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 discussion was speedy delete (G3) as blatant disruption and spam. –MuZemike 08:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:GalingPinas[edit]

User:GalingPinas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Facepalm Facepalm I simply can't get through to this person why this is a bad idea. "Circball" was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circball, then userfied on request to User:GalingPinas/Circball. That part's fine. However, this user insists on placing some sort of pristine copy at User:GalingPinas, complaining about the lack of an undo button or somesuch. I have pointed out how to view the history and revisions of articles, but this is apparent insufficient. Also tried to get it moved to something like User:GalingPinas/Circball-original; no luck.

This user is quite passionate about this "sport", the account was originally named after it, and the defense mounted at the AfD was...spirited, to say the least.

I am fairly certain we have restrictions on using userspace to host copies of deleted articles, but the exact WP:ACRONYM escapes me at the moment. There is discussion with DGG about getting the page back into mainspace, but he and another have expressed concerns about it being not much different from the first incarnation. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained to this user the reason for the backup copy of an edited article--to preserve formatted text because current WP editor doesn't have an UNDO button during real time editing, something that "history" or "revisions" would be inadequate. I even ask for an alternative editor and ignores the request. I don't know what to do with this person, perhaps an ANI would resolve this sort of harrassment. What do you guys think? GalingPinas (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought it's obvious that an undo button will revert back previously typed words, letter, line when someone wants to correct a mistake? Isn't it standard on most major editor softwares such as MS Word? GalingPinas (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're talking about undoing while actually editing, like what I am doing right now? Is there something wrong with either the "delete" key or doing a "Control-Z" ? Keeping a separate copy of page doesn't seem to have the slightest bit to do with actual editing. Tarc (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The control-Z can be used. But there was also an issue last month when I was editing for 2 hrs. I couldn't hit the Save Page because I wasn't done with my edits yet. I stepped out for a minute from the computer and someone mistakenly did something that I eventually lost two hrs worth of editing. That forced me to save to another page every 10 mins now and preserve the formatted page so as not to lose these precious edits. Until someone comes up with a better idea, this is my only option.GalingPinas (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do u create a personal sandbox? I use google chrome. GalingPinas (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I told you this already, on your talk page and here...do you see the red-link above? You can create anything in your own userspace just by trying to go to a page there. Click on User:GalingPinas/sandbox and its all yours. If you just moved this page down there, this entire process could be withdrawn. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what Tarc says. Cut and paste User:GalingPinas into User:GalingPinas/sandbox and use that instead of User:GalingPinas for whatever you're doing. I'm convinced you can say whatever you like on your user page provided it doesn't violate policy, but you are offending a number of editors who think there are some things you shouldn't be able to say on your user page. Though you may eventually win an argument over this, there are probably more important things to spend your time on. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could copy it to User:GalingPinas/sandbox2, User:GalingPinas/sandbox3, etc.Edison (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...offending a number of editors who think there are some things you shouldn't be able to say on your user page. huh? My userpage was devoid of anything I wanted to say.. I haven't even begun to say what I wanted to say on my userpage, let alone offending a number of editors! It was blank!! Other than a backup copy of a modified article for editing purposes with a big red sign stating that specific purposes... is that offending editors??? Please explain! You're right i need to spend time on something more important. GalingPinas (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes it's a work in process and there's a big sign on the pages that says "This is a backup copy of User:GalingPinas/Circball article. It is placed here to preserve formatted texts since WP Editing application doesn't have an UNDO button. This will be removed once the main article is completed and moved to its proper namespace."GalingPinas (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't host deleted articles on a user page like this, anyone with any familiarity with MfD has seen these sorts of things deleted day in and day out. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're much better informed on xfd than I am. I almost never get involved in these. I saw this one on your talk page and got curious. So you're saying we don't do this. I'm sure you're right - you'd know. But that's not the same as we shouldn't do this. Is it ruled out by policy, or can you explain the harm it does that would justify its removal? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to delete this. User:DGG (who I'll inform of this discussion in a minute) and I have been working with this user on this article, and both of us are of the opinion that even the improved version of this article will not meet GNG, and thus have strongly recommended against moving it back into mainspace (and have both stated that we would likely take it to AfD if it is moved back, after we done our due diligence WP:BEFORE, of course). Since the modified version is unlikely to survive in mainspace, there is no need for a "pristine" copy of the article. GalingPinas should simply copy the article onto his personal computer in a Word (etc.) file, thus leaving it available should circumstances change and the sport becomes notable for a mainspace article. In reference to Anthonyhcole's question, my feeling is that the harm is that it seems to provide a way for GalingPinas to continue to host the article on Wikipedia despite an AfD saying it isn't notable, along with a DRV confirming that AfD and 2 admins telling him even the "improved version" isn't notable. We should also consider MfD'ing the "in-progress" article, though I suppose that could conceivably hang out a little longer. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background, Qwyrxian. I don't see the harm. Why would it be harmful for him to say those things on his user page? No one will ever mistake it for an article. It's what this reader feels strongly about and has chosen to put on his user page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the purpose of a userpage. It is not there to be a refuge for publishing an article which fails WP:N or other policies and guidelines. The sandbox could be a venue to work on improving and referencing an article so it ultimately satisfies our policies and guidelines. A sandbox is less public than a userpage. Edison (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any harm either especially when it's just for a mere backup purposes useful only to the specific user GalingPinas and to noone else. And it's not circumventing any previous decisions on an article's Afd. Plus this forum is not about a discussion of notability on this modified article. That's for another forum. There was no DRV requested either if my facts are correct, we were only talking about the restore options. 2 admin's opinion on an article's notability doesn't make one non-notable, especially when their interpretation of GNG is not in line with policy. There is no specific WP policy preventing one from making a backup copy of a potential article into their own userpage unindexed by any search engine. If the WP editor app is adequate enough to prevent loss of content while editing, then this would even be a mute issue. But because of one user's over aggressive passion against this sport, it wasted everybody time, instead of everyone focusing on making this article BETTER, we waste time responding to this riduculousness! This is so frustrating! GalingPinas (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edison, that doesn't answer my question. The guideline, User page, describes normal use of the user page. It doesn't prescribe use or proscribe particular content.

    Your user page has a name like this: User:Example. ... Its normal use is to give basic information if you wish, about yourself or your wiki-related activities. You don't have to say anything about yourself.

    It goes on to say "There is no fixed use for user pages, except that usually one's user page has something about oneself." I'm a libertarian pragmatist, in this case I'm emphasising the libertarian bit. My strong advice to GalingPinas above, "do what Tarc says" is pragmatic. But I believe the onus is on you to justify censoring what this editor, and by implication all editors, may put on their user page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you notice the part where it says "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." The userpage is not one's private encyclopedia, to post ar6ticles that simply do not satisfy the guidelines for mainspace articles. User pages are not free advertising space to promote something someone made up which is not notable by our guidelines. Edison (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am libertarian enough to approve of people promoting ideas of their own, including, in this case, their own patented invention. There have always been many ways to do this, and the web has made it facile, cheap, and omnipresent. Nobody's invention or work of any sort need languish as it might have done in past centuries for lack of the opportunity to call it to public attention. But one of the places for this is not an encyclopedia. We are not a free publicity provider. We'd be useless if we were--people could just as well use the straight google of yahoo indexing, and find each inventor's preferred publicity for his invention, and each ideologues propaganda for his ideas. What we are instead, and I cannot convince GalingPinas of it, is a place for the public to find information about things that are already notable--and to find neutral information, not information of the inventor's or publicist's choice.
What the user is attempting to put on his user page is not just promotionalism, but his own preferred version of a hopelessly promotional article. I have had a rather long discussion with the user on my talk page, about how to improve the article deleted at AfD; he has not taken my advice, nor has he been able to provide any additional references. I have most recently declined yesterday [2] to move the material in the user subpage back to mainspace, telling him that his only courses are to go to deletion review--which I have advised him is very unlikely to bring satisfaction, or wait until next season when perhaps the game will have had more than one single tournament of 10 school teams with a single instance of local news coverage--at which point, it may quite possibly be notable, and the public may well be interested. I have tried to explain to him that I will work with him to any reasonable extent to devise a reasonable and acceptable article once the basic conditions for one are met, but he is unwilling to do this. He wants one before the conditions are met.
Tarc and I have had in the past an occasional divergence in our views for what is appropriate for a Wikipedia article in borderline cases. But we are both equally dedicated to the basic principles here of NPOV and NOT DIRECTORY. We may sometimes differ on what demonstrates sufficient notability and how to determine it., but we do not differ in the slightest in the need to have some strong notability criterion, and both of us are pretty clear that this article does not meet any reasonable criterion.
There's only one thing about this where I disagree with Tarc: were I not an involved editor at this point, I would not have brought this page to MfD. I would have deleted it as G11. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I want to remind everyone that this particular Mfd was about Tarc's insistence to censor this editor on what he can place on his userpage. DGG did not address that issue here so far (he can further comment if he wants), instead digressed about some supposed promotional article. Not everything DGG mentioned here is a fact and you can read it yourself on his talkpage about Circball. I do want to thank DGG publicly for giving the article a chance to be modified, but what I'm so baffled about is that everytime I do what he says, he raises the bar. Which is fine. But it comes to the point of asking, is this guy really following WP guidelines or is he just interpreting it himself. I came to the conclusion that it's the latter. Therefore my insistence in following GNG on his talkpage. If he want it DRV then, that's the proper forum. This forum is not the proper forum to discuss the article's notability. GalingPinas (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I trust DGG's and Tarc's opinion as to whether the content meets GNG; but, as you point out, here we're discussing whether or not we should remove the content from your user page which is not in article space and is not findable by Google. I haven't yet seen a convincing argument for that. Without reference to policy or a clear statement of the harm it is doing, forced deletion seems unnecessary, and so, inappropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2011
  • You could keep that and delete the copy of the circball article. I nominated the entire page because at the time, the page was just the article. I am trying to assume good faith at the moment regarding why you put that at the top, but if you thought to do that to try and forestall this, that's not going to be taken very well. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • GalingPinas, you don't have to remove any of that content from your user page if you don't want to, but two other editors don't like it so you might consider doing what they say, as it seems to be upsetting them. Whatever you do there doesn't bother me, but could you please type __NOINDEX__ at the top of any user subpages that look like a Wikipedia article, so Google won't index them? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rarely have I seen such a textbook case of an editor's conduct making it less likely that a page will be preserved. I mean jeez, if you're going to react badly to comments by DGG (easily the most prominently inclusionist administrator on the project, and one of the biggest advocates of helping new users to get to grips to contributing here) then you're in a bad place as regards future collaboration. This isn't so much an MfD issue (just stick it in an incubator and listen to people who are trying to help you for heaven's sake) as a user conduct issue. The best outcome here would be for someone to officially adopt this user until he settles down. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No! No one is more upset, irrate and even furious! here than myself for Tarc's unacceptable behavior yesterday. He summarily deleted and blanked my userpage (I reverted afterward) without first talking to me on my talkpage and asking the reasons! Just because Tarc doesn't personally like the article I wrote doesn't give him the right to barged into my userpage and just blank the page with misguided presumptions!! Then he threatens me with ANIs, and Mfd's??!! This is tantamount to censorship as Anthonyhcole puts it. I call it Vandalism which subject to TOS action. I demanded public apology from him for this harassing behaviour.

'Tarc, if you apologize here and in your talkpage for your unacceptable behaviour yesterday and promise to never do it again to anyone else, then I may move the article into the subpage as suggested here. I have already in good-faith moved half of the article into a subpage. I will move the other half if you apologize here and in your talkpage for your unacceptable behavior yesterday! Then we can close this ridiculous show!GalingPinas (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no gamemanship/posturing/grovelling,boot licking or whatever else you want to call it. Unacceptable harrassing behavior will NOT be tolerated period.GalingPinas (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your user page is not free advertising space to promote something with what looks like an article. Enforcing notability guidelines and user page guidelines is not harrassment. Edison (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who's talking advertising/promotionalism here?, except the delitionists! If one writes about Pepsi, is that promotionalism? Enforcing notability and userpage guidelines has a proper forum--Afd,etc. But unilateral page deletion and blanking is not enforcement. It's vandalism and harrassment in my opinion and in one opinion of an editor here, it's censorship.GalingPinas (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not even sure how to react at this point, I haven't had a conversation turn this weird since I dropped a tab one Homecoming Week and thought the checkerboard tablecloths in the cafe were singing Here Comes the Sun. Relative to how I usually deal with these sorts of people, I think I've been a choir boy. I and others have tied to explain why we generally don't use a top-level userspace for a copy of a deleted article, how to move it to a sub-page, how to deal with the "I lost my work and need a backup" concerns. Now we're being held hostage pending an apology? Are we hitting a language barrier here? The "sport" originates in the Philippines and presumably the user does as well. This whole thing, from AfD to present, is like a hyper-inflated case of WP:OWN. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All your presumptions on Circball are wrong that's why i cannot rely on your opinion, however good or long you've been as a so-called "editor." You never even bother to read the difference in deleted and modified article. Not even take positive steps of ownership and make the article better. Your vendetta on Circball is unabated even on a stupid little backup article. Geez. Who would want your opinion then. The article on the userpage is not the deleted afd article. But that's beside the point. I didn't really think you would apologize given your threating and harrassing behaviour yesterday, although the request is still valid. Oh and Yes, everyone knows what happened to choir boys by the Clergy.GalingPinas (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not talking about his conversation in here. I'm talking about his harassing actions yesterday for first blanking a userpage without first talking then following up with harassing threats!! That warrants an apology! If it wasn't for Tarc's unilateral blankin my userpage yesterday without notice, i would not consider any Circball witchunt. But now I know better as far as Tarc is concerned despite his "choirboy" appearance. GalingPinas (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move the Circball part to another user sandbox; preserve the other stuff Galing considers appropriate, about deletionism, etc. on his/her userpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I consider all of them appropriate including Circball. Which btw is NOT an article as described by the Draft template but only a backup copy of a potential article currently being edited at another userspace. There is no WP policy that prevents a backup copy of modified potential article in current edit status. It is not a deleted article either as some may presume. Such un-indexed backup copy of the potential article will be removed upon completion of the other real modified potential article when moved into its proper namespace. GalingPinas (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FACTS

I just want to make it cristal clear the following facts:

? So you're claiming that this is NOT the content deleted on the basis of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circball, then userfied to a subpage as a courtesy to you? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Read it and compare. It has changed drastically from the original Afd content that even GGD commented on his talkpage that it's a "much improved, much clearer" content. Think of it as a temporary cache file saved as a draft on a temporary directory of your computer, that when the original file is actually saved, this cache file gets deleted automatically . That's all. No big deal. Because current WP Editor App doesn't have a "Save to Draft" button/option, thus the neccesity of this temporary backup content with preserved formatted texts. GalingPinas (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User pages exist for the benefit of the encyclopedia. THis page has no benefit, as the "draft" can never be used for a mainspace article, nor used to improve an existing mainspace article, until such time as real world circumstances change and Circball becomes notable. Unless you can come up with some compelling reason why Wikipedia should host this random information, it should be deleted; should you need a copy, keep it off site. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise? Somebody mentioned GalingPinas is the creator of this game. That's quite something, and obviously something he's rightly proud of. What if he began his user page with something like this: "Hi. I'm GalingPinas. Blah blah blah. One of my most satisfying achievements was designing a new variant of basketball I call circball. It's an alternative basketball game ... (followed by the existing description)." That is, with a few minor changes it could be turned from a faux article into the kind of thing one frequently finds on a user page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got the idea that faux articles (especially faux articles which are in userspace because they were deleted from mainspace) are a good idea, but they aren't. Not that I expect any compromise from the user in question anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. I suggested he should change it from a faux article to personal commentary. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Tarc, the harrassment/vandalism charge only applies to my own userpage and not on other pages. So, this move is ok. So, why don't you help in editing the draft commentary compromise, instead of just complaining about it. Is it the formating that your concerned? is it the content? coz this particular content again is NOT the deleted content. GalingPinas (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to keep promotionalism in user space, even subpages. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you delete? The only subpage to remain should be User:GalingPinas/Circball which is currently being edited as DGG suggested. The others can be deleted. The main userspace has been change to a Personal Comment to comply with the above compromise that GalingPinas wants to share how he learned about Circball. There is no promotionalism involve only a personal comment.GalingPinas (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the talk page facts before make blank statement as above :) This is not to circumvent a deleted article.GalingPinas (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blink please read the FACTS on talk page before make blank statement as above :) This is not to circumvent a deleted article.GalingPinas (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would really really really wish that everyone who come to this discussion the first time to read the FACT on the talkpage. :) This is not to circumvent a deleted article.GalingPinas (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.


More