's not a copyright violation since the uploader seems to own the copyright, so I figure it's best to list it here. There seems to be no reason for keeping it. — Mike moral ♪♫ 07:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [ edit ] Votes [ edit ] Remove as nominator. — Mike moral ♪♫ 07:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Not useful for any purpose. Contributed by a user who chose not to attempt to work within our workflow. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 13:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove , apparently because no source given??? Therefore, likely [MASK]? -- Cirt ( talk ) 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a reason for speedy deletion , though it really should be. — Mike moral ♪♫ 09:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove ... notify the uploader that s/he can put it on Commons, but since Wikinews is not using it, it is not within Wikinews' mandate to host the photo. -- SVT Cobra 02:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Onion the dog case set for Nevada high court oral argument: Onion the dog case set for Nevada high court oral argument [ edit ] While it is probably a newsworthy topic, the date of the event is in the past and steps do not appear to have been taken to fix the things the article will need in order to pass review. The writer appears uncommunicative and appears to be treating the article like a Wikipedia article, with the assumption it will stay forever. The continued work makes it look hard to label as abandoned. -- LauraHale ( talk ) 14:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [ edit ] Votes [ edit ] Remove As nominator. -- LauraHale ( talk ) 14:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] Tagged {{ abandoned }}. — Mike moral ♪♫ 01:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Template:Technorati ping: [MASK] BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 17:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Template:Technorati ping The links generated by it seems to be broken, and the result is that whatever usefulness it has provided for the articles that it is linked to is now gone. TeleComNasSprVen ( talk ) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] {{ w:ping }} looks like it would be more useful than that template, which seems to have lost its purpose in 2009 . Subst the previous invocations of the template, [MASK] it, and possibly replace with the enwiki equivalent. Microchip08 ( talk ) 06:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] I won't [MASK] on the merits, or otherwise, of a ping template from The Other Place, but Technorati is one of those names I've not heard in - oh, about 4 years - so, yes, Support deletion. -- Brian McNeil / talk 06:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Support Obsolete with no historical value. Also, it's, like, really old. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 04:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Support B0rken, useless. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 17:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Cary Lee Peterson speaks at United Nations about social and economic development in the Caribbean and Asia-Pacific Region: Cary Lee Peterson speaks at United Nations about social and economic development in the Caribbean and Asia-Pacific Region This is just a glorified press release, with the author having a clear conflict of interest xe has been most-evasive regarding. Nominated for deletion to send a clear message that Wikinews cannot be used to polish the image of people in this manner with non-news nonsense. -- Brian McNeil / talk 03:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Please see the discussion page for the article; both Pi zero and myself have questioned the contributor's motives, and find them less-than-atruistic. Similarly, the remarks regarding the image uploaded to commons are the contributor being crazily inconsistent and lying to one, or both, wiki communities. -- Brian McNeil / talk 03:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Admins may also peruse the contributor's past submissions (deleted). The record does not, afaics, suggest progress toward learning how to contribute to Wikinews. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 04:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Those past contributions would be: Cary Lee Peterson , Feb 23, 2014; deleted not Wikipedia Cary Lee Peterson Talks Motives in Micronesia for 2014 on Mission for U.N. Small Island Developing States , Febr 23, 2014; deleted, blatant copyright violation ECCO2 GP Partnerships at United Nations Launch Expansion Plans in Small Island Nations and ACP-EU Member States , Feb 23, 2014; deleted, blatant copyright violation Cary Lee Peterson plans for Micronesia in 2014 , February 23, 2014; deleted. Cary Lee Peterson discusses future plans of ECCO2 GP for Small Islands Developing States at PrepCom Meeting at the United Nations , deleted Cary Lee Peterson makes a statement at United Nations PrepCom Meeting for Small Island Developing States , deleted It paints a fairly-clear picture; a single-purpose account for the promotion of Cary Lee Peterson. Such a shame that this discussion is more-likely to be indexed by Google than their press releases . -- Brian McNeil / talk 04:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes Remove this nonsense, the sooner the better. -- Brian McNeil / talk 03:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove unfortunately. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 04:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove as per above -- Rockerball Australia c 08:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Category:Art: Category:Art Art=""The arts""=totally redundant to Category:Culture and entertainment . The usage note suggests this is an internal cat, like, say, category:musicians , but I don't see it as useful as such. Note that ""art"" as most often referred to by the word is dealt with by Category:Visual art . BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 19:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [MASK] There are some articles in it, despite the usage note about being internal. I suppose that's because it wasn't clear where else to put those articles. It would only be useful as a internal category if it had a slew of subcats that were thereby prevented from cluttering up Category:Culture and entertainment ; but that doesn't appear to be the case. I'd like to see those articles moved to subcats before it's deleted. Otherwise I'm happy to see the last of it. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 19:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] Seems to me we need a more coherent plan for this part of the category hierarchy. Right now, ""Art"" has subcats ""Architecture"", ""Galleries"", ""Graphic art"", and ""Visual art"". But here's some of what w:Portal:Visual arts has to say — note, that's ""arts"" rather than ""art"", and mishandling that distinction may also be part of our problem here: Visual arts are a class of art forms focusing on the creation of works which are primarily visual in nature, such as painting, drawing, illustration, architecture, photography, graphic design, printmaking, and filmmaking. Those that involve moulding or modeling, such as sculpture, public art, and ceramics, are more narrowly referred to as plastic arts. The visual arts are distinguished from the performing arts, language arts, culinary arts and other such classes of artwork, but those boundaries are not well defined. Many artistic endeavors combine aspects of visual arts with one or more non-visual art forms, such as music or spoken word. The part about ""not well defined"" might suggest we should be rethinking at what level we have our cats. On the other hand, this also raises the possibility we'd have ""Visual art s "" in place of the current ""Art"", with several subcats including ""Architecture"", ""Graphic art s "", ""Galeries"". The current ""Visual art"" would be replaced by some other subcat of Visual arts. There could be siblings to ""Visual arts"" for, say, ""Performing arts"". Perhaps a subcat of ""Visual art"" for the plastic arts — and at that point I get really alarmed. ""Plastic arts""??? Seriously? Ugh. That's a very unnatural name; only an expert in the taxonomy of this stuff would think that involved anything not made from this stuff . I'm gonna give this some more thought. I'd really like this resolved; I don't fancy deleting a category every once in a while, leaving at least as much of a mess with a somewhat changed shape, and gradually migrating toward losing what organizational information we now have encoded in these cats. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 13:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] Trying to carefully and accurately categorise art is always going to be a pain, because the arts strive to break the boundaries between each other. But, that's a problem for the visual art cat and its subcats. For that reason I'm going to hold off going down this tempting tangent about how to handle it. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: MediaWiki:Articlefeedback-privacyurl: MediaWiki:Articlefeedback-privacyurl Unused interface message; as far as I can tell mw:Extension:ArticleFeedbackv5 hasn't been running on this site for a while – it only exists because Brian McNeil ( talk · contribs ) created it manually. Microchip08 ( talk ) 18:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Please vote using [MASK] , Remove , Neutral , or [MASK] followed by signature Remove in the absence of more learned souls than myself rushing to save it, I'm going to go ahead and agree it is unneeded/unused. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 10:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Wikinews interviews specialists on China, Iran, Russia support for al-Assad/fr: Not exactly clear consensus, but ""[MASK]"" is appropriate I believe. — Mike moral ♪♫ 06:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikinews interviews specialists on China, Iran, Russia support for al-Assad/fr Here is English Wikinews. We don't need any article in French.-- GZWDer ( talk ) 10:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] It's tagged with Category:No publish ; so, that's its status on en.wn. The article has no French interwiki, suggesting the translation never did make it to fr.wn (though I've not yet tried to look on fr.wn directly). Various published articles in our archives have peripheral subpages of different kinds, which are no-published and eventually should be fully protected as a precaution since they're in mainspace; I'll protect this one for now, and an admin can later either [MASK] it or remove the deletion tag. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 11:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] This, as noted by Pi zero, isn't published. On that basis, I don't quite follow the nomination phrasing. The article itself was translated into three other languages, and is a local Featured Article . Just, as already noted, looks as-if translation to French wasn't completed fast-enough to stay fresh. My inclination, on that basis (a working page, never published, cannot now be completed), is to see this deleted. I'm just hoping I'm being overly-sensitive to word-choice in how I read the nomination. -- Brian McNeil / talk 07:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] On further consideration and consultation, I suggest we [MASK] it. It could conceivably be of use to someone wishing to use the article as a reference. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 13:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Template:!: -- Pi zero ( talk ) 19:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Template:! Obsolete template replaced with a parser function. Microchip08 ( talk ) 11:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes There's no need to [MASK], surely? We can use a soft redirect as on WIkipedia, presumably, which also allows categorization. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 14:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Template:Broken/\x7e\x7e\x7e\x7e: [MASK] BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 10:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC) [ reply ] Template:Broken/\x7e\x7e\x7e\x7e I don't understand, or see any point in, this redirect. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 20:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC) [ reply ] Deleting it seems reasonable to me. Given what it redirects to, I'm confident the ""\x7e"" refers to the ascii code for tilde (7e); but I don't know of any situation where the wiki software would convert four tildes into \x7e\x7e\x7e\x7e ; I suppose if bawolff happens around I might ask him, but I admit I'm thinking of it more as a historical puzzle than a current operational concern. Alas we can't likely ask the creator, since Dodge Story hasn't been around since 2011, their last act here being to get their account renamed to Dodge Story from Thunderhead. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 22:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC) [ reply ] Its due to the MediaWiki script maintinace/cleanupTitles.php which takes invalid titles, and renamed them broken/. For reference, \x7e is the escape code for ~ in most C-like languages, including javascript and php. So this was originally Template:~~~~ but got renamed as that's not a legal title. I have no idea how such a template can be made in the first place. Bawolff ☺ ☻ 11:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Wikinews:Story preparation/Evidence of bias: Media coverage of Comey memos: Speedy deleted as prepared article where the event happen more than 5 days ago . Any major media coverage on the Comey memo would have been months ago. — mikemoral ( talk ) 07:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikinews:Story preparation/Evidence of bias: Media coverage of Comey memos Created in November 2016, about seven months ago. Has not developed since then. The article discusses Hilary Clinton and email circus stuff. I don't see the purpose of keeping it other than... prize possession or something. -- George Ho ( talk ) 01:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",speedy delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Template:Nosource: Creating user nominating for speedy deletion under A7. PokestarFan ( talk ) 19:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] 7. Self-requests by the author with no third-party edit history. Template:Nosource Not being sourced does not, in itself, fulfil a criterion for deletion, speedy or otherwise. As such, this template is superfluous. Microchip08 ( talk ) 07:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove I'm in agreement with the nominator. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 14:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",comment +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Why do children [MASK] dying?: — mikemoral ( talk ) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do children [MASK] dying? Sandbox testing, very obvious. PokestarFan ( talk ) 23:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: La Fest: the abandonment process got there first in this case. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] La Fest This appears to be some article that might belong on Wikipedia if it were not so promotional. This does not seem newsworthy at all. -- Peter SamFan ( talk ) 14:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC) . [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove Not news, promotional and encyclopedia-like. – Nascar1996 ( talk • cont ) 14:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Yup. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 16:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: File:Roland Nicholson, Jr. receiving KSBC Award.jpg: . -- Pi zero ( talk ) 22:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] File:Roland Nicholson, Jr. receiving KSBC Award.jpg This image file is 10+ years old. It was uploaded for a failed article Roland Nicholson, Jr. . It is currently unused (orphaned) and it seems unlikely it would ever be needed for another article. Should that occur, there is another copy at Wikipedia:File:Roland Nicholson, Jr. receiving KSBC Award.jpg , where it is also orphaned and currently tagged for transfer to Commons: . -- SVT Cobra 22:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Not that it matters, but, looks to me as if the mainspace page is a red herring ; only other thing by same user, yes, but the mainspace page was created in May and promptly deleted by DragonFire1024 as spam, whilst the image was uploaded in July. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes [MASK] - per my own nomination. -- SVT Cobra 22:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC) . [ reply ] [MASK] it is well established that Commons is to serve as the repository for free media, with the exceptions of logos and maps which can change with time. (However, I cannot see EXIF data for an own work, and it is possible it is a copyvio.) •–• 06:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried a Google Image search, but I couldn't find a copy that was not on a Wiki project. If it was demonstrably a copy-vio, I would have speedy deleted it. However, I think the lack of EXIF data is likely due to it probably being a non-digital photograph that was then scanned. -- SVT Cobra 19:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] ; it serves us no news function to justify hosting it here, and as it's proposed for movement from Wikipedia to Commons anyway (haven't quite figured out how nominator noticed that), there's no loss to the sisterhood in deleting it here, either. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 11:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm Sherlock Holmes , that's how! ... No, it was Google's image search function. It is scary good; it analyzes the image and can find any other copy of it, even if it as been resized. -- SVT Cobra 12:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Portal:Navassa Island: [MASK] BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 04:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Portal:Navassa Island I propose that we [MASK] this redundant portal for a small uninhabited island . There may be some newsworthy current events at some point, but I doubt we are going to be needing a Category:Navassa Island anytime soon. Green Giant ( talk ) 19:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Yes, the category is sufficient, no need for a portal. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes Remove Redundant at this point of time. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Aside from the points in the nomination, I believe WN has opted for just Categories rather than portals. -- SVT Cobra 14:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Since it is small, there are no articles in the group? and nobody lives on it, I think this should probably be removed. Qwerty number1 ( talk ) 17:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Portal:Lehighton: Portal:Lehighton (and associated redirect: Lehighton ) I propose to [MASK] this redundant portal (notwithstanding that portals have become obsolete) for a small town of 5,500 people. I might be wrong (and indeed there may be some newsworthy current events from there), but I doubt we are going to be needing a Category:Lehighton anytime soon. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 17:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove Although ancient, it was prematurely created by a user in their only edit on any of the Wiki projects. -- SVT Cobra 17:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Yup. No mention of Lehighton on the project besides the two nominated pages. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 17:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Certainly not necessary at this time. -- numbermaniac 04:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove as per nominator. The portal is of no use currently. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Bidgee: Files uploaded by Bidgee ( t · c · b ) claiming ""fair use"" listed below File:Malik flash quotes.png File:Athletics - Women's Shot Put - F53 Final - Start List.pdf File:Karamjyoti vs. UOI (1).pdf File:Profile on Paralympic Site.png File:Results online for Malik.png All of these files are only used on Talk:Wikinews interviews India's first female Paralympic medalist Deepa Malik serving what purpose I can only speculate as ""notes"". None of them have any sort of fair-use rationale. Furthermore, I cannot even imagine justifying this. They appear to be screenshots (mostly) of web pages. Those pages should have been listed in the sources and not screenshotted in lieu of proper OR notes. These are all high-resolution images, which serve no newsworthy purpose, and in my opinion should be deleted posthaste . Cheers, -- SVT Cobra 22:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Regarding @ Mikemoral :'s [MASK] in his vote, might I suggest we store any of the ones needed for OR notes wherever we store things that get submitted to @scoop? Cheers, -- SVT Cobra 03:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Afaik scoop data is only stored in scoop inbox (which also means all accredited reporters inboxes also). There is a journalists private wiki where the data could also be stored but i do not remember being asked to do this. Of course people could do that by their own initiative if they wanted. Gryllida ( talk ) 19:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, scoop isn't archived. I had some old OR stuff archived on a laptop that died a few years ago, so that's gone too. Stuff happens. Are deleted files kept in the wiki database indefinitely? -- Pi zero ( talk ) 19:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] I just tried to restore a couple of files that were deleted in 2005 and got the following message: Internal error: [WrXAFwpAMFYAAGassj4AAAAG] 2018-03-24 03:03:51: Fatal exception of type ""LogicException"" So I guess not. -- SVT Cobra 03:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting. (That pinged me, btw.) -- Pi zero ( talk ) 03:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SVTCobra , Pi zero : Deleted Wikimedia files have only been restorable from June 2006 onwards. That's probably why you wouldn't be able to restore older ones. See this announcement for more details. Green Giant ( talk ) 22:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we move on this? It is over a year old! -- SVT Cobra 01:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Seriously. Can this be closed? I do not see a problem or disagreement in the votes. -- SVT Cobra 02:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes [MASK] : These probably are violating copyright, but we should however transcribe any relevant information to the talk page as reporting notes. — mikemoral ( talk · contribs ) 09:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] : Supporting Mikemoral in preserving the contents but deleting the screenshots. -- Gwyndon ( talk ) 02:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Per SVTCobra . — AlvaroMolina ( ✉ - ✔ ) 02:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove but store off-wiki. -- SVT Cobra 14:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Arep Ticous talk contribs 18:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: User:71.184.225.67/Thats not the worse thing i've ever said or done to a woman: -- Pi zero ( talk ) 22:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] User:71.184.225.67/Thats not the worse thing i've ever said or done to a woman Some sort of essay by an IP claiming to be the subject of some Wikinews article which I could not locate in the archives. It is six years old and beyond the scope of this project. -- SVT Cobra 18:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes [MASK] - per my own nomination -- SVT Cobra 18:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] unsourced unvetted allegations by an IP; Wikinews is not a web host. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] per nomination. Green Giant ( talk ) 21:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Category:Politics of California: -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:Politics of California and Category:Politics of the United States Both are unused categories and don't seem to serve any apparent purpose. DPL should be able to serve the purpose of finding articles both in Category:Politics and conflicts and CAT:California / CAT:United States . — mikemoral ( talk · contribs ) 06:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove Can easily be recreated if need arises. -- SVT Cobra 05:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",speedy delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Category:Chili Finger Incident: Category:Chili Finger Incident This article is in category-space. The text appears to already be at the Chili Finger Incident . We can [MASK] the category perhaps, but [MASK] the article text, though ""Chili finger incident"" doesn't feel right as a category name. Category:Wendy's already exists for the fast food joint, so we could just [MASK] all these related articles there. — mikemoral ( talk · contribs ) 21:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments The difference of date —March 24 versus March 22— was brought about by this edit , with the explanation ""march 24, 2005 was tuesday, not thursday"". Afaict this is true, but the event took place on March 22 so it's the day of the week that's wrong (I'll put a {{ correction }} on the mainspace article). At the time of this edit, 8 June 2009, the mainspace article had been fully protected for about three and a half years. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 00:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm missing the point of why should a category be left, if we can categorize only one article with it. -- StanProg ( talk ) 00:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] There are actually (and quite amazingly) fifteen articles about the topic. -- SVT Cobra 00:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Then the category should definitely remain and all these articles categorized with it. -- StanProg ( talk ) 00:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) I'd be in favor of renaming and recategorizing the articles, at so the category name is more in line with other categories. Mainly, though, ""Chili Finger Incident"" could be renamed something like ""Wendy's 'chili finger' incident"" or something. — mikemoral ( talk · contribs ) 01:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. The capitalization is also not in line with how we do things. -- SVT Cobra 01:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem of this seems to have occurred in this edit where Anonymous101 ( t · c · b ) appears to have used {{ subst:Chili Finger Incident }} with the article of same title in the category. This is evidenced by the previous edit where that effort failed with the stated intent of getting rid of the category. I am not sure why, but that's how all the text ended up in a category. -- SVT Cobra 01:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes Remove It's practically identical to the main namespace one. the text and use it as regular category. -- StanProg ( talk ) 22:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The text can be removed provided the category remains; I'm okay with it provided we don't create a memory hole. Keeping in mind the similarity to the mainspace article, I'm taking the position that the category text is not a published article since it's not in mainspace despite the tag. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 00:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove text and restore into a normal {{ topic cat }}. Cheers, -- SVT Cobra 01:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: File:Morwell v Sale 1986 LVFL Grand Final.ogv: -- Pi zero ( talk ) 15:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] File:Morwell v Sale 1986 LVFL Grand Final.ogv An obviously copyrighted television broadcast of the 1986 VFL Grand Final . The file was uploaded claiming to be a screenshot under fair use. It is used only in a user-space story preparation which appears to have stalled years ago. -- SVT Cobra 02:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove per nom -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 06:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove It's essentially unused fair use media. — mikemoral ( talk · contribs ) 11:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove — Rockerball Australia contribs 11:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Seems straightforward, and I see we've got the uploader on board. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 13:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Empty wikinewsie categories for inactive users: -- Pi zero ( talk ) 01:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Empty wikinewsie categories for inactive users Category:Amsiadat (Wikinewsie) Category:Crgolden (Wikinewsie) Category:Darkmightyaj (Wikinewsie) Category:Mmariesmith4 (Wikinewsie) Category:Rccovingto (Wikinewsie) Category:Sglammela (Wikinewsie) Category:Tapekia (Wikinewsie) Empty categories, users are globally inactive, no articles written, last edit anywhere was in 2015. (for Tapekia, only 1 edit globally, in 2010) Can be recreated if the users returns. -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove per nom. — mikemoral ( talk · contribs ) 11:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Seems reasonable. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove per nom. -- SVT Cobra 12:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: User:LatanyaEdmondson: Speedied, as advertising/spam. It's been common modernly for these spambots to surround their spam with unrelated and often nonsensical camouflage. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] User:LatanyaEdmondson It kind of looks like spam or nonsense; I am not expierienced with Wikinews. Josephine W. ( talk ) 07:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",speedy delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Togo/Infobox: Togo/Infobox Not an article, infobox already exists at {{ Togo }}. -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 05:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove as redundant. - Green Giant ( talk ) 07:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Trailer released for new Exorcist movie: Speedied as advertising/spam -- Pi zero ( talk ) 05:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Trailer released for new Exorcist movie Article that was never officially reviewed / published; 1 edit by an IP created it as Special:Permalink/1345728 , featuring {{ publish }} and {{ archive }}, but I can find no evidence that it was actually reviewed by anyone. The only ""source"" given is a link to facebook that returns ""Sorry, this content isn't available right now"", and the official trailer linked returns ""Video unavailable"". -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 05:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",speedy delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: 2010 South Australian election template and category: 2010 South Australian election template and category Template:2010 South Australian election Category:South Australian state election, 2010 Unused template, Wikinews doesn't appear to have covered the election. The category only includes the template. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 23:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove as very unlikely to be needed now. - Green Giant ( talk ) 07:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Elections and politics of Liberia: Elections and politics of Liberia Category:Elections in Liberia Category:Politics of Liberia Wikinews has no coverage of elections in Liberia, so the category is empty. The politics category only includes the elections category. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 23:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Weak [MASK] - They may be needed sooner than later, as you never know when politicians will fail at their jobs. But if they are empty now, they can be created later. Seem plez 09:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Category:Discott (Wikinewsie): Category:Discott (Wikinewsie) Empty category, user hasn't edited here since 2013. -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: User:Darkfrog24/Downturn: Two for undeleting; four varyingly objecting. Not done. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 18:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Darkfrog24/Downturn I request un-deletion of the essay at User:Darkfrog24/Downturn . It is a good-faith proposal for a conflict resolution technique that I think could have helped us over the past week or so and may help us wind down future conflicts. It does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion . It was marked as a work in progress, still in my userspace, and I did not request that it be deleted. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 03:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes and comments Un-[MASK] as author and proposer. I think the person who deleted it might have been in unusual headspace for them at the time. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 03:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] enwn is not a democracy, but I would still request not to consider the suggestion of Darkfrog24 which were made prior to 06:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC) as all the arguments are nothing but personal attacks in disguise. 2401:4900:2501:1E9:8412:7650:401E:B38C ( talk ) 06:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not true. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 12:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] What is not true? 27.59.112.162 ( talk ) 14:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Leave as-is as deleting admin. From my perspective: Darkfrog24 wrote a page set up to look like recommended advice for newcomers, telling them we're here to write synthesis, Wikipedia-style debates are often a fun thing to do on Wikinews, and if they decided they don't like how a discussion is going they can announce that everyone else has to play a childish game with them in conducting the discussion thereafter. It would have deserved to be deleted as either patent nonsense or trolling, or maybe vandalism, from the start, but instead I chose to treat it more seriously than it deserved, availed myself of an invitation to the community to trim, and explained what I was doing, step by step. This is a point on which I'm pretty certain Darkfrog24 objects to my account (not that they won't object to other parts of it too), as I didn't write detailed edit descriptions. I did point out, carefully, that I was specifically, separately objecting to what the first sentence said, what the second sentence said, and what the third sentence proposed (with attendant details thereafter). If asked, I hope I would have, reluctantly, elaborated on what was wrong with each; but that's not the path events took. Darkfrog24 reverted my edits with a trolling remark; I took it as increased support for interpretation of the page as an act of trolling, and deleted it as such. A bit of wider perspective, which I dislike going into but see no way to avoid at this point. The project has been effectively shut down for roughly a couple of weeks as we've been trying to cope with Darkfrog24's attitude toward wikinewsies and toward the project infrastructure; the word I'd honestly have to use for it is contempt , by which I refer not to any hot emotion but to absence of respect. We've spent circa a couple of years trying to explain to them how to interact constructively with other Wikinewsies; each attempted explanation has engendered misinterpretation; the attempts have been singularly unrewarding for us, so they've gotten less frequent, and there appears to be some synergy one way or the other (or both) between misapprehensions and disrespect. Within the past half day or so, Darkfrog24 appears to have at last successfully (hard to say if that's the right word) driven off a registered user who has for some time been gamely trying to help them understand the project better and try to settle into a stable, productive role here. They created another ""essay"" page still visible in which they advocate other people misusing the project in the ways they've been doing (the status of which is fraught); and then they created the page under discussion here, which is currently deleted. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 05:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] It is so tempting to rebut every last point, but to [MASK] things short and on-issue, Pi zero has not mentioned anything listed our speedy deletion policy (policy, not guideline). So it was not eligible for speedy deletion. Well ...just one rebuttal. My objection is not that you didn't write detailed summaries for your edits. My objection is that all you did was say ""this is nonsense"" and blank the whole essay. Maybe it was late and you were tired. Maybe you were about to self-revert but I got there first. Who knows? Just put it back and we can get to forgetting it ever happened. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 05:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Darkfrog24, the essays you write on-wiki: it is abusing the wiki for your personal web host which should not be entertained. 2401:4900:2501:1E9:8412:7650:401E:B38C ( talk ) 06:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] I wrote two essays, one at another Wikinewsie's request. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 12:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Hm, the IP raises a pretty credible point actually, re web-hosting. As noted before, I didn't blank the whole essay, which sounds like a unitary action; I separately removed three different things (that did, yes, add up to the whole content). The wording of the standard menu of speedy-deletion reasons does not correspond one-for-one with the list on the policy page. Generally it's possible to translate the one language to the other if one had to; and then of course there's common practice which stirs into the mix. Truthfully I don't think that technicality will fly. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 07:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Your reasons don't match the regular deletion page or the speedy deletion page. For common practice, we've only dealt with one essay in the past six years, and it had been abandoned for six months before it was deleted. It looks like the practice in such cases is to move the essay to the writer's userspace, which is where I already had it. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 12:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not see a good reason to undelete that page. A 'downturn' as a practice is difficult to enforce. Just use short replies yourself when you need them. I do not oppose the creation of a page about usefullness of short replies elsewhere, such as at Meta, if they allow it; seems like a thing that, if successful, could apply to several projects. -- Gryllida ( talk ) 06:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Well that's why it was marked as a worked in progress. I figured we could try it a few times and see how it worked. I offer a reason: Pi zero characterized the essay as trolling, and it is not. I am concerned that my actions are being misrepresented. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 12:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikinews is not your personal web hosting service. Move it your machine. 27.59.112.162 ( talk ) 14:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Anon27, I believe it is important for you to say ""I am the same person as the previous anon"" or ""I am a different person from the previous anon."" It's a voting situation, so matters how many people we have. I don't know how or whether to list you, so I'll leave it to you. Wikinews hosts lots of essays by Wikinewsies meant to supplement our guidelines and policies. Pi zero wrote Wikinews:Attribution and Gryllida is writing Welcome Bit for Helpers . Neither is using Wikinews for web hosting inappropriately, and neither am I. All three essays are meant to help Wikinewsies, so they are here. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 15:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not vote, so it does not matter. What matters is what is being said. You have not accumulated enough reputation to write any policy, guideline or essay for enwn. 27.59.114.127 ( talk ) 15:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] It is reasonable to request a temporary undeletion of a user space page so the author may save a copy of their work. Policy is writing down what is the current practice after discussion. When WN:CSD was initially c/p from en.WP I suggested attack pages should be included, because it was then and continues to be the practice the practice that attack pages are deleted on sight. (I understand this page could also be under WN:NOT , WN:POINT , probably others.) However, Wikilawyering is never acceptable, and this entire section is an attempt to do exactly that. - Amgine | t 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I would just like it un-deleted so people can see how harmless and useful it is, but barring that, yes, temp un-[MASK] so I can move it to Meta or something. Maybe another Wikiproject can use it if the crowd here on Wikinews doesn't want to. And I promise you I'm not attempting Wikilawyering. I just thought if we could agree this was against the letter of policy, there would be no get into the more subjective side, which seems to be a bit of a minefield these days. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 13:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore - It is unconscionable in my opinion to deny a user to formulate a proposed policy within their own user space without proper cause. We, as the Wiki community are supposed think ""outside the box"" and come up with solutions to problems. We are supposed to find ways to make the software work better or write scripts to help it along the way. We are supposed to write our own policies for interacting together. Through the course of human history, dreams such as these do not just happen if they ever even occur. It is firmly entrenched in the Wikimedia Universe that users are free to think for themselves and use sandboxes and user pages to work on projects including policy or suggested guidance. Unless there is a severely bigoted or malicious personal attack in the user's subpage, I do not see any way it should have deleted. The manner with which it was deleted as Speedy #3 with the added insult of a ""trolling"" tag seems capricious and unfair. Whether the proposed policy (which was only in a project stage on a user page) was useful, practical, workable, or had any chance of being accepted is completely irrelevant. And not SPAM (I forgot). In addition to my vote to restore, I encourage the deleting Admin to do it speedily so we can close this without wasting anymore time. Cheers, -- SVT Cobra 04:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with SVTCobra. This is not ones personal web host to get away with anything. One can't just write policies or essays on enwn, especially not the one who is utterly clueless about the basic things about the project. And if SVTCobra is so concerned about quickly ending this, copy the content of those deleted pages, and email it to the author instead of letting such things stay on-wiki. •–• 05:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] If restored, I would oppose marking the essay with {{ Wikinews essay }}. This template says 'The contents are strongly recommended practices'. This in my opinion does not apply to the contents of these essays. Gryllida ( talk ) 09:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] I have created a new template, {{ Wikinews user essay }}. I believe it addresses this concern. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 18:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Some observations. Nobody has called it spam. I deleted it as trolling, and would also have considered a couple of other items on the standard menu as reasonable descriptions, but there was no claim of spam. (And I spent a huge pile of time and effort carefully composing a coherent explanation of exactly what I did and why, and then the whole discussion was corrupted by multiple (evidently well-meaning) rearrangements with the net effect that my expensive clear explanation that was originally presented in a coherent sequence in the discussion has now been shunted out of the main stream.) Our userspace is not immune to basic reasons for deletion. We've got spambots nowadays creating, over time, huge numbers of advertising/spam user pages. We've even had deletions of user pages as patent nonsense , which surprised me when I first saw a user page that warranted it (but I did know it when I saw it). And web-hosting, which someone pointed out here is also a reasonable objection under the current circumstances, is likely to be in userspace. Trolling routinely says objectionable things; the fact that they're objectionable is both relevant to understanding their trollitude, and, at the same time, does not alone make it trolling. There's an attitude, a deliberate provocation thing going on, and each case is likely to have some of its own one-off flavor to it. (There is, btw, more than one place the drive for this sort of thing can come from; not all trolls fit the generic stereotype.) It looks like, for what ever reason, Darkfrog24's disruption may succeed in effectively shutting down the project for yet another day. I repeat: trolling. This incredibly disruptive discussion could be immediately ended by the requester withdrawing the requests. I'd be very pleasantly surprised if they do so; I invite them to demonstrate positive intent by doing so. It would have far-reaching beneficial effects. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 14:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] There were a bunch of votes here, which clearly indicated a strong consensus trend to leave it deleted. There were also lot comments here. Somebody rearranged the whole DR to put the comments in a separate section, leaving only a summary of votes here, and then someone else (I'm pretty sure this one was SVTCobra who simply wasn't aware of the earlier rearrangement) deleted the vote summary . That leaves us with a hugely compromised deletion request. This whole thing started with a ""vote"" (we all know there are no votes, right?) by me explaining in detail exactly why I took the actions I did, in the order I did, and others giving coherent explanations of their positions. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 11:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] An uncannily consistent occurrence around Darkfrog24's advocacies is that anyone who doesn't agree with them is forced not just to explain themselves (which tends to happen even if the burden of argument clearly should be on Darkfrog24), but to do so over and over, in ever-widening arcs (as more and more misunderstandings accumulate). The destruction of the coherent record of this request is an example; this discussion started out by developing into a surprisingly coherent presentation of who did what, in what order, and why, and what others thought about that. There was a clear, strong consensus trend in opposition to the request, and then the section was repeatedly rearranged and the coherent record was thoroughly wiped out. The reason I mention that the trend before this corruption was in opposition to the request, is that the net effect of the corruption is therefore strongly prejudicial in favor of the request. So that any positive outcome to the request probably cannot be considered legitimate unless it involves actually persuading the original opposers to change their positions (or, of course, convincing the deleting admin to change their position). -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] I've tried to repair the inadvertent damage to the record by explicitly acknowledging that the earlier material is all within the scope of !voting. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 16:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: User:Darkfrog24/Slowdown: Realistically, neither logically nor adminstratively separable from the preceding request; positions substantially subset of the preceding with no new features, though some people didn't repeat their positions from the earlier section. Not done. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 18:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Darkfrog24/Slowdown I wrote a conflict resolution essay incorporating criticism from the previous one and comments on the conflicts we've had over the past few weeks. It was in my userspace. It was clearly marked as a work in progress and as the views of one person and not the entire community. It did not meet any of the criteria in either our speedy deletion policy or regular deletion policy. It was deleted without discussion, warning, or filing here on this page. I request that it be restored. I'm also alarmed that the change description was so very misleading. I feel the word ""trolling"" greatly mischaracterizes the content of and improperly speculates about the intent behind my work. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments It's my understanding that common practice for problematic essays, which these essays were not, is to move them to the writer's userspace. That's where I had it to begin with. No action was necessary. I feel that so long as the essay is clearly and unambiguously marked as my own personal idea, there is no problem with my doing some brainstorming the way so many of our colleagues do: Essay OR Essay Welcome Helpers The essay SLOWDOWN is evidence that I can take and incorporate constructive criticism, even when it is given in a way that strikes me as hostile. I've been told to brush off my feelings and move on, to disregard who said something and how and focus on what, and that's what this essay is. I'd like it back for that reason too. +A few times over the past few weeks, another Wikinewsie asked me to write personal essays about the way Wikinews does and should work for my benefit and that of others. I didn't think it would do any good, but I tried it anyway and it turns out it is helpful. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Trolling is exactly what it was. I'm not going to play the game of sifting through the rest of the above misrepresentations. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 15:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow! You are clearly clueless about this one. You wrote something that was in your user space. And that user space is on enwn. Your user space is not on your machine or your own server. Wikinews is not a blog hosting platform where you do whatever you want. You need to accumulate reputation for doing certain things. You can not, and should not write essays for the project unless you thoroughly understand the policies. It is like attempting to prove P = NP without having any clue what NP means. I do not see why do you have a problem drafting the essay on your own machine? Stop using enwn as your personal web host. I think you don't really know what trolling means, else, if had read what you had written, you would have known. 27.59.39.141 ( talk ) 16:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] 27.59.39.14 is clearly speaking out-of-order and with complete disregard for policies and decorum. I do not think we should allow this to continue in this [MASK] section. Do not make me act unilaterally on this. This is an official page and not some random talk page of a user or article. -- SVT Cobra 03:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes Un-[MASK]' as author and proposer. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore - It is unconscionable in my opinion to deny a user to formulate a proposed policy within their own user space without proper cause. We, as the Wiki community are supposed think ""outside the box"" and come up with solutions to problems. We are supposed to find ways to make the software work better or write scripts to help it along the way. We are supposed to write our own policies for interacting together. Through the course of human history, dreams such as these do not just happen if they ever even occur. It is firmly entrenched in the Wikimedia Universe that users are free to think for themselves and use sandboxes and user pages to work on projects including policy or suggested guidance. Unless there is a severely bigoted or malicious personal attack in the user's subpage, I do not see any way it should have deleted. The manner with which it was deleted as Speedy #3 with the added insult of a ""trolling"" tag seems capricious and unfair. Whether the proposed policy (which was only in a project stage on a user page) was useful, practical, workable, or had any chance of being accepted is completely irrelevant. And not SPAM (I forgot). In addition to my vote to restore, I encourage the deleting Admin to do it speedily so we can close this without wasting anymore time. Cheers, -- SVT Cobra 04:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with SVTCobra. This is not ones personal web host to get away with anything. One can't just write policies or essays on enwn, especially not the one who is utterly clueless about the basic things about the project. And if SVTCobra is so concerned about quickly ending this, copy the content of those deleted pages, and email it to the author instead of letting such things stay on-wiki. •–• 05:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The ""Votes"" section is not really for debate, but has been used before, so I will address this nonsense here: It is not just anything. It is not a list of favorite songs. It is not a shopping list. It is not a suggestion to ""Subscribe to PewDiePie "". It is an idea for this project! As such it has every right to be in the user's sub-page just as much as your dashboard ideas deserve to be on your page. So, kindly vote and/or [MASK] above and stop trying to interfere with my vote, -- SVT Cobra 05:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey, read the [MASK] again. Except for the last line, everything I say is in support of not restoring the page. Vote section does have disagreements with someone's rationale, followed by the reason you support your stance, or showing why someone's reasoning is not good. And might as well offer some alternatives. If you still could not figure out, it was strong opposition to speedy restore, and opposition to restoring it in general. •–• 06:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] I know you are not in support of restoring the page. And I asked you to not interfere with my vote. You are not going to change my mind on this. You could put a gun to my head and I'd agree with you, but I'd only be lying out of fear. So, let me reiterate, you are not going to change my mind unless you put mortal fear in my mind. Why haven't you voted yet? Actually, better yet, explain the devastating harm this page would have on Wikinews in your vote. -- SVT Cobra 06:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] This request is another mess. I would say I'm obviously opposed to restoring this trollage, but I'm not convinced there can be any validity to the whole... okay, it's not a DR; UDR? And this is feels like some kind of double jeopardy following on top of the preceding request that has been horribly compromised by an intended interaction of two (or more?) users rearranging its section in a way that erased all the votes from an emerging consensus opposing the request. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 11:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Wikinews:Story preparation/Era of space exploration comes to end as Space Shuttle Discovery lifts off on final mission for Shuttle program: -- Pi zero ( talk ) 23:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikinews:Story preparation/Era of space exploration comes to end as Space Shuttle Discovery lifts off on final mission for Shuttle program The last mission was in 2011 and I don’t think there will be any update to enable this to be published. - Green Giant ( talk ) 12:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments We do have an article on this event, Space Shuttle Discovery launches on final mission . The question is whether the published article depended on the prepared one: our usual speedy deletion criterion A-oldprep says: ""A prepared article for which the event in question was at least five days ago, and the prepared work was not developed into an article (either no article was released or it was not based on the prepared work"". -- Pi zero ( talk ) 13:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] I must have missed that one. I suspect the published article did not grow out of the prepared article. There appear to have been two separate articles started around the same time. The second one was merged into the first one . There doesn’t seem to be any mention of the prepared article. - Green Giant ( talk ) 14:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",speedy delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Wikinews:Story preparation/Interview with U.K. statesman Tony Benn/Raw transcript: Wikinews:Story preparation/Interview with U.K. statesman Tony Benn/Raw transcript Plus Wikinews:Story preparation/Interview with U.K. statesman Tony Benn/winning email This interview is now more than 12 years old and Mr Benn passed away in 2014. I don’t think there is any way to publish this now. - Green Giant ( talk ) 12:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove - No point in publishing it now. Seem plez 09:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Wikinews:Story preparation/Leveson Inquiry: the story so far: Wikinews:Story preparation/Leveson Inquiry: the story so far The Leveson Inquiry was supposed to be split into two parts. The first part concluded in 2012 but the second part was cancelled in 2018 , and is unlikely be resumed. - Green Giant ( talk ) 12:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Wikinews:Story preparation/U.S. presidential election 2008: Speedied as ""old prep"" -- Pi zero ( talk ) 23:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikinews:Story preparation/U.S. presidential election 2008 2008 election passed a while ago, doesn't appear to have been used -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 22:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Userified articles by Ottawahitech: after Ottawahitech chose not to provide a rationale . Userified articles by Ottawahitech There are five articles userspaced after going stale. There is no good reason specified to [MASK] them in userspace. Unless there is a reason provided for each article why one should [MASK] them, they should not be here. Comments Votes Remove as the proposer. •–• 11:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] I have looked at each draft separately as follows: Remove User:Ottawahitech/Class action: Foreign workers pay thousands to obtain jobs in Canada The class action was dismissed by the BC Court of Appeal in June 2018. I could not find anything to suggest there is a fresh case, for which this draft could have been re-used as source material. Remove User:Ottawahitech/Privacy: Google reports more government data requests Google has since published further reports but this draft is unlikely to be useful in a potential future article on something like the increase in data requests. Remove User:Ottawahitech/Study: Life on Earth started in Canada This still appears to be the oldest sign of life but is very stale now and I could not find significant updates. It is difficult to imagine when there might be another similar announcement for which this could be source material. Remove User:Ottawahitech/United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price resigns Price resigned, and moved on to other activities, whilst his replacement Alex Azar was confirmed as Secretary on January 24, 2018. There is nothing left to report in this story and little potential for a future article. Remove User:Ottawahitech/ Buy American and Hire American: Canadian Company sued by U.S. DOJ This case was settled on December 28, 2017 and there appears to be little prospect of a future event to report on. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 14:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Template:Graph:Chart: Template:Graph:Chart Doesn't work without the associated module which is not available on enwikinews -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 18:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments @ Gryllida , Acagastya : Does either of you have any plans for this template? -- Green Giant ( talk ) 16:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Not at the moment. If the complementing Lua script is released under a compatible license, then this template can be re-imported. Links: at our water cooler ; at DE.WP . Gryllida ( talk ) 00:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Template:Pattaya: Template:Pattaya This template has been unused since 2011. Nothing links to it. It’s highly unlikely we will need it. (-- Green Giant ( talk ) 20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC) ). [ reply ] Comments Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: WN:Story preparation/Australia government funds edible worms research: WN:Story preparation/Australia government funds edible worms research The last content edit was in March 2018. Unclear when it might be ready for publication. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 17:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Coronavirus: Coronavirus WN:Story preparation/Wuhan coronavirus transport shutdown WN:Story preparation/Wuhan coronavirus transport shutdown/World Health Organization declares coronavirus 'public health emergency' WN:Story preparation/Wuhan coronavirus transport shutdown/Wuhan coronavirus grown in laboratory We have published plenty of Coronavirus articles . There is little prospect of refocusing these drafts because the situation has changed vastly since each of them was written. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 17:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: User:DragonFire1024/Story preparation/Wikinews interviews Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, Iceland's first openly gay prime minister: User:DragonFire1024/Story preparation/Wikinews interviews Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, Iceland's first openly gay prime minister Unfortunately, this prepared article has become very stale (no edits since 2012) and is highly unlikely to be completed. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 18:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove as nominator. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 18:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: User:KuduIO/'Al-Qaeda inspired' bomb plot stopped by Canadian police Userspaced article which has not been revived. Serves no purpose keeping on-wiki. Comments Votes Remove per nom'.-- •–• 12:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove per nom. Stale draft. Green Giant ( talk ) 23:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Deleted -- Green Giant ( talk ) 11:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.: Wikinews:Story preparation/Luxembourg publishes paper on the effects of free public transport This prepared story does not have a clear future event to refocus on . -- Green Giant ( talk ) 03:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC) . [ reply ] Comments [MASK] There is some discussion on the article talk about whether an interview might be forthcoming in this regard. Seems reasonable to me to give folks a few days' grace to discuss the prospect. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve just seen that [MASK] by User:Acagastya. A few days grace is very reasonable. If it looks like it is going to be worked on, then I’ll be happy to withdraw the nomination. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 13:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Although Acagastya and myself are interested in the topic, we can't offer a clear focus, and the interview is not going to happen, at least not right now. We will [MASK] our notes. This is a story which, I think, could be revisited in 2021. You may [MASK] it, if the requirements to [MASK] it here are not met. - Xbspiro ( talk ) 03:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Update CC@ Xbspiro :. Just got an email from them saying we could email them the questions and they will write back -- if Xbspiro is ready for that, we could have another shot at it. I think we have a clear focus, separate from the pollution or impact reports. I will start working on it later today. •–• 07:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Would that qualify? I mean I don't think it is an interview per se, and we still don't have a focal point. I will resume, of course, if this solution suffices. - Xbspiro ( talk ) 15:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it will, @ Xbspiro : -- we have conducted a lot of interviews and OR via email correspondence. As for focus -- I will be refining that on IRC tonight or by tomorrow, discussing with pizero and gry. Hopefully I will see you and @ Green Giant : there too, for more independent opinions. •–• 15:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes Remove as nominator. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 03:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] I would not have a problem if the page is deleted, since I can view it -- but I am afraid Xbspiro can't. Let's wait for ten days for preparation time. Things should be ready by then (else it indicates tardiness got the best of us.) •–• 13:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 15:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: User:MountaineerUOW/Rainbow of protesting gains international support: User:MountaineerUOW/Rainbow of protesting gains international support This draft article had not been edited since April 2013. It is very unlikely to be published anytime soon. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 23:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [MASK] This was a student in one of the UoW classes who were sent to en.wn to gain experience on a live news project. For a while we dabbled in preserving unsuccessful student articles so they would have the feedback to study, an experiment I started and iirc some other reviewers later tried as well; whether it worked or not, it did eventually make me uncomfortable and we backed off from the experiment in later years. I don't now recall any UoW student continuing to contribute on en.wn after the class (though we'd hoped a few might, of the many who passed through); however positive their learning experiences, it evidently remained in the learning experience bin for them. If the student account itself doesn't have anything to say in favor of keeping the page, I, who userspaced it, have no objection to clearing it out. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 00:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes Remove as nominator. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 23:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Category:Airlines for Europe: Category:Airlines for Europe There doesn't appear, to me, to be any published articles for this organisation and only one in development. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove per nom. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 15:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Yup. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 15:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Template:=: Template:= This template is not used anywhere on the wiki, and is about to be overridden by deliberate breakage of the platform by the Foundation. (See water cooler thread ; to be safe, I eliminated all usage of the template, which all turned out to be incorrect usage on incorrect expectation the template would generate an equal sign.) Comments Votes Remove -- Pi zero ( talk ) 17:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove To be fair, when I mentioned that at least one wiki (in total there turned out to be about a dozen) used Template:= for something different entirely, the patch was reverted/postponed. Also, the parser function would have inadvertently fixed the usages here. Either way, this template doesn't serve any purpose. Alexis Jazz ( talk ) 21:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove per nom. Green Giant ( talk ) 23:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove I can't see how we would need it. -- SVT Cobra 12:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Deleted -- Green Giant ( talk ) 19:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: User:KuduIO/'Al-Qaeda inspired' bomb plot stopped by Canadian police: The following discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:KuduIO/'Al-Qaeda inspired' bomb plot stopped by Canadian police Userspaced article which has not been revived. Serves no purpose keeping on-wiki. Comments Votes Remove per nom'.-- •–• 12:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove per nom. Stale draft. Green Giant ( talk ) 23:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Deleted -- Green Giant ( talk ) 11:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",comment +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Australian Maritime Safety Authority directs owner of APL England to search for, and recover, 50 cargo containers lost at sea off New South Wales: Australian Maritime Safety Authority directs owner of APL England to search for, and recover, 50 cargo containers lost at sea off New South Wales Prepared story now 10 days over the proposed date for refreshing. No response to question on talkpage. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC) . [ reply ] Comments @ Wikiwide , Gryllida : Thoughts? -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] If we are pinging Australian Wikinewsies, we ought to include @ RockerballAustralia :. -- SVT Cobra 12:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Pi has pinged Australian Wikinewsies, SVTCobra. •–• 12:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, and I thought Pi missed one. -- SVT Cobra 12:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes Remove as nom. Green Giant ( talk ) 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove latest source is from June 15. We are now over two months past that. Even if this was to be used as prep for an article at the end of July, we're now half a month past that. -- Rockerball Australia contribs 07:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Well, at least remove the {{ prepared }} and move on to {{ abandoned }}. At this point, if there are new developments, it will be easier to write a new synthesis article from new sources than to try and rescue this. -- SVT Cobra 23:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove I'm sorry this hasn't worked out. But, realistically, I'd say it's time to let it go. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 23:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Abundance of stolen health care records on dark web is causing a price collapse: Abundance of stolen health care records on dark web is causing a price collapse This draft has been abandoned twice (8 - 13 October and 15 - 19 October). Since it does not seem appropriate to put a new ""abandoned"" tag, I feel it needs discussion to see if there is anything that can be done to refocus it or whether it just needs deletion. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 14:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove in the absence of a refocus. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 14:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Deleted -- Green Giant ( talk ) 19:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",comment +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: 15 November 2020: — chaetodipus ( talk · contribs ) 21:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] 15 November 2020 User:Coppercholride/Petition seeks filing of FIR against Narayanaswamy This is a very stale draft from 2013. The author has not edited here since then. It is unlikely to reach a publishable format. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 15:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC) ). [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove as nominator. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 15:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: 20 October 2020: 20 October 2020 Wikinews:Story preparation/Luxembourg publishes paper on the effects of free public transport Stale prepared story with little possibility of a refocus, although an interview was under consideration, per the talk page. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 21:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove as nominator. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 21:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Deleted -- Green Giant ( talk ) 22:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",comment +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Wikinews:Accreditation requests/Phearson: Personal details have been redacted and hidden from public view together with a NOINDEX flag. This is the best we can do in the circumstances. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 21:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikinews:Accreditation requests/Phearson Hello from the dead! I am not sure this is the correct venue for this request. I have been targeted in a large dating scam/spam which others are using my email address and signing up for dating services to scam others. A google search of my email address comes up with pages from Wikinews from when I applied to be an accredited reporter. I am asking for its removal as it contains my real name and is possibly being scraped from here to be used to scam others on dubious dating websites. (-- Phearson ( talk ) 14:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC) ). [ reply ] Comments [MASK] these are part of the archives. I have taken the firs stop to make it harder to scrap the email. Since the user in question does not seem to advertise they are acive AR, once could, in practice censor the email and other contact information. Before doing that, maybe we can ask the user if they are okay if active wikinewsies were to save a copy of their contact info privately, in case if the need arises. •–• 14:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] I have been inactive here for nearly 9 years, much I did was only contribute small articles and read articles for the audio portion of the project. No one has contacted me since I was informed my credentials were being revoked for inactivity in 2011-- and doubt anyone will contact me in the future about my work in the project. Phearson ( talk ) 15:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Acagastya , Phearson : For now, I've redacted the contact info on the request page, we'd still have the issue that it's present on the credential verification page. WN:PEP never really has been applied there, so we may need to consider combing the list and removing the writers who are inactive (many ARs were credentialed in 2007). — chaetodipus ( talk · contribs ) 21:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Half-Life: Alyx wins Best VR/AR category at The Game Awards: No further edits should be made to this discussion. Tentatively sending through the usual abandonment process. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 00:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] Half-Life: Alyx wins Best VR/AR category at The Game Awards I have planned to reuse parts of this text, but I won't be able to do the refocus for the Steam Awards (January 3). - Xbspiro ( talk ) 22:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove - Xbspiro ( talk ) 22:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Wikinews:Story preparation/US judge rules Ocean City, Maryland, ban on public nudity legal: The content should be kept by the author off-wiki, and can be included as a part of another story that is current . Wikinews:Story preparation/US judge rules Ocean City, Maryland, ban on public nudity legal Please undelete Wikinews:Story preparation/US judge rules Ocean City, Maryland, ban on public nudity legal -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 22:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] You requested this a while back, and it eventually emerged that you didn't have a specific plan to use it. What, specifically, is the reason for your request to undelete? -- Pi zero ( talk ) 23:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] I requested this a while back, and it was promptly deleted again due to a misunderstanding where the undeleting admin assumed that I only wanted it undeleted for temporary access. I'd like to be able to access the content in case it is useful for a future article or OR. I can [MASK] it in my userspace if there are concerns about the prep space being a webhost (though this wouldn't qualify as webhosting, but whatever) -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 23:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, I was the admin involved. Some thoughts: From my perspective, although yes I did initially misunderstand the reason for that undeletion request, I would say that misunderstanding was the cause of the undeletion, not of the re-deletion. The re-deletion was part of the action. This page is, I think, a better venue for discussing wider options. The earlier request was at AAA, which is mostly not a place for discussion (although iirc we conducted the discussion of imposing a community ban there, once). To avoid muddling any of the side issues: webhosting isn't about use of the prepared-article space, it's about use of the wiki as a whole; so it would apply no more and no less to story-prep than to userspace. The basic principle here, as I perceive it, is that we don't use the project as a spare-parts junkyard of old failed articles. I do not believe Wikinews would ever have been remotely workable if we didn't [MASK] failed articles. We have been quite willing to undelete old failed articles for the sake of a new development for which they can be used, but there has to be a new development. That option was pointed out to the undeletion-requester in this case, noting also that there's nothing to [MASK] them from maintaining a list of failed articles they might wish to request resurrected when something comes up. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 17:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] So, any discussion from anyone? This isn't intended to be a part of a junk yard. I see a few places where things aren't clear Why was this deleted without any discussion, despite much older prepared stories being nominated for deletion above? Was the content itself problematic? What harm, if any, comes to the wiki from allowing me to [MASK] this in my userspace (or at the former title in the wikinews namespace)? It was also pointed out to the admin involved (undeleting and then redeleting, not the original deleting admin) that there are clear benefits to maintaining any such list of failed articles on wiki - I have no problem with maintaining all my failed articles together on one page, should they prove useful for resurrection. -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 03:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] About the current undeletion request and the original deletion: Although the term ""junk yard"" has the potential to carry a needless emotive element, functionally speaking a junk yard is a place to [MASK] old no-longer-used parts in the hope they can later be reused. Seems to me that was, functionally, the intent here. I am not, thus far, aware of any clear-and-credible argument in this case against simply waiting to request undeletion till there is a use actually-on-hand for the material. There is potential harm to the project, as we can't reasonably maintain such a facility without careful bounds on its use — and maintaining careful bounds on its use is what we're in the ongoing process of evolving for the story-preparation area. The two criteria we have now in place are a speedy-deletion criterion for once the intended even has expired, and a ten-day-warning prod for unsourcedness. The deleting authority cited the speedy-deletion criterion, from which it follows there was no deletion discussion. Now, the classic example of an expired prepared story is that the story is about someone's death, and that person has died some time ago. In this case, the article had originally been about a court ruling on April 7, 2020. In front of this material, the line was inserted, __WHEN__, __something related to public nudity occurred__. This isn't an expirable criterion: there is no point in time when one could say that, okay, it's happened and we missed it. There are therefore two ways (that I can see) to go about disposing of it: a formal deletion nomination, or a speedy-deletion based on the fact that the specific identified event remains the April 7, 2020 court ruling. Supposing the article had been nominated for deletion, rather than speedied, the first question that would come up is whether there's a more specific target event for it. Apparently there had been a plan for some OR, but nothing came of it, and iirc the vague statement above was the result of asking for a target event; so I suggest that in fact there was no more specific target event. The second question is whether it's okay that there was no specific target event. This is where the spare-parts functional intent comes in. In such a nomination discussion, my position would be that such a lack of expirable target is not okay. I don't see a remark in this discussion from the deleting admin who applied speedy-deletion, @ Acagastya :. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the current COVID-19 pandemic, it is understandable that OR is not yet an option, but I was still planning on trying to do some original research. The ""clear-and-credible argument"" is this: at this point I have already forgotten what the content was, and without access to it I cannot hope to write a story with it. My question regarding speedy deletion was ""Why was this deleted without any discussion, despite much older prepared stories being nominated for deletion above?"", not ""Why was this deleted without any discussion?"" - i.e. the focus was on the double standard being applied, which has still not been explained. While the ""specific identified event"" may have remained the count ruling, I believe that I tagged the draft with {{ prepared }} to signify that it is being prepared for some future event , not for the already-passed court ruling. -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 15:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] In a particular case an admin made a call, as one small piece of a larger articulation of best-practice. Let's discuss the disposition of the article going forward rather than wikilawyering over the procedure. It seems to me that in the absence of an expirable target, the default handling of an unsuccessful synthesis article is deletion; that would be my starting position (subject to what else might be said) in an RFD on the article, and I see no reason to alter it because of the technicality of the current status of the article. Re the content: plaintiffs claimed a ban on women baring their breasts in public was sexist since the ordinance didn't ban men baring their breasts in public, but the judge said the ordinance was legal because female, but not male, breasts are ""traditionally"" considered erogenous zones. I'm guessing you're suggesting the OR is ill-timed during the pandemic because the issue wouldn't be perceived as relevant? I'm not 100% sure that's true, but grant that before proceeding one would want to work out a way to make the relevance aspect of it work. If it's not relevant now, there's no need for it to be visible now; I suggest reapplying the undeletion when actively pursuing such OR. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 16:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean that its understandable that I haven't gotten responses yet - I am actively pursuing such OR -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 16:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ @ DannyS712 : could you give a brief outline of what the OR will be or is likely to be? Is there something else in the story that could be set as a future focal event? In particular I would think we could restore the draft if (and this is not an exhaustive list): there is a strong possibility of the judgment being appealed; there is a protest planned to challenge the ruling e.g. at city hall or on the beach; a woman has been arrested or fined for being topless in this beach; local police have been instructed to discreetly avoid arresting or fining anyone; Anything like this would make me more inclined to support restoring the draft. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 22:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] What kind of OR is it. Are you going to attend a protest, make notes, and then write about it? In that case, attend the rally and request UDEL. Are you going to ask someone some questions? If you have prepared the questions already -- request UDEL when answers are available. If you have not prepared the questions and need the article to be UDEL'd for preparing the question -- well then request UDEL. You have all the options at your disposal. But if you want something with pressing emergency, I have created a git repository and invited you, @ DannyS712 : which has all the edits in the order, proper summary and who edited it. You can find it here . Note: it is a private repo, so you need to login. I hope this solves your pressing emergency. •–• 23:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The point is that I want to use the content but don't yet have a specific story that it would be used for. Until then, I can continue to develop the context and history of public nudity laws, etc. I declined the github invitation - I'm not going to sacrifice my privacy (expose my ip) for this -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 23:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ two things -- First, if you don't have a specific story -- find one before requesting UDEL. Requesting indef UDEL of articles must at the very least have a well defined story. Second -- it is now a public repo -- you can access it without logging in. Feel free to clone it locally and access it as much as you like. •–• 23:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] So I don't, as you said, ""have all the options at [my] disposal"", only the ones I was presented earlier, declined, and then proceeded to come here to request undeletion? I am not requesting indefinite undeletion of the articles - if nothing comes of it I'll probably ask for it to be deleted within at most a year. Second, having access to the text itself isn't helpful in some archive on my computer - I already saved it at https://web.archive.org/web/20200503015633/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikinews.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DWikinews%3AStory_preparation%2FUS_judge_rules_Ocean_City%2C_Maryland%2C_ban_on_public_nudity_legal%26action%3Dedit - the point was that it should be onwiki for ease of use, for others to be able to use it if they want (if it remained deleted they would have no know about it first), and to allow for incremental improvements, refocuses, etc. -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 23:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] You say ease of use -- but what are you or John Doe going to use it for? Is there a story? No. There are a lot of articles that are deleted which could help write something about it in the past -- but if there is no WN:Focus , then you are wasting collective time. •–• 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The git repo should grant you access to all the revisions -- something that might help your pressing emergency and you can work for the OR. But if you don't have any specific story -- you should find one. •–• 23:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no pressing emergency - not sure why that came up. As for a specific story, I agree that the content cannot be published without a story - please undelete it so that I can use the content and find a story for it (that is what I've been requesting this entire time) -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 00:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] As for ""wasting collective time"", I'm not sure how the existence of the page, if it was a waste of time (I don't believe my contributions to this project can be properly characterized as a waste of time) how was it a waste of anyone's time but my own? -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 00:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ I meant it is a collective waste of time when you are arguing for UDEL without a fixed focus. The story does not come up by UDEL -- if something happens, report it. If you (not some other John Doe) wants to do an interview, you have to git repo -- and you can say the same thing for UDEL. •–• 00:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm afraid I'm at a loss for what you mean. I do not consider my attempts to further the project's mission to be a waste of my time, and I have been clear on not having a fixed focus. The story does not come up by UDEL - agreed. The existing content does - the who point of story preparation is to have some content available ahead of time. Separately, what do you mean by `If you (not some other John Doe) wants to do an interview, you have to git repo -- and you can say the same thing for UDEL.` ? Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: GitHub re-enables public access to youtube-dl after EFF sends a letter challenging the DMCA takedown: This was completed already. — chaetodipus ( talk · contribs ) 04:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] GitHub re-enables public access to youtube-dl after EFF sends a letter challenging the DMCA takedown Comments I will be working on the interview questions in some hours, (I had notified about the same on scoop before the article went stale). So I am restoring that article and the talk page for the same. •–• 09:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: More userspace drafts: More userspace drafts This is the second batch of a large number of draft articles in userspace. Most seem to be very stale but do not fit into a speedy deletion criterion. These ones are by students at the University of Wollongong: User:Adam UOW86/Australian rugby league team sign Papua New Guinea player Last edit was April 2014. User:Adam UOW86/Papua New Guinea Hunting Big Scalps in Queensland Cup Last edit was April 2014. User:Aideenuow/British explorers complete world first row to North Pole Last edit was August 2011. User:Aideenuow/Bushranger Ned Kelly's remains found Last edit was September 2011. User:Aideenuow/UN will investigate possible 'crimes against humanity' in Syria Last edit was August 2011. User:Ajuow/clippers Last edit was June 2014. User:Am90UOW/Drone strike reported to kill Pakistani Taliban leader Last edit was May 2013. User:Am90UOW/US Navy launches autonomous drone from aircraft carrier Last edit was May 2013. User:Am90UOW/US spied on Russian President Medvedev at G20 meeting Last edit was June 2013. User:Am90UOW/White House admits killing 4 US citizens in drone strikes Last edit was June 2013. User:AndreaUOW/Egyptian media under threat Last edit was October 2011. [ 24 Cr ][ talk ] 21:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes [MASK] - as nominator. [ 24 Cr ][ talk ] 21:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] - not much explanation needed, agree with nominator's rationale. -- LivelyRatification ( talk ) 07:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] The result was [MASK] because no objections were raised in two weeks. [ 24 Cr ][ talk ] 00:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: LTA page creations: LTA page creations Template:Uw-voablock New user suddenly creating sockpuppet category, came here after they made similar template for banned users at the Wikimedia Commons, which doesn't have a banning policy. Donald Trung ( talk ) 10:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Template:Uw-spoablock New user suddenly creating sockpuppet category, came here after they made similar template for banned users at the Wikimedia Commons, which doesn't have a banning policy. Donald Trung ( talk ) 10:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Deleted . @ Donald Trung : No objections but these should have been tagged as speedy deletions. [ 24 Cr ][ talk ] 07:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",delete +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: NHS: I know I opened this apparently a year and a half ago, but it does seem clear that the general consensus here is to [MASK] Cigarette . There doesn't seem to be strong support to [MASK] the NHS redirect so I'll leave that one as [MASK] for now. — chaetodipus ( talk · contribs ) 08:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NHS and Cigarette Per @ Acagastya :'s suggestion, these redirects may be unnecessary. NHS is too generic, and ""cigarette"" can refer to a tube containing substances other than tobacco intended for smoking. — chaetodipus ( talk · contribs ) 20:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [MASK] I disagree that NHS is unnecessary; all references to an ""NHS"" on Wikinews generally refer to the UK's National Health Services . This may be a case where we have a disambiguation page in mainspace, but most other organizations that might be an NHS likely won't see much coverage, see for example w:NHS (disambiguation) — chaetodipus ( talk · contribs ) 20:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes [MASK] the two. Re cigarette, cigarette is for smoking -- what you put in it is not fixed -- you can roll it with tobacco, or you can have cannabis. Re NHS, we literally had discussed about such globally unknown abbreviations (including this) and it is no mystery how much unnecessary effort of admins go behind fixing the ambigious names later being changed. If it should be NHS (UK), then don't put the burden on future maintainers, [MASK] it that way from the start. We don't go by ""what NHS means in Wikinews articles in the past"" -- such mistakes takes hours of our time, when it comes to fixing the mess. We need to future-proof. •–• 06:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] : I'm hesitant as to whether either of these changes are necessary, but given that no actual categories are being deleted or renamed, simply redirects, I'm inclined to agree. I do think that tobacco cigarettes and the UK NHS are by far the most common use for both terms, but as acagastya notes, they're not universally used for one topic, probably for the best to err on the side of caution here and [MASK]. -- LivelyRatification ( talk ) 03:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Cigarette should be deleted because of the tobacco/cannabis distinction. As for NHS, that could be deleted too because of the other uses seen in disambiguation. (Mostly high schools) 4906h ( talk ) 13:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] : I think this request reeks of pedantry. For the sake of a theoretical future in which articles on another NHS or, even more bizarrely, tobacco in any other context would accumulate in sufficient notability and quantity as to require new categories, we are causing an unnecessary amount of inconvenience for the users of today. To prepare for one step forward, we're going two steps back. -- JJLiu112 ( talk ) 04:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JJLiu112 : I think this only concerns the redirects NHS and Cigarette - the National Health Service and Tobacco pages wouldn't be touched. LivelyRatification ( talk ) 04:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and their deletion would be an unnecessary inconvenience if the reason for doing so is just ""well, maybe one day, there'll be enough articles on a DIFFERENT NHS/DIFFERENT use of tobacco"". JJLiu112 ( talk ) 05:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, OK. I understand that concern, I was just unsure if you thought that the tobacco article was being deleted. LivelyRatification ( talk ) 05:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] It is about doing the right thing and being precise. Having some regional acronym, which does not have international ties or recognition is a recipe for disaster, a western equivalent of white-washing, and it should be lead by example. Cigarette is not the same as tobacco and should not even point to the same thing. Not future-proofing is not how enwn works, you would have seen in the edit history time and time again. It should not even exist, in principle. Just like IRCTC should not. And having cigarettes as tobacco is wilfull ignorance, something we don't do here -- just like America vs USA. •–• 06:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] While I am sympathetic to your arguments in regards to being overly Westernised, I'm not entirely sure about your future-proofing argument. I don't think that we always need to disambiguate to prevent a possible future where we may need a separate category. To give an example close to home for me, our Melbourne category is for the town in Australia with over 5 million residents. There are, indeed, a number of other places called Melbourne , including Melbourne, Florida with over 84,000 people. We have indeed had some articles that have referenced that Melbourne. It is not inconceivable that a Floridian Wikinewsie could write enough articles to warrant a category for Melbourne, Florida. On that grounds, should we disambiguate the Melbourne category to Melbourne (Victoria) or Melbourne (Australia)? I'd say no, but it seems like based on your future-proofing argument, we should. These are only redirects, so I don't really object, but I don't think it's at all necessary to disambiguate for the sake of it, just in case we might one day have an article on additional topics with the same name. LivelyRatification ( talk ) 01:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] I think the concept of ""future proofing"" is futile. Deleting NHS as a redirect just leads to deleting other redirects such as CIA or NASA or EU or USSR , etc, etc. The 'cigarette' question has slightly more merit, but I'd rather wait to fix it when it is an actual problem. -- SVT Cobra 02:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] NHS - After mulling it over, I think we should definitely [MASK] NHS. -- SVT Cobra 16:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] I went to NHS! I'd always been proud of how newsworthy my high school was. Now I'm disillusioned. I'm kidding, if that's not obvious. I don't know WNews well enough to have a firm opinion, but if the UK national health service is the only thing likely to be abbreviated as ""NHS"" in the international news, then it seems reasonable to use it that way here, even if I'm personally more familiar with it as my high school. Kwamikagami ( talk ) 04:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Cigarette - The redirect is only used by two articles and in addition to cannabis-cigarettes, there are also e-cigarettes which can easily generate news. -- SVT Cobra 16:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] . I don't see a point in getting rid of these two. - Xbspiro ( talk ) 09:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input: Wikinews:Deletion requests/User draft list: Wikinews:Deletion requests/User draft list The subpage above contains a list of draft articles in userspace. Most of them are very stale, in some cases as much as 10 years old. This works in Wikipedia, where someone might spend years trying to write a decent article. However, Wikinews articles are stories that were fresh at the time of publishing. I can see no benefit to Wikinews in keeping dozens of stale, unpublished and unpublishable draft articles. I propose to [MASK] all of the pages listed on the subpage in a weeks time. If there are any that could be salvaged, please indicate which ones and why. +Note: There are some red links and struck out ones which are drafts that have already been deleted or will be. [ 24 Cr ][ talk ] 13:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes [MASK] as nominator. [ 24 Cr ][ talk ] 13:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] while I cannot say that I reviewed every page in the list, I did some random sampling and I have enough faith in User:Cromium that the rest are the same. -- SVT Cobra 00:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] as appear stale. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] , but I would [MASK] these OR articles: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . - Xbspiro ( talk ) 09:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] [MASK] : Most definitely, many are not even news and all are stale. This will be a big task for the deleting admin. -- Heavy Water ( talk ) 14:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",delete