Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:36, 22 September 2011

It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before a deletion discussion is complete. The XfD process usually takes a week, and the tag is in place for less than that. Let the XfD closer remove it when the XfD tag is removed or the item is deleted. In all cases remain civil, and assume good faith that other editors are working to improve Misplaced Pages. It's not a Misplaced Pages policy to provide a rationale on AfD pages when a rescue tag is added to an article, and many editors feel that the tags are self-explanatory. Rescue tags provide options to search for reliable sources within the context of the article, while the "article being considered for deletion" tag does not. This provides users with the option to search for reliable sources directly from the article, which has higher functionality compared to users having to go to the AfD webpage for the article and then search from there.

Please keep discussions in one place

You have now started the same discussion in five different places in quick succession, each time specifically asking people to stay on that page. I have replied in four of the five places that keeping this in one place instead of five would be better, and have directed people to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion#Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process for this. Please keep discussions in one place. And please, do something about your edit summaries. Fram (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And you just continued with this disruptive action. Please stop this now! Fram (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Pages

Users are allowed to add comments to discussion pages on Misplaced Pages. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

They are allowed but if those comments are off topic they may be deleted and their actions may be viewed as disruptive, particularly if they are posted to 15 different places and where the request is made to hold the discussion in each individual place leading to very fragmented discussions. I suggest you also read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Presuming you plan to continue I suggest you don't as your actions are disruptive and will lead to a block. BTW, I have deleted your addition to Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Misplaced Pages where it is clearly offtopic as the header clearly says, the talk page is for discussions on how we can improve the article, not for discussions on the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines which makes it clear deleting others comments is acceptable in a few instances. Your case is not directly covered, but that's probably mostly because we don't have many cases where someone thinks it's okay to post nearly the same message in 15 different places without other editors being able to remove it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

P:ANI notification

I have started a discussion about your edits at WP:ANI#Please stop User:Northamerica1000. Please join the discussion there. Fram (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, some admin intervention is required. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Attempted censorship by users above

The users above are attempting to censor free speech and valid, relevant and useful discussions that I post on discussion pages. It is my and all users' right to post comments on discussion pages in Misplaced Pages. There is absolutely no Misplaced Pages policy stating otherwise, or that discussions about topics have to be limited to one page, per another user's choosing. Any allegations of "being disruptive", etc. appear to be based upon the desire to censor the following content, which is highly relevant to the discussions on each respective discussion page and the topic that each discussion page refers to. Why are people trying to censor this data? Additionally, it is against Misplaced Pages policy to censor or remove comments on discussion pages. Why do these people above feel that they have to message one-another about my good faith discussion page additions, form a quick union of two against one, and then immediately remove them right after they are posted? This is against Misplaced Pages policy entirely. Why is an administrator immediately needed to intervene? Discussion pages are just that, discussion pages. Rather than contributing to the discussion, the users above are injustly removing my additions to discussion pages, which again, is entirely against Misplaced Pages policy. Maybe they have biases about the message and are pro-deletion of articles, and want to minimize people reading these views. Here is the message:

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Misplaced Pages article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Misplaced Pages, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Misplaced Pages can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

It is functional to discuss matters about Misplaced Pages on discussion pages. It is against Misplaced Pages policies to remove posts to discussion pages. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no attempt to stop you from making people aware of this discussion in many different places (outside the main space: Misplaced Pages policy discussions don't belong on article talk pages at all, and the removal of such comments there is well within policy). What I did ask you (and what LibStar seems to want as well) is that you don't try to have the discussion in 15 places at once, but that you point people in those 15 places to one central discussion. There is no way that 15 different, smultaneous discussions on the exact same subject can have a meaningful result or anything resembling consensus. I asked you twice to take this into account, I added such a pointer to a central place on the first four different pages where you posted this, but you simply continued. Please, if someone objects to actions you take, and comes to your talk page to discuss this, stop at least for a while and attempt to reach a consensus with others, to see why they are objecting, and only continue when either an agreement has been reached or it has become obvious that the objections are without merit. Continuing without discussion is disruptive and goes against the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages. Fram (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I only agree that some admin intervention is required. Your disruptive behavior is concerning. LibStar (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)