Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DovidBenAvraham/sandbox

 __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:  delete. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:DovidBenAvraham/sandbox

 * – (View MfD)

WP:POVFORK (or, more accurately, WP:REJECTEDSPAMFORK) of Retrospect (software), where this user has been padding the article and pushing back against all attempts to prune it back to something less like an advertisement for months. Guy (help!) 17:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete because this is a content forum, and Delete as per Wikipedia is not for advertising is the only way to deal with this sort of crud at MFD. Other remedies might apply in a conduct forum.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep because Guy's "all attempts to prune it back to something less like an advertisement for months" have not included any WP article links to official rules stating that a listing of features of a backup software application constitutes an advertisement. The only paragraph of Wikipedia is not for advertising that might apply is "5. Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable."  Guy originally objected to my non-puffery features references to first-party user manuals—which I had made because I had difficulty finding third-party references to some features.  However I revised the article on 21 October 2019—5 days ago—to eliminate all first-party references except the developer company's announcement of its acquisition on 25 June 2019—and WP expressly allows first-party references to company ownership.  Guy promptly re-deleted my feature-listing sections, on the grounds that my feature listings were somehow WP:HOWTO; typically, he's since not made any explanation of that.  I will institute a more formal proceeding later tonight.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Translation: I cannot see any problem with my content that numerous editors have said was inappropriate, and want to reinstate the content that was removed, with approval of numerous editors and admins more experienced than me. Guy (help!) 23:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "Numerous editors" evidently means one other editor on the article's Talk page, plus one other editor in this section. The other editor on the article's Talk page explained that he had doubts about the full independence (in 2009) of one of my second-party sources, so I substituted replacements for that source last night.  That's the only explanation I've seen, and it's not for your collective belief in Wikipedia rules that in fact don't seem to exist—despite you editors having bounced around editing a whole bunch of posts for years.  You'll get another chance to provide valid links later tonight.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - This sandbox is a disorderly set of notes that appear intended to take the place of discussion on the article talk page. If this is a content dispute, I suggest that you develop a Request for Comments to see whether the community agrees to your changes.  Alternatively, this could go to a conduct forum.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * My userspace Sandbox is not "a disorderly set of notes that appear intended to take the place of discussion", but is as it should be, "a place with fewer rules and policies than other pages on Wikipedia. For example, you don't have to follow the Manual of Style or reach community consensus before making a major change."  I've continued to use it for development of articles before I put them into mainspace; since Guy started deleting my versions of the Retrospect (software) article, I've been using it to develop new revisions that more fully comply with what Guy and Dirk claim they want. What I did this afternoon was to show on the Talk page for the article a diff between what I'd just developed and what I had left over in my Sandbox from 21 October 2019, which I'd copied into the article page—but which then had its "Standard features" and "Editions and Add-Ons" sections deleted by Guy.  I thought the diff would be helpful in showing them how I was complying with the latest cutting-down proposal I had made on the Talk page earlier on 25 October 2019. I considered substituting my latest revision for the feature-less version Guy had left in the article, but I knew Guy would immediately delete my two newly-cut-down features sections.  Apparently Guy is using my having done the diff from my Sandbox as an excuse to justify deleting it.


 * This is more than a content dispute, because Guy has made it clear in several comments—most recently in his 17:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC) comment in this section—that he believes any listing of application features makes the article an "advertisement". Since Guy has refused to link to any Wikipedia policy article that justifies his belief (basically saying that this is a traditional rule of long-time editors), IMHO it must become an ANI rather than an RfC.  I've tried hard to avoid taking that step, but I'm going to have to do it overnight.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The purpose of a sandbox is to develop material helpful for the encyclopedia. Maintaining notes posing questions about another editor is a violation of WP:POLEMIC. A dispute regarding an article should be examined at the article's talk, or a noticeboard. After that, maintaining the dispute in a sandbox is unhelpful. Keep a local copy on a computer if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all revisions regarding retrospect and containing the polemic remarks (which is all except for the first 2 or 3 revids). Discussion is ongoing on the article page, and diffs can be applied (and self reverted) on the actual article.  There is no reason to keep this, still promotional, version there.  WP:IDNHT starts to apply here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Doug Mehus (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete with the proviso that should reflect on Wikipedia's core purpose and the policies previously cited to him, adjust his behaviour, and be unblocked, that this content can be restored to him upon request so that he might compile a how-to manual, changelog, or other treatise over at Wikibooks. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2019 (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.