WIKIPEDIA:MISCELLANY FOR DELETION USER:GEO SWAN WORKING SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE MEMOS PG112

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 for now. The discussion indicates a willingness to allow these pages to remain temporarily while they are being transwikied, but not to have them remain indefinitely. Periods of two weeks to a month have been suggested as reasonable, so no prejudice against renomination after January 23, 2011. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC) reply

User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112

A maasive number of related subpages, all excerpts from a single public domain document. Not only is the document outdated, the transcripts are inaccurate. E.g. the one that gave its name to this mass nomination, User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112, has the same text as User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg109, but supposedly on page 14 instead of page 13 of the pdf. However, the actual pg112 is at page 16 of the pdf, and has a different text than what is given here. So these notes are not useful at all, containing clearly incorrect data. E.g. User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg102 lists 5 allegations, the actual page 6 of the document lists 6 allegations.

Probably (hopefully) these four year old pages are no longer used. If they are still in use, it would be much easier to load the page to Wikisource and use that correct document as a source instead of these clearly incorrect notes. Fram ( talk) 13:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Also nominated are the following 92 pages:

Delete - Wikipedia is not a webhost, and the user would be better served saving these documents on his own computer or save them at wikisource as suggested by the nom. -- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep - This is valuable working documentation, which Geo has built up with painstaking meticulousness and is only being listed as part of a personal crusade by the nominator. Much of the PD material is being moved to Wikisource, and that is fine, let Geo proceed with that at his own pace. Rich Farmbrough, 06:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC). reply

Comment I request the closing admin to discount this !vote. Ad hominum arguments and personal attacks are not acceptable. IQinn ( talk) 09:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete - Delete per webhost concerns. At this point, I would not be opposed to a entire scrubbing of User:Geo Swan/* and let him petition for undeletes as necessary. And yes, farmbrough's opinino is wholly invalid. Tarc ( talk) 14:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete per Yachtsman1, Wikipedia is not a webhost. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(
Contact) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete all per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Cunard ( talk) 10:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep for now to avoid massive inconvenience to Geo Swan as he plans to transwiki the pages to a sister project, but ask Geo Swan for a reasonable target date by which he will be finished doing so. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep for now per Newyorkbrad. Many userspace pages of Geo Swan should not remain live, but there is also an unreasonable load of work put onto him in recent weeks. I see no great case for urgency to the point of distressing a long term valued contributor. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep as NYB suggested. Trying to immediately delete these seems like pushingthings too hard. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Wait per NYB. -- N Y Kevin @853, i.e. 19:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Where has Geo Swan indicated that he plans to move these to a sister project? Rich Farmbrough claims this, but his MfD opinions were baseless AWB spam. Anyway, these pages are incorrect, as indicated in the nomination, and should not be transwikied. Fram ( talk) 20:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Note that my suggestion in the nomination, "it would be much easier to load the page to Wikisource and use that correct document as a source instead of these clearly incorrect notes." was to load the original document to Wikisource, not to load these incorrect copy-pastes to it. Fram ( talk) 21:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Still wait (i.e. my !vote above is not affected by this development) -- Geo Swan should have an opportunity to download the files if they don't belong on Wikisource and (s)he still wants them. There should be no rush to delete them. -- N Y Kevin @922, i.e. 21:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep per Wikipedia is not a webhost, WP:AGF & WP:IAR. WP:NOT is our most self-contradictory policy. Of course wikipedia, like a human being ( "I am not a crook"), most certainly is everything it says it is not. And WP:AGF - I am sure Geo Swan put them up as an attempt to improve the encyclopedia & WP:IAR - are the least self-contradictory, truest and most valuable of our policies. For a more prosaic argument, NYB's above is fine. John Z ( talk) 23:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Apart from the fact that there is zzero evidence to suggest that Geo Swan actually has such plans, or that even if he dioes, he would be transwikiing completely incorrect info to Wikisource anyway... Fram ( talk) 09:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment Fram asked me to consider changing my !vote,but I see no reason to do so. When Geo no longer needs the material here, he will presumably place a user-request to delete it, as he just now has done for some files listed for MfD below. Pushing him on this ins inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply

- How can he need material which has been incorrect for four years? For four years, he has listed the wrong allegations with the wrong persons. Meanwhile, much more material has surfaced about these persons, without e.g. the need to link numbers to names manually. What is the purpose in keeping this outdated and incorrectly transcribed info around any longer? Letting these stay around are WP:BLP violations. Fram ( talk) 09:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment - There's a handy sequence of keystrokes called Control-A, Control-C, then Control-V. 4 years is long enough to serve as a deadspace for unworked-on material, and any user is more than capable of pasting contents into one's own notepad or similar text processor. Tarc ( talk) 13:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Question Instead of speculating on whether or not Geo Swan minds the loss of these pages, why don't we just ask him? He has already been notified of this MfD, but it's unclear whether he's read that notification or what his position on it is. See also this page. -- N Y Kevin @864, i.e. 19:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I have now notified him. -- N Y Kevin @866, i.e. 19:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Transwiki -- I started moving these pages to wikisource on 2010-12-09. I request two weeks to finish transwiki-ing them. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Considering the number of pages, I have of course no objection to waiting two weeks or a month. Are you transwikying the pages as is, or as they should have been? At least some of them are incorrect as they stand on Wikipedia (see nomination for my results for the first few), so transwikying them without improvements may solve this here, but not there... 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  - I may be wrong but the standard at Wikisource seems to be to have both the scans and the text transcript. We can look at the at that carefully. Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC). reply
Speedy Keep At this point I don't even care about the merits, I am just assuming blatantly bad faith on the part of Fram. The actions of this user are reprehensible, nonconstructive, and decidedly incivil. If this continues, Geo Swan, or anyone else, has excellent grounds for a case against Fram at whatever noticeboard they so choose. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
What bullshit, Fram is doing quite a bit of legwork in weeding through the sheer volume of garbage in Geo Swan's user space. If anything, he should be awarded a barnstar for diligence while under constant attack. Tarc ( talk) 21:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Whatever makes you feel better Tarc. I haven't seen anything but the four noms I commented on, and what I see there is one active user making judgments on the workspace of another active user. It's not like Geo Swan hasn't been on Wikipedia in six months, this is one person biting at the heels of another person and their workspace. I cannot help but get the feeling that all these deletions are personally motivated by Fran. I cannot help but feel that Fran is pursuing some sort of vendetta against Geo Swan. Now I might be completely wrong, but this whole thing appears to me like one powerful long term user waging war with another powerful long term user over trivialities. Sven Manguard Wha?
If you consider four year old pages that list the wrong allegations about BLPs as "trivialities", then I don't think it is much use discussing this with you, as you obviously have made up your mind about the supposed reason for these nominations without even looking at the actual nominations. Fram ( talk) 08:15, 22 December 2010 (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.

User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112

User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook