Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Angr/If

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Angr/If

Very thinly veiled attack page (come on, "Viropedia"?), most likely created to make a POINT after the User:Moreschi/If MfD and DRV. Declined speedy. Will ^(talk) 14:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the interests of transparency, I do have an account at Veropedia. Will ^(talk) 14:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think this page does a good job of pointing out the fundamental problems with Veropedia in a humorous fashion. Captain panda 14:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• WP:POINT says in situations where one is dissatisfied with how something has happened on Wikipedia, "it is tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose." While this page certainly is a reaction to User:Moreschi/If, it is neither parody nor a breaching experiment. If I had wanted to violate WP:POINT, I might have written a subpage page advertising some other external website, such as Wikipedia Review, and encouraging people to contribute to it. Rather, I wrote a subpage reminding people to be vigilant about NPOV in the articles they're interested in—something they should be doing anyway, even if Veropedia didn't exist—because of possible outside influences. Unlike User:Moreschi/If, which violates policy (namely WP:NOT#ADVERTISING), this page encourages people to adhere to policy (namely WP:NPOV). But I confess I don't quite understand why Captain panda finds the page humorous; apart from the nickname "Viropedia", it certainly wasn't intended to be. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's not humour, it's an attack. I can't think of another way where comparing a website to a virus is not an attack. Will ^(talk) 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see that it's an attack. That's why I rejected the request to speedily delete it. I'm ambivalent when it comes to claims of polemic, on the whole I think this probably meets WP:USER's requirements. If your only objection is the use of the term viropedia, deletion is hardly necessary, is it? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being incorrect about thinking that it was intended to be funny. I thought that it was funny because that it mirrors Moreschi's page in a way that copies it except instead of supporting Veropedia, it warns of the problems with Veropedia. That struck me as humorous. Captain panda 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - don't see a WP:POINT issue, without that there's no reason to delete. It doesn't seem at all to be an attack - satire, perhaps. --Strothra 16:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  Angr has already said it isn't satirical. Will ^(talk) 16:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Then it's not all that much of an attack and there seems to be no violation of WP:USER. --Strothra 16:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The deletion of this page makes the deletion of Moreschi's corresponding page more likely, and we don't want that, do we. Nick 16:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Legitimate expression of contrary opinion on an issue of relevance to Wikipedia's reputation. -- this is not a "personal attack". If it meets the technical wording of CSD G10 -- which it might, depending on one's interpretation, I suppose -- then G10 needs to be changed. Real, thoughtful dissent and argumentation is essential to the health of the project. Xoloz 17:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sure, it will piss people off and annoy them. But it's certainly not a personal attack by any definition of the phrase. And it's not a point, either, as it's not disrupting anything. A violation of WP:POINT would be writing a bot to automatically revert any edit made by a user at Veropedia. Or maybe writing a bot to semi-protect every featured or good article. WP:POINT is referenced far too often. --- RockMFR 22:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Someone needs to tell Angr that Wikipedia was intentionally set up to allow these kinds of things, and it is something we fundamentally encourage (reuse, for whatever reason, so long as it follows the GFDL). We don't need to delete the page, since it's just one user saying what they think, in relation to Wikipedia. Misguided, and I'd like to blank it myself because it's just so off the mark, but eh, whatever. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia was set up to allow other people to reuse our content, but this goes much further than that. Answers.com also reproduces Wikipedia content and displays it next to advertising. That's fine, because Answers.com doesn't have its own community of editors who are encouraged to edit Wikipedia articles, so our neutrality is not threatened by their hosting advertising. Veropedia, on the other hand, does have its own community of editors, and they're encouraged to edit Wikipedia articles, and that's the problem, because those editors will now have a conflict of interest between Wikipedia's goal of writing an encyclopedia with a neutral POV, and Veropedia's goal of making money from advertising. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Veropedia is using Wikipedia editors, we've never changed our allegiance, we're here to write quality free content, nothing more, nothing less. We don't introduce any POV nonsense into articles, so could you quit with all this scaremongering until such times as we do start introducing POV into articles just to keep our advertisers happy. Thanks. Nick 20:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-This isn't a WP:POINT violation in any way. Aside from everything else, to be such a violation it would have to "disrupt Wikipedia", and I can't see how this does that.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a legit alert, not an attack. Not disruptive in any way.  --Lambiam 06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and as the GFDL clearly states, other sites including but not limited to Veropedia are allowed to copy your text verbatim and use it for their own purpose. >Radiant< 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia not being a soapbox didn't bring down the blatant advertising at User:Moreschi/If, so I don't see why it should apply to a page that merely reminds people to keep an eye on the NPOV of quality articles. As for your second point, I never said other sites shouldn't be allowed to copy Wikipedia text verbatim and use it for their own purposes. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If your point is that people mind NPOV, might I suggest that you make that point in a more positive manner? That would likely alleviate any problems people have with this page. >Radiant< 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      • My point is that Veropedia is a new, not widely known, specific reason to keep an eye on the NPOV of existing, quality articles. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - useful factual page, in good faith. Xn4 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's an attack page on Veropedia, but that's allowed. This page, in the context of Moreschi's page, forms one side of a legit debate. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Paranoid and biased attack, it does not adhere to WP:NPOV. - Mafia Expert (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • User space doesn't have to adhere to WP:NPOV. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You are obviously campaigning against Veropedia with that silly appendix to your user name. You are imposing unwanted advertisements and by doing so you abuse your user space in the public domain. In other words: WP:NPOV applies, as well as WP:POINT and WP:GAME - using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith. User pages may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account (WP:NOT). - Mafia Expert (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • And you are obviously angry because I'm arguing to delete one of your images over at WP:IFD, so you're taking it out on me here. This page doesn't advertise anything; it contains nothing but information related exclusively to working on the encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
        • The issue of the image has nothing to with this, and is yet another example of your paranoia. You are trying to divert a discussion with unrelated arguments. I discuss things where they belong. Your remarks about Veropedia do no "contain nothing but information" but is a deliberate attempt to impose biased information about a legitimate attempt to improve Wikipedia. - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mafia Expert, please keep in mind WP:NPOV does not apply to userspace. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There's nothing wrong with writing something to make a point, what WP:POINT recommends against is doing things you don't actually agree with in order to illustrate a point. Haukur (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I think's it's a legitimate expression of opinion - negative opinions are not the same as attacks. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it's an opinion, not disruption. David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Remove hostile flavor and merge into Wikipedia:Veropedia (a page describing veropedia for Wikipedians) as a note about possible concerns users might need to be aware of? Giving it better visibility for its positive function, and removing its style as a negative one? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - no more of an attack page than Moreschi's kept page, which accuses Wikipedia of "vandalism, spam, POV-pushing, and the addition of inaccuracies". So it's ok to attack WP, but not viropedia? harrumph. ~ priyanath talk 16:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. On further review, this one is not an attack page at all, but a (mildly stated) essay. ~ priyanath talk 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep people should be (and are) allowed to express their opinions in their userspace, provided they don't do it excessively. Hut 8.5 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the Veropedia if page is simply spamming. This is what we should all be doing. Thanks. Redrocketboy 00:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. User space essay. Suggest tagging it as such. Durova^Charge! 01:41, 8 December 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.