UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions/Archive/2011 05

This is the archive page for UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions.

Shortcut:
A/SD

Speedy Deletion Queue

User:Iscariot/Signature

“	I think you're barking up the wrong histories, when I left I don't remember asking for Ross et al to delete my user page, although it may have escaped my memory. What I did want deleting was User: Iscariot/Signature, which was done and then stupidly overridden by certain people trying to take a shot at me after I'd left.	”
—Iscariot

Same reason as the above, right page this time. Should be Scheduled (Crit 7 by proxy), but playing this by the book. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Keep, because this would be bound to leave improper sigs calling a non-existent page all over the place. What could be done is to replace the code on the page with a plain userpage link, which would both get rid of the original sig and leave the pages it appears on in order. -- Spiderzed█ 19:26, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Per precedent, a redlink is fine too; but OK, move this to A/D and prolong this whole pointless debate, if you want. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:33, 4 May 2011 (BST)

The issue is that it would leave a redlink to User:Iscariot/Signature, not to User:Iscariot. The latter would be fine, the former would be problematic. -- Spiderzed█ 19:37, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Userspace has subpages enabled, so that page will link back to his userpage. Nor pretty, but completely unambiguous. That said, if you want to go ahead and replace them, be my guest. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:41, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Spidey, crit 7 over-rides keep votes (same applies to thad above). Rev, was this an email request? if so, can you get a screenshot, or get him to email me? Sorry, but since there's been so much arguing, I feel a nice email screencap would resolve it. If you post one, I'll delete it as soon as I can.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:19, 4 May 2011 (BST)

If you doubt me, email him for confirmation yourself. Posting quotes is one thing; posting entire correspondence without permission is another entirely. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 20:51, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Will do. I don't doubt you, it would just be weird for me to do a deletion without talking to him myself.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:56, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Sorry, I can't, because his email isn't registered on the system.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:01, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, that figures. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:27, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Iscariot mentions above that this signature was deleted then undeleted, which seems to be what I remember happening but I can't find the logs to prove that happened. What gives? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:40, 7 May 2011 (BST)

I don't know, man. In this instance, I don't care about the reasons, I care about the results.

Deleting

Per Copyrights,

“	All content on the Urban Dead wiki is owned by the individual user who created it, and may not be reproduced without their express permission.	”
—UDWiki:Copyrights

This is why Crit 7/8 are non-negotiable.

I am now going to delete this page. If you feel that the signature redlinks left behind break policy, feel free to fix them. If you think I am abusing my powers, you know where the door is. If you're as sick of red tape and petty bureaucrazy as I am, join me in a beer or something. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:27, 9 May 2011 (BST)

I'm going to wait a bit for the inevitable misconduct case to come round. If concensus is that it stays deleted then I can run a bot to fix all the broken links.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 12:30, 9 May 2011 (BST)

I'm holding out and hoping good faith and common sense prevail. Hey, stop laughing, it could happen! 13:08, 9 May 2011 (BST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revenant (talk • contribs) 13:08, 9 May 2011.

As for the broken links, I'd appreciate the bot. Could take care of the protected bits manually once he is done. -- Spiderzed█ 13:12, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, I'm going to wait a couple of hours before running it because it's easier to run than it is to revert.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 13:49, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Oink. Flap .--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 13:49, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Clear-cut Mehsconduct, with emphasis on Meh. Would have been better to see Izzy request it directly, but then again, it would be trivially easy for him to pop in for a minute and take away the base for any Misconduct case, so I don't feel like bothering. -- Spiderzed█ 13:12, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Show me what rule I broke and I'll agree with you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:18, 9 May 2011 (BST)

undeleteing. See what rule I broke and I'll agree with you. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:35, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Revenant is in the right. He's received a crit 7 request to delete a page, and whether it's requested off wiki or not is neither here nor there. We've allowed requests off wiki for companies to delete their content and images, and Karek says we've done it for normal users too. As Rev got the request, he was obliged to delete the page. There's no misconduct there. I say we just take the whole issue to a vote - deleted or not deleted. Then anybody who didn't get their way isn't liable for whatever goes wrong and we can stop this ridiculous drama-fest.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 15:42, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Where do I start? This looks good:

“	All Undeletion Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered: A link to the deletion request in question. Preferably bolded for visibility. A reason for undeletion. This should be short and to the point. A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding ~~~~ to the end of your request. Any undeletion request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.	”
—A/U#Guidelines for Undeletion Requests

Technically grounds for Misconduct, considering it was deleted in accordance with scheduled deletions policy and I don't see a Misconduct case for myself, meaning sysop abuse clause shouldn't apply. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:22, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Btw using karek's testimony is useless unless he can actually find links to the precedent he says exists (I'm not saying they dont but until he gives evidence as quickly as he took to say it happened it might as well not have been said in the first placw). -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:03, 9 May 2011 (BST)

We deleted the original Channel 4 News Team page images after someone reported them to the copyright holder. Looking for a link. (BTW, not sure what's up with these indents.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:32, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Nope. Channel 4 & their images weren't deleted (I should know, I put one of them up). You're thinking of when Conndraka contacted Packard Jennings and deleted the images from the Battle of the Bear Pit. You can find the posted email here. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:42, 10 May 2011 (BST)

You are correct – dankeschön! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:33, 10 May 2011 (BST)

I'm for whatever. A vote is a good call, because as far as quoting policy goes, everything is going is going to go down to personal opinion and I'm for (as I tend to be with standoffs) a sysop vote regardless of my personal opinion. It's way better than QQing on misconduct about whatever action Sysop A takes. Forcing a vote is about as definite and pure as it will get, I'm happy with it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:50, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Are we starting to follow the Copyright policy? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:35, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Hmmm, no I don't think so, rather, it would look like we are following the copyright scheduled deletion clause, where the ops only care when people make a fuss about it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:23, 10 May 2011 (BST)

(And even then we're at an impasse because some ops would like proof before going ahead) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:25, 10 May 2011 (BST)

PROTIP: That isn't how copyright works. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:26, 10 May 2011 (BST)

It's how we enforce it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:36, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Actually it's not but I'd rather not dig into all the the Dead and Marty Banks drama that would be proof. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:38, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Proof from Iscariot that he made the request, I assume, not of copyright? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:36, 10 May 2011 (BST)

More or less, I think Iscariot has had things deleted before in his namespace claiming copyright and we go through with it, even though most of them double up as Crit 7's anyway so I'm not sure why he would have to claim copyright in this situation since it'd amount to the same effort on his part to prove the request is legit either way -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:39, 10 May 2011 (BST)

I just keep an eye on these sort of things. Carry on. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:36, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Um, why don't you guys just replace it with a default signature? It effectively accomplishes the same thing and leaves no red behind. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:02, 9 May 2011 (BST)

That's what "fix the broken links" involves. However, for some reason he wants it deleted.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 16:43, 9 May 2011 (BST)

If it goes undone by the end of today I'll throw it to some sort of op vote. It'd be nice to get a consensus on how we should deal with these. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:25, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Or we could just do it right away, rather than to talk about how we should talk about getting a vote started. -- Spiderzed█ 00:42, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Voting

• Delete - with General's bot and my willingness to deal with the protected pages, we've found a solution to clean up the broken links this deletion will leave behind. That still leaves the issue of the off-site request, but frankly we won't find rest until we've got rid of that page, nor will we get Izzy to pop his head in just to satisfy our craving for red tape. Essentially, I just want to be done with it, rather than to have to deal with it again and again every few months. -- Spiderzed█ 00:42, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  The hypothetical situation where we change hundreds upon hundereds of links just for someone to come back and say the deletion request was falsified and have us have to change them all back (it won't be as simple as just reverting or looking up links to the user) just gives me the shivvers TBH -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:51, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  Hypothetically, they can “fix” it them-fucking-selves. (Hint: A fancy sig is a privilege, not a right, and certainly not a necessity.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:16, 10 May 2011 (BST)

• Keep - Until Izzy can spend the 27 agonising seconds it would take to log in, navigate to A/SD and say "My signature please" -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:51, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  He doesn't even have to do that. He can just wipe the page and it becomes a scheduled deletion, or he can request it on whichever sysop's talk page he wants. It's never been easier -- boxy 02:41, 10 May 2011 (BST)

I assume I don't need to vote on this? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:08, 10 May 2011 (BST)

• Delete - You're all idiots. He requested his other user subpages 9 days before his userpage making it clear in the request he didn't want his stuff on here and there's a question of if he wanted it gone? ON TOP OF THAT the justification for the undeletion action was that we don't delete user pages when CLEARLY WE FUCKING DO. Not to mention that the user who requested the undelete has a history of harassing users he doesn't like to the point of vandalism and privacy policy violations, or am I the only one that remembers any of the Haliman drama.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:14, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  There's a relevant link from the time of that undelete request. Here's one from now #Grim_s. Idiocy. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:19, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  So where in his original subpage deletion request did he ask for his sig to be deleted? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:22, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  He assumed we knew what a subpage was? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:26, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  Where did he say "all my subpages"? All I can read is a well defined and intricate list of the pages he did want deleted. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:28, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  I'mma just leave these here for the sysops in the audience.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:34, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  The best part of this link is that boxy is a telepathic precog. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:32, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  Yeah it's pretty classic. Although I do love that now two trusted users have said they have personally had requests from Iscariot to have this deleted and they're not being trusted. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:46, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  Last time it was his user page, which he wants kept now. So they have changed -- boxy 02:41, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:17, 10 May 2011 (BST)

	PSYOPS! OH NOES!!1!
	Duck and cover, duck and cover! Tin-foil hats may work too!

• If I am reading this right, all of this is currently just for the deletion of Iscariot's sig page, correct? Well, it's not the first time signatures were not deleted after a user requested it (along with Malton roadtrip '09 for some reason, despite it receiving enough deletion votes to get killed). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:26, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  So we violated Chekken's rights, too? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:08, 10 May 2011 (BST)

• Delete - I genuinely do not care. Just get rid of it and forget about it. -- Cheese 01:48, 10 May 2011 (BST)
• Not a vote - Implicit in the statement that user pages be requested by their authors is that the requesting be done on wiki so everyone can evaluate it. I wouldn't vote misconduct on anyone who does delete due to being personally requested (unless the owner of the page disputes the deletion), but as I havn't recieved a request from the page owner, I can't take the action -- boxy 02:38, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  What does your telepathy say? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:43, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  It says that no matter what we do, no good will come from this -- boxy 02:51, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  Thank fuck for Boxy. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:06, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  The impasse here is that some other sysops feel they have the right to deny the request simply because of who it was done by and are trying to claim tentative justification in wiki policy to support it. Basically it should never have been undeleted without said dispute by the owner but, what was accepted was a demand by a user who has an established history with the page owner based on the faulty premise that we don't delete user pages. It's not a matter of who can take action it's a matter of unserving the invalid Undeletion request which we have more than a lot of reason to have never served in the first place based on relevant page policy and the person requesting.
  

A/U said:

Undeletions may only be granted if the user provides a convincing reason as to why the page should be resurrected, or if the page was deleted as a result of a system operators abuse.

• Neither was the case here due to a lack of a misconduct report and the lack of valid reasoning in the request. This is fixing an error on Cheese's part pretty much. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:15, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  TL;DR WE DONE FUCKED UP. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:17, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  No we didn't. We were forced to make a decision on something with no clear evidence. That's why making the request, in person, on the wiki is implicit. You can point to the request, and say "there it is". This is a terrible precedent, no matter what happens. Who do we "trust" to relay such off site requests? Fucking ridiculous. But if a couple of sysops can to confirm that they both were contacted by Iscariot, they nominate it (as Rev has) and the other can take it out.
  I personally can't wait for the next sysop to go feral and delete a heap of someone's pages saying that they requested it offsite. Fucken awesome -- boxy 05:11, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  “Trusted users”? cat mountains > molehills ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:13, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  And don't even think about trying to force other sysops to accept offsite requests. You want force a sysop to do something, request it on this wiki -- boxy 05:18, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  Yeah, you did. You took an argument from a user that dislikes Iscariot against the word of a user known to get on very well with Iscariot outside the wiki. You're now doing it again with a user known to be on fairly close terms with Iscariot as far as internets goes and calling it good precedent. The decision you made was wrong and the evidence that's available is fairly clear as to what the right action would have been. You can't justify the reversal of action already taken without the misconduct case you're lacking that might make your point. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:25, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  Nah I'm sure there some sort of applicable law from Wikipedia that they'll bring in to combat something like that happening. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:21, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  “Law”? What, do you think WIKI LAW is a real thing now? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:45, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  Yes. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:25, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  If other sysops want to avoid contact with the community outside of the wiki, that is their choice. As I've said previously, my background is in networking. What the fuck does it matter if they ask me via talk page, email, IM, IRC, or fucking smoke signals, so long as everything's done in an above board and accountable manner? Because the last fucking thing we want is for communication to be handled via lawsuits. That, to me, would be a massive fucking failure by all involved. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:45, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  What the fuck does it matter if they have to come and make one edit to have it happen? No one has answered any of these "why cant he just come here" questions yet, I've been asking them all day. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:25, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  Why should he have to come here? He can communicate his wishes easily enough, and he's currently boycotting the wiki as you should be well aware. Demanding people come here and answer to you smacks of powertripping. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:32, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  There'd be no answering to be had if some people weren't trying to force something through the system. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:54, 10 May 2011 (BST)

  You sure you don't mean if some people hadn't already forced something through the system when no one reasonable had the balls to act in response? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:01, 10 May 2011 (BST)

• Keep Pretty much as Boxy and DDR. Also, Karek is wrong. I have no personal issues with Iscariot that could affect my judgement in this matter anymore than other sysops could have in this case. Falsely accusing me of this in combination with linking to completely unrelated umbrella drama of 2 years ago (!) has no grounds and just makes you look like a drama-mongering idiot, hope this helps. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:14, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Served Speedy Deletions

User:Iscariot

“	Author Edit Only: The page has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author, and has been edited only by its author. Note that edits by adbots or vandals and reverts caused by them do not count. User Page: The page is a User subpage that has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author.	”
—Speedy Deletion Eligibility

Send 'er down, Huey. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:33, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Keep So wait, since it didn't seem you were getting your way in the discussion you're just gonna try to force it down here? Nice. (Fails crit 7 and 8 since NOT requested by original author here)-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:54, 4 May 2011 (BST)

It's called following procedure, something I don't expect you to understand. Anyways, turns out this was a mistake stemming from a misunderstanding, so Retracted. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Also, please note the exact wording: “…has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author.” No mention of where, which IMO is as it should be. (And no, I do not expect this to be abused, for the simple reason that the original author can come back and prove the request false should they not have made the request.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:16, 4 May 2011 (BST)

But really, shouldn't it be the other way around? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:41, 7 May 2011 (BST)

You don't get one set of rules/standard practice for other users and a separate set for Iscariot. So no, notice is notice and as sysops are trusted users we, like always, trust it until we have reason not to. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:23, 7 May 2011 (BST)

You're saying we've honored off-site requests before but not for Iscariot? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:28, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Yes, we have. I myself have even served a few of them iirc and they were accepted as ok without any of this stupid drama. The only problem anyone has with it is who it's for, everything else is lais and politicking. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 18:37, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Can you provide links? Since I've been around Iscariot is the only case I remember having being served from offsite request. And even then it was reversed. Either ways, what I meant from my comment a post up is that why should we delete then wait for the user to make the trouble to come back and complain, if the user can just make the trouble to just come here and request it in the first place? Not rocket science, and doesn't cause nearly as much drama as it is now (as we can see by all this discussion/arguing that's been happening in the last week, coupled with the shit that happened when it originally was deleted) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:01, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Case retracted due to misunderstanding and moved down -- boxy 02:25, 10 May 2011 (BST)

User:Grim_s

Under 7 and 8 I request this page removed. I desire a red link. Leave the talk page. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 13:29, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Done. Have left any subpages alone, since you made no mention of them. -- Spiderzed█ 13:37, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Anti-zombie_squad/Inactive

Outlived usefulness. Crit 7, plz. --Penguinpyro 12:39, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Served.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 12:44, 8 May 2011 (BST)

City hall

no info on page - misspelled title could not edit

Mayor MC Cheese 14:29, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Done. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:36, 7 May 2011 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Protections

• 17:41, 4 May 2011 Revenant (Talk | contribs | block) restored "UDWiki:Administration/Protections" ‎ (1,874 revisions restored: Thank fuck I use edit summaries. OK then. Let's hope *this* works.)
• 17:38, 4 May 2011 Revenant (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "UDWiki:Administration/Protections" ‎ (Personal Information: Balls. Doesn't work like Oversight. Fixing.) (view/restore)
• 17:35, 4 May 2011 Revenant (Talk | contribs | block) restored "UDWiki:Administration/Protections" ‎ (1,889 revisions restored: And that should be that. Restoring.)
• 17:30, 4 May 2011 Revenant (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "UDWiki:Administration/Protections" ‎ (Personal Information: Requested by User:Iscariot – as we have no Oversight, have to delete and then restore.)

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 18:48, 4 May 2011 (BST)

What exactly were you doing there? Removing the link to Iscariot's blog and first name that you provided? How come all of a sudden? Did Iscariot ask you to remove them after you placed it? -- Thadeous Oakley

Exactly that. Personal Information is a scheduled deletion. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:21, 4 May 2011 (BST)

I know it's an instant speedy, but I wanted to know if Izzy asked you to remove it. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:23, 4 May 2011 (BST)

“	Did you have to do that? Not only has it artificially jacked the stats of one pointless post, but it's also pointed a whole load of people I didn't want to associate with directly to me. Quoting right to disappear from Wikipedia is all well and good, but I'd actually managed to disappear until you drew them a map.	”
—Iscariot

Does that satisfy you? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:29, 4 May 2011 (BST)

The gravity of unwanted shared personal information strongly outweighs the need to follow minor procedure rules. Rev made the right judgement call in this case. -- Spiderzed█ 19:35, 4 May 2011 (BST)

I followed procedure completely. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:43, 4 May 2011 (BST)

“	Personal Information If a user wants personal information about themselves deleted from the wiki, they should be able to get it speedy deleted.	”
—UDWiki:Administration/Deletion Schedule

strange, I'd already seen that page, so I guess there might be other links floating about the wiki (that or I saw it via the UDwiki facebook page). May be best to keep an eye out.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:22, 4 May 2011 (BST)

There's a UDWiki Facebook page? Link plz? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 20:36, 4 May 2011 (BST)

LOL I didn't mean UDwiki. I meant the UD characters one. Although I'm totally making a UDwiki facebook group now. ;) --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:02, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, who didn't know about this blog already? Hmmmm. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:34, 7 May 2011 (BST)

This was the right call. The above, IMO, are not, but personal info calls as Spiderzed said are important enough to not worry about trivial red tape like this. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:37, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Template:UDWikiTV/Newsroom

Crit 10. ~ _{06:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

Isn't meant to be a template, and has content. Should probably rather be moved to the template talk page? -- Spiderzed█ 12:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

UDWikiTV is just a redirect to the template but I think perhaps just moving to UDWikiTV/Newsroom would be nicer. I like that news! Has potential, sad it's died though. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:55, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Moved to UDWikiTV/Newsroom. ~ _{16:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

User:The General/sig/norm

Unused. Was created while I was fiddling with my sig.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:43, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Done.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 16:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Template:Zl

Crit 10. ~ _{06:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

Done. -- Spiderzed█ 12:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Template:UDWikiTV/PictureDesk

Crit 1 and crit 10. ~ _{06:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

Done. -- Spiderzed█ 12:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Template:PREVIOUSMONTHNAME

Crit 1 and crit 7. ~ _{06:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

Done. -- Spiderzed█ 12:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Template:NEXTMONTHNAME

Crit 1 and crit 7. ~ _{06:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

Done. -- Spiderzed█ 12:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Template:CalendarColSpan

Crit 1 and crit 7. ~ _{06:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

Done. -- Spiderzed█ 12:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Template:DI:MD-owb

Old Dezonous template. Unused. Crit 10.~ _{06:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

Done. -- Spiderzed█ 12:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Template:DI:MDbdg

Another unused Dezonous template. Crit 10. ~ _{06:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

Done. -- Spiderzed█ 12:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

User:SA

Crit 8 - The user made it clear that they wanted the page deleted -- boxy 00:07, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Done. -- Spiderzed█ 00:10, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Technically not Crit 8 – wasn't requested by the original author – but it's fine by me. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:58, 1 May 2011 (BST)