Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Trampton/Gag


 * 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 Delete. Xoloz 15:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Trampton/Gag
Page is from the "new message" bar that he posted. I got into trouble for posting one and I told him that but he didn't believe me. WikiMan53 t/s Review me! 00:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question I know that policy on this was discussed at great length on ANI and at a Village Pump a month or two ago. Does anyone have a link to the final community decision (if there was one) that might help resolve this without having to through a 5-day deletion debate, or reinvent the wheel? Newyorkbrad 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes see here. WikiMan53 t/s Review me! 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * delete per new User page guideline. Nardman1 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The old you have messages redirecting to a haha page Joke has long since run its course. There should be a bot or something... --Infrangible 00:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep First, this is a discussion about deleting the user subpage, not about removing the joke from the userpage. The subpage itself doesn't contravene the guideline cited above.  Second, the guideline cited above is just that, a guideline.  One can no more violate a guideline than violate any other suggestion, hint, or opinion.  This guideline is (arguably) the community's opinion, but it is not a policy, and, therefore, not enforceable.  This MfD claims no policy violation and is, itself, violative of the hands-off philosophy generally adopted with regard to userspace.  (Well, if one can violate a guideline, one can violate a philosophy.)  --Ssbohio 12:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True but if we delete the subpage this one thats nominated here, he wont need the new message bar. Plus this page is uncyclopedic and useless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiMan53 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The page being proposed for deletion isn't covered by the guideline. All else is essentially off-topic.  As far as its being "uncyclopedic," the requirement to be encyclopedic extends to articles in mainspace, but not to subpages in userspace.  So, this is also an inapplicable application of policy.  The last element you cite is that it is useless.  We give tolerance & wide latitude on what people have in their userspace.  As long as we remember what Wikipedia is not I see no reason (except WP:IDONTLIKEIT) to eliminate this bad joke from our lexicon. --Ssbohio 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is part of a guideline. Guidelines should be adhered to unless there is a good reason to violate them. (Policies are a bit stricter: they should be followed unless there is an extremely good reason to ignore them.) I do not see a good reason to keep this page. Given the volumes of discussion that went into deciding what to do about fake new message bars, the concern was raised that people might not take this issue seriously if it were only put into a guideline. Which, it seems, is happening. Grace notes T § 17:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First things first: the guideline in question doesn't apply to the subpage itself, only to the box on the userpage that links to the subpage. We're trying to fit a square situation into a round guideline.
 * WP:POLICY states (in part) that guidelines are less rigid rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases. In other words, guidelines don't enjoy the near-universal acceptance of policies, they aren't hard & fast rules, and they don't automatically apply in any case to which they might conceivably apply.  Quoting further, guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense.  This doesn't seem to argue for a doctrinaire approach to enforcing guidelines on userspace by force if necessary.
 * Last, it might be that people don't take this issue seriously because it isn't a serious issue. We're not talking about creating a fake (redacted per WP:BEANS) page or other malicious spoofing of the interface.  This is a bad joke that doesn't merit the ASCII that's already gone into arguing about it.  It's a non-problem and it screams for a non-solution. --Ssbohio 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, a guideline exists, and people want to enforce it. There are two options: 1. accept it, or 2. change the guideline. As I mentioned, a lot of debate has already gone into this; I am not exactly of the opinion that the latter will come to pass. If this debate ends in delete, you could always go to WP:DRV. Arguing that the subpage is okay seems to be a matter of Wikilawyering: it is glued to its purpose. An exception to that: an autograph book of an active user it would be acceptable, as established by a previous MFD. No parade-raining is intended here... but this orange bar meme is old. Grace notes T § 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You and I actually agree that the "you have messages" bar is a bad idea akin to stuffing beans up someone else's nose. However, even if this goes to delete, it would be a pyrrhic victory.  The user could just edit the box and the deletion of the landing page would make no difference to the problem you're trying to fight.  That's not wikilawyering, that's common sense.  The proposed solution (deletion) should achieve the purported goal (eliminating the new messages box).  It doesn't.  Guidelines, as policy says, should be treated with common sense.  Its harm is miniscule if any as far as I can see..  --Ssbohio 03:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, then why did Metros232 make me delete mine? May I have it back? WikiMan53 t/s Review me! 17:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - the old "You have new messages" trick is the most pointless and annoying joke in Wikipedia's history, IMO. Ordinarily I support users' privilege of keeping whatever they want in userspace, but this is something which is fundamentally unconducive to building an encyclopedia. Wal  ton  Need some help?  18:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This joke, like most, is fundamentally neutral to building an encyclopedia. One can argue implications, either that it's a distraction to our work or that, like any joke, it's a reminder of the humanity and community of our editors.  What's the policy basis for this deletion?  The guideline in question doesn't even address the issue of subpages pointed to by a spoof message box.  --Ssbohio 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily I would sympathise with the point you're trying to make here - users should be allowed to have a little fun in userspace. But I disagree with your assertion that this is neutral to building an encyclopedia; for those of us who get a lot of messages, it's irritating and makes editing harder. Wal  ton  Need some help?  12:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "new message" box won't go away because we delete the subpage. The way I see it, the long-term solution is to create a new message alert that isn't so readily spoofable.  --Ssbohio 03:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - This joke has been milked out and gotten old. Enough with these pointless pranks. Also per Walton monarchist89.  The Hippie  03:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a dumb joke. It's an old joke.  It (arguably) isn't funny anymore.  What's the policy basis for deleting this user subpage? --Ssbohio 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:U indicates, and indeed it is common practice, that pages with no clear encyclopedic connection may be kept at the discretion of the community. The community is rather tired of this joke, it appears. Grace notes T § 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:U is the policy on usernames. I didn't see anything germane to this discussion;  Perhaps you meant a different policy?  WP:USER states that "you can have anything" on a user subpage "that you might have on your user or user talk page."   The subpage we're here to discuss isn't the joke you want to eliminate, so deleting it won't achieve your goals.  To me, it's the principle of leaving a user's space alone except in cases of clear necessity.  The policy about the message box doesn't address the subpage.  Since process is important, we shouldn't be about expanding a policy into areas it doesn't mention, much less address.  --Ssbohio 03:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Walton_monarchist89 and The Hippie. --Fang Aili talk 15:23, 30 April 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.