Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:James Albert Collins

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 after revisions. A simple misunderstanding has now been rectified. Xoloz 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:James Albert Collins

Vanity user page created to mimic actual content. User interwiki linked to it in main namespace article Tenor. I tagged his userpage with {{userpage}}, then advised him that articles belong in mainspace, and pointed him to appropriate policy & procedures. He removed the userpage tag, removed my talk page message, and proceeded to create another 'article as user page' at User:Sammyorm. Maralia 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that user has since deleted the MFD tag. Maralia 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A few tag deletions means nothing. So far I see no evidence that'd pin this on "active malice" category instead of "more than slightly confused new user" category, however. I'd definitely encourage the user to speak up and present their view. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, it appears that the user is unwilling to communicate about this. I've protected the page in question until the conclusion of the MfD. Any input from this user would still help... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This kinda stuff is considered humorous by many users. He was wrong to delete the tag but I've seen countless tenured users with pages like this--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Did you find it humorous when he attempted to pass it off as real content by adding a mainspace article link to it? I was willing to accept the userpage as written with the addition of a userpage tag to clarify that it is not article content. The user removed the userpage tag, as well as the MFD tag, leaving me no doubt as to his intent. Maralia 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding long-time users who have article-like stuff as their user pages, let alone long-time users who link to their user pages from mainspace. a) people want to display some creativity (i.e. throw out the shackles of the style guide and NPOV, and employ creative formatting and plain-ordinary-not-being-an-idiot-point-of-view on the content) while not confusing the users of the site, and b) linking to user pages from articles is most definitely against the linking style, from technological, stylistic, and neutrality-related reasons. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless the user quickly refactors the page into non-article format and deletes material that's not really helping to build an encyclopaedia. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think t is altogether wrong and harmful to use user pages to imitate WP articles. its a way of evading NPOV and COI and N, and is apparently being used so in this case. I'll AGF and think it may be being used out of lack of understanding WP, not intent to harm it, but it does in fact harm objectivity and should be removed.DGG (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Given the situation, I cannot vote to keep the user page. Delete; I am willing to change my vote (with a warning that the page will be speedily deleted if the user removes the {{userpage}} tag from it, or links to it from article space) if the user explains his actions here or on my talk page. - Mike Rosoft 19:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi could you explain what you mean about my page not being in the rght place for an artical etc because I am very confused. Sorry if I'm not supposed to edit this page, I do not know how else to communicate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Albert Collins (talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, here's a hopefully simpler explanation. An user page is, well, a page like this: Information about a Wikipedia editor (that is to say, an user), their current status and projects related to building the encyclopaedia. An article is like this, an encyclopaedic article that is doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Wikipedia specifically (for many biographies, such as this, you probably have trouble finding any information about this person's involvement with the Wikipedia projects... =)
    Now, your user page tries to be an encyclopaedic article, yet it is located in place reserved for user pages. The big issue is that user pages are meant to reflect your Wikipedia activities, not act as articles. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• As promised, I withdraw my presumption of bad faith; the user was probably just ignorant of how it goes on Wikipedia. Now what should be done with the page? If he intends it to be moved to artice space, it'll require a new nomination at Articles for deletion (the above votes will become irrelevant). If he re-creates the user page in a more appropriate style, I won't be the only person who withdraws the request to delete. And what if he wants the user page to be kept in this form? I'd probably allow it with the above warning (i.e. as long as it is clearly marked as an {{userpage}} and NOT linked from anywhere else on Wikipedia); since Wikipedia may not be used as a hosting service, if the user subsequently leaves Wikipedia, it should be re-nominated for deletion. - Mike Rosoft 16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Suggest closing MfD as user has now removed content in question.--12 Noon 20:23, 23 October 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.