Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thenetcentinell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, as deletion is not yet nessesary, time should be given before the deletion of the userpage is to be judged. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thenetcentinell

Clear violations of several points in WP:USER. Long biography (reads like an autobiography), it's advertising software (Aceromath) that the user wrote (and wrote an article about - AfD'd at the moment), and it's generally doing nothing to contribute to the Encyclopedia. It's also being used as a sort of personal homepage for this person, see here. Cheeser1 (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just don't see the problem; there's no policy that says a user page must be terse. And the username doesn't seem to be directly associated with any product. -- Atlant (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Oppose? You accused me of bad faith when I nominated this, and now you're voting "oppose" instead of "keep"? (Note: [1].) Please explain why you'd rather "oppose" me than vote to "keep" the page (which is actually the issue at hand). Also, please note that I am citing WP:USER, which is the policy on userpages (not usernames, as you previously thought). It explains several things that userpages are not for: advertising or promoting software or otherwise storing information not relevant to building an encyclopedia. Autobiographies are also not appropriate for Wikipedia, nor is Wikipedia a place for you to link to as if it were your own webspace. However, since you bring it up, THE NET CENTINELL (his caps, not mine) is the name of the entity that publishes this software (whether or not that entity consists of a single person is irrelevant). That's a gray-area violation of WP:UN, but relevant nonetheless. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- It is only in your mind that you believe I didn't read the WP:USER policy before replying to you; I assure you I took the time to re-read that policy, just in case it had changed since I last read it. So do you have any evidence that "THE NET CENTINELL" is actually a free-standing business entity and not simply the "handle" that this person has adopted and routinely uses? Based on the several pages cited here, you seem to acting on "facts not in evidence".

    Quite honestly, I took a look at your editing history and found that you seem to often be involved in contentious issues. Perhaps your time would be better spent creating new content for the encyclopedia and contributing to the existing content rather than worrying about other user's userpages? -- Atlant (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep if {{userpage}} is added to the page and kept on it. The only real problem with this is if it masquerades as an article. Whether this is an appropriate user name is another question, settled elsewhere; we could ask him to change it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sole article the user created or contributed to was Aceromath, and given the way that AFD looks, the creation was probably not such a good idea (and it is generally not such a good idea to edit on subjects where you are deeply involved). However, the contributions do not look like bad faith ones, and the userpage is compact enough to look reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The question is not whether or not the size of the userpage is appropriate, it's the use of the userpage. It appears to be an autobiography, to which this person links his other websites. The fact that it's tucked away in userspace instead of mainspace doesn't seem relevant, since userpages are meant to be for information/ideas/whatever related (even marginally) to building the encyclopedia. The user's intent does not seem to be this, and much of the content of the page does not appear to be intended for this either. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • A WP user page is supposed to tell us about the user. What's wrong with an autpbiography in the format of an article, as long as it can't be mistaken for an article (hence my condition)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy KeepStrong Keep - per WP:BITE. I just added {{welcome}} to this user's talk page since the account was opened on 9 February and all of the other posts on the talk page were notices that all of this editor's contributions were being deleted including his userpage. Not in any way to suggest that the nominator wasn't looking out for the best interests of the Project, but cumulatively all of these noms do nothing but drive this editor away. Offers of help are in order rather than deleting everything the guy tries to do.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
for the benefit of Septentrionalis and to try to help the editor, I added the requested template to the userpage for him.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you totally missed my comment on his talkpage? I went out of my way to explain things to him and not template him (even though he's not a "regular"), strongly encouraging him to contribute constructively outside of advertising for his software, on his (or his one-man software publishing entity's) behalf. He has not done so, and appears to have used Wikipedia for nothing but promoting his software and writing up a little autobiography for him to link to as if it were his own personal online profile. That's not the purpose of a userpage, and is not a part of building an encyclopedia. If somebody comes to Wikipedia to write himself an autobiography (no matter what namespace it's in) and an article about his non-notable endeavors, I don't see how it comes as a surprise that his talk page has a couple deletion templates on it, or how these templates can compel a "speedy keep" !vote (per an etiquette guideline). WP:USER, like any part of our community-accepted practices, is not applied like some sort of absolute law - we are supposed to examine each case and attempt to understand: "Does this page contribute to building our encyclopedia?" I see absolutely no evidence except that to the contrary. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Because this guy has been here for less than a week and his user page has been nominated for deletion and there's nothing wrong with it per Atlant, Septentrionalis, Sjakkalle, and because I don't see anything wrong with it either. A singe link in to a userpage does not a "homepage" make and I don't see this as commercial at all. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The user created this page: Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Thenetcentinell and commented (basically says he'll remove the link into his page if it isn't supposed to exist). Not sure how he got there to a subpage of WT:MFD but, but it needs to be merged here and I'm falling asleep so someone else is going to have to do it. We should probably leave the redirect at least until the discussion is over since it looks like he didn't find his way here.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the discussion page for this page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Duh! Told you I was tired. Can I get my Trout with coffee? I haven't seen that used on a discussion lately. Anyway, he commented there, you got the important part.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Understandable, it seems I am also a bit too tired. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

is it good enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thenetcentinell how it looks right now with the user page added? which things i must change in the user page to show aceromath program? is it possible to do this? or i have to delete aceromath & my user?

thenetcentinell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenetcentinell (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are decided by consensus, and their format is described here. The purpose of a userpage, as described in the userpage policy, is to provide a space for users to include information relevant to building an encyclopedia. The question is whether your userpage does so, as discussed above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
But certainly Cheeser1, if he satisfies you then the debate must end (well, we could let it go on, but WP:SNOW could be invoked at that point - unless another delete vote shows up before then - I think WP:DELPRO would even allow you to close your own nom at that point). Wouldn't you agree?
If he wants to keep things the way they are, then he needs to wait for the end of this discussion. Of course, the more things he changes for the better, the stronger consensus is likely to become for keep.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why you think this is me trying to get myself "satisfied." An SPA who creates one spam article and a nice autobiography (userspace or mainspace) is not contributing to the encyclopedia, and neither is his userpage. The intent of a userpage is to provide information and other things relevant to building an encyclopedia, to give some relevant background on a specific user (keywords: some and relevant), and while we often take liberties with such things, I don't see how there's any way to construe this userpage as relevant to building Wikipedia. It reads like an spamautobiograpy, and that's what it would be if it were in mainspace. Users who copy such things from mainspace to userspace have their userpages MfD'd speedily. I don't see how this is any different in terms of the (most relevant) WP:USER. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I will also point out that, as you're well aware, this is not a vote or a place to form some local consensus. It's a discussion about how we interpret relevant policies (for AfDs, usually WP:N, but here we're talking about WP:USER), which represent a global consensus on the relevant issue(s). Certainly, an interesting side point might be made concerning WP:BITE, but WP:BITE is not a content or userspace policy/guideline. The closing admin has the task of weighing the deletion rationales against the keep rationales, no matter how many people are on one side or the other. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You have some pretty strict standards if you consider an account open less than a week which has resulted in only one article so far (yes it was deleted, I know), an "SPA". I do not think that the "Global Consensus" as you put it supports such a strong statement. Furthermore, we have pretty liberal standards when it comes to userpages, a lot of pages would seem to fail your "autobiographical" standard. We aren't talking about the mainspace, this venue never discusses the mainspace. What is or is not allowed in the mainspace has little if any relevance here.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, this is a venue for discussing policy, not for you to tell me I'm wrong. Also, stop conflating two unrelated points of mine to somehow make me sound like vindictive or something. WP:USER asks us to evaluate whether or not a userpage is contributing to constructing Wikipedia. I don't think so. You seem to. And yes, if somebody comes to Wikipedia and writes an autobiography and an article about his blatantly unencyclopedic software that he wrote, yes, that's an SPA to me. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't say there was nothing wrong with the userpage; I think there is, but it can be fixed. Thenetincell has removed the fix; if he does so again, I will conclude it cannot be fixed and change !vote accordingly.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    He didn't remove it, you actually duplicated the tag, he has it at the bottom of the page. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Then I change !vote to weak delete. It's clearly not visible enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • A strange edit, to be sure, moving such a notice when it is the focal point in possibly resolving this issue and clarifying one's intentions. I wonder if your understanding of this situation could explain such actions. I know mine does - it's hard to link to an autobiography of yourself (someone "best known" for programming an unknown piece of software/homework assignment) when it says "userpage" right at the top. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that the notice would work better at the top, but many users have it at the bottom of the page and that was not something anyone ever said here before. - I think he's trying to comply at least with the letter of requests here. On another note, he's also made at least one non-SPA edit here. Nothing major but again, this account is only about 9 days old.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Again, that doesn't explain why he moved it. I'm not saying it must have been moved with bad intentions, but it is consistent with the established pattern of his contributions that I've pointed out. Furthermore, I've explained my characterization of this editing pattern as single-purpose. That should be obvious. One minor (and quickly reverted) edit that strays only slightly outside of his only other mainspace contributions (spam as it were) does not affect that. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

i had put the userpage at the bottom because cheeser did that in his userpage, but if it is more visible it will stay at the top. --thenetcentinell (talk) 13:43. 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to style your userpage after mine, you might want to consider writing a userpage that does not read like a autobiography that exaggerates your notability. That would be the reason the userpage notice would need to be much more prominent than, say, my userpage, which is clearly and obviously a userpage written about contributing to the encyclopedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (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.