Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Voldemore

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 debate was Delete all except new userpage and sandbox.There is a consensus that the pages violate

relevant talk page. Note also that Voldemore agreed to the deletion in these terms. Cenarium Talk 23:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note The deleted pages are listed here. Cenarium Talk 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Voldemore

Personal essay. It is inappropriate in terms of layout and content to be used as a wikipedia page. Also nominating all pages found in Special:PrefixIndex/User:Voldemore. Ironholds 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plenty of people have a "personal essay" on their userpage and on their subpages. Nothing inappropriate at all. Don't single me out. This is ridiculous. -- Voldemore (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not singling you out, if you look at my edit history you'll see that I spend half my time chasing up pages like that. And yes, plenty of people HAVE got them on their userpages; I classify these people as "users I haven't met". Wikipedia policy states that personal essays are acceptable if related to wikipedia editing/policy/culture, which these are not. Ironholds 23:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, I'm afraid. These pages could be kept if there was any hope that they might make it into Wikipedia articles, but in almost all cases, Wikipedia already has articles on these subjects - and they are written in an encyclopaedic manner, whereas these articles are written from a fannish, in-universe point of view. I suggest the user works on improving our existing articles on these subjects rather than creating his own. Terraxos (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, this whole thing seems to be based on Ironhold's PERSONAL OPINION on what is or isn't appropriate for a userpage and a sub-userpage and Ironhold's PERSONAL OPINION on what constitutes a personal essay. Screw that. Ironhold, Wikipedia is not based on your opinions. -- Thefreemarket (talk) —Preceding

comment was added at 00:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "Screw that. Ironhold, Wikipedia is not based on your opinions" and so on; mind keeping the tone civil? And caps are unrequired. They read as personal essays to me, yes. What other format would you say they are? they're of inappropriate fanboydom and topic to be an article, and exhibit none of the wikistylings of an article. If you have an alternate designation than "personal essay" which doesn't involve rubbishing my opinion i'd be interested to hear it. Ironholds 10:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn't say it was a copy of anything. It does violate rules; if you see
    Wikipedia:User page under " What may I not have on my user page?" you'll see "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage." Ironholds 11:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Same reply as to Crevaner
  • Keep all. I agree with User Thefreemarket's point. User Ironhold, the fact that by your own admission you spend half your time on Wikipedia just trying to get rid of other people's userpage just says that there must be something wrong with you. I'm not trying to be insulting, but dude, seriously. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than tripping other Wikipedia user's up. -- Deaniack (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It isn't "tripping other users up", and trying to be or not you were insulting. I don't just go about willy-nilly with a finger on the delete key and a maniacal laugh; I delete pages which are either a) blatant advertising (want to know where you can earn money in your spare time????) or b)Unencyclopedic, timewasting content. The deletion here is a good example; unencyclopedic personal content i tagged and deleted. Ironholds 11:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You failed to provide a reason for keeping the article in that statement. Discrediting the nominator will not change the fact that this page is up for deletion on its merits, not that of the nominator. Daniel (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reasoning is that the User Voldemore's userpage and subpages don't violate the rules in that the info on the pages are overly extensive. -- Deaniack (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - I've looked at the userpage and the subpages and they DON'T violate the site's rules because they are not discussions or games. Instead, they are apparently examples of Voldemore's interests, which is fundamentally about him or her as a Wikipedian - and that is supposed to be encouraged on userpages and subpages. -- AmeriCan (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment limited personal information is allowed, not "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia" Ironholds 11:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: While i'm not one to scream cabal, I note that users Thefreemarket, Deaniack and AmeriCan, all of whom gave the same reasoning for keep haven't edited in a month; other than AmeriCan this is their first edit apon returning. This could simply be that exams are now over, but I found it a bit suspicious that accounts with the same beliefs and viewpoints would all simultaneously return and come straight here. Apologies if i'm just crying wolf. Ironholds 11:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deaniack [1] and thefreemarket [2] both had problems signing the page too. Interesting, but circumstantial at best.
15 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Of course, but I'd advise (for obvious reasons) less pages like these :). Ironholds 00:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine then. Go ahead and delete most of the subpages. Just leave my userpage and "sandbox" subpage alone. -- Voldemore (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The preferred way for doing this is, if you the user decide that the pages serve no purpose for future wikipedia contributions, then, as per
        Wikipedia:Prod you tag the pages with {{subst:prod|reason}} (substituting a reason). I would suggest that you convert the pages to redirects to your userpage, if there is the slightest chance of you changing your mind. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • I'm trying to restrict what I interpret as inappropriate content, yes. Please keep it focused on the discussion and don't shoot the messenger. Ironholds 13:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should avoid the mentality that some users need to police the activities of other users in their own userspace. If there were a compelling problem, which there isn't, then it might be different. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It tells me something about the user, eliminating it tells me nothing, that is nothing about the user, but something about the process: Removal of information is censorship. Ekem (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All it tells you about the user is that he's a firefly/star wars/whatever fan. LIMITED personal information is allowed, so even classifying this as personal information (which it isn't) makes it unacceptable to be kept. And it is not "censorship". Wikipedia users who sign up are expected to follow certain policies with their contributions; violating these policies voids said contributions usefulness. Ironholds 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep userpage and sandbox and delete the rest, per the creator's comment. Quoting from
    sites that provide wiki hosting (free or for money). You can also install wiki software on your server. See the Wiki Science wikibook for information on doing this. Scratchpad Wiki Labs also allows personal wikis." --Enric Naval (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Crevaner has said that he and the others accused of sockpuppetry are friends of Voldemore and were called in by him to prevent the deletion. On that note, i'd like their votes discounted since there's no proof they've even read the userpage itself. Ironholds 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm posting on
    15 19:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just to note, that only applies to main page. Delete all subpages per the fact they're all
DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all subpages. All of those are personal essays, but keep the user page and the sandbox. BoL (Talk) 03:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Will the users involved in the meatpuppetry cases votes be counted or not? Ironholds 10:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, not votes per se. Opinions; if the closing admin comes in and finds 8 keep votes when 4 are meatpuppets it hardly reflects the consensus correctly. Ironholds 00:26, 22 June 2008 (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:Voldemore&oldid=1142592063"