Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:StuRat/abuse

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Delete and Keep. /abuse deleted as per below, /redundant Keep as per !votes. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:StuRat/abuse and User talk:StuRat/redundant

Original article 'StuRat/abuse' now speedily deleted per StuRat's request. As far as I can tell this MfD is still running for 'StuRat/redunant'. --Robdurbar 22:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This page serves no purpose I can see, other than for it being a way for StuRat to call people's messages to him "abuse". There is much disagreement in there (copied from his talk page, I guess) but labelling disagreement "abuse" only fans the flames. I raised this concern to StuRat and asked him if it served any purpose other than fanning the flames. His response was disappointing- it did not address the issue at hand, but rather indicated that some of my messages were "abuse" and would be put on that page. Disputes may be inevitable, but there's no reason I can see for this page which probably only makes the dispute WORSE, not better. Ned Wilbury 19:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete User talk:StuRat/abuse, as I've copied it to the less contentious page named User talk:StuRat/redundant, so please go ahead and delete the old page. I would blank it out myself, if the warning at the top of the page by Ned didn't say I'm not allowed to do so. StuRat 20:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete User talk:StuRat/abuse,--Light current 22:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - User talk:StuRat/redundant, as the objectionable term "abuse" has now been removed. The purpose of this page is to put answers to frequently posted requests, like that I never use the word "deletionist" to describe people who prefer to delete things unilaterally from talk pages rather than first develop a consensus to do so. StuRat 21:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep User talk:StuRat/redundant Light current 22:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Perfectly legitimate sub page for a user to have for refactoring and organising his posts into useful and not so useful! 8-)

• • Just add the template {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page and an admin will delete it without a need for discussion. Koweja 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this really responds to the issues I raised in my nomination. If the page content is the same but the NAME is different, most of what I'm saying there still applies. I've modified my nomination to include both pages. Ned Wilbury 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"If" ? Don't you really think you ought to actually read a page before you nominate it for deletion ? StuRat 21:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. There must be a way for StuRat to organize his talk page comments when there are dozens of posts daily by administrators. I believe that this nom. for deletion is illegitimate, see below. -THB 22:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong/speedy keep. Deletion reason is complete crap. I would encourage sysops to block users who troll on their talk pages like so many seem to do on this particular user's talk page. --- RockMFR 03:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. User should get to say what they want in their own user page.Akanksha 17:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

From [1]:

• "User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion."

This appears to be just another ill-conceived attack on StuRat. -THB 20:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I know they usually don't qualify for deletion. That's why I explained myself in the nomination, as you can read above if you wish. Ned Wilbury 20:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think the new page /redundant actually qualifies for deletion. StuRat I beleive has the right to create such a page for posts that he sees as going over the same old ground. He is not deleting the posts and indeed this is one form of refactoring his over long talk page.--Light current 21:59, 23 December 2006 (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.