UDWiki:Administration/Undeletions/Archive2009

e Undeletions Archive

By Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2019

2009 Undeletion Archive

The mark of death

It just got speedy deleted but it doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy delete. Not crit 7 as DDR suggested. If you look at the page history you'll see that there were two primary editors to the page and they both contributed to it constructively.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:05, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Here's the link: The mark of death--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:06, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Oh, dear. Dare I ask if I had only seen the first 50 edits and thought they were the only edits to the article? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:43, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Haha, yeh, little mess up there. I was looking over the histories when it got deleted and I hadn't voted yet. But there were two primary users. The link you referenced in your vote was of Bob Boberton reverting the edit of user#2, assuming that user#2 was not an authorized user. However user#1 came back in and reverted bob's edit, presumably because user#2 had been acting on behalf of the group. It may be that both users would like the page deleted, in which case crit 7 speedy is fine. But the delete request on the page may also be the result of an inner group political struggle, in which case we should treat it as a regular deletion.

I can't remember the name of the other user. Hopefully the history doesn't get blanked when the page is deleted, right?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:09, 24 October 2009 (BST)

We can see all revisions despite it being deleted. My crit 7 vote was with what you explained, in consideration, if C Witty considered the edits welcome, and he was just acting on behalf of C Witty himself. Either way, I've asked the second contributor if he has any prob with it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:31, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Looking at the talk page (since deleted) it appeared a member of the fortress (the group who mark of death targets) made edits to the group, some formatiing, some spelling. There was an apology from the fortress command staff there, I also believed he kpet the edits because the spelling was better, not because it was an authorised edit. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:32, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Ah I see. I didn't have time to unravel those nuances, I just saw some of those formatting and grammar type edits you referred to. Based on your information, it appears C Witty is the rightful owner of the group, and Mendoza's talk page indicates a history of editing other people's pages. Please consider this undeletion request withdrawn. Sorry for the extra leg work.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:12, 24 October 2009 (BST)

No probs. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yap. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 14:03, 26 October 2009 (BST)

Deletions reversal

I'd like this action reversed, so that these pages can go through the two weeks on the deletion page, like they are supposed to. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:57, 4 August 2009 (BST)

Nup, the two weeks are up now, and there was no way any of those were surviving a vote, even if it went the full two weeks. Let them RIP -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:33 5 August 2009 (BST)

So you're saying that because it went for 2 days, and was removed from voting for the following 12 days, that the two weeks are up and the votes wouldn't have been substantial enough to maybe change the decision? --ϑϑℜ 03:30, 5 August 2009 (BST)

I don't agree with the whole "2 weeks are up now" bit but he's right - there was no way short of meatpuppetry that those pages were going to make it through. DISK SPACE = CHEEP is a really facetious reason to vote Keep on something - thankfully most people don't stoop that low to get their jollies. Cyberbob  Talk  04:19, 5 August 2009 (BST)

If any of them were something that I thought stood any chance of being kept by a revote, or if it was only a day or two ago that they went, I'd undelete them... but meh. Most votes come in the first couple of days, and the overwhelming majority was for SD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:40 5 August 2009 (BST)

I'm going to channel J3D from last time this happened and say; is this specifically the right thing we should be showing Nubis? That this sort of thing is okay? I doubt it would have pained him to have just waited two weeks. Deletions isn't primarily about just rushing things through. --ϑϑℜ 12:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Show me what? That I'm one of the few people here that actually does grunt work and yet people are looking for ways to fuck me over? I think I have seen that quite clearly. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)

(DDR's having one of his little hardliner trips. It should clear up by tomorrow) Cyberbob  Talk  13:48, 5 August 2009 (BST)

You're 'grunt work' is the equivalent of bullshit, almost as much as the claim you are the only one who does it. Don't use backdoor contributions as a badge of honor because no one cares, lest a sysop. Your contributions of the last 6 months are half of what Boxy made in July, and as for Rooster, goddamn, I haven't even bothered trying to count his contributions for this month, and his have 95% been in maintenance and reworking templates and categorising. You're highest contribution rate (which lasted a month) in the last year is what some other sysops achieve on average. Don't use your activity or the "quality" of your work to lull me into awe. Basically, I have no intention of 'fucking you over', and honesty, I don't hate you, but I do hate your behaviour around something like this. There is no reason why you couldn't have just waited 2 weeks. --ϑϑℜ 14:24, 5 August 2009 (BST)

I don't think anyone is saying it's "okay". Cyberbob  Talk  12:20, 5 August 2009 (BST)

No one's saying it, but actions speak louder than words. --ϑϑℜ 12:46, 5 August 2009 (BST)

My last Misconduct case was found Not Misconduct, but do I think my actions leading up to it were "okay"? No. Then you have the whole concept of slaps on the wrist; "nothing's going to happen now but don't do it again" works better than you think. Cyberbob  Talk  12:54, 5 August 2009 (BST)

We could smell the potential misconduct and even demotion in the air. I don't know about you, but I could. Regardless that argument is irrelevant, everybody is different, you can't use yourself as a case study. I doubt Nubis felt the same when he was brought to misconduct for so elegantly deleting pages and even that A/M case in the past. That's not to mention the ones that weren't misconduct that had to do with deleting things. --ϑϑℜ 13:44, 5 August 2009 (BST)

I was not going to be demoted over that case, sorry. As for what to do here, like I said: this is not something that has ever happened before (that I can recall) and is certainly not something that is at all likely to happen again. I'm sure Nubis has gotten the message about using A/SD rather than A/D, so can we just drop it? Cyberbob  Talk  13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)

I did use A/SD. Apparently the "S" means Speedy only when the wiki whiners say it does. If something on A/SD has to sit after getting 3 Speedy Delete votes then the policy better be re-written. No, wait, I'll take care of that myself.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:51, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Wait, you did? I thought you used A/D. Cyberbob  Talk  13:53, 5 August 2009 (BST)

I think he may have initially but moved it. --ϑϑℜ 13:57, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Ah, the move was done in the same edit as the one that closed the voting. So no Nubis, you didn't use A/SD. I'm not one of the toolkits saying you should be punished or the pages undeleted or whatever, so don't get the wrong idea - I won't bother telling you to use A/SD more or anything seeing as this is more than likely a once-off but do try to be a bit more careful with stuff. Cyberbob  Talk  14:05, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Ditto. If you want it done speedily, use A/SD like you thought you had done, and then you'll have no speedy issues to defend/complain about. --ϑϑℜ 14:26, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Just to wrap this up: Request Denied -- Cheese 21:46, 19 August 2009 (BST)

Danger Reports

• User:DangerReport/Margaret General Hospital (Crooketon)
• User:DangerReport/St. Matheos's Hospital (Crooketon)

Restored these as they were crit 1'ed for being duplicates, however this name is correct and their cousins should've been deleted originally. --  RoosterDragon  21:14, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Median Battle Rating

Median Battle Rating was deleted as a userpage redirect. If not made a redirect, at least the relevant info (stats discussion) from User:John Ember should be placed on the page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:50 7 July 2009 (BST)

Done, as the latter. --Cyberbob 14:04, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Amnesia

I loved this page. There was no reason for it to be deleted. I have made an in game group called Amnesia and wish for this page to be undeleted.--xoxo 17:02, 29 June 2009 (BST)

If you've made a new group called Amnesia then create the group page yourself, don't ask for us to undelete a useless crit 1. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (BST)

This is preemptive as if i recreate the page it will be deleted as a 6. --xoxo 17:15, 29 June 2009 (BST)

It will technically be a different group so no, it won't be Crit 6'd. --Cyberbob 17:20, 29 June 2009 (BST)

But one might not be aware of that, hence i created this.--xoxo 17:23, 29 June 2009 (BST)

If someone had taken it upon themselves to bring this up on A/SD they would have been told exactly the same thing. Whatever. --Cyberbob 17:25, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Crit's are invalidated if the content and purpose of the article is different to that which was deleted. It's happened before and I would have kept Amnesia if you had made a group page on it, as you claim you will. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:27, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Template:LosHombresSiniestros

User:Sam 2334 didn't know how to include the template on his group's page, so it was deleted. --Janus ^talk 20:28, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Done by The General, thanks. --Janus ^talk 20:57, 8 June 2009 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Speedy_Deletions/Archive/2009_02#User_Pages

Undo this. Apparently the plagiarism idea has fizzled to nothing and people are wanting to link one of those due to rampant stupidity on this wiki. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:11, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Both done. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:07, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Galbraith_Hills_Auto_Repairs

Yet a-fucking-gain.

Nubis decides he's going to delete this page for no apparent reason. it does not qualify for a scheduled deletion, and although there is a single SD vote on it there is also a Keep. Therefore it cannot be a speedy deletion either. Therefore it must be a normal deletion....open for less than 24 hours.

The top of the page clearly fucking states: "Once the deletion request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be voted on for a period of two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp." - Two weeks in less than 24 hours? Has the Mass Hadron Collector finally made a black hole and we're suffering from time dilation or is Nubis deciding yet again to take unilateral action without possible oversight by the community?

It's not like he's been found guilty of misconduct for ignoring the red tape in regards to deletions before, you'd have thought he'd have taken the time to learn the required red tape or move to change it if he didn't like it. Apparently he's done neither.

Colour me shocked and amazed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:13, 13 May 2009 (BST)

*colours Iscariot shocked and amazed* --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:30, 13 May 2009 (BST)

/me is coloured....shockingly quite neatly and within the lines ;) -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:32, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Request Denied - Links are all fixed and the page now serves no purpose due to everything being unmerged. Feel free to take him to Misconduct but resurrecting the page just to delete it again later is a waste of time. -- Cheese 12:41, 13 May 2009 (BST)

This is what, the 6th time nubis has deleted a page with keep votes? If it was anybody else i'd say resurrecting it would be a waste of time however leaving it deleted just says to nubis that the way he does things is fine (which, on second thought, you probably think it is...)--xoxo 05:52, 27 May 2009 (BST)

ODC

Incompetence.

According to policy: "A page has been listed on UDWiki:Administration/Deletions, and that page has been deemed eligible for Deletion by the wiki community, in compliance with the rules of the Deletions page."

The guidelines of the Deletions page clearly state: "If more Delete votes are entered than Keep votes, the page will be deleted. In any other circumstance, the page is kept." - Emphasis mine.

The deletions entry for this page shows eight votes within the two week voting period. Four voting for deletion (Cheese, SA, Link and DDR) and four for keeping the page (myself, Janus, Pesto and Wan). There were not more votes for deletion, as the vote was tied. As this is "any other circumstance" the page should have been kept.

The page was deleted, by a sysop that voted for its deletion and against the rules of the deletions process. I would put this up for Misconduct, but we all know that there's no point and taking something there is like asking for impartiality in the jury from To Kill a Mockingbird. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:17, 9 May 2009 (BST)

And to even think that the reason you didn't take it to A/M was because of the amount of evidence supporting the chance that it was just a dumb mistake. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:26, 9 May 2009 (BST)

And how many times have we seen mistakes in basic fucking numeracy when it comes to something that is against the sysop in question? How hard would it have been to double check the votes if this was done in good faith in respect to the trust they are supposed to embody? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:33, 9 May 2009 (BST)

1? And I'm sure he did double check the votes. I did twice after Ross complained about it on SA's talk page, and I still missed Pest's keep vote. However, if you are just that right, why not take it to A/M? Seriously, what do you have to lose? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:29, 9 May 2009 (BST)

I did not complain. I merely questioned. Frankly since getting demoted I've done nothing but mildly annoy them. First conn and the bizzarre not a dupe ruling, now this. How long until grim can come back?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:45, 9 May 2009 (BST)

There's a difference between can and will. And in Grim's mind, there is neither. Shame. Petition time? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:55, 9 May 2009 (BST)

No. I just hope someone does something special for the grimiversary. I also notice that Talk:ODC is still full of stuff. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:59, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Undeleted - but that whole rant was made all the more classic by the fact that you yourself displayed the exact same degree of of incompetence only today -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:15 9 May 2009 (BST)

Difference? I wasn't using a restricted ability that is given to users on the understanding they can be both trustworthy and competent in the use of them. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:34, 9 May 2009 (BST)

lol@your claims of being more competent and trustworthy then the rest of us.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:54, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Criterion 12 Template

Template:Speedydelete12, if possible. Due its historical importance --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Revived. --ZsL 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Kill

I want it to redirect here. It will be used for more evil purposes in the future.--xoxo 11:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, sorry. You know the rules about user page redirects. Request Denied -- Cheese 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

:'(--xoxo 03:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Zambah G Zaz

Yeah, I know I asked for a Crit 8 speedy earlier, don't hurt me. I decided to bring this character back after all, and don't want to go through the effort of re-creating the page. Not at 2:30 in the morning anyway. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 07:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Not the corresponding journal page though. I still have no use for that. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 07:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, and I think you mean crit 7. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it was an 8. But thanks. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 07:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Crit 7, eight, no difference. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

NT image files

[1], [2], [3], [4],[5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Today, Nubis deleted a lot of older NT scan .pngs because they do not currently link to anything. That's because many of the scan .png files were replaced on their NT pages with an animated "static" .gif image to illustrate that they need a new scan. However, the older images were not truly orphans. If someone were to want to update the NTs now, it would be more convenient to retain those old pictures so that a) there is no confusion about what filename and type the updated image should use, b) there is the convenience of the "upload a new version of this image," rather than leave someone confused as to why no image exists currently, and c) the original images have a record of the previous revisions, which is useful information. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 01:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Images cannot be undeleted. If the images were in use (read, placed on a page) then this is a case for misconduct. If they were not in use then they qualify for a scheduled deletion as they were classed as dead images, image ark anything yoiu might need in future. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not the end of the world, it just makes for a little more inconvenient work when those NTs need to be updated with new NecroNet scans. We'll live. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 03:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what Iscariot said. Make a page like NecroWatch/scans, and link to all of them. Then they won't qualify for the scheduled deletion. By the way, the ability to undelete images can be enabled (or so I've read,) on this version, but it comes default in this newest one... although it needs to be upgraded. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've brought up the idea on the NecroWatch talk page, and linked this discussion to it. Thanks, guys! ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 07:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:SirArgo/Argo v82

I need to get some information from the page, plus there is a chance I may be bringing this character back.--SirArgo ^Talk 07:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Done -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:26 16 February 2009 (BST)

Template:GrimGod

Nostalgia, plus template in use. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing. It was Crit 7 but, there are two things. Cyberbob can come by and be willing to wave that by saying he's for the undeletion, if he in-fact is. Or, we can continue the discussion from IRC and decide if we want to treat Template pages as public and beyond author ownership once in use. The issue is mostly that how far would that go and would that apply to this template as much as it does to a utilitarian one like {{{2}}}. --Karek^maps?! 04:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion has been had at least a bit, I'm gonna treat this as an un-owned page and undelete for now. It might be deleted in the future but since the issue is more if there is ownership of templates and if so where does it end the undeletion request certainly is valid due to the usage thing. --Karek^maps?! 04:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that template pages that are actually in use on other peoples pages shouldn't be seen as being "owned" by the creator, even if they are author only edited. If it was in his namespace it'd be different -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:26 16 February 2009 (BST)

I don't mind, for the record. --Cyberbob 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Bob. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:PsychophillKILLER

Cheese deleted this as a scheduled 'vandal created page'. User pages have always been different to this. Otherwise we'd be deleting every single userspace page made by banned users under the criteria that they created it, and they are a vandal. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I recreated the page, but I'm not going to put the same spam message back on it that the guy was vandalising many of the wiki's high profile pages with -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:36 2 February 2009 (BST)

The End

Can I get the group The End taken off the defunct groups list and put back on the human/pk list. We were inactive for a while but enough of us want to start the group up again. thanks,--Phish Dude 05:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, although this shouldn't have been an undeletion request (you only had to replace [[Category:Defunct Groups]] with [[Category:Groups]] Linkthewindow  Talk  05:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not undeleted (not deleted in the first place) and category adjusted by Link. --ZsL 22:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Umbrella Corporation/Report

It was democraticly agreed that it should stay.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Deletions&oldid=1364997#Umbrella_Corporation.2FReport

--Thadeous Oakley 14:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The vote was on a page that ought to have been immediately deleted as a deletion workaround, and the poster slapped with a vandal warning. So that "vote" doesn't matter a whit. In any event, the vote was not over and thus there was no final decision made, either way.

Bottom line is that the page in question is libellous, violates privacy and is in all regards wholly inappropriate content for this wiki. That's why it was deleted in the first place. --WanYao 15:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#User:MisterGame --Thadeous Oakley 16:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And your point is what, exactly? That vandalism case has no bearing on the Undeletion requestr. In any event, only one sysop has ruled on said case... it ain't over yet. But no matter what the sysops decide on the vandalism case -- and I will respect that decision -- my argument against undeletion is crystal clear. Now, grow up already. --WanYao 18:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For sake or clarity and completeness, here is the vote in favour of deleting the original page, whose content has simply been reposted (deletion workaround) on the Umbrella_Corporation/Report page: linky link to the vote. --WanYao 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

First, learn to format, please. Second, request denied. Ignoring all of the deletion vote drama the page is mostly a chat log. You can not expand upon chat logs. This isn't your livejournal where people want to read your chat logs. Why in the hell would you post a chat log? Not to mention, maybe if a few of these hate pages were nipped in the bud it could cool down the flame war between you two (not you, Wan - the Umbrellas). Besides, you haven't shown a good enough reason to justify recreating or restoring that page.--– Nubis ^NWO 18:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If he wants to post a chat log why not let him? You don't want to read his chat log, someone might. I like it how when deletions (aka democracy) fails you just a/sd it then refuse undeletions requests. Sounds familiar. --xoxo 01:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If I'm correct, this data is duplicated off-site. Why not just post a link to the thread on your forums then, Thadeous? Linkthewindow  Talk  08:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, this page is not even that important to me. However, the fact that Karek overruled the opinion of 13 people including two syops is plain...well...just wow. It makes total sense.--Thadeous Oakley 18:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)