Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TimAlderson/2019

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Resolved - The "webhost"-ed material has been removed deleted. - jc37 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:TimAlderson/2019

• TimAlderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• User:TimAlderson
• User:TimAlderson/2019

While it is true that we give Wikipedians a fair amount of leeway in userspace...

Writing a novel? Surely there are more appropriate websites for that.

In addition, the 2019 page is (was) categorised inappropriately. I removed the categories for obvious reasons. - jc37 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. - jc37 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. X Marx The Spot (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per my reasoning in the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter. In principle, I would ordinarily agree that writing a novel is an inappropriate use of userspace, and if this user had made no other contributions, I would conclude that he was abusing Wikipedia as a free webhost. However, the user has made a number of good-faith contributions to the main namespace, and has uploaded an image (which I'm not sure is correctly licensed, but at least he's tried). Considering that we don't need to worry about server space (and deleted material stays in the archives anyway), and that deleting this page might well drive the user away (and that editors are our most important resource), I think the potential harm from this deletion would outweigh any benefit to the encyclopedia. Simply put: it's more important to recruit and retain editors than it is to conserve server space, so we should be very generous with what we allow in userspace. (As I explained in WP:EM, this is why I almost always argue for the keeping of useless pages in userspace and projectspace. It's a simple cost-benefit equation.) Walton^One 12:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "if this user had made no other contributions" - Well, "few" other contributions. That said, I don't think deleting the user's novel from Wikipedia should cause them from editing the encyclopedia any less than they are already. A novel? You're kidding, right? (And I wonder if the user understands the GDFL repercussions of this choice. I'm sure that I don't...) - jc37 02:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Few other contributions are better than none. And regardless of what "should" happen, it is perfectly possible that deleting the novel will cause the user to stop editing. Aggressive MfD'ing of userpages has caused users to leave in the past. Walton^One 09:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am starting to feel that Editors matter is being used as a trump card to keep pages from users who have not made a substantial contribution to the encyclopedia. If someone makes a few edits they have 'contributed' and we must keep all of their pages. Why? ><RichardΩ612 07:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • EM is not a trump card, it's an essay. It has no binding force in itself; the reason I created it is because it summarises my reasoning on this issue, and saves me from having to repeat the same arguments in hundreds of MfDs. The strength is in the reasoning (which no one has ever adequately rebutted), not in the citing of an acronym. As to your other question: if someone makes a few constructive edits, then they may be interested in contributing more extensively; and since contributors are our most important resource (whereas server space doesn't matter at all), we need to do everything we can to recruit and retain contributors. It is a fact that deleting someone's userpages often causes them to leave Wikipedia - therefore wasting our most valuable resource, i.e. willing volunteers. We don't pay people to write for us, so we need to go out of our way to recruit and retain contributors. Walton^One 09:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • No offence intended, but can you provide any evidence that deleting user subpages causes editors to leave? ><RichardΩ612 10:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes. Example: see User:Aliasd's comments here. I really really really do not mean this as a threat, but if this page in my userspace is deleted, that would clinch it for me as far as working on this project is concerned. I am a volunteer and I feel that for the most part, how I interact with other volunteers is my business. Also note [1] and [2]. Just one recent example; there are many more. Walton^One 13:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
          • As an aside, I really cannot see the logic in this. Leaving because a 'secret page' is deleted I simply cannot understand. I would be grateful if you could give some insight. People weren't trying to 'manage others' time', or at least I see no evidence. ><RichardΩ612 14:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't know what his motivation was for making the comments I cited above; you'd have to ask him. (They are his words and not mine, hence the italics.) But, the fact is, it proves my point that there are constructive users who will be driven away from the project by aggressive userpage deletions. Whether or not you see the logic in their actions is immaterial. Walton^One 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Quite frankly, I feel that if someone leaves over having a non-Wikipedia-related User sub-page deleted, they were not that interested in contributing to the encyclopedia as much as whatever they were doing in the sub-page. -- Kesh (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Please see [3], which disproves your point as regards that particular case. Walton^One 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (deindent) That doesn't "disprove" my statement. If someone is willing to walk away from the project over having a page in their User space deleted, they didn't have much dedication to the project in the first place. -- Kesh (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • My point exactly. [Admittedly worded a lot more concisely!] ><RichardΩ612 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Does it matter whether they had "much dedication to the project"? We need as many productive editors as we can get. Their reasons for editing are their own business, and it isn't okay to drive users away just because they were insufficiently "dedicated" to the project. As I keep saying, editors are our most important resource. It's not about hurting anyone's feelings, it's a simple cost-benefit issue. Walton^One 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • By that reasoning, we should allow folks to do whatever they want in userspace, even if it turns Wikipedia into MySpace. I don't buy it. -- Kesh (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I've never understood this mythical danger of "turning Wikipedia into MySpace". I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that any contributors have been driven away, or any part of the encyclopedia has been compromised, because of "too much social networking". On the other hand, I have seen (as mentioned) numerous examples of contributors who have left because of aggressive userspace deletions. Wikipedia is not going to turn into MySpace. We do not have a problem with too much social networking, or too many useless pages; these things are not compromising the quality of the encyclopedia - whereas the loss of contributors due to aggressive deletion is compromising the quality of the encyclopedia. I just don't understand why everyone seems to think that Wikipedia is on the verge of turning into a social networking site. It isn't. Walton^One 18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
            • You obviously missed the recent debate on "Secret Pages" and user cabals. This is a problem. -- Kesh (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Actually I was an active participant in both those debates (indeed, my Aliasd example above is taken from the Secret Pages MfD). And I still don't see that it's a problem. No evidence was adduced that "secret pages" or "user cabals" have caused any editor to quit Wikipedia. On the other hand, evidence has been adduced (as I noted above) that the deletion of such pages can cause editors to quit Wikipedia. I don't see how "fun" pages do any harm to the encyclopedia. People keep going on about "focus" and "preventing Wikipedia from becoming MySpace", but there is no actual danger in that regard. Allowing limited social networking, for the sake of retaining editors, will not destroy the encyclopedia or turn it into a social networking site. Walton^One 07:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• (deindent) Although 'Wikipedia turning into MySpace' has never occurred, that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to prevent it. If a newbie sees loads of pages like this, they may start making their own 'secret pages' and/or social networking pages at the expense of contributing to the 'pedia. More newbies turn up and see that this is 'accepted practice' and do the same, and the cycle goes round and round ad infinitum. I realise that this is a rather 'doom-and-gloom' vision, but it is a possibility. Sorry for being so cynical, but it's how I view things. However, I do agree that much of WP:NOT needs to be clarified, and I am close to starting a talk page discussion on this to avoid arguments like this one going on forever. ><RichardΩ612 08:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Obviously, keep. And thank you, Walton One, for explaining all that. I was surprised to find a page that reflects exactly what I was thinking: Why do you care? As long as I'm contributing to Wikipedia on a constructive way, what does it matter how I use my own userpage? The 2019 page doesn't harm any content on Wikipedia, so why delete it? Rather than so strictly adhering to policy, try not biting. Just thought I'd weigh in on this subject. After all, it is my own userpage(s) that are at stake, here. — TimAlderson | (loque)
• Delete the sub-page novella/outline - Wikipedia is not your webhost. While I appreciate users who make contributions to the encyclopedia, that doesn't mean one can use Wikipedia to write novels, play games and act as MySpace. It's quite simple to set up your own Wikia if you really want wiki-style editing for your work, and there are a number of offline editors that use Wikimarkup. Also, no one actually "owns" their User space. Even userspace is subject to being edited by other users, or deleted outright. That said, I'm not sure why the user's own Userpage is listed in this nom, so Keep that. - Kesh (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Go right ahead. Delete it. — TimAlderson | (loque)
• Why is "User:TimAlderson" even on the list for deletion? — TimAlderson | (loque)
• At this point, it doesn't matter to me if the "2019" page is deleted, but I don't see any reason for my User page to be deleted. (Whatever the case, as soon as this is resolved, I'm going on a long hiatus from Wikipedia.) — TimAlderson | (loque)

  Your userpage has a lengthy "quote" as well...

  As for your hiatus... Until you do, here's some reading for you, if you'd like: MeatBall:GoodBye. - jc37 04:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the '2019' page, Wikipedia is not a free webhost [and there are more appropriate places for writing a novel than WP, even if it were allowed]. Keep the userpage... not sure why that is here. ><RichardΩ612 07:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete the subpage, we're not a free host. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - With respect I think it's a bit unfair of Tim to suggest that this is a case of don't bite the newcomers. As has been expressed eloquently and civilly by others, Wikipedia is not your personal web host. If you'd like to share your talent for creative writing with the world, there are plenty of places on the Intahwebs that will accommodate you. When you're notable, I'll happily pen your article. ;) X Marx The Spot (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Please note that TimAlderson has contributed a number of articles to the encyclopedia, including Catabolysis (a good science-related article). He is a relatively new user, but clearly has the potential to be a good editor - the kind of person we need more of, not less. Please also note that he is now on an indefinite hiatus from Wikipedia, presumably as a result of this needless MfD. I think this proves my point: we should allow people to put whatever they want in their userspace, because it's preferable to losing editors. Loss of good contributors is a very real and constant danger; the supposed danger of "Wikipedia turning into MySpace", on the other hand, has never actually materialised. Walton^One 18:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It has. See the recent debates on "Secret Pages" and user cabals. -- Kesh (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • See my reply to your comments above. Walton^One 07:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I find the arguments of Walton One convincing. Such a deletion is more likely to harm than help. Hobit (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and I'd say the deletion of the user's main page is just bizarre and clearly inappropriate. I'm assuming all of you !voting delete actually read the page? Hobit (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Did you bother to look at the history of the page, or my clarification above? This is what the page looked like when nominated. this is the very next edit (which I am guessing is a copy from someone else's userpage, and not a declaration of socking), and this is the very next edit after that, by an IP (who is presumably TimAlderson, based on following edits), which comments out the lengthy text. (And to finish out the diffs, this edit has him commenting out the threat to leave, followed up by this edit, with the user changing tack, and attempting to show their contributions instead.) So no, it's not bizarre or inappropriate. And if you edit the page (at least at the time of this post) you'll still see the text. - jc37 20:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• To jc37: I am confused about what you are trying to say. I'm not being defensive, here, just wanting a bit of clarification about your "Did you bother to look at the history of the page" comment. I only changed the "lengthy quote" because I agreed that it was too long for a user page. So I put something shorter instead. As far as the old quote still being there (just hidden by <!-- -->) goes, if you want me to get rid of it entirely, I will. Also, what can (or should) I do to get my user page off that deletion list? I'm less concerned about the 2019 page (I have it all on my PC anyway; if it's not online, I don't care) and more concerned with my user page being deleted, which—agreeing with many others here—I feel is unnecessary. This, for me at least, has now become a fight to keep my user page and not so much a fight to keep the 2019 page. — TimAlderson | (loque)

• The lengthy quote appeared to be original writing (either yours or a friend of yours), similar to the 2019 page. However, if it's actually removed, I would withdraw the suggestion of deleting your userpage. Incidenatlly, my intent here was not to "bite", and my apologies if it's come across that way. But some things just before, and after, my listing of this MfD really appeared to be Wikipedia:Gaming the system, which can be concerning. The fact that the 2019 page was in article genre-style categories, for one thing. That appeared to be advertising original writing. The hiatus threat for another. That said, if you're saying that you agree to remove the "quote" from your userpage, and agree to the deletion of the 2019 page, then this can probably be closed as such. - jc37 18:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep on user page, weak keep on novel page (would not oppose deletion, but I'm mindful of what Walton said). -- Ned Scott 06:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete User:TimAlderson/2019 as an obvious case of "Wikipedia is not a web host" and "editors matter" does not "trump" that, and I'm fundamentally opposed of the abuse of that particular essay as propaganda against deleting things that obviously aren't appropriate. -Halo (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree to have the 2019 page deleted. The other hidden content on my user page has been deleted as per your (jc37's) request.
  — TimAlderson | (loque)
  • You can tag the 2019 page with {{db-userreq}}, then, and we can hopefully speedy close this MfD. (I won't do it myself, since I've been heavily involved in this discussion and it would be inappropriate.) Walton^One 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Am I allowed to remove that deletion tag from my user page now?
  — TimAlderson | (loque)

  Normally we'd wait until this is closed. But, even though I'm the nominator, and have commented in the discussion, since it's already been resolved, I'll go ahead and close this. - jc37 19:46, 20 April 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.