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 Delete all of them. Deleting User:Bensonfood pursuant to his discussion along with User:Bensonfood/sandbox, User:Bensonfood/List_of_supercentenarians_by_birth_year pursuant to this discussion and WP:IAR and WP:BURO. - Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bensonfood[edit]

User:Bensonfood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User page fails WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. – JBarta (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you appreciate all the work on my user page I have been working on since April? If you don't, WHY NOT???? I have been working very hard to update and complete these lists. I am VERY disappointed about this, and I DEMAND MY USER PAGE TO BE LEFT ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And what I want to know is WHY? WHY, WHY, WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS???? My user page doesn't violate any rules, the lists within are completely OK, and I cant figure out what is wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensonfood (talk • contribs) 08:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage is very much in violation of Wikipedia policy... ""Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." I appreciate that you have worked hard on it. It would have been better had you instead focused on improving existing articles or creating new articles instead of developing your own private article in your user space. Is there any reason why you cannot or will not incorporate some of your content into existing or new articles in the article space? – JBarta (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note user has since copied everything to User:Bensonfood/sandbox. – JBarta (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting this is ok, I'm suggesting the same issue persists, it's just been duplicated to the sandbox and is being continued there. User has completely ceased editing this encyclopedia other than to edit the fake article material in his userspace. – JBarta (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say a few things:

Firstly, fake article material!!!! I try my best to keep all lists 100% accurate. Nothing on my user page is fake, it is all true!

Secondly, I created my user page to be informative to people about supercentenarians. If it is one of the lists that isn't within the rules, tell me which list it is, what's wrong with it, and I will do something about it. OK?

Thirdly, if I knew how to create new articles, then I would. And I could improve some articles, but only the ones about supercentenarians. That's because I know a lot about them, that's why I created my user page, to make all the lists I would ever dream of making.

Fourthly, if I cant continue my user page on my sandbox, where else could I make all the informative supercentenarian lists?

Fifthly, I cant incorporate my content into existing or new articles because a) I don't know how to create new articles, and b) There are not many existing articles (that I know of) that would be useful with my stuff from my user page there.

Sixthly, Sorry for getting cross earlier. This whole deletion thing was totally unexpected and that outburst was totally uncut for. I'm sorry about everything that I said there.

That's all I've got to say for now,

Bensonfood 15:50, 10 Dec 2014 (Greenwich mean time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensonfood (talk • contribs)

We are here to build an encyclopedia. Building a private article(s) in your userspace with no effort to bring it to article space is the opposite of building an article collaboratively. Articles built collaboratively belong in article space, not user space. Ignorance of or disagreement with Wikipedia policies and guidelines is not a valid rationale for doing things however you wish.
Wikipedia:Your first article contains introductory information on creating an article. As much of the material on your userpage is duplication of existing Wikipedia articles, use discretion when creating new article from your material.
In my opinion, if you truly wish to participate constructively in the building of Wikipedia, you should start by immediately going through your material line by line and incorporate what you can into existing Wikipedia articles if it's not there already. If this causes conflict with other editors then WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTE may be useful to you. Material that is already contained in existing Wikipedia articles should be deleted from your userpage. Whatever is left should be unique material that is not already a part of exiting Wikipedia articles and may be considered as a basis for new articles. – JBarta (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:FAKEARTICLE is really an unfortunate misnomer, it does not mean the article is untrue, rather it refers to documents within the overall Wikipedia universe that look like articles, but are not within the appropriate article namespace. This page looks exactly like an article, but it exists in user space, so therefore is a violation of the stated policy: WP:UP#COPIES.
  2. There is a perfectly good article about supercentenarians to which you are welcome to contribute. It is against policy for you to use your User page to inform people about things that belong in the the encyclopedia proper.
  3. See #2 above. There is no need to create a new article, that article (and several other related ones) already exist and would benefit from your help.
  4. See #2 and #3 above. See also Category:Lists of supercentenarians.
  5. a) At the top of your user talk page is a detailed welcome message with links to instructional articles that cover the topics you mention. b) See Category:Lists of supercentenarians.
  6. That happens sometimes. And most editors can understand that and a WP:Truce will occur. Just make sure to move forward in a WP:Civil manner and all should remain well and good.
Hopefully that will all be helpful to you. And please sign your comments on these pages using four tildes (Like this: ~~~~) and that will prevent that pesky ((unsigned)) template from being added by a bot.
Posted after (edit conflict) —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 18:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For some context, this may be useful here. – JBarta (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the lists which I think have articles or tweaked versions of articles and I will do the same with my sandbox. – Bensonfood 07:25, 11 Dec 2014 (Greenwich Mean Time)

I just looked at your page and I do not see any of the material deleted. Do you need some help editing the page to remove the disputed content? I would be happy to help if needed. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 14:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that IS strange, I know I deleted at least 4 of the lists, on both my user page and my sandbox. I'll have another look, maybe I didn't do something quite right. Bensonfood 15:38, 11 Dec 2014 (Greenwich Mean Time)

What is with these lists of "super old people" is we want to express our interest and feeling about this subject. Bensonfood 17:32, 12 Dec 2014 (Greenwich Mean Time)

Delete - Similar problem with the User:Deaths in 2013 user page, majority of the information in this user page is already available in or could be added to existing longevity articles. The remaining information that cannot be placed in existing articles is pointless trivia. Numbers 1 and 4 for example are taken STRAIGHT out of the List of living supercentenarians page. It should also be pointed out that since 23 August 2014, this user has done nothing on Wikipedia except edit their userpage. CommanderLinx (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Oh, I am sorry, would you like me to edit the existing articles instead (if other editors didn't get there before me, that is)?
  2. Pointless trivia? How is it pointless, may I ask? I thought it is very informative. Bensonfood, 08:27, 14 Dec 2014 (Greenwich Mean Time)
Yes, that is exactly the point, and the purpose of the encyclopedia. We would all very much like to see you lend your knowledge and expertise to the existing articles in a collaborative effort to make these subjects thorough and accurate. We use a group consensus to build an encyclopedia. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 17:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've deleted everything from my user page except the oldest people ever list, which I still want to work on. Is that OK with you guys? Bensonfood 16:49, 15 Dec 2014 (Greenwich Mean Time)

No, it's not OK. You are repeatedly ignoring what has been pointed out to you. You cannot do this here. – JBarta (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) How is the remaining list any different from the article Oldest people?? The list still does not belong on your user page. Please take a look at some of the user pages of the people who have contributed to this discusson. These are some average examples of what is allowed on a user page. Hopefully that will help you understand why we are all insisting that a user page not look like an encyclopedia article. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 17:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I would like to create these lists on my page: List of supercentenarians by occupation, Oldest children of a supercentenarian, list of oldest people for each month (e.g. oldest people born in January) since 2000. Are these acceptable, because there's no article with this material in it? BTW, I'll delete the oldest people ever list.

@AndyTheGrump, if you think my list is useless, after all the time and effort put into it, YOU try making one of these! See how much effort goes into it. Bensonfood 16:08, 16 Dec 2014 (Greenwich Mean Time)

Ok, so here's the way your message reads to the rest of us. Either A) you want to make these lists for your own information and enjoyment, in which case it would be a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Or B) you want to make the lists to inform other people, in which case it violates WP:FAKEARTICLE because it will appear to be an encyclopedia article in user space. If there is a third way to look at this, please feel free to offer it. Other wise all lists of this sort are inappropriate for a user page. No one is saying you can't make the lists, we're just saying they don't belong on a user page. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 16:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User has removed material on his userpage, finally blanking it. This disrupts the deletion process. Note the deletion tag states "You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it," Also, as noted earlier in this discussion, user has copied all the material to User:Bensonfood/sandbox, again disruptive of the deletion process. – JBarta (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JBarta, I was waiting to see if it was acceptable to create the lists I wanted to. Shall I move all the old material back to my user page? Bensonfood, 17:18, 16 Dec 2014 (Greenwich Mean Time)

At this point, I think you should do nothing concerning your userpage, wait for the (probable) deletion, then turn the page in your editing life here and become a contributor showing some deference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. – JBarta (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.


More