Talk:Scruggs

Restoration of the surname page

While I would never accuse either of two big-shot law firms of dishonest dealings without consulting legal counsel first, my opinion is that WP editors even better situated than I to examine the relevant edit history are likely enuf to concur with my current assessment: the page existed as a substantially conforming WP:list article of the surname variety, but was converted to (quite questionable) Dab page with neither the consultation nor the attention to Dab'n policy that would be routinely appropriate. As a WP administrator with a sesqui-decade of experience (user:Angela was my nominator), I feel justified in restoring some thing close to what must have been the original general approach, and treating the unsuitable entries in the respective manners that established policies justify. Of course discussion and justified revisions are, as always, more than welcome. My advice is to explain, perhaps more diligently than is routine (in view of the possibility that intentional subversion of out policies and/or guidelines may have been involved).
--Jerzy•t 04:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and an afterthot: under these circumstances, I also urge all editors to be especially diligent, in this rather unusual (one should hesitate to dare risking even "conceivably unprecedented!") situation.
--Jerzy•t 05:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of the surname page

While I would never accuse either of two big-shot law firms of dishonest dealings without consulting legal counsel first, my opinion is that WP editors even better situated than I to examine the relevant edit history are likely enuf to concur with my current assessment: the page existed as a substantially conforming WP:list article of the surname variety, but was converted to (a quite questionable) Dab page with neither the consultation nor the attention to Dab'n policy that would be routinely appropriate. As a WP administrator with a sesqui-decade of experience (user:Angela was my nominator), I feel justified in restoring something close to what must have been the original general approach, and treating the unsuitable entries in the respective manners that established policies justify. Of course discussion and justified revisions are, as always, more than welcome. My advice is to explain, perhaps more diligently than is routine (in view of the possibility that intentional subversion of out policies and/or guidelines may have been involved).
--Jerzy•t 04:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and an afterthot: under these circumstances, I also urge all editors to be especially diligent, in this rather unusual (one should hesitate to dare risking even "conceivably unprecedented!") situation.
--Jerzy•t 04:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]