Forum:Votes for Undeletion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Votes for Undeletion
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3730 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

After reading a comment by Ceridwyn on Talk:Contents, I decided to bring up VFU, or "Votes For Undeletion", which will allow voting on undeleting articles. This will allow infamous articles such as Contents and Ct to be restored to their original form. Therefore, I have a poll. Please vote below. --Starnestommy (TalkContribsFFSWP) 03:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we have Votes For Undeletion?

The poll was created at 18:53 on May 31, 2007, and so far 38 people voted.

No. Spang talk 03:17, 31 May 2007
No. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 03:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, as I clicked on this link and waited for the page to load I thought, "Yes! Then we can bring back the Old Contents and expunge my guilt!" Little did I know I was the inspiration! So this time I'm not voting the same as Spang, I'm following my gut and saying: Strong for. P.S. FU Spang is so last month...get a new in-joke! -_- ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 03:21, 31 May 2007
Wow, all the votes suddenly got deleted. I guess everyone has to vote again now. Anyway, I voted against. If there is a VFU, it would not be used very often. Plus, the articles get deleted because the admins think they need deletion. The admins are perfect. All hail the admins. Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 03:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, that may have been my fault =/ ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 03:37, 31 May 2007
Ah, I see it was. Never change the options on a poll. Ever. Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 03:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

STRONG FOR. Also, FU SPANG is old. --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, if it didn't get enough support to survive VFD, I don't see how it will possibly get the votes to get undeleted. And if it's QVFD or shot on site by an admin such as myself, it sucked beyond deserving any sort of vote at all. VFU is just unnecessary. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If I could be bothered giving a full answer, that's what I'd have said. Spang talk 04:03, 31 May 2007
Sometimes though things don't get a fair hearing, i.e. REO Speedwagon was facing extinction til the plight of its Pee Review came to light and several of us rallied around to help save it, particularly after seeing the amount of edits that were being done to it to help it improve. In the case of Contents it seems there is a lot of talk on its talk page in support of the old version, and not as many people wanting to keep the current version, hence the drive to have it reinstated. Perhaps this is one of those exceptions rather than rules, so if we could just have Old Contents back no-one will get hurt! maybe we could survive without VFU :) ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 04:05, 31 May 2007
I suspect that a lot of the people going on about wanting it back are doing so just so they can continue going on about it... And the people on the other side would rather just let it die. Then again, perhaps we'll never hear the end of it. Spang talk 05:08, 31 May 2007
Maybe two articles: Contents (nonsense) and Contents? --Starnestommy (TalkContribsFFSWP) 20:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Against new VFU, For Old Contents™ If VFU were created, it would be VFD'd. And then possibly VFU'd again to undelete it. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 05:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No If an article was deleted unfairly, it should just be restored. If it died in the VFD, there was a reason. And besides, someone could easily just re-create the article if they really think it is funny. I also think this would be flooded by a bunch of obviously crappy no-hope articles created by noobs & IP's.--Dexter111344 06:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

HEY! This was my idea!!..... Umm, okay, carry on. Actually, I wasn't all that serious at the time - I think things for undeletion should either just be recreated if the circumstances are right (i.e. things that didn't get a VFD hearing when they should have) or be voted on the Dump case-by-case. VFU would just turn into another FFS with people taking the piss. Also, FOR old contents!! --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For old Contents, the new one sucks. Also, FU SPANG. --General Insineratehymn 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For Democracy. If the community votes for something, the outcome is usually beneficial to the community at the time, but in the future, the people may find the vote to have turned out differently than planned. This is just another way to ensure that the wants of the people can be satisfied by letting us have a part in restoring deleted articles in the event that the community's opinion on a deletion vote changes or an admin goes bat fuck insane and nearly deletes everything. --Starnestommy (TalkContribsFFSWP) 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Against. Delete all articles, start over. We can do it better. It's time. /kidding ----OEJ 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For old Contents. For the rest, hell no. That's what Userspace is for. Improve on your article in userspace and it'll most likely be given a second chance. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 00:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Except for contents, can anyone remember any deleted pages? —Braydie 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Carlow Crab... wait. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 00:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be called Votes for Restoration? --~ Tophatsig 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents restored to mainspace

The old Contents is now at Contents (Nonsense). --Starnestommy (TalkContribsFFSWP) 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad compromise, although if I was being picky I'd say they should be swapped, as the current Contents is placeholding nonsense. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Teehee :P ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 11:44, 01 June 2007
No. I am opposed. I will not divulge my ulterior motive because that's not the point of flamewars. In conclusion, I am in support. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
How about we put the old contents back at contents and but the new contents at something else and pretend that flame never happened.--Scott 17:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hurrah! Glad that's decided.  :-) --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Aye! ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 01:04, 04 June 2007
Personal tools