- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was delete.
Evil saltine (
talk)
21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
Nonsense pages with no encyclopedic value.
Triplestop
x3
21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
Also adding
Triplestop
x3
21:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
Sorry this is supposed to be a set of sandbox articles can you move them there.--
Coldplay
Expert
23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. These playthings may look silly to experienced wikipedians, like building sandcastles where the waves will return, but they have value for educational and community building purposes. It is, however, about time that the user began to try making some productive contributions. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
10:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Silly game. If the user needs this many sandboxes I'd expect to see at least one filled with sandbox-y like work. What is the benefit of having identical sandboxes? What is the educational benefit? \
Backslash Forwardslash / (
talk)
14:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
hay, all I was doing was trying to make a hidden page. If you want a little less links, then I'll make it happen, but you dont have to put this up for deletetion.--
Orange
soda
kid
15:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
The reason that I haven't been able to make some productive contributions is for one simple reason. I DON'T HAVE TIME. believe me, I would really love to start on some pages, but I'm only on for like 10 minuets at a time.--
Orange
soda
kid
18:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- WHAT THE HELL HAS ORANGESODAKID DONE TO YOU tenpoundhammer. This is the first experince I have on wikipedia, some creep bashing on some random dude just because he dosent like his hidden page. that is just not cool.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gurrenlaggan (
talk •
contribs)
Ok, I apperacait the support/input, but you dont have to be so hard on tenpoundhammer, and, next time, put your sig after you make a comment like that.--
Orange
soda
kid
00:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Per
WP:USER Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Plenty of latitude for established editors is given, particularly for pages showing particular wisdom or humor, but pages such as those nominated should be removed as they promote an invalid outlook of activity expected here.
Johnuniq (
talk)
02:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Burn it with fire - This isn't MySpace.→
ROUX
₪
04:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
Editors matter, but I do have to agree with the comments of the above editors, this many sandboxes/hidden pages serve no purpose, and do tend to violate our
userspace guidelines.
Steve Crossin
The clock is ticking....
04:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I'm in favor of a lot of leeway for user pages, but this is way over the line. --
SPhilbrick
T
18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Orangesodakid, I don't want to be rude here, but we don't need your ok to delete the pages. That's what MfD is about--finding consensus. And without being mean... you really need to start contributing to the encyclopedia. If you need help, my talkpage is
here. →
ROUX
₪
16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It is important to clarify that we do not need Orangesodakid's permission to delete these pages, but do we really need to be so hard on them? Does their view not matter? And now that we do have their permission, do we still need this discussion? If it were not for the MfD nomination, these pages would be eligible for speedy deletion.
Brian
Jason
Drake
10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete It fits the Department of Fun's guidelines however it isn't a part of it.
Darkside2000 (
talk)
13:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
I got an idea, I will delete all the useless pages as long as I can keep page 42 and all the pages that lead to it.--
Orange
soda
kid
17:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- You could find something to fix in
Special:Random. Or see
Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. You can have your pages deleted by adding {{
db-user}}. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
22:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- You can't delete anything--it takes an admin to do that. And that's not exactly how this works; all of these pages violate
the list of things that Wikipedia is not, and the
things that are acceptable in userspace. →
ROUX
₪
18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
then what should I do to the three people who got the barnstar.--
Orange
soda
kid
18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It's up to them as to what they do with the barnstar. Have you started working through the stuff
here? →
ROUX
₪
18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I've want to, but all I really have time to do now is just go around looking at this sutation.--
Orange
soda
kid
16:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I think we should leave a little leeway to the Orangesodakid. There are other perfectly useless pages around to justify some type of social page kept by the kid. His compromise proposal seems reasonable to me. And by the way since we are quoting so many policies (
WP:NOT and what not etc.) I think we should also keep in mind
WP:BITE.
Dr.K.
logos
01:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:NOTWEBHOST. Even one page for a web-based game would be inappropriate, but a whole series of them is way outside of what userpages should be used for. --
RL0919 (
talk)
03:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This is not what Wikipedia is for. I have argued at some length in other similar MfD discussions against the standard "keep" arguments. See
here, for example. I will, however, briefly answer one more argument. Tasoskessaris (who signs as "Dr.K." says: There are other perfectly useless pages around to justify some type of social page kept by the kid. This is unfortunately a very common "reason" quoted for keeping stuff. It is dealt with at
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but, in a nut shell, the fact that unfortunately some rubbish exists is not a justification for letting other rubbish exist.
JamesBWatson (
talk)
11:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I've seen this "otherstuff exists" argument enough times already. No need for lessons in orthodoxy. Thanks.
Dr.K.
logos
16:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- And I don't think you understood the point of my comment. This page kept by the Orangesoda kid is social in its scope. He invites other users to visit his hidden page and they leave friendly messages when they discover it. If we trim the excessive number of pages kept by the kid to only a few, then this is very similar to a guestbook and it promotes goodwill and fun among users of the encyclopedia as Jimbo himself stated. Promoting goodwill among users is a long accepted practice here and is good for the encyclopedia. No?
Dr.K.
logos
16:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
I agree. It is like a hidden guest book.--
Orange
soda
kid
17:54, 24 September 2009 (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.