Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Monziguazini/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. Practically a U5 issue. No one has presented a valid rationale for keeping. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monziguazini/sandbox[edit]

WP:HOAX page about a fictional politician named "Cassidy Whitaker", who supposedly became vice-president of the United States in 2017 -- except that much of the biography is straight-up Kamala Harris lightly altered, the photograph is Israeli politician Orly Levy-Abekasis, and the "president" that this fictional character served under was supposedly named "David Rose" but that's just pipetexted over links that are actually going to Donald Trump. (And then, for added bonus, check out "David Rose's" predecessor in the presidency.)
As always, even sandbox space isn't a free webhost for alternate history creative writing exercises -- it's for working on real stuff that's actually meant for mainspace, not making up pretend stuff for the lulz.
I'd just speedy delete this as a hoax, but I already did that once, two weeks ago when it was about a Tennessee senator named "Bradley Crawford" who was really copy-pasted Dan Crenshaw -- so it needs to be escalated, because the editor clearly didn't get the message that this kind of thing isn't acceptable the first time. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi bearcat, yeah why can't i just post what i want in my sandbox, no one else can see it unless they actively search for it? if people can link to it from someplace else then I'm happy to remove the links so it stays private. i used kamala harris and donald trump as templates for part of the page and then started editing from there but obviously it isn't finished. i can only use photos from wikicommon which restricts me to using the photos of real people

the page isn't a hoax because, as you said, it's alternate history, it's not claiming to be reality. when i try to access it from google, i can't find it. i just don't see why i need your approval for what i do in my own personal sandbox, it seems pretty sad and pathetic that you think that "alternate history creative writing exercises" are fundamentally illegtimate

if you have criticism to make about the content of my actual contributions like the 2023 Alberta General Election and so on, i'm perfectly willing to hear them. i've only been using wikipedia for a year and while I'm trying my best, I'm well aware I might not be following the precise format and I'm willing to learn the proper style for consistency's sake.

but if not, kindly mind your own business Monziguazini (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox space is not for storing alternate history writing exercises. The only acceptable use of sandbox is for stuff that's meant to be transferred back to mainspace eventually, such as real articles about real people that you just need time to finish before moving into mainspace. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that simply isn't mentioned anywhere in the official wikipedia website description. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox describes a sandbox as "your personal sandbox...a space to experiment with the process of editing Wikipedia". It says explicitly that you may not "place promotional, copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content in sandboxes" but says nothing about stuff that has to be transferred back to mainspace at all, that is your own personal rule. If you want to use your own sandbox that way, fine, but it is simply not your place to insist that that's how I use mine. If "The only acceptable use of sandbox is for stuff that's meant to be transferred back to mainspace eventually" is the rule, where is that written?

If you think I have engaged in "promotional, copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content", I'm more than willing to co-operate but I think we both know that I haven't. Have a pleasant day, sir. Monziguazini (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monziguazini, the policy you're looking for is Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. It would be impractical for Wikipedia to become a web hosting site for non-encyclopedic content, and such content is routinely deleted regardless of where it's put. You may also wish to read Wikipedia:Civility, because calling other users "sad and pathetic" is not welcome here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I normally would vote to keep a sandbox on the grounds that we do normally grant more leeway with it, but I'm so put off by this user's behavior at MfD that I can't really see the need for keeping it. It's a disruptive hoax. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It warrants note that the OP has now replaced the entire page with a copy-pasted draft about somebody else, without having made any obvious changes to fictionalize the new person but with no obvious indication of what the new purpose would be (i.e. it could be planned for refictionalization in the future once the eyes of MFD have moved on). The page was also readded to categories again even though the user did claim above to understand the concept that sandbox pages aren't allowed to be filed in articlespace categories — and the further problem is that this was now the tenth time I've had to remove this sandbox page from categories in 2023 alone, because OP keeps putting it back in categories over and over again no matter how many times I come back to it on WP:USERNOCAT cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, now I am just confused as to what I have done wrong here, please clarify. How are sandbox pages filed in "categories"? As I said previously, I am more than willing to remove links from mainspace to the sandbox but I don't know how to do that yet.

You have very loudly insisted that I cannot use my sandbox for Alt History stuff. I find that rule obnoxious but I am complying nonetheless. Bearcat's previous comment in this very space said that I *can and should* use the sandbox for "stuff that's meant to be transferred back to mainspace eventually, such as real articles about real people that you just need time to finish before moving into mainspace." That's what this current page is for, it's an attempt to update the current wiki page of new york times columnist Ross Douthat as the current wikipedia page for Ross Douthat is a lot sparser than others at the New York times like David Brooks, for instance. It obviously isn't finished yet and won't be for a while but as it doesn't violate the rules as you yourself have laid them out, I fundamentally fail to see the problem here.

I am really stuck by the passive aggressive hostility that others have displayed so far. I accept that I am still a *relatively* new user of wikipedia and am still getting used to the rules and formats but other users have been incredibly rude and harsh, I was given one warning and immediately complied even though I disagreed with the ruling and yet, even though I am currently complying, am being threatened with sandbox deletion. Monziguazini (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox pages cannot be filed in categories. The reason it doesn't have categories on it now is because I had to go in and take them out, and the reason I had to go in and take them out is because you put them in. For instance, if you go back to this past version of the page and scroll down to the bottom, can you see the word "Categories" followed by about 61 category names? That means the page was in those categories at the time.
I have had to edit the page ten times in the past few months alone to remove it from categories, and I'm not even the only editor who's done that, because you keep adding it to categories even though sandbox pages cannot be in categories. If you want to copy a mainspace article into your sandbox to work on making changes to it, then you have to either remove or disable that article's categories, because your sandboxed version cannot be in categories, and I don't grasp what part of that is so difficult to understand. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
okay, thank you for explaining Monziguazini (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's wrong with letting it stay? there's almost no chance anybody will come across this user's sandbox, and you can use common sense to figure out that Cassidy Whitaker was not vice president in 2017. Why waste the community's time with this? Sure it's a "hoax", but how would it damage Wikipedia in any way?Yitzhak | זה לא יצחק (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it violates the rules, apparently Monziguazini (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the editor replaced it anyway. Yitzhak | זה לא יצחק (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WaltCip. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Warn Monziguazini (talk · contribs) that while “reasonable leeway” for productive editors to play in their userspace goes a long way, the writing of false histories, or anything rubbing WP:BLP poorly, is not ok. These things are a danger to the reputation of Wikipedia. Something you put in a sandbox could be copied by any editor and spill into a page that looks like a proper page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that Monziguazini should be warned about the use of their userspace, but not just because of that. As WaltCip stressed in their vote, Monziguazini's behavior at this MfD is also an issue, and they probably deserve a warning as well because of that. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:14, 10 June 2023 (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.