Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ark25/Blog

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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: keep. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Ark25/Blog


WP:NOTWEBHOST. Just the act of naming the page "Blog" is a violation. Some of the content might be useful as drafts of essays, and as such could easily be copied to appropriately named pages in the userspace. The screed on Romanian Wikipedia needs to go tho. John from Idegon (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: - I am using the page in order to comment my activity and my ideas regarding the development of Wikipedia. I am not using it for file storage or for dating or for memorials or for projects unrelated to Wikipedia or for social networking or for amusement. Every single topic I was opening there is about Wikipedia - even the short pamphlet at User:Ark25/Blog is a reaction to the three months block, followed by a cooking teaching session done by Accipiter Q. Gentilis, made in order to warn someone else to stay away from the hot topic of blocking me, because it can be dangerous. Everything I wrote there is for trying to directly improve Wikipedia. The only exception might be the "Similar faces" section, which might be seen as "original research" - and if that's such a big problem, then I can delete it easily.
 * Sure, the content can be used in separate drafts and essays, but I have no idea why I can't keep the drafts and essays in a single page (as you suggest) and why the page can't be named "Blog". If it's named "Blog", it doesn't imply that it contains anything else than Wikipedia-related ideas. I can simply rename the page into "Drafts-Opinions-Ideas-Essays" or "A Wikipedian Blog" or "Wikipedia-related Blog" but can you provide evidence to support your claims?
 * According to which rule the "screed on Romanian Wikipedia needs to go"? I can't post on Romanian Wikipedia, since I was blocked forever for improving Wikipedia (saving two articles from deletion). I didn't wanted to make my post on meta:Requests for comment/Extreme abuses at the Romanian Wikipedia too long, so I tried to find a place to post the examples of the abuses of the administrators. How can a user provide examples of their perceived abuses of the administrators without writing them somewhere? If you recommend me a better place to place those examples, I will move them into that place. Maybe a sub-page of meta:Requests for comment/Extreme abuses at the Romanian Wikipedia is a better place?
 * Meanwhile I removed the content that is already duplicated at Meta. —  Ark25  (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep With one HUGE caveat. The section regarding the Romanian Wikipedia needs to go, and it needs to go now. The rest I can see as a page dedicated to the user's work (and we have users that do this, so I don't see a problem there). The Romanian Wikipedia section however is bad faith, and need to be removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will delete it, but how can one notice the things they perceive as not going well at Wikipedia, without writing them somewhere? There should be a place where I could store such examples. —  Ark25  (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That you need to take off Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer to my question and you just repeated your request but OK, I moved that content to meta:Requests for comment/Extreme abuses at the Romanian Wikipedia. —  Ark25  (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and question yes, it's clearly an effort. but, the title 'blog' is keep making me think about WP:NOTBLOG. even though it doesn't seem like a blog. this is not some kind of command or something, just a question. will you planning to rename the page? :p '''P roDuct 0339'''sayworkproj 08:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how is that necessary, but sure, I will rename it if I will get any suggestion for the new name. Preferably a one-word name. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The prohibition against userspace "blogs" cautions against userspace pages containing "large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia." The entire contents of this page relate directly to Wikipedia, so the page is in the nature of a userspace essay (or series of userspace essays), which is a permissible, and indeed encouraged, purpose of userspace. The name of the page is irrelevant and surely is not grounds for deletion. Compare User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It relates to Wikipedia, and is by a contributing Wikipedian.  That is more than enough to justify the existence of these sort of pages.  A Wikipedian's intellectual reflections on Wikipedia is very valuable and very welcome.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2017 (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.