| Revision as of 08:58, 19 February 2010 editPcap (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,285 edits →User talk:Spartaz: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:59, 19 February 2010 edit undoPcap (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,285 editsm →User talk:Spartaz: grammarNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *'''Overturn deletion'''. The delete button isn't to be used in a fit of anger, as it was here, and deletion policy doesn't allow for deletion of usertalk without extenuating circumstances. ]] 08:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | *'''Overturn deletion'''. The delete button isn't to be used in a fit of anger, as it was here, and deletion policy doesn't allow for deletion of usertalk without extenuating circumstances. ]] 08:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *I fail to see what purpose this DRV serves, and what positive effects it may achieve. Without voicing an opinion on the merits of the deletion, '''speedy close'''. Let's drop this for now. When everyone involved is no longer caught in the heat of the moment, it may well be the case that a DRV would be unnecessary. ] (]) 08:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | *I fail to see what purpose this DRV serves, and what positive effects it may achieve. Without voicing an opinion on the merits of the deletion, '''speedy close'''. Let's drop this for now. When everyone involved is no longer caught in the heat of the moment, it may well be the case that a DRV would be unnecessary. ] (]) 08:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy close''' per Tim Song. The 1st person to comment here is the guy |
*'''Speedy close''' per Tim Song. The 1st person to comment here is the guy whose block caused all this kerfuffle. Not a good idea. ] ] 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:59, 19 February 2010
< 2010 February 18 Deletion review archives: 2010 February 2010 February 20 >19 February 2010
User talk:Spartaz
Following what appears to be a dispute with others, Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted and protected his user talk page. I undid this deletion as out of policy. Spartaz has re-deleted it and labeled himself as retired. Since people do not own their talk page or any other page, I ask that the page be undeleted and unprotected. If Spartaz feels that it ought to be deleted, he may nominate it for WP:MfD. WP:RTV#How to leave states that user talk pages "are generally not deleted unless there is a specific reason that page blanking is insufficient. This specific reason needs to be established by nominating it via Miscellany for Deletion." Sandstein 07:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Allow deletion. It seems odd to comment here for something like this, but if a user truly wants to retire from Misplaced Pages for some reason, any reason, they should be able to delete their talk page. RTV. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- As noted above, the RTV policy explicitly does not extend to talk pages. Talk pages are required to communicate with users. They may also contain content of relevance to other users. Sandstein 08:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that, but there isn't much to talk about if the person has legitimately left the project. Ideally, we should delete this talk page (leaving it as it is) and remove the administrative privileges from the account. JBsupreme (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at the deletion history of his talkpage, he's misused deletion in this way before. He gets mad, "retires", deletes his talkpage, and comes back. It's not an acceptable use of the delete button, and it needs to stop. Scottaka UnitAnode 08:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn deletion. The delete button isn't to be used in a fit of anger, as it was here, and deletion policy doesn't allow for deletion of usertalk without extenuating circumstances. Scottaka UnitAnode 08:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I fail to see what purpose this DRV serves, and what positive effects it may achieve. Without voicing an opinion on the merits of the deletion, speedy close. Let's drop this for now. When everyone involved is no longer caught in the heat of the moment, it may well be the case that a DRV would be unnecessary. Tim Song (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy close per Tim Song. The 1st person to comment here is the guy whose block caused all this kerfuffle. Not a good idea. Pcap ping 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)