- 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: keep and courtesy blank. Daniel ( talk) 22:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Librarygurl/sandbox/another
I'm not sure this is an appropriate use of userspace; it could be construed as an attack. Adam9007 ( talk) 18:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete orcourtesy blank, only mild objection to keeping as-is if it weren't involving two public figures I'd say {{ db-attack}}. Ditto if it was something a lot more disparaging than it is, e.g. "... has committed more [or fewer] felonies than ..." where neither public figure is known to have committed felony crimes. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC) I've had time to think about this and, yeah, while it is within the letter of WP:BLP and policy suggests removal of some type, WP:MOLEHILL may also apply, so I've changed to "hide, no need to delete" as my preferred outcome. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)- Comment @ Adam9007: if the editor has not logged into Wikipedia within 2-3 days, consider emailing her and asking if she would consent to a {{ db-author}} deletion. I say wait 2-3 days in case she's signed up for daily email notifications of messages left on her talk page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - random sentence in a sandbox. Nobody will see this other than the user who created it and people digging through other people's userspaces for things to delete. That said, it is technically a violation of BLP (however tame), so if you see something like this just blank and let the user know rather than bring it to MfD. If they, against all odds, insist on retaining their practice/demonstration text, then maybe MfD, I suppose. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 18:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sound advice for the future, but it’s already here. Delete, because this page has exactly zero value to the project and is a BLP violation.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 18:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's because people keep using "it's already here" as a reason to delete when there's no policy-based reason to delete that we keep getting these nominations. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 19:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Good point; fair enough. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's because people keep using "it's already here" as a reason to delete when there's no policy-based reason to delete that we keep getting these nominations. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 19:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sound advice for the future, but it’s already here. Delete, because this page has exactly zero value to the project and is a BLP violation.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 18:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Rhododendrites - No objection to blanking - Whilst technically a mere BLPVIO it's in a sandbox and unless idiots actively search for the keywords then this won't be found. Nominating random peoples sandboxes for silly reasons really isn't a productive use of anyones time. – Davey2010 Talk 19:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It’s a userspace test, and a pedestrian bland statement comparing two national politicians, no BLP violation. Dumb? Aka not too high-brow? [1]. WP:Slap the nominator for muck racking in others sandboxes. It’s the nature of sandboxes to contain stuff like this, and neither the policing of sandboxes, nor bringing the stuff to this community forum, is for the benefit of the project. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - A weird sort of
polemic unrelated to Wikipedia.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 23:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not weird at all. Not polemic. There is plenty of external commentary comparing Palin and Trump. It is even in mainspace already, see
Populism in the United States#Sarah Palin which flows into
Populism in the United States#Donald Trump.
User:Librarygurl is a well-qualified long-term contributor who does not deserve this clumsy criticism. This sandbox is well within reasonable leeway. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- How does "start with something simple: Sarah Palin is not as dumb as Trump." even possibly help build an encyclopaedia? And where in that link does it say (a) Trump is dumb and (b) Trump is dumber than Palin? The only valid rationale for not deleting, that I can see, is that this is a waste of community time and setting precedent that MfD is for this purpose (which I agree with), but to argue that this is acceptable content doesn't sit with me.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 12:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Populism is frequently labelled as “dumbing down” on the details of issues. eg Sarah Palin was labelled less populist than Trump, which is crudely put as less dumb, as is less dumbing. How does it help build content? That’s a question for the user, what was in her mind, a that time, years ago. Userspace is for users to play with concepts. Censorship of userspace ideas is not just a waste of time, it is actively hostile to editor creativity. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- IMO it's not necessary to get into the meaning of the sentence in order to see it as relevant to the encyclopedia. Sandboxes aren't just where people write articles. They're also where people write nonsense or random sentences in order to experiment with VE or wikimarkup. And that's a good thing! It might also be to demonstrate to someone else. I know that when I demo formatting or sandboxes or whatever I might use a sentence someone in the room just said as my sample text or a reference to a funny thing we talked about earlier (and of course a caveat not to do this in an article). Sandboxes are for drafting and experimenting and learning and gaining experience. Just let people do that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- How does "start with something simple: Sarah Palin is not as dumb as Trump." even possibly help build an encyclopaedia? And where in that link does it say (a) Trump is dumb and (b) Trump is dumber than Palin? The only valid rationale for not deleting, that I can see, is that this is a waste of community time and setting precedent that MfD is for this purpose (which I agree with), but to argue that this is acceptable content doesn't sit with me.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 12:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not weird at all. Not polemic. There is plenty of external commentary comparing Palin and Trump. It is even in mainspace already, see
Populism in the United States#Sarah Palin which flows into
Populism in the United States#Donald Trump.
User:Librarygurl is a well-qualified long-term contributor who does not deserve this clumsy criticism. This sandbox is well within reasonable leeway. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Random 75 byte comment from 4 years ago isn’t worth our time. SK2242 ( talk) 18:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and/or courtesy blank: per Davidwr. JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 00:06, 5 February 2021 (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: keep and courtesy blank. Daniel ( talk) 22:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Librarygurl/sandbox/another
I'm not sure this is an appropriate use of userspace; it could be construed as an attack. Adam9007 ( talk) 18:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete orcourtesy blank, only mild objection to keeping as-is if it weren't involving two public figures I'd say {{ db-attack}}. Ditto if it was something a lot more disparaging than it is, e.g. "... has committed more [or fewer] felonies than ..." where neither public figure is known to have committed felony crimes. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC) I've had time to think about this and, yeah, while it is within the letter of WP:BLP and policy suggests removal of some type, WP:MOLEHILL may also apply, so I've changed to "hide, no need to delete" as my preferred outcome. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)- Comment @ Adam9007: if the editor has not logged into Wikipedia within 2-3 days, consider emailing her and asking if she would consent to a {{ db-author}} deletion. I say wait 2-3 days in case she's signed up for daily email notifications of messages left on her talk page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - random sentence in a sandbox. Nobody will see this other than the user who created it and people digging through other people's userspaces for things to delete. That said, it is technically a violation of BLP (however tame), so if you see something like this just blank and let the user know rather than bring it to MfD. If they, against all odds, insist on retaining their practice/demonstration text, then maybe MfD, I suppose. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 18:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sound advice for the future, but it’s already here. Delete, because this page has exactly zero value to the project and is a BLP violation.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 18:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's because people keep using "it's already here" as a reason to delete when there's no policy-based reason to delete that we keep getting these nominations. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 19:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Good point; fair enough. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's because people keep using "it's already here" as a reason to delete when there's no policy-based reason to delete that we keep getting these nominations. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 19:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sound advice for the future, but it’s already here. Delete, because this page has exactly zero value to the project and is a BLP violation.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 18:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Rhododendrites - No objection to blanking - Whilst technically a mere BLPVIO it's in a sandbox and unless idiots actively search for the keywords then this won't be found. Nominating random peoples sandboxes for silly reasons really isn't a productive use of anyones time. – Davey2010 Talk 19:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It’s a userspace test, and a pedestrian bland statement comparing two national politicians, no BLP violation. Dumb? Aka not too high-brow? [1]. WP:Slap the nominator for muck racking in others sandboxes. It’s the nature of sandboxes to contain stuff like this, and neither the policing of sandboxes, nor bringing the stuff to this community forum, is for the benefit of the project. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - A weird sort of
polemic unrelated to Wikipedia.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 23:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not weird at all. Not polemic. There is plenty of external commentary comparing Palin and Trump. It is even in mainspace already, see
Populism in the United States#Sarah Palin which flows into
Populism in the United States#Donald Trump.
User:Librarygurl is a well-qualified long-term contributor who does not deserve this clumsy criticism. This sandbox is well within reasonable leeway. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- How does "start with something simple: Sarah Palin is not as dumb as Trump." even possibly help build an encyclopaedia? And where in that link does it say (a) Trump is dumb and (b) Trump is dumber than Palin? The only valid rationale for not deleting, that I can see, is that this is a waste of community time and setting precedent that MfD is for this purpose (which I agree with), but to argue that this is acceptable content doesn't sit with me.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 12:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Populism is frequently labelled as “dumbing down” on the details of issues. eg Sarah Palin was labelled less populist than Trump, which is crudely put as less dumb, as is less dumbing. How does it help build content? That’s a question for the user, what was in her mind, a that time, years ago. Userspace is for users to play with concepts. Censorship of userspace ideas is not just a waste of time, it is actively hostile to editor creativity. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- IMO it's not necessary to get into the meaning of the sentence in order to see it as relevant to the encyclopedia. Sandboxes aren't just where people write articles. They're also where people write nonsense or random sentences in order to experiment with VE or wikimarkup. And that's a good thing! It might also be to demonstrate to someone else. I know that when I demo formatting or sandboxes or whatever I might use a sentence someone in the room just said as my sample text or a reference to a funny thing we talked about earlier (and of course a caveat not to do this in an article). Sandboxes are for drafting and experimenting and learning and gaining experience. Just let people do that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- How does "start with something simple: Sarah Palin is not as dumb as Trump." even possibly help build an encyclopaedia? And where in that link does it say (a) Trump is dumb and (b) Trump is dumber than Palin? The only valid rationale for not deleting, that I can see, is that this is a waste of community time and setting precedent that MfD is for this purpose (which I agree with), but to argue that this is acceptable content doesn't sit with me.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 12:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not weird at all. Not polemic. There is plenty of external commentary comparing Palin and Trump. It is even in mainspace already, see
Populism in the United States#Sarah Palin which flows into
Populism in the United States#Donald Trump.
User:Librarygurl is a well-qualified long-term contributor who does not deserve this clumsy criticism. This sandbox is well within reasonable leeway. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Random 75 byte comment from 4 years ago isn’t worth our time. SK2242 ( talk) 18:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and/or courtesy blank: per Davidwr. JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 00:06, 5 February 2021 (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.