Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:IP 12.153.112.21

 __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  KEEP. Trying to clean up some of the detritus from the arguments of earlier this week. The offending text has been removed, and the user has been renamed, so it doesn't make sense to delete the page anymore. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:IP 12.153.112.21


NOTE: during this discussion a user name change has taken place and the talk page moved accordingly to User talk:the "good guy"

Likely a copy vio at the bottom of the page, from ourselves, but the user name was softblocked for being inappropriate anyway, so nothing is lost by simply deleting the page. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep this is very funny Dennis Brown. You could at least have waited until the pending username change is decided. After that you could wait until the userfication or deletion of the disputed page is decided. After that you could recognize that you can't violate copyright by copying from Wikipedia and, failing that, that retaining a content fork in userspace is a normal method of dealing with thorny content issues. I have faced an editor who has hit the undo button eight times without discussing the content or the concerns in any detail. I would appreciate not getting the multiforum approach from yet another WP regular. Thanks. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution. If content is copied without attribution, it does violate Wikipedia's copyrights policy. See Copying within Wikipedia. When copying content within Wikipedia, the editor should link to the original page in his edit summary.--SGCM (talk)  23:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Dennis did not use any of the MFD steps "Deleting pages in other people's userspace" such as explaining concerns, not biting newcomers, or tagging as a nonarticle. When I can find that template I'll do it now. So God created Manchester, I attributed via the edit number which appears on the page, not the best attribution method I recognize, but I didn't think there was a formal lock on userpages until they are proposed for mainspace. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you can violate the copyright at Wikipedia. You can't copy and paste pages.  You clearly have no understanding of copyright. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove the list, which is a direct copy of List of AT&T U-verse channels, and attribute the Wikipedia article where the list originated from by linking to it in the edit summary, as per Copying within Wikipedia. Deleting the entire talk page may not be necessary, because there is discussion on the talk page that is unrelated to the copyvio.--SGCM  (talk)  23:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Both, as stated on the page, this is not a copy and paste, this is a significantly alternate version that is pending a dispute resolution. If you're arguing that the original was a copy and paste, I mentioned the edit number when I did that, and that should not be a reason for deleting the intervening edits. I am not understanding you Dennis. Whatever consensus method exists for resolving this page, it's not MFD. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * you did not create the content on User talk:IP 12.153.112.21 out of whole cloth on your own. it has a history on a different page and the CC license requires appropriate attribution. The fact that you placed it on a user talk page creates additional difficulties becuase we generally do not delete user talk pages. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The temporary attribution is findable by virtue of the edit number. More permanently, the proper solution is, after the content dispute is resolved, to merge the data back into the article with attribution to the fork, and to retain the userpage just as a userpage again. Afaik userspace drafts have never been held to such tremendous standards, but even so they can be met. Deletion of a clearly attributed fork during a content dispute is yet another way of not resolving the dispute on its merits. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the page the copyvio is from has been userifed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ... but was then moved, for some unexplained reason, to the user page of a non-existent user. Presumably satisfies CSD U2? - David Biddulph (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back from the non-existent user page to where it had been userifed.
 * Thanks both. Given these newer developments, including the text no longer being on the page, I think this deletion debate is now moot and can be closed speedy keep as above. We usually don't act retributively against mere histories that have attribution and that are in-process for merging into an extant userfication. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Request It should be noted that User:Neutralhomer/List of AT&T U-verse Channels has been created and protected, and it has none of the virtues of the page currently under discussion: it does not have attribution, it has the same bytecount as the appropriate version of the userfied page (and thus is likely verifiable as a copypaste), it does not have the userfied history of the original article, it is not advertised as intended for improvement, it has no valid reason for semiprotection, it is an invalid fork, it rejects former invitations to work with me on the content dispute, and this is to say nothing of the user's behavior. Could someone please start the MFD process for the new page in question? Thank you very much. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * User has created five other pages with similar flaws. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nuke page hierarchy, move content. IP 12.153.112.21 is invalid account name due to similarity to IP edit pages; therefore all pages with the "User talk:IP 12.153.112.21" and "User talk:IP 12.153.112.21" prefix should be deleted. The content of such could be moved to User talk:12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels if desired. Nobody Ent 15:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Not a copyvio. As the user says, there was a form of attribution: "The following content is being userfied here due to pending AFD. It constitutes revision 514435971 and will be updated in place here".  That's obviously http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=514435971 — the oldid (or "edit number") is not the best method of attribution, since most people won't know what to do with that number, but it works to satisfy the most basic form of attribution.  No opinion on keeping or deleting for other reasons.  Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * procedural note FYI I have just accepted their latest rename request and unblocked the account. They finally took a moment to come up with a name that was not completely ridiculous. When a rename is done this talk page will be moved automatically to reflect the new, non-infringing username. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename's done, page has been moved. 28bytes (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * very strong keep a user talk page - the potentially offending content has been removed from the page (to a user sandbox page, and subject to its own MfD). If there is indeed a copyright issue by having the content in the history, those individual versions may be subject to oversight or something, but the page contains important information about communication with the user that should not be deleted. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As Beeblebrox and Red Pen of Doom have said, the copied content has been removed from the talk page and properly userfied by User:The Bushranger. The new userfied page has also been nominated for deletion, but that's an issue for the other MfD request. The talk page, as it is right now, can be speedily kept.--SGCM (talk)  00:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The talk page remaining after the page move should be speedily deleted, as it serves no encyclopedic purpose and is associated with an invalid user name (and it thus confusing). Nobody Ent 01:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap. The talk pages of username changes are usually kept as redirects, as a reference. I don't believe it's confusing, the redirect indicates that a name change has occurred.--SGCM (talk)  02:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nobody ent and anyone else with a similarly bad idea in their head: Please stop fucking around with the mfd tags and moving them from one page to another. If you think the leftover redirect should be deleted take it to WP:RFD. It is obviously not the page we have been discussing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2012 (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.