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.
Per
WP:UP#NOT, user pages are not meant to be personal blogs that contain Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason. Additionally, the user also states "I see others have a user page that shows information about them. I'm not into that sort of thing." --GraYoshi2x►talk17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep This page contains numerous sections which all seem to be properly concerned with Wikipedia matters. The editorialising is reasonably restrained and comparable with
User:Jimbo Wales, say, which likewise has things to say about elites, vandals and the like. There is no problem requiring deletion here.
Colonel Warden (
talk)
18:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Jimbo's page is not extensively about the subject, just a few points that I'm sure would be acceptable on any user page. A 127KB-long blog-like page that criticizes Wiki-philosophies, however, is not. GraYoshi2x►talk18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep if I'm allowed to have a say in it of course. He posted on my talk page, then scratched out some of that, then came up with something else. And why would my comment made when I first came to Wikipedia about not having information about me personally, matter? As I explained on my talk page, I don't post pictures of my cats or myself, mention personal information about myself, or other things I see on other user pages(years ago far more often than they are now). Most of the conversation has happened at my talk page
[1]. Post to a specific part you believe has violated a rule, please, and we'll discuss it here.
DreamFocus18:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)reply
If you go to
licorice you will find it forward it to the
liquorice, which Webster dictionary defines as a "chiefly British variant of licorice". Since there are more English speaking Americans than the total population of all other English speaking countries combined, then why not use the proper American spelling? Dream Focus (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
”
How is it wrong for me to mention that I believe the spelling used by the majority of English speaking people, should be used on Wikipedia?
DreamFocus18:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually, I mentioned and linked to a specific article. But that isn't required, as long as you are talking about Wikipedia matters, anything is acceptable.
DreamFocus18:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)reply
That this user is an advocate of American spelling is exactly the sort of information which is expected and appropriate for a user page as it provides useful background which informs our understanding of his editing and contributions to discussions. I prefer English spelling myself but so it goes.
Colonel Warden (
talk)
18:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Cannot see the basis of the nom's complaint. Perhaps the nom could detail the offending comments? Or would that be completely counter-productive to his concerns? Perhaps the nom should email his personal concerns to the user, and tell of if this goes nowhere. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
21:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Reluctant delete The user page describes other editors as "unreasonable", "vicious", "snobby", and "elitist. Those kinds of attacks are not needed here.
AniMatedraw00:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
You have to complain about the content, not certain words you don't like. We already had this discussion here:
[2] I just Googled all wikipedia user pages for the word "elitist".
[3] You just enter in site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User and then "elitist" or whatever word you might find offensive to see how many people use it. The first result is someone who calls himself an elitist, having a tag made for it, with a picture of a human brain and a link to the Wikipedia page for elitism. The next is someone who made a nice speech about how the elitist are ruining Wikipedia.
[4] Going to nominate him as well? 182 results there. I search for the word
deletionist which was mentioned as offensive on my talk page, and found someone protesting how people like that act as well.
[5] Anyway, state exactly what you are bothered with, what section(like the nominator of this did above, he upset by the spelling thing) and we'll discuss it. I don't think we're going to go rampaging around every user and talk page there is, threatening deletion of anyone who uses certain words you don't like.
DreamFocus00:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Isn't there a rule against using your page to state your opinion on real world politics?
[6] It seems odd one of the two deletes here, is from a guy who violates that policy. Doesn't bother me at all though, just thinking its kind of ironic.
DreamFocus21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
If someone else perceives a personal attack, then there is problem. If emotive words are important to your message, then reference others' use of them. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
01:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
What? How do you reference others' use of them? I don't understand. As for some people taking it personally when I complain about those who delete things that weren't hurting anyone, well, some people would be just as offended if you stated you ate meat, or were of a different religion than them. Some consider it a personal attack to state this even, taking things way too personally. People still have user tags that state this though, and much more. Wikipedia does not censor every single thing people might be offended by. I broke no rules, and did no wrong.
DreamFocus01:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep no one is specifically attacked - and the "attacks" themselves don't seem that reprehensible - on the page and almost all of it relates to Wikipedia in some way. Personally I disagree with most of the content and think a lot of it shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia practise and
policy but that isn't really relevant. If the page gets much larger it might be worth
splitting it so that those users with slower connections don't have trouble loading it.
Guest9999 (
talk)
04:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - any individual who feels defamed can engage in the usual process for requesting speedy edits exactly the same as if they were defamed on any other article on Wikipedia. Otherwise the page is unarguably focused on Wikipedia and forms a valuable insight into the user's positions, policies and logic. Vocally (and occasionally offensively) disagreeing with policies is not the same as violating them. Passionate Wikipedians are what makes the project work. -
DustFormsWords (
talk)
06:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Although the page contains some passages with sarcasm and insulting language, as far as I can tell (it's a long page and I didn't read every line), it is not directed at any named individuals and doesn't contain any content that is specifically called out as never acceptable in
WP:NPA. Users are certainly entitled to express their opinions about Wikipedia policies and practices, which is what this page does. --
RL0919 (
talk)
19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Substantially all the content on this page deals with Wikipedia and Wikimedia project issues. While I disagree with many of the opinions on this page, I support the user's being allowed to express them on their user page. Furthermore, the characterizations on this page such as "unreasonable", "vicious", "snobby", and "elitist" are not directed at specific editors. While I would encourage the editor to archive parts of this page to reduce its size, that is their decision to make, and I see no reason for this page to be nominated for deletion. --
Metropolitan90(talk)03:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep as he makes many spot on points and is not using it to attack any specific editor, rather it is more general a la something like
this comic. Yes, the userpage is a bit cumbersome and could perhaps be organized more coherently and maybe more concise, but as with most of my colleagues above, he seems to be engaging in honest discourse (good faith and honest criticism is a good thing after all) without making attacks against any particular editors. In the not too distant past I argued for deleting a page that listed specific editors as some kind of "league of deletionists" and as such do not endorse actual attack pages made in userspace, but that does not seem to be the case here. So, keep with the encouragement to maybe better organize and make it more concise, but that is just my suggestion that Dream Focus does not have to follow. Sincerely, --
A NobodyMy talk04:18, 27 October 2009 (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.