- 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. Courcelles ( talk) 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Antigrandiose
I found this user's page from the MfD over his user boxes.
- The introduction mimics some of the formatting from the Main Page. I don't think copies of part of the interface of the site are allowed.
- Much of the article is an anti-Canadian diatribe. The vitriole there is not appropriate nor conducive to the building of an encyclopedia.
- There is a WP:FAKEARTICLE on the "Platinum Penis", done as a parody of the Golden Horseshoe, also an anti-Canadian diatribe.
- The fake DYK section is more of the same.
- There are excerpts of article talk pages present. They shouldn't be archived outside of the Talk: namespace.
I could continue, but this page does not comply with WP:UP and should be removed. Imzadi 1979 → 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nominator's argument invalid, strong keep.
- The page begins with a "this is a userpage" disclaimer, and the idea that anyone would mistake his user page for the main page is frankly absurd.
- Actually, much of the article is an anti- systemic bias diatribe. His particular complaint (too much emphasis on Canada) isn't one I've heard of before, but this is an issue and users should not be censured for complaining about it.
- WP:FAKEARTICLE applies to keeping disputed content in your userspace, not to jokes.
- Again, jokes.
- Attribution is preserved via signatures, no copyright or reuse issue present.
In summary,while you'll notice that I quite specifically did not !vote "keep" for this userpage,nothing the nominator has brought up is a remotely valid basis for deletion. -- erachima talk 22:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep-The user page is, admittedly, a bit excessive, but I don't see anything that really demands deletion. That said, the material copied from talk pages should probably be removed.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I'm generally fine with user pages that express personal positions. However, this is just one big attack on Canada. AniMate 22:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Just like I said on the MfD for his userboxes, this isn't Uncyclopedia]. Access Denied( t| c| g| d| s) 03:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Weak Keep (or maybe week keep: Keep it for a week, then get rid of it). - These two guys seem to have a problem with not only my page, but also the way I edit. Is it really against the rules to post a conversation you're having on a user page or a talk page? If it is, I apologize. Maybe someone can direct me to the page where that policy is written. In any case, I have no idea how this process works, but if I could, I would like to request that administrators other than FT2 or Dougweller make this decision.
They, along with a couple of other people, have a problem with some of my user boxes. If a majority of people feel they go beyond the limits of good taste, then that's fine, I have no problem with that, although I don't see how swans really violate any of the user box policies. I would take issue with two things, though. I was accused of remaking/redoing (whatever) a deleted user box. I did, but it was much more tasteful than the previous one, but FT2 makes it sound like I just remade the same one over again. I also think it's kinda patronizing towards women to think that they would be scared off of Wikipedia by a few user boxes. Maybe the reason that there aren't many women on Wikipedia is because there's administrators on here who want to quarantine anything that resembles fun or light-heartedness.
FT2's original critique of my page included me having a hack on my page that hid the header of my user page on some browsers. It never worked on mine (Windows 7) but it apparently it worked on his. Someone must have told him that the hack was here in the Wikipedia:User page design center/Style, because I don't see that as part of his complaint anymore.
He also took issue with some of my edits, which I maintain are completely reasonable. He complains that something that I put into a Wikipedia article was "not actually stated there, though it's implied." Much of what is cited in source material is implied. I'm not going to argue with anyone about how many leftist issues can dance on the head of a pin, but the article clearly supported my edit. At best, the argument can be made that it's a close call, but to call it an "inappropriate edit" is crossing the line. Cited material that isn't in quotes and isn't plagiarism is always implied to one degree or another.
On "pushing the line": There was very little on that page that was sexual, with the exception of user boxes that have already been deleted. I don't consider women with their shirts off to necessarily be sexual. If you do, then I can see where you might think that the page crossed the line.
On Canada: Nothing on that page was anti-Canadian. Some of it was intended to make fun of some Canadian editors, though. I think that some Canadian editors, more so than American or Australian editors for instance, really view Wikipedia as a platform to promote their country, provinces, cities, etc. Over the life of the page I was pleasantly surprised to discover that in some cases, my original assumption was wrong, and that it was really editors from other countries who needed to play catch up.
On that my page was too much like a MySpace or Facebook page: That's a little ridiculous. Everything except for O Wikianda and Wikiho had something to do with Wikipedia. (O Wikanada had a lot of wikilinks, though). I think that anyone who thinks that hasn't spent too much time on either of those sites. It was all meant to be tongue-in-cheek. The entire page was meant to be a critique of certain aspects of Wikipedia. In some cases, I tried to use parody. Did it hit the mark? Once in a while but not usually. But it was fun, and I had some regular visitors to my page.
There's more allegations, but I think I've addressed enough for now. I'd be happy to address anyone's concerns in a timely manner, although I can't guarantee it'll be right away. I don't really feel much of an emotional attachment to this page; much of it was created during a four month period when I was undergoing ENDLESS physical therapy. (Don't worry, I'm OK... you can breathe now). I've edited it on and off since then in fits and starts. Much more importantly, I've also made some contributions to talk pages and articles and I was always polite to people who were polite to me. -- Antigrandiose ( talk) 06:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quick corrections:
- interface-disrupting CSS code is hard to miss when checking diffs. The specific CSS code causing it to be a problem was removed so there was no need to list it as a further problem. The summary on the talk page noted the edit.
- The "inappropriate edit" was this. This was also inappropriate, there is a difference between saying a source could be interpreted as supporting an implication (article discusses "anarchists" and G20-protesters but does not state the protesters were "leftists"), and claiming the term is "taken from cited article" which it was not. Other edits showed you engaging in inappropriate incivility [1] and posting fake "bot" warnings to an IP user that their editing would be "monitored" and to "stay off nakedlittleboys.com" [2]. (This was apparent retaliation for removing your sexual gallery [3]). The times your editing was appropriate were also equally noted.
- "Women with clothes off" is a disingenuous description of the images you chose and image galleries you created. Genital closeups, sexual innuendo, and repeated sexual posts come to mind as more accurate.
- The rest is detailed on your talk page and doesn't need repeating. As I've said, the community is fairly forgiving, but we are an encyclopedia-writing community. Sexual pages even as "parodies" just don't make it. FT2 ( Talk | email) 21:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quick corrections:
- Delete I agree with the nominator, except for the first point. The page starts with a userpage disclaimer, so... ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SMI, WP:UP#POLEMIC, WP:FAKEARTICLE, et cetera. Even with a userpage disclaimer this sort of content on a page is just disruptive to Wikipedia's editing environment. If the author of the page wants to gut it himself, then by all means, keep it, but I can't see it staying after gutting controversial content other than a few userboxes and a couple of lines of text. elektrik SHOOS 09:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
KeepDelete. Much ado about nothing. This is really quite tame compared with some of the userpages I've seen. And as a Canadian I was not offended at all, but actually found it rather funny. I just hope this editor can address his own critique of Wikipedia by making some positive contributions that will benefit the project. Because if he can't be a constructive editor then there's no point in preserving his soapbox/comedy userpage, and that's the only reason I would !vote to delete. -- œ ™ 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I might be inclined to turn a blind eye here, if this user was here to build an encyclopedia. He's not. He has 30 edits to article space, and 460 to user space. Technically I guess he's made 33 edits to articles, with one being to the now deleted Culture war in Canada and the other two to his joke article Platinum Penis. It would appear that his main reason here is to edit his user page to show he dislikes Canada. There's no reason to encourage or condone this. AniMate 00:07, 27 July 2010 (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 delete. Courcelles ( talk) 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Antigrandiose
I found this user's page from the MfD over his user boxes.
- The introduction mimics some of the formatting from the Main Page. I don't think copies of part of the interface of the site are allowed.
- Much of the article is an anti-Canadian diatribe. The vitriole there is not appropriate nor conducive to the building of an encyclopedia.
- There is a WP:FAKEARTICLE on the "Platinum Penis", done as a parody of the Golden Horseshoe, also an anti-Canadian diatribe.
- The fake DYK section is more of the same.
- There are excerpts of article talk pages present. They shouldn't be archived outside of the Talk: namespace.
I could continue, but this page does not comply with WP:UP and should be removed. Imzadi 1979 → 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nominator's argument invalid, strong keep.
- The page begins with a "this is a userpage" disclaimer, and the idea that anyone would mistake his user page for the main page is frankly absurd.
- Actually, much of the article is an anti- systemic bias diatribe. His particular complaint (too much emphasis on Canada) isn't one I've heard of before, but this is an issue and users should not be censured for complaining about it.
- WP:FAKEARTICLE applies to keeping disputed content in your userspace, not to jokes.
- Again, jokes.
- Attribution is preserved via signatures, no copyright or reuse issue present.
In summary,while you'll notice that I quite specifically did not !vote "keep" for this userpage,nothing the nominator has brought up is a remotely valid basis for deletion. -- erachima talk 22:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep-The user page is, admittedly, a bit excessive, but I don't see anything that really demands deletion. That said, the material copied from talk pages should probably be removed.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I'm generally fine with user pages that express personal positions. However, this is just one big attack on Canada. AniMate 22:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Just like I said on the MfD for his userboxes, this isn't Uncyclopedia]. Access Denied( t| c| g| d| s) 03:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Weak Keep (or maybe week keep: Keep it for a week, then get rid of it). - These two guys seem to have a problem with not only my page, but also the way I edit. Is it really against the rules to post a conversation you're having on a user page or a talk page? If it is, I apologize. Maybe someone can direct me to the page where that policy is written. In any case, I have no idea how this process works, but if I could, I would like to request that administrators other than FT2 or Dougweller make this decision.
They, along with a couple of other people, have a problem with some of my user boxes. If a majority of people feel they go beyond the limits of good taste, then that's fine, I have no problem with that, although I don't see how swans really violate any of the user box policies. I would take issue with two things, though. I was accused of remaking/redoing (whatever) a deleted user box. I did, but it was much more tasteful than the previous one, but FT2 makes it sound like I just remade the same one over again. I also think it's kinda patronizing towards women to think that they would be scared off of Wikipedia by a few user boxes. Maybe the reason that there aren't many women on Wikipedia is because there's administrators on here who want to quarantine anything that resembles fun or light-heartedness.
FT2's original critique of my page included me having a hack on my page that hid the header of my user page on some browsers. It never worked on mine (Windows 7) but it apparently it worked on his. Someone must have told him that the hack was here in the Wikipedia:User page design center/Style, because I don't see that as part of his complaint anymore.
He also took issue with some of my edits, which I maintain are completely reasonable. He complains that something that I put into a Wikipedia article was "not actually stated there, though it's implied." Much of what is cited in source material is implied. I'm not going to argue with anyone about how many leftist issues can dance on the head of a pin, but the article clearly supported my edit. At best, the argument can be made that it's a close call, but to call it an "inappropriate edit" is crossing the line. Cited material that isn't in quotes and isn't plagiarism is always implied to one degree or another.
On "pushing the line": There was very little on that page that was sexual, with the exception of user boxes that have already been deleted. I don't consider women with their shirts off to necessarily be sexual. If you do, then I can see where you might think that the page crossed the line.
On Canada: Nothing on that page was anti-Canadian. Some of it was intended to make fun of some Canadian editors, though. I think that some Canadian editors, more so than American or Australian editors for instance, really view Wikipedia as a platform to promote their country, provinces, cities, etc. Over the life of the page I was pleasantly surprised to discover that in some cases, my original assumption was wrong, and that it was really editors from other countries who needed to play catch up.
On that my page was too much like a MySpace or Facebook page: That's a little ridiculous. Everything except for O Wikianda and Wikiho had something to do with Wikipedia. (O Wikanada had a lot of wikilinks, though). I think that anyone who thinks that hasn't spent too much time on either of those sites. It was all meant to be tongue-in-cheek. The entire page was meant to be a critique of certain aspects of Wikipedia. In some cases, I tried to use parody. Did it hit the mark? Once in a while but not usually. But it was fun, and I had some regular visitors to my page.
There's more allegations, but I think I've addressed enough for now. I'd be happy to address anyone's concerns in a timely manner, although I can't guarantee it'll be right away. I don't really feel much of an emotional attachment to this page; much of it was created during a four month period when I was undergoing ENDLESS physical therapy. (Don't worry, I'm OK... you can breathe now). I've edited it on and off since then in fits and starts. Much more importantly, I've also made some contributions to talk pages and articles and I was always polite to people who were polite to me. -- Antigrandiose ( talk) 06:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quick corrections:
- interface-disrupting CSS code is hard to miss when checking diffs. The specific CSS code causing it to be a problem was removed so there was no need to list it as a further problem. The summary on the talk page noted the edit.
- The "inappropriate edit" was this. This was also inappropriate, there is a difference between saying a source could be interpreted as supporting an implication (article discusses "anarchists" and G20-protesters but does not state the protesters were "leftists"), and claiming the term is "taken from cited article" which it was not. Other edits showed you engaging in inappropriate incivility [1] and posting fake "bot" warnings to an IP user that their editing would be "monitored" and to "stay off nakedlittleboys.com" [2]. (This was apparent retaliation for removing your sexual gallery [3]). The times your editing was appropriate were also equally noted.
- "Women with clothes off" is a disingenuous description of the images you chose and image galleries you created. Genital closeups, sexual innuendo, and repeated sexual posts come to mind as more accurate.
- The rest is detailed on your talk page and doesn't need repeating. As I've said, the community is fairly forgiving, but we are an encyclopedia-writing community. Sexual pages even as "parodies" just don't make it. FT2 ( Talk | email) 21:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quick corrections:
- Delete I agree with the nominator, except for the first point. The page starts with a userpage disclaimer, so... ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SMI, WP:UP#POLEMIC, WP:FAKEARTICLE, et cetera. Even with a userpage disclaimer this sort of content on a page is just disruptive to Wikipedia's editing environment. If the author of the page wants to gut it himself, then by all means, keep it, but I can't see it staying after gutting controversial content other than a few userboxes and a couple of lines of text. elektrik SHOOS 09:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
KeepDelete. Much ado about nothing. This is really quite tame compared with some of the userpages I've seen. And as a Canadian I was not offended at all, but actually found it rather funny. I just hope this editor can address his own critique of Wikipedia by making some positive contributions that will benefit the project. Because if he can't be a constructive editor then there's no point in preserving his soapbox/comedy userpage, and that's the only reason I would !vote to delete. -- œ ™ 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I might be inclined to turn a blind eye here, if this user was here to build an encyclopedia. He's not. He has 30 edits to article space, and 460 to user space. Technically I guess he's made 33 edits to articles, with one being to the now deleted Culture war in Canada and the other two to his joke article Platinum Penis. It would appear that his main reason here is to edit his user page to show he dislikes Canada. There's no reason to encourage or condone this. AniMate 00:07, 27 July 2010 (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.