Skip to active discussions

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, consider adding {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Shortcut: WP:MFD

Deletion discussions Deletion today AfD yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Files Categories (active) Stub types Redirects Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review Wikipedia deletion policy Deletion policy Proposed deletion Criteria for speedy deletion Undeletion policy Tools Process – Log – Guide – Images – Admins

Purge - edit

Centralized discussion Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals Proposal for achieving infobox-template coherence of properties in Wikipedia(s) Discussion on promoting Wikipedia:Notability (news events) to guideline status Discussion regarding the "Wikipedia Forever" fundraising banner. Discussion on promoting Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) to guideline status Discussion on the composition, term lengths, and method of selection of the Arbitration Committee, including a proposal to modify SecurePoll for said election. Discussion on defaulting no consensus to delete for biographies of living persons Discussion on several proposed administrator recall processes. Proposal to add userfication (admins)/incubation(everyone) to Twinkle, and deal with related issues on userfication. Discussion on how to move forward on paid editing guideline/policy in light of the recent RfC on the issue. Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived. archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside the main namespace (also called the "article namespace") which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline).

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Please familiarize yourself with the following policies 1.2 Prerequisites 1.3 How to list pages for deletion 2 Active discussions 2.1 2009-11-21 2.1.1 User:Fahad bangash/Fahad khan 2.2 2009-11-20 2.2.1 Portal:Sexual Violence and Victimization 2.2.2 Portal:Portuguese Commonwealth 2.2.3 Portal:The Addams Family 2.3 2009-11-19 2.3.1 User:Tezero/Secret Page 2.3.2 User:Wikidocster/(all) 2.3.3 User:Hammersoft/Personal Attacks 2.3.4 User:Gbradt 2.4 2009-11-18 2.4.1 User:Coopkev2/Sandbox 2.5 2009-11-17 2.5.1 User:Mrpemdasrescue/Total Suspense (film) 2.5.2 User:Mrpemdasrescue/Wet Dog and Graham Crackers 2.5.3 User:Mrpemdasrescue/Weisswurst 2.5.4 User:Jj102786 2.5.5 User:Jj102786/Joshua Lee Jones--Jj102786 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Link title' Born Oct 27th 1986 @ Blytheville, Arkansas @ 9:14pm 23 yrs of age male,white Caucasion American raised Religion:Pentocostal,Church of God 2.5.6 Wikipedia:Wikipedia is like the Stanford Prison Experiment, except that only lasted six days 2.6 2009-11-16 2.6.1 Portal:One God One Nation 2.6.2 User:Phat Lemur/Sandbox 2.6.3 Wikipedia:Mathematosis 2.7 2009-11-15 2.7.1 User:Seek out the truth/The Kevin Trudeau Show 2.8 2009-11-14 2.8.1 User:IveFoundit 2.9 Backlog 2.9.1 User:Lally00/ITU Telecom World 2009 3 Closed discussions

[edit] Introduction

The only currently-used namespaces in which pages are eligible for deletion here are:

• Help:
• Portal:
• MediaWiki:
• Wikipedia:
  • This includes WikiProjects, although it is usually preferable to either mark the Project as historical or change it to a task force of the parent Project, unless the Project is entirely undesirable.
• User:
  • When a page in the User or User talk namespaces seems worthy of deletion, please explain your concerns using either a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} --~~~~  to their talk page. While this step is not required, it does assume good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. The same applies to personal userpages you want deleted; there is no need to list them here, simply tag them with {{db-userreq}}.
  • Also be aware of not biting new users -- sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
• the various Talk: namespaces
• userboxes, regardless of namespace.

The undeletion of pages deleted after having been discussed here, and debating whether discussions here have been properly closed, is the purview of Wikipedia:Deletion review, which operates in accordance with our undeletion policy.

[edit] Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

• Wikipedia:Deletion policy — our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion — whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
• Wikipedia:User page — our guidelines on user pages

[edit] Prerequisites

Please bear in mind that:

• Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
• Nominating for deletion a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
• User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
• Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
• If a page is in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), simply move it and tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-reason}} using the reason: Redirect left after a cross-namespace move - G6 Housekeeping and notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

[edit] How to list pages for deletion

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area.

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

I.	Edit PageName. Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: {{mfd}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|PageName (2nd nomination}} or {{mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination. or {{subst:md1-inline|PageName}} if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page. Please include in the edit summary the phrase Added MfD nomination at ''PageName''nowiki (ctrl-click)">''PageName''nowiki (ctrl-click)">[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion. Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone. Save the page
II.	Create its MfD subpage. The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry" Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page. Insert this text: {{subst:mfd2| pg=PageName| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} --~~~~ replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion and Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for ''PageName''nowiki (ctrl-click)">''PageName''nowiki (ctrl-click)">[[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page.
III.	Add a line to MfD. Follow   this edit link   and add a line to the top of the list: {{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName". Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Added ''PageName''nowiki (ctrl-click)">''PageName''nowiki (ctrl-click)">[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add {{priorxfd|PageName}} in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

• If nominating a page from someone elses userspace, notify them on their main talk page. For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

  {{subst:MFDWarning|PageName}} --~~~~

  to their talk page, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

  Notice of deletion discussion at ''PageName''nowiki (ctrl-click)">''PageName''nowiki (ctrl-click)">[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

  replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
• If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
• If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.

Closing instructions

[edit] Active discussions

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Purge server cache

[edit] 2009-11-21

[edit] User:Fahad bangash/Fahad khan

Content here is being copied over to Malhoo, such as this shows. User is constantly promoting himself on Mahoo and other Pakistan related articles through both this account and IP sockpuppets. This page is only being used to serve that purpose. Netalarmtalk 02:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Acceptable userpage for a contributor, but advise the editor that he may not add himself to the article on his village. Also advise him to read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The user has been advised multiple times for his actions, from as early as February 2009 (or even earlier). He's just copying content from this page onto the article, and not using this as a userpage. I have also sent emails to this user regarding their actions, but have not received as responses.Netalarmtalk 02:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. I also see that you are a bit tense. I'd prefer not to see his userpage deleted, although it could be effective in giving him the message. I think it is better to block the user. Hopefully, we won't have to block all of the IPs that he uses. Relax, you will get support in dealing with this tenditious editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

=D. I'm keeping cool. Thanks for your concern. Netalarmtalk 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Extensive personal info unrelated to the user's activity as a Wikipedian. Wikipeda is not a free webhost and if the user wants to maintain a personal webpage, he should do so somewhere else. Nsk92 (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As generally acceptable. Deleting userpages is not, in general, the most effective way in dealing with anyone at all, hence agree with SmokeyJoe here as well. Collect (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-11-20

[edit] Portal:Sexual Violence and Victimization

Redlink-filled portal since October 2008. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Portal creator was apparently on break until recently. Wait. Collect (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like a work in project to me, instead of deletion may I suggest userfication to a subpage of Jmckeon ie. Deletion should only be used as a last resort and as the creator says, is is a "work in progress".-Marcusmax(speak) 04:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Portuguese Commonwealth

Portal with no content written, untouched since May. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy - The portals creator Wiki User 68 is evidently still active, this is likely a workpage that should not even be in mainspace. Instead of deletion moving and userfying this to a subpage of Wiki User 68 seems a bit more sensible. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:The Addams Family

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be, but it sure as heck isn't a portal. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, if possible, speedily Complete nonsense. --Katerenka (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - It would appear this "portals" creator was only using the page to experiment with bots. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-11-19

[edit] User:Tezero/Secret Page

• User:Tezero/Map 1
• User:Tezero/Map 2
• User:Tezero/Map 3
• User:Tezero/Map 4

Not Myspace, and it's a game with nothing to do with the mainspace. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing to do with our project's goals. We are not a web hosting company, we are an encyclopedia. There are plenty of free wikis out there with a more open scope, the only thing they lack is the high volume of Wikipedia. ^Chillum 21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have contacted the user explaining the situation and asking if he/she consents to the deletion of the pages. This often prevents the need for a deletion discussion. If the user consents then I will delete the pages under the user request CSD criteria and speedy close this debate, otherwise the debate will continue. ^Chillum 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete These pages violate WP:MYSPACE and WP:UP#GAMES. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete we went through this two months ago...--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Clear violation of WP:UP#NOT. Specs112 (Talk!) 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia isn't Myspace. Décémbér21st2012Fréak  |  ^Talk 00:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Katerenka (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep If this was an editor who did nothing else but play about with their own user pages, I'd be inclined to say 'delete'. However, Soxred93's Tools Edit Counter shows that User:Tezero has 6,920 edits, of which 6692 are still live, has been editing for 19 months, with just over 70% of their edits in article space (or article talk space), and about 15% of their edits in either user or user talk space. I am inclined to say to leave these pages - the last MfD was 'no concensus', Tezero has made a total of 7 edits to these pages - of which 5 were their creation! I think this clearly falls within the leeway we can give to active editors - it is not distracting Tezero from editing (although the user's edits have fallen off in the last 4 months, they still average 4 a day over that time period - probably because of academic/work or family commitments). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I normally would !vote 'delete' on such a page, personally I think they are a waste of time, and most (but not all) of the ones I've seen are by editors who never contribute to the encyclopedia. WP:UP#NOT says Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia (emphasis mine) - it does not forbid it. Further on, it says [Unrelated content include] Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project (again, emphasis mine). I just thought I'd explain why I am !voting 'keep' against the current concensus - it is not a random thing, but something which I have considered carefully, as I do with all my !votes on xfD (not to imply that others don't! I am aware of the fact that most editors who !vote at xfD carefully consider the case before typing). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the rational above. The user is an active participant in the project, and is given leeway according to WP:UP#NOT. Deserted Cities (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Contributions don't buy you a license to do nonsense that wouldn't otherwise be allowed. Gigs (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Consistent contributions buy you moderate leeway in userspace, even if many people don't see the point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is this something that policy reflects, or is it simply a point of view? (not trying to be a smartass, policies change so often I don't know) ^Chillum 01:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's my opinion. This is a fine but contentious grey-zone in policy. In previous years, the leeway idea was quite generous, but there is nothing documented on old policy that I can find. Recently (in the last year), many editors have become upset by an alleged large number of non-contributors playing games and doing myspacey things, and this has lead to sporadic purges against unrelated things and nonsense in userspace.
• The relevant policy (WP:UP#GAMES), a section which is relatively new, is slowly gelling into form. It is unclear where consensus lies, between Gig's statement and mine. Unfortunately, very few people are willing to engage in the debate at WT:UP, specifically Wikipedia_talk:User_page#WP:UP.23NOT.2F11_aka_WP:UP.23GAMES._.22particularly.22. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am going to stick with WP:NOT on this matter which enjoys consensus. ^Chillum 02:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My interest is in finding the line that divides "social networking" from "providing a foundation for effective collaboration". I don't find that WP:NOT, in WP:MYSPACE or any other section, speaks directly to this sort of page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can explain to me how these pages provide a foundation for effective collaboration then I may reconsider my position. If I thought they did that I would not have supported deletion, however they seem completely unrelated to the goals of the foundation. ^Chillum 03:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the pages are ineffective at providing a foundation for effective collaboration. But they are even worse at helping the user with his social networking, and so I don't see any "abuse". These pages are just silly distractions, and I advocate a tolerant "each to their own" approach. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This pages have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikidocster/(all)

• Special:PrefixIndex/User:WikiDocster/ This content has not been individually nominated. I have noticed a pattern of users who say on their user page that they are Egyptian medical students and their sole activity on Wikipedia is copying, in alphabetical order, series of articles into their userspace. They make no contributions and do not interact with the community. See also, this MfD closed yesterday: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Maynassar article copies. Miami33139 (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Snowy delete per WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Maynassar article copies. This is an unacceptable breach of Wikipedia's userpage guidelines. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Cannot understand what the user thinks he is doing, and it does not look like a good thing. It looks like pointless content forking, which when done internally is a hazard our copyright obligations. Nominator should have advised WikiDocster (talk · contribs) of this MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hammersoft/Personal Attacks

This page is being used in violation of WP:USER. While the beginning expresses a view I don't share, I don't have a particular problem with the general views expressed in the beginning. The problem I have is the Examples cited in which User:Hammersoft decides to twist my words which are explicitly prohibited in user space: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason.". I have pointed this out and respectfully requested the removal of such problematic material (see palk page), removed them myself, and then, realizing it wasn't just me, I deleted the other one as well; in return, I get an unexplained reversion, a warning to "Knock if off...in my own userspace" (in violation of WP:OWN. This page serves no useful purpose other than to inflame tensions those who disagree with this user and is used as an excuse to belittle other users. The corollaries he espouts run contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and should not be encouraged. More importantly, personal grudges shouldn't be held indefinitely, cataloged, and spread across Wikipedia. --— BQZip01 — ^talk 01:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Rewrite per my comments at the talk page. Specific links intended as commentary on individual editors violate WP:UP#NOT and what's more, aren't needed to draw the overarching point of the essay. Everyone already knows pretty much what a personal attack is, these can be referenced in general terms sans wikilinks. Franamax (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep First, policies allow considerably more latitude with regards to userspace content. This page in no way attempts to disparage anyone, much less BQZip01. Second, BQZip01 has long had a vendetta against me. He has previously accused me of slander, made a request that I be blocked for prolonged incivility, and has repeatedly harassed me throughout the project. I see this MfD as a further extension of this behavior. At the AN/I board section linked above, I made it clear that I was trying to stay out of BQZip01's way. But, that isn't possible when he engages in activities such as this. I am sick to death of this user harassing me. Even on the very page in this MfD, BQZip01 engaged in an edit war against me in an attempt to force content off of it. He didn't even bother seeking an outside opinion. He just decided to lecture me with yet another blizzard of policies and guidelines and then reverted me. The irony in all of this is that I have frequently, virtually ceaselessly, been the butt of all manner of attacks from all sorts of editors and this page is my only means left now to counter such attacks. Even this now is on the chopping block. So, I just have to take all of the "fuck you"s, "retard"s, "lowest form of life"s, "troll"s insults and many, many more and just say "Gee, thanks. That felt good. Could you use a little lubrication next time? No? Ok, I'll take it rough then. Thanks!" Even the very diff that BQZip01 wants off of this page he accused me of violating WP:AGF and WP:OWN because I refused to engage in dialogue with a verbally abusive editor. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I find it interesting that BQZip01's own essay on MfDs contains the following: "(keep if) It is not exclusively an attack page. This means the content is specifically directed at another users actions/contributions, but not at the individual. " This is precisely what this page is. It's not an attack page in any respect. See for yourself User:BQZip01/MfD essay. I have to ask, why am I being targeted with this MfD when by BQZip01's own standards, the page is acceptable? Curious. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  This, of course, takes my comments out of context (again) and only quotes the parts that support his assertions. The page also states that the following conditions must also be met:

  1. The page explicitly states the WP:DR process in which it is intended to be used.
  2. The page has a limited timeframe
  3. The page is not linked elsewhere by its creator

  Your page fails all of these.

  If you feel you have been wronged in some way, you are welcome to submit them to appropriate boards, but you can't keep a personal gripes page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep but remove examples. Hammersoft's law is just his silly little get out clause for when his tendentious behaviour and odd logic piss people off so much they snap, and it gives him a handy excuse to wander off somewhere else imposing the Foundation view of NFC his personal ideas about NFC. However, as an essay in his user space, it will thankfully only ever represent his own opinions, which is fine. It is however not acceptable to maintain a list of examples, these people have done nothing wrong in the eyes of anyone except Hammersoft, and WP:USER is explicit, you do not maintain open ended evidence pages. Either he acts on these incidents, or he doesn't, it's his choice, but it is not his choice to slur other editor in an open ended manner. MickMacNee (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Your behavior is a perfect example of why that page exists in the first place. It's not enough for you to comment on the content of the page. You have to comment on me as well. Nice. Very nice. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• As they say, AGF is not a suicide pact. After numerous interactions, I'm amazed no one has ever hauled you before arbitration for the way you conduct yourself in debates. Just because you don't comment on contributors, doesn't mean you don't have 101 other behavioural flaws. I am guessing that most people just get utterly sick of you, particularly as your behaviour constantly skirts the line of actually actionable behaviour, and nothing is ever likely to be done without a huge timewasting RFC/U being drawn up, and people just prefer to steer well clear of you, especially when you throw your silly little law in their faces. Which of course only helps you in your goals. MickMacNee (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for proving the point of the page that is up for MfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Like I said, it is thankfully only an essay representing your viewpoint. Don't you wonder for example why you never get any help from ANI? Everybody is just that little bit smarter when they look at interactions and debates as a whole, and can see through your 'I am not doing anything wrong because I never made it personal' approach for what it is. People simply have a far more realistic understanding of the principles of CIVIL than are enshrined in your silly law. Someday you will push somone into actually doing something about it and you will land in a venue where your standard responses won't get you anywhere. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I've received considerable help from AN/I on a number of occasions, not the least of which was BQZip01's attempt to have me blocked in October. As for my behavior/actions landing me in some notional hot water; have at it, and kindly do so in the appropriate forum. This MfD isn't a call for deletion of my behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• As above, I cannot be bothered to spend the time, you would have to push me personally a lot further yet, but I'm sure there are others. And the BQ ANI thread is a very good example of my point about how your behaviour just skirts the boundaries of being actionable, which is why it would need someone to take the time to lay it out for people to get it, as it were. ANI just isn't the venue to deal with persistent problem editors like yourself, who have no self awareness at all, it never has been. And because of your self awareness issues, filing an RFC/U would be a mere formality in showing willing on the part of your many detractors, but to be honest, you have had a million and one chances to get it and change your ways, so that would likely just close with no change, and the issue would then defer to the inevitable move to a more appropriate venue. But it is interesting you don't see this Mfd as a comment on your behaviour, given that it relates to the way you use your user space in an innappropriate way. MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have anything additional to contribute to this MfD, or do you intend to turn this into an RfC on my behavior? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Close: I've removed links providing any connection between the examples and the editors in question. Are we happy now? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as long as the links pointing out other users' perceived flaws are removed. I don't think this essay violates WP:UP#NOT without the links in there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Close, given attempts to alleviate concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment While the links have been removed there are still a couple dozen on his user page. While not exactly this page, it is certainly closely related and the same opinions I believe apply to this page as well. I personally believe Hammersoft wears these attacks as a badge of honor. I admire his tenacity in the fair use arena, but I am concerned at the following comment:

"...this page is my only means left now to counter such attacks. Even this now is on the chopping block. So, I just have to take all of the "fuck you"s, "retard"s, "lowest form of life"s, "troll"s insults and many, many more and just say "Gee, thanks. That felt good. Could you use a little lubrication next time? No? Ok, I'll take it rough then. Thanks!""

He has inserted himself into a voluntary role within Wikipedia. He should also recognize that he doesn't have to tolerate this behavior, but I think we all agree that this isn't the best way to counteract it. It isn't your "sole" place to vent your frustrations. There are boards for this. Keeping misunderstandings around doesn't help improve the encyclopedia. Ignoring others doesn't help improve the encyclopedia. Aside from that, your self-injected role is self-imposed. If you don't like it, you don't have to do it. To complain "this sucks" and keep on doing it (or doing it more) seems to be a bad idea, especially when you don't have to "embrace the suck".

That said, I can't help but think we've failed Hammersoft as a WP community. He is right. He shouldn't have to put up with that and, no matter what I think about his civility, it is more important to point out that the behavior of others in this little sector of Wikipedia should be a driving concern of Wikipedians everywhere. I would like to say that I support actions taken to appropriate boards for uncivil behavior (i.e. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as the situation warrants). If you take some of these concerns to a board in the future, I request you contact me (and perhaps others on this board). You shouldn't have to face some of the worst behavior Wikipedia has to offer alone.

Hammersoft, I want to compliment you on the general basis of your work. You are in an arena where you don't always deal with the most pleasant people or those with the most pleasant demeanor. We, as a community should back you up when others use profanity around you. You don't have to just take it. Others around here support that concern. I think the problem we have is that you are publicly immortalizing these actions and visibly keeping/displaying anything you view as a personal attack. This only leads to bad blood and perhaps isolation/insulation from those willing to help. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gbradt

Self-advertisement by editor with a long history of COI edits and spamming Wikipedia Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As an ad, it surely is not very much of one, as it basically consists of a short list of his books. Background of an editor is not a valid reason to delete such a short and innocuous page. User has been active since September 2008 really -- and it was only on 28 Oct 2009 that anyone seemed to raise COI as an issue -- and the COI (other than his own bio) is marginal (lest we bar lawyers from editing on any legal topic for which they did any articles for any journal, etc.) "Long history" to me means more than a month with an account. As for "spamming" I found not a single mention of this edoitor in a search of all projectspace. As to the COI for the bio -- I note that this account has not edited it. So we have non-spam, non-ad by an edoitor who has been accused for less than a month of COI and judged guilty without any WP discussion? Not a valid reason for deletion, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep My intentions are honorable. Have welcomed, and will continue to welcome, guidance on how to contribute without crossing the conflict of interest lines. I am a thought leader in this area, having written three books on the subject (two already published by Wiley and one in production by them). My goal is to contribute to individuals, groups and knowledge. How am I not exactly the type of exerienced, knowledgeable, willing contributor you want to encourage?Gbradt (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, try reading WP:Areas for Reform and the discussions about having new edtors. Collect (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I think the nomination misrepresents the page to an extent. This is hardly an advertisement. I don't think it violates WP:UP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This page tells us about the contributing editor. It would be good if User:Gbradt told us a little more about himself (his interests, his intentions) than just his published books. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-11-18

[edit] User:Coopkev2/Sandbox

User page that is not being updated in six months. Userspace is not a webhost for deleted articles - this was specifically created as an alternative to mainspace, "Hosted the LlamaBot article for viewing purposes." Miami33139 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Appears to be a copy of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LlamaBot. You should talk to the user before nominating their pages. Failing that, why not just blank it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Sandboxes are ... sandboxes. They are not articles, and there is no basis for deletion given. Unless, of course, all userpages not altered every six months are open for deletion. Collect (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:UP#COPIES This is a rationale and always has been. Sandboxes that do not get touched for long periods should expire. Google indexes them. Sandboxes are not meant to be alternate hosts for deleted content, that is exactly the purpose of this sandbox according to the edit summary. Miami33139 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If deleted content can be "userfied" and can not be in userspace -- um? As for google indexing - that issue has been repeatedly discussed elsewhere, but is not a reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This page violates WP:FAKEARTICLE. If this formerly AfD'd article was recreated in the mainspace, it would've been speedily deleted. Since the user is not improving the article, this is at the very least gaming the system and, considering it's been untouched for months, genuine violation of userpage guidelines. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Violates Wikipedia:UP#COPIES (which links to the same as WP:FAKEARTICLE) and breaks the GFDL. LlamaBot was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LlamaBot. It was created by Coopkev2 but had other contributors who are not credited at the copy. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep for now. It stands to reason that the user intends to work on improving the article; userfying a deleted after an AfD mainspace article is quite legitimate. It is true that 6 months of not working on this page is pushing it a bit, but I would give the user 3-4 more months to see if any further progress occurs. Nsk92 (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The creation of the copy [1] had edit summary "Hosted the LlamaBot article for viewing purposes", and added this to the page: "This page has been deleted from the main encyclopedia but is maintained here for necessary viewing purposes." The user has never worked to improve the page but only deleted some things not belonging in userspace. The user can make an offline copy if there is considerations to ever attempt getting it back in the encyclopedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point, changing to Delete. Nsk92 (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-11-17

[edit] User:Mrpemdasrescue/Total Suspense (film)

At first, these look like articles in the making. But they are all about the same people in different circumstances. Don't know if they are vandalism or some sort of recreational web page creation w/ W as the host. Not able to verify any version, and I've just deleted what looked like an apparent attack page in the same vein. Even if innocent nonsense, it's not suitable for a user subpage Dlohcierekim 22:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As noted below - fiction is deletable. Collect (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete A fictional film involving real actors can also lead to WP:BLP issues. This fictitious movie can be used to defame actors. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 23:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as an inappropriate use of userspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mrpemdasrescue/Wet Dog and Graham Crackers

At first, these look like articles in the making. But they are all about the same people in different circumstances. Don't know if they are vandalism or some sort of recreational web page creation w/ W as the host. Not able to verify any version, and I've just deleted what looked like an apparent attack page in the same vein. Even if innocent nonsense, it's not suitable for a user subpage Dlohcierekim 22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Likely to be pure fiction and deletable. If it is not, then I would change position, but I am fairly sure here. Collect (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as an inappropriate use of userspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mrpemdasrescue/Weisswurst

At first, these look like articles in the making. But they are all about the same people in different circumstances. Don't know if they are vandalism or some sort of recreational web page creation w/ W as the host. Not able to verify any version, and I've just deleted what looked like an apparent attack page in the same vein. Even if innocent nonsense, it's not suitable for a user subpage. Dlohcierekim 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as fiction per se. A valid reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as an inappropriate use of userspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jj102786

User is using Wikipedia as a webhost to host his biography ---- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and counsel user on WP:WEBHOST. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 10:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEBHOST. User hasn't contributed in any other way than copy pasting his biography. Clearly tries to use WP as a host.  Ilyushka88 Talk to me 10:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep In fact, user's first edit at 8:48 a/m/ was to Mandibular fracture. The claim that there was no other contribution is incorrect. Then started a user page at 9:28 which was marked for deletion at 10:36. An hour or so as a user -- and WP:BITE is here as clearly as one could wish. Note also that userspace allows a short c.v., whoch this does not appear to violate in any way, shape, manner or form. And note that this is a great example for how we treat newcomers -- even if they actually do edit elsewhere first. Within an hour of a userpage - they get dragged in WP processes. Basta. Collect (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you for clearing that up. For some reason I didn't notice his first edit. My apologies.  Ilyushka88 Talk to me 11:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I've deleted a couple of attempts this user made to include this content in the mainspace, where they clearly don't belong. I've got no problem with this on their userspace though, for the reasons Collect mentions. Poor guy's talk page is littered with templates, this just seems so bitey. GedUK  11:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment see my comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jj102786/Joshua Lee Jones--Jj102786 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Link title' Born Oct 27th 1986 @ Blytheville, Arkansas @ 9:14pm 23 yrs of age male,white Caucasion American raised Religion:Pentocostal,Church of God; also I should note that if an option was available to remove all the family history bit (just keep the first bit on the page as far as the user's religion), then I would find that acceptable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a short note might have worked better than a page of templates, then? Occasionally, WP seems to love process far too much. Collect (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa, Collect! I have left a "human" message on the user's talk page, apologising for not contacting them before the MfD - and giving the advice that I would have given had I done so. It's late, but hopefully better than nothing. However, I still feel that should the user not modify this page to remove the family history bits, it should be deleted. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering well over 1,600 editors refer to their genealogy in userspace, is it possible you might be too restrictive? 7,000 have "father" and "mother" on a user page. Referencex to family are, in fact, common on WP in userspace. As long as COPPA is not involved, I really do not see the need to police this sort of thing. Collect (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep within the leeway permitted for a user page, but please educate the user. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Users are allowed to write a short personal biography of themselves on their userpages, so long as it does not include "excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages)," which this one does not. See WP:UP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment As I have commented on its MfD, User:Jj102786/Joshua Lee Jones--Jj102786 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Link title' Born Oct 27th 1986 @ Blytheville, Arkansas @ 9:14pm 23 yrs of age male,white Caucasion American raised Religion:Pentocostal,Church of God is basically a copy of this user page. Should the decision be made to keep this user page (as it appears is likely at the moment), I would recommend that the other one be deleted as an unneccessary duplication. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply ask the user he he would like the duplicate blanked? Collect (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of a policy allowing duplicates. If there was a substantial difference in content, I would suggest that if one was kept, they should both be kept - but as they are duplicates, they are not both required, and it makes sense to delete the other copy, as it has such an unnecessarily long title - and moving it to a short title wouldn't make sense, as it's a duplicate. There are no indications that the editor has been on Wikipedia since this page was created (no further edits have been made). If you can think of a reason for keeping a duplicate copy of a user page, based on a policy or guideline, I'd be interested in hearing it. Yes, ideally we would ask the user if they would like it blanked, but policy does not require that in the case of a duplicate, does it? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, but ask user to practice wikiformatting to make it visually more appealing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jj102786/Joshua Lee Jones--Jj102786 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Link title' Born Oct 27th 1986 @ Blytheville, Arkansas @ 9:14pm 23 yrs of age male,white Caucasion American raised Religion:Pentocostal,Church of God

There is no any point in this creation. name of the subpage consists of signature and information about user. The page is duplicate of User:Jj102786 except user added at the bottom that page is retrieved from there.  Ilyushka88 Talk to me 09:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not your web host -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Nominated at the TEN MINUTE MARK. WP:BITE applies clearly. Allowed use of space (userspace for short c.v.). New user who actually did a mainspace edit before anything else. Argue as one might -- the idea of trying to keep new users off WP is not a good one. Ask whether a new user should ever end up with as many templates on his user talk page within less than two hours of making an edit. (Yes - his edit should have been on the article talk page, but is that a valid reason for lynching?) <g> Collect (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:USER says Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. - I can't find anything about putting your biography on there. Although I understand your WP:BITE reasoning, I can't see anywhere that says that putting your biography is a suitable use of a user page. If this was a short CV, I might be more inclined to agree - but it is not. Also, bear in mind that the user tried to create an article about themselves, and then put this on their user space. WP:USER also says Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project - how is the information about his parents, grandparents, etc, relevant to the project? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I know that I should have left the user a message before I took the page to MfD. I made a mistake there, and will do so next time. My meaning here is not to bite anyone. I enjoy helping people, not to make them feel bad. I listed this page for deletion as I just can't think of any reason why there should be duplications of userpages in Wikipedia with a title like this (title consists only of user signatures and page content).  Ilyushka88 Talk to me 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:KeithTyler/Resume , Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Johnbuckman and so on. And I consider this one "short." Anything which does not go to a second screen to me is short. YMMV. Collect (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Collect. I don't think this violates WP:UP#NOT #3, as the it cannot be considered "excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages)." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment This page is substantially the same as the user's user page User:Jj102786 (which also has an open MfD). If the content is considered sufficient to be kept, I would recommend that this copy is deleted, while retaining the other. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-unique content with a title that is way too long and detailed. Presumably, this was a test. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia is like the Stanford Prison Experiment, except that only lasted six days

Is this WP-space worthy? I think not. Author is a SPA. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete useless! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Completely pointless and irrelevant. <addendia>Name of page is also a potential attack against administrators (who would be in the role of "guards").</addendia> -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete a pointless 'article' - not even enough content to pretend to be an essay. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Violates no WP policies or guidelines other than being short. Deo volente, WP can use short articles and essays. And Jimbo Wales says WP is an experiment. So absent a reason to delete, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• The thing is this isn't even an essay. There isn't enough content for it to be called an essay. This page shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with an essay. In fact, given the name of the essay, now that I've read up a bit more on the Stanford Prison Experiment, it's bordering on accusing administrators of being willfully cruel. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 12:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If it conveys anything understandable, it is an essay [2] and it is up to us to decide when criticism (I assume this essay is, in fact, critical of WP) ;;goes beyong reasonable bounds.;; It is not up to us to eliminate criticism. Is the wording objectionable per se? Or is the objection to the fact that a user makes a strong point without using strong language? Which pale does this essay pass beyond? Collect (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The title itself is the issue. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, "guards" and "prisoners" were placed in a faux prison for a psychology study. The two-week experiment had to be curtailed to 6 days because the "guards" were deliberately psychologically torturing the "prisoners". Admins (due to their additional buttons) would doubtless be the "guards" in this equation; that's what I'm trying to get at. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually read up on this before commenting. If the issue is the title, then ask to "rename" or the like. I did not, however, come to the same interpretation as you did. My interpretation is that anyone, admin or not, could be in either position -- the issue is whether a person who has been permitted by any authority figure to bully others will become more of a bully, and a person who has been "bitten" (WP:BITE) will retreat - and eventually leave Wikipedia. See how different interpretations are possible? Collect (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I just say, Collect, that the previous comment is more of an essay than the one being proposed for deletion. You have explained how WP could be compared to the Stanford Experiment. If the creator had written that much, then I would be suggesting userfying rather than deleting. An analogy: if this AfD had a title and the nomination, it would be similar to the nominated article - it would have a title that explains what it is about, and a short statement (although I would argue that the nomination in an AfD is generally a more thoughtful contribution than the single sentence in this article) - but no one would say "Oh, that's all we need - let's delete the article". A title and one sentence does not an AfD make, and likewise, a title and one sentence does not (IMO) an essay make. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy. Disputed single author essays should be userfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I read it as originating from a limited POV. I actually think that wikipedia is most unlike the experiment, but that a new contributor, or a contributor who has trouble getting the rules, may feel as per the essay. That fact that I think it is wrong in the bigger picture does not mean that it should be deleted (aka censored). Project criticism should be given special protection. We do not want to be appearing to cover up criticism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • We wouldn't. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Wow. I'd never come across that article before. I think we need a project space version for criticism of the editorial community, and the opinion in this essay can be merged into it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
        • "This essay can be merged into it"? The page title basically says all there is to say in this 'essay'. If the author had actually bothered to explain in which way WP is like the Stanford experiment (even if it had been a couple of sentences), I would have suggested userfying it - but their entire 'essay' is basically the premise in the title and how long Wikipedia has been 'running'. Other than the title, there is no significant content. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
          • You are right. It is a statement, not an essay. Without expansion, it probably belongs on User:Das Experimentieren's main userpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Userify Rude, incivil essay provides no value to the project. One could argue it's providing anti-value. Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The opposite essay has been on WP for a long time. Collect (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and if the creator of this page had actually worked on this 'essay' during the last month, and actually put some content on it, I would have suggested userfying it. The opposite essay actually has some content beyond one sentence. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per reasoning listed above. The "essay" is too short and it was created by an SPA. Deserted Cities (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How does one characterize a new account as an SPA? It appears to have made an edit outside this essay, but a lot of folks do not post dozens of edits off the bat. If you feel that it is something other than a new user, post on the appropriate board, but I do not recall MfD being the correct venue. Collect (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

On the duck test this is not a new user, and that adds a clue as to the motivation for writing this page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That adds weight to the opinion being a valid editor's opinion. As such, and unintegrated with related opinions, it belongs in userspace. It's a pity that the user doesn't feel confident to put his main account name behind the opinion. Deletion here doesn't encourage growth of such confidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Userfy This one seems to be too short to be considered a true essay. That said, this should at the very least be userfied, as WP:PG states that "essays...that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace." I think it'd be hard to argue that the viewpoint expressed here is a viewpoint held by a significant minority rather than a fringe viewpoint. The lack of content and the creator's dormancy suggest that deletion may be preferable to userfication, however. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-11-16

[edit] Portal:One God One Nation

This portal looks like an exact duplicate of Portal:Ayyavazhi Green Giant (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. From the edit history, my impression is that Portal:Ayyavazhi was being used as something of a template for creating this portal, but the process of updating it stalled. One important difference, however, is that we have a series of articles about Ayyavazhi. We don't seem to have any articles about One God One Nation, at least not under that name. Creating a portal before there are any articles is a bit backwards. --RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No indication that the earlier portal doesn't already serve for this subject, and I personally don't see the significance of this new title for the portal either. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The correctly named portal is already at Portal:Ayyavazhi. A cursory search of the web showed that the term "One God One Nation" is almost never used in reference to Ayyavazhi, although it has some other uses. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Phat Lemur/Sandbox

Per WP:NOTWEBHOST. The subpage is not being constructively used to contribute to the encyclopedia. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: What's it supposed to be anyway? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Useless waste of server space. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep allowable use of Sandbox. In a sense, one could argue that all sandboxes are a waste of server space, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Aren't most sandboxes (that I've seen anyway) used for experiments or edits on a long-term basis, so that someone can't come along and mess it up on the public sandbox? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not required by WP precedent. As long as the material does not violate specific policies (no personal attacks, commercial use, etc.) sandboxes are userspace. See also the discussions on "userfication." If we require thn only articles which would be allowed in mainspace could be in userspace, the concept of userspace would be sans meaning. Collect (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, apparently an archive of an article deleted by AFD. Compound WP:UP#COPIES into the nomination. –blurpeace ^(talk) 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See essay WP:UFY etc. See also any search in WP-space for "userfy." Userfied articles are not considered improper copies. Deleted articles are frequently placed in userspace. Collect (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the link? Long-term archives of deleted articles are discouraged by our guidelines. –blurpeace ^(talk) 13:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Blurpeace, can you link to the relevant AfD discussion? Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. Apparently the article was nominated, but closed per speedy deletion. –blurpeace ^(talk) 14:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete I'm reluctant to delete a user's sandbox, but it looks like this is a clear-cut violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Amazingly enough, this sandbox has material which may well be of interest to people in the future studying digital remastering of film. This data is not readily found elsewhere, to be sure. Image of credits is not logically a copyright violation (it is data, not related to creation of the work). Hence a strong reason not given above. Collect (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has deemed by consensus that the article is not suitable for inclusion, thus the sandbox became a policy violation. User space should not be used as a substitute for main space articles, or preferred versions of them. –blurpeace ^(talk) 13:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• And then userfication is meaningless -- as any article userfied then is automatically a policy violation? There is no requirement for notability in userspace. And Catch-22 is a poor reason for deletion. If an article is not properly in mainspace, that does not meean it is automatically deletable from userspace. Collect (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• "thus the sandbox became a policy violation [after aging one year]." There have been a few images removed from the sandbox as copyright violations, BTW. –blurpeace ^(talk) 14:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep If this data were textual it might even be a valid list article of some sort. We shouldn't delete it just because it's unusual. It may be useful at some point for the encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article was attempted and deleted. A list would be implausible. What would its name be, "List of IMAX titles with DMR team credits"? The headers contained are unlikely to ever be useful. –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would vote Keep if Phat Lemur was still active, because I believe people should be allowed to keep copies of articles they've written in their userspace. But he hasn't edited since December 2008. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete On one hand it is a user subpage sandbox, however I do agree that it conflicts with WP:NOTWEBHOST.  IShadowed  ✰  22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mathematosis

This page is a WP:POINTy page set up to support an uncivil template see deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Mathematosis --Dmcq (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Userfy if requested by author. Not appropriate for namespace. GlassCobra 00:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy. Normally, essays may be in Wikipedia space, but this one is contrary to policy, constains staments contrary to fact, and supported only by the creator, as far as I can tell. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy This may be in the project namespace, but it's still a prime example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. According to WP:PG, "essays...that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace." If that discussion at TfD is any indication, widespread consensus is against this user's opinions on "mathematosis." I would support userfying if it weren't for the WP:POINT violations, which leads me to support possible deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. 71.139.11.55 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy. Gregbard is regularly in a minority of one when discussing mathematical topics with experts. Sometimes he tries to use the kind of communication common in mathematics and fails miserably (I remember him adding something like "foobar is a tuple (a, b, c)" to an article while totally forgetting to mention what a, b and c are supposed to be, thus retaining only the technical part of the definition which Quine rejects but omitting everything that makes sense. (Sorry, no diff, since I don't remember at which article this was.) But more often he tries to replace simple, straightforward definitions with incomprehensible pseudo-philosophical jargon that stress many irrelevancies and obscure the main point. E.g. according to Gregbard, a theorem isn't so much "a statement, proved on the basis of...", but rather "an idea, concept or abstraction instances of which are formed using a string of symbols...". [3]

Since Gregbard believes he is right and everybody else is wrong, those who try to contain his nonsense (mostly professional mathematicians) naturally appear like a conspiracy of ignorants to him. This page is part of his quixotic battle. Thus it is a very personal document and doesn't belong in namespace. Hans Adler 07:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy. Disputed single author essays should be userfied. Arthur Rubin's edits don't count. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Based on notability of author coining the word. Book reviewed in New York Times. I can find no policy requiring essays to conform to what everyone else says, as that would seem to totally bar all interesting essays. If we simply only allow majority opinions in essays, then we violate the core tenets of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your apparent premise that humorous definitions by notable philosophers automatically get the right to a Wikipedia space essay. Can we look forward to a similar essay for every entry in the Devil's Dictionary?

But here is what intrigues me more: So far Gregbard hasn't found a single editor who agreed with him on these things. Do you agree with him, or do you know someone who does? Initially I thought that there might be a few philosophers agreeing with him, but so far all those who got involved quickly got as angry about Gregbard's nonsense as the mathematicians. Hans Adler 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK -- the word is notable, right? WP requires that essays are noted as being by "one or more" -- clearly the basis is that essays by one person are, indeed, permitted - right? Do I agree? No -- but that is also a point -- I strongly oppose making decisions on whether I "agree" or "disagree" with something. And whether a person has a "majority opinion" or not. Material which is uncivil is one matter. The case in pint, however, is not worded uncivilly, and therefore requires my support. Ought all essays whoich are not "majority opinions" be removed? I hope not. And, frankly, Bierce would get deleted on sight by some folks, but not by me. Collect (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got core tenets about essays from. They don't have to have general consensus but WP:POLICY says "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." If the essay has most people saying it is pointy and should be deleted then it outright contradicts widespread consensus.

The author of the word is notable and I'd have no problem with something about mathematosis in Quine's article based on what he wrote which was a humourous essay. All that's used here is the word. Wikipedia essays by the way do not need any sort of references for notability verifiability etc, that's for articles. Dmcq (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way essays that criticise Wikipedia are good and fine if written to further the goal of improving Wikipdia, that is in line with core policy. Essays designed to be used in personal attacks against other editors are altogether different. Dmcq (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy. Essay used for pointy attacks. Dmcq (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

On whom is it a "personal attack"? Seems that it specifically avoids attacking any individuals at all -- hence is not an "attack page" by precedent. Collect (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"This confusion results in a collective form of ownership by an in-group of editors whose belief is that they are protecting these articles from non-mathematicians." I wouldn't have called this a "personal attack", but it's a transparent attack on WP:WPM. Gregbard would like to use mathematics articles as his personal playground, where he can put all his latest ideas which he got while reading books related to logic in prominent position, while displacing, removing or obscuring the information that most readers are looking for. Hans Adler 13:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This from GregBard "Your belief that it is POV is consistent with mathematosis" with an earlier version by him as an article illustrates the sort of thing I'm talking about. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)So it is an attack on an unnamed group with some sort of common behaviour? How is that an attack? Recall that the essay must be judged on its own -- not on "I don't like its author" which is irrelevant. We do not decalre people anathema on WP that I know of, and certainly their essays do not then become subject to anathema. I can disagree with a person, and not desire to see them so treated, and certainly it is not a proper frame of reference for a deletion discussion <g>. Look at what ArbCom has said about "personal attacks" [4] "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. [42]. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly. Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC) " A personal attack is an attack on a person -- and this does not come within a mile. Note further that mentions of "cabals" and "groups" are found in many essays on WP (even by one person) and precedent is that such comments are not "attacks." (added after ec) and how is a comment in another place relevant to a reasoned discussion about deleting this essay? Outside disagreements should not be used in MfD. Collect (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What you were quoting was whether the text of personal attacks should in general be removed after the event, what has now turned into WP:RPA. This essay is the continuance of article that was moved here after being deleted by AfD. This is a Wikipedia essay not an article, the purpose of wikipedia space is to further the aim of producing an encyclopaedia, it is not part of the encyclopaedia proper. There is no requirement to keep personal attack vehicles. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The claim was made that it "attacks" in some way. I showed that it is not an attack page. And showed that ArbCom has specifically stated a position on misue of policy on attacks. Now if an article if removed from mainspace it can not be an essay in project space? Pray - where is that a policy? So -- we have an editor who is loathed who creates an essay which "attacks" a vast unnamed group in some way so it can be deleted as an "attack page"? Seems you would prefer to delete editors -- the essay attacks no one. Absent a reason to delete the essay, other than reasons based on personalities, the defualt should be Keep. (added) I note you now refer to the essay as a "personal attack vehicle." As it is not, the issue of dislike of an editor should not in any way be used as a rationale to delete his essay. Collect (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The remark by Gregbard that I gave above was about an editor Septentrionalis. It was a personal attack. I did not say an article cannot become an essay. That is why this is an MfD rather than a quick delete. And your quote was wrong as I pointed out and I reoeat, it referred to deleting the text of a personal attack after it has been made. Please read No personal attacks for the actual policy. Dmcq (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus the default is to keep. That's why one needs to set up a page like this to see if it is repugnant to the general consensus. If you think it is even a half way reasonable way to describe the editors of an article then by all means say you want it. Nobody's stopping you doing that and I believe you have put in a keep. Your grounds of notability doesn't apply for essays but I don't think that's going to worry anyone overmuch. You can even say strong keep if you think something like this is a good idea to have hanging around. Dmcq (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• 'Delete or Userify - rude, incivil essay. No one believes this but the author. Hipocrite (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I think calling this an attack is a bit much (not least because it gives entirely too much credit to the putative attacker). It's certainly WP:POINT, certainly part of a broader pattern of problematic editing (A template, an article and an essay? My goodness, we have been busy!), probably doesn't belong in WP namespace (But I'll defer to the consensus on that -- frankly I would prefer this sort of nonsense, which can be safely ignored, to actual damage to mathematics articles requiring time and effort of people who actually know what they're talking about to fix them and keep them fixed) but let's reserve terms like 'attack' and 'vandalism' for where they actually apply and not use them as rhetorical devices where "how silly" or "oh brother" will do just fine. 71.139.11.55 (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you're right about that. When I wrote pointy attacks I didn't realize it would get taken as personal attack and I didn't mean to tread into that territory but I then went and responded. Very silly of me. I'll withdraw my statements about Gregbard on anything like that by striking them out. Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The essay is harmful to the project, and only leads to name-calling. For instance, "By !voting delete, User:Dmcq is clearly exhibiting signs of WP:Mathematosis." Although the essay may refer to an unnamed group of editors, any attempt to use the essay in practice would inevitably lead to incivility, if not an outright personal attack. From what I have seen at WT:WPM, this usage of the essay is precisely the creator's intention. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The "attack" occurs when the personal attack is made. It is not part of the essay, and crystal balls about how anyone might use any essay (including WP:PUFF and the like are not valid reasons to delete. Collect (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me turn this around. Please explain how this essay could help the project. The thread WT:WPM#Theorem already indicates how this essay can be used destructively, by back and forth accusations of "mathematosis", leading to the escalation of conflict. I see no evidence that the essay will ever be used in a positive fashion, since every instance in which the term has been used in a dispute with another editor has been confrontational and nasty. Please prove me wrong. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Um -- so anything which might possibly be a problem therefore ought to be deleted? I did not find that on any list of normal reasons for deletion, to be sure. If one were affronted by this, the best course would be to ignore it, as this discussion is generating more readers than it would otherwise have garnered in a year. But pre-emptive deletion? That would encompass a vast array of pages! Sorry -- I do not take it as a reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your reply is a red herring. I was not arguing that it should be deleted preemptively, but that it should be deleted because, based on empirical data, the essay in question is bad for the project. Every instance where this term has been used on Wikipedia in a content dispute was a violation of WP:CIVIL. Again, please see the thread I referenced above, as well as the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematosis and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mathematosis. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What, precisely, is the empirical data you have? And AfD reasons for deletion are not specifically valid in MfD. The AfD could easily have been closed as "merge" from what I read there -- and the official reason for deletion was "lack of sourcing" and no mention of WP:CIVIL was made at all. The closest thing to incivility was "Regardless. I'm done with this anyway, engaging with Greg on any level is about as fruitful as shining a penlight into a black hole 71.139.11.9 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC) " I looked at every single link to this essay -- and found no use violating WP:CIVIL . Perhaps you can give me a single cite where this essay was used to violate any policy? This sounds a great deal more like "I don't like the author" than anything else. Collect (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just go to WT:WPM and look for all instances of the word mathematosis. What is interesting there is that Pmanderson is right about Gregbard showing some of the symptoms. But perhaps we can end this discussion now and simply agree to disagree? Or continue on the talk page, if continue we must? I am sorry I started this by responding to you. I didn't intend to disrupt this AfD. Hans Adler 21:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1. This is not the AfD. 2. The AfD did not raise this issue. 3. It might have been a real issue if it had been raised before. It was not raised. 4. This essay has not been so used in any place. 5. I find 45 hits in books. 6. "Mathematosis" has 7 hits in userspace. Two of which were logs of new pages, and none of which appeared in any way to be uncivil. It is not found in any article or article talk pages. In project space I found no uncivil use either. In short, I searched high and low on WP and did not find the horrid attack being attributed to the word, and still less to this essay. 7. The TfD was based on "neologism" though the nom said it was "arrogant" which does not really qualify as a reason for deletion. As far as I can tell, the concensus was that the cleanup-jargon template sufficed. So what we have more than ever is what appears to be personal dislike of a grumpy editor. Sorry - that is not a valid reason for deletion. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It was you who brought up the business of personal attack. As to mathematosis being liable to being taken as insulting may I quote Gregbard himself, when described as suffering from mathematosis he said 'Well actually yes you are very insulting'. As to finding everything I deleted two instances where references to this essay had been inserted into Wikipedia policies. You seem to keep changing your grounds and quoting policies without saying where the policies you quote are written down. May I suggest you give actual policy or guideline references or just give your reasons in your own words, support does not have to be based on policies or guidelines, they don't cover everything and the good of wikipedia trumps most anything else. Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Collect, you're missing the point. No one is suggesting that we delete all essays expressing minority viewpoints. What Gregbard expresses in this essay is not a minority viewpoint. Rather, it's a fringe viewpoint – that is, it goes directly against consensus, as Gregbard is the only user who supports it. As I wrote above, WP:PG states that "essays...that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace." This one contradicts widespread consensus, as shown at AfD and TfD previously; therefore, it should at the very least be userfied. That is the core issue here, not whether or not the term "mathematosis" is notable or whether this counts as an attack page or not. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet that is not the rationale given at the outset. The AfD and TfD discussions did not make such a consensus claim at all. In fact, the primary claims on AfD were the notability and neologism arguments. I was told to search WP and that I would find this used for attacking -- I found no such case in an assiduous search. Now I am told that an essay with a "frince viewpoint" is deletable for that reason ... and as for "disconsensus" being a novel reason for deletion when that was not even suggested at the start -- sounds more like an editor problem than an essay problem. And, indeed, delete !votes in NfD should be based on policies and guidelines. Now one editor seems not to realize the first use of "personal attack" on this page appears to have been at 13:40 on 17 Nov. I referred to ut un my reply six minutes later. Any editor who says it was I who first used those words should look at the time-stamps. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay sorry I was the first one to say that and I have now struck that out as well. If you are unable to see that when people say something is insulting then it raises questions of civility I don't know what will count. If you are saying people should base their decisions on an Mfd on policies and guidelines then please give references to where it says that. Please desist from saying things as if they are in policies and guidelines without giving any references. Different editors are entitled to give their own different reasons. Dmcq (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The arguments at AfD and TfD were different because for other namespaces there are other rules. I told you where you can find examples for personal attacks: By going to WT:WPM and searching for "mathematosis" on the page. The first two hits are two instances, one against Gregbard and one by Gregbard. They don't link to Gregbard's article, template or essay of this name, but only because everybody who was involved was aware of at least the article, and they all serve the common purpose of pushing a certain meme about WPM. Hans Adler 01:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Collect, please read my comments here more carefully. I never asserted that expressing a fringe point of view was grounds for deletion of an essay. Rather, I said that according to Wikipedia policy, it's grounds for moving that essay to the author's userspace. I said that this should be deleted only if consensus is that it violates WP:POINT as well; since I feel that it does, I support deletion. Userfying is the more likely outcome, however. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy. Author has the right to express his own opinions about WP-related issues in an essay that doesn't attack any specific editors, so I'm opposed to deleting this outright. But it is evident that it doesn't have enough support to stay in the Wikipedia namespace. --RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as inappropriate and unhelpful to the project, Userfy if the author so requests. Ray^Talk 23:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep you boors! Why should WP:Zombie be "Cabal approved", yet this page deleted? Because it offends your high opinion of yourselves and the pages you administer? I remind everyone here that it has long been known that the mathematics pages on this site border on farce and at times resemble their own satire. People come to the mathematics pages looking for answers and they come away confused with even more questions. As near as I can tell Mathematosis adequately sums up the reason for this shocking state of affairs. Edit the page if you must, but if you want to see real improvement in the dreadful state of the mathematics articles around here then you had best keep this page around for future reference.

Sadly, I'm fairly sure that none of you will understand what I'm talking about here. But that's what happens to closed communities I suppose. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Just a point of information, I really doubt the cabal have an opinion as this matter doesn't touch on, say large cardinals or projective determinacy. And, while your point (if I can attempt to extract one from your screed) that the project's coverage of mathematics could stand to be improved and made more accessible to non-mathematicians might be valid, I defy you to show how this essay is the way to do it. 71.139.11.55 (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the above post was intended as sarcasm. At any rate, it shouldn't be taken seriously (referencing two humor pieces as though they were serious is a clue). But I'm not sure what conclusion, if any, was actually intended. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not blunt enough. The WP:Zombie essay is a satire. This essay is a satire. The WP:Zombie essay is intended to highlight problems with the editing of articles on the site. This essay is intended highlight problems with the editing of mathematical articles on the site. The WP:Zombie essay has a useful role to play in bettering the site. This essay has a useful role to play in bettering the site.

At times, the level of inanity around here beggars belief. The mathematics articles on this site are bad and frankly are getting worse. For example, did you know that the the List of trigonometric identities page discusses haversines and infinite sums of cosines and before introducing the formula for the sum of two cosines. The reason for this is that the mathematics editors around here lack common sense. Mathematoisis explains this as well as any reasons I have ever heard.

It has become clear to me that the majority of gatekeepers on mathematics articles on Wikipedia are not interested in providing useful and informative articles for readers. They are interested in creating exactingly correct, sophistic monstrosities of use to absolutely no-one. Pokemon and webcomics were long since moved off to their own wikis, but the mystique of mathematics has allowed bric-a-brac like hacoversine to linger unmolested on pages intended for the general reader. The damage that is being done to mathematics, present and future, by such pages is probably greater that I'd care to contemplate.

So, to be frank, you are all appalling custodians of the mathematics articles. This essay was trying, in some small way, to make you aware of this fact. Evidently, it has failed to do so, and you have disgraced yourselves yet again by voting for its deletion. I hope my point is now clear; but considering I am speaking with people who are evidently satisfied with the state of mathematics on Wikipedia, I rather doubt you have the foggiest notion of what I'm talking about.ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may (and it indeed may) I say again: how does this essay work to address the problem? And at the risk of discussing the editor and not the contribution, I maintain that The Author's contributions generally to mathematics articles are a pole-vault in the wrong direction. This essay is perhaps a result of The Author being told as much by people who do, I'm sorry but there's no way around it, know better. Making mathematics at WP better or more accessible cannot include making it incorrect. 71.139.11.55 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Manifestly incivil rants like the above appear to make the case against this essay even stronger. As a regular mathematics editor, it's difficult not to take these accusations personally. I don't know enough about Wikiquette to say, but I suspect that such a post would be considered extremely inappropriate, maybe even sanctionable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing that gets me is that when I did some work on the start of exponential function to try and explain what it was in aid of ObsessiveMathsFreak wanted to remove anything like that and jump straight into a series definition. They seem to think one should just have formulae and that everything should be logically derived in order instead of explaining where one is going - that they say is 'hopelessly circular'. You can see the conversation on the article's talk page. So I would suggest different people can have very different ideas of what a useful and informative article should look like. Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy with a humorous essay called mathematosis which did Quine's essay some credit. In fact I wouldn't mind having a userbox like that. I most certainly don't want one based on this essay though! Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-11-15

[edit] User:Seek out the truth/The Kevin Trudeau Show

No activity for seven weeks. Sole contributor's sole non-deleted contribution. Apparent recreation following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kevin Trudeau Show. Already mentioned at Kevin Trudeau. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete If the user was working on the article, trying to improve it so it meets the notability guidelines, then I probably would be inclined to allow them to continue. But because the user did nothing but recreate an article deleted after an AfD discussion in his userspace, I say delete. If the article had been recreated in the mainspace in this manner, it would be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. What we have here is a form of gaming the system. Seek out the truth's actions may not violate the letter of policy, but they sure violate the spirit of it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Apparent userification of material not allowed in mainspace, but clearly allowed in userspace, where "notability" is not required. (The deletion was heavily made on the basis of "notability"). Collect (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Collect, are you arguing that articles deleted after an AfD discussion may be recreated by their authors in userspace and then left there forever? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think the WP:FAKEARTICLE guideline comes into play, as the page is apparently abandoned. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment September to November hardly qualifies as evidence of abandonment, to be sure. Under two months. Collect (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

With no activity anywhere from the user? I disagree that seven weeks is not long enough in this case, but am fine if you prefer a longer standard. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggested 6 months in the past -- as many users (even now major active admins) have had hiatuses of that length. Some even longer. Damage to WP by delaying? Nil. Potential damage to WP by premature action? Loss of new editors. Note, in fact, that WP has had a loss of active new editors in the past year. Collect (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-11-14

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:IveFoundit

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. The deletion arguments entirely relate to the alleged spam aspect but the article survived with a relatively strong keep consensus at AfD. There is absolutely no need to preserve the history of a work created by a single editor and there is no precedent or policy to support placing an historical draft on a subpage of a talkpage (that is only used for clean copies of copyvio articles). This is a userspace draft and would be best tagged as such. Experienced editors should consult with the creator as to whether he or she understands sandboxes and whether there is any continuing need for this draft. Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] User:IveFoundit Suspiciously like promotional copy. I'd recommend that the closing admin also examine this user's articlespace contribs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC) It's a duplicate of Jaxtr, which I've just put up for AfD as spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Let Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaxtr run its course first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I don't see why the article can't be kept while this is deleted: if it belongs in articlespace so be it, but this isn't an appropriate use of a user page even if the article is kept. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC) If the article is not deleted as promotion, I don't see that the userpage can be deleted as promotion. So far, the AfD is not supporting the spam allegation. I'd like to see how it ends. Perhaps you want to append additional deletion reasons to your nomination? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC) It triggered alarm bells for me. I would rather not see this prejudiced against the AfD, which is apparently what's happening. Were my user page to consist entirely of a draft copy of a product article I'd be unsurprised if someone took it to MfD. This is not about assumption of good faith; the article already exists in the proper namespace, so it isn't needed on the user page. I'd have speedied if that were an accepted rationale. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Agree with the alarm bells. I'm thinking that if Jaxtr is kept, this paged should either be deleted, or history merged, or moved to a subpage of the article, depending on attribution needs. If the article is deleted, I'd probably prefer to see the userpage blanked or edited to remove the promotional aspects at a minimum, and expecting a fair change that others would have it deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Keep Especially since WP is not a good place to use Catch-22 processes. The editor appears to be writing about multiple companies, hence may not be advertisement, just what he is familiar with, and the user page may be his first sandbox. Articles have attracted other editors to be sure, so AGF also applies. Collect (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Tentative keep Let the AfD run its course. If the article is kept, this page should be deleted, and vice versa. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Delete The AfD was closed with the result of "keep." This page therefore ought to be deleted to avoid violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC) This is NOT a WP:FAKEARTICLE, but the initial draft of the mainspace article. IveFoundit (talk · contribs) should preferably have moved his draft, not performed a copy paste. The only editor involved was User:IveFoundit, so a history merge is not necessary. Move the userpage to Talk:Jaxtr/Initial draft to preserve the full history of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 21 November 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.

[edit] Backlog

Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began on 13 November 2009 has ended. Open discussions below this marker should be either closed or relisted above. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions which have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically and need no further action.

Closing instructions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Lally00 userspace

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 Speedy G12 - as cited and [5] for the second page.. Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] User:Lally00/ITU Telecom World 2009 Userspace pages corresponding to deleted/redirected articles. These pages are both probably copyright infringement of [6], and when they were turned into mainspace articles they were deleted (see Special:Undelete/ITU_Telecom) or redirected (see ITU Telecom World 2009). They're not doing any good in userspace either, there is no likelihood that they will ever turn into articles, and because of the possible copyright issues it's better to delete them. User:Lally00/ITU Telecom World 2009 User:Lally00/ITU Telecom -- rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Very old MfD that was never transcluded Gigs (talk) 16:19, 20 November 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.

[edit] Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.