Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Treehouse

Wikipedia:Treehouse

No encyclopedic value to this page, but I cannot find a valid criteria for speedy deletion for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has the prefix "wikipedia" therefore, it does not need encyclopedic value. I am constructing a project page. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what project? This project doesn't exist, and you cannot just make up a project because you feel like it. No evidence that this page benefits the encyclopedia in anyway. 19:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes the project doesnt exsist but I am creating it and yes I can, how else do projects come about. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here from policy, "... editors may start new WikiProjects at any time and are encouraged, but not obligated, to propose them before doing so." And these are the differences with the prefixes. As you can see, needing encyclopedic content only applies to namespace number 1. Mine is number 2.

1.Main namespace (no prefix): contains all encyclopedia articles, lists, disambiguation pages, and encyclopedia redirects. Sometimes referred to as "mainspace".

2.Wikipedia namespace or Project namespace (prefix Wikipedia:): contains many types of pages connected with the Wikipedia project itself: information, policy, essays, processes, discussion, etc..

Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiProject name must start with WikiProject in it, also I don't see how a Wikiproject on Treehouses is useful. Also, this will only cause confusion with WP:Teahouse, an established organisation. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter if you think its useful or not! And the it can start with wikipedia as well. See Wikipedia:Teahouse will take you to the teahouse will it not. It also says above that wp wikiproject or wikipedia are all acceptable. And teahouse is not an established orginization, its just another project like the one im creating. Wikipenguin 8 User:Joseph2302 (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the treehouses talk page comments that I made. Thanks Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, I removed the fake logo you created from the talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did delete my last comment and the project logo and then I had to put them both back and then you just continued to remove the logo. Me putting the projects logo on its own talk page is not vandalism yet you give me multiple vandalism notices for doing so out of spite. Your behavior is veering towards the out of hand area and if I recieve any more uncalled for warnings, I might have to request a block for you. You dont have to recognize this as a wikiproject but there is no reason to try to sabatoge it all because earlier on, I, a newbie bested you at policy. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's be realistic here. Let Wikipenguin 8 finish the work that they are doing on the page. If there are serious objections, you can try shifting the page to your userspace as a temporary measure, otherwise, I don't see any grounds for deletion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried moving it to userspace, but then they copy and pasted it back here, and claimed I was "abusing my powers". Joseph2302 (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the correct way to do it. If it has to be shifted, let Wikipenguin use the Move page option, so that Page History does not get skewed. Also, let it remain, till such time consensus is reached that it needs to be deleted or shifted. As for the statement(s) also I don't see how a Wikiproject on Treehouses is useful and I removed the fake logo you created, both statements are totally unwarranted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said you were abusing your powers when you gave me vandalism warnings for putting the so called "fake logo" on the page. I am pinging you Rsrikanth05 bc i dont know id youre monitoring this and I want you to know that what he said right before twisted the facts and thats not what really happened. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You put the logo on the talkpage, which is not an appropriate location, and then repeatedly edit warred to try and keep it there. I'm happy to give you a week to try and show that this "project" has some encyclopedic worth, so long as you stop making accusations like "abusing your power" and now "twisted the facts"- checking the talkpage histiry clearly shows you edit warring to add the logo to the talkpage, which is not an appropriate place for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion is heading nowhere. I'm asking an admin to have a look here: @Yunshui and Materialscientist: --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider one revert of you possibly vandalising the page edit warring on my part then something is clesrly wrong here. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) [1], [2], [3]- 3 reverts, hence the warnings about the 3-revert rule. 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Rsrikanth05 Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest both of you cool off for a while instead of continuing this argument. Joseph2302, there is no such thing as approved wikiproject, neither is there any policy against having images [or, if you prefer, fake logos], on talk pages. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cooling down is fine with me. I'm taking this page off my watchlist, everyone else can get a consensus on how to proceed. FWIW, I still believe this "article/project" has 0 encyclopedic value. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok only two are actually reverts, I was mistaken above, I made 2 not 1 reverts. The third was me initially putting it on the page and that wasnt a revert. And anyway in order to violate the rule you need to have 4 reverts heres a quote of policy: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page" As you can see, it says MORE than three reverts which means four reverts. And I only really made two. If anything, that only shows my restraint not to continue once I saw you were for sure fighting my edit. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]