Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system


 * 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 Userfy to Mr. Martin. Userfication routinely includes the CSD R2 deletion of the redirect to article talk space, by the way; I point this out because I assume Mr. Martin cares to know, based on prior experience. Xoloz 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system
Original research/vanity page. The only informative reference, the link to http://www.florencetime.net/, explicitly affirmes that it is an invention of that site's author. Note that it's clearly not a talk page, by which I mean, there is no talk on it, but it rather mimics an article (an Orbius Tertius kind of article). Its only author, User:Paul Martin, calls it a special page on his user page.

The article already had been deleted, though it has wrongly been speedy deleted. For this technical reason, it was restored, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system. It was suggested that the author move it to his userpage, and he did so, but only to move it back to the talk namespace ten days later, see the page's history. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 17:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a very personal pseudo-crusade of User:J. 'mach' wust. At his German user page, he crys: "Lasst euch nicht zensieren", english: "Don't let you censor." At the English Wikipedia site, he hams the precentor of censorship, even in harmless talk pages.


 * Like the deletion report attests nearly everyone was for an undeletion. User:j. 'mach' wust first claims "original research". Than when it was clear that this criterion not applys with talk-pages, the argument changed to "Orphan Talk page". The over-great majority of the expressing users didn't agree. Me – not no longer than three days ago in a new talk with User:Jimp –  I was obliged to take reference to this page. An "Orphan Talk page"? As if!


 * One user, User:RN suggested to userfy. Like J. 'mach' wust recontaced me I moved. For the reasons explained in Administrators' noticeboard, I moved back to the original place.


 * User:J. 'mach' wust perseverates on his personal censorship crusade. "Obnubiled" by his Orbis Tertius phantasm. Sometimes, paradigm changes are too quick for some individuals.


 * -- Paul Martin 19:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's a talk page for a non-existent article, and it's a long piece of original research. I'd say userfy, but that's been tried, and it didn't work.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 23:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, it is not a talk page, but an original research article in article talk space. Kusma (討論) 01:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Two votes with already invalidated arguments.
 * "It's a talk page for a non-existent article." Of course, because its a subpage (explanation page) for a real talk. "Subpages of talk pages are not orphaned" (quotation Thryduulf).
 * "it is not a talk page, but an original research article in article talk space". Its true this page illustrates "an original research", however, needed as reference in our article-talks.
 * -- Paul Martin 08:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Userfy back into creator's userspace and protect Talk space page from recreation, or delete if that can't be done. The Talk namespace is not for "reference" works of any kind. These are, however, allowed in the User namespace. Kimchi.sg 13:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Kimchi. I can perfectly live with a move to userspace. My concern is to preserve the redirect talk-page to userspace. R2 criterion, formerly invoked, says: " 2. Redirects to the User: space from the main article space. If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect. " Now, I.M.H.O. it's not clear:  Does article talk pages belong to main article space or not really? If I understand without any problem that redirects from article space, in its close acceptance, to user-space can't be tolered, I don't see the reason why talk space to user space redirects should be impossible. If this point is clarfied I accept to shift back once more. This avoids broken links without very good reasons. Manual linkfixes can't be the solution since even interwiki-links are not listed.
 * -- Paul Martin 14:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Avoiding broken links is not a good reason why the Talk namespace page should not be removed. A list of pages that link to the talk page can be obtained using Special:Whatlinkshere/Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system, from that list the links can be fixed. In general, any cross-namespace redirect is confusing and should be avoided. Kimchi.sg 15:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure whether that page is appropiate for the user namespace. Consider the guideline User page: "Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian." However, that page is not about you, but about your project of proselitysing/changing the world. I'm not personally against that project, and I admire your conviction and energy, but I don't think that wikipedia is an adequate place for such a project. I'd rather suggest you start your own wiki (there are plenty of free alternatives). ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Anything that keeps this material out of the main talk page (to say nothing of article space) is probably worth it. The argument this is orphaned is specious. Septentrionalis 21:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You argue to keep this because it is unsuitable for the main talk page? With this argument we could keep anything in subpages of talk space. Kusma (討論) 21:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is legitimate and courteous discussion. I believe that the claims being made are nonsense; but they should be considered, even if they are rejected. Keeping it as a subpage is both civil and effective; and this way they need only be rejected once. Septentrionalis 22:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Courteous? I assume you haven't come as far down in the article as Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system where you can find stuff like the following: “The false current U.S.A. billion use is [...] nothing other than a puerile daftness of a former Crown Colony [...] introduced in error by bad French pseudo-savants”. Apart from being original research, the article also infringes the policy WP:NOT, for instance: “Certainly, the future "Hexadecimal Metre Convention" will have a very explicit article on this topic.” ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, partly courteous. As a matter of sheer tactics, do you want to (a) have this material reappearing in the talk page, or (b) lose those diffs should this user be subject to disciplinary proceedings? Septentrionalis 23:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to retain that article. Even though it is linked to from several talkpages, it is not the result of a talk, and all the links to it are more or less like: "I'd recommend you also read this very interesting article." All of them have been posted by User:Paul Martin, except for this one, which is the only contribution ever (in all namespaces) by User:Limping John. There seems to have been no reactions to any of the links to that article. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy but do not delete, whatever you do. --Qu e ntin Smith 07:56, 10 June 2006 (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.