UDWiki:Moderation/Deletions/Archive/January-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Deletions Archive
2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2014 Jan-Jun Jul-Dec
Years 2015 2016 2017 2018


This is an archive page for Moderation/Deletions. This page represents all Deletions archived in January 2006.

Complaints

Was fdirst generic whining by a user who was banned for violating the multi-character agreement, later changed to what appears to be a request to gather insults against me. I also request that, if this page is to be deleted, a moderator other than myself should carry out this task, as Amazing seems to view anything that I do as biased, and it would be good to show him that other moderators follow the same policies and guidelines that I do. --LibrarianBrent 21:48, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete - This is basically just a rant page for one user. If he wants to put this on his own user page, that's fine, but he doesn't need a special page for it. Although, flipping through the edit history does give an interesting insight into the edit patterns of users who don't use the preview button... --Chester Katz 23:15, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

How dare you try to silence someone because they are trying to air grievences about you! What corruption. I'll just turn my profile page into the exact same page -- or would you both delete that too since it's unfavorable commentary on your performance that no one must ever see? -- Amazing 04:10, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

You are welcome to create a User sub-page if you feel that you must get these grievances off your chest. On the other hand, if you feel that significant bias has been placed against you, there are already places where this can be handled, in particular Moderation/Misconduct. Remember to record links and other evidence regarding LibrarianBrent's bias, and other Moderators will discuss the evidence and see whether your grievances are genuine. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 04:51, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Go put it on your userpage, Amazing. My main problem with your complaints page is that the title makes it seem to be somewhat official, or at least supported by other users, similar to Suggestions. If it was on your userpage, which already includes many of your criticisms of me, the content would be more likely to be judged objectively by users coming across the information for the first time. Also, it's spelled "grievances". --LibrarianBrent 05:19, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Spelling and grammar corrections are the cheap tactics of someone who wants to antagonize without being bold about it.. Or do you expect anyone reading this to believe you're just handing out spelling lessons? -- Amazing 03:22, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete I wasn't going to vote but self-righteous indignation is a peckadillow of mine. Really, "How-dare-you" is bad 50's melodrama and 'played-out' in the modern vernacular. Take a look at LibrarianBrent's Contributes to see what kind of moderator he has been. In my opinion, a fair one who practices good jsudgment but you don't have to take my word for it, the link is right there. --Matthew-Stewart 05:03, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - definitely. This does not belong on a public page all by its own. Like Odd Starter says, it makes it seem supported by other users. Thus belongs on a user page, or in a discussion about mod abuses. Not that anything would seem to indicate LibrarianBrent is doing anything but deliberate and thoughtful modding. He always abstains from any behaviour that might even suggest he is abusing his powers. --John Cooper 12:25, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • To all above - So no new pages are allowed then unless you support them? This is a new page I created for people to voice complaints, and I started off with mine. The Moderator Misconduct page is not the place for complaints with no goal of punishing a moderator. Odd Starter, you yourself said "To be honest, I think there's some usefulness in having a place for protest" - That's changed now because the person who did it is protesting a Moderator? lol.. Sad. Why not leave the page, but delete my complaint? That way it's left for others as a useful place for non-punishmeat complaints. Oooohhh right, becuase then it'd be too obvious you're only trying to get rid of that part. -- Amazing 03:19, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • To all above - So no new pages are allowed then unless you support them? Well, yes, to an extent. The wiki is run by consensus and democracy, so in theory if a new page is unsupported by the wiki community, it's not allowed and should be deleted. This is how a wiki goes. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 22:07, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Specific complaints about the game should go either on the user's page or on the talk page of whatever aspect bugs you. Complaints about a moderator should go onto their talk page or the Moderator Misconduct apage. Rants such as the one originally up should be saved for personal blog where everyone on the internet can read and enjoy. --dayfat 03:43, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Delete it, and quick, and remove it's linking from the main page as well.--GoNINzo 19:26, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • I've removed the link that Amazing added to the front page. If the Complaints page makes it out of the deletion queue alive, at that point he should open a discussion as to whether or not a link belongs on the main page. The link should stay off of the front page in the meantime, especially considering that the deletion request seems to have strong support and the link was added well after the initial deletion request. --Chester Katz 19:59, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Agreed. This page should NOT be linked to the front page. If it stays, that can be reconsidered. --LibrarianBrent 20:05, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Kill it. There are more appropriate avenues for this crybaby to pursue his crusade. -CWD 20:09, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - See the actual pun for my comments! --Nov 01:45, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - This is what talk pages and the Moderator Misconduct page are for. --Spiro 03:42, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Reason should be obvious enough... Mrdbeau 04:41, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: 8 Deletes, no Keeps, Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 07:27, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

PK List

Reason - Is there any reason why this should be on the wiki? The wiki is supposed to be handled in an objective manner, and there is no way to truely verify that any of the reports listed on this page are valid. Furthermore, removing the page will also help prevent the "he said, she said" bullshit that will indefinitely arise if this page is ever heavily used. --ShaqFu 15:52, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete - I agree that the wiki's not the right place for this. Note also that there's a policy discussion that touches on this topic at Moderation/Policy Discussion#Group Pages. --Chester Katz 16:24, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Currently requiring screenshots of the act should help prevent the "he said, she said" aspect out, making that a non-argument. If removed as per matter of policy, so be it - however, it should at least include pointers to where one can find a PK list off site. The one I found listed seems to be non-functional. --Reverend Loki 19:48, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Well I sure don't see the problem in a list of people you're supposed to kill on sight that can be edited by anyone whatsoever. --Katthew 20:45, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - I agree with the above; this is an abusive setup just waiting for an abuser. --Drakkenmaw 20:48, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Screen shots a long precedence of being considered legitmate proof, and the current format uses that, making it just as valid as lists edited by single indiviuals (if not more so). It is not any more open to abuse than existing bounty lists as it requires the exact same proof. --Matthew-Stewart 21:04, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete For two reasons: One, it gives semi offical sanction to "bounty hunters" and gives the view that pking is a "bad" part of the game, when Kevan has said time and time again that it was never his intention to make PKing something that was "bad", however he did make a incentive not to. This doesn't mean that something which is basically directed Pking should be seen as supported. Two, it adds drama to the wiki. Any screenshot in the game can be faked. How are we to tell what happened and what didn't? What system will we use? Each of these questions vary from organization to organization. Also, what prevents users from adding people to the list without any proof? Wouldn't that lead to angry users constantly bickering? Take a look at the PK list on the forums. They are rife with conflict and arguing. The wiki should contain information, not accusations.--Axe-man 21:14, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete, completely inappropriate for the wiki environment. --LibrarianBrent
  • Keep this page is undiniably usefull. By its very nature it helps keep the game interesting, besides, there are allready 3 of these on various mailing lists, so removing this one is in no way usefull. Alexei Yaruk 04:03, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - While there's already one on most UD forums and on many human group pages, I think a public area to say "hey, watch out for this guy" is a nice thing to have. --Aiden H. 10:45, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Inappropriate. --Graaaaaaagh 18:26, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Changing my vote due to my experience of the CoL list, it cannot be used sensibly. --BenM 15:17, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Frankly, we need it in an environment where no one reigns supreme and everything is logged. Slicer 05:07, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Obvious. --LouisB3 16:20, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Exactly what Slicer said. Impartiality is more possible when you have logs. If people want to use it, let them. --Daxx 16:23, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Disliking player killers in a game is a matter of opinion. Having this in the wiki is setting people (newbies to the game tend to try and learn from the wiki and take what is said there as thruthfull) against other people based on the opinion of the list keepers, in this case that player killers are bad. If this list is included it should rightfully also list all other lists, like the A.R.S.E. list, the list for people with dumb names, etc. And that would be silly.

Also, its to easy to alter by just anyone. --Paddy Fitzgerald 22:47, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete This isn't really appropriate for the wiki, and I can see it leading to wiki wars. Kashara 00:06, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Harmanz can kill each other all they want. Shouldn't be in the wiki, though. --Jorm 01:26, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Not appropriate for Wiki, where anyone can edit. Perhaps a pointer to the UD Forum would be nice, so that victims know where to report. --Dogbarian 01:33, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - This is not a place for it. --Nov 02:14, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - A wiki does not need something that can easily be faked such as this. If someone wanted to, they could fake a screenshot saying Kevan himself PKed them. --YuriRuler90 19:41, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Handy if you want to keep tabs on PKers. And it really doesn't do any harm. If you don't want to get involved in he said/ she said bullshit, don't read the page! -- Burning Icarus 06:19, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT
  • Delete How utterly stupid is this? Might as well pull all the profiles in the game and add them, would be just as useful. This is a wiki edit war waiting to happen.-- SLA 06:41, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete The wiki's perceived authority should not be put behind any stance on PKng. Furthermore, the practice of PK reporting itself is murky and prone to abuse. I cannot see the wiki improving this, certainly not without extremely scrutinous screening and very heavy modding. This would be a timesink, and a dubious one at that. John Cooper 09:49, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Although the list is useful, this doesn't belong in the Wiki.General Maddox 0308EDT, 28 Dec 2005
  • Keep I didn't know this page existed or I would have been using it. This will be a most useful tool for tracking PKers and for alliance formations.--Celt Mac �ireann 10:41, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: 17 Deletes to 8 Keeps. Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 07:27, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

    • Just an FYI, some idiot created it again. --Grim s 05:08, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Aiden Hodder

Reason: Duplicate of User:Aiden Hodder --Nov 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

  • Speedy Delete: Criteria Nine
  • Delete: Yeah, I didn't really know much about the wiki then. It needs to be gotten rid of. --Aiden H. 11:37, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Moderator: Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 07:53, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Category:Buildings

Reason: Duplicate of Locations, the subset of which consists of a variety of other buildings (NT, phone mast, etc.) which have their dedicated sub-categories. --Nov 11:13, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Moderator: Kept, as no votes cast. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 07:53, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The Stanbury Revivers

Edit never mind I have some people interested. --Timmybilson 05:16, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Moderator: Request cancelled by user, no votes. - Daranz|talk| 23:45, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Category:Groups that won't pee on your new carpet

Reason: There's no need for such a category is there? --Nov 07:14, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete: While I am a fan of non-sequiter humour, I just don't think it would be appropriate on this wiki. -Dr. Retsnimde 08:31, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete: Humor isn't good criterion for valid categories, which should be a useful sorting tool. --Jack-Swithun 03:31, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete: Not usefull or appropriate for the wiki. --Technerd 00:21, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete: Ditto. --The Fifth Horseman 12:44, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete, inappropriate for the wiki environment. --LibrarianBrent 15:04, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Moderator: Deleted - Daranz|talk| 23:45, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Searching

Reason: I believe the page is useless and this information is found on other pages. Plus a lot of the information is wrong such as the locations of shotguns.--TheBigT 01:19, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete - Information under "By Item" can be found in Category:Items. Information under "By Building" can be found in Building Types. --Sigsegv 15:02, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Though the information may be found elsewhere, this list is more concise and to the point, dealing only with the question where to *find* something. I use it. John Cooper 09:41, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This page is useful for quickly seeing all the items that can be found in a building type, as opposed to the Category:Items page which only shows where each item can be found. --Info 01:44, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Useful, needs a little TLC, but it's fine. --Jack-Swithun 03:32, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Same as my reason just forgot to vote --TheBigT 02:04, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - same as Jack-Swithun. --Timmybilson 03:53, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - Same as John Cooper. When people search for 'Searching', this is what should come up. --Slicer 04:44, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment: Not a vote, I just want to say that if this page is deleted (which doesn't seem very likely at the moment), it needs to be converted into either a "Disambiguation" page or a "Redirect" page as there are a number of pages linking to it. --Nov 12:08, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - Same as Slicer--Estewar1 01:06, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Moderator: Kept. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 06:58, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

24,64

Blank page found. Doctorwhen 19:00, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - I edited it to redirect to the actual page, and it was you who actually deleted stuff Doctorwhen. --Nov 01:49, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Redirects are good. --Jack-Swithun 08:35, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Kept. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 06:58, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

!!!111AAA

Reason - The page serves no other purpose then to offend other people and incite flaming. Personally speaking, I find some of its content very insulting. --The Fifth Horseman 14:37, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep It should remove the "organization" category because it doesn't qualify, and a NPOV section be added to the top but other than that it is fine. --Contaminated 15:21, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - That page is about as mature as an army of two year olds. Spoilt, misbehaved two year olds.--Arathen 20:11, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Childish and petty page with no purpose but to inflame others. --Technerd 21:50, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - I just don't like the look of it. --Katthew 02:10, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - It has no real purpose. -- Andrew McM 18:14, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - a real fire-hazard, no worth what so ever. -- Danielhalamit 19:19, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Page serves no purpose except to insult others. -- AshJWilliams 05:09, 29th Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - As the "!!!111AAA" is not a real group, to which it itself claims, it should not belong on the "Groups" page. --Skabooga 21:33, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't get why this is here. It's not claiming to be an Organized Group, so it needs no justification for its existence. It's just a page claiming a group identity. Why is everybody so hostile towards this? I do agree it should remove the "organization" tag though. I don't see what "maturity" has to do with any page on the wiki - every group gets a POV section - hell a majority of the page should be their POV section. Stop being tools and gang-deleting this for reasons less mature than the content of the page. Riktar 00:15, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep It's just a funny satirical look at this site and UD culture, you guys shouldn’t take it so seriously. --CarryTheRedFlag 07:29, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete - page has no purpose and insults even its self so it needs to go.--RAF LT. General Deathnut 03:44, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete - I disagree with those of you above who are somehow able to discern any redeeeming value whatsoever in this page. It's neither funny nor satirical; it's just immature crap, pure and simple.--Bulgakov 05:48, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete - Vote left by Rizo299. --Daxx 18:08, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete - This page serves no purpose. --Ghamill 22:39, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - Without biting satire society as a whole is dull, unitersting and moribund. --Tyrmorr 15:45, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete - I do believe I haven't voted yet. --Daxx 16:07, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Moderator: Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 06:58, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

A big strong Fireman

Reason: Page serves no discernible purpose. -Daranz|talk| 05:25, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete - Looks like text for a user bio that ended up in the wrong place? --Chester Katz 06:18, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete. --LibrarianBrent 18:07, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Looks like a mistake or if it is a real player then we should keep it.--Axe-man 01:30, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete This should be under a user's name, not a regular wiki page. 0320EDT, 28 Dec 2005
  • Delete I agree with the above people; this should be under a character's bio. --Stresshog 21:53, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment If there is a stray page that reads "Just an ordinary lug who spent weeks wandering around aimlessly until an unexpected encounter in Lerwill Heights opened his eyes to the beauty of taking a stand and fighting for a worthwhile cause, however doomed," by all means delete it. All of you who guessed it was meant for a bio are right. I thought that's what I was doing. Think I've corrected the problem now. If I haven't, perhaps someone could let me know. --A big strong fireman 19:49, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - vote change problem solved.--Celt Mac �ireann 06:46, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Speedy Delete This qualifies under the Personal page (Prefix Rule) criterion. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 00:27, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 06:58, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

PKAC

Reason: This is a page for a group I created that never took off. It contains no useful information and is basically wasting space. D4rk N00b 23:11, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Speedy Delete - You should probably move this request to Moderation/Speedy Deletions. It's eligible for speedy deletion under criterion 7 from that page: "Author Edit Only: The page has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author, and has been edited only by its author." Since it's your page and nobody else has been working on it, there's no real need for a vote. --Chester Katz 00:24, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 06:58, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Personal tools
advertisements