Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 11

User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I tried discussing it with the closing administrator here [[1]]. The procedures for deleting a page were not followed by the nominator who failed to attempt any sort of discussion with myself prior to the nomination. I also informed the closing administrator that I challenge the validity of various unreferenced articles which were used to support the deletion of the page I was working on (Please see [[2]] for the details on this). Additionally, during the deletion discussion, personal attacks toward me were abundantly provided by people voting for deletion (specifically I recall the word "miscreant" being used by SteveBaker to describe me). I really do not think the consensus was clear. I think there were some very convincing arguments for keeping it, and I don't know how well those were considered before the administrator closed the debate early. I therefore request a review. Neptunerover (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a proper interpretation of the consensus in the discussion. It might have been preferable for an admin who has not previously commented in the discussion to close it, just to minimize drama, but I think the consensus is quite clear, and it is to delete. Timotheus Canens (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Looking at the MFD, the arguments for delete were stronger and more policy based than the keep arguments. Did not see the page in question so I can not comment on whether or not the page 'crossed the line' as to what would be acceptable, which I believe should be fairly liberal on a user-subpage. That said I believe the closing admin made the appropriate decision based on the arguments provided. J04n(talk page) 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus is clear, myspacery / soapboxing is not what user space is for. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I believe the closing admin only commented in the discussion after I requested a summary dismissal, and so I don't think that was inappropriate. The discussion attempt with the closing admin I refer to was contained in the large central paragraph below that part in the "deletion process question" section on Rjanag's talk page. I'm sorry I didn't separate it, but I felt it was sort of a continuation of the section I had already started there.
Also, I wanted to get rid of the red link on my user page, so I started the page again with the 'this page is deleted thing' at the top, which, now that I think about it, was probably wrong since the new page is quite unrelated to Wikipedia. What can I say, I'm new here. --Neptunerover (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, accurate reading of consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Offer to email the deleted contents to User:Neptunerover. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already did that (on his talk page), he declined because he thinks users are going to send him hate mail or something. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gave him some advice on this on his talk page, and then noticed that he already has email enabled. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion There was clear consensus in the MfD that this user-subpage does not belong on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist (please ignore this if I'm not allowed to vote here) I think the name-calling should invalidate the decision. My reactions on the deletion discussion page were largely a response to being taunted and I think the results of the vote are therefore questionable at most. When I am taunted, I taunt back, which generally people don't like, but it doesn't change the fact of my being taunted initially and unfairly. "Miscreant" is a hate-type word that should not be allowed in Wikipedia civil discussions. I think the results of an uncivil discussion should be viewed with extreme suspicion. Simply saying that the consensus was clear is not seeing the whole picture of what happened, beginning with Fences&Windows 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach to proposing a deletion, which put me on guard right from the start. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck through the !vote. Neptunerover, as the nominator, it's assumed that you want the decision overturned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider myself to be a nominator here, since that's for deletion, right? I nominated nothing here. Why does my vote get struck out? If the nominator isn't supposed to vote, then why did Treasury Tag get to vote? --Neptunerover (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Nevermind about that, I'm on the wrong page here. I was confused. Sorry. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Don't we commonly have noms including !votes later? Heck, we often have admins endorsing their own close in DrV. Not a big deal, but I don't think striking that was needed. Hobit (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse clear consensus, no reason given to overturn, and the bottom line is extremely clear: userspace is not free web hosting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, perfectly reasonable close following consensus. Viridae^Talk 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse due to the clear and overwhelming consensus to delete the page. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. My !vote at MfD was the only strong keep, but it was mostly ignored. Although Wikipedia should not be used as web hosting, the page was a self-evident argument which should be allowed on Wikipedia in userspace. We also have plenty of articles on subjects that do not have many reliable sources, but survive as articles because the points they make are self-evident. User also claims to have published a book. Or just have an administrator take the contents of the page and privately email it to the user, if nessecary. There appears to be a bias against new ideas on Wikipedia, unless they are well-published and peer reviewed by independant sources. This slows down progress, and what often happens is that the users who are labeled as "cranks" get kicked out of Wikipedia, or they become rude and simply leave afterwards. Some people even call Wikipedia a crank. Wikipedia, by the way, is one of the most difficult communities on the Internet to understand for newcomers. ~AH1^(TCU) 04:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How arrogant do you have to be to think that your vote was "ignored" just because it didn't sway everyone? I really don't go around ignoring votes. I did read your vote, and did not find it convincing. Shocked? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for "there appears to be a bias against new ideas on Wikipedia": well, yeah, there is. Have you read WP:No original research? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawal? I've realized what the problem was and how I was misusing the userspace allotted me here, and so I vote to withdraw this from review here since I agree with the deletion now. Sorry, but I had to find the rule on my own.--Neptunerover (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]