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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a guide to gaming the system and POV pushing. As such, destructive to the 'pedia, and inappropriate in userspace. >Radiant< 15:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are few constructive tips, but they are strewn among evil. Xoloz 17:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think any of the tips are constructive... think again... all of them are quite exquisitly insiduous. :-) Kim Bruning 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, destructive nonsense. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If consensus decides this is humor, then I'd change from delete to BJAODN. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Not great content, but aren't user pages supposed to be left alone? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind, read the policy. Delete. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - obvious parody. --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 23:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Well, it might be a parody, but it's not funny at all. --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete smacks of WP:POINT to me.  ALKIVAR™ 05:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and optionally block User:Daniel Quinlan for 45 seconds for trivial policy violations. Stifle 16:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete um...maybe it's satire...hopefully.--MONGO 04:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just delete the fucking thing - why the hell are people still arguing over this? Any admin can speedy this garbage for what it is. Rob Church (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, duh. "published exploits, patch to follow". ;-) Need this kind of documentation to figure out what's working and what's not. If can't keep, copy to my userspace. (Wait! It's already IN userspace... make that a speedy keep then) Kim Bruning 14:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inspired by this, to an extent: Wikipedia:Adminitis
• Keep, it got a laugh out of me. It's obvious, if one looks at Daniel Quinlan's history, that this is a parody / "ha ha only serious" critique of a behaviour we put up with much too much. And userspace IS where one makes a point, if one wishes. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because this is a page against userboxen and all pages against userboxen are undeleteable Harmless parody in userspace, doesn't single out any undeserving group of editors, isn't divisive, is reasonably witty. Physchim62 (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep get out of user space.  Grue  14:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Good grief. You guys arguing for deletion need to get your humor chips checked for error :) --Durin 14:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, maybe even give a spot on meta if they'll let us. It's funny, dudes ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's something similar at m:How to win an argument --Durin 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no one should delete this fine example of wikipedia meta-humor, to do so would be a crime, a crime against the wiki. Babajobu 15:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; it's obviously satire. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reasonable use of userspace; harmless. Chick Bowen 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obvious parody. --cesarb 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Remember, security by obscurity doesn't work. Ask your WikiDoctor about Adminitis - David Gerard 01:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have half a mind to start linking to it on my welcome messages. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep While the content might not be "honourable", interference in the user pages is a "worse" crime. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 09:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.