Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2017/02/24
|
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. |
(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)
Delete - Well, since the user Swineposit was blocked from editing back in November 2016 for adding unsourced birth dates on Wikidata with 27 March by the administrators. 86.0.244.52 17:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)- Delete - Swineposit has banned from editing on Wikidata. Because for adding birth dates with no birth dates. She will learn, that user. She is indefinitely blocked from editing. Thanks. 86.0.244.52 17:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Hoary recently blocked the user from editing on Wikidata. I'd apply a deletion of User talk:Swineposit, right now. 86.0.244.52 17:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Make sure, Swineposit don't exists on Wikimedia. 86.0.244.52 17:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Delete, after what the unregistered Swineposit has done for adding birth dates which they are unsourced. 86.0.244.52 17:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: 86.0.244.52 writes above that I "recently blocked the user from editing on Wikidata". Untrue. I asked for a block. Maybe this persuaded Edoderoo, who applied the block. I am not an administrator here and therefore can't block anybody. Moreover, I seldom edit here. And because I seldom edit here I am not familiar with the policies and guidelines. Perhaps it's for this reason that I am surprised to see (i) a single person (86.0.244.52) voting (or "!voting", as it's called in en:Wikipedia) "Delete" five times in a row, and (ii) comments about the blocked user rather than the user talk page that is or is not to be deleted. ¶ My own inclination would be not to delete the talk page of a disgraced user. If some editor later finds a surprising edit by this user, they'd be helped by the ability to read comments placed on the user's talk page. However, I haven't read up on the relevant policies in Wikidata, and this is why I hesitate to vote (or "!vote") against deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, this was not me.
But I noticed some weird things on my Google account last night, and now I guess there is a relation here.(There were issues with Google last night, but not related to this, I figured out) But since I'm not a sysop anymore here, I can not do anything anymore anyway. I'm afraid the ip-address is actually the blocked user who's not logged in? For now, I would leave the user blocked and keep the talk page for future reference. Edoderoo (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, this was not me.
Not deleted but replaced by a blockmessage. Lymantria (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Q28834379: encyclopedic article: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Created then emptied by same person — billinghurst sDrewth 06:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Not deleted Redirected inversely. Lymantria (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Q28722723: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
This entry was created by mistake, wrong Hungarian label, duplicates Q25036172 Malatinszky (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Matěj Suchánek (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
