Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Standforder


 * 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 lives in the Orphanage 05:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Standforder
The same content was recently deleted from the mainspace and was previously deleted from it a few months back. The content was moved to the userspace with advice that "wikipedia is not a hosting service, and [it] may be removed in the future" and advice to move it off-site. That was two weeks ago. The recent AfD here shows consensus that the content is inappropriate for the mainspace, and as such it cannot be considered an article being prepared. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service nor a place to soapbox. Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The editor has edited on several articles. The page in question is not dormant, and has seen recent edits. There is no issue of "harm" by allowing it to remain, There is no issue of "indefinite storage" when it has been actively edited. There is no requirement that every page in userspace meet the WP mainspace requirements.  And the rules and considerations for AfD are not binding on MfD in any event.  I would, moreover, appreciate the link to the discussion from "a few months back" -- the discussion I found was all of zero days old.  Collect (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * not a few months back, sorry, a few weeks (idiot me). While there are no requirements that pages in userspace meet mainspace requirements they do have to have a use. Without the reasoning that it is being prepared as a mainspace article such a collection of original research falls under "In general, if you have material that you do not wish others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site". Ironholds (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Userspace does not require the same standards as WP spece. The time frame is minimal, hence no issue of perpetual web host. And I would suggest that many user pages also are more "essay" than "solid RS cite" material. I found no sign that the user would be opposed to others making positive edits, so that argument also fails.  And I am far from convinced that this is the article on which WP not being a censor fails. Let's give the newbie a chance before we bite his head off, no? Collect (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 *  Very Weak  Keep Delete Standforder joined the project about a month ago and has had great trouble fitting in and understanding what is and is not appropriate for wikipedia.    While I do not believe that anyone with a strong POV is incapable of contributing to the project I am beginning to believe that it is unlikely Standforder will ever be a valued contributor.  At the same time that I think that the content hosted in Standforder's userspace will never be cleaned up to become an article, I think that it is the type of content which is appropriate for the userpage - namely content which  in theory could be.  To some extent I think that removing this content would be a strong signal from the community that he is no longer welcome, and I don't think it is time yet to send that signal.  Still if Standforder continues to try the community's patience and does not contribute in a way that benefits the community, deleting this content is an option we may consider.  Jon513 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed my opinion to weak delete. Jon513 (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my opinion again, to delete. Jon513 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   —Jon513 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and find an appropriate mentor for this user. He's got enthusiasm, and we can either drive him away because this doesn't fit, or we can try and channel his enthusiasm into a useful direction. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * KeepStandforder (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I tried to just add to the discussion, I am 18, I suffer C.A.P.D, and tried hard to manage anixety, stress, & my mild form of dyslexia, I wrote an article on my personal page, my very own personal page, now you just want to delete my personal page, why? I researched this subject, I make some mistakes, true, I posted an article I only made for discussion, on the main page hence why it appeared "essay like". I've taken advice, for one I add a big lists of references, and respected books & Jewish scholars, and others. Is this what freedom of speech is all about. Wouldn't deleting my account not just be like the Catholic church which burn some Galileo's research on the celestial bodies, because of their misunderstanding. I had comments sent as: You anti-Jewish - (I am a Jew, I am proud my heirtage), 2. I believe God and Jesus are the same (false). 3. I am basing this on medieval arguments (no mainly modern Jewish sources). If you are Jewish I make an appeal to you, I didn't mean to offend you, that was not my goal, as Jews we know prejuidce, oppression, and censorship, and discrimization are like, & its hurts.

Has anyone consider?


 * • The work and research that went into it.
 * • The list of references in bold type.
 * • All the spell checking & etc.
 * • The right to freedom of speech and expression:
 * • The right to seek information and ideas;
 * • the right to receive information and ideas;
 * • the right to impart information and ideas.
 * • The right to freedom of religion, & belief.
 * • Human dignity.
 * • Be the one to add to the discussion not take away.
 * • You can edit, and reply to the discussion.
 * • You can add to discussion, but countering if desired.
 * • You also are entitled to the above rights, and freedoms.
 * • If deleted others & I have copies that and the article might only just get bigger and bigger.
 * • The purpose of wikipedia.
 * • Previously times others comments have deleted.
 * • What feeling oppress and censored is like.--Standforder (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Standforder (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I have never accused you of being anti-jewish. Secondly, I'm jewish, and I find your comments deeply offensive. Were you in any way involved in the holocaust? Did you get stuck in the camps, or did you see people you knew get killed? No. Don't you dare compare an argument over 5kb of data to the holocaust. You sit at a desk typing away with access to the internet; I put it to you that you don't understand what "prejudice, oppression and censorship" are like at all. "The right to freedom of speech and expression" covers you posting the information and trying to compare us deleting it to the Holocaust; thankfully it also covers me calling you an offensive twerp. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comparison, Standforder, is not only demeaning, but highly offensive. For someone who complains about anti-Jewish bias and prejudice, your analogy is sick, twisted, and highly insensitive to Jews around the world. I would certainly go for a much stronger word than 'twerp' as my closing statement, but I'll leave it up to you to put a word in place of this sentence. Congratulations, you have ruined my day. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am Jewish, why do tell me what is offensive? lookat your insensitivaties. I feel you are showing bias againist my article. I never claim you said I was anti-Jewish, but some have. It's disgusting accusation of me hating my own people. Researchers are hated when there finds disagree with others. Respectfully when did I say holocaust?--Standforder (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So because you're jewish you're the Oracle of Delphi for offensiveness? I'm not insensitive; I'm also jewish, so you playing that particular card fails quite spectacularly. You never specifically mentioned the holocaust, but "Jews we know prejuidce, oppression, and censorship, and discrimization are like its hurts. " refers either to that or to the various pogroms throughout history, all of which are offensive comparisons. I don't have bias against your article; I want to delete any article with no encyclopedic use. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is a shouting match about personal beliefs and positions, it does not make sense to use such positions as a rationale for deleting articles one finds offensive in some way. If WP is not censored, it most definitely must allow stuff we disagree with. Collect (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is nothing of the sort, and I am not using my position as a rationale for deletion. I was simply pointing out that his personal position does not appear anywhere under the notability guideline. Ironholds (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:SOAPBOX. 'Nuff said. --Izno (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * An Idea - possible transwiki to Wikiversity if deemed out of scope for this project and if SB_Johnny et all agree that it could be in scope. With a few tweaks, I could see the work as a valuable start for a discussion of oral vs written tradition within Judaism. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * - Thank-you for showing me some dignity I respect and appreciate that. I want to apologize and say I am really sorry if I caused you any hurt, or pain, in this I didn’t plan or wish to cause you any stress or frustration I also apologize for any annoyance you have endured that I might have caused. I also apologize if you went through the holocaust, which some of dear friends did, and love ones did. I did not plan to ruin any one’s day. It was just research. I just don’t understand here, all my points were from reference source material. I would kindly appreciate it if you could better explain this statement: “I don't have bias against your article; I want to delete any article with no encyclopedic use.” I say this in a respectfully and politely in a calm manner I say these things I was not playing any card, I was making an appeal, I don’t being call a anti-Semite, or Anti-Jewish which another Wikipedia user has called me, also I had statements referring my research as based on medieval gentile discretion against Jewish people, this statements hurt me even literally to bottom of stomach and inward parts. Just my research which on the side I personally convinced of is different my your beliefs you called a “twerp”, you know that hurts too. I am fortunate my self-esteem is not based on Wikipedia users or Youtube user otherwise I have dead a long time ago.

Just to clarify I was not referring any the holocaust, pogroms, and or crusades, just statement about general anti-Semitism. I was not calling you an anti-Semite, I was making a simple appeal.--Standforder (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no real way to explain “I don't have bias against your article; I want to delete any article with no encyclopedic use.”, it is what it says on the box. I am not biased against your article particularly. Any article with no encyclopedic use (such as this one) should be deleted; it doesn't matter if it is this one. Bias implies I particularly want to go after this article. Ironholds (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Encyclopedic use" is not required in userspace, however. Collect (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With something that long the standard reasoning is "oh, I'm turning it into an article". If it is not related to wikipedia then it falls under points 2, 4 and 8 of WP:UP. Ironholds (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting point - can you point to any MfD precedent on using length as a criterion for whether a user page is intended as an article? I would be glad to see such. Collect (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'd go with saying the user posting it repeatedly to the mainspace shows the content is intended as an article. It being deleted, of course, shows it isn't appropriate to be used as such. Ironholds (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Can this article be moved to a user page other than the main user page? It doesn't seem appropriate for that page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and move onto a sub page per ChildofMidnight. PhilKnight (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have not given up hope that he may learn to write an adequate article on this topic yet. DGG (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep and move to subpage in user space - If this is an attempt to work on an article, that's a great purpose for user space, so a subpage in user space is the perfect way to go. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Ironholds has changed my mind here.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually he already has it on a subpage; see User talk:Standforder/Criticism of the Talmud. Ironholds (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this version, and keep the copy on a subpage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY Delete per nominator: And for the following reasons, all based on well-known standard Wikipedia policies: (1) Violation of Criteria for speedy deletion: Violation of G4: "Recreation of deleted material" (see Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Talmud) which is defined as: "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." (2) "Basic rule that should be noted: User page: "...While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Similarly, pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages." In addition, (3) As the nominator points out this material that has been reposted on the user's private page was part of an article that was legitimatly deleted and as such he has no right to simply paste it on his user page to save it (unless that is allowed for everyone who has one of their articles deleted, no matter how much they are attached to it, it's verboten.) Therefore, the correct procedure is for the user who likes his deleted article so much, to then do what every other Wikipedian must do and follow the procedures at Deletion review and Deletion policy and open a new vote and see what comes of it like everyone else in his situation. (4) In any case this kind of tendentious inflamatory anti-Talmudic vitriol from hostile sources that wish to destroy the credibility of one of Judaism's most treasured resources and the basis of its Oral Torah is a pure offensive WP:NOR (as noted in the original AfD at Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Talmud) and even WP:NPA because there are many living Talmudists in Wikipedia articles as well as editors who are Talmudists and value it. There is a way of doing this kind of research, but this is not the way to present it and it would disgrace Wikipedia for stooping to such lows. (5) Clear violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX; WP:NOTWEBHOST; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. (6) Finally, see this important rule yet again that: Wikipedia is not your web host: "Many of the content restrictions listed above apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. See User page help for current consensus guidelines on user pages." This therefore should be deleted ASAP, no ifs ands or buts. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ... Are you god? :P. Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete please. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POINT. Offensive historically revisionist material of no purpose to writing an encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk  13:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Speedy Delete as per IZAK. Nobody's "censoring" this guy's ideas, he can write a blog or put his ideas on a website. There's simply not enough wiggle room in the Wikirules for this stuff. --Yodamace1 (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Speedy Delete as per IZAK. The user page is not a blog. --Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as per nomination. The rules on this issue seem quite clear to me and this usage of a user page is inappropriate. --yonkeltron (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG (and cuz I'm annoyed at all the bold "speedies" and "strongs"). -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per User:Jfdwolff. This is something more suitable for a personal webpage than for an encyclopedia. And if, as DGG hopes, it can be turned into a neutral article instead of an thinly veiled anti-Rabbinic-Judaism polemic, it can be worked on off-wiki and brought back in an acceptable form. -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Avi. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully to all the comment made here, the information was not posted to offend anyone. But these sources: The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, The Jewish encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Judaica, The encyclopedia Hebraica, Encyclopaedia Britannacia are not anti-rabbinic polemic. How can one have information on why some are criticial of the Talmud itself when you would ask all the information to be censored anyway on these kinds of grounds? How can one understand why a Karaite or a Christian or other might have rejected the Talmud for their theologicial or secular reasons when you would censor all information on it? Can it not be viewed as bias to the party that is countering. Wikipedia article should like professional journalism, balanced in presentation. In effect you are saying only orthodox rabbinic beliefs on this subject are allowed on wikipedia, not any of other religious or secularist groups "thinly veiled" as "offensive".--Standforder (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um...actually, by suggesting that the page be deleted, I'm saying that it's unencyclopedic. I'm not saying anything about religion at all.  Neither, I suspect, are the vast majority of people who have commented here.  You're not engaging with the arguments made here by others, you're engaging with some argument going on inside your own head.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe he is referring to Avraham's comment that it is a 'thinly veiled anti-Rabbinic-Judaism polemic'. I do, however, agree with you; counterarguments should be based on things that actually apply. It isn't written down anywhere, but should be; if you argue based on concepts such as 'freedom of speech', 'oppression' and the idea that everyone is wrong other than you rather than with Wikipedia policy, chances are it is because policy does not support your argument and you are in the wrong. Ironholds (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Politely and respectful, I write this, it must be an encyclopedic work because it mainly quotes from encyclopedias. As stated previously the article quotes from many encyclopedic sources, as wells some reference books, and related newpaper & news articles, & both the Talmuds & the bible, are quoted and also where to find in the text it also written so it is not vague paraphase but an actual quoted passage. I am not againist wikipedia's policies, but I believe some here must be claiming it not encyclopedic, to suit their possible bias. As to the statement "everyone is wrong other than you rather", I disagree with, for my article has been edited countless times by me to improve & refined it, adding references, quoteing the reference sources itself, & removing unencyclopedic material, in addition to rewrite parts of the article so it's less "offensive" to others. In addition I've apologized the user Ironholds beforehand, when he said I'd offended him.--Standforder (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten me; what possible bias is this? And you did apologise to me, yes; in such a way that it was apparent you did not understand why I had been offended. I will say it again, as I have said many times before on this page and on your talkpage; the bible and the talmud are not reliable, third-party sources. They are thousands of years old, have been repeatedly edited to push a particular POV, edited again, had bits get lost, had bits stripped out; in short, it is about reliable as a self-published book titled 'why rabbinic judaism is wrong' by I. R. Anti-Semite (and before you get all hot and bothered, no, I am not accusing you of being anti-semetic). This doesn't cover the fact that it is hardly 'third party' either. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don’t know what bias necessary is, but I know this you have a bias against this article. If the article is about the why some do accept the divinity of the Talmud, for there reasons, not necessary anything of personal beliefs, especially when the most groups don’t accept for theological reasons based on the Bible. Then they became main sources of the discussion at hand. In addition information about these groups, and everything else is supplementary to the main discussion. If we supported your thinking & ideology here on Wikipedia, there would next to nothing for information on ancient texts which would unappectable.--Standforder (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC) And as stated before it must an encyclopedic work because it quotes much from encyclopedias themselves.--Standforder (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have shown your bias by stating it is: A. “unencyclopedic” B. the bible and the Talmud are not reliable, third-party sources. - A. Please check the references again. B. When address those do not accept the talmud based on their reasoning be it secular, or theological one quote the references why including the bible for groups who theological disagree based their claimed biblical reasons e.g., Karites.--Standforder (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it quite offensive that you consider me 'biased' based on the fact that I want to apply Wikipedia policy; indeed, if I was not applying policy then it would be more appropriate to consider me biased. The claim that the Bible and Talmud are not reliable, third-party sources is easily justified, and is not a biased one. My reasoning is:

"My reasoning is:" vs. "wikipedia".--Standforder (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Reliable: The bible/talmud have been edited repeatedly throughout the years by a variety of agenda-pushing groups. In addition the language of the Talmud and Bible allow people to read different things into the same words; reading the same sentence, one person can say X and another can say Y.
 * 2) Third party: this one is fairly obvious. If you are writing about the Talmud then the Talmud itself is not a third party source. Instead it is a primary source; I would advise you to read WP:PRIMARY, particularly the sentence 'Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge'. You are taking opinions from the text rather than 'descriptive claims', something inappropriate for a primary source. Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * With due respect, this should not be a war of words. You’re claiming your beliefs are the same as those of Wikipedia’s policies. You see, your problem is not with me, or the article itself, it’s the people (groups) mentioned in it. E.g., there is Wikipedia articles on Satan, I do not agree some people opinions on him, but Wikipedia still acknowledges them, I don’t personally feel or think Satan is a good guy, but some groups do, & they have articles about them. The article is not: What should you believe? It is: What do they believe & why? I’m trying to present a perspective because is little information provided on why some, keyword some, do not accept the Talmud as a divine book. If you disagree with their reasons, feel free to do so, but the article is not attacking you, it presenting them. If party A, views book X1 as Divine, but also feel book X2 is Divine and there is a Party B which views book XI as also Divine, but disagrees with Book X2 being Divine. Both XI & X2 would be mentioned if were you explained why the disagreed.--Standforder (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'You see, your problem is not with me, or the article itself, it’s the people (groups) mentioned in it'. No. Accusing me of bias is one thing, but racism? You've already been repeatedly warned and blocked once for rampant incivility; do you ever think about what comes out of your mouth? And if this is what you consider 'due respect' then you have bigger issues than an MfD. I have never accused the content of 'attacking me' you seem to be setting up some kind of ad hominem attack. let me make this perfectly clear for you. I am not racist, biased, anti-whatever group you are currently touting. Saying that I am and then counter-arguing against said racism/bias/anti-whatever feeling is a waste of your time. If party A and Party B disagree on which of books 1 and 2 are divine that is absolutely fine, but citing books 1 and 2 in your page is not. You seem to be missing the point here, which is that such content is inappropriate for a userpage. Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Ironholds and others; blatant soapboxing in violation of WP:NOT. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - this MFD may now be irrelevant as the owner has blanked their user page. However, a similar version of the material seems to exist on a subpage at User talk:Standforder/Criticism of the Talmud - should that be nominated for MFD as well?
 * I'll see what happens with this'n. The user in question kicked himself in teeth and just about destroyed any 'well, he is a useful user' credibility by blanking my talkpage, userpage and editor review before getting blocked for abusing his edit rights. Ironholds (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE: See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Standforder/Criticism of the Talmud. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this as the user blanked it and it is an inappropriate distraction for a user page. Would be inclined to say weak keep on the user subpage, for now, if the user can return to productive editing. Jonathunder (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to process this as a delete as closing admin, but was overwhelmed by feelings that I think it should be deleted to, so became a participant instead. — xaosflux  Talk  12:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So you want it to be deleted but delayed its deletion? :P. Ironholds (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, I know--but I was feeling biased towards the deletion so didn't want to be The Decider. — xaosflux  Talk  03:24, 8 January 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.