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 Active user working in longevity-related topics. The point that unsourced assertions about living people might need to be removed is legitimate, and I'll bring it to the user's attention.
WilyD 10:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
ABSOULETLY, totally Keep - This is my page; I don't understand why that after SIX YEARS that all of a sudden a random nobody wants to shut my page down. I have had lists on my page for years. Aren't there more important issues to tackle, in regards to vandalizers to pages, besides my page that is absolutely no burden. This is NOT an article; no harm is being done to anybody except yourselves. TONS of other users from WikiProject: Oldest People have lists of the oldest people in the world on their page. I don't care about how high you rank (whether general or private) on Wikipedia; worry about yourself, pal. It is a website with information about older people, not a Hit List. Leave us fantastic contributors to the Oldest people articles alone. Thank you. --
Nick Ornstein (
talk) 21:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
This was one of many other pages in userspace that contain content that violates
WP:NOTWEBHOST. We aren't allowed to keep whatever we want; there are guidelines about what's acceptable on userpages over at
WP:USERPAGE.
Ca2james (
talk) 02:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep It's quite clear from the giant notice at the top of the user page that it is not a real article, so
WP:FAKEARTICLE does not apply. It's also clear that the users proposing these changes have a vendetta against the several users who are interested in developing articles on human longevity.
WP:POINT states that people should use common sense and not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point - and this is exactly what is being done by the desructive attitude against people's userpages.
WP:USER states that they can be used for "organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia", which is precisely what this page does. Secondly, the nominator has not used correct procedure since they have not been advised first on the talk page as stated by
WP:USER. This appears to be a personal vendetta to me and I would refer the above users to
WP:EQ to learn more about the principles of Wikipedia etiquette.
SiameseTurtle (
talk) 17:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
CommentUser:NickOrnstein has
twiceremoved the mfd tag. I have replaced it both times with an edit summary asking them to not delete the tag until this discussion has finished.
Ca2james (
talk) 02:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I pity all of you wanting to be like a bunch of Chiefs over this great website. I will pray for all of you. God Bless all of you and please spend some Christmas Time with your family and more time away from the computer.
Nick Ornstein (
talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep It's one thing to delete articles, but user pages aren't meant to be articles, they're meant to be what the user is interested in. Interests are very much about the user. It's like SimeseTurtle said: "It's quite clear from the giant notice at the top of the user page that it is not a real article, so
WP:FAKEARTICLE does not apply. It's also clear that the users proposing these changes have a vendetta against the several users who are interested in developing articles on human longevity." I truly believe some people's goal is to delete the pages of people interested in human longevity, which I don't understand, so they'll have an easier time deleting articles on human longevity, namely supercentenarians. I know they're trying to delete
Craho's (
talk) page because he dare make a list that interests him, therefore telling us about him and helping make biography's about future titleholders and supercentenarians.
Longevitydude (
talk) 19:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I've looked through his list of contributions and quite a few of his edits are to articles. Yes a lot of his edits are to his user page, but that's his right.
Longevitydude (
talk) 22:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
CommentLongevitydude has also
removed the mfd notice with the edit summary "(Undid revision 639420549 by Ca2james (talk) I mean no disrespect, but please, stop harassing my friends. Our user pages are our business and we do use them to improve the encyclopedia" and I have replaced it again. Userpages are not the personal property of editors per
WP:USERPAGE and Wikipedia is also
WP:NOTWEBHOST.
Ca2james (
talk) 04:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
You do remember the three edit revert rule, don't you? I had to give my friend the same kindness he gave
ryoung122 a few years ago.
Longevitydude (
talk) 14:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
That argument is not valid. You're not supposed to be removing the MFD tag in the first place. I note that Longevitydude has once again,
removed the MFD tag. I've reinserted it and
have left a message on his talk page telling him to not remove the tag.
CommanderLinx (
talk) 14:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Selectively blank The lists of oldest people should be removed and, as Ricky81682 noted, Nick can still help maintain similar lists elsewhere. The userboxen are fine, and deleting them seems overly drastic. --
BDD (
talk) 20:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I'd be fine with this solution provided that there's no restriction against nominating the page for deletion if the material is re-added.
Ca2james (
talk) 16:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)reply
NickOrnstein is exactly right, it is HIS page.
Longevitydude (
talk) 00:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Reply - Read User:Ca2james's reply above and also read through
WP:UP#OWN which clearly states that "They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user."
CommanderLinx (
talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (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.
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 Active user working in longevity-related topics. The point that unsourced assertions about living people might need to be removed is legitimate, and I'll bring it to the user's attention.
WilyD 10:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
ABSOULETLY, totally Keep - This is my page; I don't understand why that after SIX YEARS that all of a sudden a random nobody wants to shut my page down. I have had lists on my page for years. Aren't there more important issues to tackle, in regards to vandalizers to pages, besides my page that is absolutely no burden. This is NOT an article; no harm is being done to anybody except yourselves. TONS of other users from WikiProject: Oldest People have lists of the oldest people in the world on their page. I don't care about how high you rank (whether general or private) on Wikipedia; worry about yourself, pal. It is a website with information about older people, not a Hit List. Leave us fantastic contributors to the Oldest people articles alone. Thank you. --
Nick Ornstein (
talk) 21:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
This was one of many other pages in userspace that contain content that violates
WP:NOTWEBHOST. We aren't allowed to keep whatever we want; there are guidelines about what's acceptable on userpages over at
WP:USERPAGE.
Ca2james (
talk) 02:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep It's quite clear from the giant notice at the top of the user page that it is not a real article, so
WP:FAKEARTICLE does not apply. It's also clear that the users proposing these changes have a vendetta against the several users who are interested in developing articles on human longevity.
WP:POINT states that people should use common sense and not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point - and this is exactly what is being done by the desructive attitude against people's userpages.
WP:USER states that they can be used for "organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia", which is precisely what this page does. Secondly, the nominator has not used correct procedure since they have not been advised first on the talk page as stated by
WP:USER. This appears to be a personal vendetta to me and I would refer the above users to
WP:EQ to learn more about the principles of Wikipedia etiquette.
SiameseTurtle (
talk) 17:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
CommentUser:NickOrnstein has
twiceremoved the mfd tag. I have replaced it both times with an edit summary asking them to not delete the tag until this discussion has finished.
Ca2james (
talk) 02:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I pity all of you wanting to be like a bunch of Chiefs over this great website. I will pray for all of you. God Bless all of you and please spend some Christmas Time with your family and more time away from the computer.
Nick Ornstein (
talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep It's one thing to delete articles, but user pages aren't meant to be articles, they're meant to be what the user is interested in. Interests are very much about the user. It's like SimeseTurtle said: "It's quite clear from the giant notice at the top of the user page that it is not a real article, so
WP:FAKEARTICLE does not apply. It's also clear that the users proposing these changes have a vendetta against the several users who are interested in developing articles on human longevity." I truly believe some people's goal is to delete the pages of people interested in human longevity, which I don't understand, so they'll have an easier time deleting articles on human longevity, namely supercentenarians. I know they're trying to delete
Craho's (
talk) page because he dare make a list that interests him, therefore telling us about him and helping make biography's about future titleholders and supercentenarians.
Longevitydude (
talk) 19:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I've looked through his list of contributions and quite a few of his edits are to articles. Yes a lot of his edits are to his user page, but that's his right.
Longevitydude (
talk) 22:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
CommentLongevitydude has also
removed the mfd notice with the edit summary "(Undid revision 639420549 by Ca2james (talk) I mean no disrespect, but please, stop harassing my friends. Our user pages are our business and we do use them to improve the encyclopedia" and I have replaced it again. Userpages are not the personal property of editors per
WP:USERPAGE and Wikipedia is also
WP:NOTWEBHOST.
Ca2james (
talk) 04:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
You do remember the three edit revert rule, don't you? I had to give my friend the same kindness he gave
ryoung122 a few years ago.
Longevitydude (
talk) 14:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
That argument is not valid. You're not supposed to be removing the MFD tag in the first place. I note that Longevitydude has once again,
removed the MFD tag. I've reinserted it and
have left a message on his talk page telling him to not remove the tag.
CommanderLinx (
talk) 14:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Selectively blank The lists of oldest people should be removed and, as Ricky81682 noted, Nick can still help maintain similar lists elsewhere. The userboxen are fine, and deleting them seems overly drastic. --
BDD (
talk) 20:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I'd be fine with this solution provided that there's no restriction against nominating the page for deletion if the material is re-added.
Ca2james (
talk) 16:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)reply
NickOrnstein is exactly right, it is HIS page.
Longevitydude (
talk) 00:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Reply - Read User:Ca2james's reply above and also read through
WP:UP#OWN which clearly states that "They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user."
CommanderLinx (
talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (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.