Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion patrol

message: Those that like this idea may want to check out WP:PURE.  If implemented, pure wiki deletion would give us deletion transparency, so any user could help patrol recent deletions.  Friday (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

message: So this page is really for complaining that a three word article such as the first listed on this talk page is somehow not speediable. Then, no, I won't spend any time here. -Splashtalk 22:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No arguments have been advanced for either case that the speedy guidelines were not followed (though in the second case I would have preferred if the edit summary made clear on what grounds the speedy was performed).  They are just two things I found on the deletion log that rung a bell and I listed here whilst I gathered information about them.  This is a talk page, not a page for appealing process. --- Charles Stewart 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, yes. I was too harsh. I just want people to remember that an admin is not being abusive, nor acting out of process or malice if they delete such an article as the first one here. Googling may well yield something, but that doesn't mean such a speedy was necessarily wrong: it does mean that a stub would have been the better choice. Alhutch apologises for that deletion; I don't think it was necessary from him/her to do so since it was plainly a zero-effort untersubstublet. If this page can be used to juice the deletion log without haranguing admins who are not misbehaving (and that's not to say that some do and that others make mistakes and they should be politely harangued when they do) then I think it will serve a useful purpose. But it should not become an admin-whipping post just because we discover which university some possible human being might or might not have, had or be about to have some association (or not) with. -Splashtalk 00:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea (as conceived by Tony) is absolutely not to be a PITA to the patrolling admins who speedy something that shouldn't have been. If they did it lots, it might be worth a note - David Gerard 00:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, on the point about the deletion log: I have not managed to determine when MediaWiki does/not fill that in automagically. For very short articles it does, and for some articles it truncates the content into the summary. Other times, it doesn't do anything, and I'm not sure when/why. Perhaps it fills the box with the whole article if it can, as much as fits if that leaves not much unmentioned and, if it would leave a lot out, doesn't bother at all. Of course, the deleting admin should give a reason anyway. -Splashtalk 00:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not at all. This page is not designed to be a pain in the arse for those on newpages patrol - quite the opposite. It's so that patrollers don't need to agonise, because anything that really shouldn't have been speedied has people looking out to catch and restore it. The idea is less red tape, not more. Anyone trying to use it as an Idiot Stick (the idiot being the wielder) is missing the point big time. See Jimbo's note on the subject. - David Gerard 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Splash's complaint

message: I've been known to disagree with Tony on deletion from time to time, but if this page is used as advertized I think it's a great thing, and I'm glad to help.  Now can I ask how we go about coordinating?  Or do we just independently wade through the deletion logs and discuss what we find? -- SCZenz 02:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll give this a whirl 

message: Something that non-admins can do is patrol CAT:CSD looking for articles tagged as vanity.  I just did a pass and ended up removing speedy tags from Alexander Deane (possible bad faith nomination), Danny Nichols (sent to AfD instead) and Maria Mourani.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've been taken in by someone going to a rally and a copyright violation, but there we go. -Splashtalk 22:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite possible.  Danny Nichols seems to be headed for deletion on AfD, but I felt it was borderline enough that it deserved the chance.  As for Maria Mourani, I didn't check for copyvio since it was tagged as vanity, not copyvio, although I guess I should've.  Good catch!  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How non-admins can help 

message: Sorry - didnt know where to ask this...There is a new page here which I tagged with .  However the creator removed this tag? What can be done? thanks
UKWiki 17:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restore the warning, then post  on their user talk page. Remember to subst it. --WikiSlasher 06:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice needed...? 

message: Prior to the addition of the newest member, it hadn't been edited for over a month, prior to that another inactive month, no edits during August, nothing during April and May, or January or February. Infact, in a one year (2006) span, this page was edited 9 times, all of which seem to be addition of people to the members list. Perhaps more to the point, the first person on the list is no longer an administrator, despite the fact that it says that active members have to be administrators! If it wasn't for the 2007 edit, I would be VERY tempted to add  or  to this page. 68.39.174.238 16:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this page dead? 

message: While using recent changes to find redlinked newbie talk pages, i couldnt help but notice the "speedy activity" of User:W8181. Just in case no-one noticed. Thanks for your efforts. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes

message: Hi there, have you seen this?
http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WikiActivity
James Michael DuPont (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  speeddeletion wiki rescue