Wikipedia talk:What would Jack do?

Speedy deletion
 ---Sluzzelin talk  13:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 

I've taken the liberty to repair another vanity page, into a redirect here. Here is my justification, on par with the aforementioned discussion:


 * This is obviously either self-promotion (query, sockpuppet?) or it is partisan and needlessly interjects run of the mill editors into the Wikipedia namespace, other than people like Jimbo or the other founders. Soon enough, there will be scores of personalised Wikipedia essay and community pages.


 * If you like an editor, give him/her a barnstar and don't make an object lesson out of them or their work. I should be very surprised it even exists, but with Wikipedia, who knows? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had redirected Jack's page here, but he has reinstated the speedy deletion template. What a way to drag it out?  Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your redirect and I am contesting the speedy deletion.
 * The rationale given is that it "is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history".
 * While I was certainly not the instigator of the essay, and while I was somewhat embarrassed by its very existence, whatever one might say about it, incoherence and patent nonsense are not among its faults. It is well written, and completely coherent.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (after e.c., this is directed at Catterick) I think you completely missed the spirit of that essay. Its creation was inspired by observations on a certain editor's behaviour and how it (positively) affected a string of disputes. Introducing an essay with a little anecdotal amuse-bouche is a common literary technique. Beyond its anecdotal origin, the essay is a piece of sound and general advice on how to forget irrelevant history and keep a dispute from boiling over. It is no more a "vanity" or "reward" page than WP:TIGER is about fanning William Pietri's vanity. I would be very surprised if sockpuppetry were involved. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)