- 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 per G7 by Dloh cierekim Dloh cierekim 20:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Properly follow a proper policy
This is not a regular essay, nor is it a humorous essay. In reality, this is mbz1's crafty, creative retelling of her conflict with another user, Betsythedevine, at the AN/I board, at Improper image added ( thread snapshot). I am trying to comprehend just what goes on in a person's mind where they think that enshrining some wiki-conflict into project-space is acceptable behavior, but I am at a loss, quite honestly. This "essay" needs to be deleted, and a discussion begun at AN/I if this creation warrants further action. Tarc ( talk) 00:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep According to the definition of "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. " So, this essays expressed my and another editor's opinion. There are definitely no any real user mentioned in this essay. If somebody sees himself as a prototype for this essay so it be, but it not a reason to delete it.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 00:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to go out on a limb and say that the "essays are the opinion or advice of..." aspect of essay creation refers to opinions that actually have something to do with editing in the Wikipedia itself. Your interpretation would essentially turn project-space into a blog. Tarc ( talk) 00:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- DELETE per the noms reasoning. Serves no useful purpose except to inflame the situation mentioned. He iro 00:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Serves no useful purpose, other than to clearly indicate why so many other editors have difficulty working with Mbz1. Dayewalker ( talk) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as disruptive nonsense, lacking humor. Adding cliches like "any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental" make the point very clear, while "harpy" is just an attack as we all know the intended victim. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP:DR is thataway; this seems to verge on WP:POINT violation. -- John ( talk) 01:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Clearly not a bona fide essay. -- Klein zach 01:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, no real value to WP, and violates AGF. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 01:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This essay violates no policy, but because everybody believe it does, let's go ahead and speedy delete it. May I please ask the first admin who sees it to do it for me please?-- Mbz1 ( talk) 02:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I had hoped to write an amusing Dante-esque satire of ANI/AE etc with Mbz1, and that was the genesis of this essay. The intent was never to attack anyone, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Other than Mbz1 recently being topic-banned and the essay referring to topic-banning, at the time we worked on it I didn't think it closely related to her conflicts. My apologies to anyone who was offended.
Qrsdogg (
talk) 02:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Q's good humored intention is clear in his contribution and the bits added by Mbz1 are clearly different. I would also like to note Q's introduction of the word "harpy" to an early version; since that version was not pointed by Q at anybody, his use of the word was also not pointed at anybody. betsythedevine ( talk) 10:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. While WP:ESSAY explains that essays reflect the opinions of editors and don't have to be agreed-upon by a consensus, this isn't an essay: it's (very) thinly veiled whining about the user's more-than-justified topic ban and about other editors that the user has harassed. WP is not a blog. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete – This essay has absolutely no value here, and also, per nom. — mc10 ( t/ c) 03:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete-- per G7. See Mbz1's comment above. -- E♴ (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Just as said above by Roscelese, this one doesn't meet the criteria of an WP:ESSAY. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ( Contact) 09:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Userfy Not an attack page per se, hence properly under user page guidelines. There should be no issue of deletion when userfication is the process used in the past for such essays. And, amazingly enough, whining is allowed in userspace. Lastly, I would ask the closer to note that this is an absolute arguemnt against deletion. Collect ( talk) 11:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Adds nothing but WP:DRAMA to the project. JoeSperrazza ( talk) 13:47, 2 June 2011 (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 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 per G7 by Dloh cierekim Dloh cierekim 20:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Properly follow a proper policy
This is not a regular essay, nor is it a humorous essay. In reality, this is mbz1's crafty, creative retelling of her conflict with another user, Betsythedevine, at the AN/I board, at Improper image added ( thread snapshot). I am trying to comprehend just what goes on in a person's mind where they think that enshrining some wiki-conflict into project-space is acceptable behavior, but I am at a loss, quite honestly. This "essay" needs to be deleted, and a discussion begun at AN/I if this creation warrants further action. Tarc ( talk) 00:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep According to the definition of "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. " So, this essays expressed my and another editor's opinion. There are definitely no any real user mentioned in this essay. If somebody sees himself as a prototype for this essay so it be, but it not a reason to delete it.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 00:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to go out on a limb and say that the "essays are the opinion or advice of..." aspect of essay creation refers to opinions that actually have something to do with editing in the Wikipedia itself. Your interpretation would essentially turn project-space into a blog. Tarc ( talk) 00:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- DELETE per the noms reasoning. Serves no useful purpose except to inflame the situation mentioned. He iro 00:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Serves no useful purpose, other than to clearly indicate why so many other editors have difficulty working with Mbz1. Dayewalker ( talk) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as disruptive nonsense, lacking humor. Adding cliches like "any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental" make the point very clear, while "harpy" is just an attack as we all know the intended victim. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP:DR is thataway; this seems to verge on WP:POINT violation. -- John ( talk) 01:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Clearly not a bona fide essay. -- Klein zach 01:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, no real value to WP, and violates AGF. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 01:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This essay violates no policy, but because everybody believe it does, let's go ahead and speedy delete it. May I please ask the first admin who sees it to do it for me please?-- Mbz1 ( talk) 02:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I had hoped to write an amusing Dante-esque satire of ANI/AE etc with Mbz1, and that was the genesis of this essay. The intent was never to attack anyone, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Other than Mbz1 recently being topic-banned and the essay referring to topic-banning, at the time we worked on it I didn't think it closely related to her conflicts. My apologies to anyone who was offended.
Qrsdogg (
talk) 02:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Q's good humored intention is clear in his contribution and the bits added by Mbz1 are clearly different. I would also like to note Q's introduction of the word "harpy" to an early version; since that version was not pointed by Q at anybody, his use of the word was also not pointed at anybody. betsythedevine ( talk) 10:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. While WP:ESSAY explains that essays reflect the opinions of editors and don't have to be agreed-upon by a consensus, this isn't an essay: it's (very) thinly veiled whining about the user's more-than-justified topic ban and about other editors that the user has harassed. WP is not a blog. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete – This essay has absolutely no value here, and also, per nom. — mc10 ( t/ c) 03:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete-- per G7. See Mbz1's comment above. -- E♴ (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Just as said above by Roscelese, this one doesn't meet the criteria of an WP:ESSAY. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ( Contact) 09:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Userfy Not an attack page per se, hence properly under user page guidelines. There should be no issue of deletion when userfication is the process used in the past for such essays. And, amazingly enough, whining is allowed in userspace. Lastly, I would ask the closer to note that this is an absolute arguemnt against deletion. Collect ( talk) 11:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Adds nothing but WP:DRAMA to the project. JoeSperrazza ( talk) 13:47, 2 June 2011 (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.