Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TehDman

 __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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:TehDman
Pretty much pure vandalism but doesn't seem blatant enough for G3. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear vandalism, offensive language. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 12:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete might be OK if this were otherwise a normal contributor, but it doesn't look like this account's here to write an encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not vandalism, fer shure. Unless you have never heard gun people talk. "Offensive language"? Nah.  Tells us about the editor? Yep. Proper in userspace? Yep. Collect (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely unconstructive page, bordering on attack page. As for "Unless you have never heard gun people talk", I have heard many types of people talk, including some who take pleasure in being offensive for the sake of it, but that doesn't mean it isn't offensive. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gigs, the user who wrote this doesn't appear to be interested in helping build an encyclopedia. PhilKnight (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Collect, I don't know why under policy, but if there isn't a policy that covers this, there ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gigs. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It simply does not qualify as vandalism. This is something that is perfectly fine for a user to write in his own userspace unless someone is going to cite a policy that prohibits this.  EdEColbert  Let me know 07:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTANARCHY, and in some places WP:UP. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 17:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that WP is not anarchy is the reason why I stated that policy justification is required for deletion. Not a polemic either as it doesn't "attack or vilify."  EdEColbert  Let me know 04:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It "attacks or vilifies" democarts, doesn't it? Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 04:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It says "damned" democrats. I just don't think that makes it an "attack". It's either being used as an intensifier or it means that it is his religious belief that they will be going to Hell. I don't care which, and it's not an attack or a big deal unless he adds it to an article on the Democratic Party.  EdEColbert  Let me know 04:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking about this:"Taking away my amendment rights and my guns, 'blahblahblah guns r bad lol dey kill ppl" Also this:"For all I care you could go drive a truck full of dicks into a cement wall if you wanted." Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, but the first isn't an attack. It's a statement that Democrats are in favor of gun control and that Democrats tend to believe that guns kill people rather than the more conservative view that people kill people. The second quotation is not directed at Democrats, but oddly towards users that ask him about making robots. The fact that the prospect of filling the back of a truck with penises or dildos and driving it into a wall is ridiculous nonsense but not a polemic that vilifies anyone, and is certainly not grounds for deleting the whole page. I understand your viewpoint but do not find a problem with this page.  EdEColbert  Let me know 06:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: legitimate expression of an editor's views. That's what userspace is for.  Profanity is never a reason to delete.  You don't like him expressing his disagreement with the gun policies of the Democratic Party?  Or is it his characterization of anti-hunting advocates?  While this editor clearly has strong feelings about certain segments of the population, I don't see anything that crosses the line.  Saying that the person who invented the M4 "should die" is clearly hyperbole. Buddy431 (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not due to swearing, but the general unconstructive tenor of the writing. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SOAPBOX, which states: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Wikipedia pages may not be used for advocacy unrelated to Wikipedia, but pages in the Wikipedia namespace may be used to advocate for specific viewpoints regarding the improvement or organization of Wikipedia itself. So essays, portals, project pages, etc. are part of what Wikipedia is. The quotes provided by have demonstrated that this page has crossed from just telling about the editor to soapboxing. I agree with the deletion of this soapboxing by a user who, save for the creation of a redirect in 2008, has never contributed to building this encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 06:23, 24 October 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.