Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution




 * 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 Clear consensus. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. User can request material to be emailed to them if they want to find someother webhost. Spartaz Humbug! 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution
See this other MfD. User is using his own namespace to host personal webpages that do not belong to the project in any way, and risk to bring WP into bad reputation. Cycl o pia talk  12:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that the user copied almost verbatim the page at User:Neptunerover/The_Only_Alternative_Economic_Solution_We_Have, that should therefore be discussed in this MfD too. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete any and all essays and other "web-host-y" material in this editor's userspace. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Speaker  ─╢ 17:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—another MfD here; similar pages User:Neptunerover/My First Practice Article, User:Neptunerover/Theories About Everything, User:Neptunerover/On the "TOE", User:Neptunerover/Anonymous Quotes/Paradoxes, User:Neptunerover/NonAnonymous Quotes and User:Neptunerover/Anonymous Quotes. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  presiding officer  ─╢ 17:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Those quote pages are a different animal entirely from the kookery that was nominated here and in the other MfD. Also, the other MfD's mentioned by the nominator and by TreasuryTag are the same MfD.  Additionally, the "practice article" looks to be just a sandbox, which is defensible.  -- Thin  boy  00  @969, i.e. 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly Disagree This proposal is absolutely ludicrous. I utterly cannot believe how something like this was ever allowed to be nominated. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Flush all of these per NOT. MuffledThud (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - nonsense, but harmless nonsense. Not an abuse of user space. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as user essay, and providing insight to the user, which is a permitted use of userspace. "Deletion of all essays" is not a proper decision for MfD in any event when directed at one editor.  If editors wish to bar all essays from userspace, the procedure is to gain a valid consensus at that policy page, not here.  Collect (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all of this. There are places where Neptune can publish these unrelated essays, and Wikipedia isn't one of them. We have consensus.  It's recorded at NOT.  Gigs (talk) 13:47, 4 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." Cunard (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Deflation, for the lulz. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Cunard. This is an attempt to user a wikipedia page to promote a personal theory. it is not part of the project, it is not in anyway conencted to the project or to improving the encyclopedia, it is not apparently intended to facilitate communication between editors of wikipedia, and it at least might lower the reputation of the project. Delete as per WP:NOTWEBHOST. DES (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the original motivation of WP:NOR. Essays are supposed to be related to the project.  Refer user to Alternative outlets.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The filthy rich may hate the idea, but it's certainly not hurting anybody here in Wikipedia. (Unless the screen's to bright and it makes their eyes water when they read it.) But otherwise, I think it's pretty harmless. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This user's attempts to continue to use WP to host his other essay after a MfD went against him shows me that this isn't a "practice sandbox", WP is intentionally being used as hosting for his various theories. APL (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This goes on all the time on wikipedia. If he called them essays and lamely threw them at other editors when in disagreement there would be screams at AN/I far louder than the usual troll-baiting to allow them to be kept. Didn't we recently decide on wikipedia that users using wikipedia for personal social networking was okay? Stop picking on the guy, his kruft is no worse than the stop beating the dead horse piece of crap, and Neptunerover's not quoting his at other editors. Maybe he can move it to the same space the essays use. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  00:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With the difference that the other essays, like the "stop beating the dead horse piece of crap", are about the project, while this one is blatantly not. About social networking, it can be said at least it helps building a community of editors. This essay is just promo stuff for the editor's idiosyncratic opinions. We're not a random blog or a webhost. The page itself may look harmless, but it is a serious matter of principle: if we allow this, we start a dangerous slippery slope to all kind of random web hosting taking place on WP. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's about as on-target as the essays. And we've already decided, just a couple of months ago, on AN/I that using wikipedia for social networking is just fine. So, the essays no more readable than the wikipedia space crap, and the slippery slope has already been greased. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @IP69: what? "stop beating the dead horse" is an essay about Wikipedia. This is not. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It could just as well be, as well-written and useful as dead horse is. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That was intended to be on topic and useful. This was intended to be off topic. APL (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It failed the mark so badly that it's intentions do not save it. It is worthy of being the "other crap" example, except that in neither case are we discussing crap in article space. Crap in wikipedia space is, imo, far more offensive than crap in user space. Who would've even seen this user page or have spent more than one second looking at it if not for it being nominated for deletion? But dead horse is thrown around as if it's not the piece of shit it it. If either is deleted, it should be dead horse to prevent it from being used to offend the newbie to death. This won't ever be used in such an offensive manner. And that should be considered when expending time on deletions. If it's not speediable because you can't find a reason for speedying it AND it's not a copyvio (...) AND it's in user space, leave it be. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  03:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose it for deletion if you're so concerned with that essays' appropriateness for WP. -- Cycl o pia talk  03:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What a great way to get people to quote lame essays at me. No, but I will bring it up as an example of the type of crap routinely allowed in more important spaces with greater consequences. This personal essay is nothing in comparison, offense-wise. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can guess what's going on here. Editor gets into an argument somewhere. After argument goes on for a while, other editors cite WP:STICK and embarrass editor. Now editor is bitter about WP:STICK and bringing it up in irrelevant places to make a point. In any case, it's not very important, since no closing admin would give much weight to such a bogus !vote and, in any case, the outcome of this MfD is already obvious. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 06:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having stick or soup or fungus quoted at one by another wikipedia editor does not cause embarrassment for the recipient of the quote. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  06:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - for all of the reasons we agreed to delete Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Neptunerover/Theory_About_Everything. SteveBaker (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete it all this user has no intention of using this material to further the goals of the Wikipedia project. Miami33139 (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you first discussed the user's intentions with the user before assuming you know what his intentions are? How can you possibly make such a declaration? --Neptunerover (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Query: As far as WP:NOR, I looked up Publishing, and I fail to see how it pertains to the document in question. If such a thing was really considered publishing, then whatever comes of it should then be allowed on Wikipedia, right? Is Wikipedia considered a publisher? If so, then why not reference itself just like all those ridiculous "webhost" articles do? Does publicity make something become published? This "article" is getting a lot of publicity from being in this arena. Does that make it notable? If something therefore becomes notable due to this process, such as this, then how can it be deleted from Wikipedia other than through pure censorship? --Neptunerover (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I've been going back and forth on this unlike the other MfD as this isn't harmful like the other one. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies as the user is just using Wikipedia user space as an alternative for Blogspot and Myspace. None of these user pages pertain to the encyclopaedia either in terms of content or policy, and is there because the user "can do it". Not a necessary use of storage space, and exactly what WP:NOTWEBHOST was designed for. - Spaceman  Spiff  20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is most definitely a "publisher". So yes, it is published.  BUT, one of our rules is that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source", which means that you can't use it.  See also User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles point 6.  Please try not to get "notability" confused with "Notability", despite a good case for being forgiven.  It must be more than notable.  The must be objective evidence that others (not us) have (reliably)) noted something about it.  We are not really about censorship.  If you want to tell us about how stupid we all are (short of naming individuals), you will be welcome to host it in your userspace.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume you are assuming good faith with your response, even though I don't quite understand everything you are saying. So thank you anyway SmokeyJoe for trying to help me to understand.--Neptunerover (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Neptunerover, please stop treating us as morons. You know all too well what we mean, trying logical contorsionism won't work. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You greatly offend me Cyclopia with your assumptions. If you think you are a moron, then you don't need me to point it out to you. Or, are you calling me a moron because of the question I asked which you assume I asked because I already knew the answer. Why should I have known the answer? I'm not a know it all who has had so much education that I cannot even think straight. Could you possibly be biased in such a respect? My suggestion would be for you to cease attempting to read my mind, as it is far too complex for you. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are clever enough to ask that question and to devise this smart-alec answer, you are also clever enough to understand what the policies we are citing mean and to understand why we think your pages are inappropriate on Wikipedia. My AGF has a limit. So, please bear respect for our intelligence as we do for yours. My advice for you is that you stop wikilawyering and begin trying to reach some kind of compromise and understanding of what is going on, because all you are doing now is disruption. No one "hates" you, we simply happen to think your content has no place here. Sorry about that. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Important Point: User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles point 8. I believe the votes cast by people who disregard this very important point should not be counted. (not that it's gonna happen, but that's my opinion.)--Neptunerover (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * However, what do we do if the hater is the nominator? --Neptunerover (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Point 8 emphasizes "honesty and politeness". Trying to make up increasingly ridiculous dodges to rules that you know you are violating is not at all honest.  (It's also painfully transparent, obvious, and childish. I thought I'd point that out in case you thought that you were being clever and impressing us with your intellectual strength and logical abilities. )APL (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you impress me with your ability to read my mind and know my motivations (not). As far as politeness, look below at the very next vote by Viridae. Your projections of my motivations and knowledge are indeed clever, but unsubstantiated, and so you should keep them to yourself. This is supposed to be a discussion about the article which is up for deletion, yet somehow people keep wanting to make it personal. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete WP:NOT a webhost for your crackpot theories. Viridae Talk 01:50, 12 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.