Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:42, 7 February 2012

User:Lihaas

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

There's a user page underneath, a few hundred thousand kb long, with a million contradictory userboxes, some of which very offensive (there's one that claims that the user is a Nazi, for instance). The rules on user pages aren't always clear, but this one needs to go, I think--it is disruptive, a total waste of server space, and does not contain, as suggested in WP:UP, "limited autobiographical and personal content". See also discussion on the user's talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsensical, divisive, offensive content unrelated to the editing of Misplaced Pages or its goals. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete at least the National Socialist part per my rationale at ANI. I haven't really reviewed most of that user page because it's so WP:TLDR. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - This page could be an example of "what not to do" with a user page. Specifically though, I agree that the page is deliberately offensive. It may be offensive in an attempt to be humorous, much the way that a dirty joke could be, and thus isn't actually malicious, but it's still inappropriate for a user page. -- Atama頭 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is NO userbox clainming to be a nazi, tha is the presumptious whim of readers. Because you dont like with the eurocentric worldview doesnt mean thats the only norm in the world that everyone in WP should fit into the same liberal secular worldview. that is POV to the core. Secondl sizer on a userpage is irrelevant because no one is forcing you to read it. See Nightstallion's gazzillion subpages and find out. Its disrptuiove beause you dont LIKE it? Furthermore, all content is similar to others with userbozxes and wikilink logs, dont BLIDNLY assert that its what you dont liek per WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Ofensive is never a reason to remove on WP as censorship. Then a user above says delete based on the fact that HE doesnt like it elsewhere!

If you dont likewant to then dont read the page. and dont vandalise!Lihaas (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I said on ANI:

Still, the "This user is a National Socialist" userbox may be disruptive in itself === The userbox itself is clearly causing strife among Wikipedians. Per Misplaced Pages:UP#Excessive unrelated content perhaps Lihaas should be asked to remove it. As Kiefer.Wolfowitz points out, it has come up before. I recall that User:Hail the Dark Lord Satan‎‎ was indef blocked recently for causing disruption by choosing a divisive persona. This issue isn't very far from that. Disputes about the meaning of national socialism (which Kiefer mentioned above) should be resolved on the redirect's talk page, not via userboxes that are prone to misinterpretation and may cause unnecessary aggravation of some good faith editors or just act as flamebait.
— User:ASCIIn2Bme 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not divisive becasue WP:IDONTLIKEIT, if users adhered to such guidelines as WP:NPA they would then find no need to resort to such ad hominem attacks and pre-judgements. Furthermore per WP:NPOV there IS and will always be another worldview regardless of whether its liked ot not. SPECIFICALLY WP doesnt Censor because of offensiveness. Or is that forgotten because it doesnt fit into a eurocentric paradigm?

Comment on CONTENT and additions instead of NPA personal attakcs that are "disliked." Disruptive is based on enhancing the CONTENT of the "encyclopaedia" )(or not doing so) not the whims of users (either others or myself). You only get baited if you want to feed on it. you cant force people to bite on it, quite CLEARLY.Lihaas (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. The page is needlessly large, complex, hard to load, and confusing. Yet that doesn't really matter. What does matter is that is is divisive to the point of being disruptive, as can be seen on ANI. Keeping this page would be keeping running into drama for no good reason. I don't care how it goes, weather through mfd, or if Lihaas trims it himself, removing anything that's needlessly divisive to the point of being disruptive (say 80% of it), and comes back within the scope of WP:UP, but it should go. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"excessive content" is then also for the numerous subpages that are personal weblogs as in those of Nightstallion's various subpages liek subscription rmeinders and list of conflcits that are not for article mainspaces., Or is that okey then because its in a limited worldview.

Secondly there was only ONE cited "offensive cotnent" wihci then leads to a bnaket and blidn interpretation to delete EVERYTHING? liek wikilibnk logs on the page?! Do people even read the other comment or just post what tickles them to vote count? and then claim "know the guidelines" such as

to reiterate needless and stupid pts that ignore what doesnt fit certain indicduals: its only disruptive because of those who dont like it, thats explicitly forbidden. this is a user page (and ive seen many LONG talk pages) not an article NO ONE NEEDS TO READ IT! if others resort to presumptive NPA's based on their whims then thats for THEM to be punished to bring it up agian and again! and as said on the ANI the userboxes are seemingly contradicted and dont mean anything. Because an editor sulks and throws a hissy fit means its his disrptuion. (in this case R-41, who brings up a needless side issue for his personal vendetta. did you even read his take? from "alleged harassment" (which he initiated as i pointed out nicely on his talk page) to resorting to nazi calls that are then picked up by others "who i dont like that," yet say it keeps coming out again. Did you see the editors point of contention instead of resorting to attacks!?!

and see this Misplaced Pages:ANI#Still.2C_the_.22This_user_is_a_National_Socialist.22_userbox_may_be_disruptive_in_itself. only one user had a problem then, which was disavowed by The Bushranger and NuclearWarfare (which could be deemed offensive as a name if one wants to sulk).

Instead of meaningless arguements over someone think-skin need to censor what is not likes it would be MUCH more productive to go on adding content to pages itself.Lihaas (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)