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.

Speedy deleted per G4 - recreation of deleted material Kaldari (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nmatavka/Images under surveillance[edit]

Another iteration of a page deleted at MfD. Includes several personal attacks in the opening essay as well. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UP#Images, which states:
There is also broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit or using Wikipedia only as a web host or personal pages or for advocacy, may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review. (my bolding)
The creation of this page is in defiance of community consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially the same case and rationale as what the community decided to delete at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyde/Weird pictures (3rd nomination). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do have precedent with this user's subpages, linked above. The first (and thus far only other) time a page of hers went to MfD it was deleted. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note the Cyde page as an additional precedent, and with its series of MfDs that show how the community position on these things changed with time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if the stated rationale for this page is true, that tiny images could be used, and some categorisation be used to assist in drawing conclusions. Also, it might be better suited to a project page at Meta-Wiki. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you the rationale given there is bogus based on all the personal attacks. N0rp had an equally-flimsy "research" justification which was more-or-less annihilated by a sentence nearer the end of the lede, which indicated she chose lesbian erotica simply because it aroused her. Most of the personal attacks in this page's lede seem aimed at the users who pointed this out in the MfD. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for two reasons. First and foremost, this is recreation of deleted material, and I don't see any indication that the user decided to go and get community imput as to reversing the previous consensus. Indeed the opening paragraph is a thinly veiled insult to anyone that dosen't like the page or its contents. Secondly, there's really no reason to do it the way xe's doing it. If xe wanted to watch them to make sure they didn't redlink, xe could use the ":File" method, as in [[:File:Example.jpg]] yielding the clickable text line File:Example.jpg as opposed to the actual image. The key difference is that doing it with the ":File" method is that going to the page does not request 600+ images be loaded from the poor image servers. While "Don't worry about the servers" is good and all, "Don't torture the servers unnecessarily" also should be observed. This could be a page of 600+ kittens and I'd have the same two objections, in case that wasn't clear. I really couldn't care less about the images of mediocre looking naked women. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

with a virtually unanimous consensus that collections of nothing but provocative images are inappropriate. The only addition to the page is a giant kitty and an attack on the people that deleted Norp. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The N0rp MfD was not unanimous or close to it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 07:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, actually. However it was consensus enough this should be speedy deleted G11 and the user warned that if they continue to recreate deleted content they could be blocked. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually requesting the user be banned from creating subpages in her own userspace at WP:AN. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis is clearly, from the poses, almost exclusively "content clearly intended as sexually provocative" and thus not appropriate for WP. WikiAlpha may want them or the user could just download them to their own computer and save them that way. There are hundreds of thousands of similar photos about the internet and thus there is no historical need for them to preserved on a user's page on WP. "Hey, my name is Nick, and I've decided to make Wikipedia my own personal playground." This, from the top of Nmatavka's user page, is not encouraging. Bielle (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]