Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pages in ThinkLord's user space

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 discussion was:  Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Pages in ThinkLord's user space


Abandoned lists/template drafts of fantasy monarchs, emperors, etc. that are not actually the true lists. DrKay (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. A spot check reveals the nomination statement is false. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * David I, Margaret and John Balliol are not English monarchs; neither are Robert I, Arthur I or Eleanor I, etc. Vittorio Emanuele was not king of Italy. Germanicus and Drusus were not Roman emperors. Louis XV, XVI and XVII were not kings of Spain, etc, etc. Your spot check is obviously flawed. DrKay (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I found multiple correct monarchs. It is therefore incorrect, wrong, to call them lists of fantasy monarchs.  "They are not true lists"?  Because they are tables??  Why are you choosing to interfere with this user's userpage drafts/notes?  I fail to guess, it looks completely random, and randomly interfering with another;s userspace is unproductive.  Presumably there is a problem to you with these pages, but it is not obvious, you haven't said what the problem is, and the onus is on you to say.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I find Arthur I, Duke of Brittany completely plausible to include on a list of monarchs. Never crowned, presumably killed by John, theoretically, he was rightful king, if alive.  Spot check: most of the data is incontestably true.  At best, by "fantasy monarchs" you mean "includes some monarchs not widely accepted as monarchs"?  At best, a clumsy exaggeration.  At worth, clumsy and reckless misstatements disrupting another's userspace.  Here at MfD, we get plenty of "fantasy lists nominated, so much so they are quickly approved for deletion on minimal review, your nomination is in the same style, but these pages are definitely not "fantasy".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't be disingenuous. The lists include people who are not monarchs. My meaning was perfectly plain and pretending it is not clear is disruptive. Randomly creating multiple accounts and then using multiple areas of userspace to host original research or roleplaying fantasies is not only unproductive, it is outside project scope and against the content guidelines. In future, as this deletion discussion is not going my way, I shall simply block the abandoned alternative accounts, for which the master account has provided no explanation, and blank the pages per User pages.
 * You compound your rudeness in calling me a liar by now calling me clumsy and reckless. Incivility will not win people 'round to your viewpoint. DrKay (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see either "original research" or "roleplaying fantasies". If your concern is merely that the pages are of unclear purpose and in a state that might mislead, the solution is to blank them all using Inactive userpage blanked.  Bringing them to MfD implies a violation of WP:UPNOT or WP:NOT, and I don't see the violation.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice alternative accounts at play, but now you mention them, do you allege WP:SOCK violations? If the pages are the product of a disruptive editor, that changes the picture (and you should have said so earlier).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not possible for me to answer the question of whether there are SOCK violations without a response from at least one of the four known accounts. DrKay (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I still see no reason to think these should be deleted. No objection to someone replacing them with Inactive userpage blanked as an editorial action, as that is both harmless and hides possible alleged problem content.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all. These pages are misleading nonsense: I just checked the lists of English and Spanish monarchs. They are a mix of people who were monarchs and people who weren't, and some of this is just preposterous: for example User:ThinkLordUK/List_of_English_monarchs includes Scots who had no semblance of a claim on the English throne, and User:ThinkLordUK/List_of_Spanish_monarchs contains lots of pretenders to the throne.  This is some sort of fantasy game. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You think it is a mix or reality/truth and fantasy, with no scholarly purpose? I did a cursory review, that wasnt obvious to me, but I am no expert. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2017 (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.