Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucy Skywalker/Timothy Ball

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete

WP:FAKEARTICLE
reads:

Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable

Against that background, since User:Tillman/Tim Ball is under active development and is now properly attributed, I do not see a consensus here to delete it, and it can be considered allowable as "Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development." Note, however, the words "short-term": it may be nominated for deletion unless within a reasonable time it is presented to WP:Deletion review or consensus is otherwise established that it can be returned to the main space because the reasons for deletion at the AfD have been overcome. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lucy Skywalker/Timothy Ball

User:Lucy Skywalker/Timothy Ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userdraft. Was created to circumvent the original deletion and DRV. See [1]. See

talk) 00:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closing admistrator:

WP:CC-BY-SA. Please delete that version as well if this version is deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

User Dominus Vobisdu is misinformed. Please see the discussion below, and see User talk:Tillman/Tim Ball for my new work on resurrecting Ball's wikibio. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)][reply]
Could you please explain the relevance of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/03/why-i-no-longer-subscribe-to-popular-science/ to this AfD? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the link: "My experience recently at Wikipedia was horrible. I copied Leroux’ threatened biography to my User area, as I’d done with Tim Ball’s deleted bio a year ago. I thought my User space would be a safe space with quiet, ongoing accessibility, and time to reconsider, for Leroux as it was for Ball. "
talk) 16:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
This is fom Lucy Skywalker? It seems like a personal account of her experiences here. This is bad how? --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her reasoning for what she did were the same as those from the Leroux userspace page.
talk) 18:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Later Comment: while I don't feel deletion is necessary, as a practical matter I withdraw my objection to deleting this page, in favor of my active, userfied, attributed one at and User:Tillman/Tim Ball + talk page. See fuller comment at my 15:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC), under "Cut and paste move repair request". --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you may think, wikipedia does not give users free hosting in their userpages.
talk) 11:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
My God, your userspace is absolutely stuffed with these staledrafts.
talk) 12:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I attempted an innocent joke here, which two other editors (not IRW) have insisted on removing (see history). Some people should get out more. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was pretty lame... <G>. Though not so much as IRW's proposed Userspace Thought Police.... (joke) --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the user has shown no active interest in making any edits to bring the draft into shape to move into actual article space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obvious attempt to circumvent AfD and use WP as free hosting. User has made no attempt to improve article so that it conforms to WP policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The three editors above who favor deletion of this usespace draft seem to be under the impression that there is a deadline for working on drafts in userspace. SFAIK there is no such requirement. Please let us know if I am incorrect.
The arguments for deletion have a number of
WP:AGF
-- it's not optional, and not being observed here.
And the "free hosting" business is a hoot. Are you folks not aware that, in our "version-tracker" software, these drafts take up the same amount of space whether they're visible, or not? Or deleted, or not.... Good grief. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user has amply demonstrated to my satisfaction that she has no intention of improving the article, and that she is using her userspace to host a "rescued" version of it where she thought it will be "accessible" and "safe". A year is more than more than sufficient time to decide that the article will not be improved, and is just another
WP:FAKEARTICLE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
[e/c] Please see below. Please note that User talk:Tillman/Tim Ball is current work product, by me. And I've had an interest in the Tim Ball wikibio for some time: forex, see User_talk:Tillman#Tim_Ball_bio --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC), revised[reply]

Mooting this AfD proposal? This AfD now appears moot, as I have resumed work on the Ball bio at User talk:Tillman/Tim Ball. At the moment, User:Tillman/Tim Ball is (+/-) a copy of LS's last draft, currently proposed for deletion. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Had you asked for the article to be userified after it was deleted, or copied it to your own computer to work on off-site, it would have been another matter. But instead, you took it upon yourself to frustrate the consensus reached here. The fact that you were in communication with Lucy does not speak in your favor, especially since she informed you that she has moved the article to another site. Bad move. I've put a note to the closing admistrator above to delete your version, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinions on what hoops I might have jumped thru to please you are noted.
Why on earth would you be offended if I contact Lucy Skywalker? It is her userpage, y'know... --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User talk:Tillman/Tim Ball for the current work product.Anyone's input is welcome! As for Lucy's draft -- plenty of copies are around, one referenced there. Best, --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 21:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Either you don't understand what we are talking about, or I have trouble reading. Can you be a bit more specific where at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Ball the problems of an unattributed copy of the article are discussed? Maybe a quote where the discussion starts? I cannot find anything appropriate, and I'm also a bit at a loss as to why this should even be a topic at the XfD of the original article (which, after all, was properly giving credit to the contributors via the article history). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[blush] well, I can't find it, either.... Wonder where I saw it? I definitely saw a long, detailed and (imo) pointless discussion of this, somewhere....Sorry for the inadvertant mislead -- YA Senior Moment, I guess Back soon (I hope)
Let me reiterate, I think you (and others) are misreading the WP CC-SA license. But I'll link to the earlier discussion once I find it. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)k[reply]
Incidentally, I happened to mention this business to my lawyer-sister, who's done some IP work. Her response was incredulous laughter, followed by her saying that anyone foolish enough to make such an argument in open court, would be laughed out of it. And certainly wouldn't be a client of hers. Or not by then, anyway.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I know all open-source license violations that actually went to court have either been settled in the copyright owners interest, or actually decided in their favour. Most involve the
GPL, not the Creative Commons licenses, which, however, have been written to be court-proof. But even if the legal case is hard - I took you for a proponent of property rights who would do the right thing on principle. Am I wrong? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
With respect, Stephan, don't you have something better to do with your time? See StG comments, below. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fnord. Actually, defending the integrity of open content is one of the things I often find important enough to do. Cheers! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
My understanding is that the WP CC-SA license applies to outside materials used by WP editors and that the WP License to edit mercilessly and redistribute applies to material written at WP. Yopienso (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed
WP:MERCILESS is not policy. The Third Pillar
is absolutely core, though:
Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.
Respect copyright laws, and do not plagiarize sources. Non-free content is allowed under fair use, but strive to find free alternatives to any media or content that you wish to add to Wikipedia. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed.
Also see Contributor's rights and obligations. Yopienso (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
attribution is not optional, it's part of the license.
talk) 13:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Your understanding is wrong. CC-SA applies to all edits. Page history provides attribution inside wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those that don't understand have a look at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The purpose of deletion proposals is to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia and prevent gross abuse of its hosting facility. Those purposes do not require or justify deletion of this page. As Tillman says, the argument about the license is just ridiculous. I find this whole business grimly funny. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a statedraft copied to circumvent an AfD. Exactly in the same as the Leroux article was.
talk) 13:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
It's the word and concept "circumvent" which is misleading. An AfD is a decision to remove a page from article space, that is from the encyclopedia as intended to be seen and used by the general public. There are, rightly, high standards for what appears there. Other parts of the wikipedia world, talk pages for example, have a much lower standard, and only material which is downright offensive needs to be removed. So transferring something from an article into a user page isn't "circumventing" anything, it's just downgrading its visibility and its status. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is also another violation of WP core policy, IR Wolfie: WP:Assume good faith. Please remove all of these, or I shall initiate a formal complaint. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 22:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Cut and paste move repair request
Since tillman has a correctly attributed version, the Lucy copy should be deleted. So I'm not sure why you voted keep Tillman, rather than just requesting a userification in the first place.
talk) 15:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I've emailed Lucy privately, as she is currently inactive here. She has no objection to deleting her copy in favor of my active, userfied, attributed one. Thus I have no further objection either, so long as I'm able to work on the copy at my userspace.
In my opinion, this MfD proposal appears to be a considerable waste of time and energy. However, if you look at my work page,
WP:GNG provisions. I'll work up a new of his wikibio incorporating these new cites, as time permits, and see if that flies. So perhaps this kerfluffle will have one positive result. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
What occurs on your page is now irrelevant to this MfD. You could have simply just requested userifcation of the actual original article rather than having wasted everyone's time here and with the history merges.
talk) 17:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't an AfD. How is this relevant?
talk) 16:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
As relevant as much on this page, and thought-provoking for the wider context. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2012 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lucy_Skywalker/Timothy_Ball&oldid=1073546018"