Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Racepacket/RSMAS

 __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 Speedy Delete per U1. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Racepacket/RSMAS
There is no reason to userfy an entire article as Racepacket has done in this situation. He claims that this copy of the article should be the only one edited to prepare for a GA review. I have never seen this in practice and considering Racepacket's involvement, it will not turn out well. — Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am following the procedure I have been using since late February. The GA review has specified changes. I would like to develop changes in response. Ryulong is welcomed to edit as well, and I will not edit war with him.  Once we have a version that meets the GA reviewer's approval, it will be checked for any possible copyright or other policy problems and then moved to article space.  This procedure has worked well in other reviews. I do not mean to cause Ryulong any distress and put an announcement on the article talk page so that everyone would be welcome to edit.  I realize this is a minor inconvenience for a few days, but it is required. I had considered doing this as a subarticle of Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, but because the temporary subpage would be searchable, WP:SP requires that it be a subpage in user space, not article space. I would be willing to have the article moved to User:Ryulong/RSMAS if it would make him feel more comfortable. Thank you for your understanding. Racepacket (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * THERE DOES NOT NEED TO BE A SEPARATE COPY OF THE ARTICLE. There is absolutely no precedence anywhere that requires that anyone make a separate copy of an article that will the only copy edited. What you are doing is effectively a WP:FORK of the RSMAS article. It does not matter where the page is located. It should not exist in the first place.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish that were true, but regretably, two separate steps are needed. Racepacket (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then maybe you should stop working on GA nominations entirely.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This Mfd was apparently started 12 minutes after the page was created. Is this connected to some differences of opinion over the article Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science? -- Klein zach  00:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. It's the behavior of Racepacket. He takes the most asinine approach to GA nominations, and after he's repeatedly been given second chances at this project, he just comes up with new methods of doing so. This fork should not exist. It's a waste of space and time.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what prompted that remark. We have no differences yet about the article. I made changes since the last GA and renominated. Talk:Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science/GA3 is requesting changes which I am making now. Racepacket (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:SP says drafts of major article revisions should be in the Talk namespace, so this should be at Talk:Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science/Draft as per WP:WORP  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to move it, I would not object. But I had read WP:SP the opposite way, "Writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., Example Article/Temp in the main namespace, as you can get there accidentally using Special:Random—write these in the talk namespace, e.g. Talk:Example Article/Temp. See Wikipedia:Workpages for detail. Also, avoid incoming and outward links regarding such "Talk:.../Temp" page that might create the impression this is an encyclopedia page before it is, e.g.:" Racepacket (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see why you need a spearate article just to make some prose edits. I made User:Blake/Mario because I completely rewrote the whole long section. Although doing things like this makes the history messy and confusing, and should only be done in major revamps, not copyediting. It works best to make the required edits in the main article, unless they are risky test changes. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Comment - What a storm in a teacup! Maybe everybody should relax, and Ryulong stop writing in all caps? -- Klein  zach  00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone. The amount of time spend on this MfD, I could have done the entire operation. I would love to edit article space, but I can't. Could we please just go ahead with the current userfied page and finish this if I promise to use a talk subpage next time? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't have mattered as much if it was in User:Racepacket/test or User:Racepacket/sandbox, but you had a whole page devoted to it when there was little reason. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Blake, could you please explain your concern? We are going to make the changes proposed by the GA reviewer, have them cleared and then post them in article space. Why not do it all in one subpage rather than separate subpages for each section?  Is there some policy that you are worried is being violated by doing this? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the changes should be made in the actual article if possible. The only reason it seems you are doing it in a subpage is to keep it away from Ryulong, because he might not like some of your changes or something. That violates WP:FAKEARTICLE, which states you can't use userpages to host "your preferred version of disputed content". I am not sure I understand the whole situation though. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That provision says, "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these)." We typically take a week to develop, approve and post the changes. Racepacket (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I will finish making the changes, have them approved and cleared, and then the new version will be posted into article space. I am sorry that we took up everyone's time, but there is really no other way to do this other than with a subpage.  I do not claim to WP:OWN the article, and anyone else is invited to edit it until we get it cleared for posting to article space. This is just a safety precaution to make sure that there are no inadvertent mistakes. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wow. This has gotten out of control fast. I do not see a reason why it has to be done in userspace. In fact if other editors are involved in the article it is probably best to make the fixes in mainspace. After reading all this I am seriously considering failing the article based on stability. Ryulongs tone is not exactly helping the situation or encouraging my involvement either. I hope Racepacket will be the bigger person and take it upon himself to add his changes in mainspace and avoid any more unnecessary drama. AIR corn (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a bad idea because when you transfer the article back to main space you will lose the edit history which is required by the CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Also, it is not impossible that someone will come along and edit the version in main space while you are working on the draft, and their edits would then be lost when you copy your version back into main space. -- Diannaa (Talk) 19:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, that is why I check the history just before I copy it back. The change will still be in the history and the text. I have been using this procedures on a number of pages. It simplifies the posting into article space. Racepacket (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Should all be sorted now. Racepacket has moved his current changes into the main page and has agreed to edit there from now and add anything he is unsure about to the review page. AIR corn (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Racepacket, if you are not going to be using this draft after all and don't want it any more, please go ahead and tag it as . Thanks. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:42, 13 April 2011 (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.