Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Squishymochi/draft

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 merge histories. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Squishymochi/draft


Stale draft. Editor inactive since 2008 Magioladitis (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete--WP:STALEDRAFT-- E♴  (talk)  13:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete--WP:STALEDRAFT. Samuel C. Damon article exists in mainspace. -- Klein zach  00:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per all above.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 16:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is not a stale draft, but an actual draft of the current article Samuel C. Damon. At 22:20, 15 December 2008 User:Squishymochi performed a copy-paste to mainspace of this draft that he edited up to 6 minutes earlier, and  never touched the draft again.  Given that User:Squishymochi made a large number of cumulative edits building the draft, and that these edits represent a large fraction of all his edits, and noting that there are no complicating overlapping edits, I recommend a history merge.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the editor wanted those changes to be pushed to the live article, that editor would presumably have requested it. The changes made since then have rendered any of the minor improvements made three years ago obsolete. We are certainly not obliged to go to all the trouble of histmerging every userspace fork we find. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume that the editor didn't/doesn't know about page moves. The early edits becoming obsolete is not compatible with our licensing, although you are quite right that there is now obligation here, as the user is the sole author of both the draft and the first version in mainspace.  Of course we would not history merge every fork.  Forking within the project is and should be actively discouraged.  But this is not a fork.  It is a single path history.  The history merge should be trivial.  The page could also be redirected.  In fact, I believe that editors who find these userspace copy-paste artefacts should simply redirect on discovery and move on.  Why do I bother sating this?  I am much bothered by an apparent common attitude of "this looks weird - delete" without any further investigation or thought.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're entirely right. The history starts in the user draft and the live page is a direct continuation of that. I read the history wrongly. Histmerge should be straightforward here and is the right thing to do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:39, 6 July 2011 (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.