Talk:Conflict (band)

• 23:59 1 Jun 2003 Zoe deleted "Conflict (band)" (taking Michael's name off)
• 23:08 1 Jun 2003 Zoe deleted "Conflict (band)" (I hate to do this to you, Quercus, but this has to be deleted)
• 20:00 1 Jun 2003 Hephaestos deleted "Conflict (band)" (banned user addition)
  • What on earth? This was a good article on an important punk band, who are topical because they have just played some rare (and by all acounts excellent) gigs. Zoe's bureaucratic obsession with deleting everything Michael ever went near, regardless of its intrinsic value, is bizarre and tiresome. GrahamN 23:48 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Please see http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003890 (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003890). There is nothing to discuss. And I don't intend to put up with character assassination. -- Zoe
      • There is nothing to discuss...
  • I've undeleted it. Only the discography was Michael's work, Quercus wrote the rest of it (and he probably checked the discog). Delete Michael's stuff, by all means, but (to employ a cliche) lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Camembert 23:55 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I've redeleted it so that Michael's name isn't in it. I am also deleting all of the Michael stuff. But you are not following the consensus agreed to on the mail list. -- Zoe
      • The simple existence of this page could, perhaps, be a sign that "consensus" is not so obvious.
    • There is consensus to delete or revert all of Michael's edits; there is no consensus to delete the work of other users along the way. --Camembert
      • How do we do one without the other? If people edit Michael's work, we leave it there without knowing how much of it is correct. It's a slippery slope, which Jimbo has declared should be resolved by deletion. -- Zoe
      • I agree that in some cases it could be difficult, but in this specific case the only content that was Michael's was the discography, so I think that simply removing the discog from the article, leaving Quercus' work intact, would have been sufficient. --Camembert
  • Zoe had restored the content - I just restored the history. I did feel there were GFDL/plagiarism issues with just restoring the content, until I saw Talk:Conflict (band). I'm still unsure that aiming to strip Michael from the page history is a worthy target in itself. Martin 00:22 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • I listed on VfD Martin 09:02 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The above is from wikipedia:votes for undeletion. I don't feel confident enough to wipe or refactor material relating to the Zoe/GrahamN spat, since I'm involved - if someone else could deal with appropriately, that'd be great :) Martin 19:25 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

There's some dispute about the value of the discography at Conflict (band). Since you've contributed most of the stuff there, I was wondering if you had also checked the discography. If so, probably best mention it on the talk page or something, so people know not to remove it... -- Oliver P. 00:03 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Oliver, I've left the Michael version of the Conflict discography deleted and rebuilt it from scratch, AFAIK it's accurate, although I think incomplete- my knowledge of Conflict isn't as extensive as that of Crass I'm afraid :-) quercus robur 17:53 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

For the record, the page in question was deleted whilst I was actually in the process of replacing Michael's content, however I wasn't aware of the deletion as when I clicked 'save' this obviously must have imediatly recreated the page. I only realised the page had been deleted at all when I looked at the history and saw myself as the first person to have edited the page. With hindsight I should have got a sysop to delete the page then restarted it from the link. However I think it would also be acceptable for a non-sysop to clear Michael's content and rebuild the page if they feel they can't wait around. TBH Michael has on occasion been the catalyst in causing me to write stuff (such as the Conflict article and some of the Crass sub-pages) which i otherwise probably never would have gotten round to (not that i think the Conflict article is that great as yet) quercus robur 21:34 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, me too (though on fewer articles). A good thing, I guess :) Martin