Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND ARTICLE

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was userfy.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND ARTICLE

Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND ARTICLE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was originally written as a wikipedia guidance page.[1] It should probably be userfied as a personal essay. Mathsci (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy as proposer. Mathsci (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Adding delete as another possibility. Mathsci (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be taken to the essay article talk page. Mathsci and I have a use page dispute history. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic — ZuluPapa5 has withdrawn his claim of "dispute history"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This not an "article": it is a personal essay written in inflammatory language, completely inappropriate as guidance for other users. I cannot see any purpose in discussing the content in detail because of its inflammatory nature. (I am not aware of any previous dispute with ZuluPapa5 of any kind whatsoever. This seems to be something ZuluPapa5 has just invented.) Mathsci (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WMC and I for sure have Battleground issues, I am sorry for his arrival. Mathsci has been active in these too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On your user talk page I indicated that we have no common articles or interests on wikipedia. I said that possibly we have commented in a common thread on a public noticeboard (which is probably true of many users). Please do not insert comments like that [2] after I have replied to you (I reverted your addition). That is just disruptive. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Correction with apology to the offended, no harm intended. ("We may have commented in the same thread on a public noticeboard") Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop misrepresenting me. What precisely are you referring to? What you write seems like pure invention. Unsubstantiated statements when repeated like this constitute a personal attack. I advise you to stop now. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where specifically did I harm you, I must applogize. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have invented events that never happened. Your conduct is disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I patent my invention? (smile) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Invention has several meanings and you have chosen the wrong one. Mathsci (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it must not have been a novel or enabled idea. Which one do you like? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On his user talk page, ZuluPapa5 has indicated that his comments here were based on his belief that I had actively participated in
WP:ARBCC. I did not participate in that ArbCom case in any way at all. He has not corrected his statements here. Other editors can draw their own conclusions. Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
"I did not participate in that ArbCom case in any way at all" is a strange thing for Mathsci to say in view of the statement he contributed to that case still visible at
WP:ARBCC. Other editors can draw their own conclusions. Glenbow Goat (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC) — Glenbow Goat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. indef blocked as sockpuppet of A.K.Nole / Echigo mole[reply
]
  • delete or userify per proposer. No useful content William M. Connolley (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy This essay is exactly what
    WP:WES describes as a "User essay", and is clearly not a "Wikipedia information page". Currently, it is hard to find information in the essay, let alone information clarifying or dissenting from established procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete serves no purpose but to stir shit up. userfying it is just sweeping it under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ZuluPapa asked me to look at this essay, as I worked with him in the past on the
    WP:ACTIVIST essay. I understand that Mathsci appears not to agree with the essay. Nevertheless, Wikipedia uses editor essays, placed in project space, as forums to generate ideas and discussion for improving the project. The answer is not to try and squash or disappear ideas and opinions we disagree with, but instead to engage in collegial discussion and discourse. So, keep this essay, put it in project space once completed, and encourage Mathsci to engage in more productive, helpful collaboration with his fellow editors. Cla68 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment If I understand Cla68 correctly, this "essay"—which I still find unintelligible and irretrievable—is about one aspect of the battlefield approach to editing wikipedia condemned in
WP:ARBCC. I have added "delete" as another possibility. I would have hoped that both ZuluPapa5 and Cla68 would have moved on since the close of the Climate Change case, but that does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Having read it several times I still have no idea what it is supposed to be about. I've never seen the term "BATTLEGROUND ARTICLE" (sic) used before on Wikipedia. It might suffice as a personal opinion by the page's author but in no way does it qualify for the Wikipedia: namespace. As
WP:WES says, "essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, [while] information pages supplement or clarify communal consensus through impartiality." This page plainly falls into the former category, not the latter. Prioryman (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't understand this objection. Essays open to community editing generally are in the Wikipedia namespace, and there is no requirement that they reflect broad consensus (which is for example why we have both Wikipedia:There is no deadline and Wikipedia:There is a deadline). Could you explain what you mean here? (The one thing I would definitely say is that the title should use mixed upper and lower case; allcaps is usually for shortcuts.) Cheers, --JN466 00:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one editor who has made any significant edits to the page. Under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate to delete or userfy an essay?   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the user wants to retain ownership beyond a reasonable degree, it should be userfied. I don't see any major editorial disputes to date. However, in developing an essay, other editors should respect the basic intent and direction of an essay, and focus on making the writing more effective at communicating the essay's underlying point. I don't think this is a good essay right now, but it is too early to say whether it might not become one, given time. As far as I can see, this essay was created three days ago, and nominated for deletion just hours after creation. --JN466 01:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we're going to keep a not-good essay simply because the sole editor hasn't gotten into a dispute with anyone, perhaps simply because no one has bothered to try to alter it? Maybe it's time to establish better standards for keeping essays in project space.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply recommending that we give the original author – and others who might like to chip in – a little more time to see if this might become a useful essay. Nominating an essay for deletion less than four hours after creation seems overeager. I'm sure many essays (and articles!) started out poorly, and I don't see the need for such celerity. YMMV. --JN466 02:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be better to take the opposite approach: leave it in user space until it's good enough for project space.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in user space, other editors can't edit it, unless invited, and this essay could probably benefit from a collaborative approach. So I wouldn't nip it in the bud. --JN466 02:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit a page in user-space if the user agrees to it. I'm sure ZuluPapa5 won't object.   Will Beback  talk  03:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the reason why there are no editorial disputes is simply that nobody can understand what it's about. Personally I wouldn't know where to start editing it. Prioryman (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query: To me, "keep this essay, put it in project space once completed" sounds almost like "userfy". Can Cla68 clarify whether that is what he means? Cardamon (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy (first preference) or delete (second preference). Clearly a single-user personal essay, not a Wikipedia information page. If it isn't deleted outright, remove to user space for now. Prioryman (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is impossible to ascertain the point of this essay or the point its offer is trying to make. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per Cla68. Based on Mathsci's statements this may be a bad faith nomination. --Freddie1973 (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)— Freddie1973 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Userfy (1st choice) or delete (2nd choice). This page (it isn't really up to the level of an essay) is just coherent enough that linking to it could be vaguely insulting, or serve to insinuate that someone had misbehaved. However, it doesn't communicate actual information and, if it were made coherent enough to do so, it would likely be an attack page. I suggest that any attempts to fix it should take place in user space. Cardamon (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cla68. --JN466 17:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. The author is entitled to their opinion on this Wikipedia issue. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Even those who don't want it deleted think it's not a good essay yet. Let's avoid putting not-good essays in project space.   Will Beback  talk  02:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good faith creation as per the
    Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete or userify. Utterly incomprehensible and serves no useful purpose. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs work but covers an important topic that almost every editor encounters at some point. It promises to be a good article if given some TLC. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)— NewGuy5342 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Since Mathsci is intent on ignoring
    WP:SPA and be done with it: "The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." --NewGuy5342 (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
According to the guideline you quote, he correctly utilized the SPA tag. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, but I don't wish to fight over it. For the benefit of the reading impaired let me quote a couple of other tidbits from
WP:SPA
:
"Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. Not all unhelpful editors are SPAs, and it is important not to blindly tag all of them as such. Please consult the general test and the 'who not to tag' section below, in deciding whether the editor is actually an SPA. Please keep in mind that the tag may be taken as an insult or an accusation—use with consideration."
"A subject outside of SPA area: An editor can be an SPA within a given subject, but if they make edits on an unrelated page, the tag should not be used for these edits. The tag should only be used on the pages that relate to the single-purpose account's 'single purpose.'"
My concern is not so much with the fact that I have been tagged as it is with the apparent motive behind the tagging. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but it's a routine tag in a deletion discussion and not meant as an insult. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. This kind of material should never be in public Wikipedia space because a false impression is created that it represents an established view. --Kleinzach 03:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND_ARTICLE&oldid=1078596883"