Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Morton devonshire/Mumites
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Nominator withdrawal, no delete !votes. — xaosflux Talk 04:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Morton devonshire/Mumites
- Update This MFD is effectively closed. User has blanked the page, rewritten it within policy, and moved the offending material to an archive as per Gamaliel below. So, this MFD is moot. An admin should close and archive it. For reference, here is the original page. Derex 22:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a SoapBox. Article starts out with heading "Why I hate Mumia" and goes downhill from there. Morton has been warned under NPA on this page by Vriditas. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for this sort of screed; perhaps MySpace would work better for it. Derex 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note: The mfd tag was removed by user with the comment "delete trolling".[1], but an admin has now reinstated it. 22:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The user has moved the material on this page to User talk:Morton devonshire/Archive04. Gamaliel 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Dislike of a person or groups is not a personal attack. Clean it up if there are personal attacks. Otherwise, his interest in Wikipedia articles regarding Mumia Abu Jamal and other cop killers is just like any other interest. We don't delete user spaces that talk about photography or travel or any other hobby that users express interest in. In fact, userboxes are an epidemic. --Tbeatty 22:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Clarification the personal attacks were against editors. I'm not clear that hating Mumia is a typical hobby, but whatever fills up the day I suppose. Derex 22:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment So why not flag the offending comments and put an RfC on the discussion page? Or be bold and refactor? --Tbeatty 23:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Clarification the personal attacks were against editors. I'm not clear that hating Mumia is a typical hobby, but whatever fills up the day I suppose. Derex 22:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If I want to have a subuserpage discussing Mumia and related articles, that's my right on Wikipedia. BTW, I actually think Mumia is a genius in his use of PR. Morton devonshire 22:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly. You aren't entitled to a soapbox though. Seems like you know that too, since you blanked the entire article I listed here. Derex 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Then what are you fighting me over? Morton devonshire 22:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not. See the update at top; I think what you have now is fine. The page I nominated was not, and I'm not the first to have pointed it out. But, since you have in essence deleted (by completely changing) the page I nominated, this nomination is moot as I said right up top. Derex 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Then what are we fighting over? Morton devonshire 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- What's the confusion? We're not fighting. I listed an article that conflicted with policy. You removed that article. I then stated the issue was moot as far as I was concerned. There is no present conflict of which I am aware. If an admin chooses to close and archive this nomination, they are welcome to do so at anytime. And I personally have no objection to that. Derex 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Then what are we fighting over? Morton devonshire 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not. See the update at top; I think what you have now is fine. The page I nominated was not, and I'm not the first to have pointed it out. But, since you have in essence deleted (by completely changing) the page I nominated, this nomination is moot as I said right up top. Derex 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Then what are you fighting me over? Morton devonshire 22:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly. You aren't entitled to a soapbox though. Seems like you know that too, since you blanked the entire article I listed here. Derex 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously WP:POINT violation as user has an issue with Mortons AfD habits and was recently told another page that would be a MfD candidate should be left alone. I am starting to think perhaps Derex just needs a few moments to cool off instead of attempting to delete pages of users he doesnt agree with. --NuclearZer0 00:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- First, it's not a POINT, and I'd ask you to AGF and refrain from such unfounded personal attacks. That the complaint was valid is I think pretty well established by Morton's laudable response of removing it himself. I'm not the first to have made the complaint either. Second, it is rather notable that the conflict to which you refer was over AFD votestacking. And predictably, only editors in the votestacking complaint (Tbeatty, Zer0, Aaron) are now over here votestacking a completely moot MFD, because Morton already did the right thing. Really, the irony is just about too much. Derex 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I took it as a personal attack given your recent aggressiveness towards me. I see no other purpose for this nomination other than to harass me. I took the material down because I have my own way of dealing with these kinds of things. Morton devonshire 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well then, it seems I have credited you overly much. Derex 01:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I took it as a personal attack given your recent aggressiveness towards me. I see no other purpose for this nomination other than to harass me. I took the material down because I have my own way of dealing with these kinds of things. Morton devonshire 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- First, it's not a POINT, and I'd ask you to AGF and refrain from such unfounded personal attacks. That the complaint was valid is I think pretty well established by Morton's laudable response of removing it himself. I'm not the first to have made the complaint either. Second, it is rather notable that the conflict to which you refer was over AFD votestacking. And predictably, only editors in the votestacking complaint (Tbeatty, Zer0, Aaron) are now over here votestacking a completely moot MFD, because Morton already did the right thing. Really, the irony is just about too much. Derex 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Regardless of anything else, the page in its current version is unquestionably
within policy. --Aaron 00:29, 24 October 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.
