Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiToyol

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Delete There was very little support for "keep", and it came down to a question of delete v userfy. However, apart from the numerically greater number of "deletes", the two "userfies" gave little reason, beyond "why not?", whereas the "deletes" did give several reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiToyol

[edit]

A member of the recent proliferation of fauna pages. A wikitoyol "steals peoples ideas"; however, we don't own the ideas we put into wikipedia per WP:OWN. These pages started out as describing how people normaly edit,ie the Gryphon on my userpage, now they have become myspacey. Guerillero | My Talk 03:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey bung, wikipedia adalah bebas, setiap orang boleh menyumbangkan idenya,,, apakah kamu pikir wikipedia adalah milikmu seorang?Aris riyanto (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of above comment from Malay to English:
Acather96 (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

di sini adalah lelucon wikipedia a.k.a humor, maka pantaslah jika tidak sesuai dengan konten wikipedia, sila coba Anda lihat pada WikiFauna lain apakah seperti itu juga? Menurut saya isi konten artikel ini "TIDAK ADA MASALAH", tidak ngaco, bukan vandalisme. Lalu , masalahnya di mana? Aris riyanto (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate of the above comment.

The problem here is that the page has little relevance to Wikipedia or Wikipedia editing. Some of the Wikifauna are relevant and some are not. From WP:OTHERSTUFF: People may not have noticed and nominated for deletion those pages to which you refer.

(Google Translate of my comment) Cunard (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think wikipedia:WikiToyol aint relevant? Aris riyanto (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how it is related to Wikipedia editing. Would you explain how it is related?

(Google Translate of my comment) Cunard (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apakah anda merasa dirugikan? Apakah wikipedia dirugikan? saya rasa TIDAK! Aris riyanto (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Google Translate of the above comment)

The most other sorts of wikifauna highlight broad editing patterns that can be seen throughout the community. We are a collaborative encyclopedia. No one owns their ideas here. Its all for the community. By this sort of fauna can't exist. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can contribute, edit, add or modify here, but dont delete someone's idea if you dont feel aggrieved, because it makes someone stopping contribute in wikipedia. Aris riyanto (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'I am willing to delete this article, if a similar article was also deleted.' Aris riyanto (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible keep - I've just had a thought, Aris - did you mean, by 'stealing other peole's ideas', that the WikiToyol is a user who just copy and pastes stuff from other sources and creates a load of stubs? One who blatantly does copyright violations and plagiarism and little else? If so, then maybe that should be made clear on the page, so other people don;t get confused about what's meant here. If that's what Aris meant, then they certainly do exist (I expect we've all come across such articles!) If that's not what you meant, then I;d go for the userfy option. (Adding: if that is what's meant, and that's OK to keep for that reason, then I'd happily help edit that fauna to reflect the fact and make it clear, if that helps at all :o) ... infact, I shall go over to it now and see if I can bring it into line with the 'recognised editing style' along those lines. Even if it's not what was originally intended, it does reflect that particular tpye of 'editing'.)ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes may be:-). I write the article to convey the existing rules on wikipedia by not too serious way. Aris riyanto (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not suited for project namespace. --Kleinzach 09:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Following ThatPeskyCommoner (talk · contribs)'s changes, the page is now more relevant to Wikipedia editing. However, I continue to support deletion (instead of userfication or retention) because of the page's content. The page now beings with: "WikiToyol is a Wikipedian who steals ideas and claims them as his own, often revealing a small hoard of stolen gems in a short space of time. On occasion he will make some effort to attempt to disguise his theft."

    The changes have, in my opinion, strengthened the reasons for deletion. If someone were to call a fellow editor—new or established—a WikiToyol, one who violates the copyright policy and plagiarizes, animosity would likely result. A new user would be bitten, and an established user would feel maligned. Because Wikipedia:WikiToyol can now be used to slight others, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiToyol&oldid=1142591467"