Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Delete as divisive povfork. I'll wait an hour before deleting so the contents could be migrated offline, or offwiki, at least. Thx. El_C 22:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria

This is a sandbox version of a page that was deleted from article space in September as a blatant POV fork and political soapboxing attempt, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven of Transnistria. It is part of an intense political battle between two warring factions over the topic of Transnistria, which is currently at Arbcom. Since the deletion, MariusM ( talk · contribs) has kept the page around as a userfied sandbox page. However, this page has no potential of ever becoming a useful article, it will always be soapboxing, POV, a fork, you name it. There is therefore no reason to tolerate it in userspace, where it is kept merely to circumvent the result of the AfD, in violation of WP:USER. There was a previous deletion proposal ( Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria), which was closed as "no consensus" due to concerted "voting" by a group of political allies of its author; however, no policy-based arguments were brought forward for keeping this. The same arguments for deletion brought forward in that debate still hold. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, as were the majority of opinions during first discussion. Is not the same version as the deleted article, I added information on it latest in 16 april. Actually is not my priority, as I am involved in an arbitration case and I want to concentrate there. To be noted that during the first discussion the "deletionist" camp cheated, the deletion nominator ( User:William Mauco) voting also through his sockpuppet User:Pernambuco, who claimed to have "a neutral look" [1]. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise participated in the first discussion about deletion, why he can not accept that not all his ideas are acceptable? Dismissing all people who shared the same opinion as me as "my political allies" is incorrect, those are real people, not sockpuppets. Mr. Sunrise, your actual efforts to appear like a "mediator" and "a neutral person" in debates regarding Transnistria will suffer if you dismiss opinions of other wikipedians only on the base that they are "my allies". To quote from previous discussion the opinion of an admin: "NPOV doesn't apply to user spaces, and for that reason I believe the article shouldn't be deleted. It is a place where the user can gather his or her thoughts, and the content in the article, or at least parts of it, may be useful for insertion into other Wikipedia articles. There are a lot of other user-namespace articles that are POV or that would never be in the article namespace (see User:Node ue/Antarctic language, User:Node ue/Sentient stove), but these have not been deleted so far. The Heaven of Transnistria article has been deleted from the article namespace, fair enough, but I think deleting it from a user's space, after he has put in quite a large amount of effort, is going a bit too far". A sandbox in own userpage where he can work not disturbed by others is a right for each wikipedian. I mention also that in my opinion the informations in the article are correct, not POV (see also refferences provided) and I intend to use some parts to propose edits in Wikipedia's articles (but, as I said, actually this article is not my main priority).-- MariusM 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify what the policy basis of this discussion is: From WP:USER:
  • What can I not have on my userpage: Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia,
  • Copies of other pages: While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host.
If any wikipedian in good standing thinks the material on that page has the potential of becoming legitimate building material for a new NPOV article in article space, let them speak up here. If there is one such person, I will eat my hat and post a photograph of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Please don't consider yourself as the only person with knowledge about what neutrality means in Transnistria-related issues. We had Pernambuco for 6 months as the main "neutral" person at Talk:Transnistria and he was a sockpuppet. This sandbox is related with Wikipedia, I worked on it this month. Don't make commitments about your hat.-- MariusM 17:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Eh, last time, you managed to convince those who voted to keep the "article" (those who needed convincing anyway), that you're actively working on it. After over two months of inactivity, you made a few minor edits, one of which has actually managed to make it even worse, POV-wise.
Oh, and I don't think that those two "articles" by Node are a blatant attack against anyone but Node himself. :) -- Illythr 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I was in wikibreak 19 February - 27 March, then I was 1 week blocked and actually I have other priorities (arbcom case). Thanks for pointing at an edit which is showing exactly what Future Perfect of Sunrise asked - the relation with Wikipedia. Thanks for your continous attention for all my activities.-- MariusM 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - As I have stated before, the "article", while devoid of any value to Wikipedia (as determined by its near-unanimous AFD), serves a good purpose to demonstrate MariusM's strong POV on the issue, and thus is worth staying as a POV indicator. -- Illythr 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Mr. Future Perfect of Sunrise's hat

Mr. Sunrise told "If any wikipedian in good standing thinks the material on that page has the potential of becoming legitimate building material for a new NPOV article in article space (...) I will eat my hat and post a photograph of it". I think that the hat is not in danger, as any wikipedian who support my point of view can be dismissed as being my "politicall ally" therefore, not "a wikipedian in good standing". Anyhow, I think usefull to point that I included some parts of this sandbox in other wikipedia articles: The population decrease with 18% compared with 1989 and the refference which back this fact (which is official Transnistrian press agency Olvia Press) are included in 2004 Census in Transnistria. Were not included there the comments that this population decrease mean people "voting with their feets", as I don't want to offend the NPOV sensor of others (however, I still believe this explication is true). The electorate shrinkage of 7% in only one year was included in Transnistrian referendum, 2006, also with the refference from my sandbox (conflict.md, who quoted Piotr Denisenko, the chairman of electoral commision from Tiraspol). Again, a part was not included, the comment that this electorate shrinkage is artificial and is part of a falsification of results (while I believe this is also true). I love our NPOV sensors and I take care not to upset them too much, in order to avoid ulcers.-- MariusM 15:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I am truly glad my hat is not in danger. I am known to be rather thick-skulled, making the buying of hats to fit the size of my skull a difficult enterprise. Any hat I'd have to eat would have been both hard to replace and hard to digest. And I'd also have had to borrow a digital camera, because I don't own one. -- That said, if it is true you already used up whatever could be used of your material in article space, then surely there is no longer a need to keep the page around? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I am flattered by so much attention given to one of my sandboxes (already twice proposed for deletion!), however I don't think it deserve it. There are other parts of the sandbox which can be usefull, as I told this sandbox is not actually my main priority. As you see in 4 days nobody supported your deletion proposal, let's make a compromise - give to both the hat and sandbox a chance to survive.-- MariusM 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
That's not up to me but to whoever closes this. And as this isn't a vote but an exchange of opinions regarding policy, the number of participants in the debate is immaterial. The closing admin is going to determine whether what you and I said was based on policy or not, and act accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Nobody really cares, methinks. -- Illythr 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep EvilAlex 14:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fine as a political essay, but not the basis of a good, NPOV Wikipedia article. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
NPOV don't apply in user space. This is a sandbox in my userspace, not a Wikipedia article. For example, I saw userspaces with pictures of Lenin and quotes from him, some people who suffered during communist rule may find this offensive, however as it is kept in an userspace is not a breach of Wikipedia policies. Did you bother to read this page? I already used part of this "essay" in Wikipedia articles and also in an arbitration case I am involved - the sandbox is keeping the source of some usefull informations in Wikipedia format.-- MariusM 18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Ok, so you agree that the material in this sandbox isn't going to be used for a Wikipedia article. Therefore, it should be deleted, because it is a userfied copy of a deleted article ( Heaven of Transnistria)-- WP:USER says "this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." --Akhilleus ( talk) 19:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
In my first intervention on this debate I told that this is NOT a copy of the deleted article. Please look at sandbox's history, I made several changes last month. I used material from this sandbox in 4 different Wikipedia articles and in an arbitration case. Just yesterday I've used material from it to an edit in Transnistria article [2] and Tiraspol Times [3]. The sandbox is usefull to keep some info about Transnistria in wiki format and with their refferences.-- MariusM 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Relisting
  • RELISTED to further the consensus gathering process. — xaosflux Talk 12:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Discussion related to the relisting has been moved to the talk page
  • Delete Not suitable for userspace, because its a NPOV copy of a deleted article. The Sunshine Man 14:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Copied from Talkpage [4]:

  • Keep. It's inoffensive, and it's in his sandbox. Let's do more productive things than bother people about their sandboxes. Biruitorul 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
1) You missed. The voting is over there. 2) Inoffensive? Did you, uh, read it backwards or something? <sarcasm>The "Main results" part is really nice and fluffy, sure.</sarcasm> -- Illythr 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks Illythr for your wikistalking, you help me to avoid the sentiment of wikiloneliness. Very usefull your "sarcasm" note, without it people would not understand that you are sarcastic. I pledge for 100% truth and accuracy for the "Main results" part of my sandbox, 2 out of 3 sentences are sourced, I've put a fact tag at the third sentence to remind me that I need to find a source. I've already used in a Wikipedia article part of the "Main results" part of my sandbox. Truth is sometimes offensive, I know. I would like to remind you a quote from a famous NPOV sensor in Wikipedia: "As my experience on Wikipedia shows me, those who claim to be absolutely neutral on a disputed issue tend to have the greatest bias of all".-- MariusM 08:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Eh, wikistalking? I do have this page watched, as I'm mildly interested in the outcome and it seems that we keep a lot of the same pages watchlisted, but I am not purposefully following and reverting you to warrant this particular, mm, label. I also don't think I claimed to be neutral (don't confuse that with my vote here - in this case I simply think that its negative effects balance the positive ones). -- Illythr 10:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
No, I read it correctly. The more fun we poke at Smirnov and his Communist band of criminals, the more ridiculous they appear. On the other hand, what have you to say about the destruction of the cemetery in Tighina? Now that is offensive. Biruitorul 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is supposed to present verifiable information in a neutral way, not poke fun at people. In fact, poking fun at living people is strongly discouraged, even in userspace. -- Illythr 17:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment - can somebody explain to me how this is supposed to be grounded in policy? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Few quotes I hope will help: "Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project", userpage is "a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working", "Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia", subpages of userpage can be used for "A work in progress, until it is ready to be released". Note also that in userpage "Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not [apply]" (valid also for NPOV).-- MariusM 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Read what you're quoting. "for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project". Political propaganda is not. NPOV and OR are suspended on a userpage exactly to the extent that allows you to talk a bit about yourself and your opinions about Wikipedia. Apart from that, go back and look at the quotes I gave you above. You can't have it both ways: either a page is a normal user page, in which case it must not contain "extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia"; or it is a sandbox for an article, in which case it is bound to NPOV and NOR just as the article it is supposedly planned to become. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
You have the wrong impression that my sandbox is political propaganda. It is not. It is a colection of some facts about Transnistria, with refferences, some of them were already used in some Wikipedia articles, other will be used in future. There is also a place where I tell my opinions about how Wikipedia is used for political propaganda (Illythr pointed at an edit just about this subject). The subject of the sandbox is related with Wikipedia and with some of my proposals to improve Wikipedia articles. I know that my sandbox is not yet good enough for mainspace, it has some OR and POV issues, but those policies aren't apllied in userspace. Proposals for improvements are wellcomed. I think you take too personally the fate of this sandbox. You voted for deletion in the first debate, then you nominated it for deletion second time; when deletion was again rejected you insisted for relisting. It seems you are the kind of person who don't accept NO for an answer. Really, there are more important things to do in Wikipedia than taking care about sandboxes.-- MariusM 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
You want suggestions for improvements? How about removing all the blatantly OR and POV statements I tagged for you [5]? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your suggestions, best place to discuss them is sandbox's talk page. You have a lack of knowledge about Transnistria, I see you consider OR well known facts like the birthplace of Igor Smirnov, president of Transnistria. You could check coresponding Wikipedia article. Anyhow, when I will have time I will add more refferences, in order to avoid misinterpretation of my work.-- MariusM 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Dpotop 09:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, userspace WP:POVFORK being used to circumvent the proper deletion process. There is strong precedent for deleting such pages even when they are in userspace. Hopefully the closing admin will ignore the WP:ISUPPORTTHEPOVITPUSHES! votes so this can actually be decided per policy. -- tjstrf talk 21:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    Indeed, the decision should be taken based on policy. The policy is stating very clear that article content policies are not applied in userspace. The repeated nomination for deletion of this sandbox is a harassment against me, linked with the arbitration case where I am involved.-- MariusM 08:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'd like to add the detail that hasn't been noticed yet (afaik). Userspace is searchable (unlike pages' histories), so googling for 'transnistria propaganda', 'transnistria ICDISS' etc. gives Marius' sandbox in the first place ( [6], [7]). For a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia it may look as an encyclopaedic article. So I'd rather vote for deleting it. Alaexis 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Good point. Now that you point it out, I notice that the same material is also stored in User:Dc76/Sandbox. I'll propose deleting that too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • An other plain falacy of Alaexis. In none of the google searches he gave is my sandbox in the first place of google results. Anyhow, I don't see which is the problem with google results, why are people upset with them?-- MariusM 21:49, 11 May 2007 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven_of_Transnistria_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1088719438"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Delete as divisive povfork. I'll wait an hour before deleting so the contents could be migrated offline, or offwiki, at least. Thx. El_C 22:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria

This is a sandbox version of a page that was deleted from article space in September as a blatant POV fork and political soapboxing attempt, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven of Transnistria. It is part of an intense political battle between two warring factions over the topic of Transnistria, which is currently at Arbcom. Since the deletion, MariusM ( talk · contribs) has kept the page around as a userfied sandbox page. However, this page has no potential of ever becoming a useful article, it will always be soapboxing, POV, a fork, you name it. There is therefore no reason to tolerate it in userspace, where it is kept merely to circumvent the result of the AfD, in violation of WP:USER. There was a previous deletion proposal ( Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria), which was closed as "no consensus" due to concerted "voting" by a group of political allies of its author; however, no policy-based arguments were brought forward for keeping this. The same arguments for deletion brought forward in that debate still hold. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, as were the majority of opinions during first discussion. Is not the same version as the deleted article, I added information on it latest in 16 april. Actually is not my priority, as I am involved in an arbitration case and I want to concentrate there. To be noted that during the first discussion the "deletionist" camp cheated, the deletion nominator ( User:William Mauco) voting also through his sockpuppet User:Pernambuco, who claimed to have "a neutral look" [1]. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise participated in the first discussion about deletion, why he can not accept that not all his ideas are acceptable? Dismissing all people who shared the same opinion as me as "my political allies" is incorrect, those are real people, not sockpuppets. Mr. Sunrise, your actual efforts to appear like a "mediator" and "a neutral person" in debates regarding Transnistria will suffer if you dismiss opinions of other wikipedians only on the base that they are "my allies". To quote from previous discussion the opinion of an admin: "NPOV doesn't apply to user spaces, and for that reason I believe the article shouldn't be deleted. It is a place where the user can gather his or her thoughts, and the content in the article, or at least parts of it, may be useful for insertion into other Wikipedia articles. There are a lot of other user-namespace articles that are POV or that would never be in the article namespace (see User:Node ue/Antarctic language, User:Node ue/Sentient stove), but these have not been deleted so far. The Heaven of Transnistria article has been deleted from the article namespace, fair enough, but I think deleting it from a user's space, after he has put in quite a large amount of effort, is going a bit too far". A sandbox in own userpage where he can work not disturbed by others is a right for each wikipedian. I mention also that in my opinion the informations in the article are correct, not POV (see also refferences provided) and I intend to use some parts to propose edits in Wikipedia's articles (but, as I said, actually this article is not my main priority).-- MariusM 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify what the policy basis of this discussion is: From WP:USER:
  • What can I not have on my userpage: Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia,
  • Copies of other pages: While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host.
If any wikipedian in good standing thinks the material on that page has the potential of becoming legitimate building material for a new NPOV article in article space, let them speak up here. If there is one such person, I will eat my hat and post a photograph of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Please don't consider yourself as the only person with knowledge about what neutrality means in Transnistria-related issues. We had Pernambuco for 6 months as the main "neutral" person at Talk:Transnistria and he was a sockpuppet. This sandbox is related with Wikipedia, I worked on it this month. Don't make commitments about your hat.-- MariusM 17:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Eh, last time, you managed to convince those who voted to keep the "article" (those who needed convincing anyway), that you're actively working on it. After over two months of inactivity, you made a few minor edits, one of which has actually managed to make it even worse, POV-wise.
Oh, and I don't think that those two "articles" by Node are a blatant attack against anyone but Node himself. :) -- Illythr 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I was in wikibreak 19 February - 27 March, then I was 1 week blocked and actually I have other priorities (arbcom case). Thanks for pointing at an edit which is showing exactly what Future Perfect of Sunrise asked - the relation with Wikipedia. Thanks for your continous attention for all my activities.-- MariusM 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - As I have stated before, the "article", while devoid of any value to Wikipedia (as determined by its near-unanimous AFD), serves a good purpose to demonstrate MariusM's strong POV on the issue, and thus is worth staying as a POV indicator. -- Illythr 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Mr. Future Perfect of Sunrise's hat

Mr. Sunrise told "If any wikipedian in good standing thinks the material on that page has the potential of becoming legitimate building material for a new NPOV article in article space (...) I will eat my hat and post a photograph of it". I think that the hat is not in danger, as any wikipedian who support my point of view can be dismissed as being my "politicall ally" therefore, not "a wikipedian in good standing". Anyhow, I think usefull to point that I included some parts of this sandbox in other wikipedia articles: The population decrease with 18% compared with 1989 and the refference which back this fact (which is official Transnistrian press agency Olvia Press) are included in 2004 Census in Transnistria. Were not included there the comments that this population decrease mean people "voting with their feets", as I don't want to offend the NPOV sensor of others (however, I still believe this explication is true). The electorate shrinkage of 7% in only one year was included in Transnistrian referendum, 2006, also with the refference from my sandbox (conflict.md, who quoted Piotr Denisenko, the chairman of electoral commision from Tiraspol). Again, a part was not included, the comment that this electorate shrinkage is artificial and is part of a falsification of results (while I believe this is also true). I love our NPOV sensors and I take care not to upset them too much, in order to avoid ulcers.-- MariusM 15:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I am truly glad my hat is not in danger. I am known to be rather thick-skulled, making the buying of hats to fit the size of my skull a difficult enterprise. Any hat I'd have to eat would have been both hard to replace and hard to digest. And I'd also have had to borrow a digital camera, because I don't own one. -- That said, if it is true you already used up whatever could be used of your material in article space, then surely there is no longer a need to keep the page around? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I am flattered by so much attention given to one of my sandboxes (already twice proposed for deletion!), however I don't think it deserve it. There are other parts of the sandbox which can be usefull, as I told this sandbox is not actually my main priority. As you see in 4 days nobody supported your deletion proposal, let's make a compromise - give to both the hat and sandbox a chance to survive.-- MariusM 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
That's not up to me but to whoever closes this. And as this isn't a vote but an exchange of opinions regarding policy, the number of participants in the debate is immaterial. The closing admin is going to determine whether what you and I said was based on policy or not, and act accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Nobody really cares, methinks. -- Illythr 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep EvilAlex 14:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fine as a political essay, but not the basis of a good, NPOV Wikipedia article. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
NPOV don't apply in user space. This is a sandbox in my userspace, not a Wikipedia article. For example, I saw userspaces with pictures of Lenin and quotes from him, some people who suffered during communist rule may find this offensive, however as it is kept in an userspace is not a breach of Wikipedia policies. Did you bother to read this page? I already used part of this "essay" in Wikipedia articles and also in an arbitration case I am involved - the sandbox is keeping the source of some usefull informations in Wikipedia format.-- MariusM 18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Ok, so you agree that the material in this sandbox isn't going to be used for a Wikipedia article. Therefore, it should be deleted, because it is a userfied copy of a deleted article ( Heaven of Transnistria)-- WP:USER says "this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." --Akhilleus ( talk) 19:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
In my first intervention on this debate I told that this is NOT a copy of the deleted article. Please look at sandbox's history, I made several changes last month. I used material from this sandbox in 4 different Wikipedia articles and in an arbitration case. Just yesterday I've used material from it to an edit in Transnistria article [2] and Tiraspol Times [3]. The sandbox is usefull to keep some info about Transnistria in wiki format and with their refferences.-- MariusM 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Relisting
  • RELISTED to further the consensus gathering process. — xaosflux Talk 12:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Discussion related to the relisting has been moved to the talk page
  • Delete Not suitable for userspace, because its a NPOV copy of a deleted article. The Sunshine Man 14:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Copied from Talkpage [4]:

  • Keep. It's inoffensive, and it's in his sandbox. Let's do more productive things than bother people about their sandboxes. Biruitorul 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
1) You missed. The voting is over there. 2) Inoffensive? Did you, uh, read it backwards or something? <sarcasm>The "Main results" part is really nice and fluffy, sure.</sarcasm> -- Illythr 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks Illythr for your wikistalking, you help me to avoid the sentiment of wikiloneliness. Very usefull your "sarcasm" note, without it people would not understand that you are sarcastic. I pledge for 100% truth and accuracy for the "Main results" part of my sandbox, 2 out of 3 sentences are sourced, I've put a fact tag at the third sentence to remind me that I need to find a source. I've already used in a Wikipedia article part of the "Main results" part of my sandbox. Truth is sometimes offensive, I know. I would like to remind you a quote from a famous NPOV sensor in Wikipedia: "As my experience on Wikipedia shows me, those who claim to be absolutely neutral on a disputed issue tend to have the greatest bias of all".-- MariusM 08:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Eh, wikistalking? I do have this page watched, as I'm mildly interested in the outcome and it seems that we keep a lot of the same pages watchlisted, but I am not purposefully following and reverting you to warrant this particular, mm, label. I also don't think I claimed to be neutral (don't confuse that with my vote here - in this case I simply think that its negative effects balance the positive ones). -- Illythr 10:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
No, I read it correctly. The more fun we poke at Smirnov and his Communist band of criminals, the more ridiculous they appear. On the other hand, what have you to say about the destruction of the cemetery in Tighina? Now that is offensive. Biruitorul 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is supposed to present verifiable information in a neutral way, not poke fun at people. In fact, poking fun at living people is strongly discouraged, even in userspace. -- Illythr 17:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment - can somebody explain to me how this is supposed to be grounded in policy? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Few quotes I hope will help: "Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project", userpage is "a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working", "Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia", subpages of userpage can be used for "A work in progress, until it is ready to be released". Note also that in userpage "Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not [apply]" (valid also for NPOV).-- MariusM 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Read what you're quoting. "for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project". Political propaganda is not. NPOV and OR are suspended on a userpage exactly to the extent that allows you to talk a bit about yourself and your opinions about Wikipedia. Apart from that, go back and look at the quotes I gave you above. You can't have it both ways: either a page is a normal user page, in which case it must not contain "extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia"; or it is a sandbox for an article, in which case it is bound to NPOV and NOR just as the article it is supposedly planned to become. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
You have the wrong impression that my sandbox is political propaganda. It is not. It is a colection of some facts about Transnistria, with refferences, some of them were already used in some Wikipedia articles, other will be used in future. There is also a place where I tell my opinions about how Wikipedia is used for political propaganda (Illythr pointed at an edit just about this subject). The subject of the sandbox is related with Wikipedia and with some of my proposals to improve Wikipedia articles. I know that my sandbox is not yet good enough for mainspace, it has some OR and POV issues, but those policies aren't apllied in userspace. Proposals for improvements are wellcomed. I think you take too personally the fate of this sandbox. You voted for deletion in the first debate, then you nominated it for deletion second time; when deletion was again rejected you insisted for relisting. It seems you are the kind of person who don't accept NO for an answer. Really, there are more important things to do in Wikipedia than taking care about sandboxes.-- MariusM 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
You want suggestions for improvements? How about removing all the blatantly OR and POV statements I tagged for you [5]? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your suggestions, best place to discuss them is sandbox's talk page. You have a lack of knowledge about Transnistria, I see you consider OR well known facts like the birthplace of Igor Smirnov, president of Transnistria. You could check coresponding Wikipedia article. Anyhow, when I will have time I will add more refferences, in order to avoid misinterpretation of my work.-- MariusM 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Dpotop 09:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, userspace WP:POVFORK being used to circumvent the proper deletion process. There is strong precedent for deleting such pages even when they are in userspace. Hopefully the closing admin will ignore the WP:ISUPPORTTHEPOVITPUSHES! votes so this can actually be decided per policy. -- tjstrf talk 21:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    Indeed, the decision should be taken based on policy. The policy is stating very clear that article content policies are not applied in userspace. The repeated nomination for deletion of this sandbox is a harassment against me, linked with the arbitration case where I am involved.-- MariusM 08:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'd like to add the detail that hasn't been noticed yet (afaik). Userspace is searchable (unlike pages' histories), so googling for 'transnistria propaganda', 'transnistria ICDISS' etc. gives Marius' sandbox in the first place ( [6], [7]). For a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia it may look as an encyclopaedic article. So I'd rather vote for deleting it. Alaexis 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Good point. Now that you point it out, I notice that the same material is also stored in User:Dc76/Sandbox. I'll propose deleting that too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • An other plain falacy of Alaexis. In none of the google searches he gave is my sandbox in the first place of google results. Anyhow, I don't see which is the problem with google results, why are people upset with them?-- MariusM 21:49, 11 May 2007 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven_of_Transnistria_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1088719438"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE