Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MaynardClark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MaynardClark

[edit]

User page is being used as a personal home page inconsistent with the terms of WP:User page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Give them a few days. They've said that they'll fix it. If they haven't even started by, say, Friday, then renominate. But right now, I'd assume good faith and presume that they are working on cleaning it up. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may have jumped the gun but I started thinking he wasn't planning to address the problem after he contributed a new piece of information (I admit it was a small one) to his list of personal trivia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if he puts up a big userpage notice on top, this page isn't a problem. I removed a mainspace category from his userpage, but that was a simple mistake. We give more leeway to established users to have expanded personal information on their userpage. This man is committed to the project. Miami33139 (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where in the guidelines is such leeway given to established users, and how does "leeway" imply a complete abandonment of the principle that Wikipedia is not a web host allowing him to use it for the purpose of listing a mile of trivia about himself that properly belongs on his own website if he wants it posted? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." "Users with most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits." Yeah, it is lengthy. I am sure he could do with an edit. He seems like a reasonable guy and could do that. His userpage isn't a soapbox, isn't advertising, and isn't a fake article. It's just too long. Miami33139 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:Editors matter (admitting I haven't looked at the page in depth - perhaps the nominator could expand upon what is problematic therein?). –xenotalk 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's someone's opinion, and since in essence it says that "Wikipedia is really a free-for-all and the guidelines don't apply unless we don't know you" I think it should be disregarded. I'm not exaggerating. It actually implies that if it makes a user happy to ignore WP:User page, then we should let the user ignore WP:User page. I find it a strange notion that catering to the happiness of editors who distinguish themselves by showing that they don't take Wikipedia's rules seriously and who violate them flagrantly would be held up as a principle that overrides the rules that they choose not to follow. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I happen to share the opinion. I don't see the harm that this userpage is causing... –xenotalk 19:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you don't see what the harm is, then feel free to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:User page on changing the guideline. Right now, it doesn't allow this use of user pages. This guideline was established by a consensus of users who disagreed with you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". At a quick glance, it seems mostly harmless - though tl;dr - move along, imho. –xenotalk 19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fine. Let's play dueling essays. WP:NOHARM:

              The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here.

              And WP:NOT clearly prohibits treating one's user page as though it were one's personal web page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • See my comment below at 22:41. –xenotalk 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed over half of what is on there. I would note, though, that the bugs or icons at the bottom are on a number of OTHER Wikipedians' pages. So I've taken out personal notes, notes about travel and background, some but not all notes about work, and much - perhaps most - notes about vegetarianism, though that is an expert subject area.

Further guidance, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs)

Thanks for doing that. I have no issue with the bugs or icons. A little background is perfectly legitimate. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me when the page is up to specs. MaynardClark (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sideline discussion

Below is a subdiscussion that MaynardClark placed in the middle of a separate subthread, obscuring it. I've moved it here for the sake of clarity. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note that I have written a NUMBER of expert pages that in symposia have been praised as being 'very informative' for major Faculty AND that, in line with being 'very committed to the project',
Largo, you will note, has been needlessly aggressively, some say vindictive, about removing things he seems not to like.
  • Routine daily editing by hundreds of Wikipedia editors involves removing things they see as contrary to Wikipedia's mission, policy, and guidelines. You're the one who's making it out to be personal and a matter of aggressiveness and vindictiveness. Basically, you're saying, "Largoplazo carried out routine clean-up functions and I want to keep doing what I'm doing, so I'm going to call him aggressive and vindinctive."—Largo Plazo (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, looking at your talk page I found text that seems or seemed to say that you are leaning on the side of removing rather than improving.
  • Further, I'd note that a comment late Sunday evening to someone who works VERY long hours 5-7 days/week should be taken as something unlikely to be seen until mid-week. At this point, the strategy seems to have been designed to 'blind side' me. I call that patently 'unfair'. Other? MaynardClark (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, if we look AT your userpage, Largo Plazo, you boast of deleting a page, including
   * ... is an up and coming ...
   * ... had a dream ...
   * ... take ... by storm ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Largoplazo

    • And? Yes, I patrol articles. Hundreds of articles posted on Wikipedia every day don't belong here. There are pages and pages and pages and pages of guidelines and policies that say so and that explain the respective natures of acceptable pages and unacceptable pages (and unacceptable content on otherwise acceptable pages) and that prescribe procedures for dealing with them. This is all very matter of fact, very routine procedures built by consensus by many of your fellow Wikipedia editors in the interest of helping Wikipedia serve its purpose. What mileage do you expect to get out of pretending this is just some personal horrible, terrible, reprehensible quirk of mine and that you are the victim of some gross injustice? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like Hillary Clinton, I'd say 'it's personal' with him.
Let's see what we can do to bring this into Wikipedia guidelines.
Trivia has been removed. Why not merely POLITELY ask me to remove trivia?
  • I did ask you politely, a couple of days ago. And the basis for my Mfd, above, reads "User page is being used as a personal home page inconsistent with the terms of WP:User page." Stated factually and neutrally with no note of hostility. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I removed large chunks material, including all the "trivia"

It seems that everything else there is pretty much standard on a more robust userpage. MaynardClark (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, MANY Wikipedians DO have trivia in their userpages; it seemed to be an 'in kind' inclusion, but hey -- you don't like it; I removed it.
Doing a collaborative3 project likely WILL occasion some disagreements; let's discuss them in non-hostile ways, eh?
msc
MaynardClark (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal What do the OTHERS want to do, and when will the others ask to remove the Mtd? MaynardClark (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MFD discussions typically run for 7 days, unless it is closed early. I gather if Largo withdraws his complaint then it could be speedily closed... –xenotalk 19:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MfD lasts for seven days. You can probably ignore it or watch for new commentary. There wasn't really anything wrong with the way it was, except for being lengthy. The dry and deprecating wit actually seemed to enhance the length. I'm sorry you cut it so drastically under duress. Miami33139 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not understanding the theory that ther isn't anything wrong with flagrant violations of explicit Wikipedia guidelines. And after all the deletion that took place, it still is impossible to reconcile his user page, even allowing some "leeway", with those guidelines.
I've been here for a couple of years and I've participated in numerous Afd discussions and read plenty of others. There, participants and administrators generally take seriously that it's the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia that prevail over "I like it" or "I don't like it" or "It isn't hurting anybody" or "Why are you such a Nazi?" or anything of that nature. I'm really taken aback by the "screw the rules" attitude here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a productive editor has a tl;dr userpage that isn't really hurting anything, there is more harm in nominating it for deletion (we could lose a productive editor) than in ignoring it (I would put in a "con" here, but you still haven't indicated what harm is caused by it - page view stats indicate that it isn't causing much of a drain on our resources). –xenotalk 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno: you appear to believe that Wikipedia has a guideline that says "Feel free to ignore every other rule, despite the fact that many people worked hard to come to agreements on how they should read, in great detail, and what the remedies should be if they don't comply ... unless they don't harm anybody." Well, Xeno, nothing on Wikipedia besides libel, abuse, and copyright infringement harms anybody. Except for when those particular acts occur, Wikipedia is just another dumb website out there and has no effect on anybody. So based upon your principle, we can just ignore every Wikipedia has on verifiability, notability, reliable sources, tone, appropriate subject matter. We should be able to post our own poems, the results of the office football pool, political analysis, recipes, vacation pictures, and just about anything else because these things don't harm anybody.
I don't understand your fear about losing a productive editor. If an editor is editing only because he thinks he gets a free website out of it, while Wikipedia is crystal clear on the point, "THIS IS NOT YOUR WEBSITE", then let him go. I don't think that's the case here, and I don't know why you would assume that that's the case. For the most part, productive editors do try to work within the guidelines, and recognize that they benefit as much as anyone else from other people abiding by same guidelines. Any one specific editor is not so important that we should allow them to hold spite over our heads.
The bottom line for this Mfd is: if your alleged principle is valid, then that means that all the intentionally, specifically, and clearly worded guidelines to which I've referred concerning user pages has no meaning whatsoever. A general principle for interpreting policies in any system of policies is that an interpretation that renders a policy not to have any effect is considered invalid, on the theory that, whether the meaning of a policy is clear or not, it was definitely intended to mean something. If you're interpretation is correct, then that policy means nothing. Therefore, your interpretation is invalid. And I think many people will appreciate it if you desist from telling people that their gross infringements (and I mean gross: not leeway, not a few paragraphs, but pages and pages and pages) are pass muster. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've shown exactly the opposite attitude of the one suggested by Largo Plazo. I would move that he remove his complaint, in light of the nice attitude and the (relatively) quick attempt to remedy the points in his complaint. MaynardClark (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - Largo, does the userpage presently appear to be acceptable per WP:UP guidelines? If so, can we close this discussion? (Feel free to take me up at my talk page if you want to continue the "meta" discussion we have ongoing above). –xenotalk 23:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Can't speedily close anymore as another user has opined to delete 23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want good editors. I'm a good editor. Xeno agrees (he said so above). I'm busy, and it's because I'm productively busy at work that (a) I'm a good editor AND (b) I cannot spend lots of time debating with Largo Plazo. I think other editors should ask that he remove his complaint because there is no longer any reason for him to move for deletion (on the basis of a complaint). MaynardClark (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maynard: Thank you for your contributions. Feel free to ignore this MFD and get back to doing something productive - and thank you for trimming your userpage. –xenotalk 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He hasn't linked a single article that he suppusedly wrote from his user page, but has a bazillion of external links related to his resume. If climate responsibility is representative of his work here, I don't think we have anything to lose by deleting his user page, which clearly violates WP:UP#NOT point 7. Pcap ping 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Representative Websites
[edit]

Thank you, Xeno. What do we do with Pohta's comments (note his misspelling/s) and slang? Is it over or not?
All one needs to do to FIND my contributions is to look at user contributions.
No OTHER user needs to justify a 'count' with actual links, which are easily discernible by checking 'what links here'MaynardClark (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really wish to jeopardize any OTHER articles.MaynardClark (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Further, I've already noted that I have no investment in 'climate responsibility' staying up (and why a template was put up), though no one has responded to me constructively about it. It's only about punitive actions.MaynardClark (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So who has the authority to undo this request, posted all over my userpage? MaynardClark (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvovled admin will close the discussion around the 22nd. –xenotalk 18:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Xeno. I've added to the Climate Responsibility page this note at the end of the first paragraph. "...this article could be integrated with the Climate Ethics article and the Responsibility article studied." MaynardClark (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know we could make subpages. I'm VERY much for my doing that. I'll need to do a little figuring out. Why do these ideas come through when it's very late in my evening MaynardClark (talk) OK. How's THIS?? - about 10-15% (or less) what was there before. MaynardClark (talk)

Looks great now—in the state it's in I don't think a little extra color would hurt. Thanks. Based on the current state of the page, I withdraw my nomination. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to happen to preserve this page and account, remove the Mfd banner, and archive this discussion? MaynardClark (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2009 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MaynardClark&oldid=1144602763"