| Revision as of 00:33, 16 May 2014 editNeuraxis (talk | contribs)2,086 edits →User:DVMt/sandbox: c← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:27, 17 May 2014 edit undoMiddle 8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,259 edits keep -- more WP:POKE from disruptive editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| This sandbox contains MASS ] and ] violations. It has not been updated for over a year. The first sentence in the sandbox is the same ] previously added on November 21, 2011 using the WHO source. There is no reason to repeat past mistakes or keep unencyclopedic junk dormant in a sandbox. ] (]) 20:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | This sandbox contains MASS ] and ] violations. It has not been updated for over a year. The first sentence in the sandbox is the same ] previously added on November 21, 2011 using the WHO source. There is no reason to repeat past mistakes or keep unencyclopedic junk dormant in a sandbox. ] (]) 20:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - as a ]. Misplaced Pages already has a well developed article on this topic. —] (]) 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - as a ]. Misplaced Pages already has a well developed article on this topic. —] (]) 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - Highly unlikely to be an intentionally fake article with ] at the top saying clearly that it isn't an article. Per AGF and ], I find it reasonable to assume that DVMt was working on an alternative version and simply got drawn into other things. He was returning to it before QG tagged the page; see where he discusses collaboration with another user. Although the material shouldn't remain there indefinitely, there are options (see WP:FAKEARTICLE) that could have been suggested to DVMt on his talk page rather than ]-ing him with a deletion tag. QG has history of "poking" behavior (e.g. ] twice in a row). --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Quack you're making the allegations, now time to prove them. Where is the OR? Where are the MEDRS violations? How is it junk? How does is it not unencyclopedic? Prove your case. ] (]) 16:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | :Quack you're making the allegations, now time to prove them. Where is the OR? Where are the MEDRS violations? How is it junk? How does is it not unencyclopedic? Prove your case. ] (]) 16:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
| :Note GQ is engaging in stalking behaviour and posting bogus tags. ] (]) 00:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | :Note GQ is engaging in stalking behaviour and posting bogus tags. ] (]) 00:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| * "Adding OR to a sandbox" is one of the most tendentious objections I've seen in a long time. How could someone be on Misplaced Pages for years on end and not know what a sandbox is for?! Obviously, the whole point of sandboxes is to allow a space for experimentation, where policies like MOS and OR don't apply. The only policies that apply in sandboxes are ones like BLP and copyvio. (cf. ] and ].) --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:27, 17 May 2014
User:DVMt/sandbox
This sandbox contains MASS WP:OR and WP:MEDRS violations. It has not been updated for over a year. The first sentence in the sandbox is the same WP:COPYVIO previously added to the lede on November 21, 2011 using the WHO source. There is no reason to repeat past mistakes or keep unencyclopedic junk dormant in a sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Misplaced Pages already has a well developed article on this topic. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Highly unlikely to be an intentionally fake article with Template:Sandbox at the top saying clearly that it isn't an article. Per AGF and WP:CHOICE, I find it reasonable to assume that DVMt was working on an alternative version and simply got drawn into other things. He was returning to it before QG tagged the page; see here where he discusses collaboration with another user. Although the material shouldn't remain there indefinitely, there are options (see WP:FAKEARTICLE) that could have been suggested to DVMt on his talk page rather than WP:POKE-ing him with a deletion tag. QG has history of "poking" behavior (e.g. ignoring WP:DTTR twice in a row). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Quack you're making the allegations, now time to prove them. Where is the OR? Where are the MEDRS violations? How is it junk? How does is it not unencyclopedic? Prove your case. DVMt (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: The tag for the MFD was inappropriately removed before the discussion was finished. Now even more OR was added to the sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note GQ is engaging in stalking behaviour and posting bogus tags. DVMt (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Adding OR to a sandbox" is one of the most tendentious objections I've seen in a long time. How could someone be on Misplaced Pages for years on end and not know what a sandbox is for?! Obviously, the whole point of sandboxes is to allow a space for experimentation, where policies like MOS and OR don't apply. The only policies that apply in sandboxes are ones like BLP and copyvio. (cf. WP:ABOUTSAND and WP:BADSAND.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)