Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Constitutional congress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 debate was deleted — Werdna talk 06:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Constitutional congress

A non-relevant essay and personal opinion. When i removed the content due to guidelines on userpage information and "what wikipedia is not", the creator reverted it on the grounds that "It is my document. Not yours" and that wikipedia's policy on essays covers it, despite the fact that the essay policy deals with essays "that typically address some aspect of creating and managing an online encyclopedia". Ironholds 10:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia. I haven't made any articles before, so this is a first. I also have dail up and it's hard to get on sometimes. The first part of the article is some thoughts in my head and will be deleted in the end as I organize things a bit better. I'm still truomg tp learn how to do that. I'm not pushing an agenda. Everything is going to be based on fact and law. What people fail to realize is the Constitution is supreme law of the land. And the Constitution clearly states what congress can't do. When congress does things that the power to do isn't granted to do, they are not a constitutional congress. Plain and simple, that's not opinion, that is fact. Some of the catagories will be deleted, new ones may be added. Alot of people don't know what a constitutional congress is, I'm doing my best to inform the people. As the nominator, you are entitled to your opinion, but the only reason you think it should be deleted is cause I called you out on blanking my page. But just cause you don't like what I have to say doesn't give you the right to force your opinion on me to delete it so others can't read it. Plain and simple. If you'd rather try to help me, then to tear me down, we might get somewhere. For instance, layout tips etc.. Constitutional congress (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • As the nominator i think my opinion is pretty clear. Delete, wikipedia is not a blogging site or collection of personal essays. I think it's also important to note that the user hasn't actually created anything else; this is his only contribution, so he cant claim he's helping wikipedia. Ironholds 10:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete WP is not a webhost. Agathoclea (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - While I'm still relatively new here, I have read many of the policies. I'm not sure if you're aware, but in the user page policy under the heading, "What may I not have on my user page," it specifically says, "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." So I guess the answer to your question would be no, there seems to be no right to have an opinion unrelated to Wikipedia. Skiguy330 (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not quite correct. You are allowed to give a limited amount of information on your personal opinions on your user page (hence the use of "extensive") but you aren't allowed to turn your entire user page into an extensive essay advancing (non-Wikipedia) opinions. We only provide user pages to assist people in collaborating to write an encyclopedia - they aren't free web space. More experienced and established users are allowed to get away with more, but this user has no edits that aren't related to their user page. --Hut 8.5 12:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hence my comment on his contributions. Ironholds 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This editor is misusing userspace to hold his WP:SOAPBOXing rants, also wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. Arguments that "this discussion will occupy more than the page" are not valid arguments for keeping, that's not a valid argument for allowing people to misuse wikipedia againt the WP:NOT pillar. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Guess what? It's not your document any more...it can be edited or deleted at community discretion. And it's a violation of the userspace policy, the policy against pushing an agenda, and probably two or three others. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the policy and discussion above. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Blank (and instruct the user on proper use of the user space, specifically, that this kind of stuff is not okay) or Delete. An extremely clear-cut example of WP:WEBHOST. While I don't get why this sort of cases need admin attention, I don't really approve of the use of Wikipedia to host personal material that is unrelated to Wikipedia. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Wwwwolf: The user started spewing WP guidelines at me when i asked him nicely to remove it; i thought a general editor consensus would convince him it's inappropriate material. Ironholds 13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply to ironholds: Just cause you don't like it does not mean it is inappropriate Constitutional congress (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Not liking it is nothing to do with it. It's a waste of wiki-space, with precedent and policy to back me up. I tried solving it by asking you to delete it, you started coming up with misquoted policy, and here we are. If it was a 10-page essay that was humourous, interesting and expressed my political views perfectly i'd still be here explaining why it's a waste of space. Ironholds 23:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe the point that's being missed is that, fact or opinion, the content is questionable for a Wikipedia user page. Nobody has disputed the factual accuracy of your statements, just that they're probably more appropriate for a personal blog. No single person owns any single Wikipedia page, and that includes user pages. In other words, Ironholds was well within his right to blank your page if he thought it was inappropriate (although this may have been avoided if he had discussed it with you BEFORE blanking it). I recognize that you're passionate about spreading your message, but a free Blogger or Wordpress blog may be a better place for it because then nobody would be able to edit it except you. Skiguy330 (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, some of you want to say it has nothing to do with wikipedia, neither do most of the articles that are included on wikipedia, type in "wiki anytown" and it has info about that town, no articles about wikipedia. My purpose is to have a article about what a constitutional congress is. Constitutional congress (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It all makes sense if you consider what content is allowed and where. Wikipedia article space (that is, pages that do not have colon-separated namespace prefix like "Wikipedia:" that is used on this page) is dedicated to encyclopaedic articles on subjects that are demonstrably notable. Which, one might argue, is the raison d'être of an encyclopaedia. (Before you ask: personal essays are not encyclopaedic.) This discussion page is on "Wikipedia:" namespace, dedicated to policy/guideline information, Wikipedia-related essays, and discussions about content and other issues surrounding the Wikipedia itself, so we're again in the appropriate namespace. Finally, "User:" pages are dedicated to personal material that is somehow related to Wikipedia and its workings. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:29, 3 June 2008 (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.