Anything New here?Edit

Hi! I just literally spend the past few days in the hospital. Is there anything that may have taken place here that I may have missed? Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@つがる: Sorry to hear you were in the hospital. As for what's happened around here, we've had a wave of vandalism attacking pages related to notability, where the vandals claim that we shouldn't restrict their edits because they're editing from a public internet cafe. Aside from that, I'll leave it to you to check recent changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, so that vandal is still around? thanks for keeping me up to date! :) --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


Just wanted to confirm, if a talk page has rule-breaking content, then it must be blanked, right? As far as I now understand, talk pages aren't really deleted under any of the QD criteria. I keep forgetting this rule, so I just want to make sure. Etoza (?) 20:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Etoza: Before I answer, do you mean talk pages in general, or user talk pages? User talk pages are handled differently. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean user talk pages. Etoza (?) 07:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Etoza: I guess it would depend on what rule was being broken. I've seen them blanked because they contained copyrighted content, hate speech, or personal attacks. However, I don't know of any policy or guideline that says they must be blanked -- not that there isn't one, but none comes to mind. Personally, I would err on the side of not blanking if there's any doubt. Is there some other kind of rule you're thinking of? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
We cannot (or should not) allow clear libels or copyright infringements to stand. They have clear legal implications for WP. "Hate speech" is actually not a legal term in many countries. In such a case it is the U.S. legal code which decides, and the Wikimedia Foundation could give a ruling. On common-sense grounds we should edit so as to eliminate causes of dispute or unpleasantness. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC) (excuse the but-in...)
Have to disagree on those last two. There will always be disputes, and there's no need to censor unless they become extreme. As for unpleasantness, we're not even allowed to revdel profanity. As for "hate speech," by that I mean, in part, racial slurs, which we often remove (but not by blanking an entire page, unless that's all that's on them). --Auntof6 (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking about advertisements. I saw one editor obviously advertising some service on their talk page, so I instinctively marked it for QD, which, later, got denied and I think it was blanked after that. Etoza (?) 11:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
If you are talking about User talk:BestLaptopForPhotoEditing there is no advertising on the talk page. -Djsasso (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Stub article deletionsEdit

Sorry to bother you, but you just deleted two stub articles which I had taken the speedy tags off because they were applied incompetently by a drive-by tagger. Claims of notability had been made which the tagger ignored. I don't have any connection to these pages but shouldn't they be discussed? They were Zivko Jovanović and László Levin. (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@ I don't consider being either a judge or a politician to be a claim of notability--especially a politician, because a person doesn't have to do anything to declare themself a politician. Being an office holder might be a claim, but not just being a politician. I also note that neither article had references, although references aren't necessary to claim notability.
For future reference, if you see cases like these where you disagree with a QD request, the correct process is to use the {{wait}} template on the article and discuss on the talk page. I will restore the articles to the state where they had the QD requests, so that you can use that process. Please do not remove the QD templates yourself.
Finally, I don't consider MathXplore to be either incompetent or a drive-by tagger. Please assume good faith. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Killing of Zohra ShahEdit

Hello there, just wanted to let you know, we probably do not have enough article for a category:"Violence against girl". I have created a category Category:Children victims of violence, where I also added Zorah Shah. I replaced the Category:Torture with the Category:Torture victims. Catr: torture is for describing the different methods of torture, and not for people torturing others, or being tortured. Anyway, torture victims lacks two more entries to be keepable. --Eptalon (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eptalon: Thanks. I probably just missed that last redlinked category. Once I got most of the categories deleted or changed with HotCat, I guess I missed that one among all the different highlighting. I could blame the trouble I've been having with my eyes, but I could very well have missed it without that anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)