Welcome to roadsat.com on July 11 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to active discussions
Shortcut:
WP:MFD
Deletion discussions
Deletion policy

Process – Log – Tools
Guide – Images – Admins
Purge - edit
Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
  • RfC: Editors are invited to propose articles that would not be delinked by the date unlinking bot.
  • Review: Review of English Wikipedia governance
  • Review: Provisional draft #2 of the new arbitration policy.
  • Proposal: Proposal to create user-space redirects.
  • Poll: Should WP:NOT#PLOT be reworded, moved, removed, or kept the same?
  • RFC: Is there community support to change the constitutional relationship between ArbCom and Jimmy Wales?
  • Poll: How does the community feel regarding how the civility policy is applied and enforced on Wikipedia?
  • Discussion: Should notability criteria for pornographic actors be rolled back?
  • Preliminary (userspace) discussion on Wikipedia governance issues.
  • RFC: Should Wikipedia prevent Google and other search engines from searching User pages?
  • RFC. Outside opinions are solicited on self electing groups.
  • RFC: What is the community's opinion on using {{Italictitle}} to italicise certain articles' titles?
  • RFC: What is the community's view of paid editing?
  • Poll: About the preferred usage names as a result of WP:RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria
  • Discussion: Ordering and general presentation of talk page templates.
  • RFC: Simplifying speedy deletion policy

A new page to keep track of discussions throughout Wikipedia has been created: Wikipedia:Coordination

A new noticeboard has been created: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside the main namespace (also called the "article namespace") which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline).

Contents


[edit] Introduction

The only currently-used namespaces in which pages are eligible for deletion here are:

  • Help:
  • Portal:
  • MediaWiki:
  • Wikipedia:
    • This includes WikiProjects, although it is usually preferable to either mark the Project as historical or change it to a task force of the parent Project, unless the Project is entirely undesirable.
  • User:
    • When a page in the User or User talk namespaces seems worthy of deletion, please explain your concerns using either a personal note or by adding "{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~" to their talk page. While this step is not required, it does assume good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. The same applies to personal userpages you want deleted; there is no need to list them here, simply tag them with {{db-userreq}}.
    • Also be aware of not biting new users -- sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes, regardless of namespace.

The undeletion of pages deleted after having been discussed here, and debating whether discussions here have been properly closed, is the purview of Wikipedia:Deletion review, which operates in accordance with our undeletion policy.

[edit] Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

[edit] Prerequisites

Please bear in mind that:

  • Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
  • Nominating for deletion a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • If a page is in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), simply move it and tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-reason}} using the reason: Redirect left after a cross-namespace move - G6 Housekeeping and notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

[edit] How to list pages for deletion

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area.

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

I.
Edit PageName.

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|PageName (2nd nomination}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|PageName}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg=PageName| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} -- ~~~~
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion and Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and add a line to the top of the list:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • While not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.

Closing instructions Closing instructions

[edit] Active discussions

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
Purge the server's cache of this page

[edit] 2009-07-11

[edit] Service awards

Inappropriate for an encyclopediaDrew Smith What I've done 05:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. Per all the "Keep" rationales of the last MFD. Dr.K. logos 05:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • keep, it is not an article. Bubba73 (talk), 06:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep We have Barnstars, Userboxes, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Frei Hans/Telepathy and war in popular culture

User:Frei Hans/Telepathy and war

These pages were created by a now indefinitely blocked user. There is no reason to keep them. — Dædαlus Contribs 02:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is process for its own sake, but might as well indulge. --Calton | Talk 02:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - with reservations. The user in question appears to have mental issues, and I am concerned that a) he isn't likely to stay away anyway, and b) will take this as further evidence that his apparent paranoia is justified. I think the best course in this case may well be for an admin to email him the full text of these pages with a note explaining that the sole reason for deletion is that they are not within the purview of Wikipedia, and then delete. → ROUX ₪ 02:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Roux. Brangifer (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete — The pop culture one could be CSD.G1 as patent nonsense as there nothing but the page title there and nothing useful in the history either. The other is a copypasta of some rev of the deleted article and should be deleted as such. I have no objection to someone emailing Frei Hans and copy of this; hell, send several versions. We are being trolled; "end the "sufferaging" [sic] now. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I seriously doubt we are being trolled. Please read this. → ROUX ₪ 07:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Indefinite blocks are not infinite blocks. While there is no value in keeping these pages, deleting them seems a bit pointless.  pablohablo. 07:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-07-10

[edit] User:Yanico/Cygwin, cron and networked drives

Howto guide. Not likely to be of later use in articlespace, and an inappropriate use of userspace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not your personal web host. This is simply a how-to article that would really never be acceptable in article space and should be deleted. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 19:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. It appears to be appropriate for a how-to guide on Cygwin. —harej (talk) (cool!) 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:USER as a how-to guide and as not being useful for mainspace article development. To transwiki or not is a separate decision. This was written by an apparent newbie with essentially no other contributions, and therefore per WP:BITE, someone should spend some quality time explaining to this user what WP is, and is not, and why this userspace page is being nominated for deletion. — Becksguy (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sxcrld

Sxcrld (talk · contribs) has been using Wikipedia as a webhost. Over the last year, the user's only contributions have been to his userpages which contain political soapboxing, personal essays, and possibly copyrighted material. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST, the following pages should be deleted.

-- Peacock (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete all Per WP:NOT Triplestop x3 16:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all as clear as it gets. DGG (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gavelclub

Advertising in userspace -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Advertising for a club (which apparently is similar to US toastmasters which is a recognized non-profit organization) which one would have to be in Bahrein to do anything with is not much of an ad. As it clearly is not commercial advertising, the rationale to delete fails. Collect (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • What's your view on Wikipedia:U#Company/group names, Collect? - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If it were a company - but it is not. As for it being a group for which the policy it was intended, but it is not. The aim of the policy was to prevent COI promotion by use of a username. As noted, there is no improper promotion, nor is it reasonable to claim that the username is specifically a promotional tool for any commercial group of any sort. The policy is not intended as a Procrustean bed, to be sure -- note the number of editors who have names or part names of groups in their persona names -- 8 start with "ibm" for example (quick look shows thousands in similar categories of using an actual company name as part of a username), and the large number identifying a church or religion in their names. "Gavelclub" is an extraordinarily innocuous name, indeed. Shall we start with all of those thousands to meet Procrustes' needs? Collect (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think I read the policy the same way you are. "Accounts that represent a group or company are not permitted" and "Explicit use of a company or group name as a username will result in your username being blocked" don't seem to require that we peer into their souls and figure out what their true intentions were. The policy seems pretty explicit to me. A person with a username of "IBMslave" or "KookooForChrist" is not passing themselves off as IBM or as a church. I don't mind easing up on the policy page, the question is how to do it without saddling the much-abused taggers with the chore of reading the minds of the people who created the usernames. It will take some finesse. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
          • "IBM Thinkpad" is a better example, as is "ibmixpro", or "Jeeps2009" or "Tony the Tiger" or a few thousand more <g>. Now it is perfectly proper for one to use Procrustes' bed, if one uses it on everyone. I submit, however, that it ill-fits this username. Collect (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Do you read those names and come to the conclusion that they are a Thinkpad salesman, car salesman, or ... a tiger? Even if you did come to those conclusions, wouldn't a quick glance at the userpage dispel the idea? A glance at User:Gavelclub reinforces the idea that it's an account that's intended to represent the club. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
              • (hitting asterisk wall)And the fact is that is does not qualify in any way as an attempt to use WP for any remotely commercial purpose. Nor does it remotely hit any COI policies. At some point either we simply invoke Procrustes, or we invoke common sense. "Spam" does not include non-profit organizations which make no attempt to use WP for any remotely commercial purpose. Collect (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • ←The last conversation I had at WT:CSD where it was me and another guy arguing the point, I said something like "I don't like to work on policy mano-a-mano" ... and then I laughed when I read the first 3 sentences of that article, that seems like a pretty accurate description of most Wikipedia policy discussions. I'll issue invitations at WT:U and WT:CSD to join this discussion, I think it's a good one. Thanks for your input. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Advert page for a spam account. Triplestop x3 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spam. ThemFromSpace 23:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is clearly promotional material and it really doesn't have a place here; but it's far from something really egregious. ~ mazca talk 23:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as inappropriate use of the userspace for advertising if the user has not overwritten his/her page with more appropriate content by the conclusion of this discussion. Advertising applies to more than just commercial enterprises.
    Note: I do not see a need for speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. The tone of the page is not aggressively promotional, but I think {{db-spam}} could and should be validly applied to any user page that masquerades as an article to promote its subject in a situations where the subject clearly would not survive scrutiny as a real article. It seems clear to me that this sort of masquerade is what's going on here. In some cases one must be careful not to delete user pages that a legitimate editor is using as a sandbox to build up an article before it's ready for main article space, but I think the blocking of this user as a WP:ROLE account makes it clear that that's not what's happening here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced by the delete arguments. The tone is not overly promotional, and it could simply be labeled with the {{Userpage}} tag to avoid anyone confusing it with an article. On the other hand, the user's name strongly implies the account is being used to represent a group rather than an individual, but that is outside the scope of MfD. Since he has been indef blocked, it hardly seems to matter anymore what happens to the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Stavarflorin

Page used for advertising and/or spam, for a construction company -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Spam with no bluelinks is not really effective -- and this is a usertalk page in any case -- not even indexed by Google, so using it for spam is singularly ineffective. No real need to delete -- ego Keep. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Just blank out the spamming Triplestop x3 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Eventually user talk is used for something. Just blank spam. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-07-09

[edit] User:Ranilplus/Maliyadeva scout group

including User:Ranilplus/Maliyadeva Scout Group

Recreation of non-notable content after several previous deletions in article namespace, see afd, deletion log 1, deletion log 2. --jergen (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Notability is not required in userspace. Editor has a number of edits, so this is not a case of an editor only working on a single page. No spam or commercial nature. Userfication is a specific alternative to deletion, and is not a reason for deletion from userspace. Collect (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Collect, still possible to be made notable while further preparing it in his userspace. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 15:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I doubt he will succeed, but he has the right to try. DGG (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:TruthbringerToronto/Publimedia International

Multiple articles on Romanian magazines, originally created by Cristina.danilescu (talk · contribs) in November 2006 -- no, not a typo -- and moved into User:TruthbringerToronto's userspace, where they have remained completely untouched for the last 31 months. The pages are:

As user space is not a permanent storage space for the unwanted, it's time to delete these. -- Calton | Talk 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Just blank such pages. There is no need to advertise abandoned things, and then debate them. If they are abandoned, no one minds if you blank them. Blanking is far less confrontational to the user when he returns. If you don't delete them, you won't upset some completely unexpect use of them. Deletion offers no performance advantage over blanking. Delete these if you like, but necessarily with the proviso that the user can have them undeleted on request (making it more bother than it is worth). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Untouched for 31 months is not a reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • RELIST. ONe !vote -- especially one that doesn't actually address the issue -- is insufficient. --Calton | Talk 05:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Just over two years is not permanent. User appears to still exist on WP, so claims of any abandonment are premature. Collect (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-07-08

Closing instructions

[edit] Portal:United States/Selected panorama/18

Page was created by community-banned editor ABQStyle aka PoliticianTexas in defiance of his ban. See Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, which allows such pages to be speedily deleted under CSD G5. Speedy deletion was proposed and was declined. -- Uncia (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: See my comment under Portal:United States/Selected panorama/17. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I believe the use of BannedMeansBanned (while admittedly a 'hard-knock' policy) in this context needs justification, rather than just referencing. The user was banned (upon what I must admit is a cursory inspection) for copyright infringement. Why should we be so heavy-handed in this situation, which is apparently unrelated to copyright infringement? I believe WP:Deny is rather inappropriate also, see my response to Portal:United States/Selected panorama/17. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Response to comment: That would be incorrect—while he was originally blocked for copyright violations, he was banned for sockpuppetry. And so long as his edits as a sockpuppet stay in Wikipedia, he has motivation to come back and do more of them.
As for your comment about "due to the previously established character of this editor, we cannot afford to show him on any occasion that edits by him are acceptable"—that was all covered in previous discussions about this guy. By definition (as I understand it, at least), this is exactly what banning someone means. Consequently, we can say "he's banned, so let's toss the edits out" and everyone should understand that that's shorthand for what you wrote above. And if there's any disagreement about that, the discussion to have is about overturning the ban, not over each edit by edit !vote.
If you have a few hours you want to kill doing something completely unproductive, you can find all the history of this editor linked from this page. However, I'll warn you: I've already wasted those hours and don't think it was worth it, so I can't recommend it as either entertaining or educational. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Another response to comment: A community ban is an extreme measure and is only used in extreme cases. PoliticianTexas is such a case. A community ban is different from, and much more serious than, a block. If you are not familiar with bans, please read WP:BAN. Note in particular that it states that bans are applied to "editors who have exhausted the community's patience" and that "By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason." You may also want to read the discussion that resulted in this ban. --Uncia (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] Portal:United States/Selected panorama/17

Page was created by community-banned editor ABQStyle aka PoliticianTexas in defiance of his ban. See Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, which allows such pages to be speedily deleted under CSD G5. Speedy deletion was proposed and was declined. -- Uncia (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I declined speedy deletion because there was nothing to indicate anything improper about this particular contribution. The policy page linked above says "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user[.]" Although the contributor in this case was banned for massive copyright infringement, this particular page uses an image from Commons that was contributed by a well-established user there, so there is no reason to be concerned about the copyright of this page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You should have speedied per WP:DENY, IMHO. Allowing any of that twit's edits to stand just encourages him to come back and make more. → ROUX ₪ 18:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This particular edit appears to have no relation to an attempt to get either "recognition [or] infamy," as per WP:DENY. The comment "that twit," regardless of the character of the editor in question, lacks civility. Perhaps say, "due to the previously established character of this editor, we cannot afford to show him on any occasion that edits by him are acceptable," or something of the like. No matter how verbose you have to be in avoiding incivility, take that time. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User talk:Anglethrice

Talk page of indefinitely blocked user, CAT:TEMP. Two admins have declined my speedy request (see the discussion here), which is supported by the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 34#Talk pages of indef-blocked users, so I have brought it here to see what the community thinks. Cunard (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, I would speedy this but it's already been declined twice so I'd rather not overturn the decisions unilaterally. It's run-of-the-mill childish vandalism, and standard warnings of which we don't need to keep a record. Had the blocking admin used the standard indef block template, it would have been placed into Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages and eventually deleted by an automated process. (Perhaps in future you could just add the cat if you can't find an admin who knows about CAT:TEMP). –xenotalk 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Britt25/sandbox for CVS/Pharmacy

Abandoned sandbox of retired user, untouched since 2008. No idea why we wanted to keep this last time; isn't it technically a GFDL vio? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Closing instructions

[edit] User:Britt25/sandbox for Pepsi

Sandbox, old version of Pepsi-Cola, untouched since May 2008. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Closing instructions

[edit] User:Wsolh

Wikipedia is not a resume service. Creation of this page was this user's only edit, back in 2007 -- Oneiros (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. FWIW, user did try to make this in the mainspace at Wissam Solh. –xenotalk 13:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. MER-C 04:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Skhatra3

Wikipedia is not a resume service. Creation of this page was this user's only edit, back in 2006. MER-C 08:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Edit back to a reasonable userpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am unsure how this can really be edited back to a reasonable userpage. For a single edit account, not sure it is reasonable to leave all the personal contact information in the edit history either. Also, I wonder if the IP user who blanked and also filled with random text (both of which were reversed - in good faith as far as I can tell) is actually this user wanting to remove the information. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have to agree with Jordan that there is nothing to be edited as this is wholly a resume which does not belong here.Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - this is rubbish, a resume does not belong here, user can start fresh if needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations

Goodness me, what an awful page this is, and how unbelievable no one has ever nominated it before! Anyway, there are numerous reasons why this page should be deleted. First off, it makes the FAC process look like some sort of race to get as many bronze stars as possible, to get to the ultimate spot at the top of the list. Second, it is a violation of WP:OWN. This gives a false impression articles belong to somebody, when they absolutely do not. Third, it is clearly emphasising quantity over quality. Numbers don't mean everything, but apparently this page is done that way. Fourth, by "highlighting" these editors it gives a false impression that the people on this list are somehow better and more important, or better at writing than everyone else. Fifth, it is completely and utterly pointless (perhaps about as useful as a list of people who have nominated something for deletion, an article to GA, or whatever. It doesn't matter). As far as I can see, its only purpose is to massage the egos of people who write FAs. I don't see what benefit that has to anything, but I do see lots of negatives. -- Majorly talk 00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep I used this list just today to see how many FA's an editor I know had worked on. I can see your point, but I think that the list should be kept because it provides a more useful resource than just the raw edit count to show which editors are concentrating their efforts onto individual articles. There is a difference between an editor with 70000 mainspace contributions spread out over thousands of articles and editor with 7000 mainspace contributions who has built up very resourceful articles from nothing. To put it another way, whether this page exists or not, people are going to be searching for the information, so why not just let that information be known? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't feel particularly strongly about this, but I do agree with Majorly's points, andI would like to do my bit to counteract the pile-on of keeps that is about to happen. Hesperian 01:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • FAC is a race - a race to get as many articles as possible up to a certain minimum status. The point of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopaedia. All the other stuff - all of it - exists to support the job of writing an encyclopaedia. So we have a list of people who are the primary authors of encyclopaedia articles that have met some basic threshold. If it's seen as a reward to writing good articles, then it's a good thing. We want more of that sort of behaviour. And no, there's no comparison between nominating an article for deletion and writing an FA (and bear in mind that nominators are expected to be the lead - or one of the lead - contributors to the article).

    I have no idea how this page somehow creates the impression that a certain editor "owns" an article. The article titles aren't mentioned on the page, they're only accessible as links if you hover over relatively small stars. So keep. Guettarda (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. This list has provided several years of friendly competition, leading to hundreds of featured articles that have dramatically improved our encyclopedia. It's led to no drama that I know of. People will likely still keep the stars on their user page, so it's not as if deletion of this page would actually address any of the nominator's concerns either. The only person taking this too seriously is the nominator. Furthermore the notion that we shouldn't have encouragement for people who write FAs is disturbingly wrongheaded and the claim that it has no benefit ridiculous on its face. --JayHenry (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Is it possible for you to simply disagree with me without going out of your way to insult me as much as possible? Fine, you disagree with deletion, I get it. "Obvious keep" "The only person taking this too seriously is the nominator" (untrue) "ridiculous on its face". Comments like that lead to an unpleasant atmosphere. I have done nothing to deserve being on the receiving end of your abusive remarks, so please cut it out and express your disagreement in a more civil manner. Thank you. Majorly talk 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry if you feel that I am going out of my way to insult you -- that is not my intention. We're here to build a high-quality encyclopedia and this list is something that has fairly obviously contributed to that. "Its only purpose is to massage the egos of people who write FAs" is certainly an example of something that's untrue, insulting and is sure to contribute to an unpleasant atmosphere for Rick who has worked so hard to maintain the list over the years. --JayHenry (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I disagree. It's a list of names with a bunch of stars. We should be concentrating on quality not quanitity. This list promotes quantity over quality, which is a bad thing. The people on the list have certainly contributed to quality, but why do their names need listing by how many FAs they wrote? And as for your final point, that's my opinion as I made abundantly clear but you missed off the first part of my sentence saying so. I'm still unconvinced it does anything useful other than what I said it does already. Majorly talk 02:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Of course it's your opinion. I'm just expressing my opinion too. If you believe my opinions could be insulting did it not occur to you that then yours could be as well? As for the first point, FAs are by definition high-quality articles, so I don't agree that it's emphasizing quantity over quality. It's emphasizing both, which seems quite compatible with our goal of writing an encyclopedia with many high quality articles. We have to do both. --JayHenry (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
            • In the rush to get as many stars as possible, the quality will inevitably go down, as the number of decent reviews dwindle. FAC struggles for reviewers as it is, with articles passing with just three comments, so if people are really putting more and more articles on FAC, reviewers are going to struggle. Just because something is a FA doesn't mean it is at its best. FA is simply arbitrary criteria, which makes this list even worse. It is emphasising the things you say, but it is ranking and giving unwarranted importance to quanitity. Some FAs are better than others, they aren't all the same. Majorly talk 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
              • If this list were new those would be interesting theoretical concerns, but in fact the list has been there for four years, and the quality of FAs has improved substantially in that time. With really only a few exceptions and niggles FAs are much better now than they were in 2005. I've never seen an instance where someone with 20 "easy" FAs says they're better than someone with 9 "hard" FAs. As the list has been here for four years, we know that in practice it just doesn't actually do the things you're concerned about, whereas we also know it does encourage friendly competition to improve the encyclopedia. --JayHenry (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Emphatic delete there is NO difference between an editor with 70,000 edits spread all over the project and one with 7000 concentrating on just a handful of articles. A featured article writer depends on thousands of other editors doing copyedits, template construction, mainspace organization, and zillions of other tasks on this project. Without those people, the featured article writers would have NOTHING to work with. I also do not agree with Guettarda that this doesn't create the impression these articles are owned by their nominators. It certainly does. Further, so what if someone NOMINATES something? That's nothing. I could cast about the project finding worthy articles and nominate them, never having edited the articles in question. Nominating something has little value. This list doesn't encourage FA writers, and what it does do is create a hierarchy that is antithetical to the absolutely critical contributions of so many other editors that never do thing one for featured articles. Maybe we should create Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by MfD nominations or Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by image uploads or Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by script assisted edits. This list is worthless. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • [S]o what if someone NOMINATES something? That's nothing. I could cast about the project finding worthy articles and nominate them, never having edited the articles in question - No, that's not the way it works. FAC usually only accepts noms from one of the leading editors on an article - not because it's an ownership thing, but because you need an active editor to shepherd the article through the process. Have you really never participated in a FAC discussion? Not to mention that just aren't a lot of articles that are up to standard sitting around waiting for a nomination.

      As for the dependence on other editors - sure templates are helpful, organisation is helpful, but content is what really matters. Without content, you have no encyclopaedia, no matter how many templates you have to choose from. Despite the fact that it's easy to port templates between projects, the smaller projects will never catch up with en. unless they find a lot of content writers. There's nothing wrong with finding ways to recognise the contribution of volunteers in other areas. It just so happens that we have a system of evaluating articles that have gone through the highest level of scrutiny we currently have available. Find a system to recognise the best templates, and hey, you're in business. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep A little friendly competition among FA contributors never hurt anyone. What good are records and bragging rights if there is no place to record the accomplishments and no proof of your accomplishments? Isn't this the whole purpose of WP:BS? Why should we treat this page any differently then a userpage filled with barnstars and other shiny things? If anything, we ought to rigorously link to this article and encourage every wikipedian to try and earn a star here; it can be our version on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Since you ask questions, I'm sure you won't mind me responding :) Competition is fine, it's great. Just not where every person who wrote a FA is involved. I, for example, am involved whether I wanted to be or not. As Hammersoft said FAs are never down to one person, so why should just one person get the credit? A userpage is a userpage. It doesn't have ranking by number of FAs against everyone else, does it? I think encouraging people to get a star is a horrible idea. We're meant to be doing this to write a quality encyclopedia, not get a pretty star to decorate our userpage. Majorly talk 02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
      • On point one: No, I do not mind you answering; that is after the point of consensus, is it not? :) I agree with the first part of your response, but even students who are forced to sell stuff by schools to help earn money get some sort of reward or prize; so why must the reward for getting an article to featured status be limited to the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so many hours of hard work upon the alter of knowledge for the masses? Now I agree that those listed here should not go out and rub their accomplishments in everyone's face, but I do think that some sort of recognition should be allotted to those who had the endurance to go the distance for the sake of FA. And though you would not see it here I do make a point to thank those who helped me get an article to FA-class; I do realize that behind every winner in the winners circle is a pit crew that helped keep things moving in the race for FA-status. I do find your position interesting, and your grounds for the mfd are not without merit, but I respectfully choose to disagree with the decision to do away with the page. That said, I will bow to consensus here, whatever that may be. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - at the end of the day, if the existence of the page serves to make more wikipedians write better articles via collaboration, then it is a net positive. Point one is irrelevant anyway to whether an article is kept or deleted, point two falls flat in the experience of anyone who has ever nominated an article at FAC - the nominator is beholden to the reviewer's actionable opposes to pass FAC, it is actually a counterbalance against WP:OWN as it allows consensus to override a primary editor's opinion on an article. Third point...yeah sort of, but most of the time editors who have shouldered a hefty broad article to FA status have gained kudos for doing so as well. I do agree that there should be more of this, which is why I tried to kick-start WP:ACID with mixed results. Fourth...well I am better than everyone else...(chuckle) no seriously, content is what we're here to contribute and promote, and more than ever we need to focus on polishing and improving what we do have as much as adding more esoterica. GA and FA are absolutely integral to this process occurring and hence anything promoting their use is a plus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I use the page as a reference to know which editors are heavily involved in contributing quality content and in which subject areas. This knowledge is useful to help me or other editors know who to ask for help or advice in certain subject areas. Or, if someone needs assistance in preparing an article for the FAC process, they can use this list to find someone who could help them out. Actually, that has already happened to me a couple of times. Think of this page as a guide or list of some of Wikipedia's most involved and experienced content editors. Wouldn't you agree that that is a useful resource to have? Cla68 (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Response - Point by point.
    • First, this page is not directly referenced (as far as I know) from FAC and exists completely independently. If anyone interprets it to mean FAC is a race to get as many gold (not bronze) stars as possible, and because of this works harder to get more articles to FA status, then it is serving its intended purpose. Wikipedia has nearly 3M articles, but only about 2500 FAs. The proportion of FAs is declining (see Wikipedia:Featured article statistics). Jimbo has publicly said he'd rather shift the focus from articles on everything under the Sun to quality. This list is but the mildest of encouragements along these lines.
    • WP:OWN? Did you read the intro? The star is not awarded to the "author" but to the brave soul(s) (stars are "awarded" to co-noms quite liberally) willing to endure the slings and arrows of comments at the FAC process. This choice (nominator(s), not author(s)) is specifically because of WP:OWN. Nearly all articles are collaborative efforts. We all know this. But collaborating on brilliant articles does not make any articles WP:featured articles. Like it or not, FAC is the process we use to put Wikipedia's highest stamp of approval on articles. Less than .1% of our articles have this stamp.
    • Third - exactly how does this emphasize quantity over quality? There's no way to get a star other than by nominating an article and responding to each and every comment raised at FAC. The FAC process is the FAC process. There's really no way to cheat. You aren't trying to imply Hurricanehink or YellowMonkey are nominating lousy articles, are you?
    • Fourth - Anyone thinking the editors on this list are better in any way than any other editors is simply incorrect. The only thing those "higher" on this list have over other editors is the demonstrated ability to get articles through the final step of the FAC process.
    • Fifth - Pointless? Perhaps. Although far less pointless than Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (which was actually the motivation for its creation in the first place).
I understand you (Majorly) don't like this list. Fine. Don't look at it. I don't like Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. So I never look at it. I don't like it has never been a valid reason for deletion. If no one closes this as a speedy keep in the next 24 hours, I'll be disappointed. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. These bad ideas are our history, and if we suppress our history we doom ourselves to repeat it. Otherwise, I think I agree with Majorly. Blank and tag {{historical}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC), but support any attempts to improve the page if they reduce the valid concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Fail to see anything wrong with it, and indeed see it as a good thing to have, encouraging FA contributors. Skinny87 (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Majorly has said that this list promotes quality over quantity. It's true that people might be tempted to cut corners. Even if the list did not exist people would still go and brag to newspapers about things or put adverts on their userpages or on websites saying that they have lots of FAs and can write spam articles for money! Nevertheless, if people write a lot of bad FAs, they will go to the top of the list and people can inspect them and downgrade them again. Secondly, a lot of people who are very high up on the list were from the older days when the standards were less stringent. I know for sure that people look at the upper reaches of the list and look for weak articles because they have come to the conclusion that some people with a lot of FAs had it easy in the old days. From 2006, there was a continuous stream of FARs on articles by Lord Emsworth, who had 50+ FAs, mostly from the pre-citation era. There was basically an Emsworth FAR at all times, sometimes two. After all his articles had been FARed, I noticed a flurry of FARs against old Piotrus articles starting in late 2008, which has continued since; at the time Piotrus was 2/3rd on the list. Since then I've noticed a lot of Worldtraveller articles being sent to FAR, he was also high on the list. And other cases where a user nominates a string of old articles by the same user. It seems to me that a lot of users use the list to identify users with a lot of decayed FAs in order to scrutinise them, or to hunt down FAs by people they regard to be POV pushers. The FAR patterns indicate that some people use this list to hunt for [in their opinion at least] bad FAs. So the list might actually bring more attention to people who deliberately make cheap FAs. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, I have already agreed with Majorly's point #4 as one can do a driveby nom without actually writing anything. Or one can rewrite an old-era FA by another user and not get credit. Regardless of whether this page exists or not people will always be taken in by stunts. Like subdividing their edits into microedits to appear to be hard-working. Also, Flcelloguy, he used to list on his userpage a list of FACs. AnonEMouse, who was regarded as a meticulous researcher, wrote on his Arb election report that Flc had several FAs. Actually, Fl just made a few driveby noms of other people's articles in 2005; one passed, the other two got piled-on opposed for being full of problems. but I wonder how many people read the report or saw the headline and assumed that Fl had actually written any of them or that they actually passed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I must agree with Casliber and YellowMonkey's comments. This list is an excellent motivational tool for editors to start or continue producing FA-quality articles. It is also useful in identifying contributors with a good FA track record who you may want to consult or for identifying articles nominated by a particular user which no longer meet the FA criteria. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Casliber and YellowMonkey raise excellent points; this list serves as an incentive to produce quality content, and is generally a useful tool. However, I agree with Majorly's nomination statement as well, and there are many faults with this page. I'm on the fence at the moment. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I concur with YM and Cas' opinions on this matter. Sure, I want to beat that cricket-loving yellow mammal directly ahead of me on the list, but that's not going to make me nominate horrible articles in some attempt to "win". :) I should point out that driveby noms are pretty hard to do these days, because most people check and make sure that a significant contributor has nom'd the article; if not and a contributor says it's not ready, it's immediately removed from the FAC page. One can reply that this in turn causes WP:OWN problems, but either way, then, we can't win. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, but clean it up. Get rid of the burnt-out stars. If the sense of competition is offensive, how about representing the list in alphabetical order by nominators? Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Casliber and YellowMonkey. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Majorly said, "As far as I can see, its only purpose is to massage the egos of people who write FAs. I don't see what benefit that has to anything." Well, the benefit is that the people who do take this page seriously produce more content in an effort to get to the top. It's the same premise behind the WikiCup. In both cases, I see that the end result is an effort to improve the content of the encyclopedia. I'm not in the mood for beating around the bush, so I'll put it bluntly: I honestly don't give a rat's ass whether that is done by a listing of bronze stars or a promise of a blow job if someone gets 80 FAs. All I know is that we got better content, which is the reason we're all here. The FAC process is caustic enough to make me never want to touch it again with a 200-ft pole, but I do recognize that it is still the best certification of high quality that we possess in this place, so I don't see anything wrong with giving a Unicode star to the brave soul who risked 120 hours of heartburn to pass an article through that Via Crucis. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the list is useful. Editors may want to seek out other editors for possible advice pertaining to bringing an article to FA status, which we all know is not an easy task. Plus the list is updated by a bot so there is no real upkeep and stays relatively updated. I dont' see any harm in keeping it. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As I may have mentioned once or twice, I'm no fan of this list – even aside from the whole issue of differentiating between the nominator and the writer, all an FA count measures is the ability to comply with the increasingly arcane and arbitrary rulings of the MOS, not any significant ability – but I can still see times when it would be potentially useful. If any of these "high score tables" are to be deleted, I'd far sooner see the ridiculous List of Wikipedians by number of edits deleted, salted and trampled to dust, but as long as that remains, these other bot-generated statistical tables should remain too. As a certain user said at the MFD for WP:WBE, "It's irrelevant if people get upset over it; they should get a thicker skin if such a page gets them so upset". – iridescent 2 16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Whatever. Is that a vote? Is is now. I'm on the list and I don't care about it. I use it occasionally to see if other Wikipedians who allude to familiarity with the FA process have actually produced an FA. Otherwise, I forget it's here. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've used this list before to help identify editors who have experience with bringing certain topics to FA status. I also sometimes use it to see if an FAC nominator has ever gotten an article promoted so that I can give barnstars to those who have just had their first successful nomination. Karanacs (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestions for improvement. I empathize with the deleter's arguments (there are, interestly, featured article writers who don't want to be listed here), but I also don't think the page's problems outweigh the positives suggested in this MfD. The page needs a good old Wikipedia de-hierarchicizing (of course that's a word). I second Brianboulton's suggestion to sort it in alphabetical order. And I add to that the following suggestion: instead of displaying stars, display the article names. These suggestions, combined, would transition the page from preferencing "ranking" (the main reason that some detest it) to preferencing "information". An excerpt might look like this (I am not going to spend time trying to make the example's formatting prettier):
MacGyverMagic (1) Crawford expedition
Madcoverboy (1) United States Military Academy
Maxim (7) History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992), Tiny Thompson, Trevor Linden, Paul Stastny, Jacques Plante, Ray Emery, Stanley Cup
Montanabw (1) Thoroughbred

Notice how this improves the page with respect to one of the ostensible uses of the list: to find editors who have written about particular subjects. (I realize the page is updated by an automated process that would have to be re-jigged, but I don't believe that the implementation problem should decide whether the idea is a good one.) The page is now more informational, and is organized in a way that minimizes the ranking implications that some don't like, while still allowing those who consult the page to find what they found before (with only some extra effort required to compare the FA nominators at the top of the charts--I mean, the four of you know who you're in friendly competition with anyway). No implied hierarchy. Thoughts? Outriggr (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This should really be discussed at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. I'll mention here only that this format would make the page insanely long and that FAC archives are kept (by month and by year) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This is why I never participate in XfD. They say it's not a "vote", so I put up an idea or a suggestion or something along the line of discussion that is oriented towards improvement instead of binary reactions, and you tell me it's not the place to discuss it. Forget it. Outriggr (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think they're both good ideas: averting the vote and the actual concept of presenting information instead of a trophy list. --Moni3 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree--even as it I find it very helpful & appropriate --and wish I had known about it earlier. If people are going to boast about something done here, this might be the most justifiable of all the possibilities, even though I am never likely to be on this list myself. The improvements suggested would make it much better. DGG (talk)
True - the new tables are versatile enough so that the competitive of us can still measure stars too (rubs hands together with clunning glee and chuckles fiendishly) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-07-07

Closing instructions

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles

Seems to have been abandoned. Does not match current project structure and has had no substantial changes in a significant period. Was raised for discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Proposed_structure over two weeks ago with no response. Jeffro77 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete if such is requested. The purpose of creating the list, I think, was to provide a list of articles directly relevant to the project which could then be used with the recent changes function to let members keep up on any changes to articles relevant to the project, but I'm not necessarily sure that it has really lived up to that purpose. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing worth keeping here, clearly no one will miss it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Surely this is a matter for the project. If they do not want it, then they can just ask an admin to delete it. We should not do this kind of interference with Projects even if no one will miss it. So keep but perhaps tag as historic. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, not all of these articles are tagged. This is of great importance to the project if someone went throught the time to create it. Why don't we notify the creator of this so that we can get his opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If there were any benefit in using the page as a source for checking whether pages are tagged, it would need to be completely overhauled first, as it is not accurately representative of the project. The creator of the page, User:John Carter, has already commented above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a very big project, so it is unlikely that editors will be swarming around the project page. I would suggest that someone actually contacts a few active editors to see their response. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Proposed structure

Seems to have been abandoned. Does not match current project structure and has had no substantial changes in a significant period. Was raised for discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Proposed_structure over two weeks ago with no response. Jeffro77 (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Nothing worth keeping here, clearly no one will miss it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Surely this is a matter for the project. If they do not want it, then they can just ask an admin to delete it. We should not do this kind of interference with Projects even if no one will miss it. So keep but perhaps tag as historic. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk)
As stated above, it has already been raised at the Project page, and no interest has been shown in keeping the article by other project members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Same as above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Tag as {{historic}}. We shouldn't delete old, bad or completed ideas. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-07-06

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Cloverfieldmoster/Matthew Li

Also nominating User:Cloverfieldmoster/Sandbox:Prediction, User:Cloverfieldmoster/Prediction, and User:Cloverfieldmoster/Ascendency. Cloverfieldmoster has been creating articles apparently about himself (two were deleted earlier today) and inserting himself into film pages. Has also quietly tried to insert references to hoax future films into several articles since creating the username, and the other user subpages nominated are for those hoax films. User became very active today with fraudulent edits. -- TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete the lot WP is not a free host for kids to scribble in. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with what RHawthorn stated. Page should be up for immediate deletion. Should also block user from making new accounts. - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.147.148 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and as soon as possible. Speedy all as G3, possibly. DGG (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-07-05

Closing instructions

[edit] User:MCW07

Nominating userpage and talk page of an editor with clear WP:COI edits recently. Also, blatant advertising for an off-wiki commercial site - editor informed of WP:UP#NOT problem with link, but re-added anyway after prior removal. Duplicate content on both userpage and talk page. -- MikeWazowski (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - speedy G11 if possible. → ROUX ₪ 04:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G11. -t'shaélchat 06:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There are some editor issues here. The user is a valued contributor. Links to promotional external sites are not OK, should be removed, and if reinserted, the user needs to be warned and blocked if he insists on repeating. The blunt hammer of deletion is not likely a good solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment per the nomination statement by user:MikeWazowski MCW07 has been informed and these links have been removed, he then re-added them. -t'shaélchat 09:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I know. There is a bigger problem than his user and talk page. The editor seems to believe that it is OK to link to blogspot.com sites. His userpage and talk page are only examples of the bigger problem, which is the user damaging mainspace with the addition of non reliable sources. User:MikeWazowski seems to have been correctly acting in reverting these edits. User:MCW07 needs to be warned, and blocked if he continues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed. If he keeps on inserting spam links despite being warned to stop, that is the course that this will take. -t'shaélchat 09:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess I don't understand how blogspot.com links are any less valued than anything else, something I think was the original reason for my targeting, and was confirmed by the statements above. Preferential treatment over people with the money to pay for a yearly domain name is ludicrous. I offer something different than other websites do, especially those run by AOL and Gawker, for example.
I've never spammed anywhere on this entire site, something that is ignored in favor of controlling my very own profile page. If you'll look back, every link I posted on a Wikipedia article was for something related to that article, i.e. a review for said film mentioned.
As far as my user page, what exactly do I put there, a big picture of me hugging a Wikipedia logo or something (Oh wait, nope, that's probably illegal as well considering it has a logo in it)? I've donated to Wikipedia in the past thanks to the wonderful service provided, now I have to block harassing emails from its users. It's not a friendly place, sadly.
And no, I received no warnings for anything. I just came one day to find out every article I had edited had been reverted. I then confronted the editor about never being warned before all of my work was deleted, simply to receive a response that "he was not required to warn me of anything, that's how it works here".
MCW07 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the lack of polite discussion. Unfortunately, there are people who make it their business to insert links to their sites wherever possible, for the benefit of the website, not for the benefit of wikipedia. The big red flag here is the character string "blog" in the url. As a rule, blog sites are not reliable or reputable websites. Of course, there can be exceptions. If the site or the author is independently notable (WP:WEB, WP:BIO), then a case can be made. If someone suggests that your links are not sufficiently reliable/reputable (as is now done), you can take it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and see if anyone there disagrees with you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
MCW07 is only presenting part of what I emailed to him, and out of context - I must also point out that email contact was initiated by him, accusing me of a personal vendetta, targeting his website personally, and he seemed to be under the impression that I had to contact him before I reverted what appeared to both me and another editor as linkspam/self-promotional edits. For the record, this is exactly what I emailed to him after his initial email: "You have no valid reasons to complain. According to your Wikipedia userpage, you personally run a blog called Uncovered Films - nearly all of your recent contributions were to insert links to your blog into articles, in clear violation of the conflict of interest guidelines - specifically those about self-promotion. I and other editors removed those links, and rightly so. I was under no obligation to email you and ask your permission before doing so - that's not the way things work over there. Unless you can show valid reasons why we should ignore the conflict of interest rules and let you promote your site just because you want to "slap a link everywhere you possibly can", I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I think I'll be removing those links should they re-appear." This is essentially the same message I posted on MCW07's talk page, as well. Also, his comment that he's "never spammed anywhere on this entire site" is also demonstrably false, as his recent contributions were exactly that, only inserting links to his blog. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There is risk of harm with little useful purpose in examining the history in forensic detail. The real issue is where do we go from here. Does MCW07 accept that he should stop adding blogspot.com links? If not, let's take the question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Will MCW07 agree to remove excessive promotion unrelated to wikipedia off his userpage and talk page? He seems to have done this already, though grudgingly. As he has one it, there is no need for this MfD. Keep, as edited.
MCW07, you are a serious contributor, so some leeway is given to you for your userspace. However, especially where your content could be considered promotional, you should endeavour to ensure that your content says something about you and/or your contributions. We are very sensitive about being used as a webhost for promotional activities. You may like to read Wikipedia:Free speech. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I found no policy saying that people with a COI can not have user pages. Nor can I find a policy saying userpages and user talk pages can not have any content overlap -- especially when it is a total uf under 1K long. Remove commercial links? Sure. Baby out with bathwater? Nope. As to "Blogspot.com" a search in user and user talk space shows about 20,000 references, and more than 25,000 in articlespace -- seems that it is widely used in userspace and in mainspace, and raising it here is not a valid reason for deletion. It needs to go to RS/N for a "general ruling" (actually I thibnk because it is so widespread it may need an RfC). Meanwhile, sledgehammers on userpages do not have efficacious results. I trust I answered all facets of the deletion arguments. Collect (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This was not about not letting the user not have a userpage - this was about the editor's insistence (at the time) for including links to swagbucks on his pages - links that served no purpose here on Wikipedia. While there are valid uses for some blog links, in this case the problem was blatant self-promotion of the editor's personal blog - and there are guidelines about that. Normally I wouldn't have gone this route, but Berean Hunter suggested I try this. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I would support a deletion of the nominated page, but the user has cleaned it up and hopefully learned his lesson. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - now that the links have been removed. We have other sanctions available if he resumes adding those links to articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove 'Speedy Removal' Notices Request

OK, can someone go ahead and remove the "Speedy deletion" banners from my pages now? I think the statement has been made, I've been made a significant example of (Yeah yeah, my profile page is not the place to list my profile). I've since made contributions to the site that I doubt anyone will argue with, considering they aren't linking to any site I run and/or benefit from in any way. I'm sure there are bigger problems/people on Wikipedia that can be bullied than me.

I doubt anyone here would agree with me moving them myself, which is why I'm politely asking the people who defaced my page to remove them at this point. No more comment is necessary from those people, as I can't stand to read another word of it. Either do it or don't... no explanation needed.

MCW07 (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Closing instructions

[edit] User:Washingtonlawyer

This looks to me like an attempt to keep an article within wikipedia, about some non-notable subject. This kind of thing typically isn't allowed, I would be fine if an admin moved it to a subpage. — Dædαlus Contribs 03:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Move to subpage. Looks like a newcomers first attempt at article creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep does not appear to be spam, nor anything more than a short essay permitted in Userspace. Collect (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User talk:Thundermoomoo

Wasn't sure if this qualified for speedy, so nominating it here. Not sure what to make of the page; it looks like a silly, non-encyclopedic article but in User talk namespace. This talk page is the user's only contributions. Not sure if it should just be deleted or moved to the user page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Recent discussions

Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began on 3 July 2009 has ended. Everything below this marker should be dealt with and removed from the workflow. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice.

[edit] 2009-07-03

Closing instructions

[edit] Recent discussions

Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began on 3 July 2009 has ended. Everything below this marker should be dealt with and removed from the workflow. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice.


[edit] 2009-07-02

[edit] Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs