Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DVMt/sandbox

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 per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Number 5 7 12:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:DVMt/sandbox

This sandbox contains MASS WP:OR and WP:MEDRS violations. It has not been updated for over a year. The first sentence in the sandbox is the same WP:COPYVIO previously added to the lede on November 21, 2011 using the WHO source. There is no reason to repeat past mistakes or keep unencyclopedic junk dormant in a sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Wikipedia already has a well developed article on this topic. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly unlikely to be an intentionally fake article with Template:Sandbox at the top saying clearly that it isn't an article. Per AGF and WP:CHOICE, I find it reasonable to assume that DVMt was working on an alternative version and simply got drawn into other things. He was returning to it before QG tagged the page; see here where he discusses collaboration with another user. Although the material shouldn't remain there indefinitely, there are options (see WP:FAKEARTICLE) that could have been suggested to DVMt on his talk page rather than WP:POKE-ing him with a deletion tag. QG has history of "poking" behavior (e.g. ignoring WP:DTTR twice in a row). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SANBOX, already stated clearly in the template: "It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article". This leaves no room for interpretation. The whole allegation is absurd. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quack you're making the allegations, now time to prove them. Where is the OR? Where are the MEDRS violations? How is it junk? How does is it not unencyclopedic? Prove your case. DVMt (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The tag for the MFD was inappropriately removed before the discussion was finished. Now even more OR was added to the sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note GQ is engaging in stalking behaviour and posting bogus tags. DVMt (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Adding OR to a sandbox" is one of the most tendentious objections I've seen in a long time. How could someone be on Wikipedia for years on end and not know what a sandbox is for?! Obviously, the whole point of sandboxes is to allow a space for experimentation, where policies like MOS and OR don't apply. The only policies that apply in sandboxes are ones like BLP and copyvio. (cf. WP:ABOUTSAND and WP:BADSAND.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I previously explained The first sentence in the sandbox is the same WP:COPYVIO previously added to the lede.

User:DVMt wants to make significant changes using the unencyclopedic outdated WP:FAKEARTICLE after the dispute at chiropractic was previously resolved a long time ago. QuackGuru (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are dealing with WP:SANDBOX. As the template leaves no doubt: "It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article"

Which part of the template did you not understand? Your whole allegation is absurd. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quack you're again speculating, assuming and looking into a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL. How can it be outdated when I added 70+ new sources? You just don't like it so you want to kill it, plain and simple. Whether or not any changes go through is dependent on a consensus which occurs at the proper talk page. DVMt (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A sandbox is a userpage, so it should conform to the guideline for user pages, which says that they "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content". —Anne Delong (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per above and noted by both Jayguru and Middle 8, this is a bogus report that was mischaracterized with claims that have no supporting evidence. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. We can't just smear and toss allegations around hoping one of them sticks. That's hardly AGF or collaborative editing. DVMt (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your strange edits were rejected a long time ago and now you are using Wikipedia to keep your preferred version in a sandbox.[1][2] Check the edit history. Your edits were rejected despite you claiming you had consensus.[3][4][5][6] This is a waste of time. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The initial nomination was pretty clearly something that should have been deleted, as the draft was stale, and it's against Wikipedia userspace policy to indefinitely host content. See WP:STALEDRAFT. As the page has apparently since been edited, it's a bit harder for me to give a !vote without taking time I don't have at the moment, but if there is a copyvio on the page, that's not allowed in userspace any more than it is elsewhere in the project. Original research is a bit more difficult and less clear cut. - Purplewowies (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purplewowies, DMVt wants to replace the mainspace version with mass OR. See Talk:Chiropractic#New Lede Proposal. Read my comments. See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments. DVMt is repeating past mistakes like restoring a primary source (see WP:SECONDARY) and edit warring against CON[7][8][9] to restore a tag long after the dispute was previously resolved over a year ago. The sandbox should not replace the well developed article on the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think QuackGuru's bogus report can be just ignored. The allegation is totally absurd. The template already leaves no room for interpretation. DVMt, tell me when you feel good with your suggestion for the new version at Chiropractic and I'll take a review and give you my comments! (<- see, that's how the sandbox is being correctly used) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only bogus report was made by Jayaguru-Shishya. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Anne DeLong, this is a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Just because it is in a sandbox doesn't mean that FAKEARTICLE doesn't apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lies, lies lies. QuackGuru is making bogus allegations, the copvio issue is resolved, and he is assuming everything and looking into a WP:CRYSTAL ball. Again, QG is making allegations of OR (there is none and he/she has yet to prove anything in terms of evidence) and look at the history at chiropractic and you'll see no edit wars (except for ownership of the article quack guru). I guess this is why WP"AGF goes to die. Regardless, I'm working on making proposals if QG is ever willing to collaborate with others who hold a more moderate POV. DVMt (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See reference 4. Far reaching claims and lack of scientific evidence supporting spinal joint dysfunction/subluxation as the sole cause of disease has led to a critical evaluation of a central tenet of chiropractic and the appropriateness of the profession's role in treating a broad spectrum of disorders that are unrelated to the neuromusculoskeletal system.[10]

Do you think this text is sourced in your sandbox? How is that a summary of the body?

The effectiveness of spine manipulation for the treatment of neck pain is controversial.[123] Read the CONCLUSION: "Collectively, these data fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for pain management."[11]

Do you think the text is OR or sourced. I think the entire sandbox is a joke but you think it is an improved version. QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far reaching claims and lack of scientific evidence supporting spinal joint dysfunction/subluxation as the sole cause of disease has led to a critical evaluation of a central tenet of chiropractic and the appropriateness of the profession's role in treating a broad spectrum of disorders that are unrelated to the neuromusculoskeletal system. [12]. This is in the lede and is further expanded upon here which states "his monocausal view of disease has been abandoned by the profession [ref]Bergmann, T.F., Perterson D.H (2011). Chiropractic Technique: Principles and Procedures. Elsevier. ISBN 9780323049696.[/ref] preferring a holistic view of subluxation that is viewed as theoretical construct in a "web of causation" along with other determinants of health.[ref name="Henderson 2012 632–642"/] ". These are tertiary and secondary sources. They support the movement away from a one cause one cure model, to one that is multifactorial including a shift towards specialization in musculoskeletal medicine. Given that your editing suggests heavy ownership and canvassing for "your" version, it's about "our" version here, which is dependent on collaboration. Just because you don't like sandbox [13] and think it's a joke doesn't give you the right to bully me through these bogus, passive aggressive deletion attempts. You should be doing this at the chiropractic talk page where I'm trying to discuss with you and yet continue to witch-hunt me with specious allegations. DVMt (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an appropriate place to discuss any proposals as no proposals have been made yet. The discussion will take place at Chiropractic (Talk) when a proposal has been made for the new article. The fact is that the current Chiropractic article is rather a low-quality with a mish-mash of one-liners with citations with little or no connection from one sentence to the next. The current version has also an extremely strong bias, but I'm optimistic as I see all the good work DVMt has done with clear outline, improved expression and strong new sources. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get QG involved in the talk page, but he doesn't want to talk. I agree this is getting tedious and the appropriate venue for this discussion is the talk page. DVMt (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made comments on the talk page. You proposal on the talk was rejected as not summarising the body and containing OR. See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments. The talk page shows DVMt does not understand how to improve the article. DVMt thinks it is okay to use primary sources. A sandbox with mass OR is an improvement according to DVMt but there is no way we should ignore the original research mess throughout this fake article. Competence is required. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. See WP:COMPETENCE. For example, DVMt claims the text is OR but two sources verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any rejection or any comments from you in a while. Repeating false claims doesn't make it true, we're not all Tea Party enthusiasts. Insinuating that I'm incompetent isn't really moving the needle forward. The claim doesn't match the source. I'm going to give you an opportunity to rectify it. I hope you take the opportunity to do so. Cheers. DVMt (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim matches two sources to be precise. Claiming the text is unsourced when it is obviously sourced shows a lack of WP:COMPETENCE. QuackGuru (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading what I'm writing or what you want to see? The source doesn't support the claim being made. I responded to you at the Talk page, which is the appropriate venue. DVMt (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"D.D. Palmer was convinced he had discovered a natural law that pertained to human health in the most general terms. Originally, manipulation was not a technique for treating spinal or musculoskeletal problems, it was a cure for all human illness: “95% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae, the remainder by luxations of other joints.”37"[14]

If the text is not sourced then what is this? You should remove the tag now. You have not suggested a wording that would more accurate the the current text. Is that because you only want to delete the sentence you don't like. QuackGuru (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter what I like, what matters is not fudging and misrepresenting what the source actually says. You're also not quoting the appropriate section, it's here [15]. Fix it to accurately reflect the source and the problem goes away. I don't see why you're compounding the problem. Again, this is not the appropriate venue to be discussing the main chiropractic article. Regards, DVMt (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You saying there is a problem but still not suggesting how to fix it. Do you agree it should not be deleted?

The text is sourced using more than one source: "The “straights” religiously adhere to D.D. Palmer's notions of the “innate intelligence” and view subluxation as the sole cause and manipulation as the sole cure of all human disease."

Ernst, E (May 2008). "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation". Journal of pain and symptom management. 35 (5): 544–62. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004. ISSN 0885-3924. PMID 18280103.

The text is clearly sourced and the tag was bogus. See Chiropractic#Controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're being shifty and the 2008 critical review is not only technically incorrect, but the claim usurped by a 2011 tertiary source " This monocausal view of disease has been abandoned by the profession [46] ". Bergmann, T.F., Perterson D.H (2011). Chiropractic Technique: Principles and Procedures. Elsevier. ISBN 9780323049696. It's as though your edits are presenting things out of context... Why is that? DVMt (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the founder of chiropractic said in the past does not change over time. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DVMt who created the sandbox is indef-blocked. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." Wikipedia's article is Chiropractic and there is no reason other than WP:POVFORK to develop a completely different version in a user sandbox. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an indefinitely blocked user. For the article to be returned to articlespace, either he would have be unblocked (and we can restore his sandbox articles) or we're asking other editors to assist an blocked user. Blocking should have a serious impact. This is a content fork of an existing article by someone who can't discuss the article in a normal fashion. It does not good to keep it here. I'd treat is like an article for creation and restore it if the user is permitted to return. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, in regards to this comment, the talk page is the appropriate place to discuss edits to an article, not user sandboxes. The only reason I would see for people to do that is because they want to fork any discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2014 (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.