Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:C.m.jones/Wikipedia:I bid you adieu


 * 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 Time to clean up extended. I don't feel that this counts as a "well-written essay" (looks like a longwinded rant), but regardless, it dosen't seem that too much care has gone into this piece. Let's compromise: those folks who really wish to see it retained, take one week to clean it up a bit (sections, links, emphases, tone, etc.). If, however, no one bothers, the page will be deleted. El_C 11:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm more-or-less satisfiedwith the cleaning efforts, now it's a bit more readable. It is unfortunate that some people treat policy as an end in itself rather as an instrument to an end. Those who did provide help are thanked. The amended result of the debate was page kept. El_C 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:C.m.jones/Wikipedia:I bid you adieu
Personal "essay", a story about why the user would rather use non-free images of living persons. User is an indef-blocked sock puppet.  JohnnyMrNinja  08:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Personal ramblings of a sock puppet. No use in keeping around. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per TenPoundHammer. DigitalC (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Better than "personal ramblings," this is a well-written essay that explains the frustration of many editors with our fair-use policy. It's helpful in reminding us old hands that there are many people who begin editing who don't understand the GFDL, who don't understand "free as in freedom," who don't understand that their contributions can be used in for-profit derivative works, and thus who don't understand why Wikipedia can't follow "educational" standards of fair use. If he weren't indef-blocked for alleged sockpuppetry, there would be no question of deleting this essay. -- Groggy Dice T | C 12:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per TenPoundHammer. Garion96 (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia-related essay. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to remove Wikipedia: from the page name essentially per Groggy Dice. Our rationale for deleting talk or user pages of indef banned users (sockpuppets and others) is based on two tenets - a) do not provide a platform for (or recognition for) disruption, and b) often no need to maintain detailed records of a communication channel with users who are no longer part of the community. We do not go and delete their reasonable contributions to the mainspace or their past contributions to discourse on policy, only sometimes reverting their future contributions if they avoid their ban and no-one who is not banned is willing to take responsibility for those edits. This is a perfectly reasonable essay on a topic of some importance. It is one person's essay and so it is correctly housed in user space. There is no compelling reason to delete it. Martinp (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Martinp puts it very well. — xDanielx  T/C\R 06:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, per Groggy Dice. Although, this appears to be fake. I checked the contribs of this sockpuppet, and the puppeteer, and this does not appear to have happened. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 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.