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.

User:Thenetcentinell[edit]

The result of the debate was keep, considering the page's current state is fine.

I ask editors to be polite to each other, it helps a lot in discussion, thanks.

I also note that policy may change due to practice, so it is OK if anyone argues differently. Off course we may always (try to) change *that* policy... :-)

Nabla (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was previously nominated for deletion. This user set up a single Wikipedia page to advertise completely non-notable software that he wrote for a class. It was unanimously deleted. This user has spent months tweaking his userpage and doing nothing to build the encyclopedia. Given his previous (subsequently deleted) contributions to the mainspace, the fact that he links to this userpage as if it were his homepage, it is clear to me that this should be deleted. Most of the "keep" rationales on the last MfD were based on the presumption that we should give this user time to do something besides set himself up a pseudo-myspace page. He has not done so. Cheeser1 (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, seems to be used purely for self-advertising purposes. User has only one (minor) edit outside of this page and its deletion discussions - I don't think we need to worry about losing a valuable contributor here. Terraxos (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - using userspace as a social networking/blog/profile page, no other significant contribs. Agree about 'not losing a valuable editor'. ><RichardΩ612 14:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not MySpace. MalwareSmarts (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — User has made a single valid good-faith contribution to articlespace. That is enough to justify doing our damndest to keep him around. One is better than none, after all. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if someone makes one genuine contrib to main space, we have to keep their userpages around even if they never contribute [and, indeed, never intend to contribute] again? By this logic, someone could make one GF edit and then use their userspace as a blog or a pseudo-myspace for months afterwards. This doesn't really hold water. ><RichardΩ612 20:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course it should stay. Tell me, how is Wikipedia made better off by deleting this userpage? Do the benefits really justify the trouble you and I and everyone else are all going to? We're not here for bureaucratic masturbation; we're here to make sane decisions. To hell with the rules; the only thing that matters is: does the benefit to Wikipedia make it worth the trouble? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rich, I'd advise that you just ignore Kurt. His main Wikipedia activities consist of voting "keep" on every AfD he can find, even for reasons that blatantly contradict community-accepted standards, and voting "oppose" on every self-nom RfA, even though self-nomination is a perfectly accepted practice. DFTT applies, as far as I'm concerned. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He is not a troll; he's a good-faith editor who happens to have views which lie outside community norms. Disagreeing with the standard viewpoint does not make someone a troll. And in this particular case I happen to agree with him. He is making a sound argument, which I advise you to read and seek to address, rather than attacking Kurt. Walton^One 07:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine, you want to talk policy, we'll talk policy - the problem is, we have policies like WP:NOT and Kurt (and you apparently) refuse to acknowledge them. It's impossible, I'm afraid, to address your "rationale" without pointing out that you, personally, have decided not to make a rationale based on policy. It's impossible to address your rationale without referring to you personally because it's based solely on your personal opinion. I cannot rebut with policy-based opinion what is not a policy-based rationale. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The most important precept, above and beyond any individual policy, is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We should therefore focus on doing what is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. In cases like this, it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia not to delete the page, because in many similar cases editors have been driven away by aggressive deletions of userspace content; in contrast, policy tells us that we don't need to worry about server space (and deleted material stays in the archives anyway), so there is no automatic benefit to Wikipedia from deleting it. WP:NOT is indeed policy, but it's too vague to provide a definitive answer in a case like this, and it's well-established that users who contribute productively are allowed a certain amount of latitude in their userspace. Policy is not a trump card, and citing more policy acronyms than your opponent does not mean that you automatically win the debate; citing policy isn't a substitute for rational argument. Since userpages are not part of the encyclopedia, any argument in a userspace MfD should seek to address the question of whether the deletion will constitute a net benefit to the encyclopedia, since the encyclopedia is undoubtedly the most important thing. Improving the encyclopedia is more important than rigidly applying a strict interpretation of WP:NOT. Walton^One 08:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "well-established that users who contribute productively"???? UMMM HELLLOOO? This guy is a spam-artist. He wrote one article about 110% non-notable software that he wrote. He has not established himself at all as an editor, let alone "well established," and is not productive nor a contributor, in any way shape or form. Check the facts... --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't say "well-established" with regard to the editor, I said that it is well established that users have been driven away. However, looking again at this user's contributions, I think you do have a point as regards this individual case. Walton^One 09:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1[edit]

• Weak Keep per Kurt Weber, whose argument here is similar to my reasoning in Wikipedia:Editors matter. However, my Keep is weakened by the fact that this particular editor has only made one constructive edit and seems to have little interest in contributing. Walton^One 07:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - normally I don't advocate the deletion of userpages, but this particular editor seems to have little interest in contributing anything except vanity material. Walton^One 09:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- As the page stands today, there's nothing objectionable about it. And I generally find second (third, etc.) nominations to be mean-spirited and indicative of sore losers/winners. -- Atlant (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You assumed bad faith on my part the first time, and now you're doing it again. What's your problem? Who woke up today and kicked your dog, huh? This was re-nominated because the first AfD closed as "give it time" - DUH. Please don't be a jerk on purpose, it makes you like... well, like a jerk. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not out of proportion in its current version. DGG (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Current version [1] seems fine. —Moondyne click! 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The moment we start legislating user pages out of Wikipedia is the moment we lose our own credibility. C'mon it isn't an actual article, and it seems the person kicking the proverbial dog seems to be the nominator, the the editor. Regards. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 18:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that his user has a history of Wikistalking me, and he is apparently unaware of WP:NOT#MYSPACE and WP:USER. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

  Or perhaps, like me, he's quite aware of it but simply doesn't buy into it. Please stop calling into questions the motives and expertise of others simply because they disagree with you. I think you will find that I am quite aware of just about everything there is to be found in the Project space, and I recognize that neither I nor anyone else am generally obligated to agree with it or abide by with it. Rational arguments trump alphabet-soup citations. Forget about the "rules"--just worry about what, in your own judgment, is best for the encyclopedia. If that happens to be in line with the "rules", fine, but it's absurd to argue that we should or should not do something simply because the so-called "rules" say so. It defeats the whole purpose of a collaborative wiki. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  To boil this all down: in ANY issue brought up, the discussion should not be "What do the 'rules' say to do?" but rather "In this particular situation, would it be in the best interests of the encyclopedia to do action X, which the 'rules' suggest? And if not, what would be the best solution?" Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and why don't you let the closing admin decide whether our community-accepted, consensus-backed guidelines and policies will decide this MfD, or whether Kurt Weber's personal genius will override them. At that, I suggest you graciously refrain from further comment, sir. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a horrendous straw-man. All I'm asking is for people to make actual arguments rather than citing alphabet soup, which is all you (and many others) seem willing to do. I don't expect people to agree with me; I do expect people to make arguments based on what's best for the encyclopedia rather than based on meaningless and irrelevant so-called "rules". Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a straw-man - a straw-man is a kind of analogy, and I made no such analogy... I'm not sure what you're getting at there. As for your point, these "so-called rules" are actually the guiding principles of Wikipedia and are not here to be ignored. They are not meaningless, nor irrelevant, and if you can't even come up with better reason to disregard the five pillars than for the sake of doing so, I don't think your little !vote is going to get you very far. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A straw man is most certainly not necessarily an analogy; I'm not sure why you would think it is. Anyway, you just built another one, as I never said ignore them just for the sake of ignoring them. I'm arguing that we should ignore them because (a) they're not really rules anyway, and (b) it would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. You are merely arguing we should do X and Y because some so-called "policy" says so, without bothering to explain why it would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia to do so. That's where your problem is. If what you happen to think is in the best interests of the encyclopedia also happens to be what these supposed "rules" say, then fine--but argue for it because it's best for the project. Don't just argue we should do X and Y because the "rules" say so--that's completely anti-wiki, and means you are shirking your primary responsibility by substituting recitation for critical thought. Please be better than that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment to closing admin Kurt's comments should not be taken into account by the closing admin per the rough consensus section on wikipedia's deletion guidelines since they "contradict policy, (and) are based on opinion rather than fact". I agree with Cheeser1's comment above, and it looks to me that Kurt is just trying to weasel out of abiding to wikipedia's relevant policies --Enric Naval (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm trying to weasel out of nothing, beacause there's nothing here to weasel out of. The emperor has no clothes. See above.

  Here's the thing. You're both relative newcomers to Wikipedia. Back when the project was first starting out--and certainly when I joined--EVERYONE understood what I'm arguing right now: we don't have any actual rules, the so-called "policies" are merely descriptions of what has happened in the past that maybe can be taken as suggestions but are certainly non-binding. Ask anyone who's been around since 2003 or before--they'll tell you exactly that. The problem comes with the newer generation of editors, who take these so-called "policies" as gospels and blanket proclamations and use them as a substitute for critical thinking or rational judgment based on what's best in the given situation. These people simply don't "get" Wikipedia in an abstract, conceptual sense. It's a problem--a major problem--and I'm trying to stop it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I won't link to the relevant guideline because THE GUIDELINE DOESN'T MATTER - YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT AT ALL. Guidelines are here to show us what the broadest, strongest consensus supports. Even if you reject that (crass as that is), there are still numerous people who disagree with you here, and you have no rationale to keep other than for the sake of keeping. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I am disrupting nothing. Simply disagreeing with you, or even everybody, is not disruption. That's absurd. As far as "broad consensus", it doesn't matter what the broad consensus is "in the abstract"--what matters is what the specific consensus is in a particular situation. Anything else is an abandonment of one's obligation to think. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is, Kurt, that you simply can't reason with this editor nor editors of his ilk. They apply guidelines with broad strokes when it supports their arguments and then cry "foul" whenever their position is jeapordized by logical support. Simply allow him his last word and allow this process to continue on so that he'll have some other article to hijack.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  stop with the "ad hominem" falacies both you and Kurt. Calling us newbies or saying that we only only apply guidelines when they support us doesn't help the discussion. Kurt is trying to downplay the consensus behind guidelines and policies, and you saying that we are applying them with broad strokes doesn't help unless you explain how we should apply them instead. If your arguments are really supported by logic, then go read rough consensus section on wikipedia's deletion guidelines and make a logical argumentation of how it's suggestions don't apply on this specific case. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Curious that you do not ask Cheeser1 to "stop with the 'ad hominem'" which he made above as to "wikistalking". Any editor can edit any individual page on Wikipedia they would like, and his ad hominem doesn't encourage constructive discussion. Will you kindly ask him also to stop with the "ad hominem"...I know it may not be convenient to do so but it would help you to come across as less hypocritical.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't seen that comment. Actually, when I just went to Cheeser1's talk page to give him a warning for that comment, I ended up giving him also a civility warning for a different matter. Now, please, remember that other editor's misbehaviour is not an excuse for misbehaving yourself, so let's stop the ad hominen stuff --Enric Naval (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Enric, I agree that two wrongs do not make a right. It seems, however, that on each occasion (and they are isolated instances, to be sure) he persists in these ad hominems rather than discuss the issues. That said, ignoring his attacking dialogue would be for the best.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you. Still, try to make arguments based on policies just I said above because it gives more of a chance that the closing admin will take them into consideration. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, using WP:IAR to override policies or guidelines (not "rules") does not work if you haven't previously especified what policy or guideline you are overriding, and why overriding it helps wikipedia to reach its goal of building an encyclopaedia, or why not overriding it does not help wikipedia to reach its goal. Extra demostration effort for policies that are one of the 5 WP:PILLARS, like WP:NOT is --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying "ignore all rules"--I'm saying there are no rules to be ignored in the first place. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Dude, the policy is called "Ignore All Rules", and I think that the quote by Jimbo is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". Interpreting that there are no rules to ignore is stretching it a little bit too much. Also, the world "rule" links to Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So, to invoke IAR, you would have to must specify which rules you want to be ignored, how they are preventing you from improving wikipedia, and how ignoring them will no longer prevent you --Enric Naval (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete User is clearly using wikipedia to have a free personal web page, which violates WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. User should contribute more in mainspace before starting to explain his life on his user page and and become a valuable editor before using wikipedia to freely host joke images of him --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2[edit]

well delete it if it is not an article useful to wikipedia. this is a user page not an enciclopedia article. i have made some edits on posts seen in wikipedia but admins delete them or rollbacked such as the one made in kubuntu linux. is dificult to make some post or arrangement in a post and be kept by admins in wikipedia. THE NET CENTINELL 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)thenetcentinell

(centinell, your post was not reverted by an admin, but by another editor like you) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Are we now out to bully editors simply because we don't think they've worked hard enough? It's a pretty new account too. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his contributions, he has worked a lot, actually. First, he spent February creating promotional pages for his program (his user page and a deleted article). Then, on April, he became active again to save from deletion his user page that he uses a personal page on the internet. He needs to stop doing only this and start improving the encyclopedia if he doesn't want his user page to be deleted as being only free hosting space for him --Enric Naval (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In sum, User:Thenetcentinell wastes less space, time, storage capacity, energy, and other resources than this request for deletion does. Maybe Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thenetcentinell (2nd) should be deleted instead of User:Thenetcentinell. Pi in my face (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a valid rationale, keep or delete. Taking up too much space is not a consideration, and neither is the converse. You could use that rationale to allow any sort of self-promotional or not-contributive user to place ads, profile pages, etc. as if this were myspace. The size of this deletion debate, nor the size of the page in question, should have any bearing on this debate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe not, according to those links in blue capital letters the honorable Wikipedian likes to quote ("violates WP:ABC", "doesn't fulfil WP:PQR", "per" (ugh) "WP:XYZ"). But then, my rationale is more valid to me. Now say WP:"CHEESE" and give us a smile :-) Pi in my face (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Remark: This discussion was closed by a non-admin here and reopened by the nominator here. Discussion regarding the close is on the talk page to this deletion discussion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Current version isn't out of proportion. Lots of developers on Wikipedia indicate what software they work on in their userpages. Discussion probably should have stayed closed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 27 April 2008 (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.