Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KamrynMatika2

User:KamrynMatika2

WP:NPA, user has left, no reason to keep it around. User:Veesicle 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any personal attacks. -- John Reaves 20:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep If a user leaves we generrally keep their userpage. I'd rather know why they left than have an empty page. There are no personal attacks as it doesn't metion any people personally. It just says he left because of all that crap (Which seems to be true, actually)--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He basically calls everyone who uses TWINKLE a moron, etc. I don't see why we should allow soapboxes for users who aren't interested in the project anymore. If he wants to criticise, he can do it on his own bandwidth (and I see that he is a member of WR). User:Veesicle 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her account is still in good standing, even if she chose to leave out of frustration. Her criticism is scathing and perhaps overly harsh, but it's not personally directed. There's nothing wrong with leaving in place an explanation why one decided to leave the project. --krimpet⟲ 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a personal attack, it's not directed against any actual person. It's not general practice to delete userpages of departed users unless they ask for it. I see no reason to delete. Hut 8.5 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I see no reason not to honestly. WheelchairBoy 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI see no policies being violated. Last time I checked it is okay to be critical of wikipedia.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 00:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously. --arkalochori ^|talk| 04:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essays directly relating to Wikipedia are generally acceptable. There are no personal attacks here. --Alksub 07:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and protect...there is nothing but mindless rantings on that page anyway.--MONGO 08:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it, don't look at it. -- John Reaves 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I agree that these are mindless rantings that are false, but we do allow for crtitcism of wikipedia within reason. This criticism is not so outrageous that it needs to be deleted. We are not facists last time I checked:)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 13:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep The key term in WP:NPA is 'P' The attacks here are general, not personal. A prohibition on personal attacks should not be used as a means of whitewashing dissent. 129.89.68.218 16:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)— 129.89.68.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Absolutely echo Phoenix-wiki's sentiments; it is extremely beneficial to me to know why an editor left. It may boarder on a soapbox, but it is more of a criticism of WP than anything - and if you listen to critics, it should improve us down the road. I tend to give "on-line suicide" notes more lee-way than an active user's userpage.--12 Noon 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - False nomination rationale.--WaltCip 19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "full of idiotic morons", "The community is a disease", "the people who run this site are pathetic", "TWINKLE morons who couldn't find their arse without an atlas", "clueless idiots who are here to make themselves feel good", "the people who are guilty of this would have been socked in the face by now". This sounds to me like attacking the community, and not an essay designed to express constructive criticism. Lurker (said · done) 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that there is any legislation or policy on Wikipedia that requires people to post only constructive essays on their user page.--WaltCip 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I said above, wikipedia is not some facist organization. We are not authoratarians. We allow people to express there feelings towards wikipedia, and I am glad we allow people to do that. We are not opressive.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 23:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, of course, there is a common sense boundary. If someone's user page is, for instance, User:Mr.Cock and consists only of "fuck u wikipedia," then there is rationale to delete. However, in this case, none of that has occurred. Yet.--WaltCip 03:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Who cares? We're not a dictatorship. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard to make the case that it violates No Personal Attacks when no person is specified as a target. Let them make their statement, if they wish to do so. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stem the rising tide of intolerance that's sweeping over this site. *Dan T.* 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and the essay makes some valid points. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or blank, just an attack/rant page, the user is gone, no real sense in keeping this around. --Core desat 06:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that we have on from trying to delete links to trying to delete opinions. WAS 4.250 13:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]