Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Duke53

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 keep. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Duke53

Contains a lot of stuff that borders on attack-page material. I'd have asked an admin to have a look at it, but there's so much here that it's best to shred it and start afresh. I'm usually wary about asking user pages to be deleted, but you have to draw the line somewhere.Blueboy96 05:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 ! Duke53 | ^Talk 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is the fact that I mentioned the following about a unc-ch fan is what got you all fired up.

"Interesting that a unc-ch fan would be using that anti-Semitic, white supremacist website as a source about DUKE University. Must tell us something, right? He says that he didn't know what the website represented, but how many people use an 'unknown' source when citing something? Hmm....."

I stated a fact about something that someone else used as a source. I did not accuse anybody of being a racist. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do not delete I accept Duke53's explanation here. Maybe (just maybe) one or two sentences should be removed, but overall it's a valid userpage and there is no valid reason to delete all of it. Shalom ^Hello 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - user pages shouldn't detract from a collegial atmosphere. Addhoc 10:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Do not delete While I find some of the stuff on his user page offensive, I also believe it is his right to put it there. He often pushes the envelope of what is appropriate, but in the past he has responded responsibly when challenged. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. While the page defines new standards in Ugly, I'm not seeing the gross violations of policy. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't like the idea of the community voting on user pages. If there are policy/guidleline problems, report them through the appropriate channels and let some admins figure it out. They don't have anything better to do :) j/k! Cheers! --Tom 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can't say I like everything on the page, but this is not the place to make suggestions about it. This not that offensive that it should be deleted. DGG 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - Not an attack page. I recommend that the user removes the section about white-supremacist sources, but the rest of it is perfectly legitimate userspace content. Two barnstars testify to the fact that this user is an actual editor, and should therefore be allowed some license in expressing opinions on their userpage. Walton^talk 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I did NOT introduce that page (or a link to that page) to Wikipedia; I merely mentioned the fact that another editor used that page as a source. I did not use that page as a source. I did not accuse anyone of being racist. Those facts remain. Having the name of that page is inconsequential. The reason that this current process was begun is very obvious to many. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offence, nor did I accuse you of introducing that page to Wikipedia. I was just suggesting that, as it's only one small section of your page that has caused controversy, you should remove that section. Note that I did not argue for the deletion of your userpage. Walton^talk 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offence..." No offense taken.

..."it's only one small section of your page that has caused controversy, you should remove that section". I'm not sure how 'controversial' the section actually is; this seems more like a case of an individual looking for a reason to 'annoy' me in a petty fashion.

"Note that I did not argue for the deletion of your userpage". Thank You; we would be starting down a slippery slope if pages were deleted simply because one individual 'takes umbrage' at something on a user page that annoys him. I can assure you that I am offended by many, many user's pages, but have never thought of labeling them as "attack-page material". Please, someone show me who I have attacked. The closest thing to that is the message to the Wikipedia member who attempted to send harmful items to me through the U.S Postal Service, but wasn't quite smart enough to even do so correctly: the items went, instead, to a residence where a relative of mine (since deceased) had lived many years ago. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There is nothing offensive on this page. I suspect this nomination was made in bad faith. —Psychonaut 21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not, I was simply concerned that the content of the page was not appropriate for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 21:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• "I suspect this nomination was made in bad faith". Thank You ... my exact thought right from the getgo. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:59, 4 July 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.