Revision as of 19:44, 27 November 2006

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

Shortcut WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion no portals
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion no user pages

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

• Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Misplaced Pages: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
• Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
• Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, in accordance with Misplaced Pages's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

• Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
• Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
• Misplaced Pages:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Misplaced Pages" namespace pages
• Misplaced Pages:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
• Misplaced Pages:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

• WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Administrator instructions

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Discussions

Active discussions

Articles currently being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

Purge the server's cache of this page

2006-11-27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. I would have userfied it if not for the fact that its creator has been permablocked. (Radiant) 09:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/NPOV-rewrite1

This is a copy and paste from the September 11, 2001 attacks article which was created by those who failed to gain concensus for their changes in the main article and is therefore a POV fork.--MONGO 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep The debate isn't over, neither side has concensus, and this page is to create a proposed version that's less POV, not a POV fork. Right now an RFM has ben filed but I'm wondering if it will go through, especially due to past comments by mongo, like saying mediation won't help fix the article.--Acebrock 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This appears to be a work in progress. Zetawoof 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is in the talk namespace and the need for this page arose from a small, but tenacious group of disruptive editors and administrators who refuse to allow the majority of editors to add any balance to the article. This page allows the majority of dissenting editors a place to discuss and draft a version of the article that conforms with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy wihtout the disruptions from these editors. --Cplot 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cplot has been blocked for two 3RR violations on the September 11, 2001 attacks article in less than three days, and had made three reverts to the related Steven E. Jones article and was only saved from probably going over 3RR on that article by my protection of the page on his preferred version. If you can't POV push conspiracy theory nonsense into regular article space, you don't go and try and work on a rewrite outside of that article. The conspiracy theories have an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories and there is a short summary of their nonsense and a link to that article from the main article. You're most definitely not in the majority.--MONGO 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, you know full well that the disciplinary actions taken against me are part of a vindictive approach, by a small group of relentless editors, to punish editors they disagree with. The admin who blocked me was involved in these debates and so did so inappropriately. This is not a POV push, this redraft is to make the article comply with NPOV policy All civil editors are invited to join intio the discussion and redraft. My position is that the conspiracy theories have no place in the article or even to have their own artilce. They're not notable enough around 9/11 attacks. Finally, I was the one who requested the protection on the Steven Jones article to avoid a potentially libelous editor to the article. --Cplot 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you violate 3RR you get blocked...that is policy. I protected the Steven JOnes article before I saw you had requested for the protection, but after i saw yu had, I notated there that it was protected. You added a long list of well known CT books to this fork on this edit , so not sure what you mean when you claim that conspiracy theories don't belong when you add links to books about them. I am trying to assume you have good intentions, but what you need to do is discuss in as brief a format as possible, what changes are necessary to get the real article to be NPOV. If the person who blocked you has abused their admin tools, it should be reported to AN/I.--MONGO 22:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork which would break edit history if it ever succeeded. --StuffOfInterest 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

comment the draft has it's own history and the intention is to incorporate portions back into the article so it will then be a part of the eidtor history of the main article

• Delete There is no consensus on the 9/11 article to give undue weight to conspiracy theories, as this fork is attempting to do. --Aude (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

comment: Aude, I think you meant keep. This version gets rid of the conspiracy theory section. --67.37.179.61 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) — 67.37.179.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Tom Harrison 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The creators of the article have made no effort at a relevant discussion of issues on the actual article. There has been no RFC and I understand an RFM on the original article has been filed. Let's work within the usual wiki guidelines. --PTR 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My RFC is still listed. apparently you didn't look hard enough
• Delete as nominated and per Aude. I am surprised this was allowed to exist in the first place. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: POV fork, rewrite inappropriate while waiting for resolution of the NPOV violation allegations. Peter Grey 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very bad POV fork that has no consensus and is a circumvention of achieving consensus. --Tbeatty 23:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename The claim of 'NPOV' may offend some. Rename to 'alternate version' or similar, and make sure page is linked to from the talk page, and it can act as a helpful space available to all editors seeking a better acticle. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pointless POV fork. The goal is to "present other analyses of the attacks along side the Bush Administrations analysis"... not-so-subtle way of saying "put conspiracy cruft here". Opabinia regalis 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork that is never going to help improve the article. Kusma (討論) 09:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. Unnecessary drama. Weregerbil 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - There is no good reason to have something that is clearly a POV fork exist. And creating a separate page to try to bypass the 3 revert rule looks suspiciously like trying to game the system. Badbilltucker 15:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. By "bypass the 3 revert rule" I guess you mean having a page to edit with some compositional room to commit and commit again without being hounded by a small group of tenacious editors malicsiouly reverting every edit made (no matter it's merit)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplot (talk • contribs)

Response - no and the above statement clearly and repeatedly violates wikipedia policy of assuming good faith, particularly in a case when the user has already been banned from the page in question, in addition to going unsigned. In the event that such a situation were to ever develop, just about every computer in existence has a program which would allow a person to write a proposal on it and then propose revisions on the talk page, even if he had been already banned from the page. Badbilltucker 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per others.__Seadog 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as attempt to circumvent process. —Doug Bell  22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I compared the two versions and it looks like the main differences were semantics. The forked version doesn't call the hijackers terrorists. The victims were killed, not murdered. Instead of the US determining the names of the hijackers, the US initially suspected the names of the hijackers. Instad of Osama initially denying then admitting the bombing, Osama is quoted only as vehemently denying the bombing. In principle, I don't mind article workshop areas. But the thing is, the fork really seems like it is more geared towards being a terrorist-friendly version of the article, not a neutral version at all. It is not a POV statement to call a terrorist a terrorist. It is not a POV statement to say that a murder victim was murdered. Thus, delete as a POV fork. BigDT 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete admitted POV fork "...return later when their guard may be down" This has all gone sideways a bit but this won't help. Rx StrangeLove 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Userify Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change; if they want to have this version around to argue for, it should be less disruptive than having the same faction editing the article to make the same points. But if there is consensus against it now, it should be out of mainspace. Septentrionalis 18:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugh, this is a bad idea. We don't want to have parallel POV forks of articles maintained in user space, and we certainly don't want to establish this as a precedent. I think it must either live or die in article space. —Doug Bell  18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Do editors widely believe that this is either new or avoidable? Forks in user spaces are positively customary, especially with controversial articles. Septentrionalis 18:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Forks for the purpose of creating a usable revision, not forks for the purpose of an article indefinitely living in user space in order to avoid issues that would not be tolerated in an article. —Doug Bell  18:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Kind of like a parallel but POV universe? Good point. And you know, Google hits our stuff constantly. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep This is a rewrite. There is no consensus on these pages, as any user can see here: Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence Travb (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and rename it. There is no reason to delete a rewrite, and it can be done on a users talk page and then pasted into the article, not moved, when its ready. I asked this editor to give me an idea of what they had in mind when they said the article was POV, what they wanted to add, what they felt needed changing, this is their attempt to do that. I say move it to userspace so they can continue their work. --NuclearZer0 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, either where it is or in userspace. Letting them work on a draft, then submit the draft to their opposition, then discuss the two options and merge them might help prevent disruption and edit warring, and in the end generate a better article. ~ ONUnicorn 16:38, 1 December 2006 (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 miscellany 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 no consensus, 16 delete, 14 keep with 7 suggestions to transwiki and 3 suggestions to move. I must say that transwiki or moving this into the Sandbox would be the best idea here as this does not belong on Misplaced Pages, even in a user page. Personally, I think this issue merits further discussion, and a no consensus result is not an endorsement by any means. Please do not use a no consensus result as an argument to keep in the future. —Cuiviénen 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:AtionSong/World's Longest Poem (second nomination)

Also see the first nomination.

See similar MfD Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Once upon a time... and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Once upon a time... from 18 months ago.

• Delete. I renominate this page for deletion because I believe its violation of existing policies is rather egregious and was not given adequate coverage during its last nomination. Specifically, I cite the following:
  • The WP:NOT policy states, "Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published." Point two of that subsection specifically forbids "original inventions"; point three forbids "ersonal essays or logs" (cite).
  • Later, that policy also states "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" (cite).
  • That policy also states "our user page is not yours. It is a part of Misplaced Pages, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion" (cite).
  • The WP:USER guideline states, "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Misplaced Pages," and then goes on to state unrelated content includes:
    • "xtensive discussion not related to Misplaced Pages"
    • "ther non-encyclopedic material"
    • "ames, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia'"
    • "ommunications with people uninvolved with the project or related work"
• Because of the violation of the above policies and established guidelines, I strongly urge this article user subpage's deletion. — Whedonette (ping) 19:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Addition: Some rudimentary calculations outlined in a comment below indicates that the article up for MfD has the ability to consume, if carried to completion, approximately five (continuous, 24/7) months' worth of editing that could instead be devoted towards what Misplaced Pages is truly supposed to be about: building an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I withdraw this nomination. — Whedonette (ping) 16:42, 1 December 2006 (CST)
    • Clarification: I have withdrawn this nomination — reasons stated here. However, precedent is evidently unclear as to whether after a discussion has progressed at such length, the nominator's withdrawal closes the discussion. Policy village pump discussion here, Google search here. I withdraw the nomination and my active participation in this discussion but leave others to take whatever actions they see fit, with malice towards none. — Whedonette (ping) 00:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Withdrawing a nomination ends the discussion only when nobody else reccommends deletion, which is not the case here. -Amarkov _edits 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It is interesting to note that the nomination was withdrawn when several people became concerned about Whedonette's very low edit ocunt in the article namespace for someone so anti-stuff that prevents people editing, especially considering her in depth knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm really getting sick and tired of the ad hominem attacks and innuendo regarding Whedonette. If you want to make a claim of sockpuppetry as you have, that's fine, but until you have something more substantial to back up your position, your continued reference to this and assumption of bad faith for Whedonette's actions amounts to a personal attack. Please stop now. —Doug Bell  12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Indeed The point has been made and is probably not germaine. Let's move on.16:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Per User:Elkman below, "Supposedly, this poem would take up to 3,715 hours to complete ... There appears to be a concern about editor productivity being lost to this poem ... If spending a few minutes per day to add to a pointlessly long poem is a waste of time, how much more of a waste of time is it for someone to leave the computer for a weekend and do something other than Misplaced Pages editing?" Yuser31415 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages has no policy against editors taking time off to do whatever they like. Obviously. It does have policies about what its own resources can be used for, as quoted in the original nomination. — Whedonette (ping) 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So you've killed your own argument that Wikipedians are "wasting their time on a doomed project". You've just stated Wikipedians can do whatever they like with their time, which is true. Your only argument left is that the page violates policy. Yuser31415 01:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The straw man argument you and Elkman are mounting attempts to link time spent doing things external to Misplaced Pages with time spent writing the poem. The flaw in that is that time spent writing the poem is not being taken from time that would have otherwise been spent outside of Misplaced Pages, doing scuba diving and such; the time spent writing the poem is being taken from time that would have otherwise been spent doing things on Misplaced Pages, such as contributing to article namespace, that would have had a beneficial effect towards the goal of writing an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 01:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - please remember WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. It is also good ettiquette to notify the user in question on their talk page. Thank you. Yuser31415 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The WP:IAR policy you linked to states, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them." I very obviously don't think that this page improves or maintains Misplaced Pages. The snowball clause you linked to states, "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." I don't think this applies here; the former discussion arrived at no consensus. Finally, I will notify the user in question now. Thanks. — Whedonette (ping) 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Please realize that just because everything in policy says this page should go, it is not deterring any users from editing. In fact this MfD is taking up people's time more than the poem. If people don't like the poem, they don't need to have anything to do with it. It is not being disruptive, it is merely a Misplaced Pages user's collaborative project. However, I do think it would be better off in a subpage of the Sandbox - for example, "Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/World's longest poem". Yuser31415 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • In fact this MfD is taking up people's time more than the poem. Looking at the talk page, the truth of that statement is rather doubtful. Plus, here's some idle calculations. The page states 5,974 words in 701 lines. That's an average of 8.52 words per line. Divide that by your goal of 1.9 million, and you have 222,949 lines to write. Let's say a minute per line — a conservative estimate given time to come up with the line and then the time spent to edit it. That's 222,949 minutes = 3,715 hours = 154 days = 5 months. So we're talking an extremely conservative estimate of 5 continuous months of editing, with no stop for sleep or food, of editing time spent to create this project. Even dividing the manpower among, say, five editors yields a continuous month's worth of five editors' editing lost to a nonsense project. — Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Strong keep - while this 'poem' clearly doesn't benefit the encyclopedia, it doesn't hurt it either. Per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW I suggest putting this page into a subpage of the Sandbox. Yuser31415 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, I'm not really sure this user understands the purposes of either WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, or, for that matter, what the purpose of the Sandbox is supposed to be. I'd merely ask the reviewing admin to take that into account when examining said user's vote (yes, I know MfD isn't a vote). — Whedonette (ping) 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please do not make personal attacks. You are insulting my judgement of how I understand the two policies. Thank you. Yuser31415 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I suggest you read up on what things Misplaced Pages policy explicitly states are not personal attacks. — Whedonette (ping) 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons I nominated this the first time. I think it was a flawed decision to have kept it the first time (not the closing admin's, but rather the majority of the keep !votes rationale), although I think it would have been preferrable to wait a little longer before renominating it. --Doug Bell  21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Interesting, perhaps, but not of any encyclopedic value. I'd also like to echo some of the above comments in saying that I can't see how WP:IAR or WP:SNOW relate to this issue.--Fyre2387 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Alright, once again, I am biased, because this is my project, but may I direct your attention to Misplaced Pages:Department of Fun, please. This is no different than any of those pages, except I created it as a user subpage instead of a project page (although, I would note, some pages are also user subpages 1, 2). This page is no different than any of those. If it's the userpage thing that's bothering people, then this can be moved to a project page like the other Department of Fun pages. Why is this any different than the other Department of Fun pages? -AtionSong 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly support, and strenuously argue in favor of, an MfD attempting to delete Misplaced Pages:Department of Fun, because it has the precise same problems as this does. But it doesn't follow to say "hey, Article X violates all these policies, so Article Y should be allowed to, too!". — Whedonette (ping) 23:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But there's a difference between voting to take down a wall and voting to take out a brick. -AtionSong 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • But a wall does not come down without the removal of bricks. — Whedonette (ping) 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • A wall does not come down without a public outcry. Yuser31415 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • And pigeons perch on a wall and go "coo coo coo." Exactly how far do you want to go with this metaphor? In the above analogy, the brick would be the poem, and the wall would be the entire Department of Fun. Whether the entire Department of Fun would come down with or without a public outcry is really not a question being discussed on this page. — Whedonette (ping) 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The argument I'm about to give holds no water usually, but for user subpages, it is appropriate. Is it hurting anything? -Amarkov _edits 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is hurting anything. Look at the amount of people involved in it, and how deeply they're involved in it. This is not an idle endeavour for these editors. — Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not hurting anything. You argue that it ties up valuable editors and editing time; I counter, ho w do you know any editors at all would go the the articles if this page is deleted? It is more likely, in my opinion, that they would go to other Dept. of Fun projects or off WP altogether. If there is no fun to be had on WP, then the edit counts would drop dramatically from editors leaving. Alethiophile2₃ 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If an editor doesn't enjoy the work associated with writing on any one of the sheer universe of topics that the 1.5 million articles in Misplaced Pages articlespace cover, and thus derives a sense of fun only out of contributing to Department of Fun projects, then I daresay Misplaced Pages is not the most optimal environment from which they can be deriving their fun. In any case, if an editor active in the poem goes to another Department of Fun project, it will hopefully be one much more finite in length, without quite so much potential for becoming such a massive sink of manpower. If an editor active in the poem leaves Misplaced Pages altogether, that is his or her decision, of course, but such a decision would reflect on the departing editor's sense of priorities. If a 1.9-million-word poem was the most important thing to them on Misplaced Pages, then, again, in such a case Misplaced Pages might not have been the most optimal environment from which said departing editor could have been deriving their fun. — Whedonette (ping) 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well-argued nomination. I fail to see how this is anything other than entertainment and how this is related to Misplaced Pages. To Amarkov, a page exclusively for non-Misplaced Pages related conversation "doesn't hurt" either, but well we have had one such page deleted not too long ago. Kimchi.sg 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't in userspace either. I do realize that WP:NOT supports deleting this. -Amarkov _edits 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The deletion of this page seems to be more contested than that of the Esperanza coffee lounge, which was not contested at all. Yuser31415 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason I pointed out the Coffee lounge MfD is that IMO these pages are being used for similar purposes - text unrelated to Misplaced Pages. The fact one is contested and the other not doesn't matter. Kimchi.sg 03:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - I'm put off by the fact it was relisted again in a matter of weeks. If this result is keep, will you relsit it again? And again? And again after that too? The tribe has spoken, let it be for a while. So I was going to vote delete, but because the nominator's sheer despise for this page forces him to relist it only a few weeks later, I'm hesistant to vote in favour of deletion. This I feel, is an abuse of the proccess - simply relist it again & again if you don't get your way. This page isn't really hurting anything. Spawn Man 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi SpawnMan, I just wanted to point out to you that Whedonette is a she (not him) :). Yuser31415 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • My apologies monsieur! (Hopefully that means miss in Arabic!) Spawn Man 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Not to mention that I'm not the one who originally nominated it. — Whedonette (ping) 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki, such a project, if formulated right, could be transformed into a poetry learning project over at wikiversity. I'm always on the lookout to see if I can find stuff like this to move over.--Rayc 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikiversity. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Yuser31415 Yao Ziyuan 13:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, see, the problem with this is that neither you nor Yuser31415 have actually provided supportive policy for your keep votes, and MfDs aren't a strict up-or-down numerical vote. Neither WP:IAR nor WP:SNOW actually provide any support for the keep position. — Whedonette (ping) 16:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No policy says it should stay there. Your arguments, I believe, are correct. However, policy is not everything. A policy is a guideline, and policies like WP:USER are reasonably flexible. You've already had an ANI for overciting policy. Sure, the page is in the wrong place, but that doesn't mean it should go. I think it would be better either moved to Wikiversity, or moved to a subpage of the Sandbox, like several other similiar projects. The page I would suggest would be Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/World's longest poem. How about it, folks? Yuser31415 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • A policy is not a guideline. Although WP:USER is a guideline (an "actionable" page "authorized by consensus" that can be "treated with ... the occasional exception"), the policies quoted above are "less likely to have exceptions," and rarely do, and they forbid this kind of user subpage. As for bringing up the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, an ad hominem argument doesn't support your case any. — Whedonette (ping) 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Rayc. This does not belong on Misplaced Pages, even in the userspace. That said, I'd hate to see the work be deleted outright.--Isotope23 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unlike Esperanza, this is kept in userspace, promotes harmonious editing and collaboration, and creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute. If someone wants to delete the Department of Fun, I'd vote delete, but you'll ahve a problem given Jimbo's a member... 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk * contribs) .
  • Kindly back up the rather pleasantly phrased sound bites of "promotes harmonious editing and collaboration" and "creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute" with proof as to same. And, for that matter, I have yet to hear one person's defense as to how said page isn't a massively flagrant violation of multiple Misplaced Pages policies ... aside from the WP:IAR catchall, which really doesn't apply as this isn't a project whose intent is to improve Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Why don't you back off and chill out? Where the hell were you when Esperanza was being MfDed? I am totally for deleting all and any unnecessary Wikipedian projects, including Esperanza, Concordia, and the Department of Fun, but I fail to see how a collaborative project merits deletion. You have to both use good editing skills and prose composition to create a line, and you have to work together with other editors to make it a decent poem. I do not see how this detracts from editing the encyclopedia. In addition, the poem is sortof about Wikipedian history, so it not only teaches new editors what has already happened here, but it creates community. Editing community cohesion is good. You need to severely calm down. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Why don't you back off and chill out? Where the hell ... I can definitely see now how it promotes harmonious editing! :-) — Whedonette (ping) 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Whoa now, I'm not sure Whedonette is the one needing to chill out here. Whedonette asked a perfectly reasonable question regarding the issue and I don't think you needed to bite her head off for asking. As to your claims that good editing skills and prose are required to create a line in the poem...well, that seems a bit of a stretch, especially as a rationale to keep the poem. I think ability to write a poem is not particularly relevant to creating good encyclopedic articles and that any editing skills necessary are better honed contributing, but YMMV. --Doug Bell  17:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I consider aggressively demanding "Kindly back up the rather pleasantly phrased sound bites" of someone who had made a single comment overly hyped up. I have never edited the poem, and do not intend to, but I have no problem with other people doing so, and do not understand why Whedonette has taken such a harsh dislike to it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, here's the problem: you tell us that the poem "promotes harmonious editing and collaboration" and "creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute." To me, those are pleasantly phrased sound bites. Until you began blasting at me, after the "what the hell" stuff, that "ou have to both use good editing skills and prose composition to create a line" and "you have to work together with other editors to make it a decent poem," all that we were given in support of your keep vote were rather prettily phrased nouns and verbs. And although a porn actress knows how to assume the role of a character and how to be aware of where the camera is, I wouldn't call her ready to play Ophelia in Hamlet. Similarly, the supposedly "good editing skills" and "prose composition" 'skills' required to write a goofy limerick aren't very translatable to writing Misplaced Pages articles (and, BTW, prose != poetry — "literary medium distinguished from poetry" ). That was a weak argument ... at best. — Whedonette (ping) 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
            • My vote stands. Harrassing me isn't going to change it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
              • My intention was never to change your vote; that obviously wasn't going to happen. Merely to point out the flaws in your reasoning and statements for when the closing admin reviews this document. And if you find differing viewpoints and critical analysis of your opinion to be "harrassing," you are in a strange locale. "Halp! Halp! I'm being harrassed!" — Whedonette (ping) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Look Whedonette, that's not the point. Apart from policy, why do you feel the page should be deleted? If you don't like it, don't go near it. If someone wants to spend their time on a harmless project, let them. What do you have against these people or their project? It's just a Department of Fun poem, and surely one poem isn't going to hurt 1,506,611 whole Misplaced Pages articles? It's peoples' choice. If they wish to spend their time on this, then let them do so, although if it could be changed to become more educational that would be great. Yuser31415 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Apart from policy? Policy is the cornerstone of this encyclopedic work. Process and policy (and guidelines) prevent this place from becoming chaos.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Policy isn't something that should be set aside in this argument. To illustrate by exaggeration: "Listen, aside from the fact that I ax-murdered your husband, what do you have against me?" The core issue is policy. But to answer your question nonetheless, essentially, I believe that the page should be deleted for the feelings and reasonings that originally, presumably, inspired the policies and guidelines cited: the overriding purpose of this website is to build an encyclopedia, and things that subtract, slow down, and take away from that purpose do not have a place here. This poem is a frivolous and yet very huge energy suck, and, as the calculations show, would conservatively take a good 3,715 manhours of editing. That makes this project quite different than games of chess or checkers which were, in and of themselves, deleted when Esperanza's Coffee Lounge was. If those were considered timewasters and deleted, this meets that same standard of timewasting and multiplies it by a factor of a few thousand. Further, since the "people" do not own the Wikimedia servers, it is not the "people"'s choice — it is the Wikimedia Foundation's choice, as outlined in the policies and guidelines formulated by those who actually wish to compose an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki somewhere, no idea where. It would be a shame to lose the info here, but it isn't relevant to Misplaced Pages. --ais523 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - or maybe send to Wikia?. WP:NOT a place for social networking. Silly and distracting. Moreschi 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Moreschi! Could you give me an example of how it's destracting? Cheers! Yuser31415 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be far better if editors spent their writing talents actually improving the encyclopaedia for a change, rather than time-wasting on this nonsense. Quite apart from the multitude of policies this thing violates. Moreschi 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree, but just deleting a page is not going to stop them from wasting time. All it's going to do is induce bitterness on the part of the editors who've spent such a long time on it. Nobody would sign up if we said they had to have a fixed template on their page that didn't violate any policies. To an extent, a user subpage is a user page and people can put what they like on it, as long as they don't get excessive. Yuser31415 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • If they wish to waste their time, they can do so on an external website - just not on Misplaced Pages, where it distracts other users from editing the encyclopaedia. And no, actually, per WP:USER you can't put basically whatever you like in your userspace. There are rules and they should be respected. What is more, I think I have stated my views on this at quite an adequate length, and I'm afraid I have better things to do with my life than bicker all day and night at this MfD - like actually write some articles! Moreschi 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • a user subpage is a user page and people can put what they like on it, as long as they don't get excessive. Here's the problem with that statement: you don't own your userpage. That's outlined both by policy and guideline (which I cited in my second nomination). Therefore, no, people can't put what they like on it. And, seperately, if you don't consider a 1.9-million-word poem "excessive," I marvel to wonder what the scope of something you might find excessive would be. — Whedonette (ping) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • A 1.9 million word poem is excessive, but it shows no sign of getting that large. Yuser31415 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
            • So you find the page's stated goal to be excessive, and furthermore believe that the editors will not reach their stated goal. Illuminating. — Whedonette (ping) 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
              • So if the editors wish to waste their time on an already doomed project, why not let them? Yuser31415 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Because (a) that's not what Misplaced Pages or its resources are for; (b) it's not a useful project, it's frivolous and useless entertainment that won't even — as you admit — succeed at its intended purpose; and (c) they could be contributing manhours towards articles and useful environments that have little or no chance of being "doomed." — Whedonette (ping) 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • • B. and C. are irrelevant as they apply to the editors in question; A. is the most important. May I alert you to Misplaced Pages:Don't_worry_about_performance. I do think it should be in a subpage of the sandbox, but nobody seems to be listening. Why should this page be nominated for deletion when the Department of Fun isn't? That seems silly to me. And the Department of Fun is an established group, as far as I know. Yuser31415 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • With regards to your counterargument to point (a), your cite of the intended page does not support your cause, as the page's stated caveat starts off by saying, "When making some improvement to Misplaced Pages's content ... " This is very obviously not an improvement of Misplaced Pages's content. Therefore, point (a) stands. With regards to your dismissal of (b) and (c) as irrelevant, you write off the very underlying arguments of the policies and guidelines that were cited above and forbid such entertainment-only subpages as the poem in question. Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost. It is not a place for social networking. It is not a place to do fun little entertaining projects. It is an online encyclopedia. Free webhosts, social networking, and fun little entertaining projects are, in and of themselves, not unworthy things; they deserve homes. This is not the place for same. — Whedonette (ping) 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well detailed nomination; this page is a failure of WP:NOT and WP:USER--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the nomination and WP:USER and WP:NOT#USER. Barno 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the page in question could be moved to a subpage of the Sandbox, ie. Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/World's longest poem. Yuser31415 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Even stripping away the userpage-specific policy cites from the nomination above, Misplaced Pages is "not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published," nor is it a place for "original inventions," no matter where same is housed. "Misplaced Pages is not a free wiki host for you to use for your own purposes. It's an encyclopedia. Our primary goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not to provide free web hosting to people. Even if your article isn't taking up much space, you are still misusing Misplaced Pages and preventing it from becoming a usable encyclopedia." And the Sandbox "is a Misplaced Pages namespace page designed for testing and experimentation with the Wiki syntax" — not as a catch-all for anything forbidden elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. — Whedonette (ping) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, it is in userspace and it doesn't hurt to keep it.__Seadog 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (Changed to Delete)
  • ... despite the Misplaced Pages userpage policies which explicitly say otherwise ... — Whedonette (ping) 22:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's getting kinda annoying. I think by now we get that the policies are against it... -Amarkov _edits 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The Department of Fun has been around for over two years on Misplaced Pages. It is basically a collection of things that "simply take up space, have no encyclopedic value, and take away the time of editors from doing other things" (arguments previously stated in the thread). So far, in two years, nobody has thought that it posed a threatening problem to the Misplaced Pages community. If it's the user subpage thing that's bothering people, I would be happy to move in to a project page at Misplaced Pages:World's Longest Poem, just like all the other projects in the Department of Fun. -AtionSong 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (a) I think they'd frown on such a proposed move: "The project namespace (prefix Misplaced Pages:, also called the Misplaced Pages namespace) is a namespace that provides information about Misplaced Pages or its sister projects and how to use them." (b) It is a tu quoque logical fallacy, and thus not a valid defense, to state, "Article X, which commits Error A, is allowed to continue; therefore all articles that exhibit Error A should be allowed to continue." (c) This is not about the merits of Misplaced Pages:Department of Fun; it is about the merits of the World's Longest Poem. Perhaps one day someone will nominate the Department of Fun for deletion, and in such a vote, I would both cast my vote for, and strenuously argue for, its deletion. I would not nominate it for deletion, for the simple fact that there are wikipolitical implications to nominating such a largescale target. — Whedonette (ping) 00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You do make a good point, so I nominated Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Once upon a time... also. --Doug Bell  10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Obviously delete a project whose explicit goal is to produce 1.9 million words of nonsense. Opabinia regalis 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. When the community considers a page for deletion, the decision is made by policy. As such, from WP:USER (the section regarding "What can I not have on my user page?"), I quote: Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia." Srose (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, just like to add that the transwiki option is still on the table. I hope in the future colaberative projects can be moved over to wikiversity without a deletion debate, just like dic defs or books.--Rayc 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree that the Department of Fun has not been put up at MfD.

Yet. Moreschi 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep a)You never give up, do you? That's not a compliment. We just did this a few weeks ago. I voted Keep then, and now I'm doing the same. b)This is not a meaningful MfD. We did this a few weeks ago and received no consensus. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that it will produce any different result. c)WP:IAR states that if a rule is preventing improvement to WP, we should ignore it. d)Your main argument seems to be that it distracts from other editors' time editing articles. Per my comments above, which I will repeat for those who are too lazy to scroll up, we don't know that deleting this will get any editors onto article space. I contribute to articles on a regular basis, ditto with the poem, and I don't find them mutually exclusive, which leads me into e)There is no proof that this is distracting anyone anyway. Alethiophile2₃ 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure which "you" you are referring to. I just wanted to point out that WP:IAR has nothing to do with deleting rules. It has to do with ignoring rules, and not frivolously, but rather when there is a need to ignore rules. I haven't seen any claim here on this page of a need to ignore the rules. --Doug Bell  20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The "delete" was a mistake. I meant to type "ignore". Alethiophile2₃ 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this commentary was directed to me, so I would make the following observations in response to your vote. (a) I note that I am not the individual who nominated this the first time. That would be Mr. Bell. This being my first attempt, this isn't a question of "never giving up." Furthermore, I would request that you not insult your fellow editors and make your arguments civilly. (b) The closing administrator, when making a decision, should assess consensus not in a straight up-or-down count but based on the weight of the arguments presented on each side. In my own opinion, those believing the article should be kept have not been able to cite policy to support their views, whereas there is an overwhelming amount of policy supporting the position of deleting this article. (c) Indeed, WP:IAR states, specifically, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them." I do not think an argument can effectively be made that contributions to a 1.9-million-word poem composed of utter nonsense in any way improves Misplaced Pages or assists in maintaining it. Therefore, I don't believe WP:IAR assists your argument. (d) I replied to this where you laid out your argument above. (e) Proof that it distracts editors is not required (and, indeed, given that one cannot read minds, is an unfair burden to require) — the proof that it violates multiple Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is already present. — Whedonette (ping) 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Again: WP:IAR. I am not referring to users whose only priority on WP is this poem; I am referring to users--like me--who are under a substantial amount of stress and would probably leave if they didn't have at least one way to simply have fun. Misplaced Pages, or another wiki, is the only way that a project such as this could be carried out. Free wikis such as PBWiki are not a good option--they are significantly disadvantaged in usability. Therefore, this page must be on wikipedia for it to have any real meaning. And anyway, your main arguments are thus:
      1. It violates policy, and;
      2. It distracts editors.
    • WP:IAR takes care of the first point; my already-stated arguments take care of the second. In my view, you don't have a case. Also, I'm sorry I was uncivil about "never giving up"; that was mean-spirited. My arguments stand, however. Alethiophile2₃ 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't agree with any of the premises in your statement: I do not believe that this poem improves Misplaced Pages or assists in its maintenance, and therefore, WP:IAR would not be an acceptable argument in defense of keeping it. Additionally, I do not believe that Misplaced Pages is the only acceptable venue in which this poem can be constructed. Finally, I am sincerely sorry that you find yourself under a substantial amount of stress. However, Misplaced Pages as an institution should not be responsible for providing for the relief of its editors' stress, given that there are a plethora of venues and ways in which an editor can relax themselves, whether it is reading a book, watching a television show, playing an online game, engaging in a sport, or what have you. — Whedonette (ping) 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Random section break 1

• Comment: Whedonette's contributions show nothing but two months of nominating various items for MfD - aside from wondering why this champion of the Wiki never actually edits in the article namespace herself, I cannot help but wonder where this phenomenal grasp of Wikipolicy came from, given this person signed up and immediately leapt in Mfding? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, and thus offers no real defense as to the topic currently being discussed. Attacking the person instead of the argument is what's soured a lot of people on politics; I find it equally as distasteful here. — Whedonette (ping) 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I find it distasteful that you insist on arguing with every person who has voted keep, but whatever. I find it somewhat interesting that you decided to sneer at my comment rather than deny my implicit accusation of sockpuppetry. I'm going to see if tehre are any blocked users known for deletionism. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I was asked that question directly by another person on my talk page, and answered it there. I honestly don't think it's relevant to this discussion — or, for that matter, that I should be indulging your discourtesy — but, no, this is the only name I edit Misplaced Pages under. But a sockpuppet would say the precise same thing, so there's no real way to satisfactorily answer that charge, is there? No one would ever say, "Yes, I'm a sockpuppet." So a "no" answer can either be treated with belief or disbelief. — Whedonette (ping) 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to say that an ad hominem attack here is only going to undermine the strength of your other statements. Please be civil and stay focused on the subject of this page. --Doug Bell  22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not arguing here. I am expressing concern that this apparent all-knowing deletionist hasn't any real edits. If that's an ad hominem attack then you're a mushroom. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Please remain calm and do not make personal attacks (calling other a mushroom). Doug, Dev has a point. If Whedonette has gained her knowledge of policies by editing under a sockpuppet account before creating this one, sockpuppet vote stacking is serious offense. Yuser31415 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Given that the mushroom accusation was brought with the conditional of me making a personal attack, and I was not making a personal attack, I wasn't actually calling Doug a mushroom. However, I have gone further into Whedonette's background and she has 109 edits, three of which are in the main namespace and 65 of which are nominating and defending MfDs. There's something funny going on here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
          • See . Yuser31415 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
            • This is pointless road to head down. An anonymous IP can nominate an article for deletion, and that doesn't undermine the merits that such a deletion may have. Please stay focused on the discussion here, otherwise I might assume that you are implying that my previous nomination was funny also. --Doug Bell  01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
              • "This is pointless road to head down." That depends on whether this continues as simply a discussion on the merits of Whedonette or whether there is the possibility of sock puppeting going on. -AtionSong 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
                • If there is a legitimate suspicion of sockpuppetry then it would be best to confront that head on, as Yuser31415 did, otherwise I suggest that continuing with innuendo would be bad faith and possible incivility. Since nobody has said who the suspected sockpuppeteer is, I'm not sure I understand your point. If you suspect actual sockpuppetry, then may I suggest you take it to WP:SSP. --Doug Bell  02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
                • (edit conflict) — "on the merits of Whedonette or whether there is the possibility of sock puppeting going on". What a delightfully revealing Freudian slip — evidently in Ationsong's mind, it's either a discussion about me ... or a discussion about me! — Whedonette (ping) 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • "...evidently in Ationsong's mind, it's either a discussion about me ... or a discussion about me!" That's not what I was trying to say at all. I agree that yes, there is no point in arguing on the merits of an articles nominator whatsoever, unless there is suspicion that they are a sockpuppet, which I was not accusing you of. The comment was not directed at you, it was directed at the discussion. -AtionSong 02:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Stopping your not-so-gentle sarcasm might encourage others to be civil. I have never said you were a sockpuppet. Would you like a Misplaced Pages:Checkuser to be carried out to remove all suspicion? Yuser31415 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • *gentle smile* So in the midst of multiple ad hominem attacks, the civility or incivility of those making those attacks is now somehow my responsibility? My appreciation of the surreal and absurd is helping me deal with this in good humor. An editor's choice of whether to adopt a civil tone is theirs and theirs alone, Yuser. As for sockpuppet allegations, that was indeed just a typo — your mention of sockpuppetry came in the form of an interrogatory, not a declaration. As for bringing up this Checkuser thing, that presupposes (a) my guilt and (b) the idea that the allegations are relevant to this discussion. As I agree to neither of these suppositions, I would not initiate nor assent to such a request — although it appears to me that you need neither my assent nor my initiation. Plus, who am I supposed to be a sock puppet of? — Whedonette (ping) 02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Ad hominem is, quite simply, attacking the person instead of the argument he or she is putting forth. That's precisely what you're doing. — Whedonette, the sneering all-knowing deletionist, who of course might be mistaken about the personal attack thing (ping) 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Now you're being sarcastic again. Although you seem to have a problem with Dev making alleged personal attacks against you, you obviously have no problem with certain ad hominem attacks made against me BY DELETIONISTS responding to my Keep votes in prominent MfDs:

          Furthermore, Alethiophile, and you should know this,

          I suggest you reconsider your priorities

          Alethiophile2₃ 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
          • First, I'm not going to take people to task for arguing for the same position I am. Second, if you employ ad hominem attacks, you are not in a good position to complain about receiving them. — Whedonette (ping) 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

            I have not employed any ad hominem attacks. You are trying to categorize everyone who disagrees with your position as someone who uses ad hominem attacks, and thus, by implication, someone who cannot back up their argument by any other means. Furthermore, it is completely reasonable to investigate the person who is nominating anything, including RfA, MfD, AfD, RfC and anything else. If there is a suspicion that the nominator is either not working in good faith or is not experienced enough in actual article space edits to know what is worth deleting, doubly so--and if there is suspicion that the nominator is a sockpuppet of something, triply so. I am not making any accusations, I am simply defending the idea that people need investigating, as well as pages. Alethiophile2₃ 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: For those arguing that the poem is a waste of server space, this page is now larger than the poem itself, making the nomination for deletion more of a strain on the server than the article. -AtionSong 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Then we better delete it quick so we don't have to go through this again. :-) Actually, the issue is not space, it is on drawing a line on which activities belong here and which don't. This discuss here will not only decide the fate of this page, but also serves as a forum for users to express their views on where the line should be drawn. --Doug Bell  22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This is why I'm arguing that there is a sister project that this would be perfect for. As for the wikilayering, WP:IAR is for things that help the encyclopedia but go against rules, WP:SNOW is for debates that are so one sided, that it's predetermined. --Rayc 00:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Pray tell, why are you lecturing me about WP:IAR and WP:SNOW? I've not invoked those in the argument, or were those comments directed elsewhere? --Doug Bell  00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, Yuser31415, I just got lost in all this talk.--Rayc 01:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment regarding editor productivity: Supposedly, this poem would take up to 3,715 editor-hours (or five editor-months) to complete. There appears to be a concern about editor productivity being lost to this poem. Is there an expected standard of productivity for editors, or some expectation that Misplaced Pages editors put a certain amount of time into editing? As an example, I spent a weekend last month at Wazee Lake near Black River Falls, Wisconsin, doing some scuba diving. Instead of working on articles like Antoine Auguelle, Ard Godfrey or Battle of Birch Coulee, I was instead experiencing problems with buoyancy and blowing O-rings. I lost some 56 hours or so of Misplaced Pages editing time in that weekend, with nothing but an Advanced Open Water Diver certification to show for it. If spending a few minutes per day to add to a pointlessly long poem is a waste of time, how much more of a waste of time is it for someone to leave the computer for a weekend and do something other than Misplaced Pages editing? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there an expected standard of productivity for editors, or some expectation that Misplaced Pages editors put a certain amount of time into editing? No, there's not. Very nice straw man setup. — Whedonette (ping) 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You know, it might help your case if you weren't sarcastic to every single person who says to keep... -Amarkov _edits 02:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, I wasn't voting, per se. I was wondering if there's a standard for productivity for editors, since the subject has come up before. (It came up in the MfD for Esperanza and all its subpages, for example.) Since the argument has come up before, saying "Editors are wasting time on this instead of creating the encyclopedia," I'm looking at this for a test case to determine if we need to quantify how much time editors should spend on Misplaced Pages as a whole, or some sort of time balance between editing articles, editing silly poems, hanging out in a virtual coffee lounge, or arguing over MfDs. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Editor productivity standards? I'm sorry, but are you really serious? -Amarkov _edits 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Transwiki. Poem doesn't really belong on an encyclopedia, but may be a worthy Wiki project elsewhere. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to again lay down the evidence why this page should be kept or transwikied.

Evidence that the World's Longest Poem should be kept

1. In no way does the article harm Misplaced Pages or any other Wikimedia project.
2. The project is in userspace, is active, and nonintrusive.
3. The poem is related to Misplaced Pages, in the form of a poetic history of Misplaced Pages.
4. "If it ain't broke don't fix it." I would translate this to, "If it ain't harming Misplaced Pages don't delete it."

Best regards,

Yuser31415 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or transwiki Irrelevant to building an encyclopedia. JChap2007 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (Relisted comment removed by Amarkov.) I'll pretend I didn't read any of the above aside from Whedonette's opening statement. It was nominated as violating multiple components of WP:NOT and WP:USER. WP:USER is rarely utilized to delete the userpages of members in good standing. Unfortunately, neither the author (AtionSong) nor the nominator (Whedonette) can be classified in the good standing category. Point stands. The citing of WP:USER fits. The citing of WP:NOT is rather tortured. Personally, I think the page is a ridiculous waste of time, that the arguments are spurious to the point of hysterical equine necrobrutality and that Whedonette is almost certainly a sockpuppet or at least a rabblerouser intent on using deletions to make a point....but sadly, Whedonette is correct, and it is completely hypocritical for me to vote anything but delete simply due to my dislike for this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaragirl (talk • contribs)
• Delete Fails WP:USER. If I say anything more I'll say something rude, so I'll just stick to that. riana_dzasta 03:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's nothing wrong with working on a 9000000000???-word poem during your spare time in between editing articles. The poem is a work in progress, and Misplaced Pages might actually become famous on Guinness World Records for making the longest poem!!!--Ed 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to interpret your tone, Ed, are you being sarcastic? Wouldn't you rather Misplaced Pages became well-known for being a good encyclopedia? A few editors working on this have edits primarily to this page. That's a bit worrying, I think. riana_dzasta 04:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not sarcasm. I seriously vote keep. I'm surprised many editors are working on the poem, to tell you the truth. I regarded the project as something to work on when I needed to take a break from an article. (It always helps me to switch my tasks every 30 minutes). Besides, writing a poem can improve your composition.--Ed 04:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for responding politely (that's in short supply on this page). True, it may not be a problem for you and many others, who are able to balance themselves well. But a few seem unable to do so. riana_dzasta 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • =P I've made it a point to emphasize kindness here on Misplaced Pages. (see User:Ed/Kindness). Anyway, if it's for the greater good for the other editors, then I might be inclined to vote delete. But for now, I'm going more Neutral. A lot of interesting points are coming up here.--Ed 04:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki or weak keep as long as the owner has copied it to his computer (if it gets deleted, which it loogs like may happen). —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This page is in violation of a number of policies. Misplaced Pages is here for writing an encyclopedia. This page seems to me to have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. The stress relief argument has never held any water for me. It's not as though when you are editing Misplaced Pages you are unable to access the rest of the internet. It's perfectly easy for an editor to work on an article for a while, get stressed out, go to another website and play some pong, de-stress, and chill, and then come back to Misplaced Pages. WP's focus is broad enough, we need to stay focused on what the goal really is. To write an encyclopedia. Not to do whatever the heck we feel like as long as it's not in article space. Mak (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, violates policies, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, write this elsewhere. Terence Ong 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given by Doug Bell. --MichaelMaggs 07:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Does not help the encyclopedia. And does violate WP:USERPAGE. I think.__Seadog 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've said before, if people are just bugged that this violates Userpage regulations, I'll be happy to move it to a Misplaced Pages project page, just like everything else in the Department of Fun. When I created it, I just was not being very bold, and only created is as a subpage. But I'll be happy to move it to conform to WP standards. -AtionSong 22:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not just move it per WP:BOLD? I personally feel it would have a better chance in a subpage of the Misplaced Pages:Sandbox, but it is up to you. Yuser31415 22:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • AtionSong, hopefully you can understand that there should be some discretion of what can be included under the department of fun, and that that is the point of this MfD, not whether it exists in user space. The user space arguments are primarily being made as reasons why this should be immune from deletion, and thus there are many counter user space arguments to make the case that user space does not afford some overarching protection for these kinds of pages. The same will apply in project space regardless of what umbrella (i.e. the Department of Fun) it is placed under.
      And to Yuser, moving an article under discussion at XfD is considered disruptive. Don't do it. —Doug Bell  22:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The following comment is not intended as an attack or to be sarcastic, it is just a comment: ...that that is the point of this MfD, not whether it exists in user space...The user space argument are primarily being made as reasons why this should be immune from deletion (from directly above) "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia"..."our user page is not yours. It is a part of Misplaced Pages, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion"...The WP:USER guideline states, "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Misplaced Pages," (from the original nomination). Because about half the nomination for deletion that syou wrote was relating to what should not be on a userpage, I respectfully disagree with your comment that this debate is not over the userspace. -AtionSong 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • This is the second time you seem to be making the same mistake in thinking that I wrote this nomination. Here is the nomination I wrote. You'll notice the word "user" does not appear in my nomination. —Doug Bell  01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry about that! My bad. The error is now fixed. However, it still stands, that the argument that this is about userspace policies still stands. -AtionSong 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, not to continue back and forth here until we're indented off the right side of the page, but the nomination starts with a description of WP:NOT: The WP:NOT policy states, "Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published." Point two of that subsection specifically forbids "original inventions"; point three forbids "ersonal essays or logs" (cite). The following discussion of user page policies and guidelines is, as I made the point above, to attack the arguments to keep presented at the first MfD that basically argue that people should be allowed whatever they want to have in user space so long as it's not doing any harm. So I think my point above is still valid. You also didn't address the issue of discretion regarding the department of fun. Is it your view that whatever somebody thinks is fun should be allowed as long as it's not doing any harm? Because this, I think, is the defining separation in the positions of the keep and delete proponents, not the user space vs. project space issue. —Doug Bell  01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't believe that I ever said that this is not doing any harm, and I still won't(talk about double negatives!). I also believe that the points you cited from WP:NOT are irrelivant to this situation. Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. This fact links to the original research page, wich basically says that Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. This does not apply to the article in question. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. I believe that this is just saying that all articles need to be about something that is widely considered as significant, not just something that you and your friends created, and somebody else will not know about (such as the term "frindle", which is from a book of the same name, in which a boy renames a pen a frindle). Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Misplaced Pages is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. The article in question is neither an essay, nor a blog, and shows no opinions on any topic (except perhaps that vandals are bad).

              As for if I believe that discretion should be used in the Department of Fun, the idea of the DoF is to create fun side projects for people to participate in when they're not editing. If there was a rush of people who created a bunch of pages that "think are fun", which proceeded to just sit there, taking up space, then I would object to the Department of Fun. However, this is not the case. Even though it has been around for two years, only about 30 pages exists as pages for the Department of Fun, and over half of them are actively edited. Considering that now over 1,500,000 pages are being hosted on the Misplaced Pages server, 30 pages do not create any extra strain, and removing them will not make it run faster. Secondly, the Department of Fun is not the supposed huge blob of evil that sucks up editors precious editing time. Most of the active pages are edited from every two or three days at the least to five times a day at the most. The DoF is not attempting to compete with the rest of Misplaced Pages, it is attempting to compliment it, and to give the users a stronger sense of community. -AtionSong 13:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

              • Well, I'm not making the page count argument, but your math is a bit off. See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mind Benders—that one page multiplied out to 111. Pretty sure you're not going to put all 1.9 million words on one page. —Doug Bell  14:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
                • I was only using the pagecount to show that the DoF is not an all encompassing blob, slowly eating away at the very lining that is Misplaced Pages. I'm not going to argue about the size of another page. -AtionSong 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I suppose you are correct, however, after this MfD, then is there any policy that specifically says AtionSong may not create it in another namespace? Best wishes, Yuser31415 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • After is fine, unless the conclusion of this is to delete. Then recreating in project space would be circumventing the decision and would be disruptive. —Doug Bell  22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I hope everyone knows that Jimbo Wales is a member of the Department of Fun, of which the World's Longest Poem project belongs to. Thanks. Yuser31415 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the World's "never gonna be" Longest Poem was added long after Jimbo joined, so I don't see any endorsement value here. —Doug Bell  02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - harmless fun is semi-private user namespace is perfectly OK. Zocky | picture popups 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per zocky Editors seem to be acive. If this diversion helps them edit more productively, sounds good to me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree. Yuser31415 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Same here. Writing poems are one of the ways to improve composition.--Ed 03:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • As per above, I wrote: I would like to assert that there is supportive policy for this page. WP:USER specifically states, " The Misplaced Pages community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." Best regards, Yuser31415 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The problem is that many — not all, mind you, but many — of the contributors do not have edit histories showing much contribution at all to articlespace. — Whedonette (ping) 13:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Nor do you, might I add. --Deskana talk 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't see how this hurts the process here at Misplaced Pages or why it has causes such an uproar. If people are really so worried about productive editing, lets stop nominating these kind of things and actually edit articles. Interestingly enough, this discussion is longer (71 kilobytes) than the subpage in question (37 Kilobytes). Keep. -- AuburnPilot 04:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It might be fun to start a page specifically dedicated to the World's Longest MfD discussion. (Then again, MfDs are more contentious than the world's longest poem, and poems usually don't cause hard feelings. So, never mind.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, nothing's going to beat the 200k Esperanza discussion for some time, if ever, so I think you're onto a loser there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Esperanza MfD had it's own WP:SHORTCUT. And the talk page was huge too. --Elaragirl 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. per Auburnpilot. I would also hope that such a keep would change WP culture - by discouraging nominations like this; which have taken more storage than the poem is ever likely to. If it gets above 255K, get back to us. Septentrionalis 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I fear the time spent on this XfD could have been spent on improving the encyclopedia, which ironically is what this deletion page seems to be about. I really don't care about a page like this being in userspace. --Deskana talk 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment After Whedonette has argued above that users spend too much time on the userpage in question, take a look at the user's edit count, which makes it clear that the user hasn't been actively engaging in article editing.--Ed 21:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Also, it would probably be good if you reviewed the contents of this page since this is not the first time this ad hominem attack has been made. —Doug Bell  12:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • What does my edit count have to do with any of this?--Ed 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know, you brought up the subject of edit counts as if they meant something here, so you tell me. —Doug Bell  23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Errrm ... N e v e r - m i n d Yuser31415 23:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - absolutely NOT what Misplaced Pages is providing userspace for. Go chase world records somewhere else. -- nae'blis 00:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I consider your statement incorrect. WP:USER says, "... community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia ..." Best regards, Yuser31415 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Move Ever heard of fun? And i think it would work better if it were to be placed in a community thingy. Definitely keep.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 16:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Move to sandbox. bibliomaniac15 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/move - There's a lot of discussion here but I don't see how any of it really requires the page to be removed. There's so many things that could be described as distracting editors from editing Misplaced Pages - but I really think that some people are a bit nervous wading into the deep waters at first and tend to keep to the shallows of Department of Fun, plus these sorts of pages until they feel fully ready to contribute. In the process they meet a heap of other Wikipedians (including more experienced ones), learn how to edit pages properly, some syntactic type things, and whatever. If we're to open this thing up to everybody, we should expect some people learn or adapt at different rates. That being said, I'm not in favour of people who use disruptive (even if well-intentioned) edits to established articles to achieve the same purpose. The poem is harmless, amusing and for that matter survived an earlier XfD. Orderinchaos78 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion really needs to be closed. I'll ask an admin about it. Alethiophile2₃ 19:54, 4 December 2006 (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 miscellany 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 speedy delete. -- Steel 20:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:First-Ward.com

blatant ad ccwaters 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as blatant advertising. Badbilltucker 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - CSD G11, as per nom. --tgheretford (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete- Pure G11 speedy case, tag placed on page.--Fyre2387 20:22, 27 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. (Radiant) 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Fsf

Fsf uses his userpage to advertise free software. Also involved in spamming and advertising. May be part of the spammers targetting Spyware although he made a variety of good small edits. Username indicates conflict of interest. Delete the userpage. Should user be blocked? -- Mgm| 10:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete page's only content is blatant advertising. Don't think that the user blocking issue should be raised here though. Badbilltucker 16:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:SPAM. and warn the user against usign the namespace as an external link advertisement. Banning is a different issue all together (and really isn't warrented at this time IMO).--Isotope23 18:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. See Free Software Foundation. This user is in all likelihood a fan of the FSF, not a representative. (A username change might be in order, but that's a separate issue.) Zetawoof 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think whether or not the person is a fan or a rep is really the issue. The link still constitutes spam and it should be removed along with the page history. The Username is a separate issue as well that should be decided in the appropriate forum if someone chooses to make an issue of it.--Isotope23 20:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm really not sure how the link is "spam". Misplaced Pages already supports the FSF pretty heavily - the GFDL was authored by them, for heavens' sake! - so I'm not seeing a bare link to them is inappropriate. Zetawoof 06:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Here I guess is where I disagree. We have an article about the Free Software Foundation with a link. That is perfectly acceptable. To me what is not acceptable is an external link on the userpage with what I consider to be promotional text. To me that is spam.--Isotope23 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and strongly consider a block. User has indeed been spamming Spyware of late, in a disruptive manner. When he created an article on the product, I listed it for deletion. You can judge his good-faith from his attitude there. Daniel Case 07:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A block sounds like a real stretch for a user that hasn't even received a single warning (or anything at all!) on their talk page. We generally give the courtesy of a warning or two to users who engage in advertising much more blatant than this - please don't WP:BITE the newbie. Zetawoof 08:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedians are a fan of commercial software like Spyware Doctor and they consider fsf.org as spam. This is a good joke. Let Daniel Case or the other users do whatever they like. They and the Misplaced Pages is not worth anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsf (talk • contribs)

  See what I mean? As for the block, this user has used several anons to put in this link before creating the article, then may have used another user account (User:Wiki989) to continue. AFAICT he is here only to promote his program.

  Oh, BTW, we don't consider the Free Software Foundation spam. Daniel Case 13:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  I consider you as spam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsf (talk • contribs)

  Do not make personal attacks. Daniel Case 14:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Zetawoof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yao Ziyuan (talk • contribs)
• Delete and prevent recreation. —Doug Bell  22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For a user page?! Zetawoof 23:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. Next question? --Calton | Talk 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or blank. WP? Not a free webhost or soapbox. --Calton | Talk 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious spam. JChap2007 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT what this page is for. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Zetawoof. The user has productive edits. The user hasn't even been given a warning for his earlier spamming. JoshuaZ 05:34, 4 December 2006 (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 miscellany 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. —Doug Bell  07:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Various subpages of User:Vuara

• User:Vuara/AI
• User:Vuara/Acronyms and Mnemonics
• User:Vuara/Books About SIP
• User:Vuara/Bảy kỳ quan má»›i của thế giá»›i
• User:Vuara/Bạn biết gì về Google
• User:Vuara/Bạn có muốn tìm lời bài hát
• User:Vuara/Công cụ nhắc việc hữu ích
• User:Vuara/Dien Bien Phu
• User:Vuara/Difficult Words
• User:Vuara/Favorite Quotes
• User:Vuara/Favorites Mac
• User:Vuara/Favorites Mac2
• User:Vuara/Greatest Oxymoron Defined
• User:Vuara/Greatest Oxymoron Defined2
• User:Vuara/Greatest Oxymoron Defined3
• User:Vuara/Ken Mogi’s Diary
• User:Vuara/Mystery man in Canada
• User:Vuara/Mô hình OSI
• User:Vuara/Name that Subdivision
• User:Vuara/Nature of Time
• User:Vuara/Nature of Time2
• User:Vuara/Open WorldCat
• User:Vuara/PENTURBIA
• User:Vuara/Past and Now Forward
• User:Vuara/QUALIA Concept
• User:Vuara/Qualia
• User:Vuara/Redundancies
• User:Vuara/Session Initiation Protocol
• User:Vuara/Slow Food
• User:Vuara/Sony Computer Science Laboratories
• User:Vuara/Sony QUALIA
• User:Vuara/The Awaking of Qualia
• User:Vuara/The Fabric of Reality
• User:Vuara/The Fabric of Reality2
• User:Vuara/The Fabric of Reality3
• User:Vuara/Trang_web_dành_cho_những_ai_thích_chÆ¡i_game_giả_lập
• User:Vuara/Version Tracker
• User:Vuara/Wiki Theory of Qualia
• User:Vuara/dirall Mac
• User:Vuara/dirall Mac2
• User:Vuara/fMRI
• User:Vuara/interesting odds
• User:Vuara/prion-based

At least some of these are copy-and-paste jobs from random web sites; most of them have the URL at the top, but not all do. Some are Vietnamese, which I can't read (but the few loanwords suggest that it's more of the same). The rest are nonsensical text dumps (including one Star Trek fanfic!) - in general, nothing that would help build an encyclopedia. The user hasn't been active in over two years. I've gone through everything here, and found nothing coherent or helpful. Zetawoof 08:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- Misplaced Pages is not a webspace provider.--Fyre2387 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; nominator may wish to add more pages to his list using Special:Prefixindex/User:Vuara/. There are a good many of them. Kimchi.sg 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Updated per your suggestion. Zetawoof 04:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. MER-C 05:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. Too bad we have to go through MfD and all this effort to delete left over crud like this—need a criteria for speedy deletion of old left-over user subpages full of nonsense. —Doug Bell  22:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete them all Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, while I am normally inclined to let us keep userstuff from productive users who have left, the user has very few edits to mainspace, this is a large amount of material and there are copyvio concerns. And there are just so many. JoshuaZ 05:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it seems this user thinks wikipedia is a webhost, and it's not. James086 08:11, 4 December 2006 (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 miscellany 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. (Radiant) 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tetsumonchi

See What can I not have on my user page?, page does not present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia →WP:NOT. User has almost no contributions other than this page (his contributions). Page was originaly deleted: here, 15 April 2006. User was warned about his page. Philip Gronowski 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. One (1) image upload seems to be his entire contribution here. This isn't MySpace Light. --Calton | Talk 05:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, including non-encyclopedic images. - Mgm| 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Misplaced Pages is not MySpace. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete despite user blanking the page and talk page, still delete. Need contributors, not people looking for MySpace. (Pages unblanked.) —Doug Bell  07:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  Changing to conditional keep given the user's statement of cooperation with the user page policies, and conditional upon said cooperation. —Doug Bell  01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've blocked Tetsumonchi for 24 hours for blanking the user page after being warned not to blank it again. —Doug Bell  17:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think deleting the page may be somewhat extreme. I mean, if the issue here is the page content, then the obvious course of action, in my mind, would be to remove anything from the user page that was causing concern and replace it with detail relevant to that user's activities Misplaced Pages. Personally, I'd be more than happy to cooperate with Wiki on this, given the chance. Deleting the page is always an option, but I am concerned that it may be unnecessarily harsh - especially if the user is openly willing cooperate to find another solution. Delete the page if you wish, but what can be dealt with by deleting a page can just as easily be dealt with by editing the page. 81.101.155.97 00:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) The preceeding comment was made by Tetsumonchi editing as an anonymous IP since User:Tetsumonchi was currently blocked. Since he has agree to be cooperative and quit being disruptive, I have unblocked the account (said block being due to expire in a couple of hours anyway). —Doug Bell  00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete User is using wikipedia as a personal webhost.02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep The user has productive edits in mainspace and the user has decided to cooperate with WP:USER. Let the user trim things down to a more standard userpage. JoshuaZ 05:39, 4 December 2006 (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 miscellany 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. — xaosflux 06:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cowhig

Note, this MFD is for http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Cowhig%E2%80%8E ... note the special characters after the page name. Just going to User:Cowhig will not take you to the correct page.

This page was originally a vanity article that was userfied, apparantly to the incorrect name. Oddly enough, it displays its title as User:Cowhig (whatever %E2%80%8E is is invisible) and Special:Logs doesn't work on it.

Note: this page has now been moved to User:Cowhig (without the special characters) and the redirect has been deleted. BigDT 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the user who created the vanity article has only one other contribution and hasn't been around since July. He blanked his own user page, so that could be taken as a sign he isn't overly interested in the page. -- BigDT 01:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment %E2%80%8E is encoding for Unicode character U+200E, Left-to-Right Mark. It's a formatting character, and as such supposed to be invisible, but it looks like the software doesn't handle formatting characters in input very well. --Derlay 01:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; I have also moved the page and this MfD page to remove the LTR mark. For doing this you've to address the index.php directly in the URL such as en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Movepage&target=Some+confusing+page+name%E2%80%8E. Kimchi.sg 04:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This guy has, more than once, attempted to move this page in mainspace and clearly aint't here for the editing. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Make sure to delete Image:Patrick cowhig.JPG also. —Doug Bell  07:29, 29 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Keep. — xaosflux 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Lexingtonbridge

Spam for unpublished band. Derlay 00:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as the user's account was only created 5 days ago. I see this as unintentioned biting. For a new user, your user and talk pages are places you feel comfortable experimenting.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above.__Seadog 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gay Cdn. shotwell 03:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for a month or so per above, then come back for the required deletion. MER-C 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only contribution. Self Promotion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:01, 1 December 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Keep. — xaosflux 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Wuya'sbabydaddy

This looks like the beginning of a book, not a Misplaced Pages:User page. Derlay 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as the account was created 6 days ago. The edit summary of the user page text is "test project", so I think that the deletion here my be unintended biting. Perhaps instead of deletion, a welcome message on their talk page would be appropriate.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, completely agree with Gay Cdn. shotwell 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for a month or so per above, then come back for the required deletion. MER-C 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, send it back here after a month. Terence Ong 11:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Test short story, not a test article or test user page. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep pages are cheap and don't detract from the project. Goof grief there is so much more here at wiki to worry about than some user's page. 74.241.140.49 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Gay cdn.__Seadog 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mer-C. --Wizardman 18:42, 2 December 2006 (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 miscellany 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 replace content with {{indefblockeduser}}. Kimchi.sg 01:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:1337 h4k0rz

Page is random nonsense, as is the username, and user appears to have vanished. Derlay 00:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The user was indefinitely blocked. -Amarkov _edits 00:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or replace with the indef-blocked user template per Amarkov and standard practice. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or replace as Newyorkbrad said. Note that it isn't total gibberish, the part in binary says "I am the biggest nerd in my school". shotwell 00:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsensical.__Seadog 02:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close - I've got rid of the nonsense and replaced it with {{indef}}. As soon as this debate is over, then it just mimics the thousands of userpages of blocked users out there. MER-C 06:21, 27 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. —Doug Bell  02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Robbie McGonigle

This user's only contribution was the creation of this page on January 10, which was originally in article space but userfied because of obvious notability concerns. Dar-Ape 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Also seems to be definitely "content-challenged". Badbilltucker 00:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 02:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. —Doug Bell  07:23, 29 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 deleted by MacGyverMagic per user request. Whispering 17:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:BoxQWERTY/a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h/i/j/k/l/m/n/o/p/q/r/s/t/u/v/w/x/y/z

Rather odd userpage and user has made few other useful contributions. ><RichardΩ612 20:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. User registered today (although contribution history suggests user has edited before, either as an anon or under another account). User's contributions, although limited so far, appear to have been in good faith. User has not been notified of this nomination. If I had to guess this is probably the user's odd name for a sandbox-type page but I believe there's no reason not to have asked the user before posting a nomination here. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw. I suppose I was a bit overzealous in nominating this. I will wait and watch, and do the same for any further odd pages. ><RichardΩ612 07:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• I've blocked the name as per Misplaced Pages:Username and suggested he change it. Names aren't supposed to be a string of letters. - Mgm| 11:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops. User was called BoxQWERTY (talk · contribs). This was a subpage. He gave the okay to bin this on his real talk page. - Mgm| 11:45, 27 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-24

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 keep. (Radiant) 13:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Challenges

Content forking. We already have the Misplaced Pages backlogs, and listing only certain articles from them as "challenges" seems ridiculous to me. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: You could have asked Danny for his rationale for starting this page first. He's not one to fork things frivolously. Kimchi.sg 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Danny was notified, see here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • By saying "You could have asked... first", I implied asking him before nominating it for MfD, not asking him after the fact. Sorry if that was not clear. Kimchi.sg 16:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems possibly useful (although making it less of a one-person project would be nice) --Improv 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. "Challenge" might be a valid term for some of these. For example, a media reference to 4chan, regardless of its incredible internet popularity, would probably be very hard to find, as the mainstream media generally tries to avoid covering websites that contain offensive content, especially what you often find in 4chan's /b/. — Dark Shikari /_contribs 19:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but I believe over a half of the articles listed at the backlogs might also be labeled as as "challenges" under such criteria, especially for articles lacking sources. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. This looks like one user's attempt to circumvent the slow and overloaded category method by creating his own method just for his own articles. The obvious result would be that other people would flood the "Challenges" page until it was just another "Articles Lacking Sources" category. — Dark Shikari /_contribs 01:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Great to see something like this on the recent changes page, but why not guide users to the existing backlogs? Also, if I remember correctly, some content here is chosen based on alphabet order ("4chan"), leading to arbitrary and unimportant challenges ("4chan"). –Outriggr § 10:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, I generally see nothing wrong with it...It would be nice if it was larger and less of a one user thing. But seems helpfull.__Seadog 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or change the purpose. Created such a page in order to help the clearing of the backlog but the way the page was intended to be used was to do exactly that. In a future, that may be distant, such a page will be used by some editors and will have its use. Lincher 05:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Considering the success of Danny's challenge and that Danny did it, I'm sure there is nothing negative coming out of this page. Yanksox 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • With all the respect to Danny and his challenges, I don't like the way this one works. Per Dark Shikari, this one will either be widely ignored, or get a flood of articles from the backlogs. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • To be perfectly honest, this isn't going to effect anyone negatively and it won't mess with the goal of creating an encyclopedia. Danny's Challenge created something quite amazing, and this is helping in keep up the quality of the encyclopedia. If you have an issue with that, I have serious concerns. Yanksox 16:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While I'm not questioning the good motives behind creating this, I think it is both neglected and a duplication of other non-neglected pages that serve the same purpose. It adds essentially no useful discussion, limiting itself to one- and two-word comments on what to do for each of the 6 listed pages. (If it wasn't neglected, I can't imagine that there should only be 6 items on the page.) —Doug Bell  22:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful and encourages work on articles. 1ne 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Terence Ong 11:38, 29 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. Xoloz 17:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sijokjose

User:Sijokjose and his sock 61.2.197.26 keep spamming articles and recreating pages about himself. User page content is spam only. Húsönd 03:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Misplaced Pages is neither myspace or a free web host. MER-C 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Repeat vandal John Reaves 07:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, spam and recreation of deleted material. Badbilltucker 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but watch closely. Obviously this user is a short step away from a block for spamming (and I am sure there is worse in deleted efforts I can't see as a non-admin), but as long as he's a user in good standing, he's entitled to a userpage of his choice within reason. MfD procedures can be used to delete userpages of users who seem to have disappeared but I don't think they are best suited for addressing the primary userpage of current users. Newyorkbrad 02:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I see your point but we don't know when/if he's coming back for more spam, and this user page shouldn't be around forever.--Húsönd 03:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And in turn I see your point, but I see you've put him on final warning for spamming, so either he shapes up or he won't be here all that much longer, and meanwhile he did contribute to an article today. By the way, is the user aware that his page is listed here or that you think he should change it? 03:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The page's creator has been notified of this discussion. Badbilltucker 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete One (1) edit since July? This stretches the meaning of "current user" into utterly useless. --Calton | Talk 05:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Note Actually, the user made more edits (all to articles that were deleted as blatant spam).--Húsönd 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Calton. Not a user in "good standing". Kimchi.sg 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 28 November 2006 (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.

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

2006-11-27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy deleted all for abuse of userspace. = Mgm| 11:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Skifdank

I'm back with "Misplaced Pages is not MySpace 6" (I believe): Submitted again for your official verdicts, more userfied vanity articles for "editors" clearly who ain't here for the editin', but for the publicizin'/self-expression, this batch from February and March this year. And yes, I left messages on their Talk Pages.

And now for the boilerplate text. These:

a) are user pages that were moved from article space by an admin/editor.

b) were originally articles that were originally speedy-delete candidates or speedy-delete eligible.

c) have page creators who have few/no edits outside user space.

d) have page creators who have not edited at all (with a couple of exception)s since the initial page creation seven to eight months ago (with one exception, which was created in July).

e) are, prima facie, not user pages, but attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a free webhost/promotional vehicle. WP:NOT, stating that Misplaced Pages is not a free web host is applicable.

• Skifdank (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic:

• Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: February 2006

• FugitiveTHMMY (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: Page for a student group at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

• Total edits: 7. Edits outside user page: 4 (adding self to Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)
• Last edit: February 2006

• Mgrwilde (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: User's CV.

• Total edits: 6. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: February 2006

• Kevin5000 (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: Bio of a 12-year-old.

• Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: February 2006

• Gururaj nayak (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: Vanity bio

• Total edits: 12. Edits outside user page: 1 (to Sandbox).
• Last edit: February 2006

• Casey yep (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: Vanity bio, with huge photo

• Total edits: 11. Edits outside user page: 6 (uploading photos and adding self to West Plains, Missouri).
• Last edit: February 2006

• Mrinalsinghraja (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: MySpace-like listing, with huge photo

• Total edits: 11. Edits outside user page: 6 (uploading photos, adding to another MySpace-like page at User:Dgassam, and 2 edits to Assam Agricultural University.
• Last edit: February 2006

• Dgassam (talk · contribs), created July 2006

Topic: MySpace-like listing with photo, linked to the page above

• Total edits: 8. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: July 2006

• Reyfox (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: LONG (505 words) vanity bio

• Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 1 (uploading unused photo).
• Last edit: February 2006

• Milesnewlyn (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: Short CV.

• Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: February 2006

• OliverGlass (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: Promotion for a non-notable youth group, founded by guess who?

• Total edits: 7. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: February 2006

• Huskerfan (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: Vanity bio and long school-assignment essay ("Illegal Immigration - A Topic which we are very concerned about")

• Total edits: 17. Edits outside user page: 3 (uploading unused photo and adding self to John Allen and Illegal immigration).
• Last edit: February 2006

• Ousamairmal (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: Absurd vanity bio

• Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 1 (vandalism to Roadkill).
• Last edit: February 2006

• Mrizzo31 (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: Long vanity bio of minor sportswriter.

• Total edits: 13 (including removal of level4 vandal warnings from talk page). Edits outside user page: 2 (adding ref to self in Hannah Kearney).
• Last edit: June 2006

• Jim B. (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: vanity bio

• Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: February 2006

• Ljkappas (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: vanity bio

• Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: February 2006

• Dempsey.vick (talk · contribs), created February 2006

Topic: MySpace-like page for US Navy sailor

• Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: February 2006

• 0liverJ0nes (talk · contribs), created March 2006

Topic: MySpace-like page

• Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: March 2006

• Roshandsilva (talk · contribs), created March 2006

Topic: Vanity bio

• Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: March 2006

• Goldberg kamran (talk · contribs), created March 2006

Topic: Long what-I-want-to-be-when-I-grow-up essay (529 words)

• Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: March 2006

• Illuminist (talk · contribs), created March 2006

Topic: Vanity page for Kingdom of Loathing player

• Total edits: 3. Edits outside user page: 2 (adding a friend to Kingdom of Loathing).
• Last edit: March 2006

• Pixton (talk · contribs), created March 2006

Topic: Nonsense article about a "Pixton sandwich"

• Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: March 2006

• James Thorpe-Woods (talk · contribs), created March 2006

Topic: MySpace-like page for London teenager

• Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: March 2006

• Leppis (talk · contribs), created March 2006

Topic: Vanity bio for a gamer.

• Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: March 2006

• Tauf (talk · contribs), created March 2006

Topic: Some sort of notes page

• Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
• Last edit: March 2006

• Rudywood (talk · contribs), created March 2006

Topic: User CV for a writer.

• Total edits: 7. Edits outside user page: 4 (adding self to 3 different articles).
• Last edit: March 2006

• Josekuttyp (talk · contribs), created March 2006

Topic: Long vanity bio (605 words).

• Total edits: 5. Edits outside user page: 1 (uploading unused photo).
• Last edit: March 2006

• Waste of time. Blanking the pages would be an easier and equally effective solution. Deletion of these pages neither saves space nor more effectivly removes the material. - 152.91.9.144 05:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually deletion makes these pages invisible to non-admins meaning it effectively kills the promotion. If it's in the history, people can still link to it even if it's blanked. - Mgm| 10:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• None of which you seem to actually be willing to do yourself, I notice. In any case, it's my time to waste -- although that characterization, I'll also note, seems to be almost entirely yours, Mr. "I Can Read Deleted Pages". --Calton | Talk 05:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'll also note that you sprang into action within 13 minute of my creating this page. Stalk much? --Calton | Talk 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • *Cough* Yes indeed, I have nothing better to do than sit and refresh "Special:Contributions/Catlon" all day. Your personal venom aside, there really is no margin in deleting these pages. Blanking would make the content go away, deleting doesn't save any space, and although I'm not sure I'd suspect that mirrors only copy existing pages, so they'd take a blank page and blank it but might do nothing to update a no-longer existing page... Happy to be corrected on that pure speculation, by the way. There's really no need to bring these to MfD as no one is going to object to the material going away. Even a {{prod}} would work most of the time, or simply be bold and use {{db|Userfied advertising page}} or something of that sort. - 152.91.9.144 05:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Bah, perhaps mirrors aren't using that smart an updating strategy after all... Searching for the phrase "what about Adam Mathes" from User:Ibrahim Odeh doesn't get any hits and "User:Ibrahim Odeh" only gets the wikipedia discussion. - 152.91.9.144 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes indeed, I have nothing better to do than sit and refresh "Special:Contributions/Catlon" all day. You should have stopped after "do". One wonders why you a) respond to what I didn't say; b) focus only my nominations, as opposed to the dozen or so I see on this page; c) don't apply the same "just blank it" strategy here; d) don't just delete them yourself with your special non-admin admin powers.
      • Even a {{prod}} would work most of the time. really? And your proof of this is what, exactly? Especially given that this issue is only being discussed, well, right now? --Calton | Talk 06:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

        Dude, not only are you a cranky cuss, half the time I don't even think that you read what you're typing. I'm not "respond to what didn't say" when you throw out an ad hominem like "Stalk much?" And what are you trying to say with the diff pointing to this page? I'm trying to discuss the relative merits of different approaches to problems of this sort. I have no idea what you're doing. - 152.91.9.144 07:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. It's this kind of thing that makes me want to just tag things for speedy instead of userfying them when they are obvious vanity. -Amarkov _edits 05:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. There's a proposal to allow this rubbish to be prodded, see Template talk:Prod. MER-C 06:23, 27 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy delete as G11. Joe 04:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Textbookace

WP not a vehicle for advertising. Her Pegship 04:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 04:34, 26 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Speedy keep. I already closed the last MfD as no consensus. El_C 10:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated to the procedural close above, Cyde says: "I have some goals on this page." Well, I looked for these goals, but failed to find them. El_C 10:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde/Weird pictures

In what way does this help to build an encyclopedia? /\FoffleFoo 22:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. MfD'd by single purpose account. --Majorly (Talk) 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Majorly, insofar as the community generally (and quite properly, IMHO) accords those who contribute copiously to the project broader latitude as regards that for which such contributors might employ userspace, and inasmuch as the content comprised by the page is not substantially unrelated to Misplaced Pages. Joe 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no problem with active users having a few subpages for Misplaced Pages-related content (useful or not), and strict policy adherents will be relieved to know that the userspace policy already codifies this latitude. As long as there are no fair use images on that page, it's fine. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It doesn't blatantly hinder the encyclopædia, but it doesn't really do anything. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 01:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Majorly. There has been several similar cases, and the pages were kept. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and this page is not harming anyone. IronChris | (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't usually assume bad faith, but, I can't help but think I'm being attacked here by someone's sockpuppet. I have some goals on this page, and although I haven't been able to get around to them since the last MFD, they are still on my todo list. After all, this page is linked from the front of my userpage. --Cyde Weys 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know; I have some goals sounds to me to be not unlike I read Playboy for the articles. :) Joe 04:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• When you figure out what your goals for the page are, promise you won't tell me... Herostratus 04:51, 26 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Speedy keep. El_C 10:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Richard0612/sandbox

Why? Just use the main sandbox instead of creating your own. Also nominating User:Richard0612/tools copy of main tools page and is really unecessary. /\FoffleFoo 22:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep MfD'd by single purpose account. --Majorly (Talk) 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Speedy keep - many editors have personal sandboxes for drafting, testing, etc. and they are perfectly legitimate. Note: This nomination is nominator's first edit. Newyorkbrad 22:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Although my tools section may be a copy of the main one, I find it useful for cleaning up vandalism. Many other users have personal sandboxes, and I don't really see what is wrong with them ><RichardΩ612 22:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, I and many, many other users also have sandboxes. --Majorly (Talk) 22:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I see no problem with active users having a few subpages for Misplaced Pages-related content (useful or not), and strict policy adherents will be relieved to know that the userspace policy already codifies this latitude. When I'm busy in many projects at once, I sometimes have up to nine different sandboxes simultaneously (I currently have three). —{admin} Pathoschild 00:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. IronChris | (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - What is the purpose of this? Why is this account nominating MFDs when it's never done a single other thing for the encyclopedia? --Cyde Weys 03:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, I think I'll try to test some template coding in the main sandbox, only to find that I can't because someone else is using it, too. -Amarkov _edits 05:54, 26 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Kept. Nomination withdrawn. El_C 03:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Occasional Detroit

Looks like a use of Misplaced Pages as a free web host . User's first edit was to create this page. I don't mean to WP:BITE, but this does seem to be 'flouting the rules'. ><RichardΩ612 21:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now, wait and see - I agree this page would be unacceptable if it is the user's only participation, but it's quite possible that encyclopedia-writing is also intended: you posted this nomination nine minutes after the page was created, so it's a bit early to tell, and while I appreciate your looking out for misuse of project resources, I don't think Template:MfD should replace Template:Welcome in this instance. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw. Agreed. I suppose it was too early to go MfDing this, watch and wait. ><RichardΩ612 22:16, 25 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Speedy delete. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Quick Jump

Started by MICHAELSD10 (talk · contribs) as a request to re-do his already-deleted page on a possibly nn-website, Quick Jump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Speedy) Delete as nom. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:36, 25 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 speedy delete CSD G7. Kimchi.sg 05:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:AAA!/Vandalism level

Speedy Delete - I don't use this page anymore, now that I made my own Wdefcon template on my main user page. --AAA!

05:40, 25 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. Next time use WP:AIV. El_C 02:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:MooKow

Has only used account to create nonsense and to call me an "ass hat" John Reaves 05:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This should probably be handled through the vandalism/blocking procedures, not MfD. Newyorkbrad 18:06, 25 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-24

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy delete, WP:CSD G11, you can use {{db-spam}} for these. --Sam Blanning 13:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Eshooter

including the talk page. This seems to be just a SEO spam. User has one contribution which is to the userpage. -- zzuuzz 12:50, 24 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 move to WP:RFD

WP:PDWTF

Redirects should quite simply not be abbreviations of expletives. This redirect can be replaced by WP:GPD, which has been around for over a month, and this should be long enough for users to be familiar with it. I also proposed this on the talk page and there were no objections. Dar-Ape 23:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy close and move to WP:RFD. Danny Lilithborne 01:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have withdrawn this and moved it to RFD, as I should have done in the first place. Dar-Ape 01:41, 26 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Speedy delete. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Actionc

Trolling; vandalism; admitted troll on user page John Reaves 07:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Troll. Dar-Ape 23:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 24 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-23

2006-11-23

Misplaced Pages:Alphabetical list of Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 soft redirect Martinp23 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete list. This has no purpose and has been a breeding ground for trolls. Theres nothing here that can be useful. semper fi — Moe 04:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about a soft redirect to Special:Listusers? Kimchi.sg 04:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It could work either way :) semper fi — Moe 04:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it could; the complete, automatically updated list has to be in the "Special" namespace. Newyorkbrad 04:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, thats why we would create a soft redirect, see Misplaced Pages:Don't be a dick as an example. semper fi — Moe 05:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Soft redirect per Kimchi, how hard would this be to maintain manually?! I wouldn't like to do it... riana_dzasta 13:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see, people add themselves on. Even stranger. riana_dzasta 13:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats why it's so hard, because its not a major page thats being noticed, since it's been around since about the year 2003, and the only editors who find it are either really good lookers, or trolls. Maintaining this list is impossible considering how many Misplaced Pages accounts are created in just one day. semper fi — Moe 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the soft redirect. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 01:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose deletion, however a soft redirect seems ok too. Mathmo 13:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or soft redirect This is just a completely unmaintainable, useless, troll-ified page. I wouldn't be against a soft redirect, as per above. -- Kicking222 13:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Soft Redirect, good idea.__Seadog 02:39, 27 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Felixq

Misplaced Pages is neither myspace or a free web host. Also nominated are User:Depeche Boi, User:Kaleido Star, User:Dj aitken, User:Sora-kh2, User:J-Tech, User:Ashes on your grave, User:Art103 and User:Irightthebook. All users have not been seen in months and have made zero encyclopedic contributions. MER-C 05:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all, except the one which was already deleted. Deleting a deleted page might be hard. -Amarkov _edits 05:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is possible to "re-delete" a page after you delete it. 2 lines show up in the deletion log, but the page is erm... deleted only once. :-) Kimchi.sg 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. riana_dzasta 13:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All per nom. Kyo cat 03:33, 25 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Foamy!

A poor attempt at an infobox. User hsa made zero encyclopedic contributions and has not edited in a year. MER-C 05:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 01:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ditto per nom. Kyo cat 21:00, 24 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Robin63

User page for a user's whose only edits were in September. Apart from WP:NOT free web host, the page has also been used for a chat forum in the past. Kimchi.sg 05:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kyo cat 21:03, 24 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:SokhavyHilton

Autobio of user whose only edits are to this page, back in April. WP:NOT a free web host. Kimchi.sg 04:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dar-Ape 23:40, 24 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Dreepzeimer214

Misplaced Pages is not myspace. Also nominated are User:Elmo Oxygen User:Jonweb, User:Pravi Gusinjec NOVA, User:Fatbottomkitty, User:Harishgnaik, User:Aeromaniac, User:Drew Walczak, User:Jonnybrx and User:Alquri. Users has made very little contributions outside of their user pages and have not edited for months. MER-C 04:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm surprised there aren't any warnings on his talk page about him using Misplaced Pages as Myspace. Nonetheless, delete per nom. Kyo cat 21:10, 24 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Young kass, User talk:Young kass

User page that appears to exist only to promote a rapper. User has not made edits in months, WP:NOT a free web host. The talk page has the same screed. Kimchi.sg 04:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. MER-C 04:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Both- Yup. Delete per nom. Kyo cat 21:32, 24 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Lansvale1

Someone tried to use Photobucket to host a gallery here. Misplaced Pages is not a free web host. User has not been seen for months. MER-C 04:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Hopefully that proposal for a PROD tag for user pages will go through soon, so there will be fewer of these no-brainer MFDs. Dar-Ape 05:35, 25 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Playasoccer

Personal essay, not a user page. Misplaced Pages is not a free web host. User has not been seen for months. MER-C 04:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I really don't care if you "google searched Runscape on April 4, 2005". Neither doe any of us here, as this is an encyclopedia, friend, not Myspace. Kyo cat 21:37, 24 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Shaniquaterry

User page for user not seen in months, whose only edits were to this page and a now deleted nn-autobio. WP:NOT a free webhost. Kimchi.sg 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Misplaced Pages is not myspace. MER-C 04:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dar-Ape 23:44, 24 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Bennyj1548

HTML soup. Probably copied from another web page. User has made no edits other than to this page, back in May. WP:NOT free web host. Kimchi.sg 04:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:36, 23 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Bigdwilly

Userfied nn-bio. User has not been seen since February. WP:NOT a free web host. Kimchi.sg 04:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:36, 23 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Gsfabia

Userpage violates WP:NOT (a free webhost) and reads more like a computer manual. The same material is also the user's talk page content. His only other edit was the blanking of Help:Contents two days aback. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (and before I read the nom, I did research and came to the same conclusion). Cbrown1023 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 01:18, 23 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Speedy Close WP:MFD is NOT DRV, if you want your subpage DELETED, please tag it for CSD, if someone ELSE wants it deleted they can bring it here. If you want a review of that page, try WP:RFC. — xaosflux 01:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mdf/BlackNet

I have no idea if this is going to work (I've already screwed up one attempt). Nevertheless, if it does, here is the story:

The BlackNet article was deleted by User:Tawker a bit back. I suspect this was a robot delete, but who knows, who cares, irrelevant at this point.

Because Tawker is on a wiki-break, I asked for a DRV at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_21

I was told that the article was "crappy" and consisted of a copyright violation, and that AFD would result in an "inescapable" delete.

Not being entirely consistent with my memory of it, I attempted a defense. In the end, I was given the contents of the article without the parts that offended some. I also said that after I worked on it a bit, it would be submitted to AFD, to ensure that it "passes the muster".

A contract is a contract: here it is. Personally, I think it should remain, the reasons are obvious (to me), but given that I created the damn thing in the first place, it doesn't seem appropriate for me to endorse it one way or another. So I bow out right now, with only one request: if it survives, please move it back to the main article space, and re-create the "Blacknet" redirect to BlackNet as well. mdf 16:38, 23 November 2006 (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.

See also Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Справка (2).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Speedy Delete, this non en: page isn't going to do much good on here. From my horrible translating skills it doesn't look like a candidate for translation or transwikification either. Will provide the source to anyone upon request if needed for those purposes though. — xaosflux 01:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Справка

The title of this page is the Russian word for "information". I don't recognize the language of the text, but from googling, it appears to be whatever language they speak in Latvia. At any rate, it is probably not very useful here. BigDT 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• "it appears to be whatever language they speak in Latvia." That might just be Latvian. :P Delete, this is English Misplaced Pages, and a title like that is misleading even in English. – Chacor 14:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Cbrown1023 15:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Spravka also effectively means certificate and enquiry but its immaterial to an article in Latvian so Delete. --Spartaz 16:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Note that this produces the following in the browser:

Misplaced Pages:%D0%A1%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0

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 miscellany 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 Already deleted by User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh. -Amarkov _edits 05:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardknots

Misplaced Pages is not a free web host. User has only one edit outside his userpage and has not been seen in months. MER-C 05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Erm, the page doesn't exist. -Amarkov _edits 05:19, 23 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Speedy Delete as Speedy Deletion G10: Pages created primarily to disparage the subject ~Kylu (u|t) 06:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

User:NRen2k5

This user's "watchlist" of editors. Someone asked the user to remove the harrassing information, and he/she blatantly refused. I think King Jimmy summed it up nicely here, so I won't bother taking you through step-by-step why this user page should be deleted on the grounds of WP:CIVIL, WP:HA, WP:PA, and most importantly for this discussion, WP:UP. Daniel.Bryant 05:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, I think G10 would apply here. This is questionable when applied to obvious vandals, it's just blatant personal attacking when applied to admins. -Amarkov _edits 05:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I see you tagged it as such. Daniel.Bryant 05:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've never seen the point in saying a thing should be speedied without tagging it. -Amarkov _edits 05:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Question and comment - is it appropriate for an active user's userpage to be deleted into a redlink - as opposed to deleting all or some of the current content of the page which is a different question. In any event, I have seen admin/user-criticism pages allowed to be kept temporarily if they were being used to (e.g.) assemble information for an RfC or something. But on the user's primary userpage it's certainly too prominent, so this needs to go, though I'm not sure whether we have an exact policy in this area. Having said all that, urge the user to delete and spare us further argument. Newyorkbrad 05:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The only content ever on this userpage is the attack material. This is the first edit to the page. Daniel.Bryant 05:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• G10 and block user. – Chacor 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: per WP:COI I'll abstain from calling for deletion or not but honestly if this isn't a classic case of G10 I don't know what is. This user's statements about me are patently false. This editor was using Talk:Michael Richards for general discussions. Misplaced Pages guidelines specifically say such talk is subject to removal. After my removal this user reinstated the talk and personally attacked me by calling me a racist and then proceeded to repeatedly harass me on my talk page. Finally User:Blnguyen blocked him but now the harassment continues. An additional blocking might be in order here... but I'll let a neutal party decide upon that question. (→Netscott) 05:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm being called a "shameful Muslim" and "punk". If ever an editor needed blocking this guy'd be the perfect candidate. (→Netscott) 05:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't "Users for Blocking". Discuss blocks somewhere else please. -Amarkov _edits 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

True, point well taken. (→Netscott) 05:53, 23 November 2006 (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.

For future reference, this is a perfect example of LIBEL. User Netscott took HIS INFERENCES from remarks I made and went on his own personal crusade against me. Contrary to his claims, it has been User Netscott who has been harassing me. — NRen2k5 03:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 withdraw nomination. I'm closing this now because of some people's inability to take this seriously. I wasn't expecting so much immaturity on this MfD, and I see no point in allowing it to continue. _JD 07:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

J_Di, people are taking this as seriously as is necessary... count the comments and you'll see that no, it's not unanimous, but there's a clear consensus to keep the page. Maturity or the lack thereof isn't going to get the page removed. This page has been around for over two years and nobody's tried to use it in an AfD except possibly in one isolated case which didn't actually have any effect on the outcome of that process and everyone was just having a bit of fun anyway. That was two years ago. If anyone tries this in an AfD they'll simply be ignored – Gurch 10:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Re-opened after being closed by Misza13 as "speedy snowball keep" to generate additional consensus – Gurch 20:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC) closed twice, in fact, having once been re-opened by the nominator, earning a total of eight points for closing reason, multiple closures and general rougeness – Gurch 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Extreme article deletion

This page is not funny, and it's making article deletion out to be a sport of some sort. _JD 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the page is clearly intended as humor, marked as such, and is clearly stated that it should be taken in a sarcastic tone. --Elaragirl 19:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Extreme comment: is that an Extreme Keep? – Gurch 19:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Extreme abstain. Bonus points if you make me change my mind before the end of the discussion – Gurch 19:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Extreme question. What exactly is your position?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'm extremely unsure. Though since I'm keeping score, I should probably recuse – Gurch 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• I take objection to two parts of this nomination. 1) that it isn't funny and 2) that article deletion isn't a sport of some sort. It's not? Darn, powers of observation slipping. I think I had a point here, anyway... oh, right. Humor page, and not even a controversial one; I almost forgot this existed. Gave me a chuckle. And lots of others, too: see Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Extreme_article_deletion. Mostly harmless. Keep, and get off my lawn. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 19:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Opposing the deletion, picking at the nominator's choice of words, and taking a jab at the AfD process at the same time? I think you get three points for that. Nice one – Gurch 19:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Yet they disrupted Misplaced Pages to make a point? Delete. 1ne 19:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep, even though 197 google hits for "Extreme deletion" clearly fails notability guidance. As this is clearly written in an non-serious manner I can't see the harm...--Nilfanion (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme delete, by which I mean keep (that's an example of the "Extreme" humour that's been a part of Misplaced Pages for a while). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme secondary school of unencyclopedic non-notable rule-vanicruft POVness delete by which I obviously mean Keep unless you want your shoes set alight to provide more power to drive the servers. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Two points for having the most reasons in one argument. Are we really that short of funds? – Gurch 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - harmless fun. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless humor. Kusma (討論) 21:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, extreme attempt at factionalism and giving aid and comfort to those who think that any deletions are teh end of teh universe. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Speedy delete? Ooh, very extreme. That's gotta be worth an extra point. Though of course if it's deleted, I can't give out points. I can't find a speedy criterion that it meets, though. I suppose I could invent one – Gurch 22:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Extreme apathy --pgk 22:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  How very... extreme. Sure I can't sway you in the direction of Extreme Ignorance? – Gurch 01:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Um. I like humour, but this seems just a little bit too bitter. Perhaps it needs to be edited mercilessly. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Extremely mercilessly? Will 01:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  For that matter, extremely bitter? – Gurch 05:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not-so-extreme keep. Harmless humour. Will 01:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  Extremely harmless? Mostly harmless? --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I like mittens. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is to keep. Naconkantari 01:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  Three points for the first completely nonsensical suggestion! – Gurch 05:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Extreme Keep. It's extremely humourous, and extremely says so on its page. (At worst, ExtremeBJAODN.) Ourai _с 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Keep as a great satire and perfectly good use of Misplaced Pages namespace. — Dark Shikari /_contribs 03:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  Bonus point for having a signature that takes up three lines (and that's on a widescreen monitor!) – Gurch 05:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• My cat's breath smells like cat food per Naconcantari (in other earth words, keep). Anchoress 04:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  Two points for silliness – Gurch 05:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• EXTREME WEAK KEEP FOR BEING EXTREMELY HARMLESS! ★MESSEDROCKER X-TREME!★ 04:50, 24 NOVEMBER-EXTREME 2006 (UTC-EXTREME!)

  One point for "extreme weak", one for inappropriate use of all caps, and two for the novel use of an extreme timestamp – Gurch 05:53, 24 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. (Radiant) 11:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Extreme sports

Unmaintained portal that looks ... umm ... bad BigDT 03:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not so much unmaintained as ill-formatted and practically no potential to attract dedicated maintainers.--cj | talk 03:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• I fixed the worst formatting mistake (a missing closed div) but there's still no portal worth keeping here. Delete. Kusma (討論) 11:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - as per the creator's (repeated) requests for contact on the portal, I have advised him of the proposed deletion. There is a Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Extreme sports which this portal relates to, so there is a reasonable chance of its improvement down the road, depending on how many articles the project creates. I do however wholeheartedly agree that right now it is rather unappealing. Yes, I am being polite there. Badbilltucker 14:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- As it stands now, the portal would be of very little, if any, use to anyone.--Fyre2387 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete...As of right now, it is unusual.__Seadog 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blue, purple, and green? wtf... delete per above. Cbrown1023 03:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme delete :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I've sorted out the box headers and footers to get rid of the repeating text. If it had some content (and a colour change) it would be ok. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. (Radiant) 11:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:United Groups And Committees

Also includes:

• Misplaced Pages:United Groups And Committees Administration
• Misplaced Pages:United Groups And Committees/Nav
• Template:User wikipedia/United Groups And Committees

It's not entirely clear what this is was intended to be (aside from being a group to "oversee all group activities on Misplaced Pages"); as far as I can tell, it's never had any members or related activity after being created last January. I can't see any possible use for this. Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Housekeeping. Badbilltucker 14:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Fyre2387 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom...The project has never been busy or had any activity since its creation, therefor what would be of use for this.__Seadog 00:55, 23 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 speedy delete by Jaranda as nonsense. There's NP Patrol for project space too people, don't forget to watch this every now and then. Kimchi.sg 04:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Whacker

Unsure what this is intended to be, but it seems to have little-to-nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. Delete. -- nae'blis 22:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reads more like an advert-turned-real-article if I ever saw one. Speedy Delete; BTW, this should have been a page on the deletionist philosophy. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, and delete. Whatever it is, it ain't an encyclopedia article! SupaStarGirl 23:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Slgrandson above. Badbilltucker 01:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 01:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Was this projectfied to get around NP patrol, or something, because I can't think of any other reason it would occur to someone to put it in projectspace... -Amarkov _edits 01:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per all of the above. Cbrown1023 03:21, 23 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 KEEP User:Husnock created his own sub-page to counter this material, which can be located at: User:Husnock/Durinconcerns -Husnock 08:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Durin/Husnock images

This page was created by User:Durin as a result of a dispute he and I are having over images I have uploaded to Misplaced Pages. The details are extensive but, in my opinion, User:Durin has requested unrelastic information about images, demanded that they be provided immediaetly, and has engaged in harrasment and "Wiki-stalking" of my every edits. This page has been created to resemble some kind of offical Misplaced Pages page where he lists my various "offenses". These have not been reviewed by any other editors and certainly do not reflect a formal decision or ruling by any Misplaced Pages organization. I am insulted by this page as it was created without my knowledge and seems to slander me with the apperance that I am a bad user who knowingly violates copyright laws and uploads bad images. User:Durin also has recently added a "suspension" notice to the page but continues to expand the page and add further accusations. This page should deleted for a vareity of reasons, most important of which that it is making unproven statements about my actions and perhaps even qualifies as a border line Personal Attack Husnock 11:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, all Durin does is enforce our image use policy. If you think our image use policy is unreasonable, try to change the policy. And you should really learn to tag images properly: as an admin, you should set an example for others. Even the images you uploaded that are PD and where I believe that they are PD as probably made for the US government should have a source so they can be verified per WP:V, independent of the copyright issue. Please work to fix the image issues (for instance Image:Macarthurcap.jpg is self-contradictory, it can't be PD and "with permission": permission for what?) instead of shooting the messenger. Kusma (討論) 11:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand the reference to that image at all. i tagged it as with permission and someone else changed it public domain becuase it is a military insignia. And in that case, I gave the exact name of the business which released the picture to me and I also think I offered a phone number at one point. -Husnock 15:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I had not checked the history of that item, just want to add that it's probably best to log all permissions using the process at Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission and to make it clear what the permission entails (if permission is for Misplaced Pages only, like permissions often are, the image should be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#I3). Kusma (討論) 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Durin has merely been trying to enforce image use policy, and has, as far as I can see, been reasonable and courteous. (He removed a fair use image from my user space some months ago, and I thanked him.) Jimbo is most anxious that this policy be enforced strictly. Husnock has been constantly reverting attempts to remove fair use images from pages where they are not supposed to be, even to the extent of using rollback on an administrator (Geni) who had made it clear in the edit summary that he was removing fair use images, protecting the article in his version while he was a party to the edit war, and then explaining on the talk page that he was concerned about Geni's acknowledged sockpuppet. (Geni's sockpuppets are all legitimate.) The only reason that this case has even remotely looked like harassment is because Husnock has been so uncooperative, and because there are few people who care enough about the image policy to get involved in this extremely thankless job so Durin has not been given enough support. Also, this edit and the existence of this page could be seen as insulting to Durin. AnnH ♫ 12:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify "uncooperative", I asked Durin for time and explained three times I was deployed overseas. He dismissed this and tagged all a number of images that they would be deleted in seven days. He then would post "notices" on my page if I didnt answer his every inquiry in 12-24 hours. As for User:Husnock/Durinharass, that page is merely a record of his talk page entries where one can see the pattern of demanding info and not accepting my answers. His page is a "list of charges". I'm not even going to begin to go into what I suspect is going on in the real world, where I believe he is contacting certain persons to "check up" on me, such as e-mailing two employees of the City of Corpus Christi and questioning them about who I am. Judging by the attitudes on this page so far, I will probably lose this but I wonder how many people Durin will chase away from this project by hounding thier edits and demanding personal information. -Husnock 15:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• I also must defend myself about P&C since you are not telling the full story. Geri removed all the images without any discussion about it. I reverted, asked him why he did it, and he reverted again and again removed the images with no discussion s to why. At first, before I ever knew he was an Admin, I thought this was someone trying to harm the page. I protected it, but had not protected a page in several months so then reviewed the policy. After realizing that I could not protect a page that I was involved with, I self reverted. I then attempting a compromise by replacing all the images with a single image and contacted Geri to see if that would be okay via the talk page of a new article. So, tell the full story, not just the parts that make me look in the image Durin would have you see. -Husnock 15:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A suggested compromise was posted to the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard and both Durin and Husnock agreed to it. As this page documents which images Durin has concerns with, it should be available to the mediator so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel. If there is specific content within the page that Husnock has concerns with, he should notify the mediator and let them deal with it. Once the mediation is done and the images resolved, then both this page and Husnock's would no longer be needed and should be deleted at the mediator's discretion. -- JLaTondre 12:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have admin powers, so if the page is deleted, I can restore or view the history needed, so this MFD is pretty moot, IMHO. User:Zscout370 14:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I hope, old friend, if the consensus is to delete, you wouldnt just restore. And I couldalso delete the page right now and abuse my powers, but am following the proper course. -Husnock 15:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I do not even have to restore: I just view the history of each edit and just copy and paste names of the images in the search bar at the right. (As for the images themselves, I think some have replacements for them or we need to find some). User:Zscout370 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I recognize that. However, transparency of process has been a recent big issue on Misplaced Pages. I see no reason to delete this page so only admins can refer to it. If Husnock has valid concerns regarding the content, that can be addressed without deleting the whole page. As mediator, if you wish to consolidate Durin's & Husnock's sides of the dispute somewhere else & replace with redirects or simply delete, I think that's fine, but I think deleting only one side's listing of the issues that are to be mediated is not conductive. To be blunt, both sides have said they agree to the mediation. They should abide by that and leave it to mediator to clean things up. There's no need to continue arguing across multiple pages. -- JLaTondre 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Durin's concerns seem well founded and his "unreasonable demands" appear in line with the demands our image policies make. As pointed out elsewhere your presence or otherwise is a non-issue from the perspective of copyright, if you are unable (for any reason, lack of will, absence etc.) to provide the relevant detail to make sure wikipedia is covered they should be deleted until such time as that can be done. This page appears to be preferable to maintaining it offsite, it certainly provides transparency and also enables others with an interest to help out filling in the gaps or proviiding alternate images (both of which are preferable to immediate deletion). --pgk 08:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Don't see anything wrong with this. I agree with Pgk. Kyo cat 21:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. See reasons right below. --Cat out 15:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone desires to list all images by a specific user they can use a toolserv tool for it or use the "User Contributions" link. A simple checklist w/o any comments would also be fine.
  • We have recently altered and added a significant amount of bureaucracy to the copyright process. Any newer upload must comply with the new rules. How ever applying this to the older images can easily overwhelm any long term contributor and would only be counter-productive. There is absolutely no reason to rush things, provided that there are no immediate legal threats requiring immediate action.
  • All images should be reviewed on a case by case basis in a public location so other parties can involved in the discussion. A number of images listed such as Image:USN1.gif are clearly in the PD. I do not believe a discussion is even necessary for such images.

  --Cat out 15:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This information is key to the dispute resolution. NauticaShades 08:20, 26 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 speedy delete, WP:CSD G11. --Sam Blanning 22:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:PEACE

Screed promoting a peace organisation. Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost. Kimchi.sg 21:51, 22 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 02:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Badgeman

Contains only conpiracycruft about the Kennedy asassination and violates WP:USER; user hasn't edited since January '05 and then was an SPA whose edits solely related to the eponymous grassy knoll shooter; Warning: page contains disturbing image of JFK being shot in head.

Nomination also includes related User talk:Badgeman, which also violates WP:USER for the same reasons. JChap2007 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, don't forget to get rid of those images. MER-C 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with fire, per nom. - Mailer Diablo 07:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Fyre2387 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.-_Seadog 00:56, 23 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 speedy delete - 1), you posted the MfD notice to the wrong page (it needs to go on the page you want to delete), 2) you can't usurp someone's account name even if you delete its user pages but 3) I have speedy deleted the talk page anyway as spam. --Sam Blanning 16:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Bobby

Only 1 contribution which occurred back in 2003. Talk Page appears to be used for web space. My reasons for nomination are somewhat selfish (I want the username so that I can have a more private account) so I abstain from voting. →Bobby← 16:24, 22 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 02:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal:A Series of Unfortunate Events

Please note that associated pages should be deleted as well:

• Portal:A Series of Unfortunate Events/Did you know
• Portal:A Series of Unfortunate Events/Featured Article
• Portal:A Series of Unfortunate Events/Intro
• Portal:A Series of Unfortunate Events/Topics
• Portal:A Series of Unfortunate Events/box-footer
• Portal:A Series of Unfortunate Events/box-footer2
• Portal:A Series of Unfortunate Events/box-header

This portal that has not been touched since its initial creation in July. While there are three non-stub articles on this portal and thus it does not qualify for speedy deletion, there seems to be little hope for its success - the creator and only editor was blocked after an arbitration hearing. BigDT 02:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom and becasue there are no editors actually editing it.`Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and because it has no context. Cbrown1023 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above, with the reservation and because I personally think that the scope of the portal is too small to ever be able to make it a really useful portal. However, I reserve the right to change my opinion based on whether the members of the WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events work to improve the portal over the course of this discussion. Badbilltucker 14:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As a large contributor to WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events. I honestly don't think this project needs a portal. The project is fairly small, and the project page and associated talk page fit our needs. Clamster5 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep & update Right now it there seems no reason for it to be kept, but I think it has great potential if it starts to be regularly updated. Pacaman! 18:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unsatisfactory now and no reason to believe it will be improved.--Fyre2387 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, delete per nom.__Seadog 00:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Same as Clamster. bibliomaniac15 04:21, 23 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. One of the more blatant examples of WP:WEBSPACE; no chance this is getting kept. Kimchi.sg 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sgurusam

Only content is hundreds of external links, and does not constitute a user page. Misplaced Pages is not a free web host. The user has not been seen in a year. MER-C 07:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 07:53, 22 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 speedied as spam. Opabinia regalis 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Couponalbum

Blatant advert. Was speedy but user removed tag. Derlay 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as blatant advertising as per Speedy deletion criterion G11. Badbilltucker 02:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 04:42, 22 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-21

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. (Radiant) 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The various subpages of Sean gorter

• Delete. Per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. — Whedonette (ping) 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Unlike many of the people whose userspace pages are nominated here, User:Sean_gorter seems to visit the site regularly, including today. I've left him a note that these pages have been nominated for deletion and requesting his input, which I think should be standard procedure in this kind of situation. Newyorkbrad 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure if it is standard procedure, but I do agree with Newyorkbrad that it is a point of standard courtesy. I don't fault anyone who isn't familiar with the process for not doing so, but I do try to make sure the creators of pages I propose for deletion are advised of it. My thanks to him for having caught it already. Regarding the pages themselves, they seem to me to be probably not particularaly useful, but, for all I know, they may have some usefulness for others, so I abstain from expressing an opinion at this time. Badbilltucker 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How can a script featuring repetitive "pooting" by a character called Farterboy possibly have any use to an encyclopedia project? Or, for that matter, an organization whose acronym stands for Papa Leaving his WifE's Alcoholic Son alonE? I did not highlight any of his subpages that had anything to do with actual encyclopedic work — even the many "signature shop" pages. But Misplaced Pages is not a private web host, and the user very clearly is using it as one. This is a very easy slam dunk. — Whedonette (ping) 01:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree with you that on the merits the proper result is speedy delete. But it's still nice to give due notice, and equally important, upon seeing this discussion the user might agree to db-author the pages and resolve the issue. Newyorkbrad 01:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is to my eyes Patent nonsense, which is one of the general criteria for speedy deletion, but I don't know if that applies for userpages. A lot of my own userpages have qualified as incomprehensible gibberish, so I hesitate to pull the speedy trigger. I can agree to Delete, though. Badbilltucker 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. MER-C 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps this is the PIIer in me talking but, notwithstanding that the location of the discussion will be altogether irrelevant to its ultimate disposition, ought not the latter three items nominated (viz., the {{pd-self}} images) to be situated at IfD? Joe 07:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My impression is that since I'm nominating things as a thematic batch, they'd go here. — Whedonette (ping) 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Just speaking for myself, when I rec'd a similar group of pages yesterday I did the images at IfD and the userpages here. Not sure which method is more correct, though.--Fyre2387 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Fyre2387 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- If for no other reason to prevent a speedy delete before Sean gorter has a chance to comment on these nominations. A peek at his contribution history suggests that he may not even know that these pages have been nominated, & he may also need a bit of time to recover from the shock when he discovers all of these pages have been nominated for deletion. On another page the nominator urged that the other party assume good faith; let's assume good faith with Sean for the time being. -- llywrch 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I assume that now that he has had a chance to comment on the proceedings, you have a chance to reconsider your vote if you so desire? — Whedonette (ping) 17:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What's your hurry over deleting these userspace pages? I'm entirely content with allowing this discussion to run for five days or more, at whch time an Admin will evaluate the arguments for & against then make a ruling. I'm a little disappointed in that Sean hasn't written more than expressing his surprise at their nomination -- but I'm clearly disappointed in that you didn't approach him first, discuss your concern over these pages, & suggest that he himself request some or all of them be deleted. I have found nothing to suggest that he isn't a reasonable person, & a civil discussion might have achieved removal of these pages without leaving any hard feelings; nominating these pages without talking to him first was like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. -- llywrch 18:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I, too, am perfectly willing to allow this discussion to run for five days or more. Nowhere in here have I indicated I am nominating these pages for speedy deletion, and indeed specifically stated I was not doing so below. As for your disappointment in me, I suppose I will have to live with that burden. — Whedonette (ping) 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- I didn't even know that this page was started. Can you please tell me why my subpages are being criteria'd for speedy deletion? ~~•Sean•gorter• 03:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Welcome. This is why I believe we should always notify the users whose pages are being discussed. I will let the nominator respond to your question but you might want to take a look at the policies cited in the first delete comment above. Newyorkbrad 03:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've not nominated them for speedy deletion (or they would've been gone already), Sean — just deletion. Misplaced Pages is for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia, and our user pages are supposed to reflect that. Look at Misplaced Pages's user page policy: "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Misplaced Pages." Misplaced Pages's servers are not a web host where we can put anything we like, nor is it a place where we're supposed to just congregate with our friends. All of the above pages have absolutely nothing to do with what the Misplaced Pages project's purpose is. We're not here to run signature shops, write stories and create images about farting people, or congregate with our friends outside the purposes of putting articles together — we're here to write an encyclopedia. That's the very long version of why these pages have been nominated for deletion. — Whedonette (ping) 17:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You should have informed him first, though.--SUIT 00:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom and WP:NOT. None of these pages have the slightest amount of content that is either encyclopedic or used to benefit the encyclopedia. -- Kicking222 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete them all'. No useful purpose to the encyclopedia. --Deskana talk 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm-so-sorry-man Delete - Jeez, even I don't have that many. I'm sorry, but that many useless subpages is just wrong. Maybe one, but if that's not below the radar then even that's pushing it... I mean, what is P.L.E.A.S.E. even? I know you've spent a lot of time on them, but they are too many & too non-wikipedia to be kept. Sorry (I hate being mean...) :( Spawn Man 09:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral' leaning toward keep. I understand the WP:NOT thing, but I myself have quite a few sub-pages (namely: for user page, sandbox, templates and userboxes, etc.). —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. This is not myspace. Eusebeus 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have requested the redirect User:S!/P be deleted as a userpage of a nonexistant user (Sorry dude, "PLEASE" made me laugh soo hard). I'm assuming "PLEASE" is a parody of "EA" ? It looks a awful lot like it... 68.39.174.238 03:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (PS. That's my interpretation of it, I didn't read it real throughly and could easily be mistaken)

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 miscellany 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 nomination withdrawn. Kimchi.sg 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Cleaning up vandalism

The page is just a copy of Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit. Since this page seems to be much less active than WP:CVU, it might as well just be deleted and redirected to WP:CVU.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 20:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - these look to be two different pages, to me. This is suggestions for people to consider if they want to deal with vandalism; the CVU is one of those methods, a group of people who deal with vandalism. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This site looks more user friendly. Possibly merge.

Thomasmeeks 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note, I've asked the nominator to consider withdrawing this, in light of all the debate that I think they may have missed when this came up in the WP:CVU debates. . — xaosflux 01:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This page has some valid points for editors who are not members of the CVU. —Cswrye 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and delete Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit. --Cyde Weys 18:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Changed vote to keep - Since most of the users who have commented claim that this page serves a unique purpose, I change my vote to keep.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 20:16, 22 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 speedy delete CSD G7. Kimchi.sg 15:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:T3h933k/4chan

Using Misplaced Pages as a webhost. I've seen multiple links to it floating around on other sites, which makes this pretty obvious. Also a copyvio, since it was pasted from another website with no author attribution (would would be necessary even if the content was GFDL). --Slowking Man 13:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. L0b0t 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - for obvious reasons. →Bobby← 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 20:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and because that page serves no real purpose any longer. t3h933k 06:35, 22 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. El_C 02:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:4myself4/SuperAir

Also nominating sub-pages:

• User:4myself4/SuperAir/Comic_1
• User:4myself4/SuperAir/Comic_2

Misplaced Pages is not a webspace provider, and thus should not be used to host comics. --Fyre2387 04:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. And shame on the creator for abusing Wiki so. L0b0t 15:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Has no encyclopedic value, and isn't even spelled very well. Badbilltucker 17:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.__Seadog 00:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please I'm not trying to do anything, I'm trying to make my comic a part of WIkipedia. Not abusing Wiki. The spelling is supposed to be the way like it is. The entire reason I brought it to Misplaced Pages is to make it a part of the encyclopia. For people to enjoy it and know about it. I'm sorry. 4myself4 17:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Deleteper nom. I'm sorry, but a home-made comic book is not suitable material for an encyclopedia. Kyo cat 21:15, 24 November 2006 (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.

• Misplaced Pages deletion