| Revision as of 13:33, 25 May 2003 editAnthere (talk | contribs)Administrators17,321 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:35, 9 January 2025 edit undoExtraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators75,419 edits →Instructions subpages: comment | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| Martin, I thank you for the undeletions. I trust that your decisions on these pages are good ones, and I won't challenge them. | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 500K | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | |||
| |algo = old(180d) | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no|WT:DRV}} | |||
| {{notice|This is '''not''' the place to contest a deletion or to request a history undeletion. Follow the instructions at ]. This page is for discussing maintenance issues, proper usage of deletion review, etc.}} | |||
| {{Archive box|search=yes|archive_age=180|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III| | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2010''': {{Archives by months|2010}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2011''': {{Archives by months|2011}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2012''': {{Archives by months|2012}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2013''': {{Archives by months|2013}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2014''': {{Archives by months|2014}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2015''': {{Archives by months|2015}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2016''': {{Archives by months|2016}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2017''': {{Archives by months|2017}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2018''': {{Archives by months|2018}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2019''': {{Archives by months|2019}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2020''': {{Archives by months|2020}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2021''': {{Archives by months|2021}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2022''': {{Archives by months|2022}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2023''': {{Archives by months|2023}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2024''': {{Archives by months|2024}}}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Neha Harsora == | |||
| However, I still consider the process you have been applying is not the proper one. Let me remind you that non sysop can not see deleted pages. Let's consider the person challenging a hasty deletion has seen the page and consider the page should be kept. He then comes here and add it to the list. | |||
| Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the article of this actress, but since it was deleted under G5 there was no consensus, hence where can I do it? ] (]) 04:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The process you have been applying here consisted essentially in reviewing "yourself" the page, and taking a "godlike" decision over the future of this page. I think this is deeply wrong. | |||
| :This is the wrong place to contest a deletion. If you go to ], you will see a box telling you to "please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below", that is to say, {{user|Explicit}}. --] 🌹 (]) 08:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == I want my article back == | |||
| Remember, the decision of deleting this page was a unilateral decision from a sysop. Then you add your unilateral decision - as a sysop - to keep it undeleted. That means, whatever my own request, my opinion as an editor is worth nothing. Why should sysop opinions have more weight than mine on a topic ? This is *very very* unwiki since in Misplaced Pages editors are supposed to have equal rights in edition. In deciding yourself unilaterally, you reject the opinion of the non-sysop, and you reject the very notion of consensus when there is a disagreement. When two people discuss an issue, a consensus can not be reached if one has preeminence over another in the end, should there still be disagreement. Even in a voting system (which I personally disapprove of - in particular when only a couple of people are involved), one "against", and one "for" is a 50% case, and need more input than just a unilateral decision from one of the two. Hence, the option you followed is neither consensual, nor democratic. If this is the way[REDACTED] works, I think ] should be edited. | |||
| The article I wrote was deleted around 2 years ago because 6 months passed without activity and now they wont undelete it because they think there's a conflict of interest. I am writing an article for Dr. Zouhair Amarin because I was his student. There is no conflict of interest as we are not colleagues, friends or family. I have maintained a neutral tone throughout the article. ] (]) 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A sysop is there to clean the place, to ensure the rules are respected, to be a pilar for coherance conservation. The sysop is not there to decide which content is right and which content is not right with little respect of the rules, right ? Otherwise, the ] would be a protected page, and decision over deletions would be acceptable per sysops only. | |||
| :{{replyto|Zamarin}} This is not the place to make such a request. The notice at ] directs you as follows: | |||
| ::If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available ]. | |||
| :You need to follow that last link and do what it says. --] 🌹 (]) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times ] 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Twice, actually - once at 14:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 15:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. before posting here; the second was at 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. afterward. --] 🌹 (]) 07:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Status update of DRV still ongoing beyond 7 days == | |||
| You might say "right, just keep it on the list, and wait till another sysop takes the pain to undelete it for you". Given the pain of the undeletion process (so I understood, the french wiki does have a relatively small number of deleted articles, so this is not too bad), it is very unlikely, and very unefficient that two people do the same process one after another. Better do it only one time. | |||
| Page ] was submitted for DRV on 26 Aug, now on the 9th the article message says review is still underway. Can someone tell me the status of it and what stages it awaits? ] (]) 00:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The other point in refuse of consensual decision is that with that process, only sysops will ever have the opportunity to give their opinion, and choose to restore or not, never other regular users, since they will never see the page content. | |||
| :The reason this debate is still open is a large number of our DRV regular closers got involved in the debate itself, in my case due to sub-optimal behaviour that was leading to disruption of the discussion. Having been involved in the process like that, I am reticent to close it per a broad interpretation of ], and I imagine a number of my peers are the same. It will be closed in due course. ] (]) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Pawn (scripting language) == | |||
| In short, I think the process applied on that page, should be precisely the reverse of the process apply on the ]. Which is a place where everyone, sysop or non sysop have the right to give their opinion, and where opinions of people have the same weight, whether black, white, male, female, young, old, sysop or non sysop. | |||
| : I plan to improve and expand the ] article to meet the required criteria. | |||
| Right now, here, I can give my opinion, but a regular user opinion has *no* weight against a sysop opinion. This is humiliating and very wrong. I hope you will then understand it is not satisfying. | |||
| : I intend to move ] to the mainspace and will strive to improve its quality. I would also like to highlight that on the page ]), there was a fairly supportive discussion about the topic's eligibility for a main article. | |||
| : I hope to gain support from the Misplaced Pages community to develop this article into a comprehensive source of information on the Pawn programming language. | |||
| ] (]) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Idea : I have the feeling one reason why you feel like taking a "godlike" decision is that some undeletions would become permanents (for example, I suppose restoring an historical version of an existing article cannot be later un-processed - case of the three articles you restored yesterday). Why not in these cases where you feel it is likely the "community" decision (that you, and I, and everybody feeling concerned) will be to keep it undeleted, copy paste the content in a temp page associated with this one, so people can judge the content without potentially restoring something wrong ? | |||
| == Instructions subpages == | |||
| ] | |||
| The DRV instructions/rules are transcluded from ] (11 watchlisters) and ] (21 watchlisters), meaning any changes aren't visible to the main DRV page's 1316 watchlisters. Is there ]? If not, I think it'd make more sense to just copy them over. ] (]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You say: "A sysop is there to clean the place, to ensure the rules are respected, to be a pilar for coherance conservation." This isn't true at all. A sysop isn't there to "do" anything. If a sysop wants to carry on in exactly the same way they did before they were a sysop, they're quite entitled to do so. If a sysop wants to do nothing but make new articles on Albanian kings and have nothing to do with anything else, that's fine. Being a sysop doesn't carry with it any extra responsibilities as such. Therefore, why don't you become a sysop? If everyone is a sysop, and new users are made sysops once it becomes clear they're not simple vandals, these sorts of problems don't matter so much (I'm not saying they are solved, but they are lessened). You're saying how sysops should handle this page and complaining they're not doing it right - fine, but if you think something is being done incorrectly, the best way to deal with that, and the WikiWay, is for you yourself to do it the way you think it should be done, not demand that others do it that way. Therefore, become a sysop. --] | |||
| :I don’t know the history of the splitting and transclusion of the instructions, but I think the semi-hidden content is very long overdue for editing. It’s convoluted, read differently by different people, and we reached an impasse years ago trying to fix it. ] (]) 22:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are quite right to say "if you want to do it, do it yourself". Except that if *I* want to do it myself, I will just have to tell Eloquence to make me sysop, restore the file, and forget all about it. <br> | |||
| ::Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and copied everything over; I ''think'' I've managed to do this without making a hash of things, but if anyone sees anything that looks off, let me know. (In principle I'd certainly be on board with simplifying the instructions, although in practice it would be a challenge.) ] (]) 06:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::But if...dunno...Little Fat Buddha wants to have an article restored because he thinks it was interesting and deleted without community agreement, he won't have any chance to be heard for he will perhaps not be made sysop even if he ask. When something is wrong in the way a country is managed, a regular citizen will first want to have a way for his opinion to be heard and will hope to have impact though voting for a president or another, perhaps. I don't think the good answer if he ask for more transparency and equality, is to tell him, "become the president, then the country can be ruled the way you want". ant | |||
Latest revision as of 06:35, 9 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deletion review page. |
|
 | This is not the place to contest a deletion or to request a history undeletion. Follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. This page is for discussing maintenance issues, proper usage of deletion review, etc. |
Neha Harsora
Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the article of this actress, but since it was deleted under G5 there was no consensus, hence where can I do it? 202.41.10.107 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is the wrong place to contest a deletion. If you go to Neha Harsora, you will see a box telling you to "please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below", that is to say, Explicit (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I want my article back
The article I wrote was deleted around 2 years ago because 6 months passed without activity and now they wont undelete it because they think there's a conflict of interest. I am writing an article for Dr. Zouhair Amarin because I was his student. There is no conflict of interest as we are not colleagues, friends or family. I have maintained a neutral tone throughout the article. Zamarin (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Zamarin: This is not the place to make such a request. The notice at User talk:Zamarin#Concern regarding Draft:Zouhair Amarin directs you as follows:
- If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
- You need to follow that last link and do what it says. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times Mach61 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Twice, actually - once at 14:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 15:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. before posting here; the second was at 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. afterward. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times Mach61 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Status update of DRV still ongoing beyond 7 days
Page The Peel Club was submitted for DRV on 26 Aug, now on the 9th the article message says review is still underway. Can someone tell me the status of it and what stages it awaits? Hellenistic accountant (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The reason this debate is still open is a large number of our DRV regular closers got involved in the debate itself, in my case due to sub-optimal behaviour that was leading to disruption of the discussion. Having been involved in the process like that, I am reticent to close it per a broad interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, and I imagine a number of my peers are the same. It will be closed in due course. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Pawn (scripting language)
- I plan to improve and expand the Pawn (scripting language) article to meet the required criteria.
- I intend to move the Pawn (programming language) draft to the mainspace and will strive to improve its quality. I would also like to highlight that on the page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pawn (scripting language), there was a fairly supportive discussion about the topic's eligibility for a main article.
- I hope to gain support from the Misplaced Pages community to develop this article into a comprehensive source of information on the Pawn programming language.
Putu Suhartawan (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Instructions subpages
The DRV instructions/rules are transcluded from Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Purpose (11 watchlisters) and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Discussions (21 watchlisters), meaning any changes aren't visible to the main DRV page's 1316 watchlisters. Is there some non-obvious good reason for this? If not, I think it'd make more sense to just copy them over. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t know the history of the splitting and transclusion of the instructions, but I think the semi-hidden content is very long overdue for editing. It’s convoluted, read differently by different people, and we reached an impasse years ago trying to fix it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and copied everything over; I think I've managed to do this without making a hash of things, but if anyone sees anything that looks off, let me know. (In principle I'd certainly be on board with simplifying the instructions, although in practice it would be a challenge.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)