Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/On the "TOE"




 * 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. harej 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Neptunerover/On the "TOE"
Drivelly and meaningless opinion-piece which would be better hosted elsewhere. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  prorogation  ─╢ 14:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - user seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time in their user and user talk space. This piece also seems to related to another recent MFD that was closed as 'delete'. –xenotalk 14:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another recent MfD for perusal, too :) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Speaker  ─╢ 14:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you consider someone who spends "an inordinate amount of time in their user and user talk space" to be suspicious in some manner that you did not make clear? I'm curious as to just what your insinuation was. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally I would vote "weak keep" for something like this if you had been making many contributions outside userspace. However, recently you have been making mostly user/ut edits - thus WP:NOTWEBHOST seems to be the appropriate message to convey here. –xenotalk 14:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gotten so drawn up in the politics of this place that I have not been doing what I started out here doing. I've been defending my userspace against attackers mostly. I'm very superstitious, you see. --Neptunerover (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See my below comments at 15:06. –xenotalk  15:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this was already deleted earlier today. Who cares anyway? I haven't tried to put anything into any "TOE" article yet, so who cares what's already written there. Maybe I decided it was a waste of my time compared to all the fun I've been having with these debates that keep me from doing anything useful on the encyclopedia. I don't care. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It obviously was not deleted earlier today. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  duumvirate  ─╢ 14:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to prove that.--Neptunerover (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Click on it. It's still there. Deleted pages are – er... – deleted? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  consulate  ─╢ 15:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Neptune was referreing to the other MFD you linked - that page was deleted earlier today. –xenotalk 15:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, check out Neptune's charming talkpage remarks, I think they mean this one. Not clear, though, admittedly. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  most serene  ─╢ 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification : Apparently this one was deleted, but then restored five hours later when user:Rjanag decided that it needed it's own mfd. APL (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neptune, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I am a bit of my own expert in certain matters, and I assure you all that my efforts in the Wikipedia freespace are being done in order to foster a healthy, safe learning environment for all concerned." - you do realize that Wikipedia "freespace" (do you mean userspace?) is not an appropriate place to develop original ideas, research, essays, etc. At least not as your primary activity here. –xenotalk 15:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe what I meant (this was a while back) by "freespace" was the Wikipedia area as a whole, where the idea of free content flies in the face of all those outside entities who want to charge people for information or attach advertising to it. I think this is a safe place to be, and yet I perceived there were perhaps a few petty tyrants running around trying to abuse those less able to defend themselves than me, and I got very angry, or not actually angry, but rather I became firmly resolved to smash down upon anyone attempting to poison my brothers. Sorry if that sounds overly dramatic, but it's true. --Neptunerover (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will you strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger? =) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 15:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if they make me. Or that's the plan anyway. =) --Neptunerover (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there's a misunderstanding. Wikipedia is not truly "free" in that sense. In fact, it has a rather complicated and reasonably rigid set of rules. APL (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This was the sense I used: "where the idea of free content flies in the face of all those outside entities who want to charge people for information or attach advertising to it." Are you saying I'm mistaken by overly simplifying it, or am I way off? --Neptunerover (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I think it should be deleted as part of the complete set.  Although I suppose you could make a case that it's a barely on-topic essay urging Wikipedia to engage in Original Research on the topic of a Grand Unified Theory. APL (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here, here, yes Original researchers should be here, not just second hand hearsay and rumor. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly clear, I was not agreeing with your essay at all. Wikipedia forbids original research for very good reasons. That rule is fundamental to Wikipedia as we know it.
 * I was merely saying that on it's own, the page might be acceptable as it is an essay about Wikipedia itself and not random nonsense like the rest of the (now deleted) pages in your collection. APL (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For clarity of what I said, mine was a smarty-pants answer poking fun at Wikipedia for being based entirely on outside sources, which I attempted to humorously label as hearsay and rumor. I think maybe I should have used small text. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Oh'. I see now that you've commented out that parts of your page that mention Wikipedia. So ... now that NeptuneRover has removed the very part of his page that caused user:Rjanag to rescue it from deletion, that sort of changes the discussion, right? APL (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying? Should the rough draft pages of all editors be scrutinized with every change that is made? Anybody who thinks they know where the page is going is seriously projecting. I don't even know myself! There are many Wikipedia articles pertaining to the subject of the page, and who knows where anything I write might fit in? Maybe I won't be able to come up with anything worth adding to the real Wikipedia articles. As it is I think those are confusing and I wanted to try to help make them easier to read. I consider the page in question to be a scratch pad of ideas, and I don't expect anyone to be able to make sense of my scratchings which currently lack a neutral point of view and express personal opinions of the person scratching there. I think we should wait to see what comes of it rather than assuming the worst. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. According to WP:UP, "non-encyclopedia related material" is not permitted. From what I can gather from this page, it's non-encyclopedia related. However, I could be wrong... the contents of the page aren't exactly clear to me! JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a brand new page without any context or anything. How can anybody judge it? --Neptunerover (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per Xeno. Seems more vaguely WP-related than other pages, but it would help if all pages on the editor's theories are moved to more appropriate websites, as I already discussed with him on my talk page. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong to Very Strong Keep Short introduction--not at all inaccurate--to the big questions in physics using Wikipedia articles organized with some effort. As a part of my own research, I might prefer to follow the guide he provided, plus it is only a user page.  The closest thing I saw to off-base, and it's incomprehensible to children, is the sentence with the reference to Blue Oyster Cult.Julzes (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak KeepLifts material, but user page and inoffensive.Julzes (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * delete this one as well, for the same reason as the others, WP:NOT a webhost. Viridae Talk 20:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the page in question here violates the rule you stated. I believe your delete vote seems simplified from deeper reasons you must have. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should go easy on User:Neptunerover for a few weeks. This scrutiny of his userspace is becoming a lynching.  Give him time to organise his alternative outlet for his personal work and research.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody was most excellent and pointed out wikinfo to me, but now I have to figure out how to program there. I have to do something different with the links to make them work apparently. What a maze. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarification from un-deleter: (this may be too late, but anyway) This page was speedily deleted by an admin earlier, and I undid it. My reason was that the page ostensibly does have some Wikipedia-relevant commentary (the second and third paragraphs could be construed as being about why Wikipedia lacks a certain type of article or a certain type of editor, and there are certainly many essays along those lines). People can argue about whether Neptunerover actually intends to use it as such, but quite honestly, if any editor in good standing had this page it would not be a candidate for deletion. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * delete Per host of good arguments above. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This userpage does not contribute to improving Wikipedia, so there is no reason for it to remain here. Also, delete per User page, which states: "Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." While the page has some information related to Wikipedia editing, the majority is not. Cunard (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is no telling where the page is going. Users should not be allowed to start working on pages without first detailing every detail of what will eventually be included in the page, including all references and support. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous, it is quite clear from the subject matter that it will never amount to an article fit for the mainspace. Viridae Talk 02:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is assuming it is meant to be an article? Maybe it's only meant to be an essay concerning the lack of clarity in the actual Wikipedia articles surrounding the topic. Most of those are tagged as being in need of an expert, I thought. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Very to Very Very Strong Keep This certainly is not the only "drivelly and meaningless opinion-piece" (in the words of the OP) that there is to be found on Wikipedia. Anybody ever see that 'beating a dead horse' garbage? Should be the same difference in TreasuryTags eyes. Personally, I think my essay (though partially opinionated, but it's an essay) is related to actual wikipedia articles much more than that dead horse drivel is. (I'm biased; I don't believe in dead horses) --Neptunerover (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: if the verdict is deletion, please email it to me after its execution. thank you. --Neptunerover (talk) 09:30, 14 January 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.