Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎2007-12-05: - missed bracket
m Small edit to make the arrow picture at the top a link.
Line 1: Line 1:
{| class="messagebox standard-talk noprint"
{| class="messagebox standard-talk noprint"
|-
|-
| style="text-align:center" | [[Image:Gtk-go-down.svg|25px|Skip to active discussions]] ''[[#Active discussions|Skip to active discussions]]''
| style="text-align:center" | ''[[#Active discussions|Skip to active discussions]]''
<center>{{click|link=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Active discussions|image=Gtk-go-down.svg|title=Skip to active discussions.|width=25px|height=25px}}</center>
|}
|}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter}}

Revision as of 00:43, 6 December 2007

Skip to active discussions


Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces 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 as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 5 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes 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}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. 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.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to 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.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.
Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[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={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • 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]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line:

{{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 [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the 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 else's 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:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

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

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[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 WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 1 32 0 33
TfD 0 1 14 0 15
MfD Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).
FfD 0 1 3 0 4
RfD 0 0 87 0 87
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.


Discussions

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 the server's cache of this page

2007-12-05

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 debate was Speedy deleted by Sandahl (talk · contribs) [1] per CSD#G10 - attack page. Snowolf How can I help? 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ipernar

Violation of WP:UP#NOT through polemical statements about religion and politics: "everyone needs to become a Christian", "Bush and Bin Laden are the Antichrist", etc. which have no place on Wikipedia. User was requested to remove at least his "open letter to all Christians" on his talkpage here on Nov. 30, and there was no response, though contributions were made after that point. MSJapan (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This sort of thing reflects badly on WP. We should be professional and neutral at all times on WP. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not an appropriate use of userspace. Userpages are not pulpits. Hut 8.5 20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for clarifications As an RC I'm rather offended by the letter but could the nominator please state the precise policy under which this is being deleted and give exact offending quotes (only the Bush and Bin Laden quote seems exactly correct). I do not like the idea of deleting user pages, and I find that stating affiliations - especially extreme affiliations - can be quite useful when judging what someone is up to. JASpencer (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stating ones position is fine, especially with the userboxes, but preaching and giving personal opinions should not be allowed. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page violates WP:UP#NOT - "Extensive use of polemical statements" - and WP:SOAP. Hut 8.5 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-12-04

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 debate was KEEP - NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. non-admin closure by 12 Noon 16:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diceman

A frequent non-fair-use image uploader has included on his userpage a personal attack against User:BetaCommand for his use of an image-deleting bot, suggesting that he and his "apologists" are "Copyright Nazis." Furthermore, behavior on the userpage "commentary" section includes incivil references to such people destroying the "collaborative spirit." WaltCip (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep User pages containing problematic content ought, IMHO, to be brought to MfD only where the problematic content is of extended length and composes a significant portion of the page (since XfD, after all, is not a substitute for cleanup/refactoring) or where an editor has refused to remove content that another finds problematic, such that the community need weigh in on the issue to establish a consensus relative to the maintenance of the problematic material; neither case appears to be present here, and, in fact, I see no prior effort to raise any objections with Diceman (apologies, to be sure, if I've missed something). I am inclined to think that the material in question need not be removed—established users are generally accorded some latitude in expressing views about the project in userspace, and there's no grand collaboration-impairing incivility here—but I would suggest that the nominator might do well to raise the issue diplomatically with Diceman on the latter's talk page. Joe 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This would appear to be a pointy page nomination, as this user has taken a dim view of another user's MfD nomination and is now casting about for others to toss into the fire. Having said that, the entire "Commentary" section on User:Diceman should be deleted as a WP:NPA violation, which surely comparing an admin to a Nazi is an example of. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete commentary section. The commentary section violates WP:SOAP and WP:NPA. According to WP:SOAP, users can comment on their user page, as long as its reasonable statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Specifically targeting User:Betacommand and the other users "apologists" and calling them all "Copyright Nazi"s violates WP:NPA and thus is not a reasonable statement. So, this section should be deleted, but the remainder of the page should be kept. --Son (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was speedy keep. Bad faith nomination to make a point in relation to another MfD nom. Nominator has been blocked by another admin for ongoing disruption. WjBscribe 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Christopher Mann McKay

Vastly offensive userpage bring wikipedia into disrepute by prominately showing illegal acts and political soapboxing. Wikipedia should take very seriously the fact it displays the burning of a US flag (an illegal act in this country) while simultaneously hosting within it's borders Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was Delete. By his own words, the editor shows a severe misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia's userpages. This result, supported by consensus below, should help the editor begin to learn. Xoloz (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TK(film)

Used for advertising, but I'm not comfortable just deleting this myself. I have left the creator with a welcome and a request to read WP:USERPAGE. A look at his contribs shows some self promotion, so he may not understand how the community feels about this. I'm leaving the speedy tag on in case someone less squeamish decides to go for it. Dlohcierekim 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although I removed the speedy deletion, and I think you made the right call bringing it here. However, Our Life was deleted three times, including once by me, TK (actor) once before coming to the userpage. This, along with the wording of the userpage, makes me think it is intended as advertising and self-promotion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the one who placed the speedy deletion tag there; since it is obvious that the content is only used for promotion/advertisement. Looking at the user's contribs makes me think, that the user has just one intention: To advertise on Wikipedia. User Doe ☻T ☼C 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (oh, and you edit conflicted me :P) As I say below, he has made constructive contributions. True, a majority are to his user page, but the fact remains that he's probably willing to contribute to the encyclopedia in a manner that isn't against policies; we just have to tell him that advertising is unencyclopedc first (as we have, though I'm guessing he hasn't read it as he hasn't replied on his talk page). Master of Puppets Care to share? 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we decide to keep the user's page, then the user should at least rewrite it a little bit. In the current form it really reads somehow like self-promotion/advertisement. The reason why I wrote that I think he's here for advertisement is not only based on the user's contribs but also on what he wrote on his talk page.

Quote:

Umm... What's wrong? I did create that page. I created it cause I wanted people to know that I'm making a film.[...]

That somehow sounds like the user admits that he's advertising. Of course, that's how I see it. Maybe I just have spam allergy ;-) User Doe ☻T ☼C 00:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got that idea too. Dlohcierekim 01:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that sounds like he knows he is advertising, but he's a new user; I'm guessing he isn't fully learned on all Wikipedia policy, including that which prohibits advertising. I suggest that when he responds on his talk page, we kindly ask him to rewrite his user page to be a bit less like an ad. Master of Puppets Care to share? 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was his response to my notes on his talk page. For what it's worth. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One more reason to delete his user page. He seems to know what he's doing; furthermore he also seems to know, that the community doesn't like it and somehow he thinks it's funny. I don't think it's funny. User Doe ☻T ☼C 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - From the above, the user is fully aware of what he is doing, and seems to think proper WP behavior in one area excuses poor WP behavior in another. Moreover, if he is making a film, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If he wants to advertise, he can go to Myspace. MSJapan (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen I have a MySpace which is pretty hard 2 use. I'll help editing when I can. Now, I don't have much time because of school and projects etc... With respect, you can't just make people dissapear. And peace as always. I'll try 2 edit if somethings true.TK(film) (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would like to make you disappear; however, advertising anywhere on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Could you rewrite your userpage in accordance with WP:USERPAGE as soon as possible? Thanks. Master of Puppets Care to share? 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you can't use MySpace; Wikipedia is definitely not the place for self-promotion/advertisement. If you want, you can open your own website and add it to the index of a few big search engines. However, advertising on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Unless you rewrite your user page, the community will probably decide to delete your user page. Regards User Doe ☻T ☼C 21:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but you seem to see your user page as the equivalent of a Myspace page. It is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web host. The use of userpages is much more constrained. Please read WP:USERPAGE. The simplest solution is to remove anything that might be considered promotional from your userpage. Dlohcierekim 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who did creat Smosh's wikipedia page?TK(film) (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't know how to creat an own page. U think I'm a billionare like Tony Stark or something?TK(film) (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was Speedy Keep as it is being appropriately subst:'d and not lenghty. Had this NOT been orphaned or being used, then we'd have an issue to deal with. Speedy closure is without prejudice for future nominations based on policy or guideline reasons. — xaosflux Talk 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Røed/Signatur

User space is not for customized signatures, these should be made in "my preferences" per Wikipedia:Signatures. This signature template is orphaned anyway. Punkmorten (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was speedy keep. Bad faith nomination to make a point in relation to another MfD nom. Nominator has been blocked by another admin for ongoing disruption. WjBscribe 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:WebHamster/belief

Hatebox designed to promote hatred against a sub-section of wikipedians. Contains badly drawn self published hate image, which does nothing to help build an encyclopedia Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:USERBOX Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, WebHamster should assume good faith. A badly drawn picture of a cross (the sacred symbol of Christianity) with a "ban" symbol stroked through it has no place in wikipedia. It does nothing but promote hate against christians. If he really does believe the aim of the box is against organised religion then he must allow the symbols of other religions such as Islam to be included. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith of what? Perhaps you should with your accusation of promoting hatred. And just how does one fit symbols of all religions (if they actually have one) in a 45px x 45px box? The text of the box makes it clear that no particular religion is being targeted, unlike your past history of course. Likewise what is the relevance of "badly drawn"? You are disrupting WP to make a WP:POINT, it's as simple as that. --WebHamster 19:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures that indentify all religion. Your last comments indicates this would be preferable than just one religion. Let me adjust it for you and I will withdraw the nomination. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I'm happy with that one. But if it offends your aesthetic sensibilities I'll improve the artwork. --WebHamster 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I included a picture per WebHamsters request that icluded all religions yet he continues to editwar his Christian hate symbol back in. It is obvious this userbox was created to violate WP:POINT, not to critisise all religions but to bash Christianity specifically. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I made no request, I asked a question. Secondly the image you supplied presented symbols of organised religions, the very thing this userbox was professing a disbelief in. I'm certainly not going to edit that picture you supplied to show a negative aspect. If you wish to have access to a userbox that matches your belief system then I suggest you create your own rather than screwing round with mine. Similarly I suggest you quit the hypocrisy you are demonstrating with regard to your dislike of certain religions. Please also note that this userbox is in user space, it's not in template space so ownership is acceptable. So quit editing pages in my space. --WebHamster 20:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's get some perspective on this shall we? I chose a cross for several reasons. It's a world-known symbol of 'religion', it's a symbol of the religion I was brought up with, i.e. Church of England. If I'd chosen a religion I didn't subscribe to I could have been accused of sectarianism. Similar to the way it's acceptable for Blacks to call each other "niggaz", or Gays to call each other "queer" or "queen". The red circle with a diagonal bar is a world-known negation symbol. It is not a sign of hate any more than the road signs that use it are. If I'd used some symbolic way of destroying the cross you may have had a point but I didn't 'destroy' the cross did I? I negated it. So please explain in a logical manner how that can be construed as "hatred" or as a "hate image"? --WebHamster 02:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet people with the same COI can vote here. No hipocrisy here folks. Move along. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's not a vote, 2) There's a big difference between nominating and taking part in a discussion 3)Pot and kettle spring to mind after your recent WP:POINT-making exercise. --WebHamster 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why are we having this discussion - didn't the UBX wars end long ago? This UBX is a religious statement (e.g. "I don't think organised religion is a good idea"), not an "attack" (e.g. "Everyone who goes to church is a do-I-dare-to-say-what"). The picture can be debated about, but last I checked, you can change that with no Mad Admin Powers. invocation of which is the raison d'être of XfDs. (Plus, as you can see from the picture page, the image itself is hardly "crude", though I agree the artist has taken a stylistically questionable approach to the three-dimensional effect, particularly with the no-sign, where the technique is not flawless as is and could use improvement. However, this is hardly the forum for debating Christian iconography and proper depictions of the symbols, but it might be worth mentioning that as a person with Christian upbringing, I've seen quite a few simplistically rendered crosses and most people I've discussed with seem to take no offence in simplicity in itself; in fact, most consider simplicity a virtue in itself. I am merely suggesting that the nominator might want to reconsider some of the statements here, or at least elaborate on what exactly makes this cross so badly-drawn - after all, unlike many other religious symbols, it is a shape that is demonstrably almost impossible to draw badly.) My argument is that the UBX itself requires no deletion. Sorry, I'm a little bit off the rocker - a slight lack of caffeine did wonders to my brain cells. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wwwwolf. This is a statement of personal opinion situated on the user's space, where I believe we may express our point of view. It isn't an attack on anyone's religion. I'm also concerned that this is an attempt to get back at WebHamster, though I'm going assume good faith and say that you just misunderstood the userbox. Master of Puppets Care to share? 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--this nomination is a logical fallacy; that is, it relies on a statement that personal belief is equivalent to a dislike of others who do not share this belief. While perhaps there have been many throughout history for which this was true, it is logically false, and I highly doubt that the creator of the userbox "hates" all people who take part in organized religion. —Dark•Shikari[T] 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The box reads "This user believes in personal belief but doesn't believe in organised religion." and currently sports a "crossed-out-cross", which I interpret as "not-religion" (the cross acting as a common symbol for religion, and the crossing out as a negation of it). I must remind the nominator to assume good faith, though in the current form I cannot but wonder how he came to interpret (and label) said symbol as a "hate-symbol". CharonX/talk 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum Looking further I can not shake the feeling that this nomination is a "retaliation-nomination" for the nomination his own userpage. I strongly suggest Prester John to be more mindful of his actions. Continued disruption of Wikipedia to prove a Point will not be tolerated. CharonX/talk 01:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was keep. Greeves (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies

Completely inactive WikiProject, never appears to have gotten started, nothing really worth saving. ^demon[omg plz] 16:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 16:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it is inherently impossible to write an article about an actual secret sociery. >Radiant< 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I stand corrected. Keep, then. >Radiant< 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - am now trying to reorganize project. The main Category:Secret societies has 143 articles, which I think at least implicitly states that not only is it possible to write articles about such organizations, but also that several people have already done so. John Carter 18:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Carter's statement of intent to reactivate project. (Otherwise I'd suggest "tag historical" rather than "delete".) There's no project-related activity on the project's talk page, but there's some (old) content beyond the boilerplate. Many of the articles in the category are just excerpts from the Britannica and from one book, and in many cases couldn't be expanded much beyond that from reliable sources; but there's enough scope, well enough defined, to make this project useful. Biggest challenge is probably separating documented facts from vandal hoaxes from centuries-old hoaxes. Barno (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not a big fan of these articles due to the conspiracy theories, but the Carbonari, the Afrikaner Broederbond and the League of 1585 could all have articles written on them. JASpencer (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if possible, request speedy close of debate one way or another. It's really hard to recruit new members for a project being considered for deletion, you know? :) John Carter (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Barno (talk · contribs) and Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs), above. Cirt (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Week Keep, with Comment - I have no problem with the project in concept... but there is one issue that I am very concerned about. What are the criteria for inclusion of articles under this project. It gives three slightly conflicting definitions of "Secret Society" under its Scope... Which one should be applied? What makes something a "Secret society"? This question has ramifications for several other projects and articles, such as those for Freemasonry, Knights of Columbus, and other organizations and fraternities that have been called "secret societies" over the years. Most of these do not really belong under that heading ... their membership is public, they meet in large prominent buildings that are clearly identified as being meeting halls for the organization involved, their rituals are published, their finances are public record... ie they are not really "secret"... even if they have a tradition of not discussing what happens in meetings with outsiders (which is true of many organizations that are not considered "Secret societies"... Is the Vatican's College of Cardinals a "Secret Society"? Is the board of directors of IBM a secret society?... both meet in behind closed doors and will not discuss what occured at their meetings.) There is the strong possiblility of POV pushing and edit warring here, and people disagree as to whether an aritcle that is listed in the project belongs or not. I think there needs to be a clear criteria as to whether an article fits within the scope of this project? What does define a Secret society? Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and good luck in the effort. Snowolf How can I help? 23:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, whilst I think a rescue attempt is admirable I'd have concerns about the longer term sustainability of the project. There is a lack of clarity around scope and direction and given the lack of participation in the past, and the range of projects which current participants are involved in, I'd question how viable this is in the longer term. I also question the requirement, noting the nomination there has clearly been a lack of interest in the project which would tend to suggest that it's not needed. There is a risk that this serves as a magnet for all who wear tin-foil liners in ther hats, since several of the avilable definitions of secret societies are pretty wide-ranging; pretty much every business fits inside it at the moment because competitive information is kept private and all organisational cultures have formal and informal rituals of entry and exit. I also recognise that the arguments in defence of existence don't need to bother about viability, sustainability or indeed the realities of definitions. ALR (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It should also be noted that Blueboar above has reverted content which existed on the project page since before the attempt to revive it, and that ALR supported him in that effort. Also, the definitions exist on the Secret societies page. Personally, I am forced to question whether their own involvement with attempting to indicate that one group which almost certainly does meet the requirements of the definition on the Secret societies page, Freemasonry, may be unconciously biasing their opinions. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be too much to ask that you respond to the points that I've made regarding the viability of the project, rather than focussing your attention on me as a contributor? I have legitimate concerns about this project which are not confined to one article.
ALR (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was Speedy delete: had this page been placed in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages when the user was first blocked, it would have been deleted a couple of weeks ago. I have decided to go ahead an delete this user page, as there's no point in keeping it around any longer. Acalamari 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Not an anon anymore

Userpage of an indefinitely blocked user. Too old. Marlith T/C 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was Speedy delete: pages listed in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages are to be deleted after a few weeks, so this MfD is unnecessary. While the page doesn't yet meet the CAT:TEMP criteria (only tagged a few days ago), there are no worthy edits done to the page, so I have deleted it. Acalamari 18:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Abusive puppet

Temporary Wikipedian Userpage, must clear backlog. There should be a speedy deletion template for this. Is there not? Marlith T/C 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was Speedy delete: pages listed in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages are to be deleted after a few weeks, so this MfD is unnecessary. The page meets the CAT:TEMP criteria. Acalamari 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arceus fan

Temporary Wikipedian Userpage, old Marlith T/C 03:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-12-03

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 debate was Speedy delete: page should have been listed in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, but it meets the criteria of the category, and I have deleted it. Acalamari 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MarIth

User talk of banned user. Temporary page, tool old. Marlith T/C 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably request speedy deletion under G10, since it's pretty much an attack page, of sorts. -- Ned Scott 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was speedy keep. This obviously will not end in consensus to delete. If you wish to restrict arbcom nominations to "serious" ones, this is not the place to do so. --- RockMFR 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan

This guy is taking the piss out of the ArbCom election process. His statement is Voting for me is a vote for straight stone cold chillin. No gimmicks needed., his answers to questions include I don't know if my personality would work with arbitrator, to be honest., he has admitted he's standing because he is bored at work and he has already voted oppose in his own vote. He seems to have nothing better to do than mock the people who actually bother to make Wikipedia work more smoothly. Lurker (said · done) 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many people support it if it is a piss-take. A piss-take 37 people find funny is still a piss-take. Lurker (said · done) 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but you need a better rationale than "you can't" Lurker (said · done) 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a start it would appear to be a hoax, (as he has said he isn't interested in standing), which would contradict WP:POINT. Lurker (said · done) 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, your a little late to this party, Lurker. You've kindly voted oppose... so you've done your part. --Endless Dan 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was snowball delete. Acalamari 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review/AirFrance358

I found this page while looking through the contributions of Reverberationecho, who created a number of pages today that were speedied. Essentially, the page is Reverberationecho's attempt at using Wikipedia as a soapbox to make a point about a user who was blocked on the Chinese-language Wikipedia. The editor review is not linked from the main project page, so it's not necessarily getting in the way of anything, but neither does this stuff belong on the English Wikipedia. Since the Wikipedia namespace restricts me to the general criteria, I couldn't find an appropriate criteria for speedy deletion, so I'm bringing it here instead. jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 13:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was delete. The relevant guideline states that "[m]aterial that can be construed as attacking other editors" is not appropriate to user space. The case that this page is by design intended to disparage is made in the arguments in favour of deletion and by the creator's comments. The arguments for retention do not address this issue. This page is an attack on other editors and thus an inappropriate use of user space. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grue/howto

This is unusual in being a request to consider deleting a user's subpage. The grounds for deletion are that it is an unacceptable use of userspace.

The page purports to give instructions on "How to delete a template you don't like", and was created on 21 November, shortly after the closing of the deletion review of the now-deleted Template:Spoiler, and it was then linked by the owner, User:Grue, on Template talk:Spoiler, so clearly drawing a link between a list of very serious alleged policy breaches and an actual deletion of a template.

I don't want to address whether the allegations are true here, because although I think they're obviously false this shouldn't be a discussion about whether or not they are true. I want to address the question of whether this page and ones like it that are used to poison the well of debates can legitimately be used on Wikipedia.

Worthy of consideration is the fact that allegations similar to this have been persistent during the debate on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler over the past five months or so, and persisted beyond the deletion debate that saw the spoiler template eventually deleted. A case for arbitration was prepared by User:Kizor but rejected by the arbitration committee. Mediation was also attempted but failed. No further dispute resolution steps have been attempted. In the wake of the deletion debate and the deletion review further allegations (which are listed in Grue's template) were made.

So this page seems to me to be an attempt to exacerbate a dispute without seeking dispute resolution. I suggest that this kind of page is thus not a legitimate use of userspace, which is reserved for improving the encyclopedia (and not making it worse by attacking fellow Wikipedians). --Tony Sidaway 06:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing comment removed by accident.
This deletiong request seems ill-considered. While in it's current form it's not much use, a thread has been started at User talk:Grue/howto channeling the energy into appropiate dispute resolution mechanisms. There's a long history that suggests that deleting things (or protecting them, or blocking, etc etc etc) to stop discussion serves only to increase hysteria. In the (quite likely) event that no real attempt is made at resolution, for example by forming a proper request for arbitration, perhaps then the page needs blanked. Barring that, it's massive overkill to delete a "mostly harmless" grouse in someone's userspace. - CygnetSaIad 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grue could engage in dispute resolution simply by approaching those people whom he believes to have made illegitimate blocks, meat puppeting, lies and deception and the like, and tackling them about it on their talk pages, then escalating if necessary through dispute resolution until the dispute is resolved. Writing a page in his userspace and posting links to it can only exacerbate the dispute. Editing the existing page to catalog the problems without showing actual evidence of his attempts to resolve the dispute won't get anywhere. --Tony Sidaway 06:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not currently in dispute with any user, so I don't see what's to resolve here. Nor is the page related to any particular dispute. The fact that it is relevant to Template:Spoiler deletion discussions is not actually my fault. I wrote a general "guide" how to delete any template. The fact that User:Tony Sidaway sees this as a personal attack on himself is only Tony Sidaway's problem and nobody else's. I think this page may have triggered guilt in him and he may now need to resolve disputes with himself.  Grue  22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page attacks no one. I don't know why Tony Sidaway thinks it's about him. Guilty conscience perhaps? --Pixelface 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an attack on me (though Grue has made a comment ("truth hurts") that suggests that he thought only a person who though it was aimed at him would complain about it) but certainly about identifiable individuals. You have repeated the essence of Grue's comment. I remind you and Grue of the Assume good faith and No personal attacks policies. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry for assuming you thought it was an attack on you. Do you think it's an attack on someone in particular? --Pixelface 21:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for instance it attacks the various people who have closed deletion debates, and also makes accusations against those who have blocked people for edit-warring. It also accuses those who have argued for deletion of the template of using lies and deception. Although Grue is trying to distance himself from the implications, he made the connection by posting the link to the deleted template. He clearly intends the reader to understand that he is talking about those who were involved in the deletion of that template. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was a how-go guide for future reference. Are you suggesting these steps were actually followed by specific editors? --Pixelface (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that by deliberately posting a link to the talk page of a deleted template, very shortly after its deletion, Grue is accusing fellow Wikipedians of systematic lies and deception. This is unacceptable. If he had evidence that those editors (especially the admins) have acted deceptively, he should take it to dispute resolution, and not poison debate by casting innuendoes against them. --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really cannot tell which fellow Wikipedians, if any, he is accusing. Would you please tell me who, specifically, you think Grue's page is referring to, instead of casting innuendoes against Grue? --Pixelface (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However, if the instructions in the how-to guide are effective, administrators could follow the steps in order to get around the TFD process. We probably shouldn't be advising administrators how to do this. Wikipedia is not a guidebook, although the page is in userspace. Informing administrators how to disrupt Wikipedia is probably a bad idea. But I certainly don't think it's an attack on any particular user. --Pixelface 21:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current form at least, the page is accusatory of and offensive to at least a few editors (no one is actually named, but "close the discussion early, ignoring everyone who argued for overturning" doesn't call for much guesswork). Besides, The Prince is a more informative how-to guide. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors do not own their userspace. It is his userpace, but that doesn't mean he's free to do whatever he wants there. In particular, he is not free to host content that harms the encyclopedia, such as content that attacks or accuses other editors. From WP:UP: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community." – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? It's either a guide for lying and cheating one's way to deletion of a template or it's intended to disparage particular editors. Either way, it's not something that is conducive to collegiality and collaborative writing. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was Delete. Xoloz (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:FastLizard4/Talkheader

I'm not sure what this is, but it looks like a monstrous talk page header. It isn't transcluded anywhere (I refactored the only transclusion), but it has been substed to various pages before. Aside from the ridiculous size of it, it violates WP:BITE and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, among other things. It does have some helpful things on it, but it does more harm than good. Coredesat 06:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was no consensus. Parent userpage was deleted at a separate MfD, lessening the urgency here somewhat; however, there is no consensus below to delete the userbox. It is reasonable to argue, as a substantial number of commenters do, that the phrase "separation of mosque and state" is an acceptable method by which to refer to a particular set of political concerns relevant in discussion of the Muslim world. This argument does not have consensus support here, but it prevents the deletion argument of "soapboxing" from succeeding conclusively. Xoloz (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prester John/Userbox/Mosque and state

inflammatory, violates Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions. I realize this policy is rarely enforced but this is kind of crossing the line. P4k 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How provocative!P4k (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that's best, I don't know how mfd usually handles stuff like this.P4k 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the easiest way to do that is for you to withdraw your nomination and close the discussion early, noting that the userpage as a whole is up for discussion and providing a link. If the page is kept and you want to reopen, I think you should be able to given that no conclusive consensus was reached. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 06:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know how to close an mfd. Consider my nomination withdrawn I guess.P4k
Note - I closed the debate per the withdrawal, but Xoloz reopened it on the grounds that such a closure is inappropriate given the mix of responses (diff). As such, please note that the discussion is still active and thus should be continued. Apologies for the confusion. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 04:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I edited this to make it sound more neutral ("This user believes in the separation of Mosque and state" to "This user is interested in the separation of Mosque and state.") Since the box had a potential to offend, I have hopefully removed that potential. Now the userbox format is: "This user is interested in _____". If it is the subject that offends someone, then the problem is not to do with the userbox itself. Seraphim Whipp 02:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote changed to delete. I disagree with the revert. This has the "potential to harm" (someone has said they feel it inflammatory and when in context of the entire page, it is inflammatory) and I support the principle that we "do no harm". Seraphim Whipp 17:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reverted because this makes no sense. As it was, the version was not soapboxing: it just said what he believed. What next, changing all the "This user is a conservative"-type userboxes into "This user is interested in conservativism"? And with that said, Keep. We don't need to aim for neutrality in userboxes, we only need to work against soapboxing and campaigning. These sorts of userboxes which let others know what one's potential biases are, are useful to other editors because they help us understand another editor's biases. Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 09:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An odd choice of words (why not "religion and state") but acceptable I think. CharonX/talk 13:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I still don't understand why userboxes generate such debate. If all the users involved simply wrote on their userpages, in plain text, "I believe in the separation of mosque and state", would anyone care? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Islamic countries have a big problem with separation of church and state, and in those countries, the church is a mosque. This could be how the issue is referred to locally. -Nard 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was Speedy Delete (merged history in to User talk:67.175.147.74 as well) — xaosflux Talk 06:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.175.147.74

A userpage that was originally created to voice a complaint meant for the user talkpage. Marlith T/C 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was Delete. Xoloz (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kehrli/mz misconception

Original research (see also]). Kkmurray 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-12-02

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 debate was snowball delete. Acalamari 02:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Green

One-member project completely unrelated to WP. GlassCobra 20:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was delete all. After Midnight 0001 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Instantnood/Sandbox/Template:KCR Ma On Shan Rail stations

Sandbox of banned user, very outdated version of the template WinHunter (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was Delete. Case has closed and account appears to be abandoned. After Midnight 0001 05:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bigglove/draft

  • Delete. this attack page against me should be deleted. The arbcom case has been settled and there is no reason for these attacks on me, most of which are unfair, almost to the point of abusiveness. If this user thinks there is a problem with me that has not been resolved, I urge him or her to bring it to a forum such as RfC or ArbCom where it can be addressed. If not, there is no reason for a page like this to be maintained. csloat 11:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attack page??? - And I'm the Queen of Spain! Grow some skin; take a bit of criticism. It just may help you become a more constructive editor.--WaltCip 15:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about my skin; I don't particularly care what s/he thinks of me. It's not that my feelings are hurt by this page, it is that the page has no place here. Bigglove chose not to participate in the arbcom when s/he had a chance, and s/he has chosen not to make a real issue out of any of these claims; why is it here? How does the Wikipedia project benefit from a page full of distortions attacking another editor? Would it be ok for me to respond in kind with a page of my own? csloat 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like a draft of something going to ArbCom. Perhaps we should not be hasty. As it is on a "draft" page, I think it is likely going to Arbcom once creator is done with it. Pardon me, but Commodore Sloat would seem to have a conflict of interest taking part in this discussion. It does not look like a attack page per se. Dlohcierekim 03:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except the case already went to arbcom, and the user allegedly preparing a case here chose not to participate in the arbcom at all. What's more, at arbcom these sort of claims were found to have no merit whatsoever. So if this did serve a purpose in the past, that purpose is no longer relevant. So all it is is a list of attacks on me. If the page stays, would I be justified in adding my responses to the attacks? Or making my own page listing my own "evidence" against User:Bigglove? I could do that, but it seems petty. There is no point to this page any more. csloat (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have notified page creator of this discussion. Dlohcierekim 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, perhaps he or she will remove it of his or her own accord. However, I don't expect it to happen - the account stopped editing in October, and, while it is not a single-purpose account per se, it seems to have been created primarily to intervene in arguments I was having with another editor (a sockpuppeteer who was recently required to stop using sockpuppets and was blocked from editing the articles he was causing trouble on). The Bigglove account stopped editing shortly after the sockpuppeteer was asked to stop running sockpuppets. I asked for a checkuser on this account before all this happened and was denied -- but if my suspicions are correct, I am glad to see the sockpuppeteer complying with the sanctions that were taken against him. In any case, I doubt User:Bigglove will return. csloat (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he was going to respond but did not. If the account is abandoned, that would argue in favor of deletion. Dlohcierekim 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-12-01

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 debate was keep. After Midnight 0001 04:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angr/If

Very thinly veiled attack page (come on, "Viropedia"?), most likely created to make a POINT after the User:Moreschi/If MfD and DRV. Declined speedy. Will (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this page does a good job of pointing out the fundamental problems with Veropedia in a humorous fashion. Captain panda 14:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POINT says in situations where one is dissatisfied with how something has happened on Wikipedia, "it is tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose." While this page certainly is a reaction to User:Moreschi/If, it is neither parody nor a breaching experiment. If I had wanted to violate WP:POINT, I might have written a subpage page advertising some other external website, such as Wikipedia Review, and encouraging people to contribute to it. Rather, I wrote a subpage reminding people to be vigilant about NPOV in the articles they're interested in—something they should be doing anyway, even if Veropedia didn't exist—because of possible outside influences. Unlike User:Moreschi/If, which violates policy (namely WP:NOT#ADVERTISING), this page encourages people to adhere to policy (namely WP:NPOV). But I confess I don't quite understand why Captain panda finds the page humorous; apart from the nickname "Viropedia", it certainly wasn't intended to be. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not humour, it's an attack. I can't think of another way where comparing a website to a virus is not an attack. Will (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see that it's an attack. That's why I rejected the request to speedily delete it. I'm ambivalent when it comes to claims of polemic, on the whole I think this probably meets WP:USER's requirements. If your only objection is the use of the term viropedia, deletion is hardly necessary, is it? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being incorrect about thinking that it was intended to be funny. I thought that it was funny because that it mirrors Moreschi's page in a way that copies it except instead of supporting Veropedia, it warns of the problems with Veropedia. That struck me as humorous. Captain panda 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's not all that much of an attack and there seems to be no violation of WP:USER. --Strothra 16:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The deletion of this page makes the deletion of Moreschi's corresponding page more likely, and we don't want that, do we. Nick 16:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate expression of contrary opinion on an issue of relevance to Wikipedia's reputation. -- this is not a "personal attack". If it meets the technical wording of CSD G10 -- which it might, depending on one's interpretation, I suppose -- then G10 needs to be changed. Real, thoughtful dissent and argumentation is essential to the health of the project. Xoloz 17:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure, it will piss people off and annoy them. But it's certainly not a personal attack by any definition of the phrase. And it's not a point, either, as it's not disrupting anything. A violation of WP:POINT would be writing a bot to automatically revert any edit made by a user at Veropedia. Or maybe writing a bot to semi-protect every featured or good article. WP:POINT is referenced far too often. --- RockMFR 22:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone needs to tell Angr that Wikipedia was intentionally set up to allow these kinds of things, and it is something we fundamentally encourage (reuse, for whatever reason, so long as it follows the GFDL). We don't need to delete the page, since it's just one user saying what they think, in relation to Wikipedia. Misguided, and I'd like to blank it myself because it's just so off the mark, but eh, whatever. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia was set up to allow other people to reuse our content, but this goes much further than that. Answers.com also reproduces Wikipedia content and displays it next to advertising. That's fine, because Answers.com doesn't have its own community of editors who are encouraged to edit Wikipedia articles, so our neutrality is not threatened by their hosting advertising. Veropedia, on the other hand, does have its own community of editors, and they're encouraged to edit Wikipedia articles, and that's the problem, because those editors will now have a conflict of interest between Wikipedia's goal of writing an encyclopedia with a neutral POV, and Veropedia's goal of making money from advertising. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 09:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Veropedia is using Wikipedia editors, we've never changed our allegiance, we're here to write quality free content, nothing more, nothing less. We don't introduce any POV nonsense into articles, so could you quit with all this scaremongering until such times as we do start introducing POV into articles just to keep our advertisers happy. Thanks. Nick 20:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-This isn't a WP:POINT violation in any way. Aside from everything else, to be such a violation it would have to "disrupt Wikipedia", and I can't see how this does that.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legit alert, not an attack. Not disruptive in any way.  --Lambiam 06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and as the GFDL clearly states, other sites including but not limited to Veropedia are allowed to copy your text verbatim and use it for their own purpose. >Radiant< 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful factual page, in good faith. Xn4 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an attack page on Veropedia, but that's allowed. This page, in the context of Moreschi's page, forms one side of a legit debate. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Paranoid and biased attack, it does not adhere to WP:NPOV. - Mafia Expert (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User space doesn't have to adhere to WP:NPOV. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are obviously campaigning against Veropedia with that silly appendix to your user name. You are imposing unwanted advertisements and by doing so you abuse your user space in the public domain. In other words: WP:NPOV applies, as well as WP:POINT and WP:GAME - using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith. User pages may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account (WP:NOT). - Mafia Expert (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you are obviously angry because I'm arguing to delete one of your images over at WP:IFD, so you're taking it out on me here. This page doesn't advertise anything; it contains nothing but information related exclusively to working on the encyclopedia. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The issue of the image has nothing to with this, and is yet another example of your paranoia. You are trying to divert a discussion with unrelated arguments. I discuss things where they belong. Your remarks about Veropedia do no "contain nothing but information" but is a deliberate attempt to impose biased information about a legitimate attempt to improve Wikipedia. - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mafia Expert, please keep in mind WP:NPOV does not apply to userspace. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove hostile flavor and merge into Wikipedia:Veropedia (a page describing veropedia for Wikipedians) as a note about possible concerns users might need to be aware of? Giving it better visibility for its positive function, and removing its style as a negative one? FT2 (Talk | email) 15:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no more of an attack page than Moreschi's kept page, which accuses Wikipedia of "vandalism, spam, POV-pushing, and the addition of inaccuracies". So it's ok to attack WP, but not viropedia? harrumph. ~ priyanath talk 16:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. On further review, this one is not an attack page at all, but a (mildly stated) essay. ~ priyanath talk 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 debate was delete the main page and two of the subpages, while keep for User:Prester John/slideshow. There is clear consensus here from uninvolved, established Wikipedians presenting legitimate and logical arguments that this userspace isn't compatiable with both Wikipedia as an encyclopedia-building project and also with the userspace guidelines.

I have deleted the page and replaced it with a redirect. I implore any administrators concerned by possible repetition of content to watch it, and as an administrator I would suggest using a protected redirect if the situation occurs again. However, as always, such a decision would be made by the discretion of the administrator and/or consensus. Daniel 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prester John

Right wing soapboxing, blatantly anti-middle-east/muslim. This page is virtually an attack page. Contains sections devoted to disparagement. I'm white, non-muslim and very politically incorrect and even I find it offensive. This is not a user page that is appropriate to the neutrality of Wikipedia and does not put the project in a good light. WebHamster 11:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does not matter which wing, or center, the soapboxing is. The issue is soapboxing and the disparagement, regardless which point of view it is pushing. Hu 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It certainly attacks socialism, and Muslims (by calling for their segregation). Prester John, as I noted before, has alternate motives. He is a troll. I have evidence for this assertion. In his sandbox [2], he has a user box "This user is Satan." If you click on "Satan" it links to [3]. It states "One technique for managing conflict in groups is to set up one person in your faction to be a LightningRod, which is like a more intense, ongoing ScapeGoat. Their purpose is to attract all the hate and bile and frustration which arises, and to shrug it off. In the process, careful thinkers are not slandered, leaders are not distracted, topics aren't changed, and all that." Prester John implies that he is this Lightning Rod (what you and me would call a troll). We ought to see through this crap.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the quotes identifying Islam as supporting pedophilia? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not read far enough to find those and I doubt very many will. --Law Lord 12:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you have the right to !vote as you choose, I am personally appalled that you did not read the whole page before weighing in on this discussion, and also by your assumption that nothing needs to be deleted that goes past the end of your personal attention span. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that few people can take the content of the page seriously. --Law Lord 13:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't does not mean others won't. --WebHamster 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, I think I speak for everyone when I say that making parallels between pedophilia and Islam is laughable and you give such a statement way too much credit in asking for its removal. --Law Lord 13:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with your claiming to "speak for everyone", especially when I feel I've made it clear that I disagree. You do not speak for me, nor for those Muslim editors who might not find it quite as funny to be accused of pedophilia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a cartoon can make the world's muslims go apeshit, it's not too much to expect this article (and its suppositions) could do similar to WP's muslims. --WebHamster 13:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. However, as the cartoon case of my country showed, we do not care about the feelings of muslims when it comes to freedom of speech. Nor would any other free person living in a free and civilized nation. --Law Lord 13:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's beyond the purview of this discussion but speech has never been free, anywhere. There's always a price to be paid. Regardless, WP is not a venue for free speech, it's not a venue for soapboxing. If Prester John wishes to do so them he should get himself a website. --WebHamster 14:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find that his propaganda goes beyond what can be allowed on the user page. Hence my vote. --Law Lord 14:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter to count how many people take it seriously. The author is serious and it is bigotted PoV which has no place on Wikipedia. Hu 21:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Law Lord 13:09, 13:27 and WebHamster 14:06. The editor, real or satirical, is a model example of unproductive, offensive, and disruptive POV pushing - a warning to all on this matter. If this page did not exist, it would be necessary to create it. I've learned a lot from Prester John's userpage; I think of it as a large truck, emblazoned with obnoxious bumper stickers, performing an illegal right turn through a busy intersection. cygnis insignis 15:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is nonsense, Cygnis. There is no need to create bigotted hatred and PoV pushing in Wikipedia. If you insist on creating it on your user page, then we'll delete it there too. Hu 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and FisherQueen. Wikipedia is a place to write an "Encylopedia". People are of course free to have their own websites and write whatever they like there. --Aminz 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prester John is a soapboxer. Using a quote by Hitler to attack socialism may insult socialist. That's what the page does; it attacks views. It attacks views that he does not like. WP:USER states: "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense. Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it" How many of you think that Prester John is not being a "dick about it?" What is the point of this user box "This user is not and never will be a Muslim?" It is clearly meant to offend. He uses his user page to promote the segregation of Muslims. This is a prime example of soapboxing ""Non-Muslim Bypass:" If only the rest of the world would follow the example set in Mecca." When he is not attacking a view, he is promoting one (usually a controversial one).--Agha Nader 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP: Wikipedia is not a political soapbox, nor is it a vehicle for hate-mongering. Hu 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everything on this page has been lifted from other parts of wikipedia. Is it so confronting to see it all at once. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 21:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False: The very first comment on your page, "Non-Muslim Bypass: If only the rest of the world would follow the example set in Mecca", is not found anywhere else on Wikipedia. It is your bigotry that is confronting. Go confront people on a PoV site, not Wikipedia. Hu 21:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. The picture is legit. I will remove the caption then. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 21:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still False: Your second comment (your first after you remove your first PoV comment) is the chauvinistic ultra-nationalistic PoV "it is going to be done OUR way", which is not found anywhere on Wikipedia. Hu 21:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious that there is no consensus here. --Law Lord 20:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon to make such a judgement, "Law Lord". Not much more than ten hours. Give it five days, if needed. Hu 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all too soon. Already now it is clear that editors are divided on the issue. Or do you not understand what consensus means, Hu? --Law Lord 21:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand what consensus is, without your condescension, thank you. One of the important things to realize about consensus is that it might not gel at first, but given a little time, a consensus can develop. Hu 21:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we read anything into your rush? MfDs run for 5 days, why are you so keen to close after 10 hours? --WebHamster 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Law Lord, I would argue that there is a clear consensus that this material must go. The only disagreement seems to center on method: whether it is done by forced removal, selective deletion or full deletion. Also, please be aware that this is a discussion, not a numerical vote and the closing admin will weigh people's comments. If people are basically saying, "keep (or delete) because I say so" without addressing policy and guidelines, then they can expect the closing admin to weigh their comments appropriately. Sarah 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - user pages are not supposed to be used for hate-mongering or other distasteful purposes. Prester John should realise that deletion may in fact be beneficial for his cause as the page is bound to alienate the large majority of Wikipedians who find this kind of advocacy unacceptable. ITAQALLAH 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the quote The Great Seal of the United States. Note how the Eagle holds an olive branch and 13 arrows. This symbolises how the USA will give a choice between War or Peace. YOU do get to pick, but always remember, that whichever way you choose, it is going to be done OUR way is offensive, is not NPOV, is using wikipedia as a soapbox. I suggest this guy gets a blog, and he can rant as much as he likes. I would suggest that instead of removing some content, or deleting the user page, perhaps deleting his account and blocking him from wikipedia would be the best solution.Sennen goroshi 06:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo said "Libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." Prester most certainly attacks Muslims. He has called for their segregation. He attacks socialism. He quotes someone as saying "Five years ago, Middle Eastern extremists were killing Israelis and Americans. Today they are killing each other. Why is it that some people persist in claiming that Israel's and America's Middle East policy is a failure?" Moreover "Polemical statements" are not allowed WP:UP#NOT. Prester ought to be banned, he is a troll. He has been warned but he hasn't learned anything. I have evidence which I will provide in the future, that his intention is to disrupt.--Agha Nader 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what Jimbo said; he doesn't unilaterally set policy anymore. I choose to regard Prester's stuff as over-the-top satire, have a good laugh, and move on. The only reason it's disruptive is that some people can't take a joke around here. Sarsaparilla 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deeply confused by this. 'Satire' would indicate that this is offensive intentionally, but that this user's real beliefs are the opposite, and that comes through clearly to the perceptive reader. In this case, it's pretty clear that this user does indeed believe what he has written. It is therefore not satire, nor is it intended to provoke laughter, as far as I can tell. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Who cares what Jimbo said?" Um, for starters I care. The community of editors cared enough to quote him on WP:UP#NOT! The problem is that people like you come to these MfD's without even reading WP:UP#NOT. --Agha Nader 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read it and dismissed it as non-binding obiter dictum. Sarsaparilla 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as racist and insulting. Or at least remove the parts about Muslims. The page is soapboxing, much more appropriate for a blog or something. Redrocketboy 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Totally inappropriate for a collaborative encyclopedia. —Animum § 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Conditional Keep Delete if he does not remove the racist material in his own page. However, some of the contents of his userpage contains userboxes unrelated to this MfD and Wikipedia maintainence links, so keep if he manages to eliminate the racist material in his page. PrestonH 19:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is that another article you only read part of before commenting?
  • Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.
  • Polemical statements
Sounds like there's two violations right there. --WebHamster 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. --Law Lord 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attacks would they be? --WebHamster 12:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the user will not remove the blatant bias from his page. Regardless of the outcome of the main user page, however, I am recommending that all the userboxes that this user has created be put up for discussion as well, particularly User:Prester John/Userbox/Gore and State, User:Prester_John/Userbox/A_Convenient_Lie, and User:Prester_John/Userbox/Mosque and state. GlassCobra 20:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FisherQueen. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Polemic unencyclopedic garbage. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Soapboxing, doesn't improve wikipedia.P4k —Preceding comment was added at 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, this is the wrong venue to resolve this dispute. Versions of the userpage exist that do not contain the offending content, and some of the content that is offending is on subpages that are not included in this MfD. Obviously the users here confused and do not understand how to deal with the situation. Deleting the page history will also hide some of his disruptive behavior from others. I've already started an WP:ANI thread about this, and if he continues he'll just get blocked. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entirely inappropriate material. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia.-gadfium 08:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep, but remove some content. This is a complex question. On the one hand, this page is not "racist" or anything approaching it. Nor should it reasonably be "offensive" to anyone IMO; he doesn't explicitly say "Islam supports paedophilia", he quotes the statements of the Ayatollah Khomeini and invites the reader to make of that what they will. Nor should "this user believes in the separation of mosque and state" be any more offensive than the equivalent "church and state" userbox; allowing anti-Christian but not anti-Muslim statements is an example of the political correctness that has become over-prevalent in our society. However, with this in mind, I would have to agree that the page is highly polemical, and is likely to create unnecessary divisions within the community; we're not here to debate politics, but to create a neutral and sourced encyclopedia. I therefore propose the removal of the contentious content (specifically the quotes and userboxes relating to Islam), without deleting the entire page. The remainder of the page is a legitimate use of userspace and may be retained. WaltonOne 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePrester John's username is in itself offensive. The character Prester John (article) is about a mythological Christian crusader who fought against Muslims. This in itself is an entirely inappropriate username. User:Prester John has placed on his Wiki userpage Hitler quotes, swastikas, comments calling for separation of Muslim & state, and comments calling for aparthied for Muslims the world over. This is hate material, which will offend all people of decency. How can a call for Muslim apartheid be viewed any other way? What is hate material doing on Wikipedia? Then he edits Wiki articles about the Muslim faith in a similar vein.Lester 11:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have taken the liberty of editing three userspaces to comply with WP:USERPAGE. If this user leaves them in that form, I'd support keeping the rest of his userpage. If he chooses to revert them, then my previous nonvote stands. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (ec)Comment (sort of a delete, I guess): I agree that Prester's soapboxing is inappropriate and it needs to go. However, I think we can fix it without outright page deletion, but I do support that if it is necessary. I would rather see Prester fix it himself in the next couple of days, and then nominate the page(s) for selective deletion. If Prester is resistive to this, then it is probably easiest to simply delete the lot and start from scratch per WP:UP, inappropriate content. Please Prester, remove all the inflammatory content yourself and then notify an admin (I will do it if you let me know) and ask them to please selectively delete your page history. Once this is resolved, please don't restore inflammatory material or we will have to prevent you from editing the page yourself. Sarah 13:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Addit: I support the edits made by FisherQueen and ask Prester not to restore that material. Sarah 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how selective deletion would be going too far. Selective deletion would allow Prester to keep the bulk of his pages, with only the offending elements removed. Also, with regard to FisherQueen's comment below, I appreciate you eventually self-reverted, but I would ask please, don't start an edit war on someone else's userpage. For that matter, please do not edit other people's userpages. FisherQueen made those edits as an admin, trying to apply policy and guidelines. Sarah 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I just don't see the need to delete stuff from the history. Isn't that usually reserved for copyvios and other extreme cases? If, for instance, he gets taken to arbitration and someone wants to use those page versions as evidence, non-admins wouldn't be able to view them. Sarsaparilla 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We often selectively delete material from page histories if the revisions violate policy and it is considered necessary. See, we could just leave it in the history but Prester has shown that he is likely to restore it if it is left there. If he went to arbitration, say, and someone needed to refer to a deleted revision, they would just ask an admin or arbiter to restore the page as evidence for the course of the arbitration. This is not uncommon. We also sometimes do this deletion discussions so that non-admins can see the deleted material, and then delete it after the discussion. Sarah 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a place to push or advertise personal politics. If people keep that up, they can leave. • Lawrence Cohen 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exactly agree with immediately above comment. Much as I hate to curtail freedom of expression, I am not convinced this is not deliberately provocative soapboxing and I have little faith that PresterJohn will realise that consensus is largely against him here and do what needs to be done for the benefit of the community as a whole, and ultimately himself, if he is to maintain any respect as an editor. It would be unacceptable even as a satire because nobody could believe it had that purpose. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I completely disagree with Prester John's views. But, ultimately, I think it is Prester John who has to realize what he is doing and remove this - not us. The transformation (to conform to wiki standards) is something that has to come from within, it can't be imposed. I suggest Prester John be adopted by a responsible editor who can guide him. This will be much better in the long run.Vice regent 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you may well do. However, what matters here is policy and guideline. Some people arguing for keeping seem to be under the mistaken impression that people on Wikipedia have some sort of right to free speech. Wikipedia is a privately owned website and we don't have anything remotely along the lines of "free speech". What we have are policies and guidelines that people who want to edit here are required to follow. We have on the one hand, admins and experienced editors all agreeing this material is not appropriate under userpage guidelines and policy and on the other hand, we have the author and a rather curious band of mostly newish accounts and folk with low edit history. I'm not sure what is going on or how y'all knew to come here. You're certainly welcome to comment but you need to explain your argument and ground your position in policy/guidelines. It would help if you could read the relevant part of the userpage guidelines and respond particularly to: "Examples of unrelated content include:...Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc...Other non-encyclopedic related material...Polemical statements..." Then down further, it states: "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense. Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself...Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." Please also read policies: Wikipedia is not soapbox, Wikipedia is not MySpace and Wikipedia is not a battleground: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear." Under policy and guidelines it seems quite clear that the polemic material must stay out. Sarah 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer You have misunderstood both the rules of Wikipedia as well as the spirit. User pages says something about the user. Then all is well. You people really need to pull yourselves together. --Law Lord 09:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not even that long. I doubt if there are any correct answers here; ultimately, PJ may come to realise that to work with other editors here will require a measure of mututal respect, which seems not to be generally forthcoming at present. If such realisation occurs, he will perhaps tone down the expression of his views here, whilst expressing them more forthrightly in a different forum which might find them conducive to cooperative collaboration. But I detect that consensus says otherwise and it's his choice whether to follow that consensus. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NotePrester John, in his disrespect for the will of the community, has moved offensive material to his subpages. He is basically trying to hide it until the MfD is over. Nothing less than a ban will alleviate Wikipedia from his trolling. --Agha Nader 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Indef) Ban as a troll, unsure about duration of ban (and I'm not an admin anyway). There is clear evidence of trolling and he has resisted "the will of the community" (see above). Potentially offensive username but not to many people, except when one behaves in this manner. --Thinboy00 @165, i.e. 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum to any user who says MfD is inappropriate for banning, please read WP:IAR. Don't worry, it's one sentence. --Thinboy00 @167, i.e. 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't think a ban, block, or anything of that sort is necessary. Prester John should realize that Wikipedia is nothing more than an encyclopedia; and that his userpage does not really belong to him but rather to Wikipedia. I'd say we simply remove those stuff from his userpage and delete the subpages he has now created and moved the material to. It might not be also a bad idea if Prester John removes his comment on Ned Scott's talk page accusing him of vandalism. That's it. --Aminz 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I agree with you that it would be nice for him to simply back off and become a constructive editor, but I also feel that this MfD is an illustration of the problem: the page should have been CSD'd under G10, considering what it looked like then. However I will admit that I should have looked at that page before commenting. It's a bad habit, especially for controversial things like this. --Thinboy00 @199, i.e. 03:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Remove all remaining related content from userspace, strong warning, but no action against him. --Thinboy00 @201, i.e. 03:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is not right. If you think there are some userboxes which have any problems, target them separately. This is akin to wanting to delete an article which you think has some bad references. Nothing wrong with this page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Bits on Islam and Mosques are implicitly sectarian; soapboxing; etc. Fin©™ 09:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't actually realise how sectarian the page was before it was changed (Muslim Bypass, selective quotes, etc). Reinforces my Delete vote. Fin©™ 12:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this trash. Userspace is not your personal soapbox. --krimpet⟲ 18:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but do some serious rewriting. About 5/6ths of the page are political opinions, and while stating your political standing is perfectly acceptable, it's the serious repetition of the same statement and variations of it that worry me (for example, "this user will never be a Muslim", "this user is an infidel", "this user is strongly against Marxism," "this user believes it is better to be dead than red"). I'd Suggest to Prester John to remove some of the userboxes and make a simple sentence about what his political and religious beliefs are. Master of Puppets Care to share? 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lester above. That page has nothing to do with building the encyclopaedia - in fact it hinders it. —Moondyne 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep unless this is a universal policy move that will be applied to all editors, if not then removal of extremist material only is all thats required. as its not policy based and will be ignored by the closing admin instead I leave only a comment below Gnangarra 04:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I'm having trouble figuring this out PJ can be pro war anti muslem etc and we must delete because Wikipedia isnt a soap box, Its not a venue for free speech, great but before casting your stone look over your shoulder Fighting for peace is akin to fucking for virginity. images of flags being burnt. Do I agree with whats on his user page? no. Do I like it? not really. It is not sinful to adopt a POV in one way or the other; it is sinful to apply double standards once you've fixed your position. I sincerly hope all editors clean there house first before pulling down anothers. Gnangarra 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or permanently remove parts of the page history that include the offending material. This user has demonstrated a sincere disinterest in being a productive contributor to Wikipedia. He was just banned for a streak of disruptive editing and vandalism, which he committed retaliation for this MfD. He doesn't understand the difference between gross misuse of userspace (accusing a religious/political leader of pedophilia) and things like politically-oriented userboxes (or other more-or-less community-accepted practices). --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all including subpages. The user is abusing his userpage for blatant soapboxing, and his recent actions have convinced me that he is more interested in that than constructive contributions. CharonX/talk 14:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - This has been a long-simmering problem with this user over and this particular problem, and hs actions make it quite clear that he will not do it himself. The Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which users should be allowed to to denigrate others in the name of their beliefs, ideologies or positions. And this should go for liberal, islamist, jewish, etc... ones as well. Don't want to single out conservatism. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - Although portions of Prester John's userpage violate WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UP, WP:DEL explicitly states that pages which can be cleaned up should be cleaned up rather than outright deleted. As such, I suggest the sections which violate those policies (specifically the quotes and userboxes--the current version isn't bad, but I think the links to Islam-related article resources are useful) be removed or deleted themselves in favor of leaving the extremely helpful information which can be found elsewhere on the page. Although a number of people have pointed out that the user could then just undo the changes, this would be going against consensus and there are a number of methods for dealing with that. On a related note, I would also like to add that the user's page is the only thing being discussed here--not their edits or behavior. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Matt57 above. While I find much of the content on this page offensive, deleting it isn't the solution; deleting it implies that the user should not have a user page at all. The solution must deal with the user who has created it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It's his userpage; leave it alone. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. DEVS EX MACINA pray 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn the Witch I say Shot info (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WebHamster and FisherQueen. Jeffpw (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section break for summary of complications

User:Prester John's user page is built using input from two subpages, User:Prester John/userboxlist and User:Prester John/slideshow, in addition to his main userpage. Rightly or wrongly, I removed material from all three pages which I believed to be in violation of WP:USERPAGE. He has since restored some, but not all, of the material I removed. You may need to consider the historical versions of all three of these pages in order to fully comprehend earlier comments. We can choose to delete the userpage and subpages completely, or to enforce the removal of polemic material, or to allow him to keep his userpage in its old form.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting User:Prester John/quotes of course. --WebHamster 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't even noticed that one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-11-28

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 debate was Keep. — xaosflux Talk 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Nortel

This portal very much resembles an advertisement, which could be seen as violating WP:ADVERT. Creator of the portal is being notified of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the portal page (in the "Things to do") this is not an advertisement, and we welcome all input on making this page vendor nutral, just like all the other company protals. We are activaly working on new information for this page and welcome you help. We also need help making the Portal:Telecommunication much better. Both of these portals are very new and need additional information. HammondJr (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xoloz (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the page. Jackrabbit2 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepI agree with the previous comment, it appears to be the start of a neutral page. Nortel is an industry titan such as Apple or Microsoft, responsible for communications patents and advancements within it's industry. Having a portal is a pretty good idea for providing an overview or launch point for those doing research.909ydc 16:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)909ydc[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

2007-12-03

2007-12-02

2007-12-01

2007-11-29

2007-11-28

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=176051815"