Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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 speedied per CAT:TEMP. –xeno^talk 19:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jekyll1886/Teletubbies Gone Bad (2009 film)

Userspace recreation of Teletubbies Gone Bad (2009 film), which was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax. This user is currently indefinitely blocked as a sock of Bambifan101 (talk · contribs). Delete as an inappropriate use of userspace. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was Speedy delete. G10—an attack page. Ruslik_Zero 09:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Closing instructions

[edit] User:GymJunky/Hemingbrough Parish Council

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. Not sure what the copyright status of blogspot.com is, but this is an exact copy of the section entitled "The Bear Garden Composition" at http://hemingbroughbeargarden.blogspot.com/2009/07/cloak-and-dagger-in-selby-area-local.html -t'shael^chat 09:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was Oversight requested; personally-identifying information of a minor. NAC.. →ROUX ₪ 07:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Douglas Truman Moss III

Primarily, this is completely unsourced content from a user whose only other actions have been vandalism. This page may well be about a person (16 years old) who might exist. -- 2help (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Given that this is a minor, MfD is not sufficient; this should go to Oversight. I have done so. → ROUX ₪ 07:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. 2help (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was speedily deleted as copyvio. –xeno^talk 15:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Animalrightswiki/Jordan halliday

WP:SOAPBOX, Wikipedia is not the place for protest. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was moved to "User:CalcbikeUSBPriapPs2/CHICKEN" as user repurposed page. –xeno^talk 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:CalcbikeUSBPriapPs2/FINGER

Appears to violate NPA as it encourages you to "give the finger" and "spread the WikiHate" to someone who has "blanked your page" or "banned you". I think that we can all agree that this is totally unacceptable. t'shael^chat 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as nom. -t'shael^chat 05:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Per this, if someone wishes to close this as "nomination withdrawn", I have no objections. -t'shael^chat 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was speedily deleted per creator request.--Aervanath (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wladimir Bravo

More relevant to vandalism. Reported separately Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Speediable WP:CSD#G7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was Speedy delete. Laser brain (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:UncleMortyTV

User page used for unrelated activity. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong delete - draft spam for a YouTube series; eligible for a speedy. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was *this* close to speedying but I have overstretched advertising criterion a few times before. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was speedily deleted by User:OrangeMike as vandalism.--Aervanath (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Giggitysmalls/Chester thiriot

Userspace version of a hoax article. →ROUX ₪ 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete pure vandalism.--Otterathome (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was speedily deleted per U1. –xeno^talk 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Elfworm/SuperSecretHiddenPage

Pointless and defunct secret page. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. User is an active contributor [1]. We do and should allow large latitude in userspace. Secret pages and other play things have educational and community building benefits, and should be allowed where they are incidental to the serious contributions of the user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Was the user consulted about whether he/she might be willing to delete the page, before this MfD started? There are arguments pro and con allowing "secret pages", as noted in the MZMcBride arbitration decision among other places, but any argumentation is moot if the user would be willing at this point to live without the almost-two-year-old page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This user is an alternate account for Selfworm (talk · contribs). Though this account is marked as "inactive," Selfworm should be notified; I have done so. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Hi, I'm the owner of the page in question and since I have no use for it anymore, since it is an orphaned page, and since I don't know how to delete it myself, I would like for it to be deleted. Thanks and take care. selfworm^Talk) 17:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I move for a speedy delete per CSD U1. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was withdrawn by nominator.--Aervanath (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians

This page is a prime example of Wikipedia bureaucratic cruft. On one hand, it is a memorial, so please see WP:NOT. On the other hand, it's a rather pointless list of people who have simply stopped editing for one reason or another. There is zero reason for such a list. If there is an argument that we need to keep a list of "people who were important", well, how do you measure importance? This is just a general list. Finally, it could very well constitute a privacy issue, as some people may have stopped editing for privacy reasons, and adding their username to a tally sheet isn't helping them to disappear. Even if they don't necesarily want to "disappear", people should not be adding the usernames of others (particularly editors in good standing) to lists of names. This should be deleted as it does not help the encyclopedia and may even be harmful. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I created the page. It's now a part of Wikipedia history. I suggest perhaps listing it as historical. While I appreciate the desire to clean up our meta pages - in fact I may enlist your help in dealing with certain related matters - that is not to say that setting oneself up at the woodchipper and throwing various things in should be considered helpful. -Stevertigo 03:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and continue. Read Wikipedia:Editors matter. WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply to wikipedians in userspace/project space. See a relevent recent discussion, and the current wording of WP:NOT. Keeping track of our colleagues, having a care for them, is important for the community of editors. There is nothing in the list warrenting the nom's concerns of measures of importance. Privacy concerns can readily be dealth with: You can remove your own entry; you can mail wikipedia where it will be dealt with responsibly and respectfully. Please don't start acting on imagined privacy concerns of people your don't know. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It hasn't done any harm so far and I doubt it will. It's useful for historical purposes so I'm not opposed to tagging it with historical or even moving it to the meta site but deleting it wouldn't serve any purpose. And anyone who doesn't want to be listed can easily remove their name or request that it be removed. The first nomination was a unanimous keep and I say keep for most of the reasons listed the first time. -- œ^™ 05:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above reasons. As pointed out, WP:NOT doesn't apply, and privacy matters are easily dealt with by the opt-out nature of the list. It is useful as a chronicling of the early days of Wikipedia, and continuing it will ensure that it also helps in the chronicling of current 2009 wikipedia in the years ahead. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The pricacy concerns are very real. If someone is "missing", they are likely gone, so how can they opt out? Furthermore, people shouldn't have to opt out. This is like an unscrupulous telemarketer who calls trying to sell someone timeshares. The person says "why are you calling me, I have no interest in this product and the telemarketer says "well, you can opt out at any time". That's not the point... the point is, the call (or in this case, the addition to the list) should never have happened in the first place. Editors in good standing should not be added to lists on the basis that they can later ask to be removed (IF THEY EVEN KNOW THE LIST EXISTS!). This is a bad precedent. We need to be proactive, not reactive, when it comes to privacy and the rights of editors in good standing to not have their usernames added to lists. The only way to make this right is to allow only the editors themselves to add their names, which would, by default, make the list irrelevant as they would no longer be missing. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be the simplest thing in the world to create a template saying something like "This user has left Wikipedia. For privacy reasons, do not add his or her name to Wikipedia: Missing Wikipedians". Any editor wishing to leave WP and not be traced could simply place this on their user page when blanking it as their last edit. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, how would they know this particular page even exists? I didn't, until just last week. And again, people should not be added to lists on here unless they do it themselves, unless they're some kind of blocked troll or abusive vandal who administrators need to keep logs of information on. Lists of names are not good. Doesn't anyone out there see this? If I were to stop editing, I would not want someone to come along and add me to a list somewhere simply because I stopped editing and they decided I was "missing". This could certainly happen for a number of reasons and I'm sure it happens every day. If I hadn't stumbled on this accidentally, I would never have known it existed. It seems nobody agrees with me, so I'll just leave it at this: nobody should ever add anyone else to a list anywhere unless they're a troll/vandal. Editors in good standing don't need to be kept track of. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason you didn't know about this page is that you are not someone who is likely to become a missing wikipedian with major privacy concerns. It seems unlikely to me that anyone wishing to remove all traces of their Wikipedia activity (which anyone leaving WP in circumatances where privacy is an issue would almost certainly do) would fail to check user name policy pages such as Wikipedia:User name. The page Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians should be mentioned there, along with methods for avoiding listing. As for being a troll/vandal, I've added names to Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles; which do you consider me to be, a troll or a vandal? Grutness...wha? 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A misunderstanding: I meant that only trolls and vandals should have their usernames added to lists. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Multixfer, you have this backwards, or perhaps WP:DENY has got this wrong? We want to recognise that who have worked postiviely for the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Although this doesn't quite work this way all the time. As in the case of Kurt Weber where he made a request at the talk page for someone to edit the comments about him because they were too negative. If we keep the page we must take precautions so that this can be avoided. Dr.K. logos 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Apologies - I did misunderstand you. Mind you, that leaves the question of those listed on Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles... Grutness...wha? 01:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I feel the same way about that: if someone here wants to add themselves to that, then let them, but it should be that person. But seeing how this is going I'll probably just drop the whole thing once this is closed. :-) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per common sense. 211.30.100.235 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what does that mean? Not much of an argument for keeping. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The encyclopedia was built by people, and they matter. If someone spends years of their life, of their free time, writing hundreds of articles, and they leave, they leave a name, and that name matters, for it is part of our history. The memory hole is for organizations without compassion and care. Please read Milan Kundera's Book of Laughter and Forgetting to get yet another view of the importance of historical memory. This is a big thing we are doing here, and don't ever forget it; it's already the largest collection of information in the history of the human race, and the laborers who built it matter. "Who built the pyramids," asked Bertolt Brecht, "Who built the Seven Towers of Thebes? The books are filled with the names of kings..." Editors matter and this is part of our history. Antandrus (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why is the list so small? How many people just lose interest, stop editing, and move on to other pursiits but aren't listed here? Seems a bit... elitist? Either that or totally random. Some of the best articles here have probably been written by people who weren't wiki-pals with anyone, or were just quiet and preferred to work on articles rather than engage in the social aspect. So, is this a list of people who mattered to the encyclopedia or a list of people whose current status of "missing" saddens their friends? A true and accurate listing of people who contribute significantly but then get bored or just stop for whatever reason would probably be in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - a useful list to show that we at least have some concern for our fellow editors' well-being. We care that they haven't been around lately, we wonder what happened to them - are they ok, did they just get bored, or did something happen to them? We don't know. But this list is harmless in any case. See also Wikipedia:Friends. I assure you, whenever I notice an editor who used to be a regular here just go cold turkey in their contributions, I get very worried for them. Majorly talk 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can feel free to close this, the consensus is clear. -- <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was speedily deleted per G3. –xeno^talk 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:84.9.59.20

User:Jefuab has apparently decided to get back at an IP vandal by updating their user page with a lot of sarcasm. McGeddon (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was revert, block, ignore vandalism from editor on dynamic IP addresses. Contact me for more information.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:210.24.200.33

Talk page totally unrelated to Wikipedia and uncomprehensible. -- Kotiwalo (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep Not sure how notable the cards are (not my area) but this could easily be a to-do list for an article somewhere. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what they are, and they seem a lot like useless trivia to me, but if the information could be useful somewhere else, we should move it there. Here it is useless. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried searching the Kamen Rider category and couldn't find an article about cards, but I did find that several (all?) characters like tghis bloke and this other chappie have sections on cards and their powers/meanings/whatever the hell is going on there. As such this little userpage is redundant, so delete. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we have reached consensus. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep- This person has been editing this list as recently as today. Can't we just accept the fact that this is their version of a userspace? No one has even bothered to ask them his opinion on this and people should realize that if they aren't harming anyone, then there is no need to delete this. I'm going to notify them on this, but we do have this unwritten rule about notifications, and I don't know why it wasn't followed earlier. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the fact is that Wikipedia talk pages are not for unrelated activities. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service - if he wants to publish these lists, he should do it elsewhere in my opinion. But if this is deemed as harmless fun, I have no strong objections. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Blank the apparently inappropriate content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• This is just a random anonymous user who hops from IP to IP and blanks article pages, talk pages, and user talk pages with the content about a show he made up. Just remove the content from the talk page by reverting it to the last non IP edit as I am about to do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy

The page creator has asked me to MfD this. I don't believe there's any support for the page at this time; it was intended as a way to store information from 2 or 3 pages, including WP:BLP, so that the same information could be transcluded on all pages. This is a strategy that was tried on several style guidelines pages for a while, and consensus was that it didn't work; people who weren't very likely to keep up with changes on the style guidelines pages lost all interest in keeping up with changes when those changes moved to a separate page, because it wasn't possible to look at a diff in the history. Disclaimer: I'm not uninvolved here, I made an argument at WP:VPP that I didn't like this direction. I'm opening this MfD because the G7 speedy was denied by another admin, and the page creator asked me to MfD this. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: the G7 wasn't denied by another admin, it was removed from the page by Debresser (talk · contribs). He routinely reverts my edits, and opposes my XfD nominations.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree per nominator. I myself have mentioned this argument as well in this diff.

G7 indeed wasn't appropriate for several reasons: 1. several other editors had edited this page 2. policy pages should be commented upon by the community, in my understanding. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then your deletion of the G7 tag was WP:POINT, as you now agree that it should be deleted.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as page creator -- no other editors have made any significant contributions, all changes without prior discussion have been reverted. Once upon a time, transclusion of subpages was routine. There is support for it in the base software, specifically <onlyinclude>. Actually, the history is easier to track, as each subpage has its own history. Apparently, it has fallen out of use, as regular editors don't readily understand it. Once that was explained by Dank, I was happy to agree on another way to prevent textual drift, specifically by removing the text in all other places, and using the {{main}} and {{details}} summary style templates to cross reference. Please delete at your leisure.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - it is difficult enough to keep an eye on one policy page without having to watch subpages as well. I prefer the present set-up using {{main}} and {{details}}. Occuli (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per User:William Allen Simpson. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User autoreview

Since moved to Template:User wikipedia/autoreviewer

This is a rather unusual nomination as far as userboxes go. This userbox is not derogatory or anything like that. However, it does encourage a view about autoreviewer that we should avoid; people should not care about having this "right". The entire point of the autoreviewer usergroup was to help New Page Patrollers out as they patrol articles;it's an entirely "behind the scenes" thing. If users did not even notice that it was added to their account, it would not matter at all. There is no conceivable benefit to having this userbox, as it is easy to identify users in the autoreviewer usergroup through other methods, and it is best to avoid autoreviewer being seen as a status symbol or an extra hat to collect. NW (Talk) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Something we don't need is more users trying to collect these flags as status symbols. — Jake Wartenberg 22:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or move to userspace. This would be akin to a userbox that said "this user is autoconfirmed": this tool is granted with one specific purpose, and is even granted without the knowledge of the recipient in some cases. This template seems a bit pointless to me. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, although this seems self-promoting, we have a rollback template that is similar to this, and that is on many user pages. I know that this might seem unnotable, but why not have a template concerning your userright. As long as we don't have anybody being affected, there is no need to get rid of it. I agree that it is at the level of the autoconfirmed users, but not everyone can be confirmed as an autoreviewer and rollbacker. This is just like having the administrator template. As I said before, this isn't harming anyone and can be useful in a short notice on the userpage. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per PeterSymonds' reasoning. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Given that we have Template:User rollback, I don't think it makes any sense to delete this UBX but not that one. This isn't to say I don't disapprove of the two (and maybe more, similar) boxen, but I don't support deleting one and leaving the other, since they're the same thing, just a different permission. ÷seresin 06:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe the nominator put it perfectly: that we don't need this to be another hat to collect. And while the admin userbox is similar, it can be useful for Wikipedians to know whether a user is an administrator or not when it comes to asking for help with certain tasks, etc., especially for new Wikipedians who may not know where to find admins otherwise (I know that I stumbled across an admin with a userbox long before I ever encounterd WP:LA). I also agree that Template: User Rollback should have the same fate as this userbox, whichever way this MfD goes. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 08:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It serves to advertise a projection functionality, and doesn't hurt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Advertise a... what? Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Advertises Wikipedia:Autoreviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I understand the argument about avoiding "status" impressions, but that doesn't seem like a real issue for this situation. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to Template:User wikipedia/autoreviewer for consistency and clarity. (Y Done) I realize that some editors like to collect these rights like shiny coloured baubels, but that's not the userboxes' fault. –xeno^talk 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Violates nothing. And unless we prune down the total number of userboxes, barnstars and the like, removing it proves little. Collect (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Users are allowed and at times even encouraged to display their roles within the project. In this instance, among other things, users with questions about any new autoreview functionality might be assisted in knowing whom they might ask. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per NYBrad's rationale - I feel that such encouragement is bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So when someone posted the tags on my userpage that I had been chosen as an administrator and later an arbitrator, I should have reverted him? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Should you have? Well, it depends on what kind of image that you want to produce. If "being an admin is no big deal", which meant that it doesn't give you a special status, then why would you feel the need to display that status in some kind of fancy manner that seems more like collecting decorations than anything else? If our primary concern is to edit an encyclopedia and not be myspace, why have any such things? You can see from my own user page where I stand on the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ottava Rima, Why do you feel that such encouragement (of role display) is bad? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Because I spend a lot of time working on a very large to do list in 18th and 19th century literature that are completely ignored but have tons of sources that are easy to get a hold of. There are major authors that could have 100-200 pages added to Wikipedia with hundreds of sources to use for information that aren't being completed because we just don't have people willing to put forth the effort. But we do have people willing to decorate their user page. We are an encyclopedia, no? Then lets ban the myspacing and encourage people to help me. I want an encyclopedia, and Literature articles are barely up to 1% of content completed, if that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree, largely as per Wikipedia:Editors matter, because harassing editors who fuss and fiddle in userspace is likely to drive good and potentially good editors away from wikipedia completely, and because I don’t believe that it will encourage the fussing fiddlers to take an interest and develop aptitude in serious literature. On the contrary, I think your interest would be better served in attracting interested editors if your userpage did contain focused userboxes and other links to wikiprojects. These things catch the eye of casual visitors who take an interest in your activities. As it is, your userpage strikes me as reflecting a person who knows what he is doing and who likes to work alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If someone is busy with their user page, they are not busy with article space. Their priorities are completely backwards. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Per that line of reasoning, your priorities could be declared similarly "backwards" because you could have been working on an article rather than commenting here. But, as we all know, there's more to Wikipedia than simply the articles themselves. Providing incentive through some fun side activities can't do anything but encourage participation and collaboration. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Incorrect. By pushing for a delete, the loss of time here would be countered by the even greater gain of people being left with one less myspacing option and thus pushed towards editing an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Then why not eliminate userpages altogether? No fun, only work here at Wikipedia. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Because user pages are able to accomplish what mine accomplishes - help in working on various items. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • Not everyone shares your all-business, no-frills philosophy. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • Yes, hence why people like you are supporting these boxes. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Hurts nothing. Most userboxes are relatively useless, when it comes down to it. Until those are pared down to identifying only the quality of a user's contributions or some other similarly businesslike purpose, there's no reason to selectively restrict which kinds of interests or characteristics contributors are allowed to display. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hurts nothing is not a valid keep. There are many things that "don't hurt" that are specifically not allowed here. See WP:NOT. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fine, but no argument I have read here in favor of deletion convinces me at all. The default is to keep the status quo unless deletion is convincingly advocated. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And playing the WP:NOT card is a very weak justification for deletion. What specifically about this template is prohibited, in your opinion? Qqqqqq (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Attention!- Guys, stop arguing about who is better. I don't think that we need to war over this on a deletion page. We all have our likes and dislikes, and no user is better than another user, as we all share a same goal. Please show a bit of maturity here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite opposite, there are definitely users who are better than others, otherwise, no one would ever be banned nor would people become admin. There is no egalitarian society. This is a meritocracy. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about you two saying that the each had a better view on what the ideal editor was. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Åland

Portal that won't happen RSN - only a skeleton since 2007 -- Rich Farmbrough, 13:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

• Delete. There's no actual content here besides a really old copy of the lede from Åland, and there doesn't appear to be much interest in expanding it. I've notified the author, as - atypically for abandoned portals like this one - he's still editing actively. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• It would be preferable to merge, redirect, or mark as historical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Boguslavmandzyuk put a bit of effort into this, it's a good start, could well be rekindled, but never got started as a functioning portal. Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Åland Islands. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - has shown no real activity since the day it was created, and I have never seen a portal marked "historical", although I would have no objections personally to turning it into a redirect to Portal:Finland. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- I would delete it only if we can't find anyone to expand upon it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:S0ointense and User:JasonFernadez101

Here we go again. Even more userspace reality TV games. Wikipedia is not a free web host, nil encyclopedic contributions, blah blah blah. I note that the former user has 1553/1574 edits to his/her user page. MER-C 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete both. Not related to wikipedia. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Refer participants to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, allow participants to move material offsite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - blatant infringement of WP:NOT. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 07:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was keep User:Jase 17 and User:Eurotom1234567890, as offending content has been removed. Delete User:Mattrman 08, User:Avilsta, User:OoSleePLesSsoO, and User:Pac rac.--Aervanath (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kramerb

Also User:Jase 17, User:Mattrman 08, User:Avilsta, User:OoSleePLesSsoO, User:Pac rac and User:Eurotom1234567890.

More userspace reality TV show crap. Wikipedia is not a free web host. These users have negligible encyclopedic contributions. For context, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Web forums using Wikipedia as a webhost and various examples in the MFD archives. MER-C 03:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep User:Jase 17, as he fixed the problem himself (diff). No reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) modified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:Kramerb,
• User:Mattrman 08,
• User:Avilsta,
• User:OoSleePLesSsoO,
• User:Pac rac &
• as per User:MB Games below:

Delete. Not related to wikipedia. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Refer participants to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, allow participants to move material offsite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:Eurotom1234567890 Contains some suitable content; user is a contributor, edit to remove games stuff from page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the clearest inappropriate content with these edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep User:Jase 17 because they have edited their page to get rid of the problematic content. No recommendation yet as to all the others yet; perhaps they will do the same before this MfD ends. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as fixed. Collect (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Except for Jase 17, they don't look fixed to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jeffvlaming/Jeff vlaming

Spam in userspace. Reads like copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. New user. This nomination is too bitey. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now, per WP:BITE. It's a AGF nomination, but new user could use some help before having user subpage deleted. — Becksguy (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Agree it reads a little copyvio, but also reads like beginnings of an article, and this would be legitimate use of userspace suppage. Quick research shows Jeff Vlamming to be a writer (screenplays etc) and could potentially be notable under criteria. Given "username", however, user should be made aware of relevant policies, particularly WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO and WP:BLP (specifically WP:BIOSELF) before proceeding.--ClubOranje^T 11:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Not a violation on its face -- hence no reason to delete and a positive one to Keep. Collect (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotional, and editor's only contribution. If he wants to contribute, no one's stopping him. --Calton | Talk 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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.