Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jethwarp

 __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  No result. Outside circumstances have rendered this debate obsolete. jorgenev 04:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Jethwarp


The user page is being used primarily as a personal image hosting page. The page currently hosts an extreme 517 images. Many of the images depict nudity and/or images/photos of sexual acts. While I completely understand that Wikipedia is not censored, the policy applies specifically in the realm of useful images. The specific commentary from User pages related to image hosting of nudity states that "Those created by known and respected long-standing contributors, whose aim is clearly more to showcase our work and WP:NOT and that are not designed for self-amusement or for sexual provocation may be kept " On his talk page Jethwarp specifically stated that he was not using them to showcase WP:NOT. In addition, he stated, "I am rather a art and erotic art lover and therefore like to add images which appeals to me." which clearly shows that he is using them for "self-amusement". I would also like to cite "Those which use Wikipedia as personal webspace, are excessively focused upon sexual material, aim at "pushing the edge" on freedom to use userspace, or make a point, rather than project benefit, especially by editors with a lesser record of positive contribution and cases where non-free imagery is a problem, tend to be deleted." I believe this is a good example of pushing the edge. Please note that I understand WP:NOTCENSORED and that I do not think the nude images are the only problem with the page. 517 images on a user page is too many and far exceed the allowed "limited autobiographical and personal content" Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A shortened synopsis of the problems for those of you who want to cite WP:TLDR. Jethwarp hosts 517 images on his user page. Many of those images contain nudity.  Whether or not the nude images remain, the number of images greatly exceed the allowed "limited autobiographical and personal content".  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are any Wiki guidelines about image hosting on my page and the types and numbers of image I may or may not host, please enlighten me on this. I have already deleted some images, which I found bad in taste. But I would certainly like to know about my rights and limitations with regards to image hosting on my user page. I am not a person who would like to do anything against Wikipedia policy. Jethwarp (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read User pages. Specifically the table that talks about what is allowed.  This states that "A small and proportional amount of suitable unrelated material" (emphasis in the original) is allowed.  517 images is neither small nor proportional.  After the major issue of the large quantity of images hosted is addressed, the minor aspect of the nude images can be addressed by reading User pages and the contents of footnote 2.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the images were moved to a subpage of your user page I wouldn't have an issue. I am not positive if others would still call that inappropriate use of a subpage.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank u for en-lighting me on subject. I am a professional photographer and topless-ness and erotic art is a part of my profession and I do not find it as vulgar. As regards to my user page there are also other images of landscapes, birds, animals, monuments, etc. However, after going thru the details  think it is a matter of debate as you have pointed out about number of images and type of nudity allowed on user page. But rather than going into debate, which is open for other Wikipedia community to decide. I as of now have decided to remove all image section.Jethwarp (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep The images have since been removed. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Extremely strong oppose to everything about this. Let me address the two concerns individually,
 * First, that his userpage was 'to long'. We only have that wording which forbids excessive unrelated content to stop users from circumventing WP:N by creating articles on their userpage! Having a library of images is doing no harm, many users have such. Weight the harm of a good content contributor having a slightly longer userpage than normal, none, versus the potential of royally pissing of that good content contributor. Honestly, you deserve a TROUTing for nominating an active editors entire userpage for deletion because you disagreed with one section without even bothering to talk to him about it first. Edit: For making only a token attempt to discuss with him first
 * Second, that the images were objectionable. Well, only a small minority of the images contained nudity. When I first look at the gallery, I was like 'what, these are not sexual'. I had to work to find the images you were talking about. WP:NOTCENSORED, yes that does not mean everything is ok, if an editor has something that is simply designed to shock and is causing problems, it needs to go. But these images were (1) hard to notice (2) very tame and (3) easy to ignore.
 * I strongly advise Jethwarp to reinstate his collection. MFD is entirely out of control and nominations like this are the problem. If something is creating problems or is unused and needs cleaning up, sure delete it, but the meticulous searching out of things that are even slightly unusefull and dragging them before the kangaroo court had got to stop. Score your wiki-points off of writing articles, not hassling those that write them jorgenev 20:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Regardless of the merit or lack thereof of the nomination, the whole point of the nomination has been removed, so there is no reason to delete the page.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 04:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Can someone close the discussion already? There is no point in discussing the issue any further.  All problems have been resolved.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:18, 26 August 2011 (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.