I also think DJ Clayworth's suggested expansion (on the talk page) is good but that's not being voted on. Maybe in the future. --
Francs2000 |
Talk [[]] 20:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes...though in my perfect Wikiverse the admin would also leave a polite note to the anon (it's almost always an anon) on their talk page (or the article talk page, I suppose, but that's even less likely to be seen than their user talk page).
Jwrosenzweig 00:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Superm401 23:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Revert to a previous article if possible though.
[[User:Premeditated Chaos
User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 08:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Revert if possible. If not, yes, definite speedy. I hate those kinds of articles.
bernlin2000∞ 16:15, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC): In this case, a red link is much better than a blue link!
Probably the wording should be changed slightly to say that the article and all its older versions are only such attempts (since otherwise the article has to be reverted, not deleted). --
Paddu 21:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
R. fiend 21:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC). While this probably does fall under current "test" criteria, it's nice to have it spelled out in no uncertain terms.
Could be cleaned up.
✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Be bold, kill the corresondence (or move to talk) and work on the article. Unless it's correspondence with a 'nobody' but that's already dealt under current VfD.
[maestro] 12:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also think DJ Clayworth's suggested expansion (on the talk page) is good but that's not being voted on. Maybe in the future. --
Francs2000 |
Talk [[]] 20:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes...though in my perfect Wikiverse the admin would also leave a polite note to the anon (it's almost always an anon) on their talk page (or the article talk page, I suppose, but that's even less likely to be seen than their user talk page).
Jwrosenzweig 00:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Superm401 23:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Revert to a previous article if possible though.
[[User:Premeditated Chaos
User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 08:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Revert if possible. If not, yes, definite speedy. I hate those kinds of articles.
bernlin2000∞ 16:15, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC): In this case, a red link is much better than a blue link!
Probably the wording should be changed slightly to say that the article and all its older versions are only such attempts (since otherwise the article has to be reverted, not deleted). --
Paddu 21:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
R. fiend 21:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC). While this probably does fall under current "test" criteria, it's nice to have it spelled out in no uncertain terms.
Could be cleaned up.
✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Be bold, kill the corresondence (or move to talk) and work on the article. Unless it's correspondence with a 'nobody' but that's already dealt under current VfD.
[maestro] 12:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)