Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robertgrassi

 __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. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Robertgrassi
Per WP:FAKEARTICLE. This seems to me to be very inappropriate use of user space. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

[copied from my talk page:]

Hello Drmies, I am pleased to meet you. I was wondering how i should change my user page to make it more stunning. I know it is not orthodox. My goal was to make it very much linked (encyclopedically) and artistic (as progressive as possible), I started wikipedia with too much idealism, i guess. Now, a user page is open to experimentation also, i suppose. I agree mine is rather extreme, but i have the same feeling of "extreme" when reading whatever user page i can find. Sign of the time, i would say. In fact, your remark of my page being inappropriate rings a bell for me. You must be right. I am only trying to be a wikipedian most modernly. Bye bye. --Robertgrassi (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * looks like a COI problem. Perhaps this user might consider moving his article work to a sandbox?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 13:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Robert, nice to meet you too. Thanks for your note. Michael, you are right: that is the way to go, move it to User:Robertgrassi/sandbox. Still, is that entirely appropriate? Is this an article that is being worked on, or is it, well, like MySpace? Robert, there are lots of things one can do with one's user space, but they can't be "like an article" in the way in which you have it. Moreover, it seems to have little to do with Robertgrassi as an editor, and everything with Robert Grassi the musician. Couple that with the fact that you have made few edits outside of that user page, and you get the impression that Wikipedia is not really used for the proper purposes. But feel free to make your case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robertgrassi, where other editors will, no doubt, weigh in as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

[end of copy]

making my case
In Wikipedia i find two kinds of editors, the ones who display their real names and the others. Also there are editors who like to display their editing skills and others who prefer to explain more precisely who they are.

The fact that my bio looks like an article is because of the wikipedia restricted format, it is written in the 3rd person, it is the polite form to write a bio, the idea of confusion between a real article and a user's bio is a "clin d'oeil" to the fact that i do not have the honor to be featured in the experimental composers page or whatsoever obscure brand of music such as death metal or folk punk, and to the fact that it is a funny way to present oneself. I found more than once editors displaying themselves with a shotgun. Apparently they show the hunter side of their personnality more firmly than their editor side. I recognize that this is humoristic and i pass.

When i display my skills on Myspace for instance, i precisely use the same kind of humour, saying nothing more than "check my quick bio at wiki/users:Robertgrassi, instead of using the appropriate mode of myspace with loads of videos and stuff, and harrasing other users with spamlike friendship.

Does my wikipedia user's page is fake? Firstly it is not an article it is a user's bio and not whatever biography. A conflict of interest, would be pertinent in the case of a common biography displayed on the encyclopedia, not with a user's page, which is not only a rather private place, but also sufficiently remote from the encyclopedia front to be accepted as such, with all its originality. As remarked by Michael my page looks like a COI. Yes it only looks like it.

Secondly, i think that editors with their full names are to be considered differently, they show their personnalities, with force or humour, they defend their own image, they feature themselves artistically, or shall i say simply aesthetically, and thus they support wikipedia in a different manner, as a public character. Is it bold? Yes it is bold.

If the public has to get informed of who writes the encyclopedia, a creative way to define more precisely and accurately the portrait of the editor is pertinent. In my point of view, if these user's pages are more personal it will display more diversity in general to grasp the reality of the encyclopedia, and that for the better. --Robertgrassi (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think Wikipedia is for, that's probably not it. This is an encyclopedia, and those writing it are writing it--they are not flooding their own user page with details that advertise themselves. The public don't need to be informed of who editors are--they need to be able to read good, well-written, well-referenced articles. There is nothing bold or artistic or diverse or original about your user page and your defense of it; it's simply abusing bandwidth. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- The download links make it look like personal promotion. NotARealWord (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

you are offensive!
well, after reflexion, i guess that i can not cope with universalism at all, and moreover i can not stand the propaganda-like "mission" of wikipedia, it does not fit my style, whatever you do with my page is fine for me, farewell--Robertgrassi (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, i deleted the download links
ok now, and hi NotARealWord, what was looking commercial is deleted, i also took out the new bio i put the other day, my old lower case bio is sufficiently not like an article to be acceptable, i hope, i recognize it is more decent now anyway, bye bye --Robertgrassi (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it should stay, considering how unreadable the "quick bioraphy" section is. NotARealWord (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't need to read it, you can simply watch it from a little distance and criticise its shapes. It is like my profile's photo, blurry but not unreadable.--Robertgrassi (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because this page contains excessive personal content, it violates WP:NOTMYSPACE. Cunard (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisions
I am a kind of official musician in Switzerland. I am asked to play in presidential parties, national TV, for the troops, during the war of 1995 in refugee camps for the kids in Croatia. When I play the president dances walzer with the top TV News anchor. My bio here do not explains this. Because it is a conceptual bio, at the opposite of what a commercial bio should be. It displays however, a reflexion of how powerful a user's page can be. As any other user's page I can find, it is meant to be highly original. If it looks dangerous, it is a matter of taste. Standard user's page in Wikipedia are very martial, as if Wikipedia was a little army. It is futile. Because it is not true, Wikipedia is just a wiki. Let's say my bio is futile too. But not fake nor excessive. I make it as if music was more important than fame. I don't promote myself on Wikipedia, I test the media, in a light manner, having fun.--Robertgrassi (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete the inappropriate content. The bulk of the page is the playlist info, which is not relevant content for a WP user page. A short bio, some links to personal pages for those who want more, and documentation of the user's contributions -- that sort of stuff is fine. Over 200K of playlists is not. The page should be truncated to just the relevant content and the previous versions revision deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, it is done, it's fine this way after all, if I get it right the previous versions can not be deleted by me. Bye bye --Robertgrassi (talk) 03:15, 22 December 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.