Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard


 * Moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'd like to make it clear that I consider the unilateral move of part of this discussion another page by a participant in the debate to be inappropriate, given the centrality of the issue being discussed: i.e. what is advocacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree, please would someone move it back to this page. It breaks up the reasoning and the discussions going on which I found to be interesting to this discussion.  There was no reason to remove it, everyone was behaving properly.  Please return it, thank you, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an MfD discussion, not a discussion about advocacy. It looks like an attempt to overwhelm the page with criticism, so please continue it on this talk page, or on the talk page of Advocacy, or the noticeboard's talk page. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that a participant in this MfD should not unilaterally move discussion off the main page to the talk page. There is already substantial discussion here. Please return the discussion back to this page. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the talk page for, if not for additional discussion not directly related to whether the page should be deleted? Perhaps we should ask an uninvolved admin to decide whether it belongs on this page or the talk page. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's directly related. Your moving of it was totally disruptive. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should move it back yourself, SlimVirgin, and then "ask an uninvolved admin". If you are really suggesting that a discussion on how 'activism' is defined is irrelevant to this MfD, I can only say I fail to see your logic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's acceptable for the creator of the thing being MFD'd to move key parts of the discussion to the talk page, then it's surely no less appropriate for the MFD nominator to move it back: so moved back. Rd232 talk 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * shouldnt this discussion about whether content should be on main page or talk page actually be occurring on the talk page? Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. See talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Exchange on moving stuff to this page
OK, I'm going to use this talk page for its intended purpose, by suggesting that the discussion on "moving stuff to the talk page" be moved here, to the talk page, were it belongs. It doesn't belong in the deletion discussion at all, hatted or not. It's disruptive. Perhaps an "uninvolved administrator" or whoever can move it here. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty, I share your views about the whole mess that it became, but at this point I'd like to suggest that the uninvolved administrator who will eventually close the deletion discussion will see that part of the page for what it is. It's time to move on, rather than to continue debating about where to move it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine for extended or tangenital discussion to be moved to the talk page with a link left in the original spot, which is what was done. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is never fine for a highly involved editor to make the judgement that a discussion is "tangential" and that it should be moved to the talk page. Slimvirgin is the the most involved editor imaginable in this proceeding.  My comment in the thread that was moved was 100% related to the deletion discussion and moving it, and the others here, could very easily be seen as self-serving to Slimvirgin since those comments argued against the need for her noticeboard.  I think it is pretty obvious that she should not have done that.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it sounds like some of you are nervous that if the discussion was moved, then your opinions wouldn't have as much impact on the voting page with other editors or the closing admin. In other words, you're (speaking in general and not of you personally) afraid of losing the argument. Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the one who keeps chiding people for personalizing discussions? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE. Relevant arguments that may sway consensus relating to a discussion should not be moved away by highly involved editors. I don't want to make an issue of it, but the move was quite inappropriate, and were the user not an admin, it would probably be held against them rather more seriously, if not now then perhaps in future. Rd232 talk 07:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen editors move discussions to talk pages on pages such as this, or on RfAs, many times. A link was added to the discussion, so the editors concerned about it really shouldn't have been.  If an involved editor edit wars over it, then it might be cause for concern.  That didn't occur here, did it? Cla68 (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "I've seen editors move discussions ... many times." - but not the editors whose work is being nominated for deletion, or the RfA candidates, surely. Rd232 talk 07:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised there's still argument about this. To me it's just plainly improper for the creator of an article to move a deletion discussion off the main page, especially when the consensus is against her both substantively and on that point. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just one activist editor, disruptively advocating for their MfD POV ... :).Griswaldo (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Then perhaps the "move discussion" should be hatted. It was totally disruptive in every sense of the word, and really loused up a productive and useful discussion. It made a hash of the page. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking back at it, I think you are referring to the discussion in which you participated. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. All those comments belong here. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)