Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Charles Manson

User:Wildhartlivie/Charles Manson



 * 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 Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 17:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Abandoned userspace scratchpad, created in May last year, two edits also in May 2008, no edits since other than bots. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see User:Wildhartlivie is quite active. What happened with first asking the editor about this temp article before nominating it for deletion? Garion96 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - User wants to keep it. I don't see much benefit in deleting it. Garion96 (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly not abandoned, based on this comment. Apparently the user is using this page to work on an article for eventual FA status. There's no requirement to follow any particular schedule. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is in my userspace, I edit on Wikipedia daily, my userspace pages are not abandoned. I am aware of no Wikipedia policy that says I cannot maintain an article in my own userspace that I have preserved to work on when I am so inclined in anticipation of working this up to WP:FA at some point. That I haven't worked on it in a while is beside the point. Please withdraw this nomination. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy keep Active user, reasonable project.   DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The user may be active but this was created in userspace in May last year and the only edits were two within days of creation. What's the purpose of a userspace fork which has not been touched for over a year? The only changes are by bots. we are filling up the server and creating work for maintenance bots in order to maintain a copy of the page which, as far as I can tell, is already in the edit history anyway. I have nothign against people working on stuff, though forking and rewriting active articles in userspace has a tendency to create drama, but this is untouched since creation. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Creating work for maintenance bots... a bot repaired a broken in November. To date, this nomination is the only drama that's ever occurred regarding this page and the work began at the time the article was nominated for GA when one of the issues from the GA review was the length of the article. Let's note for the record that the only reason this came to anyone's attention for any reason was that someone came upon it when removing links to a website from several pages and one happened to be on it, not because of contention, drama, disputes or other issues of any kind related to it. Although I would love to know if there is an easier way to find links on pages besides running an advanced Google search. That would help immensely in finding Twitter links being used for inappropriate sourcing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete user space is for improving articles but this hasn't been edited by the user since May last year. I would say keep and discuss first, but after reading User_talk:JzG there's no need. Any further edits this user wishes to make can be on the current article, there's no reason to have their own personal copy.--Otterathome (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean: could you explain? It seems to me that many of the changes Wildhartlivie made in May 2008 have not been incorporated into the article yet. Therefore deleting the article would make these changes inaccessible to the Wildhartlivie, who is not an admin – or would at least remove a convenient means of further editing and diff comparison based on those changes, even if Wildhartlivie retains a copy offline.  If Wildhartlivie is having difficulty finding time to work on the article, making it less convenient to do so is not going to help. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If there's no reason to keep it, why is there a reason to delete it? Is it an attack page? No. Is it anyway disruptive? No. Does the user who's subpage it is want to keep it? Yes. So why delete it? Abce2 | This is  not a test  20:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Wildhartlivie works many articles and is here everyday as far as I know. If she says she is keeping this to use it to take the article to FA status I believe her.  She does excellent work so as long as there is no policy to demand it be deleted I would like to see this kept for her so that when she gets around to it she can work on it. Remember there are no deadlines.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as Manson is still alive and this is not the RT version; from an editor with controversial views on the subject . Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? What controversial views on the subject of Charles Manson do I have, Squeakbox? Reporting sock puppets of banned users who run blogs about him has nothing whatsoever to do with my views about Manson or any of the articles related to him. Don't muddy the waters with specious and unfounded statements like that, it has nothing to do with it. And what does him living have to do with whether I have a copy of the article, with many specific differences from the current one, in my userspace for future work have anything to do with his being alive or dead? There are no BLP violations on this page or on the Manson page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Making uncalled for personal attacks is not going to save your page; please control yourself and act civilly; you seem to think you can just attack anyone who gets in your way. Your dismissal of BLP makes me certain we are right those of us who call for this page to be deleted. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the personal attack? Your delete comment was more about the editor, than the validity of the page in its own right.  Rossrs (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What personal attack did I make? You claimed that I hold controversial views on the subject of Charles Manson, which is patently untrue and I asked what those were and stated that your saying so is specious and unfounded. No personal attack there. That I have reported sock puppets of banned users who like to tinker on the Manson articles has nothing to do with this page. No personal attack there. I am in no way out of control and I was not incivil. I also did not, in any way, shape or form, dismiss WP:BLP. I stated unequivocably that there are no WP:BLP issues to my knowledge with either the main Manson article or with the copy on my userpage. I ask again, what difference does it make with whether I have this page in my userspace for tweaking and reducing the page size given that? There is absolutely nothing that is in that article that isn't in the main article, although several portions of it have been cut and some wording was tweaked. What's the problem here that I'm not seeing and why you are getting so upset? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming that my vote has to do with Col Scott is a personal attack and to receive this level of grief for daring to vote delete against this editor is not at all acceptable; I thoroughly endorse Guy's comments here; and as for your controversial views, you have engaged in edit warring to defend these views and now claim they don't exist. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I did not claim that your comment, since we do not vote on deletion discussions, was related to that person. In response to your complete dismissal of the current topic under discussion, where you stated that this page in my userspace should be deleted because I hold controversial views on the subject, I stated that the only controversial thing about me in regard to the subject of this specific page is that I have reported a banned sock puppet who operates a blog on the subject. How does that in any way become a personal attack upon you? You're not Col Scott, nor did I mention that person, and frankly, I didn't make a personal attack upon any user here, even that one. You still haven't explained what views I have on the subject of Manson that are so highly controversial nor have you explained why that would effect whether or not I have a workpage on the Manson article in my userspace. The only disputes I have had about Manson page was in sourcing disputes quite a very long time ago, and recently, insisting on reliable sourcing for statements on some ancillary member pages. There is quite a difference between reverting sources that are not considered reliable and "edit warring" to defend some nebulous "controversial" view I have. No clue what is so controversial about my views, heh, I didn't even know I had a view on Manson besides policy adherence on use of images and what is or isn't reliable sourcing. Not much on the man himself or the family. On the contrary, you've made several contentious statements and accusations about me here now that have nothing whatsoever to do with this specific page under discussion for deletion, and factually, nothing you have said to me has anything to do with the retention or deletion of this page. Actually, to my knowledge, your article interests and mine do not cross, we have had little to no interaction relating to Wikipedia articles in general and we have rarely crossed paths, except once or twice regarding a banned sock puppet who returned. None of that has a smidgen to do with the page under discussion, period. So yeah, I do have to wonder what is going on here. As an afterthought, though, what did bring you to this particular MfD discussion? Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question it was Guy's user page (apparently one of the most watched on wikipedia) that brought me here; Manson is exactly the kind of person who has long been on my admittedly bloated watchlist so I was curious enough to read the thread on Guy's talk page; a typically sensible move is this nomination by this admin; btw chewck this thread, you most certainly did bring up the Col Scott issue, not me, sigh. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention any usernames. I discreetly mentioned that the only controversial views I have about the Charles Manson page regard reporting a banned sock puppet who blogs about him in response to your reasoning for why I shouldn't have a userspace work page about it. That's as close to controversy as I come with it. And the controversy has nothing to do with userspace pages or the right to have them, so yeah, the reasoning is specious. Heck, you might as well say delete because the sky is blue, that doesn't pertain either, but it isn't an ad hominem argument either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually tend to the view that we shouldn't hold bios of living people in the way you have in user space or at all except where necessary; the fact that you don't seem to think blp matters here makes me more certain that delete is the right choice. Your belittling the arguments of those who disagree with you having this in your user space do you no credit. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * SqueakBox, the only argument you made in your original post was that I have "controversial views", an adhominem attack upon me, without basis in fact and and nothing on the merits of the deletion process. Let's give credit where credit is due here. I don't know you, I don't work on articles with you, I have never had issues with you, we have rarely crossed paths here and you do not work on articles with me. You have no reason to have drawn any of the conclusions you have put forth here and frankly, the only personal attacks I've seen here have been a character assassination upon me, by you, for no obvious reason - from your first post. You have no reason to make such accusations against me and frankly, I'm mystified by pretty much everything you have said here about me. You are making specious, untrue claims about me that have nothing to do with this. There was never a statement by me, nor is there anything, anywhere, at any time, that I do not support BLP issues and you are blankly misrepresenting what I said. I said there are no BLP issues to my knowledge on the Charles Manson main space page and there are no BLP issues to my knowledge on the page in my userspace. I have no idea where you have gotten such a notion, or for that matter - even if everything you said here had an iota of fact in it - how that would matter to the discussion of a deletion of a page that has none of those issues involved. There's something else going on here, although I really don't know what that is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure there arent any hidden agendas here; and not credible that the Manson article has no blp issues, even less that it couldnt have any. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not what I said SqueakBox. I said none to my knowledge and your claim that I have issues personally with WP:BLP is specious and untrue. Please do not misrepresent my statements. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you personally have issues with blp as you are a regular editor of living bios; I also persoanlly have issues with blp as does every editor who regularly works with articles with blp issues (and the Manson article most certainly is replete with these issues due entirely to the controversial nature of his life); I nderstand you feel the mfd was an attack on you but please dont dismiss blp. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah geez, SqueakBox, now who is tinkering with semantics? You have clearly and repeatedly stated here that I have a tendency to dismiss WP:BLP, which is factually untrue and an ad hominem attack. In case you didn't quite understand my comments - I don't dismiss BLP, I don't try to work around BLP, and I don't edit war against it. That is what I mean by not having issues with BLP and I'm fairly certain everyone else here that is reading this understands that. Yes, the Manson article may face continued issues that pertain to WP:BLP as do all other articles that fall under that policy, but it's the violations to which I refer. Again, stop misrepresenting my comments. The only attack that has been made here started with your first statement here "Delete as Manson is still alive; from an editor with controversial views on the subject." The only issues I have to deal with concerning the Manson article and those related are from having to challenge unsourced statements, unacceptable sources per WP:RS and original research and the occasional errant sock puppets. I do not feel the deletion nomination was an attack, the only attack I perceive has been from you and that is also fairly clear to everyone else reading this. You've made your statements, to which I feel a real need to clarify what you're implying with innuendo and false conclusions. Please just stop. There are a lot of things people can say about me that might be true, but what you're trying to sell here is not true. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't understand why this is even being discussed. Wildhartlivie is an active editor, and unless user pages contravene some kind of Wiki policy - this one doesn't - why does anyone else need to be involved?   There is nothing on User page to support  deleting this page.   The page also says "it is considered polite to raise your concerns on the user's talk page before taking any action."  That didn't happen but it more than suggests that the user has a say in the matter.   It also says "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit."   Wikipedia doesn't need to stretch itself to "wide latitude" to respect and support Wildhartlivie's wishes, which are conveyed without ambiguity above, with her comment,  "Please withdraw this nomination."   I agree that there is a lot of nonsense on Wikipedia that can and should be deleted, but deleting one user page, against the wishes of the user who created it, isn't going to take any pressure off the bots.  Soon this discussion will be as long as Wildhartlivie's user page, and if we're really worried about filling up the servers, maybe this page is the one that should be deleted.   Rossrs (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is being discussed because somebody nominated it for deletion; shame that those supporting the nominator have had to face a barrage of personal attacks. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said above, I thought your delete comment was more about the editor than the page under discussion, and I see that as a form of personal attack.  If you make comments like that, you shouldn't be surprised if people reply.  Rossrs (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is in the user space we must consider the editor and not merely the article which would not be the case in main space. Far from being a personal attack that is what we have been asked to do by the mfd process. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where? Rossrs (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean where? We have been asked to comment on the suitability of Wildhartlivie having a version of the Charles manson article in his user space. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No.  We've been invited to comment on the suitability of Wikipedia retaining a version of the Charles Manson article on a user page.   We have not been invited to comment on the suitability of a particular editor to keep such a page.   Rossrs (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is just semantics; it means the same thing and others have made clear that in their opinion the fact that wildhart edits a lot makes a difference; you cant have it both ways, ie we can say why s/he should be allowed to keep the page but not why s/he shouldn't. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Just because!--Victor9876 (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the user in question has clearly shown above that this is not Abandoned userspace scratchpad. If the user wants to take their time in editing an article on their user space, I see no guidelines that woudl preclude this. If the user was not active, it would be a different matter, but as the user has made 59 edits today, they are very much active. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: No reason to delete. --Carnildo (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The page is still in use, and as Coppertwig said, Wikipidia policy is not in the habit of enforcing time limits to an editor's work.    Sophus Bie  (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Because there is no deadline.  The reason that it's relevant that the editor is still active is because a userpage of an inactive editor is pretty much a no-brainer for deletion; it has absolutely nothing to do with the editor him- or herself.  Morevoer, it is not the scope of this community to worry about issues like server load; Wikimedia Foundation is sure to let us know if they need to impose limits on that basis.  The only remotely plausible argument for deletion is the suggestion that a violation of WP:BLP either exists, or has a credible potential to exist in the future.  I would recommend to SqueakBox that this line of thinking would be best pursued by one of the following:
 * Provide specific quotes from the page that you feel are in violation, and also provide the specific passages of policy that are violated;
 * Provided diffs that demonstrate that this editor has engaged in the edit warring you have described, and relate it to specific concerns about modifications made in user space; or
 * If you believe that there is an overarching concern about BLP violations in user space as a matter of principle, consider bringing this up as a proposed policy discussion.--otherlleft 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep No valid reason to delete, and there is no deadline. All this has accomplished is gain a new bully for Wildhartlivie. This AFD was wholly unnecessary. Vodello (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I just wanna be a little different, I'm tired of seeing all the keeps. Being different is crucial for survival. Thats how evolution works too. Yea. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Matt57, do you have rationale for your deletion opinion, or just "I want to be different"? tedder (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Blank until ready to work on it There is a possibility that a user will land on this article fork from Google and believe it to be the actual article. It is not as likely because Manson's main article has a much higher pagerank than a more obscure article, but the general concern is still there.  Blanking the article until you are ready to work on it will address this concern while still allowing you to work on it on your own timeline. Gigs (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wildhartlivie could put the Template:UserWorkInProgress at the top of the page - would this be a good compromise, Gigs? Then anyone seeing it through a Google search will see right at the top of the page that this is not an article. I think it would set an unfortunate precedent to blank this page - many other users have draft articles in their user space, and using this logic, they'd all need to be blanked apart from the times they are actively editing them! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 15:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur, it would be an onerous precedent. I was going to suggest , but the idea is the same.--otherlleft 17:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be a new precedent, we already blank old drafts that haven't been edited in a long time.  I'm not sure what the objection is.  It's the same effort to blank/unblank as it is to add/remove this template, and blanking is 100% certain, while this template might not be noticed. The only reason I can think of for wanting to keep the article publicly visible is to present their preferred fork to the public, which is a specifically forbidden use of userspace. Gigs (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying there's precedent for blanking pages, or that there's precedent for requiring user pages be blanked when not in use? That's the one I want to avoid.  As to your concern that a template may not be noticed . . . well, stop signs may not be noticed, either, but we don't remove roads because of that concern.  If someone goes there trying to do actual research they probably would look closely enough to notice the template.  The cursory reader, who is incredibly unlikely to find the page anyway, is probably not going to quote the info accurately if they can't even notice the template.--otherlleft 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's precedent for both. Blanking is less authoritarian than deletion of obsolete drafts, yet still addresses all the problems that otherwise benign obsolete forks cause.  You still haven't addressed why the template is preferable. Gigs (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, there is no "preferred fork" aspect to the page in my userspace. I explained clearly above the reason for the page - to work on trying to cut the article size without losing content in consideration of a future WP:GA or WP:FA bid, some of which had been done. To the editors who worked on the mainspace page, the article is so close to that already and the issue that led to removing the article that exists from GA/FA consideration was based almost wholly on the article size. Sometimes an article needs to be larger than proscribed by those processes. The userspace page is quite hidden from view of the general reader. As I noted, it was only noticed because it contained an old ref to a site being removed from various articles in the wake of the death of Susan Atkins. Just to clarify regarding the actual page under discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gigs, I am of the view that the template was designed to prevent the kind of (increibly unlikely) confusion that you describe. Establishing a precedent for requiring an inactive user work page to be blanked could lead to editors scouring one another's user spaces for old articles and blanking them, or bringing them here so we can get consensus to blank them - largely time that could be spent improving the encyclopedia instead.  I say "establish" a precedent, because you haven't verified that one exists, and so I can't consider it.  Do you have a link?--otherlleft 12:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A comment from the nominator
Folks, I am confused here. Poeple seem to think there is "no reason for deletion" but I disagree. This is a copy of an article on a living individual, a contentious one at that, which has had a couple of edits and then sat around untouched for over a year during which time the live article has changed. That makes this fork of no practical use whatsoever, unless the user wants to effectively roll the live article back by over a year - which is likely to see some spirited opposition. We do not keep forked articles on living people just for fun, you have to have a compelling reason for it, because it means we have to police WP:BLP in two places, one of which is completely out of public view. What utility is there for the encyclopaedia in a slightly modified 18-month-old fork of an article on a serial killer? Guy (Help!) 09:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please point out BLP violations in the article and I might change my mind. What I mind most about this nom was that you didn't even asked User:Wildhartlivie about the page. Instead you simply went straight to Miscellany for deletion. Garion96 (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The extremely bad form of this nomination aside, I don't agree with the premise. This isn't a forked article, it's a userfied copy of an article.  As the nominator admits, it's completely out of public view.  However, I agree with Garion96 that if specific BLP violations can be cited that I will very likely change my opinion.--otherlleft 12:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Guy is 100% correct, really the article should be speedied based on this argument. It appears that most editors here either don't know about or don't care about blp, starting with Wildhart. No page on wikipedia is completely out of public view, to claim so is disengenuous, Otherlleft, and user space is not exempt from blp as some, including Wildhart, are claiming. I hope in this case arguments and not numbers will mean the closing admin makes the correct decision. As tot he claim to the extremely bad form of the nomiation, what codswallop, really if that si the basis of the keep arguemnt lets delete and be done with it. Charles Manson may have done some bad things but he is a human being too and editors here do not have the right to forget that. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you point out a blp violation in the draft. Also, could you point a diff where someone is saying in this discussion that user space is exempt from BLP? Because I don't see it. Garion96 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We arent going to monitor the article waiting for a blp violation, the idea that blp can only be enforced when the vio has occurred is not, fortunately, policy. The real article is on 100s of watchlists, this page is not. Nowhere on wikipedia is exempt from blp, obviously, the idea that we can say what we want about whoever in our user space is simply a non-starter. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course that it is a non-starter. I just don't see where anyone has said so here. So if you could point that out for me it would be appreciated. Garion96 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep making personal comments about Wildhartlivie, and for the record, I've lost count of the number of articles she has safeguarded against BLP concerns. Please stick to the page under discussion and don't presume that you know what other editors do or don't know or do or don't care about.    It's a simple enough request - show a BLP violation on the page in question.   If you can then show where Wildhartlivie claims user pages are exempt from BLP requirements, that will be a bonus.   Also you say "Guy is 100% correct" but Guy also says "one of which is completely out of view", so when you say "No page on wikipedia is completely out of public view, to claim so is disengenuous",  does that mean you are saying that Guy is not 100% correct.   Because you just finished saying that he was.    Or did you forget for a moment that it was Guy that said it, and not Wildhartlivie?  It makes your line of reasoning a little difficult to follow.  Rossrs (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * She claims Manson has no blp issues which is a dangerous assertion and untrue, we dont have to wait for someone to attack Manson before removing this page, such an attitude encourages blp vios and wikipedia does not encourage blp vios. Rossr, you have completely baffled me with your own line of reasoning, yes I support Guy's approach here, what is so difficult to understand in that. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is utterly untrue.  She said: "There was never a statement by me, nor is there anything, anywhere, at any time, that I do not support BLP issues and you are blankly misrepresenting what I said. I said there are no BLP issues to my knowledge on the Charles Manson main space page and there are no BLP issues to my knowledge on the page in my userspace." (Wildhartlivie's italics)   I don't know how she could have spelt it out any clearer, and for you to translate that into "She claims Manson has no blp issues" completely misrepresents what she has said.   As for you being baffled by my comments, yes I can see that.  It's clear you support Guy, and I don't think you need to repeat that, but a lot of what you makes very little sense, and you don't back up anything with examples.  You're making claims and expecting other editors to accept them without question.   Why should we?  Give an example of a BLP violation - we keep on asking, but asking isn't getting -  and I too will reconsider my stance.   Rossrs (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So the claim "Manson has no BLP issues" equals "user space is exempt from BLP"? Garion96 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Wildhartlivie claimed Manson has no BLP issues - merely that this draft article doesn't. You say that this is untrue - in that case cite specific examples from Wildhartlivie's page that shows BLP issues. Incidently, I for one don't think that user space work is exempt from BLP - but I can't find any example of how this particular page is going against any policy etc.
 * I am sure that many people on here will now have this page on their watchlist. I can't see any BLP issues as the Wildhartlivie version currently stands, and I'm not aware of any policy (or guidelines) that say (1) people can't have a copy of an article on their user space if they have stated that they are going to work on it (2) people have to work on a userfied article in a specific time frame. If you can find examples of BLP issues, or policy/guidelines that say either of those two things, I'd reconsider what I said above about keeping this. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 15:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone who claims the Manson article doesnt have blp issues does not understand blp;and that includes Wildhart; we have more than enough work monitoring blp in main space, why on earth should we have to do it in user space as well. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One example of a violation. Rossrs (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically neither Wildhartlivie or anyone else said that user space is exempt from BLP on this discussion. Since you still haven't provided evidence of that. Garion96 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am repeating my post from above, and in doing so am clearly saying that I have grown sick and tired of SqueakBox misrepresenting my statements and twisting them into something that I did not say, nor do I support. From :
 * "Ah geez, SqueakBox, now who is tinkering with semantics? You have clearly and repeatedly stated here that I have a tendency to dismiss WP:BLP, which is factually untrue and an ad hominem attack. In case you didn't quite understand my comments - I don't dismiss BLP, I don't try to work around BLP, and I don't edit war against it. That is what I mean by not having issues with BLP and I'm fairly certain everyone else here that is reading this understands that. Yes, the Manson article may face continued issues that pertain to WP:BLP as do all other articles that fall under that policy, but it's the violations to which I refer. Again, stop misrepresenting my comments. The only attack that has been made here started with your first statement here "Delete as Manson is still alive; from an editor with controversial views on the subject." The only issues I have to deal with concerning the Manson article and those related are from having to challenge unsourced statements, unacceptable sources per WP:RS and original research and the occasional errant sock puppets. I do not feel the deletion nomination was an attack, the only attack I perceive has been from you and that is also fairly clear to everyone else reading this. You've made your statements, to which I feel a real need to clarify what you're implying with innuendo and false conclusions. Please just stop. There are a lot of things people can say about me that might be true, but what you're trying to sell here is not true."

Again, I'm sick and tired of the twisting of my words to falsely state that I am not concerned with the WP:BLP policy. All I seem to do these days is challenge WP:BLP violations, none more so than the last couple days in regard to Roman Polanski. It's beyond personal attacks on me, it's contentiousness. Now the false charge has been widened to include "It appears that most editors here either don't know about or don't care about blp, starting with Wildhart. No page on wikipedia is completely out of public view, to claim so is disengenuous, Otherlleft, and user space is not exempt from blp as some, including Wildhart, are claiming." Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had been in your shoes I would have put a db on the page the moment Guy mfd'd it as it will never be used as an fa template, its way too old a version; I am glad you challenge BLP elsewhere, Polanski of course being someone with a very clear blp connection to Manson, thus making the blp issues on the Manson case very RT (real time), something the Wildhart article fails to be; its an old version and I dont believe anyone is preventing you starting anew but working with the rt version. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Squeakbox. Wildhart may have particular insight or reasons for keeping the page where it is. Just one example would be to borrow from "Wiki-Truth", where they have a view of editing on WP in a satirical manner - "The truth was there three revisions ago". By keeping an older version that may be more accurate than the newer version, she can weed out the false insertions based on the evidence of the older version. As to BLP issues, what has or has not been written about Manson in other media circles, that may be false, yet verifiable? There are a lot of articles with false or incorrect information in them, taken from media sources that got the info wrong from the start or later, allowing that information into the article bcause the source is verifiable, wrong but verifiable. If Wildhart wants through her convenience and/or necessity to keep the older version in her private page (yes, others can see it, but it is still her space), then it should be considered harmless, and let the matter rest.--Victor9876 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I dont buy that at all; if she has any reason for keeping an older version she has not expressed it and it appears she just forgot about it and should thus do the right thing now; it not being considered harmless, and indeed not being harmless re blp, is why we are here (not as she would assert merely in order to attack her). This is a classic case of making editors more important than article subjects, we are not here for Wildhart's convenience. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:23, 4 October 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.