Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gene Ray Wisest Human
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 and add {{indef}}. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Advocacy of Time Cube is inappropriate per Wikipedia:User_page#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F and WP:SOAP Toddst1 (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Per WP:DUCK. This suggests the user might be misinformed about using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
With the edits mentioned below, the page now conforms to WP:USERPAGE and I move that this MfD be closed as speedy keep.Vicenarian (T · C) 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom, not free webspace.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Page fixed to meet standards
I have removed anything resembling advocacy from my User Page. Hopefully this will call off the torches and pitchforks.
Gene Ray Wisest Human (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I stand by my earlier delete !vote. The user is now indefinitely blocked for general mischief. No reason to keep the page around at all. Vicenarian (T · C) 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- We shouldn't delete because of a recent block. Blocks get overturned. Initially problematic users can go on to become valued members of our community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- In which case, the rehabilitated user is welcome to re-create his/her user page through reversion or requesting page re-creation from an admin. Until such a time, I believe operating under the principle of WP:DENY means not letting indefinitely blocked users have free web space. Instead of deleting, a simple blanking and addition of
{{indef}}would be fine. Vicenarian (T · C) 23:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)- Yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- In which case, the rehabilitated user is welcome to re-create his/her user page through reversion or requesting page re-creation from an admin. Until such a time, I believe operating under the principle of WP:DENY means not letting indefinitely blocked users have free web space. Instead of deleting, a simple blanking and addition of
- We shouldn't delete because of a recent block. Blocks get overturned. Initially problematic users can go on to become valued members of our community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Lower the pitchforks and put out the torches. It wasn't so extremely forbidden, but did go too far. You can use your userpage to introduce. Maybe you should try doing it in the third person. Don't confuse your real-world interests with you editing intentions. If they overlap, say so, and see WP:COI. If they don't be clear. Offers of money to solve a puzzle/riddle would have to be substantiated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're looking at a revised version of the page which would give a very different picture. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I looked at this version, and considered the user to be a newcomer, and consider this edit to have been positive. If he were to become a productive editor, I think it could be OK if his userpage contained the current introduction plus something about his time cube interests. Unverifiably asserting a money prize was definitely not OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- But he isn't a newcomer. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- His contributions only go back 1 week? Has he used other accounts? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- But he isn't a newcomer. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I looked at this version, and considered the user to be a newcomer, and consider this edit to have been positive. If he were to become a productive editor, I think it could be OK if his userpage contained the current introduction plus something about his time cube interests. Unverifiably asserting a money prize was definitely not OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- User is appropriately blocked ANI discussion mostly for other more serious issues, and page is replaced with an indef blocked template. I think this is sufficient denial. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (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.