UDWiki:Administration/Move Requests: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:38, 3 December 2012

Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

This page is for the requesting of page moves by normal users. The average user's ability to move pages has been rescinded due to frequent abuse by vandals; as such, users will need to submit requests (similar in nature to those on Speedy Deletions and Protections) for pages to be moved by a sysop.

Guidelines for requesting a Page Move

Copy the template below (Or just type it), replace the text in red with the relevant details, and paste the template under the Move Request Queue heading. A day after a sysop has taken action on the request, move requests should be moved to the Archive.

===[[PAGENAME]]===
*[[MOVE TO HERE]]
*~~~~

Move Request Queue

===File:2093709.gif===

Groveer 07:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There are no pages in the move request queue

Recent Actions

User:Skyretti

To User talk:Skyretti. It looks like User:Peralta created this page using {{Welcomenewbie}} rather than the talk page.
Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. —Aich on— 04:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerden Rules Crowbank: Enemies List

to Jerden Rules Crowbank/Enemies List, might as well fix the links and delete the redirect too I'd imagine. A ZOMBIE ANT 13:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Done.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 14:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Sexualharrison/TZH GOT PWNED

User:Sexualharrison/War On TZH
--User:Sexualharrison21:00, 22 November 2012
Done. I've left the redirect alone for now. Let me know if you need it deleted. -- Spiderzed █ 19:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Schiz0

Move to userspace of Boertje. User:Schiz0 is not a registered user.. Gordon 13:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. -- Spiderzed █ 18:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup from A/RE archives

After/if this A/SD request gets processed, I'd appreciate if the following moves could be made to keep things consistent with the rest of the naming conventions for the pages:

Thanks. —Aich on— 21:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- Spiderzed █ 22:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The naming convention was consistent. Once a sysop had multiple RE bids, their first was moved to the A/RE/Sysop (1) position. A better way to handle this would have been to move all the first time bids to the corresponding A/RE/Sysop (1) page. I often took the shortcut to UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations/Krazy_Monkey or the like... if there was a bid there, I knew to archive their next RE at UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations/Krazy_Monkey (2)... if they already had multiple REs, there would be a list there of all of them, and I also knew where to archive the next one. When you're likely to get multiple entries, it's better to start at one, IMO -- boxy 13:27, 22 November 2012 (BST)

Sorry, I meant that it was no longer consistent with the new convention, not that it was inconsistent with how things were (though it was that too). As for why I did it this way, it was for several reasons:

The "(1)" was actually only added in 4 out of 10 places where it was applicable, so it was always the minority practice and was never applied consistently to begin with.
It's redundant to add "(1)" if the person only has one nomination, and if we leave it off in those cases, then the naming for first nominations is not uniform.
Looking at the wiki software for some guidance, when dealing with links for section headings that have the same name, it only adds numbers for ones after the first one.

Honestly, I'm fine with it either way, but I thought this way was better, since it means uniform naming, doesn't involve unlinked pages that most people are unaware of but that dictate naming conventions, and means less hassle for us since we no longer need to remember to rename/move pages. Also, the new archive page handles the task you described in a manner that was modeled to resemble the (rather nice) Misconduct archives, and it does it for everyone, rather than just the four people that had those hidden pages. —Aich on— 18:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

TRP stuff

Courtesy notice that I moved the following:

Since they were all variations on Tactical Resource Point. —Aich on— 05:34, 26 October 2012 (BST)

Sarge Mart Applications to Sarge Mart/Applications

Just putting a courtesy note here since I moved their applications page to a subpage of their group page. —Aich on— 22:02, 15 October 2012 (BST)

Burchell test page

Better to maybe move it to The Burchell Arms Regulars/test page. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:34, 24 September 2012 (BST)

Handled by Karek already. I cleaned up the only link to it and then deleted the redirect he left behind. —Aich on— 16:33, 24 September 2012 (BST)

Characters_of_Note

Move to User:Amazing/Characters_of_Note

Personal page in the main namespace. Any attempts at discussion about the rules of the page or consensus building get shut down by Amazing ranting about page ownership, bias, and his not understanding the history of a separate user sub-page. He's imitating a user's page but trying to do so with more authority by putting it in NS:0 while ignoring previous consensus on this specific article not being in NS:0. Clearly he wants something he has editorial control over, he has that as a subpage of his personal page. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:28, 17 September 2012 (BST)

I flatly refuse this action, "discussion of the rules" amounted to nothing more than jabs with no solutions, I did not rant about ownership, and I completely understand user sub-pages as I have a few of them. I am not imitating a user's page, and instead created an "open" alternative to one. I do not want editorial control, as laid out specifically when I created the page. Karek is simply quitting the discussion and moving to this page for a petty "screw you" move, basing his arguement on false or at least 'stretched' information. If this page is moved, I will delete it and create a different public resource that is similar but different enough that it will not circumvent this move. In other words, "Famous Characters" with entirely differnet guidelines and no existing "copied" list, etc. This is my only option since folks like Karek only complain and offer no actual suggestions/discussion on changes that could be made to the system. I can't psychically impliment his personal vision of the democratic voting system open to all users I set out to offer. Frankly, I could start making a ton of changes to the current list to make it "not a copy", but I made the rules pretty specific and - I don't want control over the process, so I theoretically can't arbitrarily insert or remove characters. It's clearly a good-faith attempt at creating a wiki resource, and I just want it to be used in a fair way. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 05:39, 17 September 2012 (BST)

You literally copied and pasted word for word from Ross' page because you had a feeling of bias that no one else, not even people rejected, have brought up. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:07, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Actually, I created a page that listed the same users in order and removed Ross' formatting, so it's actually not "literally copied and pasted", and if you count code, it's not "word for word". If you count the alphabetization, it's even less "literally copied". Plus I can't very well be biased and remove who I don't want and add who I do want. That's up for the voting to decide if people so choose. I don't understand why you're bringing the arguement here under the guise of a fake move request. "This is a userpage"? Really? Nobody believes that, not even you. No, if you want to talk in "literal" terms, you "literally" nominated a page for moving because you got mad, you've "literally" brought an arguement to a Moderation page for no real reason, and you "literally" threatened me with Vandal Banning for creating a page you don't like and defending it on the corresponding talk page. Maybe chill out for a bit? I seriously didn't mean to get you this worked up, I was just debating the issue with you. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 06:14, 17 September 2012 (BST)

In the edit reason, you put: "You literally copied the content word for word and are now saying you'll recopy it into the main namespace because yours being there is what's important to you not neutrality" - I didn't say that. Either I'm not being clear or you're not seeing straight due to anger. I said I'd create an entirely different page that isn't done in bad faith, that wouldn't undercut the move. Something new with a different ruleset I'll guess at due to the zero input I've gotten from you and others on how it could be better. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 06:18, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Habit, I'm not required to make the request I'm doing it out of common courtesy and so a third party can rule on it. You know, taking other's input for the sake of neutrality. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:08, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Indeed, maybe if you'd taken my input as valid instead of just rolling from your first impression... Well, c'est la vie. If I even spelled that correctly. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 06:14, 17 September 2012 (BST)

While I agree with Karek's stance, I'd first like to hear Ross' 2 cents. It's taken straight from his page, so it's essentially up to him if he wants to have that stuff in the mainspace (yet). -- Spiderzed █ 06:20, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Just a quick question since I've been out of the loop for a few years and rarely visit the site. Is it an established rule that nobody can copy content? Especially with the intent of editing it later based on the input of others? This is a legit question. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 06:26, 17 September 2012 (BST)

It's been crit 1 for Speedy deletion since before your ban. Not liking an articles current home isn't generally considered a valid purpose. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:41, 17 September 2012 (BST)

None of the factors in Crit 1 apply. It's not a strict duplication because I added to and edited it, and it's not for "no purpose" as I clearly stated the purpose. Just because you disagree with the purpose doesn't mean there isn't one. I can't stress enough this problem of working backward from what you want. Funny you'd point out "not liking an article's home" when that's the entire stated basis for you wanting to move a non-userpage with original content. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 06:56, 17 September 2012 (BST)

You should leave the wikilawyer stuff to Akule, at least he's good at it. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:03, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Based on the fact you had no legit response to the fact there's no Crit 1 violation, I'd say I'm a much better wikilawyer than you are a wikiprosecutor. But after the case is over, let's co-write a novel about it and our torrid love affair. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 02:13, 18 September 2012 (BST)

If Ross is willing to move his version out of his user space, I think the pages should be merged into one main namespace page -- boxy 09:22, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Whoa, whoa. It's been what, half a day? Amazing's trying. It has potential (though personally I think it's lucky not to be A/SD'd even). There is no harm in giving this one a try for a few days. A ZOMBIE ANT 10:56, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Umm, why? What's the point in redoing the same concept twice, just with different facilitators? -- boxy 11:29, 17 September 2012 (BST)

And what's the point in moving it? It won't change anything except maybe an irrelevant concept of which one is more "legitimate" (hint: neither of them probably will ever be) A ZOMBIE ANT 12:50, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Yo. What am I supposed to be asking/answering? The initial idea came from a discussion that was had on historical groups voting, about whether a group should be historic, because of a single individual. In addition to that, I always enjoyed User:Iscariot/No More Heroes and agreed that the days of such special characters were over. So I thought it would be fun to post up a paragraph linking characters to events and groups they were involved with. It's be bloody interesting, learning about group 0, the way the zombie hordes are so interlinked and listening to al the radio survivor broadcasts.

However, the whole idea of the namespace was the usual wiki problem. People disagreeing, putting up comedy nominations, nominating wiki personalities, rather than ingame ones, all that Jazz. As someone not around during the golden age, I felt it would be sensible if I acted as a moderator, as I've never been in any of the groups associated, find PKing boring and don't care who makes the final list. You'll see how in the discussion, I've tried not to force or nominate anyone myself, merely cycling those who others have questioned or dismissed. (Imagine the riot if I slipped Dermot O'leary onto the list.) My initial plan was always to put it in the namespace once completed. (Which in fairness, it probably almost is already), where you wonderful people can do whatever you like with it.

So, yeah. I'm already opening it up. I've asked Karek to do some tweaks, if Goribus comes back with the objections about forum attacks zerging allegation I can add that, and not doubt MHS staff has lots of juicy stuff I can include. Talking of which, I still have no idea how the DEM were formed.

What am I supposed to be answering? --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 12:15, 17 September 2012 (BST)

If you have to ask yourself it it belongs into mainspace yet, it is most likely better to polish it in userspace (and come up with a viable voting mechanic), rather than to have it rushed into mainspace by a third party. -- Spiderzed █ 18:31, 17 September 2012 (BST)

I'm hearing a few ideas or sentiments being expressed:

Amazing's page is a dupe of Ross'
Ross' page should be in the mainspace
Amazing is exerting too much control over a mainspace page, so it should be in userspace

...and, at least for the moment, I disagree on all three counts. The two pages are coming from entirely different approaches. Ross' is a curated page that is intended to be in the mainspace once it is ready to be archived as complete (and it's not there yet, so it should remain where it is for now). Amazing's is intended to be an ongoing, crowdsourced list, but it too is still under construction based on recent edits (though his copying of content does baffle me since he is clearly trying to distance himself from Ross' list in other ways), so I wouldn't suggest merging/deleting/moving on the basis that it is a dupe (yet). Regarding ownership and the rules Amazing has on the page, I agree that the rules are foolish, but there are plenty of pages that have rules created by individuals on them that are still considered appropriate for mainspace (e.g. pages that ask people to pledge to something), so I see no issue here. I actually thought I would be arguing the other side, but in researching it, I can't see a good reason to move it, unless it becomes an abandoned project and someone else wants to use the page name. —Aich on— 21:01, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Thanks for your input. To clear up the bit about why I reused Ross' list, basically I wanted to avoid accusations I was redoing it in my own image. IE: "Everyone YOU put is GONE. Now begins the age of Amazing's list!!!!" - As usual, and this is an honest and direct expression of my personality - I misjudged where the discontent would come from. This is usually the core problem with everything I do on this site. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 01:32, 18 September 2012 (BST)

As it sits, we're all big enough of people to watch and care for pages so Ross's should just be brought out to the mainspace. Amazing's page is still the exact same concept though that has already been being worked on, just not in mainspace. Merge the discussion pages, the character content was the same last time I checked, and go ahead and pull Ross's out. It's not hard to for someone with a brain to see nominations that aren't worthwhile, and we already have to deal with stupid suggestions so just deal with it and go on. If Amazing really wants a competing list, he can start it in his namespace, but nothing in the main that already mimics a clearly established page with clear discussion on it.

God, you guys have gone downhill since I quit s'oping. :| --SA 00:27, 18 September 2012 (BST)

S'ops shouldn't have even been involved in the pile of wiki spooge. Its a contribution conflict that should have been handled on talk pages or, if needed, through Arbitration. Karek's request should have just been denied and asked to handle it through proper channels. ~

_{00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)}

Yep. Demanding ops to "do their jobs" and act on their personal opinions on the pages rather than the situation (which is what everyone is doing bar aichon and spiderzed) is the wrong call to expect imo A ZOMBIE ANT 00:57, 18 September 2012 (BST)

I've read your comment like 4 times and I'm still unsure if you are agreeing with me or being a smartass. So I'm going with the former. ~

_{01:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)}

You guessed right! I could never be mean to you or aichon. Maybe aichon. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:21, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Vapor, arbitration is for edit disputes not location ones and in particular arbitration has a history of being abused in cases involving Amazing. A/MR is the correct place for this issue and arbitration has the added downside of being taking it to 11 against this particular user. The situation here is that we have two pages with the same content, one made to duplicate the other's content to preempt the other's move to NS:0 because a single user didn't like the consensus development method but was unwilling to provide that input on the core page so instead he moved it with copy and paste and then changed what he didn't like about the voting then proceeded to harass any users who brought up issues with the new consensus reaching method on the new page. In other words he did what he thought would have happened to him on the old page on the new page and then after this case was made he jumbled the page's content. The merging/moving of Ross' page into that location is the correct action here so long as Ross oks it, which he has. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:00, 18 September 2012 (BST)

^ I love how telling Karek to file an arbies case swung back around to me somehow abusing arbies. Second runner-up, however, was the idea that replying to someone insulting you or complaining with no solution is in "harrassing" them. What percentage of this wiki is harrassment, then? Yipes. (By the way, the content was "jumbled" before this case. Something doesn't become true simply becuase you said it.) -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 02:17, 18 September 2012 (BST)

You're doing it again. I said Arbies has a history of being abused in a negative manner against you. Not that you abuse arbitration and that was the smaller reason for me not going there. The larger one is that that is not the correct place for a location dispute, it exists for specific edit disputes. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:20, 18 September 2012 (BST)

You said, direct quote, "arbitration has a history of being abused in cases involving Amazing" and - call me insanely paranoid if you must - of the two ways that could've been meant, I went with the negative one. I agree it's generally a bad idea. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 03:03, 18 September 2012 (BST)

To summarize, if I might be so bold as to assume I can do that, I never meant to usurp or ruin Ross' list. I just saw Ross' list as "Ross' list", and figured I'd create the general User's list. Ross' nomination process (tell me a name and I'll see if I want to put it) has been in a state of suspended animation since... July? June? So I didn't see it as something that was growing and headed for the public space. Blame me for not researching the roots of the project - or place blame elsewhere for that not being made clear as part of the project. I'm cool with either. However, I will say that if Ross' list is just going to be made public and NOT opened to a fair and democratic way of editing the roster, I'd still favor the version I put up - even though its "rules" are in a rough 'infancy' state. FYI Ross I still think you're a cool guy who doesn't afraid of amazings. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 01:32, 18 September 2012 (BST)

If it were to be opened to a voting alternative it'd still be closer to FA than historical voting for all of the reasons the people on the facebook group mentioned. Voting by majority just makes it into a popularity contest, which is why it wasn't done like that in the first place. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:18, 18 September 2012 (BST)

I guess the fundamental difference between our methods of thought in this matter is that one of us prefers a popularity contest controlled by the few while the other prefers a popularity contest controlled by the many. I'd side with the idea that the many should naturally decide who or what is popular or important, because that's pretty much integral to the literal usage of both concepts. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 02:23, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Generally the biggest concern and issue stated on things like this in regards to the wiki is that the voting system doesn't end up being picky enough or, rather, it makes it meat puppetable and vote farmable as opposed to representing something that most all of the game/wiki agree upon. There are two solutions to that in standard view, making the bar to entry a super-majory(75%+ for) or not making it a voting system and only adding users which a clear general consensus via discussion(like a wiki page's core content). The second is what happens in it's current home with an expectation of seconding a nomination by multiple users before it's even a subject of discussion. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:42, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Now we're getting somewhere. I like the supermajority for Characters of Note. :) A nomination and a second requires even less meatpuppets (exactly one) so I'm not sure how that prevents the problem other than making it easier and... and... :X we should probably be talking about this on the Characters of Note talk page instead of an Administration page. Erk. *shifty eyes* -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 03:03, 18 September 2012 (BST)

I would put forward that even the Historical Voting relies in integrity through 'meatpupetting' anyway, as much of the support of a group that is 4 months inactive against people tho disagree, I may argue, is a partially legitimate force to confirm its right to be historical. If this is going to be voting based it'll have to be geared towards achieving that level of integrity (what little of it there can be), or risk becoming a tool for people to force their way in undeserving. Honestly, I think this is too ego-based to be able to achieve what Historical Groups can manage. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:10, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Looking at the discussion, it seems now to be all about content conflicts and very little about wiki rules concerning which article belongs into which space. Unless someone can cite a rule or a precedent about why this is best handled by A/MR, I'll cycle this as unserved in the next couple of days. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to work out the dispute on the article's talk page or in arbitration. -- Spiderzed █ 18:29, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Good call. --

Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:43, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Seconding Spidey's ruling.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 19:10, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Agreeing as well, though I'd add the caveat that I don't think it should be on A/A yet either. The page just needs to develop more before it would be appropriate to take it anywhere for a conflict. There's no sense in fighting over a page that's only just started and is still under construction. —Aich on— 20:38, 18 September 2012 (BST)

He's blanked all but one of the characters now to start afresh. The issues of content cloning shouldn't be as big an issue now. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:27, 19 September 2012 (BST)

Biased/Meh --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 20:40, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Zombie Hunter skills

Headshot

Lets forget the original is miscapitalised, there is only one skill, there will always be only one skill. Can we swap the redirect. Please? Ross^WHO????ness 14:00, 24 August 2012 (BST)

done.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 14:02, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Merondi

Pretty sure this should be at User:Merondi. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 04:20, 21 August 2012 (BST)

--Ross^WHO????ness 09:57, 21 August 2012 (BST)

UDWiki:Featured Articles/Voting

UDWiki:Featured Articles/Candidates

Since it's not a vote. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:17, 21 August 2012 (BST)

Left redirect --Ross^WHO????ness 09:57, 21 August 2012 (BST)

U-can-add-a-link-here

Move to: Somewhere.

Seems to be some sort of mistake from user User:Scageo. not sure where it should be going as I haven't had a good enough look yet or contacted the user D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:52, 17 August 2012 (BST)

Weird. Moved it to his userspace.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 17:12, 19 August 2012 (BST)

Zombie Skills

Move to Zombie skills
Reason: Consistency with the rest of the "skills" pages, like Civilian skills etc.

Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:49, 23 July 2012 (BST)

done.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 11:18, 25 July 2012 (BST)

Articles prefixed "Guide:"

Specifically Guide:Siege PKer Guide, Guide:Dealing with People and Guide:Group Culture.

Move to equivalent pages with prefix "Guides:"
Reason: Consistency with the rest of the items in Category:Guides.

Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:15, 22 July 2012 (BST)

done by karek, I've fixed incoming links and deleted the pointless redirects.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 11:18, 25 July 2012 (BST)

AZDC

Move to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Reason: Group consensus to rename ourselves. --RadicalWhig 00:45, 18 July 2012 (BST)

done. I've kept the old name as a redirect for people who still want to find the group but don't know the new name.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 10:45, 19 July 2012 (BST)

AZ/DC Subpages

Including:

AZDC/recruit moved to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/recruit
AZDC/rules moved to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/rules
AZDC/badges moved to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/badges
AZDC/pantheon moved to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/pantheon
AZDC/groupbox moved to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/groupbox
AZDC/nav moved to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/nav

Subpages of the above request. --RadicalWhig 00:45, 18 July 2012 (BST)

They'll probably need to physically be subpages of the above request meaning AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/(pagename) D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:27, 18 July 2012 (BST)

Changed--RadicalWhig 10:18, 19 July 2012 (BST)

This is done.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 10:52, 19 July 2012 (BST)

DEM

Move to DEM (Disambiguation)
Reason: this really should be a redirect to Department of Emergency Management. I checked the incoming links and while I didn't check every single link, it doen't look as if any lead to Deus Ex Machina. I suggest simply linking to the disambig page from Department of Emergency Management. See Talk:Deus Ex Machina#DEM disambiguation for more info. ~ _{16:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)}

The reason I brought this here was to get some consensus but if none is forthcoming, I'll probably just do it manually in another couple of days. ~

_{02:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)}

Karek did this.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 10:52, 19 July 2012 (BST)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 If there are no requests, place the following message below.
 ''There are no pages in the move request queue''
--->
+--> ===[[file:2093709.gif]]===
+* [[file:AliveDOAStatusBar.gif]]
+*[[User:Groveer|Groveer]] 07:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 ''There are no pages in the move request queue''

UDWiki:Administration/Move Requests: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:38, 3 December 2012

Contents