Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Asdfg12345

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 debate was Keep. Eluchil404 07:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Asdfg12345

Violation of WP:SOAP, which states that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising". This userpage clearly violates points 1 and 2 of the policy, please see WP:SOAP for the policy and points. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 04:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to break any wikipedia rules or offend anyone. I would be more than happy to change the contents of my userpage to make them conform to wikipedia policies, or even at the request of a peer if they were found to be inappropriate. Do you find the content of my userpage inappropriate? Would you like to discuss it? I wonder if you did you read the story of Wang Yuhuan, recounted therein. If not, I would urge you to do so. Though so far I'm still at a bit of a loss as to where I've gone wrong. The points you cited, while contestable, are only applicable to wikipedia articles; my userpage is not a wikipedia article. I would really appreciate a thorough explanation. Thanks! --Asdfg12345 04:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it would help if you could tone it down a bit. Perhaps move the central section to a subpage User:Asdfg12345/Falun Gong. The bit underneath is mostly fine, IMO. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is not a deletion case; this is maybe a case of needing to talk to a user about toning down their user-page pontification. Bearing in mind, of course, that the primary purpose of userpages is to assist Wikipedians in developing the encyclopedia by communicating their areas of interest/knowledge. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I've updated it a bit to conform with some important elements of WP:U, got to head off for now, let me know if there are any further issues!--Asdfg12345 04:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per my reasoning in the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter. User is clearly an active contributor, and throwing the book at him is not going to achieve anything other than driving him away. As he's agreed above to tone it down a little, we can hopefully make this a speedy keep. Walton^One 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If a article or userpage can be improved, then wikipedia policy states that we should not delete it. It makes no sense to delete something that can be fixed, that is common sense.--SJP 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A user can put whatever he/she likes in their user page within limits, and I feel that disagreement with its content, as appears to be the case here, is not a valid argument for deletion. If the page has been set up by someone who does not take an active part in wikipedia, then MfD per WP:SOAP may be valid. My only concern is that the huge chunk of text copied from somewhere may violate WP:COPY, and thus should be substantially cut back. However, I don't believe that this copyright violation warrants the wholescale deletion of a user page, thus curtailing his rights to edit in wikipedia. Ohconfucius 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Edited by Ohconfucius 04:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. There are disturbing images on that userpage and this is part of the reason why China is blocking Wikipedia so often. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Auroranorth (sign) 10:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: this is interesting so far, but I just want to respond to this last person's remark: Wikipedia is not censored. That the communist dictatorship currently ruling China would block wikipedia because of images it shows is no reason not to show them! This is wikipedia for goodness sake. Following this remark with the token "wikipedia is not a soapbox," in my humble opinion, plainly belies the lack of sincerity in this statement. I strongly disagree that there is anything soapboxish about the contents of my userpage, anyway. Think: people are getting tortured to death for meditating, is including this on one's userpage really climbing a soapbox? Userpages are a way to express one's interest in wikipedia, say a little about oneself etc.. I'm actually interested in lots of other things, and I will get to those, but I have priorities. I'm a positive and productive member of the wikipedia community. This approach of moving to delete my userpage is entirely ill-conceived and deeply regrettable, both to the initiator and supporters. If you have not already, please just read Wang Yuhuan's story and think about what it means. She's dead now, by the way.--Asdfg12345 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, per Walton, per user self. Greswik 16:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, Its in the user-namespace, to a certain extent, you can post anything on your user page (as long as its not fair-use images, or if it is something like a myspace page). -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 22:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Further Commenting Firstly, I would like to say that is an inappropriate invocation of WP:CENSOR as it clearly not a case of people deciding to censor fact or opinions. However, your userpage is part soapbox due to fact that text clearly violates WP:SOAP, more specifically points one and two which clearly states:
  1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
  2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

Not only is your userpage part soapbox, there is a possibility of a copyright infringement due to the fact that the site, where you got the excerpt, has stated no copyright statement and therefore we must and automatically assume that the text on that website has all rights reserved and therefore the quote text is non-free, and according to our policies on non-free content, no such content is allowed on a userpage. --nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Additional comments I would like to add that not only does some of the text on your userpage have copyright problems, but most of the images on that userpage also have questionable image copyright tags and have been all tagged under WP:PUI due to the fact that Wikipedia OTRS has not been contacted with the permission to use those images under the {{attribution}} tags you placed on those images. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 03:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  How is it soapbox (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise) to say that it is wrong to murder people for doing meditation exercise and reading some books? That's just the most basic common sense--you can't kill people for meditating. I can get permission for that text if need be--can anyone advise me on what form that would need to take? If I email that website then get a 'yes', then copy the contents of both emails to wiki is that okay? I posted on my usertalk about the photos. I'll send it to OTRS soon--thanks for pointing that out. I would earnestly like to clear up the legal/policy issues surrounding the photos and text. I just want to add also, nat, that it is more important to me than my userpage that you recognise this basic concept that it's wrong to kill people for their beliefs. That's the whole point. But let's sort out the legal issues, that is important--and I appreciate the prompting!--Asdfg12345 13:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply I don't think your getting what I am trying to say. Sure it is wrong to murder people, and it good to advocate against the destruction of lives, however, Wikipedia is not the place to be advocating viewpoints or to push an opinion about a certain issue, event, or political view. If it was, everyone will be trying to play emotions and this encyclopedia would not be an encyclopedia because it would be chaotic and the end result is a piece of text that sounds more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia, which is against policy as stated in Point 2 of WP:SOAP. If you wish to write an opinion piece, or to write a commentary on a certain issue, feel free to go to sites like Wordpress, or Blogger to post/publish them there, but don't do it on Wikipedia because this is simply not the place to push a viewpoint. --nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Since Asdfg12345 seems willing to discuss this without the need for deletion, I suggest we close this and come back later. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am willing to withdraw this MfD on the following conditions:
  1. All copyrighted text be removed
  2. All non-free images be removed
  3. All violations of WP:SOAP be removed

Those are the conditions that I have listed for any withdrawal of this MfD. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I personally think you're digging your heels in too strongly on this one. I do not know about Clearwisdom, but photos from Minghui are under attributable use, but as Minghui and Clearwisdom are part of the same organisation, it is conceivable that they too may be covered. But I agree that the mention needs to be explicit. Even if Nat abandons his conditions 1 and 2, it is hell of a step to attempt to delete a userpage. It looks like he is setting himself up to be extremely busy boy, and it doesn't take Dale Carnegie to tell you that that is not the way to go! I, and many editors also rant and rave about themselves, their likes and dislikes on their userpage, so I'll let you decide whether you want to try to delete my userpage as well. ;-) Ohconfucius 01:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Ohconfucius: Firstly, I would like to say that so far, there has been no proof or link to where the organizations have stated that they have licenced their images under CC or GDFL, if there is no proof that the organization has licenced them under CC or GDFL, then we automatically assume that the images are non-free and therefore, would fall under WP:NFCC. Secondly, Ohconfucius, your userpage does not have the same issues that are concerned in this situation as your rants are related to WP and policy, while ASDFG12345 does have WP:SOAP violations, as he/she discusses/rants about a current political issue and events. Thirdly, there is copyrighted text on his/her userpage, which like the images, currently has no evidence that the text is GDFL or CC or even PD. Until that happens, the text is automatically assumed non-free. That said, if conditions 1 through 3 are not met, I will not withdraw this MfD. My primary purpose is not to delete ASDFG12345's userpage, but to remove the policy violations: the WP:SOAP violation, the copyrighted text, and the non-free images. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for your clarification. I have included a link of the explicit permission by Minghui.org to use media (and associated translation) where the images have been sourced from this site, but I will let others supply you with that declaration for clearwisdom. Whilst I take the point about what you perceive to be a WP:SOAP violation on his userpage, MfD is perhaps not the most ideal forum for dealing with the violation(s), so it seems like a little strange that your first move was not to contact him to remedy the situation but to put his page up for deletion. Ohconfucius 06:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Ok...so MfD wasn't the best route to go, however, back on the issue with the ASDFG12345's userpage: The question about the copyrighted text remains, as I have said there is no Copyright info on the website where that text came from, therefore, we automatically assume that the text is non-free and that all rights reserved; therefore the text should be removed from ASDFG12345's user page. As well, is there a specific terms of use on the minghui website or is it just the text on the front page of the website? nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, I was referring to the photographs from Minghui. The photo library home page clearly displays "欢迎转载传阅本网所有内容，但请注明出处". For the benefit of those who do not read Chinese, the English translation is: "you are free to carry and transmit all content, provided use its attributed." This can be verified by putting the page through on-line translators such as babelfish. Ohconfucius 01:15, 6 November 2007 (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.