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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Since I closed a number of similar discussions in the April, nothing has really changed. There is still no consensus for the deletion of secret pages of active contributors. For a summary of the arguments for and against deletion see this MfD. You can look at the MfD discussions linked from here to find out when such pages should be deleted. Ruslik_ Zero 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

User:Baseball Bugs/somethingelse (neé User:Baseball Bugs/hidden)

MFD notice removed from the original page as a copyedit.

Not exactly, Uncle G. I moved the page to a different name and moved the deletion notice back to the page the nominator was griping about, since it's apparently the name that's the problem. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The name (which is acceptable) is not a problem. The nominator is mistaken. Cunard ( talk) 03:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Secret page Triona ( talk) 00:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Just a user page, not harmful. If it was a secret, how did you find it? Quite odd. - BilCat ( talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Long standing, established editor. We allow considerable leeway to established editors like Bugs. Also the RFC on keeping secret pages has not started yet while the MfD was clearly in favour of keeping them. I suggest speedy keep under the circumstances. Dr.K.  ^{λogos πraxis} 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Actually, the page isn't even secret: it is (or was last time I looked) directly accessible through the user's page. Triona, do you really perceive this sort of thing as a good use of your time on wikipedia? PhGustaf ( talk) 01:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, it is still accessible from my user page. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - adore you, Bugs, but these pages are just nonsense. And it's categorically unfair to newer users to say "oh, the old guys can do this, but You! Must! Follow! ZEE ROOLS!" →  ROUX  ₪  01:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) This is not about the "old guys". It is about someone proving through their contributions that they came here to build an encyclopedia and not just play games. As long as any newbie behaves in similarly constructive manner the same consideration goes to them as well. Dr.K.  ^{λogos πraxis} 01:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• That is blatantly false. Newbies--you know, the people who don't know the rules yet?--are held to an impossibly higher standard of behaviour than those who have been around for a while. It's completely bass-ackwards. →  ROUX  ₪  01:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• I don't have any experience of such discrepancies. It shouldn't be the way you describe it. If everything else is equal everyone should be allowed considerable leeway in creating their subpages as long as they don't spend all their time in their secret pages. Dr.K.  ^{λogos πraxis} 02:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• I find that rather difficult to believe. Take a look at AN/I at any random time and you will see newbies hauled up to be castigated for stuff that would pass without comment from an established user. →  ROUX  ₪  03:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• I usually don't follow ANI due to the large volume of cases there, but from what sampling I do I haven't detected any such newbie maltreatment cases. However now that you raised the issue I'll check more selectively. Dr.K.  ^{λogos πraxis} 05:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note The nominator is basically nominating everything that's labeled a "secret" or "hidden" page. As noted here [1] [2] by Cunard ( talk · contribs), my so-called "hidden" page does not need to be deleted. It's actually just another little talk page, along the same lines as my unprotected page. If the subpage name "hidden" is a problem, I could rename it to something else. :) ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Moot now, probably ought to summarily close this nomination without further ado. Not worth the time to go through unnecessary process. Counsel nominator not to do this in future.- Wikidemon ( talk) 02:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I had assumed that the nominator was working in conjunction with Cunard, but I guess she arrived at this independently. I see 9 nominations starting at about the 0:41 mark. [3] Only maybe 1 or 2 of those look like they might be policy-violating. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
    • You are correct. Triona, whom I don't believe I've interacted with before, and I are not working in conjunction. This page falls well within policy and is an acceptable use of userspace. You did not need to move the page, as the title User:Baseball Bugs/hidden, is acceptable. I am in favor of keeping this page at either title. Cunard ( talk) 03:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As someone mentioned in a concurrent nomination, the RfC on hidden pages has not yet begun. Unless nominator can refer to some actual policies which dictate deletion of pages that are nominated, please do not nominate. I'd rather get up-to-date on my watchlist than being stuck at MfD assisting users from having their user pages and private notes of harm to nobody deleted by wanton nominations. __ meco ( talk) 07:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep I see no problem here. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 08:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- While some of the comments on this page do not directly contribute to building an encyclopedia, I think it is specious to characterize this page as a waste of space, because some do. I went through the first handful of edits to this page, and found that a good half of them were directly contributing to building an encyclopedia. As it happens I don't remember ever creating a monobook.css page. And plan to look into it after reading this so called "useless" page. I have got to wonder whether the nominator actually bothered to read the page, prior to making this nomination. If they didn't shame on them. If they did, and simply failed to recognize that this was page that was contributing to building a better encyclopedia, I urge them to be less of a wet blanket. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • ...you also have no monobook.css file.
  • I was going to ask if you had a monobook.css which could be causing your infobox issues - then figured I'd look for myself. Found this instead and couldn't resist...
  • I not only don't have a monobook.css file, I don't even know what that is...
  • It's a way to set your own CSS - visible only to you. You could definitely do simple things like change fonts and colors but you might even be able to change layout like you were seeing. I haven't looked very close at how they lay out pages here but if they follow web standards closely, there's little limit to how much you can change things. CSS Zen Garden is a great example of the power of CSS and web standards.
• Delete The rule is NOT MYSPACE, and it applies to everybody. The more experienced here, the more a person should realize that. The discussion about css would have been equally or more helpful on the regular talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep – A small collection of comments built-up in the course of making thousands of productive edits. It's obviously not a personal webpage or being used to run a dating service. Editors need something like this to not go insane over the years. Any newbie is welcome to do the same thing after 10K edits. Maybe we should require it to prove they are human. Close and move on. — UncleDouggie ( talk) 09:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• I'm struggling to see how any of the arguments presented in favour of keeping ("harmless", "established user", "there hasn't been a general RFC yet") adequately address the concerns that have resulted in the majority of these pages being deleted over the last few months. The argument that this isn't a "hidden page" as such seems to be rather quibbling over semantics. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• What exactly are your concerns in this specific case? Are you concerned that Bugs and his friends are going to waste their time here and harm the project by engaging in activities which are not encyclopedia-buiding? Dr.K.  ^{λogos πraxis} 16:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• That is irrelevant. Rules apply to everyone. →  ROUX  ₪  16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Which rule, specifically? ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• WP:MYSPACE. It's really simple: either hidden pages are bad news bears, in which case boot 'em. Across the board. Or they're okay, in which case leave 'em. Across the board. Telling new users they're not allowed to do what established (what does established mean, anyway?) users can do is unfair, not community-minded, and alienating. →  ROUX  ₪  17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• First, my "hidden" page is not hidden. Beyond that, which of those 4 points do you allege that my "hidden" page violates? (Or are you just funnin' us?) One of the 4 points mentions a dating service. My dating service is on my primary talk page. Near the top, there's a banner providing the current date and time, as a service for the many weary travelers that stop by. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Thank you Bugs for the clarification. It's good to know that you contribute so much to wiki e-Harmony. Dr.K.  ^{λogos πraxis} 18:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• I'll tell you what I think "established" means. It means that you have established a record of contributions which indicate strongly a level of trustworthiness and commitment to this project. Going after people like that for creating subpages in their userspace, something that incidentally is absolutely allowed, is ridiculous and counterproductive. Dr.K.  ^{λogos πraxis} 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Let's first make it clear that it is of absolutely no concern whose user page this is. If anything, Bugs has shown himself to have a sufficiently thick skin that I doubt he'd quit the project if this were deleted (sadly not an uncommon sentiment to be uttered in these debates). Furthermore, had this not been nominated it would probably have lain around indefinitely in a dormant state, not doing anyone any harm. However, now that it's been taken to MfD, the question must be asked what purpose it has in building an encyclopedia. The answer is none; it's a short, moribund chat page, much of the contents of which is chatter. While we do not prohibit such things, we do not encourage them, and if the dead ones are pruned now and then it helps to stop new users from thinking of them as a good idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• You are making some reasonable points. I wouldn't reach quite the same conclusions as you are but I respect your opinion. Dr.K.  ^{λogos πraxis} 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• A new user wouldn't have the experience interacting with other users to create such a page. If it was a personal website with no references to anything in Wikipedia or the process of building it, I would agree with Chris. That's not what it is and that's not why it was nominated. The nomination was as a hidden page and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete on those grounds. Instead, we have gone on a hunt for a new reason and blindly pointed to WP:MYSPACE without much detailed rationale. If anyone feels so strongly about it, please close this MfD and open a new one as a WP:MYSPACE page with a specific reason as to which of the four points are being violated. — UncleDouggie ( talk) 06:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• This is a debate, and it can have any number of outcomes which aren't all predicated on exactly what the nominating rationale is. Again, it's semantic quibbling whether or not it was actually hidden because in practice it serves the same purpose: an obscure, guestbook-type bit of userspace for users to chance upon. As for whether or not new users will find these things, you'd be amazed how quickly new users pick up myspacey bits of userspace (guestbooks, userboxes, floating divs that replace the globe logo et cetera). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• "...floating divs that replace the globe logo...". Sounds nifty. Just tell me: (1) How do you do that? and (2) What is a "floating div"? ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• OK, must be an html thing. I don't really do html. My expertise is in database management. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• I respect the slippery slope argument; I've used it a lot myself. I've also found over the years that overuse of this argument has its own slippery slope. How about we slap a humor disclaimer on it and call it a day? — UncleDouggie ( talk) 09:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep, users (especially active contributors) are generally granted a great degree of latitude in userspace provided that what they're doing isn't actively harmful to the project. This isn't even close to actively harmful, and doesn't even come close to the threshold where we should forcibly remove it from someone's userspace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE. —  Train2104 ( talk • contribs • count) 01:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep There is no consensus to delete this. As far as i can see as long as a user contributes to the encyclopedia there is no precedent to delete these. -- Guerillero | My Talk 03:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.