Content deleted Content added
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) →Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article: More reply tool shenanigans |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 15:
*'''Userfy'''. The essay, in its current state, does appear vague, unfocused, and more philosophical than practical, but I see no reason not to return it to the author’s namespace. Deleting it because of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1189167307#%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83_and_Bon_courage this] would feel to me like [[WP:GRAVEDANCING]]. – [[User:XMcan|XMcan]] ([[User talk:XMcan|talk]]) 13:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
*:Deleting a wiki-essay by an indeffed editor, which has no bearing on the development of an encyclopaedia, doesn't qualify as "gravedancing" in any discernable sense, IMO. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - this essay doesn't help anyone edit on wikipedia, doesn't (apparently) interest anyone on wikipedia, and isn't likely to be made relevant so long as its author is indef-blocked. Should this latter situation change, of course, they could ask for a [[WP:REFUND]]. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 17:22, 27 February 2024
Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article
- Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Confusing, not prime for project space, this is not a good application of WP:NOR or even reflected in policy or practice. I'd suggest userifying back to this (now-blocked) user's userspace or outright deletion. Awesome Aasim 19:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Confusing is putting it mildly. I'm not sure what the point of this was and, as the author is blocked, there is little chance of finding out. From the incoming links it doesn't look like anybody other than the author cared about it but I'd have no objection to it being draftified if anybody else thinks that they can do something valid with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. When checking the incoming links I found a redirect from User:Sennalen/sandbox/essay6 and that worried me. So I went looking for other redirects like that and it looks like we may have another page of a similar nature: User:Sennalen/sandbox/essay5 -> Wikipedia:Prefer truth. That seems like an attempt to undermine several of our fundamental policies and looks even more deletable than this one. Fortunately, that seems to be the only other one. Should we add Wikipedia:Prefer truth to this MfD or start a separate one? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe a separate one so that there's less chance of WP:TRAINWRECK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Thanks. I've started Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Prefer truth. DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe a separate one so that there's less chance of WP:TRAINWRECK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - this was part of a vanity project by a now-blocked user, attempting to reinterpret Wikipedia's core values in a manner that suited their preferred outcomes. It's not an essay reflecting how Wikipedia approaches article creation, but just an attempt to convince others to follow their preferred style. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy to User:Sennalen/Write the Infinite Article. Should have been in userspace. Is ok in userspace. Is unrelated to their being blocked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete with the user having the right, if unblocked, to request refund of this essay to project space. The author has been blocked by Arbitration Enforcement for tendentious editing. This essay defends the editor's outlook on controversial editing, and should only be kept or restored if the user is unblocked. The user is currently discussing making an unblock request, but has not yet made such a request. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom although allow restoration to user space if the user ever becomes unblocked (although... not trying to throw shade here... but it's clearly not ready for prime time as not particularly helpful in its current form). SnowFire (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy per SmokeyJoe. Doesn't look like it's something that "must be removed" Tehonk (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy. The essay, in its current state, does appear vague, unfocused, and more philosophical than practical, but I see no reason not to return it to the author’s namespace. Deleting it because of this would feel to me like WP:GRAVEDANCING. – XMcan (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Deleting a wiki-essay by an indeffed editor, which has no bearing on the development of an encyclopaedia, doesn't qualify as "gravedancing" in any discernable sense, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - this essay doesn't help anyone edit on wikipedia, doesn't (apparently) interest anyone on wikipedia, and isn't likely to be made relevant so long as its author is indef-blocked. Should this latter situation change, of course, they could ask for a WP:REFUND. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)