User talk:ThsTorturedSoul

D3 Userboxes

TorturedSoul, kudos on starting up Division 3 userboxes. Once I finish up with completing Division 1, I'll hopefully be able to work on D2 and D3 conferences too. I'll reorganize the NCAA userbox section with subsections by divisions so the Empire 8 will now be towards the bottom in the D3 section. Kithira (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splinter Theory

Hello ThsTorturedSoul. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splinter Theory, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: no reason to delete this - it's part of the history. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I have to fundamentally disagree with you. The page is a blank page which was used while the original page was up for deletion (rightfully so). The page was subsequently deleted and now multiple blank pages, the deletion page and its Talk page, remain as artifacts. You claim there is no reason to delete it, while I claim there is no reason it should exist. It serves no legitimate purpose outside of reminding me of my own youthful ignorance. If "it's part of the history" is an actual reason to keep a page, then no page would ever be deleted, since every page ever created is "part of the history". Thanks. ThsTorturedSoul (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not blank until you blanked it today. Yes, pages do get deleted, but only in accordance with the WP:Deletion policy. None of the speedy-deletion reasons apply here. You could try nominating it at WP:Miscellany for deletion, but I don't think you will get agreement. If you wish, you could ask the closing administrator, NawlinWiki to apply "courtesy blanking" to the AfD page; but I don't think you need to worry about anyone coming across it, as there seem to be enough other "Splinter theories" around to fill any Google search. JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I blanked the page back in May and it made absolutely no difference, it seems to matter equally little whether the page even exists. When it was blank, it did apply as a speedy-deletion, so your point seems only to apply once you reverted it to its equally useless state containing only a speedy-deletion tag. I don't "worry" about anyone coming across it and I don't care enough to jump through more hoops to get it deleted, I merely feel it serves exactly no purpose and only exists as an artifact, which seems counter-intuitive to the clean, maintained appearance which Wikipedia strives for as an open encyclopedia. ThsTorturedSoul (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If just being blank was enough for speedy deletion, any page could be deleted by first blanking it. Sorry, I missed that your blanking was back in May - I am surprised it was not reverted at the time. Apart from the recent changes patrollers, there is a "bot", an automatic system, which would normally undo an unexplained blanking; it must have been asleep. Old discussions like this are part of the history, but they are in the behind-the-scenes maintenance machinery of the encyclopedia, not something that a reader would come across. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]