Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Unknown283

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 Delete. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Unknown283

This is a facsimile of User:Sam Blacketer's User page. While copying is fine, some aspects can only relate to the original userpage, barnstars and userboxes. -- EhsanQ (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unless this user has a cat identical to mine, it's obviously a copy and could be confusing to editors who do not realise. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This sort of cloned userpage is misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note I've blanked this page (other then the mfd notice) pending the outcome of this debate. — xaosflux Talk 00:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete...maybe speedy as a copyvio? Yeah, that's a stretch, but copying another person's userpage word for word shouldn't be allowed, particularly when they're misrepresenting themselves as an admin (among other things). --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Almost complete carbon-copy of another UP. Misleading and unnecessary. I don't think it counts as a copyvio though, as all content is GDFL. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:19, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
    • Does GDFL apply to content that is not part of the encyclopedia (Userpages, in this example)? And does GDFL allow you to copy it's text completely without attribution? If "no" on both counts, it's a copyvio (I don't know the answer, I can't make any sense out of the license text) --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • GFDL applies to all of the viewable content of wikipedia. You can't copy without attribution, except where users specifically allow for it. You can fix offenses either by deletion, or by providing the attribution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nomination and comments above.Renee (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious disruption attempt and purely to cause confusion. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is obvious disruption and it only serves to confuse and mislead others. PrestonH 19:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nomination and per PrestonH DigitalC (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is good enough to delete the offending comment. If the user puts it up again, deal with it again. It becomes a behaviour issue. How is deleting this contribution history going to help? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, borderline vandalism. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:33, 13 May 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.