- 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 early keep, with this edit made under the remit of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. For more details, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deepmath/Gangstalked. Yes, there is content on this page that the community will find objectionable, including the "all you freemasons" assertions and other attacks aimed at the reader for starters. It is intermingled with content, such as article interests, that is clearly not objectionable. The objectionable content is removable with the ordinary editing tool. The deletion tool is not the tool to use, here. I strongly recommend discussion of the objectionable content with the user and, if that fails, a user RFC and some collective boldness. MFD is not the tool for this job. Uncle G ( talk) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The page looks like a blog or a private web page with very little Wikipedia content. It also contains inflammatory content and many factual errors (like the toxicity of cyanide). It violates the Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?.-- Sjö ( talk) 17:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Different people interpret the guidelines differently:
- Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth.
- This is what I read. I'd like to keep my page and request that Sjö stop harassing me on Wikipedia. If there is some content that Sjö dislikes, we can have a discussion on what is appropriate and what is not in my particular case. It is inappropriate to simply ban a user from having a user page, or to propose it for deletion by referencing general guidelines without being specific about exactly what content on the user page is objectionable. Content on my user page, e.g. likes and dislikes, does not have to be factual. Here is a list of about fourteen articles to which I have contributed heavily: User:Deepmath#And_how.27s_traffic_in_Maryland.2C_boys.3F. Deepmath ( talk) 06:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete or remove violations of " What may I not have on my user page?" (#2, #3, #4, #9, #10) ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: You need to be specific about exactly what the violations are.
Deepmath (
talk)
20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No I don't need to. But I will anyways. #2: "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia" 99% of the pages and pages of drivel have nothing to do with Wikipedia. #3 "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia" Of course the word "page" is undefined, but I think most people would agree that this is more than a couple of pages of personal information. #9 "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." Yikes. The opinions on French people, preachers, rabbis, cops, men, counterintelligence, and healthcare is divisive to say the least. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
20:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. There is no reason to single me out. Many Wikipedians have extensive user pages. Do you have a financial interest in
our corrupt healthcare system in the United States? My interest in drug patent reform is certainly pertinent to "collaboration and free content".
Deepmath (
talk)
21:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You're not being singled out. This page blatantly fails the guideline so someone nominated it. I agree with the nomination and the guideline. I gave the logic behind my agreement. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I also have some good research ideas on my user page that people would love to patent if they could delete my page to remove evidence of prior art.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not saying that the material doesn't belong anywhere, it's just the guidelines state that they don't belong on Wikipedia (including your user page). ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I also have some good research ideas on my user page that people would love to patent if they could delete my page to remove evidence of prior art.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Do I have a financial interest in healthcare in the United States? What do you mean exactly? ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Drug patents? Making generic drugs illegal?
Deepmath (
talk)
21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why would you think that I have financial interest in making generic drugs illegal? ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is prior art for a perfectly patentable idea:
Autostereogram#Example code in PHP: What I would really love to do, or like to see done, is to take two photographs from slightly different perspectives, perform
edge detection on them, match them up with a
maximum mutual information
image registration algorithm, and create a grayscale depth map to use as input to my example code in that article.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with your user page? ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is on my user page.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. I was suggesting that you "remove violations". Just remove the stuff that violates " What may I not have on my user page?". Sure, keep the php thing on your user page. The guideline doesn't care about that so neither do I. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is on my user page.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why would you think that I have financial interest in making generic drugs illegal? You object to my discussion of our corrupt healthcare system in the US, which is based on drug patents and raping the public domain.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I object to extremely divisive content only because it's described on WP:UP. I do not have financial gain of course but I don't know why I have to state that. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- You called my opinions extremely divisive, and rather than discussing them, you want to stifle them.
Deepmath (
talk)
22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not want to stifle your opinions, I'm just agreeing that some of your opinions violate the guideline and don't belong on Wikipedia. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. They don't belong on Wikipedia, they don't belong on a forum anywhere, they don't belong on my private web server, nobody will host them anywhere, whatever. Can't win for losing when I talk to people like you, who talk nice but hack around behind the scenes. And what about my opinions, exactly, makes them inappropriate for Wikipedia? I've already shown that they are relevant to collaboration, public domain, and free content. They've patented all the known genes in the human body, if you can believe that! And
our healthcare system just keeps right on raping us.
Deepmath (
talk)
22:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see where anyone's suggested that your opinions don't belong on a private webserver - and even if they had you wouldn't have to listen since your own web space is private. This discussion should be solely about hosting the content on Wikipedia.
- It's not that your opinions are 'inappropriate' per se, it's that you've put so much personal stuff on your user page. I don't think anyone would be objecting to a few paragraphs of this: it's the 'more than a couple of pages' cited by Arichnad that's the problem.
Olaf Davis (
talk)
09:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I've just noticed that your talk page says "if I set [a website] up on my home server, it invariably gets hacked into and all my physical backup copies go missing." - perhaps that's what you meant about a private server. If that's the case then it's unfortunate and I'm sympathetic to your irritation, but I'm afraid it's not really Wikipedia's problem. The Wikimedia foundation is not in the business of providing free webhosting for victims of computer crime.
Olaf Davis (
talk)
09:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, when it's the same people harassing me on Wikipedia as elsewhere online, and stealing from my safe deposit box it does get a little irritating. I frankly don't care if you are sympathetic to me or not. I'm more concerned that you be brought to justice if you are in fact involved with computer crime, which, from your attitude, you seem to be. I'm not in the business of prosecuting crimes. That's more for the Department of Defense and the fibbies. I'm a little bit out of the bailiwick of the Säkerhetspolis or MI-5 or MI-6 or GCHQ or what-have-you in Britain. Deepmath ( talk) 00:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I've just noticed that your talk page says "if I set [a website] up on my home server, it invariably gets hacked into and all my physical backup copies go missing." - perhaps that's what you meant about a private server. If that's the case then it's unfortunate and I'm sympathetic to your irritation, but I'm afraid it's not really Wikipedia's problem. The Wikimedia foundation is not in the business of providing free webhosting for victims of computer crime.
Olaf Davis (
talk)
09:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. They don't belong on Wikipedia, they don't belong on a forum anywhere, they don't belong on my private web server, nobody will host them anywhere, whatever. Can't win for losing when I talk to people like you, who talk nice but hack around behind the scenes. And what about my opinions, exactly, makes them inappropriate for Wikipedia? I've already shown that they are relevant to collaboration, public domain, and free content. They've patented all the known genes in the human body, if you can believe that! And
our healthcare system just keeps right on raping us.
Deepmath (
talk)
22:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not want to stifle your opinions, I'm just agreeing that some of your opinions violate the guideline and don't belong on Wikipedia. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- You called my opinions extremely divisive, and rather than discussing them, you want to stifle them.
Deepmath (
talk)
22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I object to extremely divisive content only because it's described on WP:UP. I do not have financial gain of course but I don't know why I have to state that. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with your user page? ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is prior art for a perfectly patentable idea:
Autostereogram#Example code in PHP: What I would really love to do, or like to see done, is to take two photographs from slightly different perspectives, perform
edge detection on them, match them up with a
maximum mutual information
image registration algorithm, and create a grayscale depth map to use as input to my example code in that article.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why would you think that I have financial interest in making generic drugs illegal? ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Drug patents? Making generic drugs illegal?
Deepmath (
talk)
21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You're not being singled out. This page blatantly fails the guideline so someone nominated it. I agree with the nomination and the guideline. I gave the logic behind my agreement. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. There is no reason to single me out. Many Wikipedians have extensive user pages. Do you have a financial interest in
our corrupt healthcare system in the United States? My interest in drug patent reform is certainly pertinent to "collaboration and free content".
Deepmath (
talk)
21:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No I don't need to. But I will anyways. #2: "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia" 99% of the pages and pages of drivel have nothing to do with Wikipedia. #3 "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia" Of course the word "page" is undefined, but I think most people would agree that this is more than a couple of pages of personal information. #9 "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." Yikes. The opinions on French people, preachers, rabbis, cops, men, counterintelligence, and healthcare is divisive to say the least. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
20:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: You need to be specific about exactly what the violations are.
Deepmath (
talk)
20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (undent) I'm honestly not sure what part of my attitude makes me seem like a criminal. I don't really mind the accusation, although some people might have been seriously upset by it. It's probably wise not to say such things unless you're fairly certain about them.
- For the record: to the best of my knowledge I have had no interaction with Deepmath on Wikipedia or elsewhere prior to my comments in this MfD.
Olaf Davis (
talk)
09:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Olaf, I don't think you have been in the least bit unreasonable or unfair. Instead, I think User:Deepmath is just a little paranoid, (with good reason? I don't know.) I suggest, as per Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear, that we leave him alone, as long as he is not actually hurting anyone. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Reasonable leeway for a productive contributor. It is all relevent to understanding the contributor. I read it all and was not inflammed. It might be nice if User:Deepmath organised content into subpages, due to the size of the page. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've started doing so, but I'm getting tired of being harassed by User:Sjö. Deepmath ( talk) 07:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete if the content in question is not largely removed, in case that's not obvious from my comments above. Whether it's inflammatory or not I think the sheer volume of material which is nothing to do with Wikipedia goes beyond 'reasonable leeway'. Olaf Davis ( talk) 09:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete enough is enough. Wikipedia is not a web host. This crosses the line of reasonable personal material. Gigs ( talk) 14:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Freemason sockpuppetry. Deepmath ( talk) 22:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was early keep, with this edit made under the remit of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. For more details, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deepmath/Gangstalked. Yes, there is content on this page that the community will find objectionable, including the "all you freemasons" assertions and other attacks aimed at the reader for starters. It is intermingled with content, such as article interests, that is clearly not objectionable. The objectionable content is removable with the ordinary editing tool. The deletion tool is not the tool to use, here. I strongly recommend discussion of the objectionable content with the user and, if that fails, a user RFC and some collective boldness. MFD is not the tool for this job. Uncle G ( talk) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The page looks like a blog or a private web page with very little Wikipedia content. It also contains inflammatory content and many factual errors (like the toxicity of cyanide). It violates the Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?.-- Sjö ( talk) 17:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Different people interpret the guidelines differently:
- Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth.
- This is what I read. I'd like to keep my page and request that Sjö stop harassing me on Wikipedia. If there is some content that Sjö dislikes, we can have a discussion on what is appropriate and what is not in my particular case. It is inappropriate to simply ban a user from having a user page, or to propose it for deletion by referencing general guidelines without being specific about exactly what content on the user page is objectionable. Content on my user page, e.g. likes and dislikes, does not have to be factual. Here is a list of about fourteen articles to which I have contributed heavily: User:Deepmath#And_how.27s_traffic_in_Maryland.2C_boys.3F. Deepmath ( talk) 06:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete or remove violations of " What may I not have on my user page?" (#2, #3, #4, #9, #10) ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: You need to be specific about exactly what the violations are.
Deepmath (
talk)
20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No I don't need to. But I will anyways. #2: "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia" 99% of the pages and pages of drivel have nothing to do with Wikipedia. #3 "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia" Of course the word "page" is undefined, but I think most people would agree that this is more than a couple of pages of personal information. #9 "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." Yikes. The opinions on French people, preachers, rabbis, cops, men, counterintelligence, and healthcare is divisive to say the least. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
20:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. There is no reason to single me out. Many Wikipedians have extensive user pages. Do you have a financial interest in
our corrupt healthcare system in the United States? My interest in drug patent reform is certainly pertinent to "collaboration and free content".
Deepmath (
talk)
21:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You're not being singled out. This page blatantly fails the guideline so someone nominated it. I agree with the nomination and the guideline. I gave the logic behind my agreement. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I also have some good research ideas on my user page that people would love to patent if they could delete my page to remove evidence of prior art.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not saying that the material doesn't belong anywhere, it's just the guidelines state that they don't belong on Wikipedia (including your user page). ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I also have some good research ideas on my user page that people would love to patent if they could delete my page to remove evidence of prior art.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Do I have a financial interest in healthcare in the United States? What do you mean exactly? ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Drug patents? Making generic drugs illegal?
Deepmath (
talk)
21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why would you think that I have financial interest in making generic drugs illegal? ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is prior art for a perfectly patentable idea:
Autostereogram#Example code in PHP: What I would really love to do, or like to see done, is to take two photographs from slightly different perspectives, perform
edge detection on them, match them up with a
maximum mutual information
image registration algorithm, and create a grayscale depth map to use as input to my example code in that article.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with your user page? ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is on my user page.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. I was suggesting that you "remove violations". Just remove the stuff that violates " What may I not have on my user page?". Sure, keep the php thing on your user page. The guideline doesn't care about that so neither do I. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is on my user page.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why would you think that I have financial interest in making generic drugs illegal? You object to my discussion of our corrupt healthcare system in the US, which is based on drug patents and raping the public domain.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I object to extremely divisive content only because it's described on WP:UP. I do not have financial gain of course but I don't know why I have to state that. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- You called my opinions extremely divisive, and rather than discussing them, you want to stifle them.
Deepmath (
talk)
22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not want to stifle your opinions, I'm just agreeing that some of your opinions violate the guideline and don't belong on Wikipedia. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. They don't belong on Wikipedia, they don't belong on a forum anywhere, they don't belong on my private web server, nobody will host them anywhere, whatever. Can't win for losing when I talk to people like you, who talk nice but hack around behind the scenes. And what about my opinions, exactly, makes them inappropriate for Wikipedia? I've already shown that they are relevant to collaboration, public domain, and free content. They've patented all the known genes in the human body, if you can believe that! And
our healthcare system just keeps right on raping us.
Deepmath (
talk)
22:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see where anyone's suggested that your opinions don't belong on a private webserver - and even if they had you wouldn't have to listen since your own web space is private. This discussion should be solely about hosting the content on Wikipedia.
- It's not that your opinions are 'inappropriate' per se, it's that you've put so much personal stuff on your user page. I don't think anyone would be objecting to a few paragraphs of this: it's the 'more than a couple of pages' cited by Arichnad that's the problem.
Olaf Davis (
talk)
09:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I've just noticed that your talk page says "if I set [a website] up on my home server, it invariably gets hacked into and all my physical backup copies go missing." - perhaps that's what you meant about a private server. If that's the case then it's unfortunate and I'm sympathetic to your irritation, but I'm afraid it's not really Wikipedia's problem. The Wikimedia foundation is not in the business of providing free webhosting for victims of computer crime.
Olaf Davis (
talk)
09:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, when it's the same people harassing me on Wikipedia as elsewhere online, and stealing from my safe deposit box it does get a little irritating. I frankly don't care if you are sympathetic to me or not. I'm more concerned that you be brought to justice if you are in fact involved with computer crime, which, from your attitude, you seem to be. I'm not in the business of prosecuting crimes. That's more for the Department of Defense and the fibbies. I'm a little bit out of the bailiwick of the Säkerhetspolis or MI-5 or MI-6 or GCHQ or what-have-you in Britain. Deepmath ( talk) 00:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I've just noticed that your talk page says "if I set [a website] up on my home server, it invariably gets hacked into and all my physical backup copies go missing." - perhaps that's what you meant about a private server. If that's the case then it's unfortunate and I'm sympathetic to your irritation, but I'm afraid it's not really Wikipedia's problem. The Wikimedia foundation is not in the business of providing free webhosting for victims of computer crime.
Olaf Davis (
talk)
09:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. They don't belong on Wikipedia, they don't belong on a forum anywhere, they don't belong on my private web server, nobody will host them anywhere, whatever. Can't win for losing when I talk to people like you, who talk nice but hack around behind the scenes. And what about my opinions, exactly, makes them inappropriate for Wikipedia? I've already shown that they are relevant to collaboration, public domain, and free content. They've patented all the known genes in the human body, if you can believe that! And
our healthcare system just keeps right on raping us.
Deepmath (
talk)
22:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not want to stifle your opinions, I'm just agreeing that some of your opinions violate the guideline and don't belong on Wikipedia. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- You called my opinions extremely divisive, and rather than discussing them, you want to stifle them.
Deepmath (
talk)
22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I object to extremely divisive content only because it's described on WP:UP. I do not have financial gain of course but I don't know why I have to state that. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with your user page? ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is prior art for a perfectly patentable idea:
Autostereogram#Example code in PHP: What I would really love to do, or like to see done, is to take two photographs from slightly different perspectives, perform
edge detection on them, match them up with a
maximum mutual information
image registration algorithm, and create a grayscale depth map to use as input to my example code in that article.
Deepmath (
talk)
21:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why would you think that I have financial interest in making generic drugs illegal? ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Drug patents? Making generic drugs illegal?
Deepmath (
talk)
21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You're not being singled out. This page blatantly fails the guideline so someone nominated it. I agree with the nomination and the guideline. I gave the logic behind my agreement. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. There is no reason to single me out. Many Wikipedians have extensive user pages. Do you have a financial interest in
our corrupt healthcare system in the United States? My interest in drug patent reform is certainly pertinent to "collaboration and free content".
Deepmath (
talk)
21:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No I don't need to. But I will anyways. #2: "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia" 99% of the pages and pages of drivel have nothing to do with Wikipedia. #3 "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia" Of course the word "page" is undefined, but I think most people would agree that this is more than a couple of pages of personal information. #9 "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." Yikes. The opinions on French people, preachers, rabbis, cops, men, counterintelligence, and healthcare is divisive to say the least. ~a (
user •
talk •
contribs)
20:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: You need to be specific about exactly what the violations are.
Deepmath (
talk)
20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (undent) I'm honestly not sure what part of my attitude makes me seem like a criminal. I don't really mind the accusation, although some people might have been seriously upset by it. It's probably wise not to say such things unless you're fairly certain about them.
- For the record: to the best of my knowledge I have had no interaction with Deepmath on Wikipedia or elsewhere prior to my comments in this MfD.
Olaf Davis (
talk)
09:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Olaf, I don't think you have been in the least bit unreasonable or unfair. Instead, I think User:Deepmath is just a little paranoid, (with good reason? I don't know.) I suggest, as per Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear, that we leave him alone, as long as he is not actually hurting anyone. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Reasonable leeway for a productive contributor. It is all relevent to understanding the contributor. I read it all and was not inflammed. It might be nice if User:Deepmath organised content into subpages, due to the size of the page. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've started doing so, but I'm getting tired of being harassed by User:Sjö. Deepmath ( talk) 07:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete if the content in question is not largely removed, in case that's not obvious from my comments above. Whether it's inflammatory or not I think the sheer volume of material which is nothing to do with Wikipedia goes beyond 'reasonable leeway'. Olaf Davis ( talk) 09:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete enough is enough. Wikipedia is not a web host. This crosses the line of reasonable personal material. Gigs ( talk) 14:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Freemason sockpuppetry. Deepmath ( talk) 22:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.