Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jmpenzone/Hawk Mountain Camp


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was Closed and will be merged.  With others having edited the article, we must err on the side of not infringing upon their copyright. Wily D 18:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jmpenzone/Hawk Mountain Camp
This is a cut & paste userfication of deleted article Hawk Mountain Camp. The user should have requested userfication to have the article properly copied to his userspace. I notified the user of the problem at User talk:Jmpenzone with no response. I would have fixed this myself, but I proposed the AfD and would rather a third party admin take a look at this. —— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  12:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep User has been active in editing articles. This article in userspace is less than one month old.  I see no rule that says a person can not self-userfy a page, and that he must "request" userfication.  In fact, most users do not even know about using "userfication" as noted in discussions on this very topic.  The article does no harm, is not indefinite storage, and might be improvable to be in mainspace theoretically.  Collect (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply See Userfication. As a cut & paste copy, it has lost all of the previous edit history required by the GDFL. I have no issue with the article being userfied, just the manner in which it happened. For proper userfication, the deleted article would be restored, moved to userspace and the redirect deleted; thus the userfied version would retain the previous edit history. There is a provision for cut & paste userfication, but it requires that the edit history be placed on the article talk page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  14:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, why do you not just do it? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think that being bold would have been less a pain than this. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  19:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially, then, you would be happy to see the deleted article transferred to this page so that the history would be intact? Right?  As most users do not know about "userfication" (which is not actually a "real word") and transferring the history, I would think that would be a rational solution. Meanwhile, perahps the suggestion that users whose articles are deleted should be specifically told about this process, which, as far as I can tell, is not the current situation.  Collect (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as per Collect. Nominator's reasoning is really silly: "because Jmpenzone didn't jump through bureaucratic guidelines when the article was AfD'd", we should delete the article. Also Jmpenzone didn't get respond to nominator, so we should delete.  Leave the poor editor alone. travb (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: I have been mulling this over for two days and simply do not understand neither the intent nor the tone of that statement. Complying with the GFDL is not a minor issue. I certainly understand that many users may not know or understand some of the more esoteric processes, which is why I left a note on Jmpenzone's talk page outlining the problem and how to fix it on December 20. He could have easily requested that this be fixed, but there has been no response. I presume the intent is to improve the draft article to the point where it can be copied back into article space. If this happens without proper userfication, it will require an admin to do an edit history merge. Why not avoid the trouble and fix it now? --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  19:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - as I understand it, the main requirement of the GFDL is that the authors of a page are identified. If this is a cut-and-paste copy of the deleted page, that's only a problem if the creator was not the sole creator of the deleted page, and some of this content was contributed by other users. Can an admin confirm whether or not that is the case? If there were other contributors, then I must reluctantly accept that Gadget850 is right, and this page should be deleted and replaced with a version properly moved from article space. Terraxos (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  23:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as per Collect and Inclusionist. Nominator's reasoning is really silly: "because Jmpenzone didn't jump through bureaucratic guidelines when the article was AfD'd", we should delete the article. Also Jmpenzone didn't get respond to nominator, so we should delete.  Leavehim alone! --  MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I am being silly today, would someone set me straight as to why the process at Userfication should be ignored as a bureaucratic guideline. At least I'm not double silly today, otherwise I would be proposing an MfD for User:Jheiv/Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1, a properly userfied page of an article that was deleted in a related AfD. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.