Misplaced Pages

User:Kvasir/Fyksland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Kvasir/Fyksian passport (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:Kvasir/Fyksian language (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:Kvasir/Fyksian nationality law (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:Kvasir/Fyksian kron (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:Kvasir/Church of Fyksland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This deletion was made within mere 5 days without any input from the author. All the deleted pages were in the Sandbox area. Policies mentioned in the discussions do not apply. --Kvasir (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - See MfD:Fyksland pages for discussion and record of deletion (after 7 days). - Gump Stump (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse own closure: Clear consensus at the MfD for deletion. Contrary to the DRV nominator's statement above, it was closed after 7 days had passed (7 days, 5 hours and 54 minutes, if anyone wants to get precise about it). Also, the author was notified of the nomination 15 minutes after it was posted. It unfortunately appears that the author is one of those who takes several months off between editing, and thus missed the notice. However, looking back at the discussion, I don't see that there would have been a different outcome. There is no blanket immunity for sandboxes which are clearly being used for material not meant for Misplaced Pages.--Aervanath (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: These pages were originally nominated for review separately; I've consolidated them into one deletion review since they were deleted as the result of a single MfD.--Aervanath (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid MFD. Misplaced Pages is not your free webhost. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Question — Why did you want these pages, Kvasir? I'm having trouble understanding the background.—S Marshall /_Cont 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Can someone tell me what is the rule for Sandbox then? As far as I'm concerned, the above pages were all experiments with wiki syntax until they can be moved to other wiki-style pages.

The Sandbox was created as a place with fewer rules and policies than any other pages on Misplaced Pages. For example, you don't have to follow the Manual of Style or reach community consensus before making a major change. However, it must not be used for malicious purposes, and policies such as no personal attacks and civility still apply.

No one is saying my pages violated the above. So what was the problem? Why not just move those pages to user:kvasir/sandbox/etc for lower visibility. I don't understand why people should get upset what's in people's sandbox area anyway. --Kvasir (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, the expectation is that what you do in your user subpages is in some way directed towards improving Misplaced Pages. A sandbox is simply a subpage set aside as an explicit testing ground. If you want to experiment with wiki syntax, tables, and templates, or if you want to build a new article in your userspace, then that's permissible. However, there's no blanket license to put whatever you want in a sandbox. The consensus at the MfD was that the pages were not contributing to Misplaced Pages at all; they were nice pieces of fiction, but Misplaced Pages isn't here to host that kind of thing, even in userspace.--Aervanath (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse There was evidence presented at the MfD that since some parts of the pages amounted to a find-replace in articles, and had outdated information, they were affecting Google search results for the replaced entries. Misdirecting searchers is a problem. Reading Misplaced Pages:UP#Copies_of_other_pages should give you a brief idea of what was going on here, as well as the related Misplaced Pages:NOT#WEBHOST. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as a fair reflection of the consensus, but email a copy to the user per his reply above.—S Marshall /_Cont 16:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mimi Lesseos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

First time the article was created, text was copied from a source leading to the article's deletion. The second time however, the text was entirely original. Roaring Siren (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The deleting admin has already addressed the copyvio issue here, before this DRV was initiated, and here, afterwards. This user seems to have a problem understanding copyright. Compare recent edits here with this source, or recent edits here. I raised the issue on ANI over earlier infractions but it was completely ignored for unknown reasons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Delicious carbuncle. Changing a few words doesn't make it a new work. Recommend userspace draft. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - If by 'text was entirely original' you mean exactly as the previous version aside from some reworking of the initial paragraph then yes (example shown in the second diff linked by Delicious carbuncle). Cheers! Syrthiss (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per Syrthiss. Take Stifle's advice and work on a draft in your own userspace, synthesizing your own phraseology. As it stands, two counts of copyright violations on their own don't make this look good. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. She is notable enough to merit an article, I'd support restoring it if it was written right. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Unwired head.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Licensing still being resolved. The image contained an element that another user (who had no part in the creation of the element) contested was unlicensed. When the image file was deleted I was still in the process of checking licensing with the creator of that element - who I originally attributed in uploading the image. An associated article, Telepathy and war, was also nominated for deletion and then deleted unreasonably after the page was vandalised several times. Frei Hans (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is an outstanding licensing issue still being resolved, shouldn't this stay deleted until it is actually resolved? The article you mention went through a deletion discussion and the outcome was delete. Merely saying it was unreasonable is not particularly compelling, usually pimrary authors of an article believe deletion to be unreasonable in some way. If you think there were flaws in the deletion process your best bet is to (a) discuss those issues with the closing admin and see if can be resolved (b) having done (a) and not reached an understanding one way or other, then list it here for further consideration, though you'll need to give some indication how the deletion process was flawed (i.e. not just disagree with the outcome) --Contributions/82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The article that the image was created for was vandalised before it was nominated for deletion. A user arrived who repeatedly caused disruptive behaviour, deleting entire sections of the article and reliable references with no reason. Then the user, and another who I suspect of sock puppetry, nominated the article for deletion - claiming that it should be deleted because it had no reliable references. While I and other users were working on the article that pair kept returning to remove valid content, in some cases reverting the article to states where they had deleted most content. The article was re-written a number of times in different forms - I was happy with the work other genuine contributors made and was interested in the ideas other users provided for expanding the article. While very different from the original article, it did seem to be developing in spite of the content that others kept removing. The article generated more interest then I thought it would, but one or two users seemed to want to get rid of it and I feel they used some sock puppetry during the articles for deletion discussion process to sway the opinion of an administrator who might base a decision on the discussion. Meanwhile back at the article page, reasonable edits were being made by other contributors in spite of repeated vandalisms. That is why I feel the deletion of the related article was unreasonable. Furthermore, there are no licensing issues with the image in my opinion. I contacted the creator of the content asking them to reply to me if licensing posed an issue and they have not indicated that they are concerned in any way. I wanted to wait a while for their reply, before reposting any content. I am satisfied that licensing is not an issue for them. I made clear the content I created using theirs was non-commercial. I also acknowledged the creator concerned when I first uploaded the image to Misplaced Pages. If the content is re-instated I believe it would stand with a license that specifies non-commercial use and with attribution of the creators involved. The related article was originally written with information from reliable and well referenced sources, and created interesting discussion on related discussion pages. Before the article was deleted at least two bots tagged the article, one tagged the removal of a lot of content for another bot to restore - citing possible vandalism. Frei Hans (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to address your issue with deletion of the article, since you need to raise a separate DRV for it, but I strongly advise you to discuss the issues with the deleting admin and others first. You certainly need to be careful not to conflate vandalism (which is defined as WP:VANDAL) with "edits I don't like".".

Onto the actual issue of the image itself. First thing's first, just acknowledging the owner of an image when you upload it is doesn't give wikipedia any permission to use it. We need explicit permission to use it, unless we are using it under a claim of fair use (See WP:NFCC, this certainly wouldn't be the case here.). I am still somewhat confused as to the status of the image from the author you don't seem to have clearly stated they have been contacted and agreed to release it under a suitable license, if they have then please do as requested here your word on its own is not good enough. Finally you say "If the content is re-instated I believe it would stand with a license that specifies non-commercial use and with attribution of the creators involved." Again it doesn't matter what you "believe" it matters what the owner has specified. In this case we do not accept non-commercial only licenses. If you look to the page I pointed to before about requesting permissions the image section there specified the requirements the license must allow: "1. Modification, 2. Redistribution, 3. Use for any purpose, including commercial purposes.". You can get more help on things by either placing {{help}} on your own talk page in which case someone will come along and offer so help or by posting questions at the helpdesk --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How does a user find out who a deleting/closing administrator was? I do not know who the deleting/closing administrators were in the case of the Unwired Head file and the related article, so cannot contact them. Frei Hans (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

By looking at the logs associated with the items in question you can see who performed what actions on the pages. In this case the logs for the image page is here and the article here. You can also see from the deletion discussions on the two who the person closing the discussion was, which will generally be the person doing the deleting also. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the wrong file... please can you remove? -- Daniel Jones (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC).