- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was KeepDelete. As this appears to be related to another discussion I'm closing this as keep, but tagging as {{
rejected}}. This is without prejudice for renomination to MFD after 1 month. —
xaosflux
Talk 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted after verifying that discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive136#Phil_Sandifer was not dependant on this. — xaosflux Talk 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identity verification
Moved from WP:PROD. Original reason was: Useless guide. I have no opinion -- ShinmaWa( talk) 07:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Feels useless to me, and person who put the PROD notice is the person who contributed 90% of the text in 2004. Martinp 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The creator of this essay, who recently added the {prod} is in an edit war with a multitude of people regarding a related issue that originated at
Talk:Dave Carter and has carried on there and other places including
WP:ANI#Phil Sandifer. He would appear to be more than a little bitter about this point. -
MrFizyx 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Might be. I just spent one minute looking there and my eyes glazed over. Seems we're waiting for someone else, whether participant in that discussion or not, to come by here and have an opinion on whether a guide like this serves any use.... Martinp 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- This was something I drew up two years ago when dealing with
User:Hilary Duff, trying to create a system through which her identity could be confirmed. Since she was a fake, and since I (against all sensible judgment) managed to create one of the most asinine pieces of process I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and managed to describe it incoherently at that, I figured it should go. Note that the page is of such little consequence that it has survived all pushes to categorize such pages as essay, guideline, or policy. This is because it is none of these - it's a stupid, never used piece of cruft.
But thanks for assuming good faith and deciding this had something to do with Dave Carter! I appreciate it a lot! Phil Sandifer 18:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)- Sorry, I should have considered that such a comment might have been construed as insensitive. If you would like to delete it I won't oppose you. - MrFizyx 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- This strikes me as a good-faith attempt to solve a real problem for Wikipedia. I have been participating in a renewed discussion of the difficulties of identity verification at Wikipedia talk:Private photos of identifiable models. I can see that this proposal didn't go anywhere and even think I can see why. (It's too easy to register a domain name under anything you want. Receipt of an email is merely a second layer of pseudonymous editing.) I would normally argue to give this the benefit of doubt and keep it after tagging it with {{ historical}}. However, I also note that the original author and only significant editor is the one requesting deletion. I'd rather keep it as historical but if Phil wants it gone, let it go. Rossami (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as instruction creep -- Roninbk t c # 08:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per comment of the page's creator. If he changes his mind, mine changes with him. I can see a good reason for keeping it, but I trust his decision. Badbilltucker 12:59, 21 September 2006 (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 miscellany 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 debate was KeepDelete. As this appears to be related to another discussion I'm closing this as keep, but tagging as {{
rejected}}. This is without prejudice for renomination to MFD after 1 month. —
xaosflux
Talk 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted after verifying that discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive136#Phil_Sandifer was not dependant on this. — xaosflux Talk 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identity verification
Moved from WP:PROD. Original reason was: Useless guide. I have no opinion -- ShinmaWa( talk) 07:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Feels useless to me, and person who put the PROD notice is the person who contributed 90% of the text in 2004. Martinp 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The creator of this essay, who recently added the {prod} is in an edit war with a multitude of people regarding a related issue that originated at
Talk:Dave Carter and has carried on there and other places including
WP:ANI#Phil Sandifer. He would appear to be more than a little bitter about this point. -
MrFizyx 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Might be. I just spent one minute looking there and my eyes glazed over. Seems we're waiting for someone else, whether participant in that discussion or not, to come by here and have an opinion on whether a guide like this serves any use.... Martinp 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- This was something I drew up two years ago when dealing with
User:Hilary Duff, trying to create a system through which her identity could be confirmed. Since she was a fake, and since I (against all sensible judgment) managed to create one of the most asinine pieces of process I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and managed to describe it incoherently at that, I figured it should go. Note that the page is of such little consequence that it has survived all pushes to categorize such pages as essay, guideline, or policy. This is because it is none of these - it's a stupid, never used piece of cruft.
But thanks for assuming good faith and deciding this had something to do with Dave Carter! I appreciate it a lot! Phil Sandifer 18:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)- Sorry, I should have considered that such a comment might have been construed as insensitive. If you would like to delete it I won't oppose you. - MrFizyx 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- This strikes me as a good-faith attempt to solve a real problem for Wikipedia. I have been participating in a renewed discussion of the difficulties of identity verification at Wikipedia talk:Private photos of identifiable models. I can see that this proposal didn't go anywhere and even think I can see why. (It's too easy to register a domain name under anything you want. Receipt of an email is merely a second layer of pseudonymous editing.) I would normally argue to give this the benefit of doubt and keep it after tagging it with {{ historical}}. However, I also note that the original author and only significant editor is the one requesting deletion. I'd rather keep it as historical but if Phil wants it gone, let it go. Rossami (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as instruction creep -- Roninbk t c # 08:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per comment of the page's creator. If he changes his mind, mine changes with him. I can see a good reason for keeping it, but I trust his decision. Badbilltucker 12:59, 21 September 2006 (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.