UDWiki:Administration/Undeletions

Shortcut:
A/U

This page is for the request of page undeletions within the Urban Dead wiki. Due to concerns about loss of data, the ability to undelete pages is restricted to system operators. As such, regular users will need to request an undeletion from a system operator. For consistency and accountability, system operators also adhere to the guidelines listed here. Note: Images cannot be restored, they are permanently gone when deleted.

Guidelines for Undeletion Requests

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.

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.

Once the undeletion request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be reviewed by a member of the Sysop team, and action taken accordingly. Once action has been taken, the request will be moved into Recent Actions, along with a comment from the system operator who determined the action take. After a week has passed with the target page in Recent Actions, it can be moved to the Archive.

Undeletion Queue

New requests at the top
There are currently no pages in the queue.

Recent Actions

Undeletion requests that have been served within the past week.

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)