- 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. No new comments for three days, the seven day period of discussion has long elapsed, and current consensus (after the removal of the disruptive images) is that this has now become a non-issue. (non-admin closure) silvia ( User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 08:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Seizure-inducing eyesore with random, confusing, trollish nonsense. I no longer support deletion but I was requested to re-open this. I’d like to re-close it as
WP:SNOW unless someone objects.
Dronebogus (
talk)
23:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- So don't look at it. This seems to be the userpage of a currently active and very new user who Dronebogus has admitted seems to be a good faith contributor. I see no discussion about their recent seizure on the user's talk page or any request there by any editor for the user to tone it down. I also see a multi-image deletion request for each of these artworks at Commons. So which is it? The images or the page which contains them. Why are we badgering a new user without at least explaining the reasons why? Going through user pages one by one to see if they meet Dronebogus's approval seems a thankless job; I'll give them no thanks myself for such clear and
biting ragpicking.
BusterD (
talk)
00:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- The images are blatant seizure triggers in themselves, the page is just patent nonsense. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also I’m not photosensitive, but out of respect and per accessibility concerns I don’t want it to trigger someone who is. It does cause me physical pain to look at, though. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I did explain why, in the rationale and on the page. The images have to go because they’re useless and potentially dangerous to some users. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers doesn’t mean “let the newcomers get away with blatantly inappropriate edits”. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. The user is mostly making trollish edits like this wasting everybody's time anyway. Crossroads -talk- 06:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Depends on how they handle it. I'm not sure how much is intentional trolling and how much is just poor humour. I've given them some advice. If they tone the page down significantly then I'm happy for it to stay. If it remains like it was at time of nomination then I'm happy for it to be deleted. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and other similar (trollish) edits of the creator. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Would’ve voted to blank if it wasn’t for the fact that they most likely are WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 13:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Partofthemachine ( talk) 00:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk) 02:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete as WP:NOTHERE material and probably per WP:DENY. My impression that this user is not here to contribute positively seems to be reinforced by edits like these [1] [2] and comments like these [3]I've seen the last reply on their talk page, and I'm convinced that this is just a very confused new editor. Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 17:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep now that most of the images have been moved to a subpage. As I suggested before, this user is likely editing in good faith and just needs some counselling, but this is another matter. Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 00:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, but move most images to a user subpage. This smells more of
WP:BITING than any harm. The user is new and still finding their way. The opening statement is a perfectly fine first Userpage statement. The first four images are completely inoffensive. The too flickity ones can go to a subpage, or just cut them, leaving them in the history.
Bringing this to MfD is too aggressive an escalation in talking to the user. WP:NOTHERE rationales are unsuitable to air at MfD given some good edits and the lack of escalating warnings on their Usertalk page. —- SmokeyJoe ( talk
I have subpaged most of the images, which completely fixes the problem. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC) - Keep: Perfectly fine now, leave it be. silvia ( User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 07:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep (and delete the gifs) - Basing !vote on the page as it exists now. It's just some goofiness, and it's on a userpage. Userpages are sometimes goofy and/or obnoxious. I have a userbox are Katamari Damacy; Pizzaplayer219 has a picture of pizza; Sundostund has a whole biographical infobox (which is probably more to the letter of UPNOT than random nonsense); Lenticel has an image macro. All of us have some goofy stuff on our userpage, and why should anyone care? If the user isn't WP:HERE, block them. Userspace is where people need to be able to experiment, learn, and sometimes be goofy. Articlespace is where the serious business is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I urge the nominator to refrain from any further attempt to end this process unduly or ahead of the normal seven day period. While they have largely withdrawn their nomination, several editors have asserted "delete" in good faith. We should allow the process to work its own conclusion, IMHO. BusterD ( talk) 23:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep now that the bizarre stuff has been deleted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:14, 8 December 2022 (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: keep. No new comments for three days, the seven day period of discussion has long elapsed, and current consensus (after the removal of the disruptive images) is that this has now become a non-issue. (non-admin closure) silvia ( User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 08:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Seizure-inducing eyesore with random, confusing, trollish nonsense. I no longer support deletion but I was requested to re-open this. I’d like to re-close it as
WP:SNOW unless someone objects.
Dronebogus (
talk)
23:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- So don't look at it. This seems to be the userpage of a currently active and very new user who Dronebogus has admitted seems to be a good faith contributor. I see no discussion about their recent seizure on the user's talk page or any request there by any editor for the user to tone it down. I also see a multi-image deletion request for each of these artworks at Commons. So which is it? The images or the page which contains them. Why are we badgering a new user without at least explaining the reasons why? Going through user pages one by one to see if they meet Dronebogus's approval seems a thankless job; I'll give them no thanks myself for such clear and
biting ragpicking.
BusterD (
talk)
00:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- The images are blatant seizure triggers in themselves, the page is just patent nonsense. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also I’m not photosensitive, but out of respect and per accessibility concerns I don’t want it to trigger someone who is. It does cause me physical pain to look at, though. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I did explain why, in the rationale and on the page. The images have to go because they’re useless and potentially dangerous to some users. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers doesn’t mean “let the newcomers get away with blatantly inappropriate edits”. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. The user is mostly making trollish edits like this wasting everybody's time anyway. Crossroads -talk- 06:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Depends on how they handle it. I'm not sure how much is intentional trolling and how much is just poor humour. I've given them some advice. If they tone the page down significantly then I'm happy for it to stay. If it remains like it was at time of nomination then I'm happy for it to be deleted. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and other similar (trollish) edits of the creator. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Would’ve voted to blank if it wasn’t for the fact that they most likely are WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 13:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Partofthemachine ( talk) 00:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk) 02:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete as WP:NOTHERE material and probably per WP:DENY. My impression that this user is not here to contribute positively seems to be reinforced by edits like these [1] [2] and comments like these [3]I've seen the last reply on their talk page, and I'm convinced that this is just a very confused new editor. Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 17:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep now that most of the images have been moved to a subpage. As I suggested before, this user is likely editing in good faith and just needs some counselling, but this is another matter. Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 00:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, but move most images to a user subpage. This smells more of
WP:BITING than any harm. The user is new and still finding their way. The opening statement is a perfectly fine first Userpage statement. The first four images are completely inoffensive. The too flickity ones can go to a subpage, or just cut them, leaving them in the history.
Bringing this to MfD is too aggressive an escalation in talking to the user. WP:NOTHERE rationales are unsuitable to air at MfD given some good edits and the lack of escalating warnings on their Usertalk page. —- SmokeyJoe ( talk
I have subpaged most of the images, which completely fixes the problem. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC) - Keep: Perfectly fine now, leave it be. silvia ( User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 07:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep (and delete the gifs) - Basing !vote on the page as it exists now. It's just some goofiness, and it's on a userpage. Userpages are sometimes goofy and/or obnoxious. I have a userbox are Katamari Damacy; Pizzaplayer219 has a picture of pizza; Sundostund has a whole biographical infobox (which is probably more to the letter of UPNOT than random nonsense); Lenticel has an image macro. All of us have some goofy stuff on our userpage, and why should anyone care? If the user isn't WP:HERE, block them. Userspace is where people need to be able to experiment, learn, and sometimes be goofy. Articlespace is where the serious business is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I urge the nominator to refrain from any further attempt to end this process unduly or ahead of the normal seven day period. While they have largely withdrawn their nomination, several editors have asserted "delete" in good faith. We should allow the process to work its own conclusion, IMHO. BusterD ( talk) 23:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep now that the bizarre stuff has been deleted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:14, 8 December 2022 (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.