Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:May contain nuts

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 debate was keep and userfy. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:May contain nuts

This page contributes nothing to the encyclopedia. The page was created in response to an ongoing edit war at Solar System. (I am involved in the edit war.) Note that Category:May contain nuts was twice created and speedy deleted. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, HarryAlffa, created this definition as a humorous/sarcastic/ironic piece. The origin of the piece is explained in the article itself, the only addition ASHill supplies is the twice deletion of it as a category - I tried to persuade that it was a legitimate category and failed. ASHill inspired me to recreate it as a humorous piece a week later when he directed me to Wikipedia:The Truth to make a point in the talk page. I thought the Wikipedia:The Truth humorous article was written (unknown to me) in the same vein as my own "May contain nuts", which is why I put it in the Humour category. ASHill apparently has been "spying" on all my contributions, because I have not linked to this new "May contain nuts" page from the Solar System talk page - if this conclusion can be drawn, how sad is he?

The nomination for deletion is mean-spirited, and made with a sense-of-humour-bypass as a shot in the edit war - as ASHill virtually admits above. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an inside joke. Perhaps an example of self-reference, it currently doesn't seem very informative to other people. This may motivate the deletion nomination. Hyacinth (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't written as an inside joke (I don't work in a supermarket!). It was written as the complete opposite of an inside joke (whatever that may be). I wrote it so that it could be universally applied to ANY article that was boringly written, or poorly laid out. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I nominated it for deletion; I do not think the page does effectively serves a constructive or informative purpose, even through humor. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well, you would say that! It doesn't look like you had a high and mighty purpose. My inspiration was annoyance, but the article itself COULD be applied to a boringly written or poorly laid out article. You simply cannot refute this assertion. Someone in a talk page could easily link to this, and make a valid point in a humorous way, saving a lot of everyone's time. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (ec)Neutral, but this looks a bit like canvassing to me. Can anyone (particularly User:HarryAlffa) explain how I was selected to receive that message?

--

boy00 @996, i.e. 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep and userfy. There is nothing outstandingly problematic about writing a page in reaction to an edit war. If it helps HarryAlffa to understand the situation better and to maybe distance himself from that edit war, it definitely serves a purpose. — But so far it's a diary entry rather than a Wikipedia essay and should be userfied accordingly. Also, nominating the page for deletion when you were involved, as ASHill was, in that edit war on Solar System, it's at least as inappropriate to nominate this page for deletion as writing it. Indeed more so, imho. user:Everyme 09:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair. It was in the interest of full disclosure because that I said at the outset that I've been involved with the creator of the page. However, I nominated the page for deletion because I don't believe that it is appropriate for Wikipedia space, irrespective of our edit conflict (to the extent I can make an independent judgement). I'll stay out of the rest of the discussion unless I'm asked something.
I don't believe it belongs in Wikipedia space, which makes it seem like a community essay rather than an individual diary entry. I do support this being deleted/moved from Wikipedia space and kept in User space, where it's already duplicated, at User:HarryAlffa. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 12:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Harry Alffa

Is userfy just keeping it on my user page, or is it putting it in some other user section? I've got this on my user page just to keep it "safe". But I always wanted it somewhere more "public".

Canvassing/I Chose You Because

I don't want to start a discussion about canvassing ... so I've just talked myself out of starting any sentence with, "Don't you think that ...".

I chose you because; I went to the Truth revision history, to the very start, then posted a question to those first (however many) who contributed, asking for judgement.

Jar Of Peanuts Thank you for that, that made me chuckle! :) That is indeed the only kind of kontext "May contain nuts" would in itself be, funny. I was not suggesting that it was funny per se. Saying that an article fits the description, makes a point, and the article (not the phrase) is the funny bit - or not, if you don't like.

Diary Entry

I'm quite surprised it's been described in this in it's entirety, it's only the Origin section at the end which could be described as a bit like a diary, but even then...

Lazulilasher described it as a quasi-diary, I not sure it fits, but it just sounds good, maybe I just like the word quasi. Yes, just looking at quasi make me smile. Where are my tablets?

Extension of Edit Warring on Solar System

No. There was a bit of an edit war at first. But now it's at the stage where I'm explaining in simple terms for the other active editors to understand what is wrong with the article. I'm presenting logical argument, still meeting some resistance, but no rebuttals.

Ok. If it is an edit war, now I've made it an extension of it. But I'd typed the paragraph above, I wasn't going to delete it!

Not New, but Improved - or at least More

I've added some "usage guidelines", and also re-jigged the beginning.


Thank you all

Even the ones who voted delete, but not ASHill, or Ckatz who put the boot in by wilfully mis-describing this as an extension to the "Edit War". -HarryAlffa (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you suffered from what is universally known as a "nut allergy", a warning, "May contain peas", is not going to be funny, helpful or healthy.
To most people it's funny on a jar of peanuts, because it contains nuts. That is for the record.
Peanuts are either a pea (botanical) or a nut (culinary), so on the jar of peanuts the warning, "May contain nuts", might or might not be true depending on your context. If you have a culinary context it's funny because it obviously does contain nuts. If you have a botanical context, it's funny because ... well, no it's just wrong, but it may contain other proper nuts! So if it contains peas, it's just not funny. That is for the record! -HarryAlffa (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2008 (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:May_contain_nuts&oldid=1138700830"