Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Picktownfan1


 * 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--Aervanath (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Picktownfan1
Cut and past of William Howard Taft article except replacing Tafts name and other names, with other names (users friends ?) in the user box. (Taft is now "David A. Redbook", VP is now "Carney G. Wilkin", Preceded by is now "Greg F. Gonzaloz", Succeeded by is now  "Maddox R. Rumsfeld". "42nd United States Secretary of War" is now "42nd United States Secretary of Peace" and so on.) Aside from the obvious changes this is a userpage masquerading as an mainpace article in usespace. Policy to consider: "Personal web pages" and "Wikipedia is not your web host". Guidelines tied to Policy to consider include: "What may I not have on my user page?" - number 14, "Copies of other pages" and "Simulated MediaWiki interfaces". Also, as this is a cut and paste of a mainspace article with certain facts changed, possibly consider "Do not create hoaxes" as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep appears at worst to be sandbox. Perhaps should be on a subpage, but no official guideline says it must. Collect (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I ran into this very issue myself a while back. I thought I was correct back then, too.  ArcAngel (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't GFDL require attribution? In this case the user has copied work from another page leaving no method to find the true author. Someone correct me if I am wrong. KnightLago (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, in that this copy of an article doesn't appear to be being used for improvement, simply for personal amusement. It's not doing much harm either, but article copies aren't supposed to be kept in userspace indefinitely. Terraxos (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is four months "indefinite" at this point? And I really doubt that the article is intended to mislead anyone .  Collect (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Blank and tell User:Picktownfan1 to not do this. It is liable to confuse.  This was a weird thing to do, and we don't, and shouldn't, have rules to cover every possible weird thing that someone might do.  Keep the contribution history available just in case there is something important, whether content or user behaviour, in there.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2009 (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.