Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Royalty & Nassau Expert

 __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. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  05:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Royalty & Nassau Expert

 * – (View MfD)

Userpage only being used to criticise and claim ownership of articles they created Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The context for this is Help desk, which started with them trying to force deletion of articles that they'd created and others had edited. They then decided to use their userpage to claim all these articles are "corrupted", when some of them were just being made compliant with Manual of Style/Layout. This userpage serves only to attack other Wikipedian's contributions, and should not be tolerated. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as a battleground, an attempt to claim article ownership, and for violating civility. The rule against polemics doesn't apply because it has to do with polemics unrelated to Wikipedia, and this is related to Wikipedia.  This is a content forum; whether the editor is not here to contribute constructively is not the issue here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Loads of users gripe about Wikipedia or Wikipedians in general on their userpages. No specific other users are mentioned here. Most of the page doesn't have anything to do with that criticism anyway. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a record of why a competent historian and creator of articles has vanished. This may be of interest to editors who work on those articles in the future. Maproom (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Future editors will I am sure, struggle to see exactly how the articles were "corrupted" the corruption consists of placing the external links at the end of the article and removing the dagger symbol for death. Theroadislong (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This nomination is a perfect example what is wrong with Wikipedia. Giving my opinion on my user page is not allowed here. It must be censored by deletion. Thanks for clarifying the real intentions of Wikipedia. This is why I will never contribute to Wikipedia again. As for the false opinions given above about claiming ownership etc. I can only repeat what an earlier royalty expert that also left Wikipedia said to me when we discussed the poor quality of the articles on Wikipedia about (members of) royal and noble families "Fake news rules the world, Wikipedia gladly lends a hand". Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. A contributor’s opinions related to Wikipedia. No case whatsoever to delete, this sort of this belongs in userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. "dictatorlike users/editors that are only interested in imposing illogical or plain stupid rules" seems vague enough to allow when nobody is identified. "article has been corrupted" is a silly claim about reordering appendices and changing a dagger to "died" but the user is just expressing their opinion. The page started out innocent [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Royalty_%26_Nassau_Expert&oldid=995030499] and they just added some frustrations. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The corrupting is not about the reordering of the appendices (except the first ones) but about deleting information done at the same time. Which makes that the references are no longer understandable by the readers. So yes, a very silly claim indeed. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep user is entitled to their opinion, but regarding comment above, PLEASE can you point to where information was deleted so it can be fixed, thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe he refers to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adelheid_of_Katzenelnbogen&diff=next&oldid=924061003] where "compiled by Charles Cawley" was removed, making it harder to guess that "Cawley (Hessen)" and "Cawley (Nassau)" in "References" refers to those pages. I have told him that external links used as sources in the article should not be in the "External links" section. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Does [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adelheid_of_Katzenelnbogen&diff=995899272&oldid=995219811] fix the corrupting you refer to? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We often omit author in the "External links" section. We don't do it for sources but as mentioned, the external links section is not for sources so it was hard for a Wikipedia editor to guess the links were used as sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that was my problem with those edits, starting to edit without reading, not trying to talk first and solve problems by discussing them with the user who created the pages. The order of paragraphs in the articles I wrote and placing external links that are also used as sources under the heading External links were based on excisting pages. Only one user took the time to explain me something on my talk page, which immediately made me correcting it on other pages I wrote or edited. I'm not the uncivilised person other users called me above. But action = reaction! Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We have six million articles and not all of them follow our manual of style. Using "External links" as heading for sources was a minor issue. The problem is how you reacted when somebody moved the section and removed the author name. As far as I can tell, you never mentioned the latter issue and left people wondering why you were so upset. Moving an "External links" section to the end to comply with MOS:APPENDIX is a standard operation when copy-editing an article. Editors aren't expected to carefully read the whole article or start a discussion before doing things like that. If they did then they wouldn't get much work done. And as mentioned, it's common to omit author name from external links in the section called "External links". If somebody does something you disagree with then please try to stay calm and explain the issue in edit summaries like "the author name is used in references", or more detail in a discussion. We do have some vandals and other problem users but most people are here to improve the encyclopedia. I have about 60,000 edits and rarely think others are hostile to me, or me to them, and there is a big connection between those two. "They started it" is a bad excuse. Both parties usually think the other started it. Often there is no clear truth but just different opinions about what started it and whether reactions were reasonable or unjustified escalations. Even a "reasonable" response in kind to online hostility rarely brings anything good. PrimeHunter (talk)
 * I'm sorry but I don't think using edit summaries is "communication". Only referring to what "we use to do or don't do" in edit summaries, to me has the effect of feeling like being slapped in the face. To me communcation means leaving a message with questions and or explanations on a talk page. There it's possible to discuss things and find a solution or conclude to agree to disagree. Secondly, I think that when you start editing an article you first have to read it carefully, no matter how many articles there are. Otherwise as an editor you can only make mistakes.
 * Yes, I reacted strongly and didn't mention the deletion of the authors name in the external links I used as sources. That's because I already completely had enough of Wikipedia and the way the editors thought they should "communicate" with me. Same things like this happened on the Dutch and German Wikipedia. So my frustration was (and is) huge. And although the information is now being restored, that doesn't mean I will contribute to Wikipedia in the future. There is no second chance to make a first impression. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You have 298 edits. Many of us have tens or hundreds of thousands, some millions. Discussing everything first is not a productive use of time, especially for changes like these that seem simple and uncontroversial to most editors. We even have a page Be bold. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There we differ in opinion which is fine. I just wonder, is it productive not to discuss first and therefore lose a user who has expertise on a subject? Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That was unpredictable and would very rarely happen for those edits. And if everything written by you must be carefully discussed with you before making the simplest changes then maybe it is more productive to be without you. It simply isn't how Wikipedia works, and we wouldn't have become this big if it was. Most editors would probably find it too unproductive to spend time here. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What I said above is not just about me. I know that I'm not the first user leaving because of it, and I'm sure I won't be the last. It seems to me that you longtime users have no idea what effect "this is how Wikipedia works" has on new users. Or perhaps you don't care, I don't know. For me is clear that I don't belong here. I will change my user page accordingly. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Users are different but I think many new users love that they can just start editing articles without having to discuss details first (they may be reverted and get upset at that). You have edited since 15 June 2019 so I'm not sure you qualify as new. And I see no talk page edits in your [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Royalty_%26_Nassau_Expert&offset=20190810&limit=250&target=Royalty+%26+Nassau+Expert first 77 edits]. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Reasonable; see bullet point #1 of the "personal writings suitable within the wikipedia community" section within WP:UPYES (this is does not rise to the level of being a polemic). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignore rants of users who have left unless downright offensive. SK2242 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2020 (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.