Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RucasHost


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Keep. — xaosflux  Talk  23:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:RucasHost

 * Delete as per WP:SOAP  Statsone  02:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As an update, I would not object to either blanking the page ( as the user is contributing), or to making the images and words smaller. -- Statsone  03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not that sure about this one. This editor does contribute somewhat to the encyclopedia, so a "not a soapbox" argument is not as strong as for someone whose entire purpose here is to whine about something. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 04:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or blank, user page seeks to proselytize or excessively advocate religion, detailed in WP:NOT and WP:USER. However, I'm leaning toward just blanking since the user is somewhat active here (although the user appears to be involved in several disputes at the moment). --Core desat 09:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Blank or delete would be fine. -- Statsone  14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: May I ask how quoting two bible verses constituents a soapbox? I also noticed that you haven't attempted to discuss the matter with the user himself/herself either. While the page does state his or her religious believes, I don't see it crossing the line into advocacy. --Farix (Talk) 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Just the theme, as it does only WP:SOAP. As for placing a notice on the page, I felt the deletion notice, on the page in question, was sufficient.  As for discussing, the user tends to be very hard to deal with.  Just looks at the archive, edits, and discussions he is involved in. -- Statsone  16:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sorry, but I still don't see the soapboxing in the page. Or at least, its no more soapboxing then me putting "I hate ham!" on my userpage. --Farix (Talk) 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Statsone, how am I "very hard to deal with"? You need to be more careful about making personal attacks. --RucasHost 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not engaging in personal attacks. As for being hard to deal with, just look at the comments on your talk page, which you now keep archiving . You were pushing POV on many instances. -- Statsone  03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep If you're going to delete my userpage, you should also delete every userpage that promotes atheism or Wicca. --RucasHost 18:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment WP is an encyclopedia. It is not a SOAP or |Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. If others are violating the terms, then those user pages would need to go also. -- Statsone  18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP is not the place to try and make a point.--Vidkun 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, my userpage is not violating WP:SOAP or WP:USER. If you're going to use such a fanatical interpretation, then your own user page (which has various nationalist overtones) should go as well. --RucasHost 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a big difference in the two pages. You goes directly against SOAP while mine uses, on a much smaller scale my views or specialties as they relate to WP. -- Statsone  03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Comment Official policy states Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. I think that about says it all. As for why Wikipedia has userpages, I suppose it's so that we disgusting, despicable, brain-dead, self-hating, baby-killing American liberals have an outlet to advance lies like evolution and other dangerous ideas that are surely leading the world straight down the path to Armageddon. faithless  (speak)  06:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but I recommend that the page be toned down. Per my reasoning in the essay Editors matter, we should avoid deleting the userpages of active contributors, as it's likely to drive them away from the encyclopedia; editors are our most valuable resource. Deleting this page is overkill; however, I think the user should re-design the page, to avoid antagonising other users. WaltonOne 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, to an extent The Bible verses are fine, but the picture is, I feel, a clear violation of WP:SOAP. faithless   (speak)  05:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I wasn't the one who uploaded the picture and I don't see how it could be interpreted as soapboxing. It's from an article on the 1973 energy crisis. --RucasHost 05:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You don't see how a self-professed Christian having a photo on their page which reads Jesus Saves, Fill up with the Holy Ghost & Fire and Fill up with Old Time Salvation can be interpreted as soapboxing? Really? Quoting how WP:SOAP defines soapboxing, Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. (emphasis mine) There's a difference between simply stating your beliefs (which,in the interest of full disclosure, I am all for on WP) and out and out advocacy. Yes, the picture is from the 1973 oil crisis, and I get the feeling you're not using the photo to illustrate how difficult it was to get gas three decades ago, as that article is. Wouldn't a nice This user is a Christian userbox meet your needs equally as well? faithless   (speak)  05:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Those userboxes are boring and ubiquitous, I want my userpage to be fresh and exciting. --RucasHost 05:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Then you're in the wrong place. faithless   (speak)  05:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm hardly using my userpage as a blog. I don't make frequent edits and there is very little text. On that note, why does Wikipedia even have userpages? --RucasHost 05:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; the user page is pretty harmless; many users make plain where they're coming from and this does so clearly and inoffensively (and I'm an atheist, so I don't mean I agree with it). Plus it helps make clear his POV when he expresses it in his edits, so he's easier to deal with. The picture is a nice bit of art. I have something like that from a small town in New Mexico, too. Dicklyon 06:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's actually useful to be able to see this guy's POV at a glance, if you come across one of his edits and wonder where he gets his ideas from. He's right - why have user pages at all, if you're not allowed to put an emblem of your choice on yours? Snalwibma 08:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * true: he flamed me for "vandalism" over an edit to Raëlian beliefs and practices, which made me think he was a Raelist. The problem is with the user, the userpage is just symptomatic of that. Problems with user conduct should be addressed at WP:RFC, not on AfD. dab (𒁳) 06:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dicklyon and Snalwibma. A few quotes and an amusing picture are hardly a blog or a soapbox.  Lots of people have the same.  I rolled my eyes, but it also helps me put his edits in context.  If he had a paragraph decrying brain-dead baby-killing liberals, it would be different.  We should not lightly tread on the expression of views that offend us.  --BlueMoonlet 10:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I much prefer to understand the POV of editors, and the user page is an appropriate way to do that. There's nothing offensive or divisive here. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep, harmless as it is. once he begins threatening godless liberals with hellfire in giant letters, revisit. (but I do suggest we make the spelling "existance" a blockable offence)--dab (𒁳) 06:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * objection: without that spelling the page would be much less humorous and informative. Dicklyon 15:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, per dab - with the exception of the spelling (not a blockable offense - try DR for spelling errors.) I suppose I'll have to delete my userpage because I have a cute quote regarding how nice dogs are, which is not only soapboxing for dogs, but self-promotion as well. Dang, I ought to be banned. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per brighterorange.--SarekOfVulcan 13:21, 21 September 2007 (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.