Revision as of 21:17, 15 December 2006

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

Shortcut WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion no portals
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion no user pages

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

• Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Misplaced Pages: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
• Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
• Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, in accordance with Misplaced Pages's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

• Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
• Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
• Misplaced Pages:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Misplaced Pages" namespace pages
• Misplaced Pages:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
• Misplaced Pages:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

• WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Administrator instructions

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Discussions

Active discussions

Articles currently being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

Purge the server's cache of this page

2006-12-14

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Criticism of Islam task force

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. (Radiant) 10:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:TLAs from AA0 to DZ9

I have asked around to try to establish any use or purpose to this sequence of pages and failed to find any encyclopaedic purpose. I am not proposing a Transwiki because there seems no merit in adding it to Wiktionary either. This is a multi-nomination for all similar pages in Category:Lists of TLAs. Delete all. BlueValour 03:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reference: Previous discussions about deletion and the move into Misplaced Pages name space can be found at Talk:TLAs_from_AAA_to_DZZ. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Several of the creators and contributors to these pages, such as User:Ceyockey, are still active editors; may I ask whether you asked them what they envisioned the pages being used for, and if so, what responses you got? On the merits of the pages, while they will never be featured articles, on a first read I found them refreshingly free of, among other things, the slightest hint of any verifiability problems, original reseach, or libel concerns. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - good point. I have invited User:Ceyockey's input. BlueValour 04:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Uhm... (changed to keep) What is this page for anyway? I guess it shows us a group of redirects that need to be created (AA1 -> AA-1, for instance) and is sort of interesting. I'll vote keep if someone can show up and tell me what this page is supposed to be for. --tjstrf talk 04:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Bearing in mind WP:NOT#IINFO I would argue that the redirects should be created when needed not just because they are not there! I agree, if there is a good reason for being kept then fine, but since they were created in August 2005 little has been done with them. BlueValour 04:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Actually, I would say that creating non-contradicting redirects whenever reasonable is a good thing and does not break NOT#INFO in the slightest. Redirects are not articles, they don't contribute useless information but rather make navigation easier. For instance, making 5 or 6 redirects to a person's name (macronized and non-macronized, different romanization systems, etc.) is helpful because it aids in searching. For all intents and purposes, non-printworthy redirects are a form of meta-content. --tjstrf talk 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• What is it supposed to be? In what planet does this make sense? Why is there a list, in PROJECTSPACE even, consisting of all of the 46656 combinations of three letters and numbers? -Amarkov _edits 05:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Absurd use of project space for what should be a category, if anything. --Dgies 06:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all and stop being simple-minded. All these lists include important linguistic information and do not take much of Wiki's space. They do NOT violate WP:NOT and should stay. Ah, someone above says that since they were created in August 2005 little has been done with them. But of course, they don't need any updates, but are used by many as a starting point to research acronyms. There are many uses for these lists, for example, people looking for new names for computer communication protocols, for new products (including software products), marketing brands, linguistic trends and much more. Keep and stop nagging. --Gabi S. 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: What "important linguistic information" do you mean? The list of all possible TLAs? --Dgies 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A list like this one is useful when determining what acronyms/TLAs we still need pages for. If we were to use categories for that, we'd have to do an incredible amount of scrolling to find the combination we need (if it's even an existing page). A list like this can list the as of yet non-existing ones and makes finding all the existing ones a lot easier. - Mgm| 09:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't need pages for every possible TLA, only those that have notable subjects under that name. If someone wants a page for a particular TLA they can just search for it and see it is missing. According to Misplaced Pages:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context, redlinks should not be made for pages which will never be created, which is about 90% of the content on these pages. --Dgies 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If nothing else, it's justified because creating redirects between the hyphenated and unhyphenated ones where one of the two exist sis a perfectly valid use for the list and would be unfeasible without that page since you would have to look at all of them by hand. --tjstrf talk 09:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The purpose of the page is to look at the links and see which are blue and which are red. --ais523 12:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a useful page, but an introduction should be added making it more clear what the pages purpose is. Danbold 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Two questions.
  • 1. Why is it necessary to have articles on all TLAs?
  • 2. Why is such a list in projectspace?
• -Amarkov _edits 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I could venture opinions on #1, but I think #2 is fairly clear. Like any list of articles, the list itself is in article space. Why would this be different than other lists? —Doug Bell  10:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a useful page to find combination. Maksim-e 13:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - combination of what? Sorry to be obtuse but I really don't understand the use to which this page can be put. It would be helpful to hear from someone who does use these pages as to what purpose they find that they serve. BlueValour 03:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral I've been invited to say something here. I'm not going to input as either keep or delete because I can see reasons for and against inclusion and I've been deeply involved in the past in creating and maintaining pages of this kind. The reasoning for inclusion relates to the appropriateness of including almanac-like data in the Misplaced Pages namespace. I think that the standards for inclusion are different between the main and wikipedia article spaces, and this sits in the wikipedia space; if memory serves, it and articles like it were moved into the wikipedia space because there was consensus (albeit slim) that they did marginally violate the WP:NOT#INFO policy. However, I recognize the strength of categories in dealing with this kind of information; where alphabetical lists are involved, I have become more and more convinced that categories are sufficient. The 'identification of holes and missing information' is a laudable argument for inclusion, and the WP:CRYSTAL does not really apply here, as we are not predicting future events, we are describing a known and finite combinatorial character space - which fits with the content being almanaic in nature. Does the page and its type do harm? No, not in my opinion. Does the existence of the page further Misplaced Pages article development? No, not in my opinion - which I need to explain ... anticipatory creation of redirects and articles is not looked highly upon; redirects and dab pages should be created upon need not in anticipation of need. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Are we going to list all of the 2-letter/number combinations, 4-letter/numbers combinations, 5... etc? (Pardon my sarcasm). I would suggest just having a page filled with a list of common acronyms, but not a red link factory. Do we need such a list anyway? It's easy enough to find any abbreviation on Misplaced Pages, just by going to the relevant page (http://en.wikipedia.org/$ABBREV). Cheers, Yuser31415 01:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Apparently no notification of the this deletion discussion has been added to the pages that are being considered for deletion; only on the 'top' page of the stack. Why has this important step been omitted from the deletion process or was it done and the notices subsequently removed? (see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Unlike articles, Misplaced Pages project pages should be kept unless they either are detrimental to the encyclopedia or serve no encyclopedic purpose at all. As some of the commenters here have expressed that they have a use for this, it should be kept out of good faith. — Dark Shikari /_contribs 18:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (Radiant) 10:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sean Canavi

Not an editor's page: Only edits (3, all in May) are to this page. WP is not MySpace/a free webhost. Was tagged with PROD, but removed by User:Doug Bell with the flatly wrong rationale of made incorrect assertion regarding last edits to page (were on Oct. 31st, not in May)--needs to go through MfD. Doug Bell, it turns out, assumes that the contributions of 87.127.74.230 (talk · contribs) are probably User:Sean Canavi -- but since those contributions are equally nonsensical ("I love I love I love I LOVE STEVEN SEAGAL I love I love I love"), I don't see a dime's worth of difference here. Calton | Talk 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The IP's last edit was November 8, actually, and it wasn't nonsensical. -Amarkov _edits 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment could be a shared computer. Koweja 01:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Possible. But I'll go through pretty much any contrivance to keep a userpage, I'm pretty liberal with them. It isn't going to matter, of course. -Amarkov _edits 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:USER and per the WP:NOT page cited in the nomination. Nothing related to helping build an encyclopedia. The other-than-nonsensical edits were made by, let's see: someone using the "popups" tool to revert a whole bunch of anon edits, and two editors removing copyrighted images per policy. And if the 8-November anon edits weren't "nonsensical" they were almost self-vandalism, or (applying WP:AGF) a fan expressing him/herself and testing Misplaced Pages editing in the wrong place. Barno 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This user's talk page shows people inquiring about copyrighted images, with no answer; also Calton's 7-December prod tag's message, with no "justaminute" nor other answer. If the user logged on under this username in Nov/Dec, the "new messages" orange box with link would have been shown. The user is inactive under this name, and if active as anon or another account, the user has abandoned the nominated userpage and its talkpage. Barno 01:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. - WP:NOT and WP:BIO come to mind. User has made no contributions outside his userpage. Yuser31415 04:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• No opinion except that removing PROD was a reasonable thing to do as the PROD guideline for user pages states: Pages in the User and User talk namespaces may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits... The edits in October may or may not be Sean Canavi, but it's a reasonable step to avoid misuse of PROD to list it here. This is true no matter what level of rudeness is used to describe removing the PROD tag. —Doug Bell  06:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you believe describing someone missing the obvious is "rude", it's certainly no ruder than your pejorative misapplication of the term "misuse" in defending your narrowly bureaucratic reading of the guideline. --Calton | Talk 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As not a web host. If the anon was really Sean Canavi, they are still not a contributer to mainspace. --Dgies 06:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - is useful how? Should be at MFD though, too many potential recent contribs for a prod. Better safe than sorry. Moreschi 08:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2006-12-13

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. (Radiant) 08:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground

Finishing nom for User:Jrockley as requested here . Procedural nomination, I offer no opinion in this nomination, but reserve the right to offer one later BigDT 19:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• See also first mfd --BigDT 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments at the prior MfD discussion. Doesn't purport to be a policy or guideline, acceptable as an essay. I see no apparent inconsistency with policies such as WP:LIVING, but any such should be resolved by editing or in consultation with the creator rather than deletion. Newyorkbrad 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weakish keep - per Newyorkbrad - doesn't seem that bad...Moreschi
• Keep (as creator). Read it, please. Read the example and see if you can think of any parallels in deletion debates. The purpose of this essay is actually the opposite of what you might think; it's to encourage people to establish in the article why we should care about their pet subject, as well as a way of guiding people who argue about subjects they can't be bothered to write up in sufficient detail to attract keep advocates. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - from the first MFD: "This is a way of explaining why, when absolutely no evidence whatsoever is provided of the notability of a given subject, some people at AfD will vote to delete it, because in the end it's not really right to slap an article in and then expect somebody else to prove that it should be there by finding the evidence of notability. Article creators should, at the very least, provide basic evidence of meeting WP:BIO". JzG said that. I agree with it. The fact that there are policies and guidelines relating to WP:BIO has nothing to do with the point of this article. Too many people seem to say "Well, he's not notable but we can find something later", vote to Keep and Cleanup, and the ignore it forever. The essay is a point in trying to show why that doesn't work. --Elaragirl 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Makes the valid point that people too often refuse to delete things on the grounds they might be cleaned up to show notability/verifiability eventually, despite that not having happened. -Amarkov _edits 04:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per NYBrad and inasmuch as, the considerable merits of this particular page notwithstanding, we generally don't&madsh;or at least ought not—to delete essays that seek to advance encyclopedic purposes or discussions about such advancement. I suppose I can conceive of why one would think the essay to be inconsistent with LIVING, but I can't imagine that any such argument should be persuasive. Joe 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good advice. --Improv 08:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Terence Ong 09:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep May need a copy editor or a renaming, but raises good points in a civil way. --Dgies 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A good, non-sarcastic essay with a valid point. Koweja 01:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Illustrates Misplaced Pages guidelines and general opinion on bio content/notability masterfully. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And additional note: Yeah, it may need an another title. Look at me, I'm not a native English speaker, and here I am, wondering, in general, why the heck some weird foreign people, counterintuitively enough, compare random passers-by to geographical features... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly under another title. Marked as essay (not policy), begins by pointing reader at the most relevant policy pages. Makes a bunch of useful points that come up at least several times a day on AfD. I fear a newcomer may follow an editor's link from an AfD discussion to this page, read only the title, and get offended. Otherwise it's not sarcastic or excessively ironic, it doesn't advocate anything counter to policy, and it gives a very helpful example to illustrate. If people told us what is most memorable/significant/etc about a person when they start a bio article, a lot of worthy article stubs would get tagged for sourcing and saved, and hopefully most would get improved soon. And in other cases we could more easily determine "that's all he's done?, okay, not notable enough for a bio, but merge a line or two into such-and-such topic." Article seems to meet policy and consensus; editor who requested this listing has made a lot of useful contributions (and never been blocked), but appears to be trying to get rid of essays that are "uncivil" such as Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No one cares. Other than maybe the title, this policy-supporting essay doesn't fall into that category. Barno 20:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This explains the notability guidelines for new users well enough, it's an 'alternative' version of WP:NOTE.

It's an essay, but a very valid one. I am considering writing my own version on the same subject... --SunStar Net 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete per WP:SNOW. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Pitchka/Freemasonry Page

This is a similar page to User:Dwain/Freemasonry Page also up for deletion below. It is in violation of Misplaced Pages:User page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page? (Polemical statements, Other non-encyclopedic material) and Jimbo Wales' statement. It seems to be bordering on an attack on freemasons. James086 13:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - are User:Dwain and User:Pitchka the same person? I've just noticed their userpages are identical, in addition to the near identical (at least as far as percived intent goes) pages on Freemasonry in their userspace. WegianWarrior 13:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, they are.--Vidkun 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - as per above. Much of the information included there would be acceptable in wikipedia, and is in many cases verifiable. But creating a page for the specific purpose of insulting a group of editors is a clear violation of wikipedia guidelines. Badbilltucker 14:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This page would be acceptable were it a research scratchpad (and it still could be), but this section could easily be construed as a personal attack. I would consider changing my vote if Pitchka removed that section and commented prior to the end of discussion. A Train 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MSJapan 15:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. User is free to rent some webspace for this material.ALR 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, on the assumption that Mason-bashing constitutes personal attacks. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly a campaign against freemasonry. Compaigns against people, organizations or believes are forbidden by the policy the nominator cited. - Mgm| 08:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NPA, sorry we don't want attacks here on Misplaced Pages. You are violating Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. The Dwain and Pitchka person (same person), sounds fishy. If no checkuser case is filed yet, I suggest filing one will solve the matter. Terence Ong 09:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe they have flat out admitted it's two accounts, one is the primary one, the other had a name that was misconstrued as being a offensive word in a language other than english, so, it's not really a disruptive sock, except for the person attacvk and uncivility issues.--Vidkun 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Vidkun 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete hardly see how this pertains to what is allowed for a user subpage and agree that it does constitute personal attacks.¤~Persian Poet Gal 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an attack page. Koweja 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As an attack page on a current organization, and also as an abuse of user space. Has anyone considered warning the user politely that attacks on organizations (especially without sourcing or if I understand correctly outside the context of a balanced NPOV article) are forbidden? Wintermut3 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - what are we doing here? Attack pages are explicitly forbidden by some of the core Misplaced Pages policies, so I have nominated the page for speedy deletion. Yuser31415 01:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (Radiant) 08:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jenhanc

Not an active editor's page: Only edits (6) were on April 4th, to this page to uploading the photo on the page, and adding self to Gervacio Santos. WP is not MySpace/a free webhost. Was tagged with PROD, but tag removed without comment by User:Luna Santin, so I guess we have to do this the hard way. Calton | Talk 13:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Calton. No contributions outside of this non-notable userfied article. We're not MySpace. A Train 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Leaning delete. To be fair, I did delete all but I think two of the userpages you tagged. ;) Since I have no experience as to community consensus regarding this sort of deletion, I figured sending the few pages of editors who actually had an edit or two to MfD for a reality check couldn't hurt. If consensus tells me I should have deleted under prod, for editors with such scant and long-past contribs, I'll do so in the future. Luna Santin 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is what you missed. MER-C 06:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• To be fair, the whole PROD tagging of user pages is a recent development, so I can understand the caution. --Calton | Talk 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the User claims to be the creator and the subject of the photo. I think one of these is inaccurate. If she is the subject, then she can't be the creator, if she's the creator and not the subject, the User name should be blocked for claiming to be a celebrity, as nn as she may be. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ever heard of setting timers on cameras? — Rickyrab | Talk 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Must have been inconvenient doing that in the middle of a performance. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is becoming a tangent, but she could be the copyright holder. --Quarl 2006-12-14 05:38Z
• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost. Dar-Ape 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete! Yuser31415 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (Radiant) 08:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mimi luvs babies

Not an editor's page: Only 6 edits (all in August) and only 2 minor edits to Mainspace. WP is not MySpace/a free webhost. Was tagged with PROD, but tag removed without comment by User:Luna Santin, so I guess we have to do this the hard way. Calton | Talk 13:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. An interview? This user should get a blog, not a userpage. James086 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Calton. A Train 15:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Leaning delete. To be fair, I did delete all but I think two of the userpages you tagged. ;) Since I have no experience as to community consensus regarding this sort of deletion, I figured sending the few pages of editors who actually had an edit or two to MfD for a reality check couldn't hurt. If consensus tells me I should have deleted under prod, for editors with such scant and long-past contribs, I'll do so in the future. Luna Santin 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This poor little page has been db'ed, userfied, prod'ed, blanked and now it's here. Put it out of its misery. Mr Stephen 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt the earth. I get the feeling that there may be a recreation attempt.--WaltCip 20:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ... ummm, wouldn't this username fail under the WP:UN policy anyway? Yuser31415 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (Radiant) 08:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Dwain/Freemasonry Page

Violates the guideline for what is acceptable in userspace. Ref What can I not have on my user page?, in particular the statement from Jimbo Wales. Contained, until yesterday, a list of Wikipedians who identifies as Freemasons, which makes me think this is an "attack-page". WegianWarrior 10:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. User is clearly trying to make a point that says Freemasonry is evil and/or occult. Per Jimbo: "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". This page is clearly campaigning against freemasonry - with or without the user list. - Mgm| 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete It seems like a gathering of information against a group of people, going as far as listing those who are identifying as freemasons (very suspicious). It is worrying that the users should be listed, especially with such negative comments about them further up the page. The list was added by User:Pitchka who has a similar page User:Pitchka/Freemasonry Page. Will nominate aswell. James086 13:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please see also Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pitchka/Freemasonry Page. James086 13:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Pitchka and Dwain are the same person, two accounts.--Vidkun 22:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Based on reference and WP:NOT, user is free to rent some private webspace.ALR 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - As per the above. This is not the way to include potentially negative information about a group with which one has disagreements. Badbilltucker 14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Contribs will show that I attempted to open a discussion with said user about this page, and the end result was that my comments were removed from his talk page with no dialogue being opened. MSJapan 15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your story keeps getting better each time you tell it! Too bad it's not true. See here: User_talk:MSJapan#Your_userpage Dwain

• Delete--Vidkun 22:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete attack page, quite possibly designed to coordinate harassment. Koweja 01:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments to the above MfD, and also consider warning user for personal attacks. Attacking Freemasonry is one thing, while unallowed it's a global organization, a page that 'calls out' individual wikizens is way out of line and could be for no other reason than to cause/elicit/aid in harassment. Wintermut3 06:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question Lightbringer? Anomo 12:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so.ALR 12:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I note that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Scientology (whether they want to or not) contains individuals who are both decidely in favor of Scientology and decidedly opposed to it. I have to assume Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Freemasonry would have to do the same thing if someone joined for the explicit purpose of presenting the negative side of the story. For all I know, the various other projects dealing with religion and other controversial topics would have to do the same thing, and may have already done so. Maybe joining that group in an attempt to create a more neutral perspective might be the way to go here. Of course, it would have to be done in a spirit of fairness and neutrality, but that is what wikipedia is about anyway. Badbilltucker 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There already are members of the project who wish, and achieve at times, to represent the craft in as negative a light as the guidelines allow.ALR 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already merged. It goes without saying that it's more practical to discuss a proposal in one central spot, rather than in multiple separate talk pages. (Radiant) 14:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules

This page is a content fork of Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline, bordering on WP:POINT, related to an ongoing issue about what kinds of responses are appropriate at the WP:RD pages. Rick Block (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rick, can you please point us to the policy that says content forks are prohibited ? StuRat 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, it's WP:POVFORK. But of course, it addresses articles, and specifically exempts the page under discussion here, in the last couple of paragraphs. -THB 11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That guideline does indeed say "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject" (my emphasis), so it is written exclusively for articles. And, even if this were a violation, as a guideline, it says "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This is one such case, as this isn't a permanent fork, but only a temporary page used to develop a proposed Ref Desk guideline. StuRat 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing Admin: If the decision is to delete this page, please notify me and give me a chance to copy the latest version into my personal namespace. StuRat 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• You need to supply a valid reason to keep a copy of deleted content in user space. Also, it can alway be recovered after being deleted if there is a valid reason (nothing ever really gets deleted.) —Doug Bell  18:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think I need a "valid reason" to keep a copy in my own namespace any more than you need a "valid reason" for the content on your talk page. Also, several people have suggested that I move it there, in any case. StuRat 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is the original of two proposals for Ref Desk rules/guidelines. Specifically, the content of the old Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline was moved to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules, once editors started to change the contents there, without first seeking consensus. Once completed, a consensus will be sought to use one, the other, or possibly merge the two sets of rules/guidelines. This is anticipated in about 1 week. StuRat 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I don't see why we can't reach consensus on one instead of having two separate pages. This isn't really a WP:POINT violation but just kind of a bad idea --froth 01:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• But, even if you only want one, do you really want it to be the non-consensus one at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline we keep, and not the consensus one at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules ? StuRat 02:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Violates no policy or guideline, is being actively used in a consensus-building process. -THB 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to know under what guidelines/rules/policy it is being proposed for deletion other than the proposer doesn't like it. It's not in the main namespace. It "borders" on this, it's a fork that. It's not an article. -THB 03:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Per my comment, though it's not breaking any policies, why not keep the consensus-building process centralized? --froth 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Content forking: POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article ... This is generally considered unacceptable. The applies to content in all namespaces not just articles and, as far as I can tell, is exactly the case here. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You filed this RFD saying it was a content fork. Now you are changing to say it's a POV fork. Which is it, in you opinion ? StuRat 13:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it was not created instead of resolving a disagreement about content? It doesn't matter what it's called - creating copies instead of resolving disagreements is unacceptable. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you refusing to answer the question ? You filed this RFD saying it was a content fork. Now you are changing to say it's a POV fork. Which is it, in you opinion ? I can't possibly defend it if I don't know what you're charging is wrong with it. StuRat 13:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If StuRat wants to keep a private copy of a proposed guideline and set his own rules as to who can edit it, that's not particularly problematic—if it's in his user space. If he doesn't want to userfy, then delete; this is just a private fork. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone can edit it, provided they first have consensus to do so. StuRat 02:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge: Definitely we don't need two of these. The obvious problem is how to merge, but I don't think we will decide this here. Ned Wilbury 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Request. Could anybody summarise what is actually going on with all these little RD satellite pages and this particular deletion proposal? Basically I go on the Maths and Science RDs and post answers to questions I feel I can help with. That's about the extent of it. I have no idea what is going on with all these extra pages on the side and the whole affair is inordinately confusing. Can anyone help? Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good summary for today: . -THB 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's complicated. The link THB provides above is a good summary of Hipocrite's position. There is a generally poisonous atmosphere at the reference desk surrounding this issue. As far as I can tell, StuRat says it's admins versus reference desk people although others dispute this. Ned Wilbury 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Per my note to Pschemp below. Anchoress 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sure. First, there seemed to be a problem of different editors applying different Misplaced Pages rules to the Ref Desk. One person would answer a question with their opinion, then somebody else would delete it and say opinion isn't allowed. One person would make a joke, then somebody would delete it and say jokes aren't allowed. One person would answer from their own personal experience, then somebody would delete it and say "no original research". So, we decided, by consensus, on the Ref Desk Talk Page to create some clarifications of which general Misplaced Pages rules do, and do not, apply to the Ref Desk. So far, so good. We started by building a list of possible items "under dispute", then went through them one at a time and voted on them, deciding on whichever way the supermajority voted. After we accrued a certain critical mass of rules clarifications, we put them on Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline and moved the conversation over to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/guideline. Here's where the problem came in. We had a group of people (a minority), who did not accept this process, and decided to just edit the rules clarifications there however they saw fit, without even attempting to gather a consensus first. So, to avoid an endless edit war between the majority and this rogue minority, we moved the old consensus version to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules and the associated talk page Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/rules. The idea is to finish developing the rules interpretations there, then work to combine the two sets of rules clarifications into one. This process, of course, will be disrupted by deleting the page at this point. And, I suppose I should add that those against the supermajority are almost all Admins. They are the ones who deleted the votes, then deleted the content, and now are trying to delete the page itself (User:Rick Block is an Admin). I try not to put this into a "we" versus "them" context, but these facts make this difficult. StuRat 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, just because they are all administrators, doesn't mean there's a cabal. See: WP:TINC. -THB 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

True, you have to look at the evidence. And, to be reasonable, some Admins have been fair, like User:Zoe, User:HappyCamper and User:Durova. Unfortunately, none of them stay in the discussion long enough to moderate the behavior of the rest. StuRat 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, we cannot assume that because someone is an admin, they're good or evil. I'm sure they're a mixed bunch, like anyone else. We CAN hopefully assume that all admins are very familiar with Misplaced Pages policy, though. Ned Wilbury 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ned, that's not always the case. That's been a major criticism of some administrators, even some of those who have been involved at the Ref. Desk lately. -THB 03:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Don't see why not. DirkvdM 07:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Haven't involved myself in the detail of this, but I don't think an Afd is the way to resolve this dispute. --Dweller 09:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. No reason for deletion. Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline has been hijacked by Hipocrite for his own individual (and not very good) version of RD rules. Need Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules to preserve consenus version while work in progress. Gandalf61 09:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment I'ts been a while since I answered questions at the reference desk, but I'm sad to see the opposition to opinions and humor. Reference desk should be much chattier than the articles, because it's a conversation, not an article. We don't need to have NPOV and NOR when we're only speaking for ourselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if one of those isn't used it can be tagged as historical. Especially if this is the original as the first commenter stated. Besides, there's no policy violation on forking content of this type to work on it while keeping the actual used table stable. - Mgm| 13:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Move into User Space. Haven't involved myself in the detail of this, but I don't think creating a separate fork is the way to resolve this dispute. Put it in his user space if he feels so strongly about it and let him persuade others to incorporate any changes into the real page. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - please don't wikilawyer over whether this is or is not a fork. If it looks like a fork, waddles like a fork, and quacks like a fork, it is a fork. A further two points: (1) StuRat, it is perfectly possible to have forks of Misplaced Pages namespace pages, and they are still bad, even if they are outside article namespace; (2) THB, WP:MfD is where pages like this (outside the main name space and not covered by other XfD processes) are discussed. If you want two separate pages, please make the relationship between them clear. At the moment all this is just confusing and driving away those who want to contribute to the reference desk, and no, that is not supporting one side or the other, it is just an appeal for both sides to start working together. Carcharoth 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - because Ref Desk is not an article and it is not the talk page of an article so it needs a different set of rules. It has been proposed that there be no humor, no opinion, and no citing of sources other than Misplaced Pages and blocking of editors who do not follow these edicts along with deletion of their responses. Having a set of consensus guidelines or rules which let the Reference Desk functions as the Reference Desk functions best will make life easier for harassed contributors and a more interesting and helpful place for readers. Edison 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Userfy per Calton. Having two discussions doesn't solve anything and to me having a Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules page is counterproductive as we ignore all rules.--Isotope23 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The way to fix a difference of opinion is not to start a competing proposal at a different location. We only need one page, and the other one has a better title as Isotope notes. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/merge/userfy - nothing, NOTHING worthwhile is ever defended by a whack of vote stacking, because it doesn't have to be. Moreschi 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as POV fork of /guidelines. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - POV fork of guidelines. Merge at the very least. Insane vote stacking by stu and the ref desk regulars is highly inappropriate. pschemp | talk 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't lump all the 'ref desk regulars' together. Anchoress 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never considered you remotely in the same category as some others dear. No reason to take offense. pschemp | talk 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge/Userfy', per Calton above and Steve Summit below. TheronJ 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete if StuRat claims that his page is actually the rules for Misplaced Pages, or Rename to something less contentious if he does not. StuRat, if I understand you correctly, you (1) dispute that the recent edits to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline (2) created Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules as a "sandbox" to develop a competing proposal; and (3) intend to gather consensus to merge content from your sandbox back into the main "guideline" page. It seems to me that if you just move your content to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/sandbox1 or something similar, you will manage to achieve everyone's goals. Is that compromise ok with you? TheronJ 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Update: Based on Stu's comment below, I may have misunderstood him. If he's not planning on taking the contents of "Rules" back to "Guidelines" and working out a consensus, then delete - all parties should be encouraged to reach consensus on a single page, and any Antipope pages are just impediments to consensus. TheronJ 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that's better than outright deleting it, but I'd ask the same for Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline, that it be renamed to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/sandbox2. After all, it is the newer set of rules, and has fewer advocates, so does not deserve to have a superior status. StuRat 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, I would be more inclined to delete your page. You and the other reference editors should reach consensus on a single page. If you don't like the changes the other editors have made to "guidelines," then take it up on the talk page, and revert them if you must, subject to edit warring limitations. The fact that the "text" is older doesn't mean that your page is the "true" rules for the ref desk. If you want to preserve the text or work on the page somewhere, fine, but if you're really claiming that your page is some kind of antipope equivalent to the guideline page, then I say delete it so you can all get together on one page and work it out. TheronJ 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indifferent Deleting the page will not solve the problem. Solving the problem will delete the page in due course. Consensus does not work by voting and ramroding old decisions as already decided. Until both sides are willing to treat the other side as human as opposed to "iron-fisted diciplinarian" and "chatter," it's apparent that there will be a great deal of heat, but very little light. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete We cannot have 2 sets of rules, if you disagree with the rules argue on the talk page of the existing guidelines, but this is a POV fork. Mabye I don't understand the situation. HighInBC 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is possibly some confusion here caused by the names of the pages. The text on Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules was originally on Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline before Hipocrite replaced it with his own text. Both pages are works in progress, but the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules text originated before the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline text.

• Strong keep -- This page isn't a "POV fork", it's merely an alternative proposal to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline (which, despite its name, is also a proposal). Having alternative proposals often assists in the resolution of disputes over the content of the proposal to be enacted. John254 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If you don't like the guidlines, work to change them through consensus rather than hissy fits and vote stacking. Proto::► 20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment -- Accusing the editor referenced with the vague pronoun "you" of both "hissy fits" and "vote stacking", without evidence, is completely unjustified. I again note that Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline is, despite its name, a proposal, not a guideline. John254 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is possibly some confusion here caused by the names of the pages. The text on Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules was originally on Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline before Hipocrite replaced it with his own text. Both pages are works in progress, but the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules text originated before the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline text.

• Please note that I engaged in WP:BRD on the guidelines page. My initial edit was a replace, but when this was reverted, I did not re-replace, instead added my non-voting guideline suggestions (which have since been substantially edited by parties on all sides) on the same page as what I'll call the "voting" guidelines. Stu split his voting guidelines from my non-voting guidelines while both were on the guidelines page. Stu's input on the guidelines page is still welcome - his voting, however, is not, per WP:DDV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• CommentSome voters seemed to be under the misapprehension that the text on Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline somhow pre-dates or has more validity than the text on Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules. In the interest of fairness, I just wanted to correct that impression. Oh - and I forgot to sign my comments above. Gandalf61 21:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Um, Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline distinctly predates Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules. The text evolves over time. If anyone doesn't like changes that have been made the appropriate response is to discuss the changes on the talk page, not create a new copy (of an old version). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• As you well know, the /guideline page predates /rules, but not the content. As for the text "evolving over time", the text which was there was just completely deleted, without consensus . This is hardly "evolving". Rather than engage in an edit war over this, I thought it better to move the text which had actually evolved over time to another page. StuRat 13:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Even after the very nice summary by StuRat above, I'm still having a hard enough time getting my head wrapped around the issues, and following all the threads of the discussion, that having two separate policy-related pages will only badly compound the difficulty. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This page was created shortly after a flurry of changes and reverts at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline (roughly starting here) for the expressed intent (here) "to stop an edit war". I believe the actual situation is that the fork was created due to an ownership issue, see Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles, and a resultant unwillingness to address issues on the page's talk page. I've nominated this page for deletion in an attempt to encourage the users involved to resolve this dispute on the talk page. If I were not directly involved in this, I would seriously consider protecting both pages until such time as the users involved were willing to talk. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• But why didn't you nominate the other page (Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline) for deletion, as that one contains the newer content, and the content with fewer advocates ? StuRat 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. The discussion was occurring at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline, which you set up for the purpose of this discussion. This page is a newer page, created in response to an editing conflict. That's not how things work here. If you don't like the edits to a page, you don't make a new copy - you discuss the changes, on the talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we had discussed it, but the minority group then just deleted the content, without agreement from the majority group. This caused a revert war. Rather than continue with the revert war, I thought it better to keep the pages separate for a while. Do you think continuing the revert war would have been preferable ? StuRat 04:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Stu, I think that point's been adequately made now, and people basically understand it. The thing is, the answer you're going to get to your last question is that, no, a revert war would not have been preferable, but a POV fork (which is what people are going to keep assuming the creation of Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules was) was not preferable, either. Everyone's going to say that you should have worked calmly with Radiant! and Hipocrite to build consensus.

Now, of course, Radiant! and Hipocrite were apparently not being terribly easy to work with, and it could even be said that they suckered you into making these mistakes that you're being held accountable for, that are making you seem like the perpetrator of a bad situation. And unfair as that is, it's a situation you can't win; I've seen far, far too many people on WP get badly hurt when they got embroiled in one of these horribly tangled, everybody's-made-mistakes, nobody-wins situations. So even though Radiant! and Hipocrite did some slimy things which you shouldn't have to bear the consequences of, the thing to do now is take a deep breath, go back to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline, and keep trying to hammer out a consensus. It's frustrating and not always easy, I know, but Misplaced Pages is like that sometimes. (And the results, when the "process" works, are worth it.) —Steve Summit (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussing the reverting would have been preferable. A revert war is unacceptable. Forking is unacceptable. This leaves discussing. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We had tried that, and the result of that discussion was that the minority group deleted everything the majority had done. So now what should the majority group have done next ? StuRat 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The reverting started at 12:05, December 12, 2006 (UTC). You created this fork at 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC). You should have continued the discussion. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I had tried to discuss things with the person who deleted the content, User:Radiant!, before, by leaving notes on his talk page. Instead of responding, he simply deleted the notes. This is where he deleted votes to establish a supermajority: , , , here's where he deleted requests on his talk page to stop doing that: , , and here's where he deleted the supermajority rules for deletion proposal, without discussion: . I saw no possibility of him discussing things civilly based on his recent behavior. StuRat 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat - those of us who were there know how Radiant and Hipocrite hijacked the page. And we can see how this MfD and the RfC are being used to provoke you. The consensus text and the discussion behind it can be kept elsewhere. When all is said and done, they can't MfD the Truth ! Gandalf61 09:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There have been several questions about what policy addresses this deletion request. Clearly, everyone has been dying to hear my thoughts on this issue, but was too shy to ask.

1. As far as I can tell, the official deletion policy only applies to pages in the "Main" namespace. (Update: Whoops, Carcharoth is obviously right below: "Wholly inappropriate" pages may be deleted through MFD). TheronJ 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
2. That doesn't mean that deletion of Misplaced Pages and talk pages is some kind of Hobbesian anarchy, however. (If it did, StuRat would lose, because the admins would be free simply to delete his page). I would say that we are being guided by WP:CONSENSUS and the Misplaced Pages policies generally, particularly the Five Pillars.
3. Guided by those principles, I think the page should be deleted, because drafting a competing set of principles for the same project instead of working together to edit the original set is contrary to consensus - you should all work together to agree on a single page, not develop two competing pages. If you do want a temporary space to develop an alternative for discussion, call it a sandbox, not the "real" guidelines to your project. If you have a problem with the way others have edited the original guidelines, use dispute resolution. TheronJ 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on all points, but wouldn't you say that the correct course of action is therefore merge, not delete? —Steve Summit (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• My understanding is that all of the text of "Rules" is already in the history of the "Guidelines" page, so no merge is necessary. Merging would be fine, though. TheronJ 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's no longer true, as Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules has continued to be developed in the past few days, and is now nearing completion. StuRat 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the official deletion policy is not silent on this. Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_be_needed has this: "Wholly inappropriate pages in the project (Misplaced Pages:), Help:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, and various talk namespaces, where discussion, renaming, merging, or simple editing cannot resolve the problem." - and says "List on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion (WP:MfD)." and "See WP:MfD for instructions and tags." A strict interpretation of this would suggest that this MfD is inappropriate as discussion and merging are obviously possibilities that should have been tried first. The other side would argue that forking is wholly inappropriate. But, hey, I'm a discuss and merge sort of guy anyway. Carcharoth 15:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep these guidelines are supported by the majority of editors and reflect the true spirit of Reference Desk.  Grue  16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Close, already userfied. See User:StuRat/rules. I assume this means he's gotten the hint about how forking isn't the right way to do things. Ned Wilbury 19:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• • If so, then good for Stu. Stu, is it ok if someone deletes the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/rules page? (Maybe it's better to move the rules page to your userspace to preserve the history) Thanks, TheronJ 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, that was just created as a backup, I'd prefer not to have to move everything and fix all the links that will be broken in the process. I was just worried that an Admin would delete it and delete the history, so I would have nothing left. I should ask, would the associated talk page also be deleted if this "not a vote" goes against me ? If so, I'd better make a backup of that page, too. Or will I be given notice and allowed to move the pages myself to preserve the history ? StuRat 20:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Notice is kind of up to the deleting admin. If it is deleted, you can usually get access by requesting a content review or a history only undeletion. (To make matters worse, I can't successfully figure out whether copying text from non-mainspace pages violates the GDFL, but I suspect it might). TheronJ 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Move to personal namespace. Far too contentious to be included as a WP "rule" even though compiled by the most RD regular. --hydnjo talk 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep until merged., Keep this page until all relevant points have been merged into Tens guidelines.--Light current 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge We do not need two separate pages treating this. Danbold 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Solution: At the risk of messing everything up, I am going to be WP:BOLD and move/merge to remove the fork and incorporate TenOfAllTrades draft, which is based on preceding work and has consensus as the best way to proceed. Give me a few minutes; I am working on it now. OK, here is the new page, Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Proposed policy for the reference desk. I subbed it off the talk pages as I seem to remember reading that that was an appropriate place to do something like this. Hopefully we can now continue to move forward and put something together for submission to the community as a whole. --Justanother 15:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2006-12-12

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. —Doug Bell  09:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee subpages

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Incidents, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Reverts, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Conduct

This is an omnibus MfD for some worrying subpages of the WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee. While there are arguments in favor of shortening über-long articles the proposed methods are rather un-wiki; tag-team reverting

Once this tag is in place, there will then exist or develop an urge or tendency for confident editors, for whatever reason, to feel compelled to remove these maintenance tags 1

and heavy-handed editing are encouraged

The first step, obviously, towards the successful reduction of a page, is for an ELAC member to place an ELAC tag at the top of the main page of a long article 2

This page is a place to report incidents, troubles, or concerns to the WP:Extra-Long Article Committee in relation to reverted or failed attempts at well-intentioned efforts to break up a long-article. 3

The wikiproject itself has attracted a couple of editors who are familiar with the way things are done here and doesn't seem to go off the rails right yet, that's why only these dubious pages are listed.

Dr Zak 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm also concerned about the attitude displayed by the project coordinator on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Conduct: "I plan to be very aggressive with users who revert tags, e.g. I will seek admin help, seek ELAC member help, user blocks, talk page aggressiveness, etc." Not the way you want to do things on Misplaced Pages. Gzkn 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Read this line from the Conduct subpage:
  • "When ELAC team members encounter significant resistance, they should retreat, put that page on hold, report back to the committee, let more discussion ensue, so to potentially gather up more forces."
• This "us versus them" mentality from the outset seriously undermines the credibility of the project from the get-go. In fact, these recommendations to hold articles to a fixed limit are diametrically opposed to the "comprehensive", "length suitable for the subject" and "broad in coverage" criteria all quality estimates use, as they recommend half-masticated articles as the idea. Strong delete. Titoxd 01:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Titoxd. Pretty much what I was going to say on the subject. The words "potentially gather up more forces" are not compatible with civility in any way. The conduct of the project coordinator is also rather alarming. --Coredesat 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete on these pages, for all of the alarming reasons listed, which can be seen on the tone throughout these pages, the template, and associated talk pages. The tone on these pages is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. Sandy (Talk) 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope the project is about editing articles, not slapping hundreds of tags on them expecting others to work. And why are their templates on the article page? Weren't talk pages created for this kind of meta-data (& notes-to-the-editors)? Templates on the article page should be addressed to readers (ie. warnings of POV and non-verified analysis), not to editors (too long, article needs to use summary style, etc.). ·maclean 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Placing tags on article talk pages was discussed on the committee talk page today, and the consensus was that tags belong on talk pages. The committee coordinator strongly disagreed. Sandy (Talk) 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. You can't put self-referential, threatening messages on pages, you can't revert war to keep them in, and you DEFINITELY can not have pages discussing how you are going to keep people from removing them. -Amarkov _edits 05:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete project consistently misinterprets Misplaced Pages style guidelines, is redundant and unproductive. TimVickers 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You realize the MfD isn't actually for the whole project, right? -Amarkov_edits 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these pages represent some of the worst aspects of the project, with their removal and some gentle guidance to how to interact more productively in Misplaced Pages, I think this project will become more useful. TimVickers 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as the perfect example of what not to do in a WikiProject. —Doug Bell  10:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have some sympathy with the aims of this WikiProject - one of the FAC criteria is to use Misplaced Pages:Summary style - but this is not the way to go about it. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The subpages should go. It isn't even a WikiProject but some ominous "committee." Can we delete the committee next? Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Modular Articles is already a project and much more sensible one focusing on summary style. pschemp | talk 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Titoxd. Gather forces, this is WP not a battle-ground. James086 13:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - as per the above. The tactics mentioned above are entirely unsuited to wikipedia. Badbilltucker 14:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Worrying behaviour. The article size limit should not be as strictly enforced as this Wikiproject believes. Indeed, there are 150k+ pages, but action is being taken. I agree with reasons given above for deletion. CloudNine 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The us versus them mentality of the project is combative, unhelpful, and disruptive. Hopefully the deletion of these subpages will send a much-needed wake-up call. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete of all subpages and anything else (templates, categories) related to this project. If I were to use one word to describe this project, it would be "combative." If I were to use two more, they would be "not helpful." -- Kicking222 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete to keep this project from going in the wrong direction. I'd hope they'd focus more on things like discussion of the issues, developer-level ideas, and maybe even proposals not yet considered. There's more than one way to address these issues, and finding that way is more helpful than forcing a specific way. -- Ned Scott 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete these pages are nothing more than a way of coordinating harassment. These pages make it seem like they are more interested in enforcing their made-up authority than actually accomplishing the goals of the project. Koweja 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2006-12-11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Doug Bell  09:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Racialism/Version A

Stale POV fork of racialism, not touched for more than a year. Kimchi.sg 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unneeded. Given its history, a prod would probably have done. Mr Stephen 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Although this subpage of the racialism article (actually, the talk page) is somewhat longer than the current revision, there is no useful NPOV article prose that is not already stated in the main article. Gracenotes § 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Of interest may be this section on an archive of the talk page: Talk:Racialism/archive 4#Three versions. I shall nominate Version B and Version C for deletion, when I don't have to go to Spanish class. (Which is where I must go now.) :P Gracenotes § 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Relist Shouldn't this be listed at WP:AfD instead? Although it is a subpage, it is in article space and is being nominated for deletion based on article criteria. I think the current nomination at MfD should be closed and the article relisted at AfD. —Doug Bell  10:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a perfectly appropriate MfD; no need to create another bureaucratic deer run over this. 160.39.214.116 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) <apologies, that was me not being logged in - A Train 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)>

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2006-12-10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy. —Doug Bell  09:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Times

We have a perfectly good "newspaper", the Signpost. This page, created by Nathannoblet, looks as though it might be violating WP:POINT as disruptive "payback" – see WP:RfAr#Ral315 (last version before archive) which Nathan brought up against Ral315 when he was told he could not write for the signpost. --Majorly 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy until it has real content. Definitely don't delete based only on the nom's rationale. There is no reason if one "newspaper" is OK why two shouldn't be also. --Doug Bell  00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per Doug; while I could assume WP:POINT, I could also assume good faith and say that it does no harm in userspace. The only problem is that having it in project space makes it seem as though it has some sort of official sanction. A couple of us are trying to work things through with Nathan; please let us! :) riana_dzasta 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per Riana. Sarah Ewart 08:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per above, failing which, delete. – Chacor 09:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is clearly a reaction to being rejected by Ral. I doubt there's anything the Times can cover that won't already be in the Signpost. - Mgm| 11:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, userfying this page would simply keep Nathan distracted from the encyclopædia, and keep him engaged in an area where he is in conflict. I see no benefit in keeping it. --cj | talk 12:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Create a free market where different newspapers can compete for our subscription - er, Userfy. More seriously, there are plenty of off-wiki 'news' sites, lots of newsletters, and the Signpost. Anything added to the on-wiki mix will stand or fall on its own merits. No need to delete, but don't put in the Misplaced Pages space until it is ready and has some support. Carcharoth 12:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • PS. regarding the comments about Nathan, that would be best addressed on his talk page, or in an RfC, rather than here, where the merits of the Misplaced Pages namespace page should be discussed. Carcharoth 12:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There is an ongoing discussion on his talkpage. It's a one-sided discussion, admittedly, but maybe he just hasn't logged in yet. riana_dzasta 12:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I've just read that discussion on his talkpage. All very good points. Carcharoth 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • In case the above wasn't clear, I'm trying to say that the idea of more than one 'newspaper' is not itself bad (to a certain extent). I for one would enjoy reading two newspapers. But the motivation behind this one is misguided. In other words, userfy but don't prejudice against recreation at some future date. Carcharoth 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree, thank you for stating your point so cogently, Carcharoth. riana_dzasta 12:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy, atlhough given the snotty and rude manner in which Ral dismissed his well-meaning request (), I don't blame him for being a little upset - although this is not perhaps the best route to resolve this. Proto::► 13:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - does it even have a purpose besides being the biggest collection of red links outside of mainspace? Anthonycfc (talk * email) 14:00, Monday December 11 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy - Personally, I don't currently see a real need for it, but it could potentially become something useful down the road, particularly if other people were to add to it. And, certainly, I have no real objection to seeing there be somewhere on the planet where there are still two competing newspapers. Badbilltucker 15:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per Riana. This does look like payback for what wound up as a peculiar - now aren't I diplomatic? - request for ArbCom. Also per Badbilltucker. Moreschi 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or userfy per Carcharoth. Too soon to tell if it will evolve into a legitimate competitor to the Signpost. Eluchil404 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. I have my doubts on whether this would become a competitor to the Signpost, and I would hope, albeit a bit anti-competitive, that anyone wishing to write such a newspaper would "merge" with us instead, in the wiki way. But let's userfy for now. (Anyone wishing to discuss Nathannoblet with me can do so via e-mail or my talk page). Ral315 (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy While it seems it may look like a WP:POINT, I will assume that Nathannoblet is still learning the policies of Misplaced Pages per . However, Nathan needs to know how take criticism well (as shown as per his rejected Arbritation requests against Ral315 and earlier Longhair). --Arnzy (talk * contribs) 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. No reason why editors shouldn't try their hand at an 'alternative' Signpost, but not in the projectspace, please. --Sam Blanning 19:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I actually have mixed feelings about this and I would normally keep or userfy it, but as this is clearly a WP:POINT and WP:FAITH violation I strongly demand its deletion. Besides that, Nathannoblet could certainly improve his behavior; it is unacceptable. Yuser31415 02:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, noting that we'll want to delete/userify if no content shows up. The existence of the signpost should not mean that nobody else can show up and do something similar. --Improv 08:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages deletion