| Revision as of 13:23, 7 August 2007 editIPSOS (talk | contribs)8,702 edits your reasons for deletion are no more valid← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:24, 7 August 2007 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits close, speedy deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata mfd" style="background-color: #E3D2FB; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!-- | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to miscellany page for deletion, you must manually edit the MfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} speedy, as author request. ] 13:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| This essay essentially encourages people to be incivil, condescending and patronizing, against others, and recommends actions that are widely known to inflame rather than calm down any situation. This is a really bad idea. ] 09:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | This essay essentially encourages people to be incivil, condescending and patronizing, against others, and recommends actions that are widely known to inflame rather than calm down any situation. This is a really bad idea. ] 09:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. More often than not, templates are applied to the talk pages of longstanding editors incorrectly, for example when incivil people hand out vandalism warnings in a content dispute. We shouldn't encourage that kind of behaviour. ] (]) 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. More often than not, templates are applied to the talk pages of longstanding editors incorrectly, for example when incivil people hand out vandalism warnings in a content dispute. We shouldn't encourage that kind of behaviour. ] (]) 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' The original author tagged this as db-author during their RFA due to the amount of dissent regarding this essay. It was deleted, but then restored as a result of too many other editors having been deemed to make contributions, as well as many perople wanting to see it until the RFA was completed. Either way, it should go now. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' The original author tagged this as db-author during their RFA due to the amount of dissent regarding this essay. It was deleted, but then restored as a result of too many other editors having been deemed to make contributions, as well as many perople wanting to see it until the RFA was completed. Either way, it should go now. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **Thank you for pointing that out. Analysis of the page history shows that all contributions other than by the author were (1) tyop fixes, (2) adding a merge tag, or (3) quickly reverted. As evidenced in , the first revision of the page was identical to the one the author requested deletion on. ] 13:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy Keep''', a precedent was set when ] resulted in a unanimous '''keep'''. The reasoning given was that these are simply opinion essays and should be kept. Certainly an opposing opinion piece should not simply be suppressed by those who disagree with it. If this essay is deleted, then ] should '''''also''''' be deleted. ] (]) 13:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Speedy Keep''', a precedent was set when ] resulted in a unanimous '''keep'''. The reasoning given was that these are simply opinion essays and should be kept. Certainly an opposing opinion piece should not simply be suppressed by those who disagree with it. If this essay is deleted, then ] should '''''also''''' be deleted. ] (]) 13:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **That's not a valid speedy keep criterion, but simply the ] fallacy. There is a difference between "opinion pieces" and "pages that encourage being nasty to other people"; this is a clear example of the latter. ] 13:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | **That's not a valid speedy keep criterion, but simply the ] fallacy. There is a difference between "opinion pieces" and "pages that encourage being nasty to other people"; this is a clear example of the latter. ] 13:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ***I disagree with your opinion, and there were plenty of speedy keeps on that MfD. I'd also like to note that regulars should be able to hold their temper and use proper channels to deal with misuse of template, and that the general opinion in another MfD, ], was clear that regulars are ''not above policy''. Both this essay and the warning templates page have been modified to recommend not using "welcoming" language templates on regulars and to note that a personal note can be added to the ends of templates. These template ''can'' be used correctly on regulars, and the fact that some people misuse them is not a valid reason to delete this essay either. ] (]) 13:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | ***I disagree with your opinion, and there were plenty of speedy keeps on that MfD. I'd also like to note that regulars should be able to hold their temper and use proper channels to deal with misuse of template, and that the general opinion in another MfD, ], was clear that regulars are ''not above policy''. Both this essay and the warning templates page have been modified to recommend not using "welcoming" language templates on regulars and to note that a personal note can be added to the ends of templates. These template ''can'' be used correctly on regulars, and the fact that some people misuse them is not a valid reason to delete this essay either. ] (]) 13:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.</div> | |||
Revision as of 13:24, 7 August 2007
- 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 speedy, as author request. >Radiant< 13:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Template the regulars
This essay essentially encourages people to be incivil, condescending and patronizing, against others, and recommends actions that are widely known to inflame rather than calm down any situation. This is a really bad idea. >Radiant< 09:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. More often than not, templates are applied to the talk pages of longstanding editors incorrectly, for example when incivil people hand out vandalism warnings in a content dispute. We shouldn't encourage that kind of behaviour. Kusma (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The original author tagged this as db-author during their RFA due to the amount of dissent regarding this essay. It was deleted, but then restored as a result of too many other editors having been deemed to make contributions, as well as many perople wanting to see it until the RFA was completed. Either way, it should go now. --After Midnight 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out. Analysis of the page history shows that all contributions other than by the author were (1) tyop fixes, (2) adding a merge tag, or (3) quickly reverted. As evidenced in this diff, the first revision of the page was identical to the one the author requested deletion on. >Radiant< 13:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, a precedent was set when Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars resulted in a unanimous keep. The reasoning given was that these are simply opinion essays and should be kept. Certainly an opposing opinion piece should not simply be suppressed by those who disagree with it. If this essay is deleted, then Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars should also be deleted. IPSOS (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a valid speedy keep criterion, but simply the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy. There is a difference between "opinion pieces" and "pages that encourage being nasty to other people"; this is a clear example of the latter. >Radiant< 13:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your opinion, and there were plenty of speedy keeps on that MfD. I'd also like to note that regulars should be able to hold their temper and use proper channels to deal with misuse of template, and that the general opinion in another MfD, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dont slap the regulars with policy, was clear that regulars are not above policy. Both this essay and the warning templates page have been modified to recommend not using "welcoming" language templates on regulars and to note that a personal note can be added to the ends of templates. These template can be used correctly on regulars, and the fact that some people misuse them is not a valid reason to delete this essay either. IPSOS (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a valid speedy keep criterion, but simply the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy. There is a difference between "opinion pieces" and "pages that encourage being nasty to other people"; this is a clear example of the latter. >Radiant< 13:13, 7 August 2007 (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.