Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apcbg/BG-MK-Policies


 * 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 Keep, no consensus to delete after the removal of copyrighted material Cena rium  Talk  01:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Apcbg/BG-MK-Policies
WP:NOT a free web host. Misuse of user space for hosting a political manifesto, for purposes of nationalist soapboxing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep user has removed the CC 3.0 license and the text with a link to wikiquote. Now it looks like a collection of links for some purpose, but since it's a established editor I would just leave it alone unless someone can point if it serves some inadequeate purpose. Delete It's even licensed under a CC license, when the license of all text on all pages must be licensed to at least GFDL! --Enric Naval (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion's fine with me, but I have to point out to you that the CC license cited is compatible with the GFDL. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to CC themselves "to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility" . CC, on it's explanation for version 3.0 also says "Wikipedia, for example, is licensed under the FDL. It requires derivatives be licensed under the FDL only" and explains how they are trying ot achieve compatibility with other free licenses with version 3.0 "Although it has not been possible to date to agree with other license stewards on the exact details necessary to make licenses that are equivalent to a specific CC license compatible yet, Creative Commons remains hopeful that it will be possible at a date in the future" . Also, every edit page on wikipedia says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL" and includes a footnote to the exact version that they must be licensed to, and also says "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." --Enric Naval (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyways this point is moot now, since the user has removed both the licence and the text from the page. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to break it to you, but.. Category:Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 images. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, never mind that, images are considered a different matter. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I see two major things that warrant the deletion of this page. First of all, this violated both WP:NOT and WP:USER. It is in violation of WP:NOT because WP:NOT states that wikipedia is not a webhost, and it also says the userspace is meant to help make your work on wikipedia easier. "Many of the content restrictions listed above apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion." Its in violation of WP:USER because WP:USER states that the userspace is for anything that is compatible with wikipedia, and its main purpose is to be a tool to help you in your work here, but it can also have some information about yourself. "Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage as Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, nor social networking site. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working." The fact that this is in clear violation of a couple of policies/guidelines is enough of a reason to delete this, but it is not the only reason. The text found on this page in Apcbgs' userspace is realeased under a CC license, and as Enric Naval said "the license of all text on all pages[of wikipedia] must be licensed to at least GFDL!"--SJP (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Same as above to Enric, we can use CC 3.0 sources. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * answered above --Enric Naval (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, point out the inappropriateness of the content to the user, and ask him to remove it himself. Bring it here only if that fails.  From WP:UP "The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so."  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's a user sub-page, created for no other purpose than hosting this text. What would remain of the page if he edited the text away? Deletion is the only reasonable option. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable for editors to manage their own affairs. Without the request of the user, we don't delete old stuff in userspace without good reason.  The user may, one day, have a reason to reveiw his old stuff.  Leave it to him.  The issue of server space is so insignificant that it is not worth thinking about, and it gets kept anyway.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Text and offending license were removed by creator of page, only a collection of links and a book cover are left for now. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:29, 23 June 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.