Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mary-ann martinek

 __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  keep with removal of BLP revisions in page history. bd2412 T 16:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mary-ann martinek
This is a page which appears to need deleting. A number of users have suggested MFD, not least myself in February 2010.

Quick background - the user is a SPA - an editor with one main focus and agenda. That agenda is to promote a real-life matter she is involved with, a trademark dispute she feels she has on Sam (koala). Past discussion at ANI. A talk page note was left on 24 February 2010 that the page probably violated user page guidelines and if there was a good reason not to delete, please say so otherwise MFD would be requested. No response or reason was ever given.

Yesterday (May 22) the user resumed the same SPA activity on the topic including the user page. The userpage itself is in the form of a article giving the user's POV and a wide range of POV and BLP issues. It's essentially her side of the dispute cast into wiki markup.

WP:UP, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP all apply - user pages guideline especially which covers this in numerous ways - use as a personal website, little/no chance of usefulness to the project, excessive unrelated content including use as a soapbox, "Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals", "Promotional and advocacy material", "Personal information".

Although it could arguably be summarily deleted under WP:BLP (attacking real people, giving real people's information) or WP:CSD (unambiguous promotional material, promoting her side in a real-world dispute), it's been declined as a speedy deletion by another admi and therefore reversing that would be uncomfortably close to WP:WHEEL. So MFD is the place to go.

Delete fully? Delete some parts (which)? Or leave? FT2 (Talk 19:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as soapboxing/promotion of her business and legal position. WP is not a free webhost, and I don't see this in any way contributing to WP's mission of building an encyclopedia, so it fails WP:USERPAGE. DMacks (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

24MAY2010 Response to re "User:Mary-ann martinek"

I joined in 2007 so I hardly created my UserPage to challenge the Sam (koala) wiki page. I knew I had been a user for some years and I just checked my first wiki posts EG: # (cur | prev) 08:57, 1 May 2007 Mary-ann martinek (talk | contribs) (1,167 bytes) (←Created page with 'Mary-Ann Martinek is a retired Australian army Major who was an RASvy officer and later an RAE officer likely best known for her comments in the media about...')

It may be helpful to consider that this is my UserPage you seek to delete, and that I did not by choice expect to become a "topic" on any Wikipedia page. When the Sam (koala) page was created it initially did not mention me. When I read through the articles I saw that the information was not correct and I said so. Some of my information was 'reverted' and fair enough if a published article is not considered a reliable source. Some news articles are far from reliable themselves so I think its a bit unfair to write history using half of what is available to draw facts from.

I was I thought entitled to add balance to the Sam (koala) page, separately to my own user status on Wiki, am I not? or is this only a position that I can do by using an anonymous acronym or IP address. The information I tendered to the Sam (koala) page did result in my information getting a fair hearing and resultant the section about the Trademark dispute is accurate now.Previously, wiki page was stating that the TM had been lost. It is not a fact and I pointed this out and my information caused a editor to change the page.

Whether I win the trademark issue or not is nothing to do with the factual content of a Wiki page, I would have thought that wiki professes to include and look at ALL information and some of what I have shared is a public record and is available to any wiki editor who wants to pay a FOI fee to obtain it. Having a go at me because I have a trademark draws no conclusion for my motive, it simple assumes what my motive was. I would prefer to debate fact or to have meaningful exchanges of fact over something that may turn out to be what I have claimed it to be. Can your editors debate available fact in the form of what I have presented, or do they seek to censor me? USER Mary-ann martinek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary-ann martinek (talk • contribs) 12:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's not a correct understanding.


 * This discussion is strictly about the user page text only (not the article). Please read the user pages guideline to understand their intended and appropriate use.


 * You do not own user pages and you have no special right over them if the community feels intervention is necessary to put right a breach of user page guidelines. The same goes for all other users.


 * Wikipedia doesn't contain "everything". A huge number of subjects are covered very briefly or not at all, like any other encyclopedia. Policies broadly cover what pages are kept and to what extent.


 * There will be material that does not belong in Wikipedia. The material may be interesting, useful to some people, harmless, accurate - and even so it may not belong, because we don't rate inclusion by any of those criteria.


 * We have no interest in providing a platform for disputes people might have, beyond the limits in our content policies. The reasonable extent of the dispute you are in, for Wikipedia's purposes, is quite likely to just be the one short paragraph on Sam koala's article and nothing else. If that section was longer than a few lines summary it would probably unbalance the article at this time, which is not allowed.


 * In simple terms, this long page has almost no chance of being an encyclopedia article and appears to falls foul of user page guidelines. This discussion is considering what will happen to it. You can host your page elsewhere, there are many free web hosts available that will help. You can also point out if the policies named above are incorrectly applied. Finally, if you feel Sam koala is unbalanced you can see if other users agree, by appropriate discussion on the article's talk page, or at the neutrality noticeboard. FT2 (Talk 13:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinions, one way or the other unless the wiki page is not accurate. Wiki invites balance. You are actually doing me a favour by deleting all the history of my visit to this palace of fools, like you. eg: it's only a matter of time before the blacklist brush arrives.
 * 25MAY2010 Response to "No that's not correct understanding"

Refer Wikipedia Blacklisted by british watchdog as child porn.

13th December 2008, 05:26

Wikipedia has been blacklisted by a British online child pornography watchdog, causing almost every internet user in Britain to be blocked from contributing to the site anonymously.

The British Government-backed Internet Watch Foundation blacklisted Wikipedia over an article on the 1976 album Virgin Killer by German heavy metal band Scorpions. At issue was a screen shot of the album cover, published with the article, that featured a naked, young girl with her genitals obscured by a simulated tear in the photograph.

After hearing of the blacklisting, Britain's six main internet service providers blocked their users from accessing the article.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/we...23764.html " What was achieved was engaging with you to see if you actually have any gumption to debate truth and fact. I see you cannot do that. User Mary-ann martinek

Is this tag (below) not clear enough? It's been added top and bottom to my UserPage. {Mary-ann martinek (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)_
 * 25MAY2010 Response to "In simple terms, this long page has almost no chance of being an encyclopedia article"

"This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mary-ann_martinek."

I would be utterly surprised if any one would be game enough to disagree with you blokes, as soon as they do YOU'D one-by-one race over and whack out a "Delete UserPage" request which (incidentally worth a tiny PR plug) was over-ruled, then next you feel so aggrieved still, and likely fuming, you race into this little page of internet space and have-another-go. Fair dinkum, you can't honestly believe that anyone would be game to tackle you with a bit of truth because that means strife and you chaps running amok pulling out your hair until you get your way like screaming babies. It's fun to watch you try though :-) User Mary-ann martinek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary-ann martinek (talk • contribs) 15:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 25MAY2010 RESPONSE TO re "Finally, if you feel Sam koala is unbalanced you can see if other users agree'

Further response 24MAY2010 re "User:Mary-ann martinek"

I joined wiki when these matters aired on this url link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Derryn_Hinch

One of your wiki community had this to say in 2008 -
 * Martinek affair
 * "Strange not to find anything about this in the article. Or did I overlook it?" (edited)
 * Fwend (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is about the content of your userpage, not about your other contributions or about the koala page. DMacks (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmmate I doubt that comment you say above that you actually believe it very much. Truly. This discussion is about the actions that "followed" immediately after I placed a new investigation report to verify facts that an original Heraldsun article about Sam the Koala read out on a radio show that same day had flaws in it, even the Broadcasting investigator said as much but they can't investigate printed news only what is broadcast - are you actually aware of how it works or do you only rely on what is at the end of any old url link. So, what you are saying here won't make a scotch of difference to what is pre-planned anyway amongst you few. Claiming to all be heroes of truth none-of-you (well, maybe one of you did) read the PDF pages at all, and 'he' claimed it was irrelevant and it was deleted by BILBY, strange bedfellows as you all seems to gang up and talk. seen it all before so its unsurprising since you have hats that are made of "I'm invisible' tape. You can feel great today or tomorrow but as I say the truth always shines through. DMacks you have got to be kidding yourself that you are discussing my UserPage when its been that way since I made a comment to remove other inaccurate content on the Hinch page. You blokes do not like being asked to remove your playtime because the information you so salaciously read in a newspaper, boy!, was wrong. How many knuckles do you have which drag on the ground? Seriously. User Mary-ann martinek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary-ann martinek (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 25MAY2010 Response to "This discussion is about the content of your userpage, not about your other contributions or about the koala page."


 * Speedy Delete Per all (except for the user whose userpage is going to be deleted.)
 * Keep - now it's been cleaned up and reduced to a brief self-description, the current version of the userpage seems fine. Robofish (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter 13:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Please note that the userpage in question has changed considerably since this deletion debate started. Peter 13:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but oversight or selective revision delete the BLP-violating material in the old revisions. The current version of the userpage is acceptable but the older versions should be removed from the history. I suggest deleting all the revisions prior to this one. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 8 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.