User:Johnvr4/sandbox ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

User:Johnvr4/sandbox4 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This material relates to Japan and weapons of mass destruction and specifically to Japan and weapons of mass_destruction #U.S. weapons of mass destruction and Japan which includes Operation Red Hat. There were numerous misrepresentation of facts in all previous deletions of this material going back to 2013 and they continue today. Recently, after ongoing and heated conversations with these editors, my drafts were nominated for deletion. The drafts contain all diffs from the original deletion (first edit of User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat) to the most recent versions (last edits of User:Johnvr4/sandbox or User:Johnvr4/sandbox4) for comparison. Two of the involved editors blatantly and knowing misrepresented the facts when they stated the drafts were not being edited or improved. Further, they knowingly misrepresented the facts when they stated the material was stale, abandoned, Fake, not being condensed, had the exact same unresolved issues from the last time it was deleted, or was unsuitable on the main page. The simple fact is that the majority of that draft material at User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat- with dozens of newer sources added since the initial 2013 deletion had been condensed by creating new main space articles or by moving it to an appropriate existing article- all of which are of main space right now where the material has been there since it was moved -and each of these editors are very well aware of it and have been for some time. Examples of those pages are available: U.S. weapons of mass destruction and Japan, 1968 Kadena Air Base B-52 crash, U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan, United States military anti-plant research, MK ULTRA, etc. Only the remainder of material that had not yet been moved to the main page was here: User:Johnvr4/sandbox. In fact, the nominating editor has repeatedly stated his motivation for deleting material not only in my the drafts but on the main page is based upon his misunderstanding of the subject as he repeatedly refuses to acknowledge what the reliable sources present and relentlessly challenges any use that does not fit his faulty understanding. Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV I have documented that behavior as well as that editors own statements that describe such behavior several times.

He previously acknowledged the value of keeping this material so here I'll just quote him, "This article requires further cleanup, and focusing on the primary topic, as well as investigation of sources. There is also an enormous amount of useful material in the previous versions that deserves to be in a wide range of other CW, BW, and Vietnam War related articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)"

"...I remain baffled about how I could be 'cutting you out' after pleading with you immediately above to edit the mainspace article. Your options are twofold: remain editing only your userspace draft, which is not really what a userspace draft is for, or actually get involved in the mainspace. Please engage with me, here or elsewhere, to tell me about well sourced issues which ought to be in the mainspace article, and we can get them in there!! Not every connected issue that you write about in your userspace may end up in the mainspace, but I can certainly see there are issues you write about which ought to be mainspaced. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) [1]

"I've already said how I believe most of what you have left under Red Hat actually belongs under 112 (or possibly under Project Deseret), and I've laid out my reasons, none of which are invalidated by further things you've said, or by the Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation, as far as I've scanned it so far. But never mind -- I will cut straight to the chase. Would you prefer I start a WP:MFD (miscellany for deletion) discussion on your preferred, but disputed, version of the article in your sandbox, in line with WP:FAKEARTICLE, not in six months as I had intended to propose, but now? Then we'll get this cleared up sooner rather than later. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)" reply

"Possibly I should have explained myself more clearly. The implied additional clause in 'The user has not condensed the material" is 'to produce an article that meets the requirements of WP:ARTICLE' etc. To produce a coherent text on a single topic. I thought that was obvious. Yes, of course you were tinkering with the draft. I could see that. Let me copy out a couple of texts from what I wrote at Mark Arsten's talkpage:...Buckshot06 (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC) ..and from PMC at the review: "the draft had not been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace." Buckshot06 (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The absurdity of such assertions is now crystal clear.

This week he has deleted two highly reliable sources for that material perhaps because they also disprove and directly contradict assertion that two involved editors (and Others) have been making literally for years.

He has fiercely contested those moves and is still actively contesting it (for example here): Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV and here: [2]

Each of my latest attempts to improve the draft were deleted as is described in the links below. These editors who misrepresented the facts were well aware of those ongoing efforts to improve prior to misrepresenting them to other the editors- which ended in deletion. They are also aware of my allegations about their behavior: User_talk:Johnvr4#MfD_debate and User_talk:Johnvr4#Red_Hat_content

Diffs can be compared to verify progression of the drafts vs. the 2013 deletion and the non-accuracy of their assertions. A plethora of previous conversation is available to prove my version of the facts regarding policy-based improvements in text and sources is accurate and theirs is dubious.

I provided this information to the deleting editor here: User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos#Deletion_of_userspace_material but she would not hear it and made further misrepresentations that falsely stated among other assertions: that I didn't present any policy arguments with regard to Stale or Fake articles or time components, "and has never been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace." Despite the obvious inaccuracy, that editor refused but also counter-accused me of misrepresentation of some fact but would not specify how or why she felt that way.

I requested undeletion by providing that same info here: Requests_for_undeletion#User:Johnvr4.2Fsandbox_.26_User:Johnvr4.2FOperation_Red_Hat but was unsuccessful.

Enough about editor behavior. An Administrator can look at what has been deleted and the links I provided. I can also provide any further clarification wherever it is needed.

I ask that the drafts be restored so that I can finish making policy compliant improvements and in addressing valid concerns of other editors. Further, I ask that steps be taken and steps be taken to address the obviously bogus assertions put forth in the deletion nomination by two involved editors that should have known better.

All of the five justifications for restoration apply: 1.if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly; 2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed; 3.if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; 4.if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or 5.if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Please at least perform a temp restore to view the diffs and to discuss the numerous and super-obvious ongoing efforts to improve it. Johnvr4 ( talk) 20:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: the MfD discussion took place at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/OpRedHat. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Request reformatted for legibility and condensed under one header.  Sandstein  13:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and kudos to PMC for handling this whole process with grace. She made the right call based on the discussion, previous AfD, and policy. The MfD was closed correctly. There was not a consensus to retain the information, and there was one to delete it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the central argument for deletion here was not that the drafts were abandoned. It was that the drafts had not been improved to anything like mainspace standards and there was no prospect of this happening. Johnvr4 did make numerous edits to them, but those edits did not address the concerns which led to the deletion of the material in the first place. For example a major concern in the original AfD was the length and excessively large scope of the article, which was about 204KB at the time. None of the pages listed here was less than 211KB at the time of deletion. There is consensus that drafts which are unsuitable for mainspace should not be kept in userspace indefinitely, and while there is no fixed time limit I can't fault the participants for deciding that four years is too long. Hut 8.5 19:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note responding to Hut 8.5:

Can we recheck the size of the three pages? I feel that there is no way that those three pages- all three with three different subjects (two were condensed versions) were all the same size. I assert that they had to be three very different sizes. Yet size to my knowledge is not a Justification for deletion either- especially in a draft that was in the process of being broken up into several different articles.

The central Argument was that the drafts were stale. Quote: "At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat I have nominated your stale userpage for deletion. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)"

I'd like to add that the nominating editor and I have numerous content disputes (the scope of the draft is absolutely one of our content disputes) [3]. Policy: "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution".

Regarding the MfD, There is also no way that all or most issues that caused the draft to be deleted in the first place have not been corrected in my versions or were not in the process of being corrected this week. For example, one editor User:Moe_Epsilon at the [ AFD] fabricated a concern about my editing and claimed "I cooked something up." Then that editor made all types of other ridiculous assertions that are disproved by this source (plus the ones already mentioned) which I added only minutes before buckshot06 deleted the entire sandbox4 draft just this week! The Diffs that were deleted (which I cannot see because I am not an administrator) would prove that I did not write that passage- but there is no just way to see it now since all the diffs are gone. The diffs would prove that Buckshot06 himself put that nonsense that got the page deleted right back on the main space and abused all of the sources he cited. [4] Note also that buckshot06's POV version is missing most of the majority and minority viewpoints in every single one of the sources he has cited.

That was one reason that the original deletion was unfair in the original AFD and is why assertions that those problems were not ever fixed are utterly ludicrous. That alone justifies restoration. #4.if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;

Please stop making untrue assertions such as this one: "but those edits did not address the concerns which led to the deletion of the material in the first place." Do not base decisions on such false statements and assertions that are not remotely true. If an editor is going to make such assertions the please at least perform a temp restore and provide a specific example so I can disprove it right here and now. Leaving it Indefinately? [5]

Time: You cant fault the participants for thinking "Four years..."? Here is the fault: Editors should look at the dates on these pages to recalculate time and then please stop making the freaking misrepresentations about "the drafts had not been improved to anything like mainspace standards and there was no prospect of this happening". How can that be said with a straight face? These are main space pages are where the text from my draft was moved to: U.S. weapons of mass destruction and Japan, 1968 Kadena Air Base B-52 crash, U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan, United States military anti-plant research, MK ULTRA, etc.

Last consensus is not a vote. Johnvr4 ( talk) 04:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to respond to the entire wall of text above, I suggest you try condensing your response into a paragraph or two. Yes, the pages were different sizes, and I never said they were the same size: one was 211,018 bytes, one was 282,555 bytes, and one was 210,990 bytes. At the time of userfication the page was 203,864 bytes. Obviously the length/scope issue has not been remotely addressed. "Editors should look at the dates on these pages to recalculate time"? The content was userfied on 11 June 2013 and deleted on 25 August 2017. That's over four years. If you want to argue that the MfD nomination was factually incorrect then I suggest you look at the MfD nomination itself and not something the nominator once wrote on your talk page. This isn't the place to redo the MfD, or to rehash content disputes going back years. DRV is here to decide if there were any irregularities with the deletion, or to consider any new information/evidence which was not considered by the discussion to see if the issue should be reopened. Hut 8.5 06:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment, since I was pinged with your mention of my name. Let me make one thing clear John: I did not fabricate a concern with your editing behavior because your editing is concerning. I take a look at your contributions since 2012, which started with you editing the Operation Red Hat article, and not much has changed between now and then and you operate on the same level of a single purpose account. You have only edited a small handful of article topics and I can't look through your editing history and find an example of you making major changes to an article and then not having a major dispute on the talk page. Your contributions have either been deleted outright, reverted partially or debated upon heavily. That is concerning. I told you back in 2013 that was concerning because I took a single reference you supplied, which was used several times in your writing, and it wasn't factually accurate according to what the references said. That is a large reason why the article was deleted in the first AFD. You are more than welcome to start over, find references and provide content in the main space of the article on Operation Red Hat if it is missing by using reliable references. You don't need your old user space for it and honestly it isn't worth trying to "fix it." After five years, I trust you know how to do it better than you did at the start, so start over and let it go. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment I would endorse Moe Epsilon's statements. While I really do not think it's my place to comment one way or another at this DRV, the list of editors that have raised significant concerns about Johnvr4's editing includes Anotherclown and BrownHairedGirl, as well as myself. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: not commenting on the appropriateness of the deletion at this stage, but reading through the various pages that are linked to this case gives me pause for concern. John: please consider how the language you use to characterise other users' actions can impact upon them and how it influences neutral editors reading your concerns. For instance, PMC made an honest mistake in providing you with an incorrect link and instead of accepting that and moving on, you vilified her. Equally, the way in which you ascribe motivations to other editors also concerns me. WP:AGF is part of the five pillars. I understand that you are frustrated but the way in which you are characterising other editors and their actions here is a problem. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 13:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I thank you for your comments above. Not only were the drafts different sizes, they had entirely different content on different subjects. One third of the initial draft had been moved out my sandbox in the last few months per editor concerns (especially the nominating editors concern) and there was still material enough for two or three more articles. My rough estimate of the sizes: -User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat had 28,000 words (36,000 words include 250 references) while -User:Johnvr4/sandbox has 20,000 words (35,832 words include 177 references). Of that: 8500 words devoted to Red hat and 9333 words devoted to Red Hat & Okinawa herbicides (with 900 words already in the process of being cut long before the nomination.

I have no idea why Buckshot06 would even attempt to endorse Moe's sentiments given these conversations [6], [7] where he was made fully aware of both his (and Moe's) AfD judgement error. In addition, Buckshot06 simply resurrected an old version that (as of today) it looks like I wrote about half of-But I did not write it all [8] while Moe, says this, "I take a look at your contributions since 2012, which started with you editing the Operation Red Hat article, and not much has changed between now and then". It's just silly..

The time comment (also irrelevant to deletion policy) was about the age of my edits to move material out from my sand box and into main articles. Please look at those dates before making assertions that the draft material was not being condensed. Please let us look at the draft again if there are perceived sourcing issues or other concerns after it is restored. Buckshot06 and I have long argued about that content and the use of sources and each others motivations. We both want to improve the article but have very different versions of what those sources present which again is no reason to nominate for deletion the version I am still actively working on and that is entirely constant with majority/minority factors that come from those sources. Perhaps my comments about characterizations were misunderstood. There are Facts (either from sources or in XfD) and there are editors assertions about those facts- which are two separate things. One should look at our past disagreements in comparison to what reliable sources say. I am certain that no editor has time for it but if they did, they would know my frustration comes from Buckshot06's inability to acknowledge what the reliable sources that are cited say to determine relevance while he'll say I won't listen. This has borne out numerous times. I am frustrated but that not the excuse for requesting undeletion or in a perception of not assuming good faith. I am not good with formal processes. Any lack of respect is from long hours of senseless heated disagreement over content which according to WP policy is not a reason to delete it. I spent a lot of time on improving many articles and taking the valid concerns of other editors into consideration- especially with breaking up the draft into several articles because it was too big. That is clearly evidenced in my recent edits to those pages and comments to support each change when challenged despite each assertion to the contrary. Moe's four year old concern of "cooking stuff up in my spare time" that caused the page deleted was bogus as were those of several others. Moe accused me of inserting dubious text about night moves of chemicals that I had absolutely nothing to to with. The entire edit history that would prove this was deleted this week in MfD. If a TempRestore request were granted, the diffs would clear it up all for us. This comment may also help clarify the date and time calculation as well as the alleged intent to leave it my userspace in perpetuity. I proved that and this week provided a brand new source that addressed the four year old concern anyway. If Moe or any other editors want to take another look at the giant truckload of new sources published on the subject, newly added references or my use of them since its original deletion then I would welcome that. The new sources would disprove all concerns about relevance. If they don't then I'm am open to modifying it and I'm sure there are still many mistakes to find and fix before it is finished.

Back in Dec. 2016, Per the advice of the deleting editor at AfD I asked for help and advice in reviewing the redeveloped draft for old problems User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat at the MILHIST Project: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_137#Massive_2-part_Okinawa_draft. In response, to comments I received then, I had thereafter moved out about 1/3 of the content as well as the scope then split the remainder in User:Johnvr4/sandbox in half. Johnvr4 ( talk) 02:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

For the record BHG's concern was strictly about four year old stuff and Buckshot06 interpretation is of her statement well... Well, it's right here: [9]. PMG and I are Okay- I think. I don't think vilify was the correct word, It was entirely accidental on her part but I in fact did list and quote the guiding WP policy in previous deletion/undeletion discussions. I also spent a lot of time looking for DRV at DR which also frustrated me even more and the one link on my talk page (the one I kept clicking on and following...) wasn't fixed. If any one was offended by my comments, let us please understand there are long-standing content disputes over this material with the nominating editor that do not appear remotely resolved. I appreciate the concerns expressed above and I will try to govern the language in my assertions accordingly. Johnvr4 ( talk) 15:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• I feel able to endorse this deletion because WP:MfD does have a criterion for "they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD". However, a lot of the discussion above is inappropriate for this venue. If there are significant concerns that Johnvr4 is a single-purpose account, then there are places to talk about that ---- but they don't belong on DRV. We are here to review decisions about the deletion of content.— S Marshall T/ C 17:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Going off on a slight tangent ---- am I right in thinking we couldn't have applied that reasoning to a draft? The phrasing at WP:MfD strongly indicates that the criterion used only applies in other people's userspace. Reviewing this MfD has shown me that we need much better and tighter rules about deleting drafts.— S Marshall T/ C 17:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you S Marshall. That observation is not a tangent at all. For what it is worth, I provided and stated the relevant WP:STALEDRAFT policy here User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos#Deletion_of_userspace_material as the first step of Review and I also told Buckshot06 the same thing over nine months ago. "In a RfC held in March 2016, the community held the view that drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone. In another RfC held in April 2016, the community made the following decisions...

Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? "There is consensus that userspace drafts should have no expiration date. They can be deleted, but it should be done on grounds different than solely the age of the draft or the period the draft has not been edited."

(Also WP:UP/RFC2016 RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring)

In my view, that decision negates the initial nomination and both of the WP:votes cast that were used to delete it at WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat Thank you Johnvr4 ( talk) 20:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Well, I'm sorry, but the fatal flaw in that argument is that the deleted material wasn't in draft space. It was in userspace (and thus I endorsed the deletion).— S Marshall T/ C 21:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning about a "fatal flaw" as WP:USER (and WP:ABOUTSAND) policy clearly covers userspace drafts and the userspace drafts are what I am requesting to be restored. Userspace drafts and the policies that govern them are the thing we are discussing here. Again, Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? "There is consensus that userspace drafts should have no expiration date..." If possible, could you please clarify the "fatal flaw" reasoning so we can understand your position? Perhaps I am missing something. Johnvr4 ( talk) 01:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Per MfD, userspace drafts that were userfied from deleted AfD articles may be considered for deletion if "they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD." That is the argument that the MfD hinged on, not simple staleness/age. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Exactly so. My "tangent" was to say we could do this in userspace but I couldn't see any equivalent rule that would apply to draft space; the implication being that we need to tighten our rules on draft space.— S Marshall T/ C 13:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I see the problem now. The flaw in that argument (and of the nominator) is that time components are not relevant to deletion, extended period of time is not defined and has absolutely no deadline in policy * Wikipedia:Drafts#Deleting_a_draft "Drafts that have not been edited in six months may be nominated for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion WP:G13 but there is a rough consensus against the alternative proposal to delete draft namespace redirects after six months." (see WP:ABANDONED where editors are encouraged "to Make use of Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion to search for stale drafts that are put up for deletion. MfD does not get a lot of participation, so please vote on entries." Votes are not consensus) Under G13, the drafts should have been WP:REFUNDed here: [10], Any contention that I have made thousands of edits to that sandbox draft and none of them improved it (which has been culled by 1/3 in the last few months) or that the new pages I created or updated directly from the draft material (again in the last few months) did not improve Wikipedia is simply absurd and it could not possibly assume good faith on my part. I provided examples of those pages and links to that material and diffs and the approximate word count page sizes after the moves the prove it was being condensed and moved to other main pages. Next the reasons for AfD deletion and the efforts to address them were discussed above with specific examples of an issue that caused it to be deleted at AfD was resolved with a new source literally minutes before it was nominated for deletion. WP:ATD-I has user space vs name space drafts, when to move/delete and speaks of a policy change as of August 2017 where "incubated articles require keep-alive edits every few months to avoid deletion, which is not an issue if the draft is retained in user space." Can anyone elaborate on last months policy change?

The nominator also left a message on my talk page ( Reasons for deletion of your sandbox) that where he admitted his confusion that WP:STALEDRAFT applies, made the faulty Fake article assertion again where he again falsely accuses me of intending to leave each draft there indefinitely which is patently false. Per his assertion of WP:FAKEARTICLE: "When a userspace page reaches a point where it can be included as an article..." Yet he wants it deleted because it in not ready, or does meet the policy definition of article just yet and most importantly he doesn't agree with content.

Please note that he admitted to me in his recent message that the entire issue that brought this action "was disputed content" Where WP:Deletion policy is that "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution". Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Request: Temprestore Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Request: Any editor asserting that the sandbox draft material was not being improved recently needs to state for the record that they have reviewed the WP:PAGEHIST and Diffs of the sandbox and the user page (they both started identical to each other) and of the pages listed above where the sandbox material was moved to as well as the dates of those moves. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment:I assert for the record that the sandbox draft material being improved- recently (1.5 hours before it was nominated for deletion). Any contention that it wasn't is false. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Buckshot06 asserts as the purpose of his (three) nominations that these three pages user pages "have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD") and WP:FAKEARTICLE He further asserts that I have not condensed the material. Buckshot06 Knows his assertions are not true.

Buckshot has lost all credibility in editing, explaining, or even understanding what reliable sources say about the material that was in and has been moved out of my sandbox. [11]

• Overturn: The drafts are being redeveloped. For each reason stated above and in previous discussion as well as the links in those discussions the decision to delete should be overturned .

As Proof that my assertions are accurate: Here is the diff from between BEFORE Version of User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat (U.S. WMDs in Japan) (the redeveloped userfid version of around JAN 2017) and the AFTER VERSION of User:Johnvr4/Sandbox (Operation Red Hat) (current version in the sandboxes from August 18, 2017) the Diff proves each assertion that Buckshot06 made in nominating and in his comments to support it was a misrepresentation because both of those versions started out identical to each other! However, there were further improvements with edits in my Sandbox4 that he also deleted and are therefore not reflected in the diff.

The Diff is direct proof that Buckshot06 has misrepresented nearly every assertion he has made about this material in MfD and that similar assertions echoed by other editors regarding extended "lingering" with lack of improvement or condensing of size and scope or any other such concern are without merit. Basing the deletion action on possibly misinterpreting one word in a WP policy is ridiculous. Linger links here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/linger See the 3rd definition of Linger "(intransitive, often followed by on) To consider or contemplate for a period of time; to engage in analytic thinking or discussion".

Buckshot06s assertions in nominating my userspaces for deletion are totally fabricated and he knew it which any WP editor (or administrator) can easily verify in that diff. The drafts were redeveloped for all previously raised issues including the size and Scope of the drafts. Please just look at the table of contents in those diffs if you are unable to sort out what has changed in scope!

Also: note that condensed version in my sandbox was edited by me 1.5 hours prior to buckshot06 falsely claiming that draft was abandoned (or Fake), hadn't been improved, or had the scope, words count and size condensed or moved to other places etc. before the time of his his MfD Nomination!!!

2nd to last improvement to draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Johnvr4/sandbox&oldid=796059316 as edited by Johnvr4 at 06:06, 18 August 2017

MfD nomination of Buckshot06: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Johnvr4/sandbox&oldid=796065725 as edited by Buckshot06 at 07:28, 18 August 2017

The drafts were redeveloped in my userspaces where all previously raised issues were addressed including those of the scope and size. The Sandbox is still too large and I am still redeveloping material in it into other articles. For example a new article on Agent_Orange#Okinawa.2C_Japan might be required if all of will not fit in Red Hat. Johnvr4 ( talk) 15:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply