Please do not tag pages for deletion without the permission of their owners. Thank you. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 14:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are redirects, in all cases being unused and in most cases due to use rename of the user. They do not serve any practical navigational or historical purpose and as such are unnecessary and can be deleted. There's no overt policy I could find that provides any reason to keep these, and such have flagged them for deletion.
- While you are here: Your signature was changed because it is considered semantically incorrect to style bold tags and it will register as a Lint error; something being cut down on presently. Its visual display is identical in appearance and function—deliberately so. Trig - 15:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please still don't edit others' user pages 👁 Image
Miner(👁 Image
talk 👁 Image
contributions) 15:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. We are allowed to use redirects. Half of your recent edits are unnecessary. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 15:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- And my signature does not contain lint errors. I am part of the lint error project, and I see NONE. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 15:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @245e the deletion requests were added by trig jegman without permission 👁 Image
Miner(👁 Image
talk 👁 Image
contributions) 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changes are strictly for maintenance to remove reliance on redirects. Once again, there are no stated policies outright forbidding this—the warning message only says generally changes should not be made as users are not meant to edit other userpages for content changes. A strictly maintenance, non-visually-impacting change should not be contestable. Furthermore, just because redirects can exist for userspace/non-content-space does not mean they should, due to increased load (of the redirect taking place) and bloated pages generated in lists and searching.
- It is difficult to respond with multiple edits in response in quick succession due to edit conflicts. Bold tags (<b>) are not supposed to carry other styles on them, and often causes nesting issues with how styles carry over—particularly across links. Furthermore, bold tags are generally discouraged in modern use, either because content needs to be semantically highlighted (like <strong>) or because it is more appropriate for style to be completely registered through CSS, not HTML. MediaWiki handles bold tags registered through apostrophes differently, particularly in terms of wrapping, and using that method over direct use of <b> tags ensures that all elements are properly sealed. Trig - 15:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- the b element isn't in obsolote section
This is a user page. Generally, this page should only be created and edited by PhoenixAsh89. Please visit their talk page if you want to leave them a message.
👁 Image
Miner(👁 Image
talk 👁 Image
contributions) 15:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- Fine. Maybe my signature contains errors. It isn't my fault. Besides, MCW:SIGN says I can't fix the errors because it would make my signature too long. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, however the redirects are unused which is likely why the edits were made. {{delete|unused redirect}} is better to understand rather than {{delete|unnecessary}} which all of the pages seem to be leftovers from users changing their names and the redirects are left being unused. 245e (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not say bold tags were deprecated—only discouraged. There are more effective means for style, particularly in regards to using a particular style tag (b, i, etc) instead of a more encompassing span. It works but isn't semantically accurate. Again, the header message that you have linked to uses the term generally: It is not a requirement to make contact and it is not outright forbidden to make changes. For a change as minor as it is to simplify and remove unnecessary userspace redirects with zero visual or functional impact, I do not see a need for contacting users, particularly those that have not contributed to the site in an extended period of time. Their page remains seen just as intended with no change to contents, its appearance, or display. If this is a matter of the reasoning in the delete tags is not specific enough, I can easily change what I write for it in the future. Trig - 15:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Still, asking for permission is easy and a lot more polite. The fourth pillar of Wikipedia dictates that you should treat other users with respect, regardless of the fifth pillar. Tagging user pages for deletion is, in my eyes, very disrespectful. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Though, I can see why you'd want to remove redirects, especially with users that have been inactive. However, we still need redirects, no matter what you say. While some may be unused, just ask for permission! Otherwise, I'd say just leave it. You don't need to edit that many user pages to fix a minor problem. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- We are not Wikipedia and therefore should not base operations off of a different sites' status quo. It is not disrespectful: In many cases, I'm sure that these users have no idea these redirects still exist and probably don't care about them outright anyway. If they want to keep them, then they are free to revert themselves (particularly if they are watched pages) or at the absolute extreme worst case scenario a page gets undeleted. Oh the horror. These are deliberately not utility pages either, such as language translations or Sig->sig; it's only stuff like userboxes or sandboxes.
- I would appreciate attempting to consolidate responses into a singular, longer message when possible please. I can't force you to use a transclusion based invocation for your signature (which is better practice, imo), and I wasn't able to cut the byte count down low enough. Maybe it's worth seeing if there's an exception to be flown if it's not a hard limitation. Trig - 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I know this isn't Wikipedia, certain philosophies still apply. It can be seen as not just disrespectful, but rude. When tagging pages for deletion, it can be hard to see good faith. This is all you need to do:
Hello there! I noticed there were some unused redirects on your userspace. Would you like to keep them or do you not need them? I'd be happy to tag them so for deletion for you.
- That's all. You can just leave a message. It really isn't that hard. Meanwhile, if you want to usea direct link to things, then, well, there no way way to say this, but too bad! Reliance in redirects is going to exist. You can't stop it. Editing others' pages can be disrespectful (unless it's an editable user page), and it isn't even worth a message on the talk page. I don't understand why any of your recent edits were made at all. I don't see what you want. Period. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 15:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm just going to agree with this. I think we should probably have a proper discussion to make something like this for all users of the wiki should do if something like this is not already a part of the wiki rules. 245e (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not dead just busy. I functionally disagree with the belief that redirects in regards to userspace. It's...really easy to stop, actually. I do it constantly on most of the sites I've managed. Trig - 18:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
I am assuming you will see this as you are actively editing right now, but I just want to let you know a while back I borrowed some of your things from your fortune section to use for my splash texts, and i just want to double check if you are okay with it? If you are not, I will remove them :) 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
15:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- Knock yourself out. Glad to be inspirational. Trig - 15:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
