Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spawn Man/Reviews/Archive1

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 No Consensus. Delete 13, Keep 17. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Spawn Man/Reviews

A large collection of book, movie, tv, music, and game reviews from User:Spawn Man. Falls squarely under Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep God, this is a hard case. Nominator is right that this page does violate the spirit of WP:NOT. However, contributor is well-established and page doesn't consume great space. I really don't like this practice, as WP is NOT a review archive; but, courtesy and good faith still count for a lot, and I need more evidence of malice before I'll delete something from a regular contributor's userspace. Xoloz 17:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.--NoahElhardt 23:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm sorry about "spamming" the talk pages of movies etc that I've reviewed. I didn't know that you couldn't do that, but now I do. Please leave my reviews page alone, I've spent so much time on it, please don't delete it.

Just to show that I'm not the only one with personal, non relavant stuff on my subpage (meaning, not related to wikipedia at all), I've created a list below:

WARNING, IF YOU ARE ON THIS LIST, I AM NOT TRYING TO ACCUSE YOU OF ANYTHING< MERELY SUPPORT MY CLAIM THAT MANY USERS HAVE USER SUBPAGES NOT RELEVANT AT ALL TO WIKIPEDIA, & COULD BE SEEN AS BLOGS OR PERSONAL OPINIONS!

Over all, I've found many small & big users that have review pages, subpages that are nonsense & overall user spaces that are used up. Don't punish me just because I was foolish & ignorant in accidentally placing a few templates on a few talk pages. It was done with the best intentions. It's not my personal opinion either, as I've invited numerous people to join my review's page & write a review. The page wasn't a problem before until a big time editor had a problem with it. As I've said, it's had a lot of time put into it, is not as big as other subpages I've encountered & is more informative than others I've seen too. I don't have a sandbox, so shouldn't this make up for it? Please vote to keep. Everyone should be able to have some freedom on here & I urge you to think what you would want if you were in this situation, having something you loved greatly deleted. Please.... Spawn Man 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Many (not all) of the pages you've listed above are about the encyclopedia. (Examples: Karmafist's, Raul653's, Durin's...) You're also free to set up a page like this at any one of a hundred free webspace providers, you know. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some are, but I was pointing out the fact that they are much bigger than my subpages. Spawn Man 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC). BTW, How come you had a problem with this while many editors & admins prior had let the page be? I know we've had our quarrels in the past, but this is ridiculous!

• First off, I don't think that publishing a big list of people's pages that someone finds questionable, as Spawn Man has done above, is productive, two wrongs don't make a right. Nor do I think the term "big time editor" is necessarily useful... But I can certainly understand that Spawn Man may be frustrated. But more importantly, Guidelines seem to be that if a user has made significant contributions, he or she is granted wide latitude with respect to user pages as long as the content is not actively harmful. In particular "Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories." Is knowing Spawn Man's opinion "community-building"? I tend to think it is, although only weakly. My issue with this page would be the cover images. Those are all fair use and WP policy says those should not be used in non article space. If the fair use images are removed by Spawn Man, Keep. If not, then I think maybe the community needs to come in and edit them out, and then it would nevertheless be Keep. Note: I just started doing a page User:Lar/Ridelist which arguably has only tenuous connection (in that I know about those rides and could help work on articles about them, and I know how to get more info about them etc)... if this page of Spawn Man's is deleted perhaps I have to revisit that one too? ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I can delete the fair use pictures. I think it's a fair comprimise. Question, As I've stated above, others have reviews on their user pages, so if I moved my reviews to my user page, not a subpage, they would technically be legal? As there is no law that you can't pur reviews on my user page... Spawn Man 01:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC). P.S. Exactly, why should I get singled out? Everyone's basically got something resembling my subpage, & if it's delted, a lot of people's loved pages are going to be put up for deletion!

• Delete, textbook violation of WP:NOT. Lord Bob 01:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to violate anything, Lord Bob is it? I just wanted to maybe change even a single person's view on a movie etc. That's all.... Spawn Man 01:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sure you were acting in good faith and weren't trying to violate anything, but I still feel it did violate the policy in question. Lord Bob 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Although this isn't a blog the User pages and sub pages should be kept to give the user his own space. My Classic Rock List has gotten a lot of attention. Just look at my talk archives and you'll see that half my comments are for that. I've also received three barnstars from other users for making the list. If anyone here wants to nominate songs to just go to my talk page (I always have to give a little plug). RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is not a daily blog or something, just a page of personal opinions, not out of line with what others have in user space. Plus the last entry is about Wikipedia and qualifies as encyclopedic related content ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not like I'm writing in it everyday! I'm putting one exerpt in every month almost!! Spawn Man 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sub pages should really have something to do with the encyclopedia. -M^ask 01:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, textbook violation of WP:NOT.ShaunES 01:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This user has only edited since yesterday!!!!! [4]. Spawn Man 01:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm... his edit history dates back to December of Last year... You know how to work the contributions box? -M^ask 01:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Notwithstanding that this is likely a situation in which the extent of a user's Wikipedia history is at its nadir in relevance to a proper adjuding of the value or quality of his/her vote (at the very least, surely at its nadir vis-à-vis such relevance in the context of an RfA), I think it is eminently clear from the user's history that he/she is conversant with Wikipedia and likely has edited anonymously/under another name; surely the user appears to be making quality and complex additions to Wikipedia, which fact militates against one's readily dismissing the former's vote. (Edit: I didn't bother to look beyond the first page of the history; AKMask properly observes that the user has been here as long, for example, as I. The user does have but seventy edits, but I'm not particularly concerned about that, for the reasons expressed supra.) Joe 02:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

13 edits before 19 March, but that's enough to argue not a sockpuppet. Septentrionalis 05:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Also, on your list of various subpages: Some of those are extensions of a user page. If I want to have my wikiphilosophies on a seperate page, thats fine, because those are allowed on a user page. For jimbos pictures: Those are already hosted by the wiki for various other reasons. Some subpages deal with aspects of the encyclopedia. I have a User:AKMask/Brandt subpage, detailing communications/harrasment I've recieved from Brandt as part of his campaign against Wikipedia, a User:AKMask/holdingpen for working on new articles before moving them to the mainpage. All these involve the Wiki. Your reviews, unfortanatly, are not related at all to wikipedia. If any of those on the list fall in the same category as your reviews, they should be deleted as well- M^ask 01:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There's that word again: "some". A few examples I put up there were to show the size that some people's subpages are! Plus, your subpages, is the vandalism you recieved from the guy helping wikipedia? No? Does it help acomplish tasks? It doesn't really do much does it?.... Spawn Man 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It actually does. Also, note, I have never recieved vandalism from him, instead, im listed on his wikipedia-watch page as one of the editors and/or administrators and/or Jimbo Wales's that he intends to sue, since to him the very concept of a wiki is illegal. All this corresponds to information involving the wikipedia. Your reviews, unless you can find a way to incorporate them into articles without violating the 'No Original Research' rule, does not, in any way, involve the wiki. -M^ask 01:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Lord Bob, BunchofGrapes, and AKMask. Joe 01:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for obvious reasons (or at least reasons obvious to those who have helped edit WP:NOT...) Might I suggest you start a blog (personally I favour Blogger), and link to it from your userpage. That way your reviews are still avaiable for other users to read, but aren't hosted by us. Garrett^Talk 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I realize that this takes up space on the servers or whatever, but it's within SpawnMan's user space, and I think we should all have the freedom to do more or less whatever we want with our userspace. How would you like it if someone came along and told you what you could and could not have on your user page? Countless users have poetry, favorite quotes, or lists of favorite movies, books, or weblinks on their pages. I just really don't see how it's a big deal. We should be focusing our attention not on other users' personal pages, but on the multitude of articles that are POV-biased, articles that are missing or stubby, etc etc. This argument is approaching being longer than the Reviews page in question - is this not a waste of server space, not to mention time and effort on the part of contributors? You want to do whatever you want with your user page, you have to let others do what they want. LordAmeth 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: While I don't like people using their userpages as a blog, my original problem, which apparently started this whole thing, is that Spawn Man was linking to his own reviews on the talk pages of things he reviewed. I, for one, will absolutely not allow him to do that, and as long as he stops doing it, he can do whatever he wants to his userpage. Adam Bishop 02:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. While I think Spawn Man should consider migrating this to some other free hosting option, deleting the page outright is going too far. I agree with the above posters that we should consider Spawn's contributions to Wikipedia and grant him a little leeway.Dinoguy2 02:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Oi vey. I first became aware of this page because SM had placed a template on a talk page indicating that he'd reviewed the film. I had gone as far as "show preview" on the MFD before deciding against it. While it's clear that he's spent a great deal of time on this, that's not the hurdle for inclusion (even in user space), nor is "other good work" in main space. However, we've got an entire "department of fun" that not lending itself directly to building the encyclopedia and imagine the screams if we tried to delete that. I'd dearly like to see the article talk-page annoncments stop, or at the very least be made into something a hell of a lot less official looking, but don't see the crushing harm in this page in particular. - brenneman^{L} 02:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- Spawn Man, it's considered bad etiquette to spam talk pages asking for votes as your contrib's show you've done. You'd probably earn some goodwill if that stopped. -M^ask 02:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain why it is considered bad etiquette. I see no mention of this in WP:EQ. Also, in my opinion, spam is not an appropriate word here. Dforest 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A good chunk of my edits (about 30% up untill lately) have come from AfD, which frowns on anyone trying to drum up votes by begging on talk pages. Really the only polite way to do it is a simple notice (link to the deletion attempt, nothing more.) I'm assuming MfD follows the same guidelines. Begging is never polite. -M^ask 04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • For that matter, AFD etiquette doesn't mention anything against this either. There's nothing wrong with asking one's friends for support, especially in a user page dispute. I think it's rather condescending to call foul on it. Dforest 06:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Spawn Man is a prolific contributor who has helped nurture two articles along to FA status and has started maybe a dozen DyK articles. He has earned the right to some small indulgences. Especially if he stops linking his reviews page to article talkpages.:) He also makes a good case; At what point will the deletionist juggarnaught stop? What has happened to the notion of COMMUNITY BUILDING? Has that been cast onto the bonfire of WP:NOT together with WP:Civility and WP:Good Faith? (Everyone goes on and on about those things, yet without a community they ring hollow). It would appear so...along with any pretense of this being an open, welcoming or fun place to contribute. Not so long ago Wikipedia:Great editing in progress was up for deletion. The very fact it was says volumes about how far Wikipedia has declined since I joined just last year. So Forget Good Faith, let's try and simply cut one another some slack.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I can post a comment on my friend's talks all I want. They are my friends. I didn't contact anyone other than my friends! It doesn't matter anymore, I'm gone.... Spawn Man 02:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as falling right into WP:NOT Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Really hard choice to make, tempting to give leeway but... it's just too much. Especially with the spamming on talk pages. Get a blog. Hell, if you ask me nicely I'll probably give you webspace for a blog if you need it. Wikipedia user pages are for providing relevant and helpful information... sorry. ZoFreX 03:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is a tough one. While these may arguably contradict the spirit of WP:NOT, it does not specifically address reviews in user namespace, and in practice many users are allowed to have similar subpages. Spawn Man may be pushing the boundaries here, but he is doing so in good faith. If we had a film reviews sister project, I would suggest a transwiki there, but until we do, or until policy specifically addresses this issue, I don't see a big problem with it. Linking the reviews to article talk pages is another matter. Dforest 03:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong KeepI dont see any reason to delete it..... a lot of users have some kind of page linked on the user page....i remember a user who made an article about his father...even though the article itself was deleted....he was allowed to link it from his user page.... i dont know why people are making such a big deal about this... the page obviously took a lot of effort and time... and it isn't good manners to even to put it up for deletion...and about the "spam"... i dont think telling about an article you made is spam....and i dont think a small note on someones talk page is necessarily spam.... and i personnaly wouldn't mind getting messages from someone... Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as RDH says, the contributor has earned the right to some small indulgences. It's a small page, it doesn' 'cost' much and certainly costs the Foundation a lot less than they would have to pay the user for his time! I think small lists like this are helpful to the project myself; it's not a free standing article or a long list of external links (which should be hosted externally), it's links into the article space. It's quite possible someone will see this list and find new articles to read and edit. By saying Keep I'm not endorsing linking to it, however. --kingboyk 08:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. In my opinion, regular contributors should be allowed to have a bit of freedom as regard what is put into their user space. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 18:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Nightstallion and LordAmeth. Most user pages are unencyclopedic, listing hobbies, pictures, etc. If this one goes, all should go. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 21:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But as noted by Jimbo in the debate over userboxes, hobbies and things like that do serve an encyclopedic purpose: to identify areas you are knowledgable and can help in. An extremely long, comprehensive system of reviews does nothing that a single paragraph or userbox could not do. -M^ask 22:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I don't see any reason to delete it, but running away from one's problems isn't going to solve them. If Wikipedia upsets you that much that you feel the need to leave, then try taking a walk. — Image:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 22:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Well, I have to go with Spawn on this one, as it is his User Page; his domain. He is right to protest the deletion. However, I agree with Nathan too; running from the issue won't really help, mate. I realize that you're a bit distressed, but in this case you probably shouldn't be leaving Wikipedia. M ^o P 14:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I thought Spawn Man was mildly cursing until I realized Lord Bob was the name of an editor. That is all. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Creating a webpage or blog for this purpose is easy, free and could always be linked to from a userpage. Esquizombi 07:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Hetar 19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Delete if he's actually giving this link to friends as his website, but this seems to be a service to the community. Ashibaka tock 17:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep MYOB. Septentrionalis 05:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question:

If I put the reviews on my user page, then they don't count as a different article. We are all allowed a user page are we not? Other users have reviews on their user pages. Can I do that? I think I can..... Spawn Man 02:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I Will Be Leaving Wikipedia Permenantly If My Reviews Page Is Deleted & I'm Not Allowed To Put It On My User Page... Spawn Man 02:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Userpages are there with the intent of listing information about you, with the hope that other editors will not only get to know each other, but they can tell what editors can help with what subjects by a glance at the views expressed on the user page. Mine identifies me as a libertarian, Alaskan, and Linux user, for just 3 examples. So someone would know I'm knowledgable in those areas and could ask for help. Wherever these reviews are, they violate WP:NOT. -M^ask 02:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Journalist gets her own reviews section? If I was Jimbo, would you have a problem with me having a reviews page? My reviews define that I'm a journalist & a columnist for a newspaper? Therefore they are legal? I will make sure that if they can't go on my user page, every other reviews section, blogger thingy, subpage & personal opinion, fair use image & anything else gets deleted. I will make sure of it. And then I will leave, making you lose one damn good editor & leaving you thinking why one person was singled out. Spawn Man 02:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be an admirable goal. All that should be removed too. Maybe we don't even need user pages at all. Adam Bishop 02:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I do have a problem with the the User:Journalist having a review section. It should be nominated for deletion as well. I would indeed have a problem with Jimbo for one as well. Fair use images are allowed in the articles they illustrate and no where else. And no, they dont show you as a columnist. A mention that you are, or a link to a newspaper profile does. A small selection of a couple of your best passages would fly just fine in illustrating that your a good writer. Posting your book would be deleted as waste of space. Just an example. -M^ask 02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose deletion of this page, as I said above. But I also do not like to see "I will take my marbles and go home" sorts of posts, nor do I like to see suggestions that a lot of other user pages will all be nominated for deletion as well, that smacks of WP:POINT. You will make a lot more allies by being calm and rational, no matter how frustrated you are. That is not easy advice to take, believe me, I speak from bitter experience there. But I hope it is helpful advice nevertheless. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete the damn thing, I don't care. My marbles have been taken, walked home, smashed into little itty bitty pieces & pee'd on. Thanlks everyone for trying, but I have officially left Wikipedia for about a year maybe? Thanks, Spawn Man 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes one can be ones own worst enemy. Easy advice to give, hard advice to take. But do take it, please. Think about what you're saying and what effect it might be having on those on the fence. ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the deletion banner from the page now....and stop this discussion already? it appears to be heading towards a keep vote.... it looks as if this whole thing is a big mistake... and it has caused enough damage already...... Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs

The vote is fairly close. This is no WP:SNOW situation. Lord Bob 16:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that the vote is fairly close.. but it doesn't make sense in deleting stuff that someone put on their userpage.... this is akin to vandalism..!!! why cant someone have something they want on their user page?? its not like he created an article or something.... and by my experience on wikipedia... users are allowed to write whatever they like on their user pages, even though there are a few rules.... He hasn't broken any rules....and i cant believe that this kind of a thing is happening to spawn... hes one of the friendliest users i have know....and his contributions are invaluable.......i was truly disappointed by seeing the banner on the page...cut him some slack people....!!!! give your opinions and support where its truly needed.... and this place is definately not it....!!! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 17:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You said it precisely yourself. There are rules. We cannot ignore rules just because he's a "nice guy". I have nothing against bending rules on a case-by-case basis, but this isn't a bend, this is a break. And, frankly, even if I had voted keep Spawn Man's temper tantrum over this issue would make me vote delete anyway. That's not the behaviour of somebody who deserves a concession. Lord Bob 17:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems you don't have a problem with people breaking the rules as long as they don't throw temper tantrums. What kind of atttitude is that? (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 22:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that he deserves a consession on this.... i would voted the same if it had been on someone elses page....i am merely trying to say that putting up a sub-page on someones user page on AfD is not acting in good faith... and even i would have thrown a tantrum after all this....infact i think most people would be really angry for this.....you cant blame Spawn for his behaviour.....and if you want to start deleting stuff from other userpages you should start with some of the other users who have larger and worthless user sub-pages.... but frankly i think you all are wasting your time over this.... this page would have hardly been seen by a handful of people....and you are making a big deal out of this....Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 19:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't acting in good faith? Watch youself. I initiated a discussion about whether Spawn Man's reviews page was appropriate content for Wikipedia to host. So far, some people have calmly thought about it and said "maybe not", some have calmy thought about it and said "maybe yes", and a few have started throwing screaming temper tantrums. Which group would you like to be seen as belonging to? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cutting some slack is fine, but that page is taking the piss. You seem to be under the impression that people can have whatever they want on their userspace - this is not so.ZoFreX 02:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't how it works.ZoFreX 02:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

From User:Spawn Man:
I've gone on a long long long long long long WikiBreak, with the slimmest chance of returning. Please leave all my subpages, talk, user pages etc etc, alone incase I do come back & wish to restart my editing. So basically do not delete my user account yet without my permission, & I don't give it to you.
To all my friends on here, I hope you know that you're the coolest. All the rest of you are on my black list.
Good bye, Spawn Man 02:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

Gah, Spawn, come on, come back. any sort of vote for deletion has nothing to do with the individual editor, it has to do with policies. Don't throw up your hands and walk out, it's childish. You make many good contributions here. -M^ask 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm allowed to walk out at any time! I'm sick of everyone undermining my opions here! The user Phaedriel walks onto the scene, just cause she puts a nice picture of herself on her talk page & etc etc, she gets 50 billion barn stars & is suggested for adminship. I've been here 5 times as long & I get nothing. I make my user page interesting so people will look at it & think I've done a good job & nobody cares! I'm leaving because we can't even write an encyclopedia without some sort of unfairness or politics! It's a Gosh darned encyclopedia & we put voids through everything. If it's supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, then how come so many new articles are delted? Not just vandalism, but because they're short, they get deleted! If I put a random, unfamous guy's biography on here, it would be deleted! That's not the sum of all human knowledge! They say it's vanity, but someone whos not famous could be more interesting than many other articles! I'm leaving because we can't even keep an encyclopedia pure & innocent. That's why.... Now goodbye. I'll respond to comments, but I will be leaving indefinitely... Spawn Man 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point, if this is how you respond to criticsm or adversity, I'm left with agreeing to your decision. Cool-headed editors are always prefferable. Tantrums are not the way to get things done. -M^ask 03:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Come back. It's highly doubtful this discussion was going to end up with consensus to delete anyway. At this point, I regret the nomination. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

See User:Kelly_Martin#On leaving I'd rather you didn't leave, of course. PS there is no reason to lash out at Phaedriel... I can't recall her ever raising her voice in anger here, not once. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that when I say I'm doing something, I mean I'm doing it. I'm not leaving because I want everyone's sympathy. Nor am I leaving because this vote's turned south (or at least not all of it). I explained my reasons above. I haven't made many friends here & don't expect to get love letters from everyone telling me to stay. I just want to be able to leave in a huff without everyone telling me I'm being childish. I've got a back up of all my pages & I'm sure I can start up on another account. Nobody need know me & nobody need care. It's just the lack of respect for a good editor who can't even have his own harmless reviews page on a subpage or his user page. I have no beef with Phaedriel, I'm just telling you how some people are treated & others aren't. I've stopped spamming etc etc a long time ago & that's about it. I'm having a bad time in real life as well & this was the last thing I needed. God, & to think I tried to make Wikipedia a nicer place. I'm just not appreciated anywhere, no matter what I do. Create half a tonnes of articles, edit a few thousand more, get things to the main page, nominate your friends for adminship, get a few wikiprojects on their feet & even vote on a few things. I know, cry me a river. This will be my last edit for a long time, so make the most of it. Spawn Man 05:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's sad that you're walking out but I agree that it's advisable you at least take a break. Your presence is not a tool to sway a vote with, however. Oh, interesting point about non-notable biographies, you've got me thinking now.. ZoFreX 03:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Spawn....i've seen all the work hes been doing... and even though i've know him only for a short time...hes earned my total respect.... i was gonna award him a barnstar for his stuff.... but all the present barnstars were not enough for him......and i was gonna make my own one.... hes been giving his heart out for a long time and you people repay him by putting up his user sub-page for deletion.... i am sorry to say this..... but my opinion about the worthiness of wikipedia has changed a lot after this discussion.....!! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 18:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Its all about opinions anyway . . . rule breaking seems to be fine (for example every list violating WP:WINAD that I have AfD'd has survived) as long as it strikes enough people as OK. People are jerks, that's just life I guess. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 22:43, 21 March 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.