User talk:Deleteopedia

=
===================== PERSONAL INFO ============================================= Hi, I am beginner-intermediate (new-ish) editor, although not as new as this account. My first account used my real name which I did not like, so I made this account for my main work on Wikipedia. On my previous account I learned about Wiki guidelines, how to edit, and some of the many community norms. I didn't edit a page but posted on many talk pages and AfD pages.

I chose the name "deleteopedia" is in reference to an opinion I formed while learning Wikipedia on my 1st account, which is that once an article is flagged for deletion, it is far to easy for a worthwhile page to be deleted. I hypothesize that the cause (or one of the causes) is simply that the people who visit and vote on AfD pages most regularly are people who have an interest in deletion ("deletionists"). I formed this hypothesis based on the many instances I witnessed of the deletion votes that specify a rationale in conflict with the guidelines (ex. editors that just ignore subject specific notability guidelines because they don't personally like them), or that completely fail to engage the deletion discussion or flag (ex. TNT, the ultimate "I don't want to defend any rationale for this vote" vote, purely subjective and most often an end-run around the real issue; e.g., notability. COI, etc.)., or that indicate the voter hasn't even read the discussion, just looked at the page and voted (ex., no reliable sources, an editor posts a bunch in the discussion, then right below it a bunch of people vote delete - "I couldn't find any sources anywhere).

On this account I have ventured into editing my first actual page, I found a page that was flagged for deletion, "Threshold Effect", and edited it to begin addressing the concerns in the deletion flag. I tried to fix it with major edits and additional citations and examples illustrating the broad-concept and links to instances of it and... you guessed it. Deleted anyway! (The flag was disambiguation/broad concept - the two votes subsequent were TNT -, neither addressed my four new paragraphs to fix the three sentence stub, as usual in AfDs).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PLEASE DON"T EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE. THANKS! Deleteopedia xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Find Userspace Pages (PrefixIndex)

New Section Two
{{collapse top | title = {heading |Username Discussion|2}} Username may be against policy

While yours is not exactly the same name, it's very similar to the name of a website: https://deletionpedia.org/

It's close enough that searching for "Deleteopedia" on Google brings up that website. The form of the name can also imply shared use, since the -pedia suffix is now commonly associated with wiki- (and some non-wiki-) based websites.

Although this is a new account, I see that you have some previous experience under a different username. Having two accounts is allowed, but if you're going to actively edit with both accounts, you'll want to be sure that you don't stray into forbidden sock-puppet territory.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi user:jmcgnh,

Thanks for being the first person to comment on my talk! Also, thanks for bringing this to my attention.

The most important take away for me was:
 * WP:BADNAME "If the name is not unambiguously problematic... ignore it". It's a pretty hard sell to say my name is "unambiguously problematic". That being said, here are my thoughts why its actually pretty clearly not a violation, as I read the policies:
 * WP:ISU is the on you mention, but flat out my name does nothing to imply another human is using this account, like the example "jackandjill" does, orthe one reprted today to WP:UAA, Sharedaccounts123. Obviously my name doesn't imply an office or a position held within an organization, like "CEOofDeleteopedia, so overall, I think I'm safe here.
 * most of WP:MISLEADNAME is obviously ot applicable, but one standard i worth mentioning: Names "including phrases such as "wikipedia", "wikimedia", "wiktionary"...give the incorrect impression that the account may be officially affiliated...". Only one even has -pedia in it, they al have wiki, but it clearly doesn't even ban all wiki names. It's wrried about stuff like "WikimediaCopyrightStaff", "WikipediaPolicyEnforecmentAdmin", "WikimediaFoundationFundraisingInitiative" or other such nonsense. Cleary not me.
 * WP:UNCONF lol vague, subjective, doesn't even articulate any clear standard. Sounds Familiar! This is literally the WP:TNT of the naming policy haha! Next.
 * WP:PROMONAME is probably the best argument. If I was a disruptive troll that wanted to troll myself, I'd use this one. You could say I was an advertisement for some delete-archiving website like the one you told me about, or any inclusionsist organizations named delete and/or pedia. There is a New York Times article called "Deletopedia" so maybe I'm advertising the NYT... Obviously, I'm not violating this; never done any promotion behaviors, zero COI, but there could be an accusation.

I'm curious if you are persuaded or not, or have any other concerns. Does that sound like a correct application of the policy to my username? I like my name and I don't want to change it, so I'd be psyched if I was able to convince you that I was no in violation. Or at least wasn't "unambiguously problematic".

Please let me know what you think. Deleteopedia (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like you're heavily invested in this name and I'm not going to dissuade you from continuing to use it.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

New message from Jmcgnh

I failed to notice this was on my own talk page rather than yours.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Deleteopedia/SandboxHoneycutt has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Deleteopedia/SandboxHoneycutt. Thanks!  Ken Tony  Shall we discuss? 08:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I see this is also in WP as an article
You seem to have moved it yourself, which is not a good idea. . I cannot tell from the current state of the article whether he is notable: Distinguished Professor usually is, but it is not clear whether he received thet itle only upon his retirement. Since WP does not publish CVs, it needs complete rewriting--See my comments at the talk page of the article. I could rewrite it myself, but it's your responsibility, especially since it needs so much rewriting and additional factual information. If it seems he's notable, I will delete the sandbox page--we don't keep drat versions when we have an article.

Rescuing deleted articles is a good thing to do--I became an admin, in fact, in order to do just tthat. But they usually need considerable work done to them.  DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, please mark the draft for deletion, use at the top.  DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:James M. Honeycutt
Hello, Deleteopedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:James M. Honeycutt, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)