Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jason E Ramsey


 * 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 Delete - This is not as close as it first appears by the arguments, policy gives its weight clearly to deletion.


 * First, this user has only edited his userpage and the previously deleted User:Jaredland - except for a single post here. This fact alone does not decide the issue, new editors may have userpages, userpages are expected to talk about the user, and the position that userpages are only for editors is not founded in policy or the history of the successful arguments on this page: Users may have accounts, users may have userpages, editing is not a prerequisite.  It is apparent that this user is active in that he logs in frequently enough to have noticed this debate.  However, in a close call, the active editor who contributes non-COI article and projectspace edits will be allowed substantial leeway in userpage content.


 * Second, this user's userpage reads like an article, although the user has tagged it with userpage, it reads so much like an article that it is remains deceptive.


 * Third, this user's userpage has more external links than internal links, a good indicator of the purpose of the page. This page tells us far more about the user's business ventures and relationships than about his editing habits, his interests, his conflicts of interests (except by example).

Between the second and third points above, this page would be borderline if kept by an established user and if it would pass - and I'm not confident of that - it would probably only be because we would give the established user so much more leeway.

Although we assume good faith and do not suggest that the editor intended the page to be an advertisement or to present itself as a personal webpage, it has in fact done so. The editor has demonstrated his good faith in commenting here in a manner respectful of other editors and of this process; however, the page does not stand up to WP:NOT and must be deleted. The user will hopefully learn from this process and work to create a userpage that is beneficial to the project.

(N.B. the user added additional comments after the page was tagged with closing, these were not considered because they weren't discovered until an edit conflict during closing)Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jason E Ramsey
Like User:Jarredland, a violation of WP:USER. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: While my personal opinion is that this is not acceptable Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman showed a consensus that this sort of user page is allowable. I know one is not supposed to use other discussions as examples but in this case the discussion was about What may I not have on my user page? so it is relevant. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2008
 * Delete. Unlike Johnbuckman, Jason E Ramsey's only contributions have been to the user namespace. User pages are for those who contribute to the encyclopedia. WODUP  06:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A certain amount of self-promotion on a userpage is acceptable if the user is here primarily to contribute. This user isn't. _ Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Special:Contributions/Johnbuckman shows the only work the Editor did on Wikipedia was to his own articles or articles on his authors/friends showing the editor to be a SPA making COI edits. There is not any indication that if the only work has been done to a userpage in a set time frame than an editor is not allowed to create a user page that talks about their personal achievements. Likewise there is no indication that an editor who either makes COI edits or is a SPA can not create a userpage page about their selves. Please take a closer look at both pages and you will see almost zero difference in the content except that Buckman's userpage has links to WP articles about himself and his companies and was first created on August 24, 2007 as a redirect to his Wikipedia article page and than, on June 13, 2008, created his "1st pass at my bio page" while Ramseys userpage says it will have links to WP articles and was created on October 12, 2008. So why not voice a "keep" and revisit this in a year to see what changes have been made? Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I apologize. But, I am only getting started. I thought of this page as my bio page. Details on me, so anyone who wants to can know who is making contributions to articles, etc. Additionally, I also am using my user page as a way to learn how to use the various wiki functions before getting heavily involved, while reading what I can to learn the ropes. I view this as my "personal profile", so to speak. Details on me (I'm not hiding or editing things anonymously like some folks) and a place to practice using wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason E Ramsey (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * keep a user should be allowed to write about themselves if they want to, it is not on the same scale as an advertisement or promotion in this case Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok... this is just getting ridiculous.. A person who wishes to provide information about himself, so he is not just some anonymous editor, randomly going about editing other people's articles or (in this case) user pages under a false name, with no real credentials provided, etc... This was the intent. In fact, the only thing I am reading is that (in general) other users should leave people's user pages alone. Yet, I see that my bosses page User:Jarredland, which I helped to create... someone who is very well-versed in camera technology and cinema and would very likely have made great contributions to articles of that type was first hacked to pieces so that the information presented was no longer even accurate (how helpful), and then deleted... It's a bio. It's information about a user so folks can know who is editing/writing articles if they wish to. It was not a commercial, it was not a myspace as some people stated. It was a bio. It seems many people here are more concerned about debating meaningless things and puffing up, rather than balanced, and meaningful attempts to build a valuable information database. As such. Delete my page. I no longer have desire to contribute here. Thank you kindly. With respect, this is just ridiculous. The guidelines here have become so cloudy, the only people who will soon benefit from wiki before long will be those who wish to debate and flex. Additionally, attempting to distinguish arguments based on contribution history is somewhat irrelevant when the user who was the topic of discussion had only been a member for about 3 weeks at the time. Are we expected to join up and immediately start hacking stuff to pieces, or is it not acceptable to have a life that we must live off of wiki, and is it not acceptable that we may wish to learn the ropes of wiki before going and hacking sites to pieces? I think that the decision to delete Jarred's user page was petty, and a waste of time and resources, and not what I envisioned this place being used for. As such it also has served to drive away a potentially very useful future contributor of wiki (I'm speaking of him, not myself) Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason E Ramsey (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 November 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.