- 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: delete . No policy argument has been raised for keeping this. Info was rightly deleted at AfD years ago as it is a huge mess of information unrelated to the actual topic, and has never been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace. We're not a webhost for deleted content so it's time for this to go. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Userpage drafts of Operation Red Hat
- User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Johnvr4/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
In June 2013 Operation Red Hat, a very large, very disconnected article about a whole range of subjects, most only loosely connected to the common consensus of what Red Hat was (a transfer of chemical and biological weapons from Okinawa to Johnston Atoll), was successfully nominated for deletion. The details can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat. (The current article at that title is a recreation from material from before the deletion discussion). As a courtesy and with the faint hope that the user might learn from the deletion debate, and produce a workable article in time, I userfied the article for him. Now in accordance with WP:MfD (articles that have "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 ("Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content.") (emphasis added) this is only supposed to be a temporary step. The user has not condensed the material, and no immediate recreation of the article with this material seems likely. I warned the user of the FAKEARTICLE policy on 10 March this year. [1] After several months further, in line with policy over 'fake articles', I am nominating these two pages for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete There has been agreement in various discussions that this material is not suitable for mainspace Wikipedia articles. As the material is not being actively edited to address the concerns raised, it should be deleted. Johnvr4 is of course very welcome to copy and paste all or some of this material onto their own computer or republish it on some other website if he so wishes. Nick-D ( talk) 23:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The editor is utterly misrepresenting the situation with the initial deletion and the draft and he knows and understands this quite clearly. We have discussed this at length and I had sought out and then incorporated both of these two editors constructive criticisms in moving out material that belongs on other pages where it was provided and in improving the remainder which is now in my sandbox. The editor above actually placed the draft there and then created a parallel main space article on the same subject as soon as he found out about my efforts and literately battled over any material I separated out into new articles. I am not sure he is done doing that.
- He has consistently and repeatedly demonstrated zero understanding of the subject and refuses to read sources so the appropriateness of material can be discussed intelligently. In the end, two editors above and I had agreed not to interact with each other and I consider this harassment by two of the above editors.
- I've just received word that my father is dying. I posted appropriate links to the previous discussions and detail each of the misrepresentations above. I simply do not have time to deal with this pettiness as my dad could have only a couple of months left. Unlike the life and death emergency that I am dealing in real life at this moment, you will note there are no time limits in Wikipedia.
- These editors know full well that my WP:UD is not WP:STALE nor abandoned "Unfinished draft articles may be moved to draft namespace or listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for adoption by other editors if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing". It is not a WP:Fakearticle. It's been discussed with both of them at length. This request is utterly bogus and they both know it.
- Neither of the these editors posted the appropriate links to these previous discussions.
- Each of the links to previous conversations on the subject that show my efforts to improve and to attempt to work together. As one reads through each link they will gain an understanding of why they were not provided these links prior to my edit.
- The links prove this complaint is utterly bogus and certain editors are abusing this noticeboard.
- I ask that this request be closed and these two editors stay away from me and my edits and stop harassing me. Leave my userspace drafts alone (that version will be gone soon anyway).
- Here are links to several of our conversations and there are more.
- User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment
- User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_again
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Red_Hat,
- User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Operation_Red_Hat,
- User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Userspace_copy_of_Red_Hat,
- User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment,
- User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review
- User_talk:Nick-D#OP_RED_HAT_ongoing_issue_notification
- User_talk:Nick-D#Red_Hat_material_move_to_MK.2FSEARCH.3F
- User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands
- Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ANick-D&type=revision&diff=773194887&oldid=773117291
- Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ANick-D&type=revision&diff=773091621&oldid=772967557
- Etc. Etc. My talk page has several sections of interaction with that editor on these subjects. Johnvr4 ( talk) 02:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just noticed this editor wants to delete each temporary step in my draft including the sandbox version of that draft that was extensively re-edited to cater to each of those editors concerns (many of which were absurd to begin with) and I am still in that process. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Johnvr4/sandbox .
- I've made so many re-edits and had to re-link sources that I no longer had them in my sandbox's previous edits list and often refer to the older version to re locate and establish the source it came from. It is still in use by me during this process. In response to his threat to MfD my drafts in the past, I've already warned this editor at least twice in plain English to stay out of my sandbox and keep his hands off of the drafts:
- [2],
- [3].
- Please notice that the draft version in my sandbox was edited by me 1.5 hours prior to the above editor falsely claiming that draft was abandoned (or Fake)!!!
- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Johnvr4/sandbox&oldid=796059316 as edited by Johnvr4 at 06:06, 18 August 2017
- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Johnvr4/sandbox&oldid=796065725 as edited by Buckshot06 at 07:28, 18 August 2017
- More to the point, That last edit I made 1.5 hours before his MfD added another source that plainly states the exact opposite of these editors totally faulty understanding of this subject and one which he has repeatedly clearly expressed by them as motivation to oppose my edits, delete massive amounts of reliably sourced text, and then relentlessly and repeatedly edit war over that faulty understanding, issue threats, and bring us here, and lie about it.
- In the event an editor believes that statement contains any hint of a personal attack, I have numerous quotes from each of these involved editors to firmly support that statement as well as the reliable sources to directly compare to their often stated but completely unsupported and faulty understanding of this subject- which they have used to repeatedly mass delete reliably sourced submissions. It seems all a waste the valuable time of everyone else instead of a total waste of just my time and well-sourced submissions.
- Shimabukuro, Ryota (August 8, 2012). " U.S. military storage of Agent Orange in Okinawa". Ryukyu Shimpo. Retrieved August 18, 2017.
- Direct quote from article: "The relationship between Agent Orange and Operation Red Hat is indicated."
- Take these actions and unsupported faulty assertions on five directly related subjects for example:
- "I've just removed a large quantity of material from the article which had no clear connection to its topic. Accidents with atomic weapons around the world during the 1960s are clearly not relevant to the removal of chemical weapons from Okinawa in 1971, nor is "Japanese participation in US Cold War bio-warfare program", " Development of counterinsurgency doctrine on Okinawa" or the use of herbicides and a proposal to use nerve gas in and around Vietnam..." Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- This entire exercise is utterly ridiculous. Please close this idiotic request! Johnvr4 ( talk) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC); 14:56, 24 August 2017 (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: delete . No policy argument has been raised for keeping this. Info was rightly deleted at AfD years ago as it is a huge mess of information unrelated to the actual topic, and has never been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace. We're not a webhost for deleted content so it's time for this to go. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Userpage drafts of Operation Red Hat
- User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Johnvr4/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
In June 2013 Operation Red Hat, a very large, very disconnected article about a whole range of subjects, most only loosely connected to the common consensus of what Red Hat was (a transfer of chemical and biological weapons from Okinawa to Johnston Atoll), was successfully nominated for deletion. The details can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat. (The current article at that title is a recreation from material from before the deletion discussion). As a courtesy and with the faint hope that the user might learn from the deletion debate, and produce a workable article in time, I userfied the article for him. Now in accordance with WP:MfD (articles that have "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 ("Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content.") (emphasis added) this is only supposed to be a temporary step. The user has not condensed the material, and no immediate recreation of the article with this material seems likely. I warned the user of the FAKEARTICLE policy on 10 March this year. [1] After several months further, in line with policy over 'fake articles', I am nominating these two pages for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete There has been agreement in various discussions that this material is not suitable for mainspace Wikipedia articles. As the material is not being actively edited to address the concerns raised, it should be deleted. Johnvr4 is of course very welcome to copy and paste all or some of this material onto their own computer or republish it on some other website if he so wishes. Nick-D ( talk) 23:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The editor is utterly misrepresenting the situation with the initial deletion and the draft and he knows and understands this quite clearly. We have discussed this at length and I had sought out and then incorporated both of these two editors constructive criticisms in moving out material that belongs on other pages where it was provided and in improving the remainder which is now in my sandbox. The editor above actually placed the draft there and then created a parallel main space article on the same subject as soon as he found out about my efforts and literately battled over any material I separated out into new articles. I am not sure he is done doing that.
- He has consistently and repeatedly demonstrated zero understanding of the subject and refuses to read sources so the appropriateness of material can be discussed intelligently. In the end, two editors above and I had agreed not to interact with each other and I consider this harassment by two of the above editors.
- I've just received word that my father is dying. I posted appropriate links to the previous discussions and detail each of the misrepresentations above. I simply do not have time to deal with this pettiness as my dad could have only a couple of months left. Unlike the life and death emergency that I am dealing in real life at this moment, you will note there are no time limits in Wikipedia.
- These editors know full well that my WP:UD is not WP:STALE nor abandoned "Unfinished draft articles may be moved to draft namespace or listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for adoption by other editors if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing". It is not a WP:Fakearticle. It's been discussed with both of them at length. This request is utterly bogus and they both know it.
- Neither of the these editors posted the appropriate links to these previous discussions.
- Each of the links to previous conversations on the subject that show my efforts to improve and to attempt to work together. As one reads through each link they will gain an understanding of why they were not provided these links prior to my edit.
- The links prove this complaint is utterly bogus and certain editors are abusing this noticeboard.
- I ask that this request be closed and these two editors stay away from me and my edits and stop harassing me. Leave my userspace drafts alone (that version will be gone soon anyway).
- Here are links to several of our conversations and there are more.
- User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment
- User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_again
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Red_Hat,
- User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Operation_Red_Hat,
- User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Userspace_copy_of_Red_Hat,
- User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment,
- User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review
- User_talk:Nick-D#OP_RED_HAT_ongoing_issue_notification
- User_talk:Nick-D#Red_Hat_material_move_to_MK.2FSEARCH.3F
- User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands
- Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ANick-D&type=revision&diff=773194887&oldid=773117291
- Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ANick-D&type=revision&diff=773091621&oldid=772967557
- Etc. Etc. My talk page has several sections of interaction with that editor on these subjects. Johnvr4 ( talk) 02:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just noticed this editor wants to delete each temporary step in my draft including the sandbox version of that draft that was extensively re-edited to cater to each of those editors concerns (many of which were absurd to begin with) and I am still in that process. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Johnvr4/sandbox .
- I've made so many re-edits and had to re-link sources that I no longer had them in my sandbox's previous edits list and often refer to the older version to re locate and establish the source it came from. It is still in use by me during this process. In response to his threat to MfD my drafts in the past, I've already warned this editor at least twice in plain English to stay out of my sandbox and keep his hands off of the drafts:
- [2],
- [3].
- Please notice that the draft version in my sandbox was edited by me 1.5 hours prior to the above editor falsely claiming that draft was abandoned (or Fake)!!!
- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Johnvr4/sandbox&oldid=796059316 as edited by Johnvr4 at 06:06, 18 August 2017
- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Johnvr4/sandbox&oldid=796065725 as edited by Buckshot06 at 07:28, 18 August 2017
- More to the point, That last edit I made 1.5 hours before his MfD added another source that plainly states the exact opposite of these editors totally faulty understanding of this subject and one which he has repeatedly clearly expressed by them as motivation to oppose my edits, delete massive amounts of reliably sourced text, and then relentlessly and repeatedly edit war over that faulty understanding, issue threats, and bring us here, and lie about it.
- In the event an editor believes that statement contains any hint of a personal attack, I have numerous quotes from each of these involved editors to firmly support that statement as well as the reliable sources to directly compare to their often stated but completely unsupported and faulty understanding of this subject- which they have used to repeatedly mass delete reliably sourced submissions. It seems all a waste the valuable time of everyone else instead of a total waste of just my time and well-sourced submissions.
- Shimabukuro, Ryota (August 8, 2012). " U.S. military storage of Agent Orange in Okinawa". Ryukyu Shimpo. Retrieved August 18, 2017.
- Direct quote from article: "The relationship between Agent Orange and Operation Red Hat is indicated."
- Take these actions and unsupported faulty assertions on five directly related subjects for example:
- "I've just removed a large quantity of material from the article which had no clear connection to its topic. Accidents with atomic weapons around the world during the 1960s are clearly not relevant to the removal of chemical weapons from Okinawa in 1971, nor is "Japanese participation in US Cold War bio-warfare program", " Development of counterinsurgency doctrine on Okinawa" or the use of herbicides and a proposal to use nerve gas in and around Vietnam..." Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- This entire exercise is utterly ridiculous. Please close this idiotic request! Johnvr4 ( talk) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC); 14:56, 24 August 2017 (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.