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. @harej 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eckstasy/Archives/Articles for deletion/List of quote databases

This is a non-GFDL compliant copy and paste of a Wikipedia discussion that isn't going to go away, so there is no need for a user copy. Not a draft. Edit summary at creation indicates bad faith in user spat. Miami33139 (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• delete useless, but not a GFDL violation ,as every one has signed and dated their contribution. I think a link to the genuine page would be better for User:Eckstasy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There's no need to preserve a second copy of the discussion here. An inappropriate use of userspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No need for an AfD to be in someone's userspace; it could confuse the newbies. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No reason to duplicate page, unless to make a point. Johnuniq (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 all. @harej 00:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Walaa adel page copies (group nom)

User:Walaa adel created complete cut&past copies of a sizable number of articles in his userspace. Since they were cut&paste, page history and thus attribution was not preserved. This user stated (in October 2009) that this was to facilitate translating these articles to another wikipedia, see this thread and User talk:Walaa adel#Why???. This user has not edited this wikipedia (at least not under this account) since early November 2009. The article copies include live category links (and maintainance templates that generate category links) and are this at least potential sources of confusion. No translations have appeared to date (so far as i am aware), and no explanation has been given for why copies of live articles in userspace are needed for this purpose. Some of the pages have recently been deleted. I therefore propose deletion of all of the following userspace pages, which as far as i know are all the remaining pages so created. DES ^(talk) 14:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of pages

• User:Walaa adel/ASCII
• User:Walaa adel/Ashanti (entertainer)
• User:Walaa adel/Ashley Tisdale
• User:Walaa adel/Ashton Kutcher
• User:Walaa adel/Asia
• User:Walaa adel/Asif Ali Zardari
• User:Walaa adel/ASP.NET
• User:Walaa adel/Asperger syndrome
• User:Walaa adel/Aspirin
• User:Walaa adel/Assembly language
• User:Walaa adel/Assessment
• User:Walaa adel/Astigmatism
• User:Walaa adel/Asthma
• User:Walaa adel/Brand
• User:Walaa adel/Construction
• User:Walaa adel/Cousin
• User:Walaa adel/FIFA 09
• User:Walaa adel/Fulgencio Batista
• User:Walaa adel/GameSpot
• User:Walaa adel/Glucosamine
• User:Walaa adel/Heckler & Koch MP5
• User:Walaa adel/J. Jayalalithaa
• User:Walaa adel/Killswitch Engage
• User:Walaa adel/Kris Allen
• User:Walaa adel/Indian cuisine
• User:Walaa adel/International Bank Account Number
• User:Walaa adel/Internet Explorer 7
• User:Walaa adel/Metabolic syndrome
• User:Walaa adel/Mos Def
• User:Walaa adel/Rajiv Gandhi
• User:Walaa adel/SS501
• User:Walaa adel/Sapphire
• User:Walaa adel/Stephenie Meyer
• User:Walaa adel/Sylvia Plath
• User:Walaa adel/Super Mario Bros.
• User:Walaa adel/Testicular cancer
• User:Walaa adel/The Unit

[edit] Discussion

• Delete all as nominator. DES ^(talk) 16:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all as editor annoyed by leftover copy-n-paste articles contaminating the categories Jason Quinn (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment out categories and keep. He's only been inactive for a month or so. Something could have came up in his life. Wait for a few more months, then delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott5114 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 December 2009
• Delete all of them immediately Enough with this copy-paste nonsense that we continue to uncover every few weeks. I do not believe the "translating" argument because there are hundreds of better places to work on translations. Miami33139 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all. These copies have all been translated into Arabic - see Walaa adel's stuff on the Arabic Wikipedia. These deletions were utterly non-controversial - this MfD was simply not needed. See this message - the Google translation toolkit could be more elegant but it does not not require copies to be taken. Hopefully Walaa adel has got the message and will learn to translate directly. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all - I nominated 32 of these for speedy (see editor's talk page for more detail), most of which are not in the list above. I don't agree that the editor needs more time: creator's contribs went back at least to August last time I checked, and not a single edit for translation, just endless copy & paste to subpages. MuffledThud (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The ones nominated for speedy were all deleted, as far as I can see. I declined a couple of the speedies but another admin deleted them shortly after. The list above includes pages still undeleted as of the time i started to compose this nom -- two were deleted around the time the nom was posted. I don't think such pages should properly be speedied, but that is a technical issue. (Although the objections of at least one editor here give it some point IMO -- speedy delete is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions.) It was those speedy delete tags that brought this set of pages to my attention. DES ^(talk) 14:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles I nom'd for speedy which are still up: User:Walaa adel/Assembly language, User:Walaa adel/SS501, User:Walaa adel/Cousin, User:Walaa adel/Indian cuisine, User:Walaa adel/Fulgencio Batista and User:Walaa adel/Brand.

But you're right, next time I'll take the deletions here rather than speedy them, thanks for the heads-up. This sort of thing shouldn't happen too often though, fingers crossed. MuffledThud (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all The user is a noob and does'nt know anything. He is just copy pasting stuff from here and there. Managerarc (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a feeling that !vote was merely badly worded, but I have to say, that's the most WP:BITEy thing I've seen in an xFD in a long time. If this guy was contributing in good faith and saw that, he probably wouldn't be for much longer. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Snowy delete per strong consensus to delete at WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Maynassar article copies, WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikidocster/(all), and WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beebarose/Abstract art. No need to go through the full seven-day listing with these. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all Disruptive. The problems shown on the user's talk page suggest that to avoid further waste of time, procedure should be to speedy delete all, and then check for any other subpages and delete them. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • comment what waste of time? 10 minutes for the closer? No one else need spend time unless s/he chooses. I spent more than that putting the nom together. These don't fit any of the speeedy criteria and those should be adhered to very strictly IMO. DES ^(talk) 22:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 all. @harej 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Wiki Scavenger hunt

Also nominated: 11 Subpages
Pages created by a blocked sockuppetter for some sort of game reminiscent of secret pages. There's ample precedent for deleting those in userspace, and their deletion is even more warranted in project space. Cenarium (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per precedent on scavenger hunts. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom and WP:UP#GAME. Okay, I know it's not a userpage, but isn't it even worse that it's in the Wikipedia space? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I wouldn't mind some leeway for games if they can be truly considered relevant to building an encyclopedia (WP history quiz) but they should be in user subpages, not project space.--SPhilbrickT 16:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all Pointless myspace nonsense. Very counter productive because it gives the false impression that anything goes. Need to delete all userspace subpages: is that covered here? Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --MisterWiki talk contribs 19:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete - per all of the above; looks like WP:SNOW tonight! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 redirected. @harej 00:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisiana/Stubs

This page is mostly obsolete. I have moved the current stubs to here. Btilm 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as obsolete. Alternatively, mark as historical and add a link to the current list of stub templates. (That seems rather unnecessary, though.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Keep - no non-delete !votes (non-admin closure). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Isonomia

Appears to violate WP:UP#NOT by making bad faith accusations toward fellow Wikipedians by suggesting that editors and admins engage in wikilawyering and blocking to ensure climate-related articles maintain a certain point of view this editor apparently disagrees with. I asked the editor to consider changing the soapboxing comments, but in vain. Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - current version of user page (at time of nomination). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd be happy to support a snowball keep if the text is altered so that fellow editors are not disparaged. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting such pages reinforces outside beliefs that the person has a valid issue. Not beyond reasonable limits as determined in the past. This is likely one of the worst userpages to delete unless one is afraid he is right. As an aside, having the nom be active in the disputes related in the userpage does not really impress me at this time. Better far to have someone who is fully uninvolved do the MfD. Collect (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make clear that I am in no way questioning the good faith of the nom, but do think it may be a "no win" situation in this case. Apologies if anyone mistook my position. Collect (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't find the comments to be excessive or over-the-top. Also agree with Collect that it will reinforce ill beliefs on the project particularly while the article that he questioning is under edit protect. J04n(talk page) 14:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per Collect and J04n. No individual is so much as mentioend in on the page as it now stands. When an editor believes that there is a systemic problem or bias on wkipedai (and these do happen from time to time, and are thought to happen even more often) a userpage or essay of this sort is one of the few options available. I don't see this as an attack page, nor a violation of WP:UP#NOT. DES ^(talk) 18:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - many editors have similar claims on their userpages of being unjustly treated, that Wikipedia is biased against them, and so on. I think it's silly - and yes, I suppose it is soapboxing - but traditionally precedent has allowed it, as users are given a great deal of leeway over their own userspace. As long as no specific users are mentioned by name, I think we should permit it - it's not doing much harm. Robofish (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Collect and others. (Full disclosure - I've edited some of the same articles as Isonomia )--SPhilbrickT 16:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  You mean you have edited the same articles that he also edited, right? There are two ways to read your statement. I thought you were declaring an alternate account until I read it twice. Gigs (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The page isn't that extreme, and isn't singling anyone out in particular. The user's just expressing his/her disillusionment with the project in general, and why s/he left. Deleting it would probably be the worst action to take, as Collect mentioned above, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep an essay or rant regarding perceived biases on Wikipedia is allowed, if it does not attack anyone in particular. Disclaimer as well, I've participated on the Climategate talk page, but never directly interacted with this user that I recall. Gigs (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The essay is certainly not a rant, and as complaints go it is thoughtful, mild, and articulate. (I don't think I've edited any climate articles in my three years here). — Athaenara ✉ 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I am surprised at the responses here. Isonomia is essentially accusing fellow editors and administrators of:
  1. "[Using] wikilaw to prevent NPOV insertions" - a bad faith assumption.
  2. "Ban editors who might cause trouble" - assumes admins are banning/blocking editors who aren't skeptical of prevailing scientific consensus on climate change.
  3. "Run every single climate article as a propoganda[sic] tool" - bad faith assumption.
  4. "I'll give these professional lobbyists just enough technical ammunition to hang me with and I'll get banned as happened to all the other editors I saw trying to stop the POV push." - again, accusing other editors of being lobbyists who try to get people banned if they take an opposing view.

  I've already said that I'd support a snowball keep if this editor would revise the rant to remove all the bad faith assumptions, but evidently he/she has given up on the project and left this piece as a "parting shot". -- Scjessey (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Userspace essays are given wide latitude to express Wikipedia-related criticism and opinions, even unpopular ones. As has been pointed out, we nearly always keep these unless they name names and violate WP:NPA. WP:AGF is not a blunt tool to silence criticism of real, perceived, or even imaginary systemic problems. Gigs (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Keep Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:MaynardClark

User page is being used as a personal home page inconsistent with the terms of WP:User page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Give them a few days. They've said that they'll fix it. If they haven't even started by, say, Friday, then renominate. But right now, I'd assume good faith and presume that they are working on cleaning it up. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I may have jumped the gun but I started thinking he wasn't planning to address the problem after he contributed a new piece of information (I admit it was a small one) to his list of personal trivia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Hmm... in that case, I'll hold off on my vote until Thursday and vote delete if nothing's happened. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • • NOTE: it's been slimmed down considerably. MaynardClark (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC) MaynardClark (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep if he puts up a big userpage notice on top, this page isn't a problem. I removed a mainspace category from his userpage, but that was a simple mistake. We give more leeway to established users to have expanded personal information on their userpage. This man is committed to the project. Miami33139 (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Where in the guidelines is such leeway given to established users, and how does "leeway" imply a complete abandonment of the principle that Wikipedia is not a web host allowing him to use it for the purpose of listing a mile of trivia about himself that properly belongs on his own website if he wants it posted? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." "Users with most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits." Yeah, it is lengthy. I am sure he could do with an edit. He seems like a reasonable guy and could do that. His userpage isn't a soapbox, isn't advertising, and isn't a fake article. It's just too long. Miami33139 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:Editors matter (admitting I haven't looked at the page in depth - perhaps the nominator could expand upon what is problematic therein?). –xeno^talk 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That's someone's opinion, and since in essence it says that "Wikipedia is really a free-for-all and the guidelines don't apply unless we don't know you" I think it should be disregarded. I'm not exaggerating. It actually implies that if it makes a user happy to ignore WP:User page, then we should let the user ignore WP:User page. I find it a strange notion that catering to the happiness of editors who distinguish themselves by showing that they don't take Wikipedia's rules seriously and who violate them flagrantly would be held up as a principle that overrides the rules that they choose not to follow. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I happen to share the opinion. I don't see the harm that this userpage is causing... –xeno^talk 19:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
      • If you don't see what the harm is, then feel free to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:User page on changing the guideline. Right now, it doesn't allow this use of user pages. This guideline was established by a consensus of users who disagreed with you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
        • "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". At a quick glance, it seems mostly harmless - though tl;dr - move along, imho. –xeno^talk 19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Fine. Let's play dueling essays. WP:NOHARM:

            The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here.

            And WP:NOT clearly prohibits treating one's user page as though it were one's personal web page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
            • See my comment below at 22:41. –xeno^talk 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed over half of what is on there. I would note, though, that the bugs or icons at the bottom are on a number of OTHER Wikipedians' pages. So I've taken out personal notes, notes about travel and background, some but not all notes about work, and much - perhaps most - notes about vegetarianism, though that is an expert subject area.

Further guidance, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs)

Thanks for doing that. I have no issue with the bugs or icons. A little background is perfectly legitimate. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So tell me when the page is up to specs. MaynardClark (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sideline discussion

Below is a subdiscussion that MaynardClark placed in the middle of a separate subthread, obscuring it. I've moved it here for the sake of clarity. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me note that I have written a NUMBER of expert pages that in symposia have been praised as being 'very informative' for major Faculty AND that, in line with being 'very committed to the project',

Largo, you will note, has been needlessly aggressively, some say vindictive, about removing things he seems not to like.

• Routine daily editing by hundreds of Wikipedia editors involves removing things they see as contrary to Wikipedia's mission, policy, and guidelines. You're the one who's making it out to be personal and a matter of aggressiveness and vindictiveness. Basically, you're saying, "Largoplazo carried out routine clean-up functions and I want to keep doing what I'm doing, so I'm going to call him aggressive and vindinctive."—Largo Plazo (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, looking at your talk page I found text that seems or seemed to say that you are leaning on the side of removing rather than improving.
• Further, I'd note that a comment late Sunday evening to someone who works VERY long hours 5-7 days/week should be taken as something unlikely to be seen until mid-week. At this point, the strategy seems to have been designed to 'blind side' me. I call that patently 'unfair'. Other? MaynardClark (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Finally, if we look AT your userpage, Largo Plazo, you boast of deleting a page, including

    * ... is an up and coming ...    * ... had a dream ...    * ... take ... by storm ... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Largoplazo

• • And? Yes, I patrol articles. Hundreds of articles posted on Wikipedia every day don't belong here. There are pages and pages and pages and pages of guidelines and policies that say so and that explain the respective natures of acceptable pages and unacceptable pages (and unacceptable content on otherwise acceptable pages) and that prescribe procedures for dealing with them. This is all very matter of fact, very routine procedures built by consensus by many of your fellow Wikipedia editors in the interest of helping Wikipedia serve its purpose. What mileage do you expect to get out of pretending this is just some personal horrible, terrible, reprehensible quirk of mine and that you are the victim of some gross injustice? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Like Hillary Clinton, I'd say 'it's personal' with him.

Let's see what we can do to bring this into Wikipedia guidelines.

Trivia has been removed. Why not merely POLITELY ask me to remove trivia?

• I did ask you politely, a couple of days ago. And the basis for my Mfd, above, reads "User page is being used as a personal home page inconsistent with the terms of WP:User page." Stated factually and neutrally with no note of hostility. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • But I removed large chunks material, including all the "trivia"

It seems that everything else there is pretty much standard on a more robust userpage. MaynardClark (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, MANY Wikipedians DO have trivia in their userpages; it seemed to be an 'in kind' inclusion, but hey -- you don't like it; I removed it.

Doing a collaborative3 project likely WILL occasion some disagreements; let's discuss them in non-hostile ways, eh?

msc

MaynardClark (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Appeal What do the OTHERS want to do, and when will the others ask to remove the Mtd? MaynardClark (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

MFD discussions typically run for 7 days, unless it is closed early. I gather if Largo withdraws his complaint then it could be speedily closed... –xeno^talk 19:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD lasts for seven days. You can probably ignore it or watch for new commentary. There wasn't really anything wrong with the way it was, except for being lengthy. The dry and deprecating wit actually seemed to enhance the length. I'm sorry you cut it so drastically under duress. Miami33139 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not understanding the theory that ther isn't anything wrong with flagrant violations of explicit Wikipedia guidelines. And after all the deletion that took place, it still is impossible to reconcile his user page, even allowing some "leeway", with those guidelines.

I've been here for a couple of years and I've participated in numerous Afd discussions and read plenty of others. There, participants and administrators generally take seriously that it's the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia that prevail over "I like it" or "I don't like it" or "It isn't hurting anybody" or "Why are you such a Nazi?" or anything of that nature. I'm really taken aback by the "screw the rules" attitude here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If a productive editor has a tl;dr userpage that isn't really hurting anything, there is more harm in nominating it for deletion (we could lose a productive editor) than in ignoring it (I would put in a "con" here, but you still haven't indicated what harm is caused by it - page view stats indicate that it isn't causing much of a drain on our resources). –xeno^talk 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Xeno: you appear to believe that Wikipedia has a guideline that says "Feel free to ignore every other rule, despite the fact that many people worked hard to come to agreements on how they should read, in great detail, and what the remedies should be if they don't comply ... unless they don't harm anybody." Well, Xeno, nothing on Wikipedia besides libel, abuse, and copyright infringement harms anybody. Except for when those particular acts occur, Wikipedia is just another dumb website out there and has no effect on anybody. So based upon your principle, we can just ignore every Wikipedia has on verifiability, notability, reliable sources, tone, appropriate subject matter. We should be able to post our own poems, the results of the office football pool, political analysis, recipes, vacation pictures, and just about anything else because these things don't harm anybody.

I don't understand your fear about losing a productive editor. If an editor is editing only because he thinks he gets a free website out of it, while Wikipedia is crystal clear on the point, "THIS IS NOT YOUR WEBSITE", then let him go. I don't think that's the case here, and I don't know why you would assume that that's the case. For the most part, productive editors do try to work within the guidelines, and recognize that they benefit as much as anyone else from other people abiding by same guidelines. Any one specific editor is not so important that we should allow them to hold spite over our heads.

The bottom line for this Mfd is: if your alleged principle is valid, then that means that all the intentionally, specifically, and clearly worded guidelines to which I've referred concerning user pages has no meaning whatsoever. A general principle for interpreting policies in any system of policies is that an interpretation that renders a policy not to have any effect is considered invalid, on the theory that, whether the meaning of a policy is clear or not, it was definitely intended to mean something. If you're interpretation is correct, then that policy means nothing. Therefore, your interpretation is invalid. And I think many people will appreciate it if you desist from telling people that their gross infringements (and I mean gross: not leeway, not a few paragraphs, but pages and pages and pages) are pass muster. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I've shown exactly the opposite attitude of the one suggested by Largo Plazo. I would move that he remove his complaint, in light of the nice attitude and the (relatively) quick attempt to remedy the points in his complaint. MaynardClark (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - Largo, does the userpage presently appear to be acceptable per WP:UP guidelines? If so, can we close this discussion? (Feel free to take me up at my talk page if you want to continue the "meta" discussion we have ongoing above). –xeno^talk 23:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Can't speedily close anymore as another user has opined to delete 23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You want good editors. I'm a good editor. Xeno agrees (he said so above). I'm busy, and it's because I'm productively busy at work that (a) I'm a good editor AND (b) I cannot spend lots of time debating with Largo Plazo. I think other editors should ask that he remove his complaint because there is no longer any reason for him to move for deletion (on the basis of a complaint). MaynardClark (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Maynard: Thank you for your contributions. Feel free to ignore this MFD and get back to doing something productive - and thank you for trimming your userpage. –xeno^talk 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. He hasn't linked a single article that he suppusedly wrote from his user page, but has a bazillion of external links related to his resume. If climate responsibility is representative of his work here, I don't think we have anything to lose by deleting his user page, which clearly violates WP:UP#NOT point 7. Pcap ping 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Representative Websites

• Leon Eisenberg
• Carola Eisenberg
• Manfred Guttmacher
• Dan Wikler
• Dan Brock
• Norman Daniels
• Richard A. Cash
• Allen Buchanan
• Dilip Mahalanabis

Thank you, Xeno. What do we do with Pohta's comments (note his misspelling/s) and slang? Is it over or not?
All one needs to do to FIND my contributions is to look at user contributions.
No OTHER user needs to justify a 'count' with actual links, which are easily discernible by checking 'what links here'MaynardClark (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really wish to jeopardize any OTHER articles.MaynardClark (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Further, I've already noted that I have no investment in 'climate responsibility' staying up (and why a template was put up), though no one has responded to me constructively about it. It's only about punitive actions.MaynardClark (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So who has the authority to undo this request, posted all over my userpage? MaynardClark (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

An uninvovled admin will close the discussion around the 22nd. –xeno^talk 18:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Xeno. I've added to the Climate Responsibility page this note at the end of the first paragraph. "...this article could be integrated with the Climate Ethics article and the Responsibility article studied." MaynardClark (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Move to user subpage per Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed_uses. 1. User subpages – making extra pages within your own user namespace, e.g. User:Example/Draft of article or User:Example/About me., leaving the main user page as a proper user page.--SPhilbrickT 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Excessive amount of personal information of self-promotional nature, unrelated to the user's activity as a Wikipedian. Nsk92 (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep. The cleaned-up version is fine. Nsk92 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know we could make subpages. I'm VERY much for my doing that. I'll need to do a little figuring out. Why do these ideas come through when it's very late in my evening MaynardClark (talk) OK. How's THIS?? - about 10-15% (or less) what was there before. MaynardClark (talk)

Looks great now—in the state it's in I don't think a little extra color would hurt. Thanks. Based on the current state of the page, I withdraw my nomination. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What needs to happen to preserve this page and account, remove the Mfd banner, and archive this discussion? MaynardClark (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 as the article already exists at Amazon Conservation Association. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:3amazonia

Promotional article in userspace for over two years. Delete or send to incubator. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment parts are direct copyvio from http://www.amazonconservation.org/about/index.html. Syrthiss (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Move to incubator as suggested by nom, perhaps someone will make an article out of it. Creating the page is the only contribution to Wikipedia by the author so it's probably futile to move to a user subpage. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Redirect Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:SNG

Looks like this should be made into a redirect - if it's needed at all - but I though I'd better check first that there isn't a real reason for this before being bold... Grutness...wha? 23:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Grutness should just do what he thinks is right. Yes, make it a redirect to somewhere sensible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to somewhere. Cat:Wikipedia notability guidelines and {{Notabilityguide}} look like the best options to me. There's nothing wrong with cross-namespace redirects from the project namespace to a category or a template, right? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect agreed that it need not be a standalone page with such little content. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Toadstone/draft

This is a userspace draft of a retired user. The information was moved to the main articlespace more than one year ago. This page is not needed. Maintaining it is a WP:FAKEARTICLE and has GFDL problems as a copy-paste fork. Miami33139 (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This is a kind of WP:FAKEARTICLE, and it serves no use to its now-retired creator anymore. I would support a redirect to Toadstone, but User:Lawrence Cohen did not create that article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Bezhin Meadow/draft

This is a userspace draft of a retired user. The page is a layout stub of an article that already exists in the main article space and isn't useful for expansion or re-write. Miami33139 (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No sense in keeping around a stub draft for an article that is now a FA in the mainspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lawrence Cohen/software

This is an abandoned user fork of List of portable software that is more than a year old and the user has announced their retirement. Miami33139 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Wikipedia already has a List of portable software and this draft has been abandoned for quite some time by a user who's now retired. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 The fact that the page has not once been edited by the user to whom it is attached persuades me that the argument that it is not an evidence gathering exercise but being used to attack others is correct. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Mnyakko/aboutme

Attack page, masquerading as an "evidence" page, but its not - it was begun 24 February 2007. Huge volumes of content copypasted from various talk pages, with no dif links, interspersed with claims of censorship and NPA violations. No indication anyone intends to even file an Rfa against anyone; group of apparent malcontents whose edits have not been accepted. --KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep "Attack page"? I suppose any page at all which mentions any discussions on any other pages is also an attack page at that point. Does it attack any individuals? Not that I can see. Is there a place in userspace for personal opinions related to WP articles? Heck - it is not even necessary, in my opinion, that all opinions be related to articles - but if that is a criterion, this page passes it. Do all pages in userspace have to be premised on WP procedures in the future? No. Though pages so intended fall into a "protected class" specifically, that does not mean all pages must fall into that class to avoid deletion. Is anything misattributed on the page? Not that I can see. In short, failing a reason for deletion, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  Please note that the page consists largely of copypasted posts, not made to that page, which are objectionable in their own right. Not attempting to persuade, merely noting. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  I would be more inclined to object if edited versions had been made, which would be more likely to be intended for a false impression. See [10] for an example thereof. Collect (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  Quite understood - I once had my name added to a poll. No kidding. So I am very familiar with the increased sense of violation when your own name is used or your words edited. That would probably provoke an immediate delete and strong warning from me, not an Mfd. However, "it could be worse" isn't a really strong keep reason IMO. I'm not sure I see your posts being altered in the dif you sent, though, please contact me on my talk page? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it you missed such interpolated gems as [Collect tactic : Listing of dictionary definitions, accompanied by an implication that the definitions somehow vindicate a point of argument, without actually demonstrating or even suggesting how.][Tactic : Pointless use of Latin to dress up an otherwise meritless argument.][Tactic : Change the subject, back to previous Tactic (personal attack).] Collect (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are comments interspersed. I am speaking of violations of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

They are derogatorey comments -- clearly "attack" is not the concern then. Alas, the article you now cite does not deal with copying of posts for which the user and datestamops are retained -- as that furnishes sufficient information for anyone to see the history of the comments. The concern of the cite you give is where the history is not determinable due to loss in the copying process. Retention of the user name and posting time is sufficient attribution by any standards. Collect (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned misuse of posts, one concern. You said that had occurred to you, and posted a link, which did not have any modifications of your posts. That I have said there is no such modification should not be misprepresented, as you have, to imply I find the comments interpersed to be acceptable. Please refrain from loaded comments. I am done with this, as it has no bearing on this Mfd. If you wish to speak to me about this, you know where my talk page is. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

By definition, all allegations are conjectural. A conjecture is something which is asserted but not proven. An allegation is a specific type

• Keep per Collect above. There is no good reason to delete this. = Brittainia (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) (indef. blocked)

  How is this beneficial or helpful to the encylopedia in any way? I have already advised you to file an Rfc if you have concerns about WMC's conduct. This page is nothing but a rant against him with no apparent purpose except to attack him and accuse others of "censorship". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  Is there some rule that user pages must be beneficial that I am unaware of? However since you ask, if editors are not vigilant of POV pushing groups, Wikipedia would be completely subverted. So this page helps to perform part of that useful vigilance function, which is highly necessary. This page is not a rant, it is merely a collection of evidence copied from other pages. The group whose conduct is documented here have been exposed on CBSNews for controlling the Global Warming pages. After Climate Gate, I am surprised you can ask what is the benefit of alertness to control and censorship on Wikipedia. = Brittainia (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, it does not. If there is POV pushing, the correct venue is Rfc. Your page is not "being vigilant" nor is it doing a darn thing about your alleged concerns, "censorship" and "POV pushing". I have already informed you that there are venues to which you can legitimately take those concerns. A page full of rants, accusations, and copied posts does exactly nothing to correct or change anything, and violates WP:ATTACK. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Collect on this one. I fail to see how this is an attack page in the sense of WP:ATP, as it does not exist merely to disparage. There's no real reason to delete this that I can see. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  Why do you think it exists, then? Please let me know, if it is not to disparage. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well, I don't really feel strongly either way. Brittainia being blocked makes me less inclined to accept good faith. The intent of the page may be to disparage, although I'm not positive. I'm striking my vote above, in any case, and will stay neutral. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• delete I don't see any practical use for this page. If the user wants to file an RfC then they can do so. The page is uncivil and clearly attacks users. Users are accused of "insidious censorship", "hijacking" articles, and others simply because the general consensus of what articles should have do not support certain fringe viewpoints. There's also a copyright concern in that conversations have been copied from elsewhere without proper attribution. This may break GFDL. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Violates WP:UP#NOT, #10. I see no reason to believe that this material is being compiled for an imminent dispute-resolution process, given its content and the length of time which it has been maintained without its owner actually pursuing any such processes. MastCell ^Talk 23:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Clearly violates WP:UP#NOT, only serves to attack people, and there is no pending rfc. It's basically an 'enemy list'. Also per Mast and Josh.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UP#NOT. Also note that this editor has only four edits (none in the mainspace) since 2007, and has never edited this page. It looks like Brittainia (talk · contribs)/Rameses (talk · contribs) (same editor, currently blocked for socking, among other things) has been using this page to collection information about the "misdeeds" of other editors. It would be an inappropriate use of Brittainia/Rameses's user space, but it seems even more inappropriate use of another editor's userspace (especially since that editor hasn't been active in two years). Guettarda (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a social network site. Pages here need a reason. Plenty of latitude is available for user pages and humor, whimsy, and insights into how the user thinks are all good reasons for some userspace pages. However, collecting a bunch of complaints for no particular reason is not helpful to the encyclopedia. When those complaints appear to be focused on a particular editor or group of editors (and when it is clearly not valid RFC/U evidence gathering), such a page is violating WP:CIVIL and should be deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Cannot be seriously considered a serious attack on anyone. Is a reasonable attempt at a workspace journal of thoughts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. First of all, WP:NOTMYSPACE, secondly, WP:NOTWEBHOST, thirdly, it can, as it references several editors directly. Fourthly, it cannot be considered as a reasonable workspace journal. The page was exclusively edited by socks that have been now blocked indefinitely for abusive sockpuppetry and disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The first and second don't apply, because the page is sufficiently related to Wikipedia. Third point can be fixed by editing, but I should look again. I hadn't considered the fourth point, although it does obviously have a complicated edit history. Is the page there is good faith, or is it intended for abuse and disruption? I am still inclined to assume good faith. Who was blocked for abuse? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The same users who edited 90% of that page, Brittainia (talk · contribs) and their master. See Brit's userpage for the link to their master. Secondly, there is no complicated edit history. 80% of that page is comments copied from other pages. The page is not there in good faith, it is only there to accuse, as the nominator said, others of censorship, personal attacks, POV pushing, agendas.. , etc. It only serves to attack Will, with no long-term goal of attempting an rfc or arbcom.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Those edits you think you see, are not. My sig is on that page seven times. I have never edited that page. My sig was copied, as were the others. See JoshuaZ's concern about violating GDFL with these copies from other pages, taken out of context. Look at the history, and you will see mostly Rameses and Brit, the indefblocked authors of this page. There has been no "discussion" on this page. There is no "complicated edit history." Everything not a GDFL violating copy-paste is an attack. And its been going on for years with no Rfc, even tho it is supposedly an "evidence" page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, switching to delete on a fresh look, seeing it as a POV battle staging ground, with an improper use of multiple account mixed up in it. The complicated edit history to me is how the page was created and used by users other than User:Mnyakko, with edits that copy yet others' signatures, definitely not acceptable norms of quote formatting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per MastCell and others good arguments. Also, WP:Advocacy & WP:Soap apply. Since the user of this page has been inactive for so long and the users that have put most of the recent info there are now indefinitely blocked for sock and/or meat puppeting, there is no reason to have this page. All it is doing is causing a lot of heat in an already very hot area of the project. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely Keep There is a group of editors who appear to have direct links to the climategate "censors of peer review" who have used the same tricks to "hide the downturn" by manipulating the review system on wikipedia (look for any mention of the 21st century cooling in any climate article on wikipedia). This attempt to delete this page is just part of the ongoing campaign to manipulate the system in wikipedia to turn it into a propoganda tool and it must be resisted at all costs if Wikipedia is not to loose all credibility as an impartial website. Isonomia (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog, or a soapbox. This page serves no purpose other than to slander other users with claims of POV pushing, advocacy, censorship, and more. Secondly, this page is not being used to for any long-term goal as an evidence page for an arbcom case or rfc.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, and that is why we should stop wikipedia being used as a climategate propoganda blog/soapbox: address the root cause of the problem, not attack those who are highlighting the problem! Isonomia (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you, you contradict yourself. This page was primarily edited by sockpuppets who have now been indef'd due to abusive behavior and abuse of multiple accounts. The sockpuppets used this page to attack Will, along with several other users. If there is no long-term goal of an rfc or dispute resolution, then such a page is not allowed to stay, per the policy I cited above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on this editor which is being referred to here is even mentioned in the climategate emails by name. There's no doubt given the evidence in the emails for the internet campaigning they do that there are several other editors on climate articles that are part of the climategate propoganda team - for god's sake you've only got to look at the single minded focus on climate and the time they put in to see they are paid to do this! The comments on this page are reasonable, justifiable, and to be frank, they highlight the failure of other editors to take these problems seriously and give support to those (unpaid - at least that's what they appear) editors who have sought to uphold the supreme law of Wikipedia WP:NPOV (aka don't let the paid lobbyists run the show!) Isonomia (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that this page only serves to attack him and others and has no long-term goal of being used in an arbcom or rfc case, or any other kind of dispute resolution. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to post your views on things, or for that matter, other users. Like I said, you contradict yourself, and you only appear to be voting keep because you dislike the Will for the reasons mentioned above. As I have said before, Wikipedia is not for things like this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is merely a record of calls for help in preventing this group of editors forcing through their POV - it did not develop as an attack page - it is the signature of a vicious campaign by other editors and attacks on this editor. And like all the rest, sooner or later, this group of editors will turn their vindictive gaze on me, and I will become another NPOV matyr in this supposedly NPOV website.Isonomia (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a record of calls for help. The page was exclusively edited by sockpuppets who are now blocked indef for abusive sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. The user whose userspace this page is under never once edited it. It did develop as an attack page and is an attack page. No goal of dispute resolution, no compliance with policy, no deal.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep But I already knew what the outcome would be long before this even started. It was just a matter of time. Though it was a foregone conclusion even before the deletion request was official, let me answer a few questions I noticed.

Why are there no diffs? Two reasons, first is initially I did not realize the value of diffs over the actual text. The second reason is that once I started working with my own wiki I realized that it is possible to alter the diffs...which explained why I would sometimes find that diffs I collected did not have the text I originally wanted to capture.

What is it that makes it an "attack"? Honestly, nothing, except that it is sometimes called "attacking" when capturing the actual words and/or actions of someone. However, the standard used to call one thing an attack is determined by whom the "attack" refers. That is actually the one consistent standard throughout all of the administrative processes: "Who" is involved determines what criteria of judgment is followed.

Is there a coming complaint? Potentially...but I realized long ago that the decisions on the complaint(s) will be made by in large part by people against whom some of the complaints would be. The reproduction of diffs, texts, etc is being handled off site. People send their complaints to various locations and they are reviewed, researched and documented. In most cases there is little substantiation. The rest of the cases warrant watching the pages in question. The problem is the Wikipedia system is stacked against a complainant. To file a grievance one must provide proof, but too much proof and the complaint is dismissed due to wiki-lawyering. Most substantive complaints involving anyone that is more than a regular user (or a friend of someone more than a regular user) is met with request for more proof with unreasonable thresholds of burden to be given in unreasonable windows of time. The best case scenario in those complaints is very minimal punishment while large reprisals for the complainant as well as anyone who voted on the complainant's side.

So if it is decided that a complaint will be initiated it will be beyond well-documented, thorough and well-based enough that the bias in administering the complaint will be beyond a shadow of doubt. It is not that the potential complaints are not solid enough...it is that the bias in administrating the complaint may not be as easily demonstrable.

If you have any other questions I suggest e-mailing me (as I will not be able to check Wikipedia for the next several days) directly at tony@tonytalk.com. Then I will know there is further direct questioning for me to be addressed here.

I am not "malcontent", I am simply someone who has witnessed the ills of abuse 3rd hand, then 2nd hand and then a victim of them 1st hand. My hope is that eventually those bad processes which allow those abuses get fixed (not even for the abusers to be dealt with as severely as those that cross the abusers). -- Tony G 19:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:UP#NOT. It is well established that it is not allowed to keep a laundry list of grievances in user space unless it is specifically being prepared as evidence for use in some form of recognised dispute resolution and clearly labelled as such. Brilliantine (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Possibly archive/blank, otherwise Delete. Much of this content isn't suitable for a userpage, for the reasons explained above, as it contains attacks on other users and isn't obviously intended for use in an RFC; on the other hand, users are given a great deal of leeway over their userspace, and I wouldn't mind the user keeping this if it was hidden from view and made clear that it's no longer active. If that isn't going to happen, I support deletion. Robofish (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail how to see making it not active would allow anything of this sort in userspace. You are right to say that users are given much leeway in userspace, however, you are wrong to apply it here, as WP:UP#NOT still applies. In fact, such an argument is usually in regards to discussions with the user on their respective talk pages, not lists of perceived flaws with no goal of dispute resolution. As the page only serves to document these flaws, with the goal of changing the reader's perspective regarding the users it lists, it cannot be allowed to remain, at all. Wikipedia is not for things like this. If the user wants to start a blog about supposed cabals, he can make his own website for such, in the meantime, however, this is not what wikipedia userspace is for.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 It also violates WP:BLP. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pizzaclub

Wikipedia is being used as a webhost to host this page about some kids' club. It has been around since 2006 and steadfastly maintained by Samwag (talk · contribs) and multiple IPs who make no other contributions to Wikipedia. They are only here to maintain this webpage. Apparently, it started in articlespace as Pizza Club and Pizza club, and was repeatedly recreated and redeleted. Per WP:USER and WP:NOTWEBHOST, this page should be deleted. --Peacock (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Images uploaded for use in the article should probably be deleted too: File:CharterPC.jpg, File:Migratoin.jpg, File:Cavepainting.jpg, File:Pizzadecio.jpg, File:Justinlarson.jpg

• Delete Of no apparent value as a joke or humor, not an essay, nor does it appear to be real in any sense. Includes material which would be of BLP concerns of people totally unrelated to the "club." Solid reasons for deletion. Collect (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I enjoyed reading this page. It belongs in the same category as User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house. I think it is even better than the latter, as the latter is over-wiki-linked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag and categorise as Wikipedia humor. The page is a parody of of a non-notable organisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not this user's webhost. If they want a webpage on their club, there are alternative outlets out there. This is clearly disallowed by WP:UP#NOT #1 (misuse as a blog), #2 (extensive discussion unrelated to Wikipedia), #5 (personal information of others without their consent), and #8 (non-encyclopedia related material). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Do What Thou Whale If by no other contributions to Wikipedia you mean we lack a record of countless edits and additions to articles on our favorite year in Ireland, the greatest 1970's Japanese comedy duo, or an 84 year old NASCAR, then you may be correct. But you have ignored our constant patronage to the Wikipedia Foundation shown out of the internet with our 2005 Etowah High Wikipedia Fundraiser, The 2006 Walk For Wiki Walk-a-Thon, and even a compilation album of local musicians released as The Wiki Waltz. Now, Mr.Cock, if it is your job to sift through the countless sands of wikipedia userpages to find those not related to the user or wikipedia, I wish you luck as hearty as the Trübbach. It has taken nearly four years for our humble record and charter to turn up under your bloated eye, and it will take even longer to find and destroy those of our forefathers and ancestors.

Good Day, and give thanks to the SmokeyJoe, whom we have included in an amendment to our humble charter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwag (talk • contribs) 00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:ShaunMacPherson/sandbox/

This is an abandoned sandbox that is from 2005. Miami33139 (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No reason to keep this around. ArcAngel (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Editor has been active as recently as a few months ago, and as the page is a sandbox with what appears to me useful information, there is no reason to believe it needed updating as a sandbox <g>, nor that it is "abandoned". "No reason to keep" is invalid - absent an actual reason to delete, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Collect. An abandoned sandbox? Sure. But it's not masquerading as an article, and it isn't in violation of WP:SUB. There may be "no reason to keep this around," but there's no reason to delete it either. User:ShaunMacPherson hasn't edited in a few months, but his voice would obviously be helpful in this debate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It is a partial fake article, it copies the October 2005 version of Comparison of instant messaging clients without attribution history. It is fine to keep a temporary workspace around with the intent to reincorporate. This is too old for it to be a viable workspace. The article has advanced too far. Keeping the table around without the attribution history is a GFDL violation. Miami33139 (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, I see. In that case, delete to avoid GFDL problems. I just wish you'd mentioned that in your nomination, as that seems to be the better reason for deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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.