Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucien86 (2nd nomination)

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Lucien86


The User was notified @ user-page issues in 2012 & the page was nominated for MFD in 2014 - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucien86. At that time - 2014 - a move to a different webhost was possibly indicated but nothing has changed. Shearonink (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Unless can explain how in gods name this sandbox meets our WP:GOALS than should be Deleted. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. User has had 4 years to complete the move that was an implied condition of the no consensus closure, and will get another 7 days from here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, this is in English, and I can read it, and I can see that it is a disconnected ramble that has been going nowhere for four years. Therefore:
 * Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, someone (I think ?) ran the other thing through a translator, if you would like to read and comment on it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Compassionate727 - I did read the translation, and changed my !vote from Keep to Neutral. The fact that it is in English and I can read it does not mean that I can comprehend it, because it does not appear to be meant to be comprehensible.  It isn't sufficiently incomprehensible to be G1.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost four years to move it offsite. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This userpage appears completely unrelated to Wikipedia, and it is way out of proportion to the user's serious contributions for it to be anything like close to reasonable leeway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Has Wikipedia become a fascist state? I make a comment on a contentious article and even though it is deleted as soon as asked I then find my page up for deletion a few days later. As I have said before I only use the page as an editing testbed and do not advertise it anywhere. (As said at the beginning of the page I have a lot of problems with writers block.) The page is not really disjointed but is made up of a large number of articles written over a long period. Lucien86 (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As for Wikipedia itself yes it has become a fascist state, a place where those with power constantly push around those without. A place where tolerance has become an almost totally foreign concept. As the Ministry of Truth says Wikipedia is not a place for free thought or discussion or or the possibility of doubt or where non-sanctioned ideas are tolerated. Sigh. Lucien86 (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It gets worse and worse. The page which is leading to the deletion of my user page, the page on Anita Sarkeesian is one of the most biased one sided puff piece diatribes I have ever seen on the site. No wonder discussion or any suggestion of doubt are forbidden even in its talk pages. Sigh. Lucien86 (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you were expecting a diatribe about tyranny on Wikipedia to convince us to not delete your subpage, try again. Hint: just explain what you're using the page for and how that's related to your activity on Wikipedia. I promise it will work better. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the 'diatribe'. As I said before I mainly primarily use the page as an edit space. I have a lot of problems with writers block and writing in an online space has helped me a lot with that. I did look for an alternative Wiki host but found none that really fitted my needs. As for what I am doing for wikipedia, specifically.. Wikipedia currently specifically forbids people from publishing anything that can be called Original Research which is understandable in an encyclopedia but I believe the site needs a space where such things can be published. (I know how difficult getting this to work would be.) Wikipedias rules work well in well established areas where facts are not in dispute and well published but can fail badly in more fringe areas. (Strong AI or FTL Physics in point) I would suggest that certain parts of my user page might/could be used for publication in such a space. (BTW : I know my argument for keeping the page is not strong, I had probably already decided before (I wrote the diatribe) that I was going to lose this argument.) Lucien86 (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * explain to us lot how your userpage/this long essay contributes to the Goals of Wikipedia ..... How will the content be used, Where will it be used ? ..... Userpages are for about you, Sandboxes (which is what this is in all but name) is content that will eventually go in an article .... I fail to see how any of this essay will go in to any sort of article..... Explain please. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this sentence from my comment answers that Davy. "Wikipedia currently specifically forbids people from publishing anything that can be called Original Research which is understandable in an encyclopedia but I believe the site needs a space where such things can be published." None of it could be published as is, as I said most of the articles are more partial drafts or experiments than anything else. As I said I'm well aware that on reflection my argument is not strong.. Lucien86 (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Agreed your reasoning here is very poor and you've not specifically answered any of my questions so we can safely say this will be going one way. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What you mean is that your own reasoning is like a clockwork toy and that you are incapable of thinking outside your own tiny fixed logic set. It is you who have the poor reasoning and logic skills. Its like you have not even read most of what I've already said, so it seems pointless to repeat myself again. It is people like you who make the editing side of Wikipedia such an unpleasant grueling place to be. Now prove everything I said about this is true by behaving like a spoilt child and attacking me again. Lucien86 (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Resorting to childish attacks does you no favours my friend, My logic and reasoning is on point I'd say, As for "spoilt child and attacking me again" - I don't believe I have attacked you in any way, shape or form, I simply stated your reasoning was very poor ... that's not an attack...., Well if you don't like my comments or the MFD process overall you know where the log off button is. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. No appropriate use of User page (as webhost). Ajf773 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - If Wikipedia's goal is to present information in a neutral, organized way, this ain't helping. Grayfell (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2018 (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.