6,457
edits
SmashWiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
SmashWiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 3 (edit)
Revision as of 11:33, May 31, 2012
, 12 years ago→Userpage deletion
| Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
::Perhaps keep with the times? Those userpages that were imported over of users with no accounts have already been deleted or are slated for deletion. For these userpages, perhaps actually read the reason for deleting them and look at the fact they were indefinitely protected? <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 09:57, 31 May 2012 (EDT) | ::Perhaps keep with the times? Those userpages that were imported over of users with no accounts have already been deleted or are slated for deletion. For these userpages, perhaps actually read the reason for deleting them and look at the fact they were indefinitely protected? <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 09:57, 31 May 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::So you're saying that there are still userpages for users who haven't registered here? So my point still stands. If you finish deleting them, maybe you can suggest this again. But even then, none of these users have been blocked indefinitely (or ever, actually) so why are they suddenly deserving of having their user pages deleted? There's nothing stopping any of them from coming back and editing again. And you can't use the fact that the pages have been indefinitely protected as an excuse to delete them; maybe if you hadn't indefinitely protected them, they wouldn't be indefinitely protected... And why exactly did you feel the need to protect them indefinitely? It's not like they're high-traffic or high-risk, nor did the users even over-edit them. None of those pages were edited more than twice in the 24 hours preceding the block. Etbmax did indeed generally over-edit his userpage, but even so, he made only four edits to it in the week preceding the block, which is far from excessive. Dark Mai Valentine edited their userpage a total of four times, and it was three weeks after the fourth time that you arbitrarily determined that their userpage should be protected. Fuddlebob edited his page eight times in the space of a month and a half, and it was over three months after the last edit that you protected it. Jacobdf11 last edited his user page '''nine months''' before you protected it. And Amy last edited hers within a few hours of the protection, but before that she hadn't done so for four and a half months. None of these were good protects, except, arguably, Etbmax, and even then that was pretty harsh... And all of them have been active in the last year, so they could still come back at any time, and be pissed off that the userpage they worked so hard on has just been casually deleted for no good reason. There are people who have been gone from the wiki for far longer than these people, and you're not suggesting deleting their userpages. Now let's get onto the point that I didn't really want to raise, but it seems that I have to: why is HeidiHedgefox's page in there? She's been gone for less than three months and you want to delete her page? Be honest, were the other four just a convenient handful to justify that one deletion? If that really is your reason (which I'm not saying it is, just putting the possibility out there) then that's a pretty serious abuse of power... '''''<span style="font-family:Arial;">[[User:PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Penguin</font>]][[User talk:PenguinofDeath|<font color="gray">of</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Death</font>]]</span>''''' 10:45, 31 May 2012 (EDT) | :::So you're saying that there are still userpages for users who haven't registered here? So my point still stands. If you finish deleting them, maybe you can suggest this again. But even then, none of these users have been blocked indefinitely (or ever, actually) so why are they suddenly deserving of having their user pages deleted? There's nothing stopping any of them from coming back and editing again. And you can't use the fact that the pages have been indefinitely protected as an excuse to delete them; maybe if you hadn't indefinitely protected them, they wouldn't be indefinitely protected... And why exactly did you feel the need to protect them indefinitely? It's not like they're high-traffic or high-risk, nor did the users even over-edit them. None of those pages were edited more than twice in the 24 hours preceding the block. Etbmax did indeed generally over-edit his userpage, but even so, he made only four edits to it in the week preceding the block, which is far from excessive. Dark Mai Valentine edited their userpage a total of four times, and it was three weeks after the fourth time that you arbitrarily determined that their userpage should be protected. Fuddlebob edited his page eight times in the space of a month and a half, and it was over three months after the last edit that you protected it. Jacobdf11 last edited his user page '''nine months''' before you protected it. And Amy last edited hers within a few hours of the protection, but before that she hadn't done so for four and a half months. None of these were good protects, except, arguably, Etbmax, and even then that was pretty harsh... And all of them have been active in the last year, so they could still come back at any time, and be pissed off that the userpage they worked so hard on has just been casually deleted for no good reason. There are people who have been gone from the wiki for far longer than these people, and you're not suggesting deleting their userpages. Now let's get onto the point that I didn't really want to raise, but it seems that I have to: why is HeidiHedgefox's page in there? She's been gone for less than three months and you want to delete her page? Be honest, were the other four just a convenient handful to justify that one deletion? If that really is your reason (which I'm not saying it is, just putting the possibility out there) then that's a pretty serious abuse of power... '''''<span style="font-family:Arial;">[[User:PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Penguin</font>]][[User talk:PenguinofDeath|<font color="gray">of</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Death</font>]]</span>''''' 10:45, 31 May 2012 (EDT) | ||
::::I'm going to have to agree with PenguinofDeath on this topic. I agree with everything he's said above, but I also have a few, somewhat minor addendums. Firstly, deleting these will only make a bunch of extra red/dead links, which have the opportunity to be blue instead. The other is this; userpages aren't just of interest to the users themselves. Those userpages might have content that interest another user, and so deleting them wouldn't be particularly beneficial. These points may be considered quite minor, but the benefits of deleting these pages are very minor as well, it's literally a case of making them not appear in the drop-down search bar. No significant reason to delete, so '''Oppose'''. [[User:ToastUltimatum|<font color="ff8c00">'''Toast'''</font>]] [[File:Wii U Logo Transparent.png|17px|link=Special:Contributions/ToastUltimatum]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|<font color="01a3c4">'''ltimatum'''</font>]][[File:Transparent Swadloon.png|26px]] 11:33, 31 May 2012 (EDT) | |||