- The reason for relisting was the message sent by nominator to Xaosflux [1]:
Hi Xaosflux, I must admit I'm rather disappointed at the way you closed this MfD. Just wanted to check with you whether we should first discuss this among ourselves or whether I ought to take it to DRV. "No consensus"? We had two clearly reasoned deletes, one keep from the creator, another keep without any reasoning at all (hence discardable) from the co-author, and an interesting "neutral" basically saying that the page was terrible but useful for exposing the POV-pushing by its authors. My challenge still stands: Exactly what in this page does anybody think has a potential to become a decent article? And if it's just bits and pieces that are useable, why can't the author just store those offline, why do we have to tolerate this POV screed surrounding them? I still believe this page blatantly violates WP:USER. This keep decision is setting a very bad precedent about tolerating single-purpose POV warriors and propagandists on Wikipedia. I mean, surely you must agree that the page is terrible? Yeah, I know, it's user space, but we should get it clarified that POV pushers can't have it both ways: Either you have a true userspace page, in which case it may include some POV but is bound to WP:USER (no extensive commentary on non-Wikipedia matters), or you have an article-related sandbox/draft, in which case you are bound to observe the same NPOV and NOR principles as in article space. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for reopening it, much appreciated. Seems like a sensible decision to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
As in this message there are some new arguments for deletion, I will answer to them:
- I believe FPS is taking too personally this MFD, I feel really sorry if he had indigestion with his hat. Anyhow, I mention that in adition of 2 people who were against deletion in this debate, there were other 4 "keep" votes in the first debate.
- Am I a single-purpose POV warrior and propagandist? Will be tolerated persons like me in Wikipedia? This is a problem to be solved by arbitration comitee, where a case with my involvement is opened. FPS spoke in this case, we should wait the decision of the arbitration comitee, not forcing a "consensus" against me which will be presented afterwards in the arbitration case. For the record: I do not agree that the page is terrible, I've used parts of it (yes, I can store some parts offline, but I prefer to keep data in a Wikipedia format).-- MariusM 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I originally closed this as no-consensus, after a request I reopened it and relisted it (always an option when no-consensus is due to lack of participation) to avoid wasting time at DRV that would likely result in a relist request. My original reply is below: — xaosflux Talk 03:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- (copied from: User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise):
Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria (2nd nomination), I still believe that there were not enough opinions gathered to determine the community consensus on this, though MfD has no quorom requirements, we usually get more contributors on a closure (unless it's a snowball). To that end, I don't think you should have to deal with the DRV process on this either, (and using my crystall ball it has a chance of being a send to mfd result) so I've reopened the debate, and extended it for another week. I hope this is satisfactory for you. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 12:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- The reason for relisting was the message sent by nominator to Xaosflux [1]:
Hi Xaosflux, I must admit I'm rather disappointed at the way you closed this MfD. Just wanted to check with you whether we should first discuss this among ourselves or whether I ought to take it to DRV. "No consensus"? We had two clearly reasoned deletes, one keep from the creator, another keep without any reasoning at all (hence discardable) from the co-author, and an interesting "neutral" basically saying that the page was terrible but useful for exposing the POV-pushing by its authors. My challenge still stands: Exactly what in this page does anybody think has a potential to become a decent article? And if it's just bits and pieces that are useable, why can't the author just store those offline, why do we have to tolerate this POV screed surrounding them? I still believe this page blatantly violates WP:USER. This keep decision is setting a very bad precedent about tolerating single-purpose POV warriors and propagandists on Wikipedia. I mean, surely you must agree that the page is terrible? Yeah, I know, it's user space, but we should get it clarified that POV pushers can't have it both ways: Either you have a true userspace page, in which case it may include some POV but is bound to WP:USER (no extensive commentary on non-Wikipedia matters), or you have an article-related sandbox/draft, in which case you are bound to observe the same NPOV and NOR principles as in article space. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for reopening it, much appreciated. Seems like a sensible decision to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
As in this message there are some new arguments for deletion, I will answer to them:
- I believe FPS is taking too personally this MFD, I feel really sorry if he had indigestion with his hat. Anyhow, I mention that in adition of 2 people who were against deletion in this debate, there were other 4 "keep" votes in the first debate.
- Am I a single-purpose POV warrior and propagandist? Will be tolerated persons like me in Wikipedia? This is a problem to be solved by arbitration comitee, where a case with my involvement is opened. FPS spoke in this case, we should wait the decision of the arbitration comitee, not forcing a "consensus" against me which will be presented afterwards in the arbitration case. For the record: I do not agree that the page is terrible, I've used parts of it (yes, I can store some parts offline, but I prefer to keep data in a Wikipedia format).-- MariusM 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I originally closed this as no-consensus, after a request I reopened it and relisted it (always an option when no-consensus is due to lack of participation) to avoid wasting time at DRV that would likely result in a relist request. My original reply is below: — xaosflux Talk 03:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- (copied from: User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise):
Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria (2nd nomination), I still believe that there were not enough opinions gathered to determine the community consensus on this, though MfD has no quorom requirements, we usually get more contributors on a closure (unless it's a snowball). To that end, I don't think you should have to deal with the DRV process on this either, (and using my crystall ball it has a chance of being a send to mfd result) so I've reopened the debate, and extended it for another week. I hope this is satisfactory for you. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 12:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)