From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Various, see below. As for the broad nature of this, userspace template (awards, welcomes, userboxes) have a long history of being acceptable. If userspace activity starts interfering with the project via large guideline infractions (such as WP:CANVAS) or we are obviously being used as a free web host deletions are called for. This editor has stated below that while they did commit many edits making these userspace templates, they are pertty much done now, and they are not a userspace only editor. — xaosflux Talk 15:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply

There is speculation that this user may be leaving the project, but they have indicated that they will be trying a WP:Wikibreak first. Should they fail to return within a month (indicating project departure) their userspace templates conditionally kept can be SUBST'd and deleted per this MFD. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Da.Tomato.Dude assorted usersubpages

Da.Tomato.Dude ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a user who, at the minute of writing, has 877 edits to Wikipedia, 79 of which are to main space, with the vast majority of the rest (739) being to user and usertalk pages. Special:Prefixindex/User:Da.Tomato.Dude indicates that the user has 14 subpages of her userpage. I propose the vast majority of these pages be deleted.

Typically users are allowed a level of leeway as to what they keep in their subpages. However, I don't think that should be the case here, as this user seems to not understand that Wikipedia is about the encyclopedia. This user has shown a general reluctance to contribute to the encyclopedia, and these subpages distract her further from this goal. In addition, some of these pages are redundant.

Note, I have not nominated her Quotes or Userboxes subpages for deletion. These are relatively harmless. -- Deskana (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Also note that I got sick of waiting with User:Da.Tomato.Dude/Body Shop and deleted it. I noticed new users popping up and going to that page. People've gotta learn this isn't what Wikipedia is about and I can't wait for this MfD to end for them to get that. -- Deskana (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Some goofing off is acceptable, but this is way over the line. — ptk✰ fgs 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Da Tomato Dude has been warned repeatedly to focus on the encyclopedia, and there's reams of precedent for deleting autograph pages and the like. None of these contribute to encyclopedia-building. A Train take the 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Excuse me? I most certainly have not been warned.
  • Delete, these don't help the encyclopedia, and the user has been warned about it several times. -- Core desat 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per User:Ptkfgs -- kingboyk 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another user who finds it hard to edit outside userspace. As above, we're not Myspace or a free webhost. Majorly (o rly?) 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per previous comments. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Pages don't benefit Wikipedia-- $UIT 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and stop nominating to discourage timewasting on pointless MfD's whose net effect is zero. Uninterested accounts making useless pages is a lesser evil than dozens of active editors searching for stuff to delete when that deletion will accomplish nothing. Of course, the fact that I'm posting here means I'm only making it worse :'-( Whatever. Milto LOL pia 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    I didn't search for them, I stumbled upon them when patrolling. And deleting them does have a purpose, that's the point of my nomination; I'm hoping it'll make the user concerned contribute more to the encyclopedia than using it as a toy. -- Deskana (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    If someone deleted all my fun crap, I wouldn't want to contribute more. Best to just leave them be, IMO - sure it sucks from an idealistic point of view, but what can you do? Other than delete every trace of them, which doesn't have any effect on mainspace... Milto LOL pia 23:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    As you're an active contributor, then I'd certainly oppose any nomination to delete all your fun stuff. The flip side of your "no effect on mainspace" scenario is that if we delete all their stuff and they stop editing, then that also has no effect on mainspace. On the other hand, it stands a chance of making them contribute, whereas leaving it all will probably not accomplish this goal. -- Deskana (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; uncontroversial xfds waste little time. Now let's get back to building an encyclopedia. :-) -- Iamunknown 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. / edgarde 01:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. She's not contributing now (kinda the point of the nom) and the worst case is -- that she continues to not contribute? Dunno how Wikipedia will recover from a blow like that. -- Calton | Talk 02:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep One of these is a userbox, duly in userspace; one is an experiment on the sort of signature I hope DTD never adopts - I prefer he play with it here; several are empty; one is a notepad, and so on. Harmless. OK, delete the empty ones, as housecleaning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete everything as WP:NOT#MYSPACE. I see no use or assistance to the encyclopedia with any of these pages.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 03:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Dan | talk 03:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If he doesn't want to contribute anymore, that's sad. But he doesn't contribute now, and even if deleting it won't make him do so, it will convey the impression to other people that they are expected to do something to help the encyclopedia here. - Amarkov moo! 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:NOT a free web host. This is not MySpace or Geocities. Terence 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - plenty of other users have subpages of (for lack of a better word) crap, and they get to keep theirs - so why delete these? It might seem that we're out to penalize users for lack of mainspace edits-K @ng i e meep! 10:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • An excellent observation! ;) Majorly (o rly?) 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Well, why not MfD user subpages of active users that do not serve to improve WP, and come under "MySpace crud"? Deleting the subpages won't encourage Da.Tomato.Dude to participate any further in the project. Server space isn't a problem, afaik-K @ng i e meep! 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Yes you're correct, but I think it's important to remember that people donate to the Wikimedia foundation to keep the encyclopedia going, not so people like this can have fun at their expense. People who do something useful as well can be given a certian amount of leeway. -- Deskana (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Well, have you noted that a lot of D.T.D's 'unproductive' User talk: space edits have been welcoming new users? That is beneficial to the encyclopedia, no? If that is his or her thing, let them be. And I have a feeling that, looking at his or her edits, he or she is liable to hit the submit button, instead of previewing...-K @ng i e meep! 12:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
            • And just look at the signatures this user created for those new users. We would be better off with a bot welcoming people than this. — ptk✰ fgs 12:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
              • I think criticizing the user, rather than discussing the subpages, isn't the best way to go about this. It's like whispering things behind their back. They are trying to help new users feel welcome - probably with varying success, but the good intentions are there. Perhaps ask them to stop pushing their sig book upon people? But at least they aren't doing everything totally unrelated to Wikipedia's purpose-K @ng i e meep! 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
                • Considering the overwhelming majority of edits this user contributes to these pages, it is somewhat futile to attempt to separate the two. That is to say, any discussion of these pages is essentially a discussion of the user, because that is what the user primarily does. — ptk✰ fgs 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
                  • And the general consensus is that the user is not beneficial to wikipedia? If they're welcoming users, and attempting to encourage active participation in the project, I think it is fair to say that despite not editing the mainspace often, they're contributing to the project, if not the actual encyclopedia, and aren't just here for a "social life". Also, if you take away the edits that kinda go "many edits every few minutes to one page", it's clear that the difference between Mainspace and User (talk) space(s) isn't that large - they might just not press the preview button, which is a common trait amongst users new and inexperienced in wiki software. Also, they've even done a little vandal fighting too-K @ng i e meep! 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
                    • I think that the general consensus is that the amount of time this user has spent on the nominated pages, when weighed against the contributions to main article space, is not beneficial to Wikipedia. — ptk✰ fgs 13:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
                      • I'd suggest examining the page histories for the user subpages. You'll see that most of the edits were made within minutes (or even seconds) of eachother. D.T.D mustn't be considered to be very valuable, as most of the edits follow the pattern that usually accompanies failure to use the preview button. The difference between mainspace and userspace edits isn't that great, all things considering, and a lot of the "unbeneficial" edits to user talk space are, as I said, either vandalism warnings or welcomes. Editcountitis is a horrid disease :) (summed up, they haven't devoted nearly as much time to their subpages as people are making out)-K @ng i e meep! 13:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
                        • Essentially, what I am getting at is that the inflated amount of user space edits is due to the fact that they've not used the preview button (and have made 10 edits in 5 minutes on numerous occasions). That explains that. So the difference is probably more like, 400 productive edits welcoming and such, and perhaps 50 (broken up edits in a few minutes that can be considered as one) to user subpages. I suggest introducing D.T.D to 'Mr. Preview Article' :)-K @ng i e meep! 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. There are periods when I have been less focused on the mainspace, and if any of my subpages were deleted, I would have left Wikipedia. I don't want that to happen to this user. Ab e g92 contribs 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    Can I point out that if this were merely a phase on the part of the user, and that she did indeed have a good length of time contributing to the mainspace, I would never have considered nominating these pages for deletion? -- Deskana (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Firm Keep all with content consistent with long established tradition, but go ahead and Delete the empties-- some of these pages are semi-amusements of sorts (Signature collection?), but they are (save for awful coloration) within the bounds of reasonable.

      IMHO, This is likely a young user feeling their way and experimenting with templates (Welcom) and HTML/Wikimarkup on others. I don't see sending a message to this user as helpful mothering, in light of our traditions. Note the editor has also been given an Anti-vandalism Barnstar, and apparently does welcoming per WP:Wc, and we of the committee generally feel we can use all the welcomers that we can get. HOW and where a user contributes are not ours to decide, but their choice. Some do nothing but templates, others categories. That the user is contributing some and active recently is plain. // Fra nkB 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If we want to ban the user we should do so; making arguments that this is a <eerie music>Bad User</eerie music> and then simply deleting these pages seems pointless, or rather WP:POINT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Most of the items I have seen from this user and User:Onions67 have been nothing but vanadalism. Chris 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Excuse me, what's your basis for asserting that? If you accuse someone of vandalism, you must provide diffs to substantiate your accusation, particularly as this user has received a barnstar for fighting vandalism. I see no evidence that this user's ever vandalised any page on Wikipedia. I propose that the above comment be struck out, and the vote be discounted. Wal ton Vivat Regina! 15:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I agree. This is an unsupported accusation which I think is false. I'm sure the closing admin will ignore this vote. -- Deskana (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
        • How did I vandalize anything...? And what do I have with Onion?! I welcomed him! Goodness, is that a bad thing to do? I'm sorry, I'll go delete that right away! Protect Tomato Rights! (sign the petition!)
          • Look at the Roar Ljøkelsøy article and User:Onions67's contribution and you will see the differences between articles that some people consider either vandalism or nonsense. Chris 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per FrankB. This user has done nothing wrong. 14 user subpages? So what? IIRC, Essjay had 288 user subpages prior to his departure. This user is a relatively new contributor, making this nomination a typical example of WP:BITE, or rather WP:TEAROUTTHEIRTHROATWITHYOURTEETH. Not to mention that this page is useful and functional, and does not merit deletion. I suggest that DTD should tag the empty pages with {{db-userreq}}, and the rest should be left alone. Wal ton Vivat Regina! 15:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Okay. Six of these subpages are templates so I don't have to go around typing the whole "Stop, ye vandal" or "Welcome!" thing to every person that I find. One is an autograph book, and, by the looks of it, seems perfectly fine and dandy (except someone keeps wanting to go delete it). The signature page is so that I can see my own signatures and copy/paste the code when one of the Bots lecture me about not signing my posts. The "spiffy" items, well, quite frankly, I don't care if you delete those; as they were tests in the beginnning. Someone already deleted the bodyshop, fine. So, what's the big problem here? Protect Tomato Rights! (sign the petition!)
    • I agree, I'm on your side in this. Wal ton Vivat Regina! 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • And we have messages in the Template: namespace that are already recommended for these things. The warning and welcome templates supplied in the template namespace also don't use offensive font and color formatting. — ptk✰ fgs 17:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as violation of WP:NOT. James, La gloria è a dio 16:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOT. User:esurfer This user has been gratuitously and maliciously deleting things I write. (UTC)
  • What? My dear sir, that is called reverting.
  • Delete WP:NOT a free webhost. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all things used as templates, Delete everything else. Wikipedia is not a free webhost; I honestly can't see how having an entire subpage for a birthday message is useful. Veinor (talk to me) 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Whoever makes the final decision on this may want to know that these pages have absolutely nothing to do with my editing. Yes, I do work on them a lot. But, again, with the 6 being finished templates (and with my reluctance to show preview), I have nothing more to edit on them. The user talks are for either RV ,welcome, or a "Happy Birthday" (usually). There would be no point of deleting these things. What's wrong with an autograph page? OTHER PEOPLE HAVE AUTOGRAPH BOOKS AND NONE OF THEM ARE LINING UP TO HAVE IT DELETED. This is an absolutely ridicuous thing to be arguing about. Will someone settle this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Da.Tomato.Dude ( talk • contribs).
    • 'Everybody does it' is not a valid reason; many people vandalize too. I personally don't like it when people say 'EVERYBODY' does something; I know I don't (see a list of my subpages). And why are you so reluctant to preview things? Veinor (talk to me) 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I do realize that "Everybody" is not a good reason. But, my point is, that while people are going around ripping up my signature books (which, by the way, Jimbo approves of), others are still there, perfectly fine. So, why is mine being deleted?! And, what's my point to vandalize an autograph book? D.T.D (speak)
        • Jimbo approves of them? Can you show me where he said that? And the entire issue is that you've made little to no mainspace contributions; they've mostly been working on your userspace. You've had more userspace edits than in any other two spaces combined. Veinor (talk to me) 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
          • There is a quote here where he said he didn't disapprove of them, but I can't imagine he'd approve of people who's purpose on Wikipedia is autograph books. -- Deskana (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Please sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each post. This will append the date and time of the edit, which makes discussion easier to follow. If you wish to use a customized signature, it may be set using Special:Preferences. — ptk✰ fgs 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Veinor. -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nomination and many of the above comments. - Adrian M. H. 20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not MySpace. And to the editor above who noted that Essjay had 288 subpages - that may be true, but Essjay (his failings aside) was a prolific encyclopedia editor who, at his time of retirement, had approximately 16,000+ edits. If DTD had 16,000+ edits, I don't think I'd care if she had 300 subpages. But she doesn't, unfortunately. So I vote delete. See comment below.♠ P M C♠ 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • So you're suggesting that the more edits a user has, the more irrelevant crap/user subpages they can have in the userspace, like scout-badges? One for raising an article to GA, another for voting on your first RfA! I thought that it was established that if a user is actively contributing they are given more leeway regarding userspace crap. DTD is actively participating in the project, so why not give DTD a break?-K @ng i e meep! 06:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Hmm. You know what? You're right. All crap pages should, in a perfect Wikipedia, be deleted. In fact, I've gone and deleted 9 of mine. So let me amend my previous thoughts: in theory, no one should have crap pages. But, people always will, because that is the nature of people. Editors should have a greater percentage of mainspace/encyclopedic edits than they have pointless subpages such as quote pages or autograph books. Prolific editors should be allowed more leeway in creating crap pages, because they're prolific editors having fun. On the other hand, users with a low percentage of mainspace edits should be discouraged from using Wikipedia as a personal webpage/MySpace; that's just not what we're here for. ♠ P M C♠ 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Subpages are relevant to the community aspect of the encyclopedia and facilitate WP:FUN. The less relevant MySpacey "Spiffy Pictures" subpages have already been deleted, but there's nothing inherently wrong with using templates to substitute welcome/revert messages. I personally find them ugly, but other people find other Wikipedia:Template messages ugly as well. Deletion is unlikely to encourage editor to increase mainspace edits. Kangie: you should consider also that mainspace edits are also not getting previewed, which reduces those to an even tinier number. – Pomte 11:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Most of the mainspace edits are reverting vandalism - it doesn't require use of the preview button to do that-K @ng i e meep! 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. per above comment.-- Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, because WP:NOT#MYSPACE. If a user has an abundance of mainspace edits, having a little fun in userspace is okay but if 90% of a user's edits are in namespace, there's a little problem, which is where NOTMYSPACE comes in. Axem Titanium 23:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. I say keep. The Wikipedia Department of Fun wants fun here, so keep the fun. Also this user on his deleted bodyshop page gave me a new signature. Mikemoral 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Mikemoral 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC) MIKE moral reply
  • Keep all but User:Da.Tomato.Dude/Signatures: This is the only one that seems disruptive to me.   ~ Step trip 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Ah. I see what you mean. Alright, Steptrip, I put a tag on it. :o|
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Da.Tomato.Dude_assorted_usersubpages&oldid=1083557293"