Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hadseys/Communicating/Talk Page


 * 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 Mixed: Keep User:Hadseys/Communicating as this page has no copied content and the user may well wish to turn this into a page of links to the actual instructions in project/help space. The reason for the nomination of this particular page is not at all evident and the user was not notified. Delete User:Hadseys/Communicating/Talk Page, User:Hadseys/Communicating/Edit summary, User:Hadseys/Communicating/Edit conflict, User:Hadseys/Communicating/Minor edit, as verbatim copies of project space/help space pages. There is no indication that these pages are here as sandboxes but rather as personal help pages. Although the concept makes some initial sense and it appears to be in good faith, once one understands wikilinks there is no purpose to full copies used in this manner and it is a highly inefficient use of space, furthermore it could result in the old versions being relied on by users searching via Google, etc. Reproducing project pages in user space is generally not allowed per the guideline User page: pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages.. Additionally, although likely trivial when applied to a project/help page, these technically violate GFDL (the source of the material was not noted in the edit summary, although readily apparent to all experienced users). N.B. - Nominators should ensure that they notify the user of nominations of a userpage, not all users know to watchlist every page in their userspace. This user was never notified of either the this discussion or the earlier PROD. This is BITEY and sloppy and this particular admin always considers lack of notification in favor of the aggrieved party. Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Hadseys/Communicating/Talk Page
Verbatim copy of Talk page made, for no apparent reason, back in March, and never again touched by its creator. Was PRODded, but rejected by User:Ned Scott, with no reason given other than his personal belief that WP:PROD policy should be changed to not cover pages in userspace. --Stormie (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Added to nomination:
 * User:Hadseys/Communicating
 * User:Hadseys/Communicating/Edit summary
 * User:Hadseys/Communicating/Edit conflict
 * User:Hadseys/Communicating/Minor edit
 * All the same sort of thing, copies made of Wikipedia pages for no apparent reason. --Stormie (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong and speedy delete - No need for duplicate pages.   Asenine   13:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The original prod provided a perfectly good reason for deletion. Incidentally, is there any chance of adding User:Hadseys/Communicating and the three other pages linked in it with this nomination? All of the pages are copies of various help pages. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep User was active as recent as July, and none of these pages seem problematic. We don't have idle timers on sandboxes, including ones for user guidelines and policies. What's next, is someone going to go and try to delete my copies of WP:FICT that I have on User:Ned Scott/FICT? -- Ned Scott 00:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These are not "sandboxes", they are byte-for-byte identical copies of those policy pages as at March 16 this year (I have verified this). And as you can see here their existence has already required maintenance work. --Stormie (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mine are also bite-for-byte copies. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One could simply keep links to the desired version of the page (e.g. version as of 1 June 2008, version as of 1 July 2008, etc.). Given the fact that the contributions history is not preserved, I wonder how this sits with the GFDL. Technically, it's essentially the same as forking content out of an article... –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * GFDL compliance is as easy as a link on the talk page. Content forking for articles is a WP:NPOV issue and doesn't apply here. -- Ned Scott 03:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer: I meant that in terms of GFDL compliance, it's essentially the same as moving content from one article to another, or using content from one article to create another; so, you're right in that GFDL compliance can be achieved through edit summaries or talk page notices. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Total duplicate not worth keeping.  MBisanz  talk 03:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How is that a rationale for deletion? It's no better than "I don't like it". Why is it not worth keeping? How is it being problematic? Do we not let active users manage their own subpages? -- Ned Scott 03:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was an exact duplicate of a project page that was messing up the category system, if the user was around and working on it, it might be worth keeping, otherwise it should go.  MBisanz  talk 13:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The category issue has been fixed (a very easy fix at that). The user was active as recent as July. Those of us who edit daily are actually in the minority as far as normal activity goes for most accounts. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I'm not finding a particular use for these pages in userspace, so why are they even there? Ned, you're putting up a fight with no clear grounds for retaining. Duplicates are normally deleted, and I see no reason to change that perspective at this time.  Syn  ergy 10:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I find impulsive "cleanup deletions" for subpages of semi-active users to be a waste of time, as well as being rude to the user in question. It's likely that Hadseys doesn't mind, and if he were active he would say something like "sure, go ahead", but we don't know that. When ever I come across an MFD for a user page I first ask myself two things, one is the page disruptive/not Wikipedia-related and two, is the user active. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. At worst blank.  Users should be given wide latitude in their userspace.  Concerns about cost of storage have long since been debunked.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 15 August 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.