Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus




 * 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  Keep --Xavexgoem (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus

 * Previous discussion:Wikipedia_talk:User_page/Archive_5

Per WP:UP, user pages are not meant to be personal blogs that contain ''Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason. Additionally, the user also states "I see others have a user page that shows information about them. I'm not into that sort of thing.''" -- GraYoshi2x► talk 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This page contains numerous sections which all seem to be properly concerned with Wikipedia matters. The editorialising is reasonably restrained and comparable with User:Jimbo Wales, say, which likewise has things to say about elites, vandals and the like.  There is no problem requiring deletion here. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's page is not extensively about the subject, just a few points that I'm sure would be acceptable on any user page. A 127KB-long blog-like page that criticizes Wiki-philosophies, however, is not.  GraYoshi2x► talk 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 127K is somewhat large but the answer to that is some pruning or the creation of subpages per WP:SPLIT. Deletion of all this material would be excessive and improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This page is very much about Wikipedia, and tells us a lot about the user. viz previous discussion here  pablo hablo. 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep if I'm allowed to have a say in it of course. He posted on my talk page, then scratched out some of that, then came up with something else. And why would my comment made when I first came to Wikipedia about not having information about me personally, matter? As I explained on my talk page, I don't post pictures of my cats or myself, mention personal information about myself, or other things I see on other user pages(years ago far more often than they are now). Most of the conversation has happened at my talk page . Post to a specific part you believe has violated a rule, please, and we'll discuss it here.  D r e a m Focus  18:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:UP: pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project - I'm not so sure about that. Sections like User:Dream Focus have absolutely nothing to do with your contributions or Wikipedia.  GraYoshi2x► talk 18:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you go to licorice you will find it forward it to the liquorice, which Webster dictionary defines as a "chiefly British variant of licorice". Since there are more English speaking Americans than the total population of all other English speaking countries combined, then why not use the proper American spelling? Dream Focus (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC) How is it wrong for me to mention that I believe the spelling used by the majority of English speaking people, should be used on Wikipedia?  D r e a m Focus  18:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That section reads:
 * It's wrong because you ignore English speakers in India. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't say anything about it specifically regarding a Wikipedia article.  GraYoshi2x► talk 18:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I mentioned and linked to a specific article. But that isn't required, as long as you are talking about Wikipedia matters, anything is acceptable.   D r e a m Focus  18:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That this user is an advocate of American spelling is exactly the sort of information which is expected and appropriate for a user page as it provides useful background which informs our understanding of his editing and contributions to discussions. I prefer English spelling myself but so it goes.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

While I may not always agree with User:Dream Focus or how he does things (and certainly don't agree with his assessment of me as a deletionist for working on merging articles that were little more than substubs), having watched this discussion take place, it seems to me this is more of a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nom than anything else. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I find absolutely nothing wrong with the way User:Dream Focus is using his userpage. In fact, I find it much more purposeful and relevant to Wikipedia than the typical userpage full of bright colours, DEFCON warnings, piles of userboxes, and pretty pictures.
 * Keep. Cannot see the basis of the nom's complaint.  Perhaps the nom could detail the offending comments?  Or would that be completely counter-productive to his concerns?  Perhaps the nom should email his personal concerns to the user, and tell of if this goes nowhere.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete The user page describes other editors as "unreasonable", "vicious", "snobby", and "elitist. Those kinds of attacks are not needed here. AniMate   draw  00:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to complain about the content, not certain words you don't like. We already had this discussion here:  I just Googled all wikipedia user pages for the word "elitist".  You just enter in site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User and then "elitist" or whatever word you might find offensive to see how many people use it.  The first result is someone who calls himself an elitist, having a tag made for it, with a picture of a human brain and a link to the Wikipedia page for elitism.  The next is someone who made a nice speech about how the elitist are ruining Wikipedia.  Going to nominate him as well? 182 results there.  I search for the word deletionist which was mentioned as offensive on my talk page, and found someone protesting how people like that act as well.   Anyway, state exactly what you are bothered with, what section(like the nominator of this did above, he upset by the spelling thing) and we'll discuss it.  I don't think we're going to go rampaging around every user and talk page there is, threatening deletion of anyone who uses certain words you don't like.   D r e a m Focus  00:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a rule against using your page to state your opinion on real world politics?  It seems odd one of the two deletes here, is from a guy who violates that policy.  Doesn't bother me at all though, just thinking its kind of ironic.   D r e a m Focus  21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Urge User:Dream Focus to remove such things asap. He has a lot of good stuff on the page, and the few personal attacks could justify the deletion of the lot.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have. He won't. AniMate   draw  00:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I meant "I urge User:Dream Focus here and now to remove such things asap." Would you consider this to be a start?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't edit someone's user page like that! And the behavior I complain about is defined by the words snob and elitist, so removing them makes no sense at all.   D r e a m Focus  00:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone else perceives a personal attack, then there is problem. If emotive words are important to your message, then reference others' use of them.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What? How do you reference others' use of them?  I don't understand.  As for some people taking it personally when I complain about those who delete things that weren't hurting anyone, well, some people would be just as offended if you stated you ate meat, or were of a different religion than them.  Some consider it a personal attack to state this even, taking things way too personally.  People still have user tags that state this though, and much more.  Wikipedia does not censor every single thing people might be offended by.  I broke no rules, and did no wrong.   D r e a m Focus  01:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see SmokeyJoe's talk page, where he discusses editor behaviour using words such as troll and kook. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think context is everything. What I'm seeing is more akin to Don't be a dick than something meant to attack or single out a particular editor. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's it. I never targeted anyone specifically, just stated things I felt were wrong.   D r e a m Focus  00:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've not already seen it, Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-28/Opinion essay might be also worth linking. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Nicely done.  I added it to my user page under "interesting stuff".  D r e a m Focus  01:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep no one is specifically attacked - and the "attacks" themselves don't seem that reprehensible - on the page and almost all of it relates to Wikipedia in some way. Personally I disagree with most of the content and think a lot of it shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia practise and policy but that isn't really relevant. If the page gets much larger it might be worth splitting it so that those users with slower connections don't have trouble loading it. Guest9999 (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I would gleefully vote to banish the user his/herself, the page can stay. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is not a deletion issue. Polargeo (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - any individual who feels defamed can engage in the usual process for requesting speedy edits exactly the same as if they were defamed on any other article on Wikipedia. Otherwise the page is unarguably focused on Wikipedia and forms a valuable insight into the user's positions, policies and logic. Vocally (and occasionally offensively) disagreeing with policies is not the same as violating them.  Passionate Wikipedians are what makes the project work. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It actually has useful information and thoughts on it.--Milowent (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the page contains some passages with sarcasm and insulting language, as far as I can tell (it's a long page and I didn't read every line), it is not directed at any named individuals and doesn't contain any content that is specifically called out as never acceptable in WP:NPA. Users are certainly entitled to express their opinions about Wikipedia policies and practices, which is what this page does. --RL0919 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep if there is an issue here then it is one that should not be dealt with via deletion. -- Ned Scott 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Substantially all the content on this page deals with Wikipedia and Wikimedia project issues. While I disagree with many of the opinions on this page, I support the user's being allowed to express them on their user page. Furthermore, the characterizations on this page such as "unreasonable", "vicious", "snobby", and "elitist" are not directed at specific editors. While I would encourage the editor to archive parts of this page to reduce its size, that is their decision to make, and I see no reason for this page to be nominated for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as he makes many spot on points and is not using it to attack any specific editor, rather it is more general a la something like this comic. Yes, the userpage is a bit cumbersome and could perhaps be organized more coherently and maybe more concise, but as with most of my colleagues above, he seems to be engaging in honest discourse (good faith and honest criticism is a good thing after all) without making attacks against any particular editors.  In the not too distant past I argued for deleting a page that listed specific editors as some kind of "league of deletionists" and as such do not endorse actual attack pages made in userspace, but that does not seem to be the case here.  So, keep with the encouragement to maybe better organize and make it more concise, but that is just my suggestion that Dream Focus does not have to follow.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per proper (albeit lengthy) use of userspace. We're all here together. The key words are community and tolerance.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:30, 27 October 2009 (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.