UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling

Shortcut:
A/D/S

This page will be used for users to request that pages falling into certain categories be deleted as appropriate by a sysop without having to go through all the red tape of Speedy Deletions and Deletions. A list of pages in the Scheduled Deletions list is located here.

Deletion Scheduling

Deletion Scheduling requests should be requested in the same general format as normal Deletions. Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like normal deletion requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. Votes in this case shall be as follows:

• Yea - For approval of the deletion scheduling request
• Nay - For disapproval of the deletion scheduling request

Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use ~~~~)

After the two weeks are up, if the page has reached at least a 50% majority in favour it is added to the Scheduled list. If the request fails to get the required number of votes, it doesn't get added. In either case, the closed request can then get shifted to the Archive.

Scheduling requests under consideration

0x0 Images

As you can see by this example: Image:2cola.jpg, 0x0 images are unusable images that come across once every while. It is a result of offering a corrupt file to the wiki. The images are unusable and already deleted without thought on A/SD. Because users get redirected to their image once they've uploaded it, the author of the image is already made aware of it's state and hence all 0x0 images I've seen get discarded upon upload. I'd like to submit these images for scheduled deletions. --ϑϑℜ 15:08, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Note: Rooster fixed the above image as part of his comment below. See the broken one in revision history. --ϑϑℜ 03:06, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Don't you think it would be a better idea to not just delete them, but to try to fix them if they are recent uploads that have gone wrong? There is often content there (such as in this case), it's just that it needs converting over to the proper format. Help the newbz -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:58 29 July 2009 (BST)

Don't stereotype this as a noob mistake because it isn't. If you want to fix it before the user does, you can upload it over the broken one and then delete the 0x0 revision as per this scheduled deletion? --ϑϑℜ 11:11, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Yes I can, and will. But if this is only supposed to apply to the 0x0 revision, after attempts have been made to fix the problem, then you need to withdraw this vote, and start again with it worded properly -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:20 3 August 2009 (BST)

1. Yea - I wanted to make a clause that ensured sysops also notify the author that their image got deleted, but decided it was unnecessary since, as above, all authors see their work after the upload anyway. --ϑϑℜ 15:08, 28 July 2009 (BST)
2. Yea Procedural C.Y.O.A. All for it... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 16:15, 28 July 2009 (BST)
3. Yea - Sounds good. --User:Axe27/Sig 16:51, 28 July 2009 (BST)
4. No - to deleting the page outright, you can usually save these images from the revision history. I fixed the above example and it's now a prefectably usable image. Yes to making the 0x0 revision a scheduled though, after the image is saved (or if it cannot be). --  RoosterDragon  17:38, 28 July 2009 (BST)
5. Yea - What is the point of having extra storage space on this site getting filled up with nothing? Paradoxical sure but there is no point to having useless images that take up space. Aka Paradox 19:00, 28 July 2009 (BST)
6. Yea - As above. If there useless then what's the point? --MTRemick ^{T | C | Fey | NBC} 19:06, 28 July 2009 (BST)
7. Yes after - As Rooster, no to deleting it outright if it can be fixed.--SirArgo ^Talk 19:24, 28 July 2009 (BST)

   No - I need to definitively pick a side, so no it is.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:34, 3 August 2009 (BST)

8. No There's still content there that can often be fixed -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:58 29 July 2009 (BST)

   In my experiences, all users who upload one of these images end up uploading a dupe anyway, before we even find it, let alone delete it. --ϑϑℜ 10:31, 29 July 2009 (BST)

   I've seen group images "updated" with these type of mistakes, and still included on a page. They'll need reverting, not deleting -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:40 29 July 2009 (BST)

9. Delete with the proviso that the image be at least a week old, thats plenty of time for them to either fix or ask for help. --Honestmistake 10:41, 29 July 2009 (BST)
10. No - Because you guys have not clue what you're doing, just fix it by going to the hard file link in the image area and reuploading like non-cunts would do. --Karek^maps?! 01:02, 30 July 2009 (BST)

    This scheduled doesn't stop us from doing that if a 'non cunt' sysop, or even user, is so inclined, it would just allow us to delete the revision afterwards to keep things clean. --ϑϑℜ 03:58, 30 July 2009 (BST)

    No, you could have already done that, you're just making policy spam now. If you really thing that it's misconduct to delete these or that any of you are petty enough to file and support that case you've got a whole different set of problems. Image revisions are already scheduled. --Karek^maps?! 00:34, 3 August 2009 (BST)

    woah, hard-hitting on-the-money grizzled veteran of all things wiki spotted! --Cyberbob 04:16, 30 July 2009 (BST)

11. No and then Yes as the rooster explains. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:47, 2 August 2009 (BST)

    Way to confuse the process. Just vote no, because your yes is for a different scheduled deletion that isn't even up for voting -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:12 3 August 2009 (BST)

12. No and then Yes - as above. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:50, 3 August 2009 (BST)

    Just straight No now. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:30, 3 August 2009 (BST)

13. No --Midianian 18:29, 3 August 2009 (BST)
14. No - --Thadeous Oakley 20:03, 5 August 2009 (BST)
15. N/Y - As Rooster --Haliman - Talk 20:07, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Failed, with 5 for and 9 against. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:36, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Recent Requests

Removal of the porn scheduled deletion

Passed with 19 for. --  RoosterDragon  22:37, 2 August 2009 (BST)

Adbot Related Pages

Failed with 3 for, 8 against. --ϑϑℜ 04:30, 30 July 2009 (BST)

Adbot Created Pages

Passed with 9 for, 3 against. --ϑϑℜ 04:30, 30 July 2009 (BST)