Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 3

3 June 2014

User:DVMt/sandbox

User:DVMt/sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I lost 70 new citations that are not currently part of the main article page. I was going to gradually add the sections contained therein at the talk page. The editor who requested the deletion has a long standing issues ownership [1] The current version suffers badly in readability [2] as well and QuackGuru misrepresented the deletion proposal. It also stated I was indef blocked, which is not the case. I had done work to the page this year, negating concerns of staledraft, and the copyvio allegation was resolved by changing a few words. Regardless, I put in dozens of hours compiling additional references and they're gone. Also, I did not have a chance to address the comments that were posted because I was blocked and didn't feel I had the chance to address the concerns raised. Thank you for your consideration. DVMt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - to be fair, you were indefinitely blocked, but that was later reviewed and you were unblocked after a fairly lengthy discussion on your talk page. That's fine (that's the way it should work) but the block wasn't misrepresented. The concerns raised (and the consensus that subsequently developed after Anne Delong's comment about half way through the discussion) related to WP:FAKEARTICLE. You continued to address QuackGuru's claims and comments but didn't really address Anne's which is what other editors then came to agree with. The sandbox was deleted on the basis that it functioned as a WP:FAKEARTICLE which is what the closing admin noted was the consensus that had developed. That didn't actually have anything to do with the nomination which didn't mention that guideline at all. The purpose of DRV is to review closes and deletions more than it is to review nominations for deletion. It seems like a fairly solid consensus and I can't really see any reason why the admin's close shouldn't be endorsed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Quackguru certainly had a lot to say during that AfD. It may be possible for a sysop to email you a copy of the deleted page so that your 70 citations are not lost; would that be a satisfactory resolution for you, DVMt?—S Marshall T/C 07:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In the light of DVMt's reply below perhaps a sysop could email him a copy of the deleted page and close the deletion review? We can achieve what the nominator wants without having to disturb the close, so I suggest we do that.—S Marshall T/C 01:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - DVMt was indefinitely blocked by User:Kww when I made my comment at the time. After a long discussion User:Adjwilley unblocked DVMt. I didn't see any new 70 citations but I did see a lot of MEDRS violations. The sandbox was largely an old version from a previously resolved content dispute. There is a {{db-copyvio}} in the newly created sandbox. It looks like a cut and paste from the website Quackwatch. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• QuackGuru is making an allegation without any evidentiary support. You made the claim, so prove it. What are the MEDRS violations? What is the copyvio on the sandbox? QW is a reliable site and we see that Barrett is making a good distinction between scientific and non-scientific chiropractors. He is a notable skeptic. Quackguru, you've been warned about harassing me before. Stop trying to censor everything I'm working on to add to the scientific literature of manual and manipulative therapies. If you continue trying to own the articles, my work space and the topic itself my not assuming any good faith in me or my contributions, I will take this up with User:John so we can talk about your disruptive behaviour. I did lose all those citations and that would be agreeable User:S Marshall. DVMt (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously impossible to provide evidence of things when the evidence has been deleted. You are continuing to argue with QuackGuru but it wasn't his rationale that saw the content deleted. Arguing with him is unlikely to see your content restored given it's not his arguments you're actually seeking to overturn. S Marshall has made a good suggestion and you've accepted it. I strongly suggest you move on from there while being particularly careful about copyvio in any newly created content. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse continued deletion of the material, but no objection to a copy being sent to the author for their own use as suggested above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)