Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Inventor

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 delete all, including the files on en.wikipedia. T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Inventor
This editor (with a bad COI history already) is using his userpage as a MySpace page: he's advertising his latest invention, posting the autobiography he couldn't get into this encyclopedia as an article (in two languages), accusing the Stasi and KGB of suppressing his inventions, etc. This seems to me violative of our standards for userpages. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as blatant advertising. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 19:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has gone well beyond any legitimate use of a user page. This user seems to view Wikipedia only as a way of promoting his inventions. While I wish him every success, he needs to find other ways of achieving it.   Will Beback    talk    20:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and block user -- egregious abuse of Wikipedia as a free webhost by someone who is obviously not here to build the encyclopedia. The following associated images should go too for the same reason (does anyone want to do the deed on Commons?). MER-C 08:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Pipe3.jpg
 * File:Plug1w.jpg
 * File:Plug2w.jpg
 * File:Plug3w.jpg
 * File:Plugtop.jpg
 * File:Wolfhart04.jpg
 * File:Wolfhart11us.JPG
 * File:Wolfhart15.jpg
 * File:Wolfhart17a.jpg
 * File:Wolfhart19.jpg
 * File:Wolfhart21.jpg
 * File:Wolfhart27us.jpg
 * File:Wolfhart29.jpg
 * File:Wolfhart31.jpg
 * File:Wolfhartg2.jpg
 * File:WolfhartInventions.jpg
 * File:Wolfhart.jpg
 * File:Wolfhart pump1.gif - on commons
 * File:Wolfhart pump2.gif - on commons
 * File:Wolfhart pump3.gif - on commons
 * File:Wolfhart rotor pump.gif - on commons
 * File:Wolfhart vane pump1.gif - on commons
 * File:Wwcam3.jpg
 * File:Wwrcam2.jpg - on commons


 * This is a G11 speedy. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia must choose between solving a national oil spill crisis or satisfy the deletion lust of one user.
A user may put in his private user page his hobbies etc. My hobby is to solve a national oil spill crisis and I put a solution in my private user page. I have also some inventions of mine in there – for years and it was decided that nobody may erase a private user page. It is not about my inventions but the solution to stop the BP oil gusher. If you choose deletion you choose also an ongoing oil spill. We will see what the rest of the Americans say, if CNN talks about this. Compromise: As soon the BP oil gusher is sealed I take it out. --Inventor 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)


 * Your userpage is not yours. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I read there: "Simple use as a personal web page is not in itself a speedy deletion criterion, …..unless it consists solely of spam… Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor."

A vandal put his own picture in my user page. I think this is it what everybody finds offensive. An strait admin should do something against vandalism in my user page. What is the solution to stop the BP oil gusher - spam or offensive? --Inventor 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite surprising, given that you've been here for four years, you still can't distinguish between an online encyclopedia and a vanity press. MER-C 02:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is even more surprising you still can't distinguish between some deleting desire and a solution to a national crisis.--Inventor 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete userpage the inability to post your solutions on Wikipedia in no way inhibits your ability to fight the BP oil leak problem. To compare this MfD with "choos[ing] also an ongoing oil spill" is one of the more ludicrous things I have heard in a deletion discussion, and is a fallacy. Strong delete. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete We are not here to right great wrongs with large springy bits. Vanity pages are a bad idea. Plus, my Stasi and KGB handlers ordered me to repress this information. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - coming up with inventions to try and stop the oil spill is great. Using their userpage as a soapbox against the KGB and as a self-promotional article they couldn't push into mainspace? Not so much. A le_Jrb talk  09:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Day 55 of the oil disaster.
BP has still no idea how to stop the oil gusher. Every day is something written in Wikipedia about the oil disaster, but presenting here a solution is strictly forbidden, the author get haunted. Why is this? What has been happen? I posted an article about a solution to stop the oil gusher. It was speedy deleted. Reason: patent infringement Nobody there has explained how an inventor can infringe on himself. I posted another idea. There was also a speedy deletion – without any reason. Than an extra smart user got the idea, we take the same reason as before. And now? Twice has been the deleting users wrong and violated the rules. And this – their logic is like acid - gives them the right to delete his user page – and not to forget – all his contributions to Wikipedia –including commons. You write a new chapter of wikipedia Do your worst. Your story will go around the world like this: Did Wikipedia stop the oil gusher? No – but the lowers of the oil gusher in the middle of the Gulf stopped the idea to stop the oil gusher including the physicist who invented this….--Inventor 12:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)


 * Delete. Get a website: Wikipedia is not a webhost for posting new ideas. Your userspace is to be used in connection with your editing of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, not as a platform for promotion of your own inventions. Whether you are going to save the world or not is totally irrelevant. If the future of this oil spill depends on whether we delete this page or not I truly worry for humanity. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You should be worry for humanity. We are at war against oil and incompetence, negligence etc. (The Titanic sank by the same reason and we are sinking right now! And you all helping sinking in oil.) BP has not only worsen the leak, but has shut down all channels to the outside. What you see on TV is fake. Only a hard boiled physicist like me looks through it. The official site for “proposals” is only a dumpster. Nobody is even looking in it. This disaster will get much worse – and the solution was always there, only ignored and even erased… You make history. If it is too late you will believe me. Look in my website http://galileo.spaceports.com/~wolfhart/oilspill2.htm There are 2 visitors (the rest are my own hits by making it). Only Wikipedia has the power to get to the public and create a public outcry that the responsible people finally must follow the advice from scientists. --Inventor 14:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)
 * Inventor, if you don't stop trumpeting this nonsense I'm going to block you nfor the duration of this MfD. Your arguments contain no logic at all, and I cannot see any reason to assume good faith to this level of denial as to what Wikipedia is for. Would you elbow your way into a dictionary and make these kind of proclamations under the entry for "crude oil" then expect Oxford University to accommodate you? Crusade on your own website. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all, including the images. It's clear that the images are being used only for promotional purposes, so let's WP:IAR and delete them as a result of this discussion.  If my suggestion is taken, or if they're deleted otherwise, please notify me (if I don't remember myself) and I'll nominate the Commons images for deletion as well.  Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all This is definitely not what Wikipedia is for. You say you have your own website, good because it belongs there not here.  I think the soapboxing needs to also stop or the editor should be considered for sanctions.  Personally I've never seen anything like this before.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all including the images, per Nyttend. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Burninate, not appropriate use of user page--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete en:User:Inventor and WP-hosted images - this isn't free hosting, free or cheap hosting is easy enough to obtain and this page is a mis-use way beyond any leeway we might grant by custom. Possibly we should Burninate them, just because it sounds more fun.
 * Note that this does not extend to Commons. Commons policy is different (briefly, anything with an "educational" scope is acceptable) and there are some of these images (swash plate and nutating engines in particular) that would be valued there. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per above, this is not the place. Avic enna sis @ 16:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The user page in itself is marginally against the guidelines, & were he a more constructive editor I'm argue that we simply look the other way. (He has the potential of being a valued one -- anyone else think those animated gifs on that page are impressive?) However, his home page is only one symptom of a general pattern: he can't separate his contributions from his need to advocate for THE TRUTH(tm). Some people are their own worst enemies. -- llywrch (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess I'm reading the guidelines wrong, then. Per Llrwych they seem to be: play nicely and scribble for The Man awhile just to get noticed for nice - then go on and launch your self-regarding soapboxing eco-wank because your form should get such "marginal" contraventions conveniently ignored. And we really wouldn't want to miss out on these future cartoons. Given the general pattern Llywrch mentioned, doesn't that sort of make the "if only he was a valued contributor" defence moot? Or is it timing? Plutonium27 (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (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.