Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Party(Temp)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The article was copied to a page in the userspace of Libertas prior to deletion. Joyous 17:21, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Republican Party(Temp)
Fork of Republican Party (United States), created by Libertas, whose POV changes to that article are not being accepted to his satisfaction. RadicalSubversiv E 01:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this fork. Wyss 02:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, of course. What's with all these forks lately? If you have problems with the article as it stands, bring them up on the proper discussion page, where you can collaborate to help make the article acceptable to everybody. — Ливай | ☺ 02:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, fork. Megan1967 02:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I am not sure what a fork is. Although I know a troll when I see one, Radicalsubversiv. I created a Temp page which I thought was perfectly OK to work through some changes without interruption. Is there a better place I should put it? I am not good at creating pages and wasn't sure exactly how to go about it, it certainly isn't intended to supplant the Republican Party article which I am actively working on. Any suggestions?Libertas
- Libertas, please do it offline. Please stop the personal attacks (I refer to RadicalSubversiv). Please don't create articles which are PoV forks (new versions of an article, usually created by someone who has not been successful in asserting a PoV during the consensus editing process). Wyss 03:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to do it offline. When there were changes happening with the Soviet Union article, someone did that so I thought it was the right thing to do. Please note the current Republican Party article is identical to the draft I did on the Temp page. Libertas
- Offline = try opening a text editor on your computer. :) Wyss 03:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to do it offline. When there were changes happening with the Soviet Union article, someone did that so I thought it was the right thing to do. Please note the current Republican Party article is identical to the draft I did on the Temp page. Libertas
- Libertas, please do it offline. Please stop the personal attacks (I refer to RadicalSubversiv). Please don't create articles which are PoV forks (new versions of an article, usually created by someone who has not been successful in asserting a PoV during the consensus editing process). Wyss 03:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I am not sure what a fork is. Although I know a troll when I see one, Radicalsubversiv. I created a Temp page which I thought was perfectly OK to work through some changes without interruption. Is there a better place I should put it? I am not good at creating pages and wasn't sure exactly how to go about it, it certainly isn't intended to supplant the Republican Party article which I am actively working on. Any suggestions?Libertas
- By all appearances, this is a valid attempt to follow one of our dispute resolution processes. The article is clearly titled as a temporary working page. Absent clear evidence of malicious intent, I assume that it was created with an intent to re-merge the versions after the dispute is resolved. (The normal naming convention would be /Temp rather than (Temp) but that's a minor point.) This is not a fork. Keep until it's served its purpose. By the way, offline can be good for some things but won't let you see formatting, wikification, links, etc. There is nothing in our policy or practice which requires users to try to make these edits offline nor should we begin to require it. Rossami (talk) 05:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it qualifies as clear evidence of malicious intent, but user has twice inserted a link to this article at Republican Party, which looks like an intent to fork to me. RadicalSubversiv E 06:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, but that's a different issue.Dr Zen 06:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Rossami, wouldn't it ordinarily be a good idea for the editor to set up a scratchpad or temp off eir own user page? Unfortunately, a precedent was set with IndigoGenius that such pages could be deleted, but it doesn't seem particularly harmful to allow someone to work on an article in user space, so long as they don't link it from anywhere but their user page, or try to replace the article with it without consensus.Dr Zen 06:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Creating the temp page as a sub of your user page is becoming more preferred but using a sub of the article's page is also still common. Remember that most new users won't know how to create the sub in their user space until someone shows them. Radicalsubversiv's evidence makes this a harder call but I'm still inclined to assume good faith since the page was clearly titled. Rossami (talk)
- I'm not sure if it qualifies as clear evidence of malicious intent, but user has twice inserted a link to this article at Republican Party, which looks like an intent to fork to me. RadicalSubversiv E 06:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete It wasn't a fork if that means like a fake page or something, but it has served its purpose now that the article is in a neutral form. This deletion was just another attempt by one user to act in an aggressive manner against others. I would happily have made this a sub user page but am not sure how to do that. Libertas
- Delete. Work-in-progress articles/rewrites are one of the things your User space is for. Try moving it to your User space and nobody will have any comment at all. The main article space isn't for your work in progress, though. --BM 12:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Move to userspace with no redirect. Temporary pages don't belong in articlespace. - Jeltz talk 15:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Move to user namespace (ie User:Libertas/Republican Party (Temp)), then delete redirect. It's a POV fork, but there's nothing wrong with keeping one's own draft version of an article in one's namespace. -Sean Curtin 21:20, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and caution Libertas about her repeated attacks on RadicalSubversiv. RickK 01:00, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
- And not caution RS for his on her?Dr Zen 04:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Zen's got a point there. Maybe they'll both read this and face it that they each seem, uhm, a bit strident or whatever. Wyss 05:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to amend my behavior if people feel it inappropriate, but it would be helpful if you could say exactly you're proposing to warn me for. Anyone concerned about my behavior towards Libertas should probably read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libertas for context. RadicalSubversiv E 10:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In your enthusiasm, you've attacked the personal character of that contributor, rather than limiting your comments to the contents of her posts. You might not realize that for many Wikipedians, this undermines your own credibility, partly because it indicates you may be reacting with your emotions rather than clear thoughts, partly because it makes people wary of engaging in discussion with you, in order to avoid being attacked similarly if there's some disagreement. This applies even if you are 100%, spot-on "correct" (you say 2+2=4, contrib says 2+2=22). Wyss 11:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns, but I don't believe I've "attacked the personal character of [the] contributor." I believe I've specifically followed dispute resolution policy, as have others, in repeatedly asking her to stop specific behaviors, and opening an RFC when she failed to do so. In the past few days, having been repeatedly attacked personally and having some of my best work on Wikipedia called into question, I've certainly gotten very angry, but I don't think I've engaged in personal attacks. Once again, examples would be helpful in the interests of improving my behavior in the future. RadicalSubversiv E 02:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You called her a liar. Wyss 02:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I did not. I truthfully stated that a specific accusation she made about me was a lie. RadicalSubversiv E 20:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You called her a liar. Wyss 02:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns, but I don't believe I've "attacked the personal character of [the] contributor." I believe I've specifically followed dispute resolution policy, as have others, in repeatedly asking her to stop specific behaviors, and opening an RFC when she failed to do so. In the past few days, having been repeatedly attacked personally and having some of my best work on Wikipedia called into question, I've certainly gotten very angry, but I don't think I've engaged in personal attacks. Once again, examples would be helpful in the interests of improving my behavior in the future. RadicalSubversiv E 02:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In your enthusiasm, you've attacked the personal character of that contributor, rather than limiting your comments to the contents of her posts. You might not realize that for many Wikipedians, this undermines your own credibility, partly because it indicates you may be reacting with your emotions rather than clear thoughts, partly because it makes people wary of engaging in discussion with you, in order to avoid being attacked similarly if there's some disagreement. This applies even if you are 100%, spot-on "correct" (you say 2+2=4, contrib says 2+2=22). Wyss 11:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to amend my behavior if people feel it inappropriate, but it would be helpful if you could say exactly you're proposing to warn me for. Anyone concerned about my behavior towards Libertas should probably read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libertas for context. RadicalSubversiv E 10:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Zen's got a point there. Maybe they'll both read this and face it that they each seem, uhm, a bit strident or whatever. Wyss 05:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- I quote you from my talk page... Libertas is lying -- I don't know how else to put it. You might want to consider enlarging your idea of what "personal attack" means on WP. Wyss 22:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- My remarks on your talk page were in response to specific comments by Libertas accusing me of attempting to delete an article for ulterior political reasons, something which was untrue, which she had no evidence of, and which I had already denied in clear terms. I don't think that qualifies as a personal attack; you clearly do, for reasons I can't fathom, and we're probably not going to agree on the matter, so this discussion probably isn't going to be productive. RadicalSubversiv E 02:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Then I might say she was perhaps "mistaken", or "misinterpreting my motives"... if you don't grok why, to many people, saying someone "has told a lie" is a personal attack on their character, I'd agree we may not get much further discussing it. Wyss 04:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- My remarks on your talk page were in response to specific comments by Libertas accusing me of attempting to delete an article for ulterior political reasons, something which was untrue, which she had no evidence of, and which I had already denied in clear terms. I don't think that qualifies as a personal attack; you clearly do, for reasons I can't fathom, and we're probably not going to agree on the matter, so this discussion probably isn't going to be productive. RadicalSubversiv E 02:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all POV forks. The user can move it to her own namespace if she wants, she's had plenty of advance warning. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
