Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present


 * 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 uhhh...no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present
The page is a rant, full of an awful lot of attacks against George W. Bush, and unrelated to the encyclopedia. We can be liberal with what goes on userpages, but I think this is over the line. The page even comes with a nice template warning that people might want to censor it by bringing it to MFD, and I think that is about as immature as those who create pages like "OMFG Stop deleting this page!!!!". Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, clear abusive actions inlight of the purpose of the encyclopedia. I welcome user's to their viewpoints, but in the creation of an encyclopedia (wether in the mainspace or not), this is an commmunity where we leave or viewpoints at the door. This has nothing to do with the well-being of the site and must go. -ZeroTalk 13:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where exactly we should draw the line. In my opinion Sjakkalle's chess game, for example, is fine on his main userpage. But if he were to make a separate subpage containing only a collection of his chess games with no attempt to link the content to Wikipedia then, well, I suppose someone might be justified in objecting to that. Likewise I don't think a shortened version of GoW's musings on his main userpage would be that objectionable. But subpages in userspace with no apparent relation to editing Wikipedia should be avoided, so I suppose this one might as well go. And of course that has nothing to do with censoring a particular political view. Haukur 13:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOT your blog. android  79  14:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Check out http://www.blogger.com for a great place to host your personal essays. --Deathphoenix 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment – Has anybody actually tried reading the thing? It's a copy/paste of the text of the United States Declaration on Independence, plus a devisive heading and pictures, and a few (exactly four) comments. Right or wrong, this is not quite a rant. – ClockworkSoul 15:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read it. However, I note that this article still lacks veritifible fact for its exsistance. -ZeroTalk 15:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero, it isn't an article. Xoloz 17:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was, we'd have an serious problem indeed. -ZeroTalk 18:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it is an annotated US Declaration of Independence? Thanks for pointing it out. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm? – ClockworkSoul 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not sarcasm. I have seen the declaration before, but I didn't recognize it. (The declaration is not required reading in Norway.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. :) It's actually quite a beautifully written document (in its original form). – ClockworkSoul 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I make no judgement as to whether this page is too devisive to transcend the tolerance normally afforded to user space materials. I was just a bit surprised that nobody recognized its source. – ClockworkSoul 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I recognized it. Applying the statements made in the DoI to GWB is not an original thing; I thought it was too obvious to point out... android  79  15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. My mistake then. – ClockworkSoul 15:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't recognise it as the Declaration of Independence (not being from the US), but while the text isn't his personal essay, I think his personally-assigned titled certainly isn't that good. I still think that blogger.com is a better host for such commentary than a Wikipedia userspace. :-) --Deathphoenix 17:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (WP:NOT and WP:NPOV). This hasnothing to do with 'divisiveness' - or any wish to censor GofW's views, it is simply that we are NOT a webhost for personal essays unrelated to wikipedia. Arguably, declaring your POV on a userpage might be good for the project (bias declared is bias avoided and all that stuff) but there is no way that developing an expanded argument for your POV can be justified under that contention. At that point we have crossed the line from allowing people to declare their POV, to allowing them to push and advocate it. --Doc ask?  16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm quite amused at seeing how some people call the U.S. Declaration of independence "a rant, full of an awful lot of attacks", or a "personal essay" or "lacks in justifiable facts for its existence". Well, that's possibly how King George III would have called it in 1776.  I'm leaving to people wiser than me to decide if a Wikipedia user should be allowed to keep a personal copy of this incredibly subversive historical document on their userpage or if it should be censored.  Note that the user has replaced exactly two words (which he clearly indicated in bold): "King (of) Great-Britain" by "President (of the) U.S.".  I'm not sure that I see how "a shortened version of (the Founding Fathers') musings" could retain the original flavor. Asclepias 17:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no need for a separate copy in his user space, since the text is available here, among other places. android  79  17:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But there is no harm in a second copy, either. God of War is a regular contributor; if he wants to add a few words to a public domain document to make a {rather unsophisticated) political statement, it does no harm.  Fact is, the original content on this page is tiny.  Considering the sort of rants one might embark on, this is tame, if not commendable.  The page says almost nothing new. Xoloz 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a thumbnail image of the Canadian flag on my userpage. I'm sure some people can interpret it as a political statement (even if I don't), and it certainly is available in other places.  So, it would seem that my userpage meets both your criteria for deletion.  God of War's page seems an example of a page where the message is in the eye of the beholder.  My reading of it is: "1- this user thinks that userpages are too easily deleted, and 2- this user is of the opinion that the actions of the president diverge from the traditional values of the U.S.".  I'm just wondering where a userpage leaves the realm of the politically acceptable and enters that of the unacceptable. Asclepias 19:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a rant, but an odd (and very slight) rewording of the US Declaration of Independence, as pointed out. Minimal original content, really; if he wants it as a plaything, no harm done. Xoloz 17:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an playground, nor is it an area for the eximplification of free speech. This document is the wikipedian equivilent to smearing dirt on the walls, and it muddies the waters of maintaining an WP:NPOV. -ZeroTalk 18:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia gives latitude to its established editors in expressing their views as a matter of courtesy; Wikipedia has better things to do than bother with stamping out this miminalistic effort at protest speech. Further, allowing editors firmly to express their biases aids NPOV, rather than harming it. Xoloz 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I disagree. This mfd discussion is an perfect example of wikipedia stamping out imflammtory content such as these. -ZeroTalk 18:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you grossly overestimate the extent to which this is inflammatory. Imagine I were to take the Declaration and amend to it the prefacing sentence, "Winnie the Pooh is my father."  That is the functional equivalent of this thing.  Granted, Bush is a more hated figure; but, his insertion is, if anything, a less original choice.  This userpage is a toy, and like our scratchpads, our talk-page banter, and WP:Games, it does no harm, except when some decide to give it undeserved attention by MfD'ing it.  Policing userspace for minor eccentricities is a very bad idea. Xoloz 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have to agree to disagree with you there. Its also of note that I didn't nominate this userspace document for deletion in the first place. If wikipedia is an place where user's devulge from the goal of creating the encyclopedia to voice views and opinions, with justification under the entitlement of free speech and playthings, then its not an good sign. We attempt to construct oursleves and the quality of the site as professional and as NPOV as possible. Userspace is only an means to an end in that it improves the main goal. It is nethier an entititlement nor an privilage, and should be treated as such.-ZeroTalk 18:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, Has anyone here actually tried reading it? It's not a rant and it's not an essay.


 * KeepIt's only a copy/paste of the declaration of independence with a few factual statements with news stories referenced under each line of the declaration. I was going to get to it eventually but until then I moved it out of my main page and into a sub-page.--God of War 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's only a copy/paste of the declaration of independence with news stories referenced under each line of the declaration.... Bullcrap. It's a political statement -- a not very sophisticated political statement, at that -- that uses the Declaration of Independence as its vehicle: to state otherwise is being disingenuous. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on this statement? When you got around to finishing it, what plans did you have for it?    InkSplotch(talk) 21:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOT free webhosting. Furthermore, we already have an article on Declaration of Independence (United States) - if God of War actually has an encyclopaedic purpose with this, he should go to that page. We also already have United States Declaration of Independence, there's no reason to duplicate this. --bainer (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hate to feed this, but this is clearly not what wikipedia is for. - Taxman Talk 10:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Xoloz. --Ghirla | talk 14:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep – Firstly, it's hardly a "rant". Second, it's in his user directory, so let's cut him some slack. – ClockworkSoul 15:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's specifically against what Wikipedia is for. What value of having the essay and other things like it and the costs of editing and servers, etc to support that is important enough to make the exception? I really don't mean to sound combative but I fail to understand why people think we should keep material like this when there are plenty of other outlets for stuff like it and it doesn't help accomplish any project goals. If there were no other avenues I might understand. - Taxman Talk 18:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, Taxman -- I have a slinky in my desk. It doesn't contribute to my work, except insofar as it allevates my boredom to remove it from my desk and twiddle with it from time to time. Jean Baudrillard talks about this sort of structural allowance within any organization.  It optimizing performance to let people do tiny, fun things, no matter how serious we are.  Now, this page isn't worth much, because it isn't orginal, but -- if it makes a regular contributor a bit happier to work him, he should be allowed to keep his slinky. Xoloz 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I must ammend your thesis in this statement. It's understandable to allow the aquisition of the slinky because he's confined to an desk/cubicle/the like. It could be argued there's somewhat of an space defencientcy in regards to where he can place it. However, there are many other places GOW could place this composition. Make an document in Microsoft Word. Place it on an blog. Send it in e-mail to his friends. Countless possibilities. But it doesn't belong here. And it must go. Its really simple; encyclopedias are not the area for biased points of views, especially when they deverge away from the main goal and lack any type of contructive uses for an mainstream audience. -ZeroTalk 21:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. It's really easy to open up another tab with myspace/whatever open in it. We had plenty of fun here before userboxes and pov essays were all the rage and we'll have lots of fun when we don't have them. - Taxman Talk 21:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The slinky can go on your desk because it is your desk, to do with as you see fit. Userspace, however, belongs to the community. --bainer (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When I finish with this it will be removed. Until then, Why is it such a big damn deal?--God of War 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that big a deal. It's just not what we're here for, so it might as well be deleted. - Taxman Talk 14:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to know what it will be when it's 'finished'. Assuming all possible good faith, I can't figure out what purpose this has on Wikipedia. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Blogspot is free: go there. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete and be all anti-good faith by warning the user for pushing WP:POINT. I like abusing my user area, but its obvious this user (without even checking who they are) doesn't fit in with the Wiki way. Esteffect 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. What Calton said. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not as offensive, but as dull and unoriginal. It's merely a carbon copy of the DoI with two added assertations copied verbatim from other sources. You can do better than that. — Feb. 22, '06 [01:02] 
 * Delete, outside scope of project. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Coolgamer 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A bold vote from a user that boasts an extravagent 94 userboxes implemented on his userpage. -ZeroTalk 20:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop with the Ad-Hominem attacks Zero. I may lose the debate to keep this on a sub-page but then I will simply move it back to my main userpage. This MFD accomplishes nothing.--God of War 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, so instead of letting the whole thing go, listening to the spirit of what people are trying to tell you, and working for the betterment of the project, you choose otherwise. If you wanted to do that why waste everyone's time? Please rethink your path and what we're here for. - Taxman Talk 03:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've contributed plenty to the project. I have hardly edited this one stupid page. Time started being wasted when someone got offended for some reason that has nothing do with anything.--God of War 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Be serious, God of War. Are you falsely accusing me of acting in a vindictive manner? Are you falsely accusing a person whom you have not name of abusing the comments and observations with which I have noted?


 * And, since you seem to suspect that I am engaging upon an personal vendetta, would you care to come clean about the purpose of this userpace product? You obviously know something about the matter; I can only report my suspicion that you know the concensus for its creation, and ask for you to cooperate in identifying that very reason. -ZeroTalk 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-encyclopaedic content. If it's moved, it should fall under a CSD that permits re-blanking it (no sense in actually deleting the userpage for WP:POINT. God of War knows better than this, but would rather rules-lawyer. -- nae'blis (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's the US Constitution - hardly a rant, hardly unrelated to the encyclopedia (arguably, the constitution is a document that has influenced many countries, legal structures, etc...and the current disagreements over concepts are related to some of the laws described in the Constitution, such as right to free speech, free assembly, etc...). I'd feel more comfortable if there was a link to the Constitutional page, with his commentary, though. But perhaps most of you do not realize that the Constitution is one document commonly bound closely with printed encyclopedias, as a major appendix for example? Agreed that it is quite beautifully written. As Clockwork pointed out, it is surprising how many apparently did not recognize it (considering its influence in France and arguably on the revolutions of 1848, I would think Europeans would also be familiar with some of the text). Noirdame 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, no. It's the Declaration of Independence. android  79  14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, Android. That will teach me not to comment late at night. But it wouldn't bother you, eh, Androids need no sleep! (grin) Noirdame 22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's his userspace. Let him do what he wants with it. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing is revenge for his userbox stance. -- D -Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 12:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're half right. I'd say it's symptomatic of the ownership-attitude that pervaded the pro-userbox stance, that he should be able to do "whatever he wants" with his userpage and subpages. By the way, you deleted several comments/votes when you added this, I've added them back. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize I deleted those comments. Sorry. -- D -Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 20:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, it looked like a simple mousing error. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You refer to such a view as "symptomatic" as though it were a disease. Without knowing you, I would read this as this as implying a strong bias on your part. Maybe I'm just naive, but I still think that the two camps just simply, you know, disagree. In my experience, rational people can compromise. Irrational people dig trenches and hurl venom and stones at one another. – ClockworkSoul 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I also believe that rational discussion between rational people would be better. However for several months now I've watched (more fool I) as this place tears itself apart (in small and deep ways) over this userbox issue. Somehow we managed for years without thousands of userboxes advertising everything, or at least I am led to understand that this was so by the database analysis I've seen. No compromise seemed to be possible, as a very small but determined batch of pro-userbox advocates blocked TFD and overturned in DRV even egregiously off-topic userboxes. Likewise, a small but determined batch of anti-userbox admins started deleting them wholesale back in December, were stopped, and have recently started again with greater support from Jimbo. I'm not sure that they all need to go, but the collateral damage here has been phenomenal. Have you seen the statistics on the actual number of creators, and users, of many of these boxes? -- nae'blis (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the numbers, and I'm not sure that I want to. Userboxs/no userboxs, Evolution/Creationism/ID, Bush/Kerry: let them waste their time and energy in their little trenches while we continue in spite of them. I'm here (on Wikipedia) to help to build an encyclopedia, and not to join or advocate for anything besides what I think is immediately right. I've learned through hard experience is that when people join a faction, they tend to leave their common sense at the door, and I'm very happy leaving my senses right where they are. I'm at MfD to discuss whether a page should be deleted, not to debate the relative worthiness of userboxen, and most certainly not to let any such debate color my opinions. That being said, can't we all just get along? :) – ClockworkSoul 02:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless God of War can tell me why a free web hosting service wouldn't be just as good of a home for this text. Userpages are a little place for us to put content. People shouldn't abuse the privelage that userpages represent. It is a tiny space for you to use as you like, not a host for your opinions and such. Any use of userpages should help promote the project in some way, whether by creating a community and a good atmosphere, offering help or tips or byserving as a scratchpad for the user's wikipedia activities, this does none of those things. BrokenSegue 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep there must be better things to delete then someones user page. Gerard Foley 22:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete userspace is still just on "loan"...it doesn't "belong" to a perspective editor and this is not a soapbox.--MONGO 09:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see what the hubub is about. No more offensive than TDC's userpage. Give it a rest, boo-hoo brigade. --Dragon695 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a blog.--Jersey Devil 09:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Personally I couldn't care less. Ashibaka tock 14:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A bit goofy, but it's not hurting anything. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be within the limits of userspace. Besides, it's apparently designed to be temporary, so when God of War finishes with whatever he is doing here, he'll nominate it for speedy-dee (at least, that's what I'm reading of his statements). --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. We're not a hosting service, nor a platform for advocacy. More to the point, the juxtaposition of present events with a two-hundred year old is a particularly unclever anachronism which destroys the value of the original text by detaching it from its context. This could never be of use to the encyclopedia in any fashion. Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Never hurt anyone to have a few personal notes in one's own userspace. And contrary to what Mackensen thinks, I think it rather clever and was astonished at how well the document fits the present times... &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no reason not to allow regular editors a small amount of space for personal material. If this is kept, I'll donate 25 cents to Wikimedia to cover the extra hosting and storage expenses for this and hundreds of other user subpages. —Guanaco 02:07, 5 March 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.