Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything

Add links
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 discussion was delete. While there are a couple keep quotes, consensus to delete is clear, and the delete !voters raised convincing arguments. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything

[edit]

This page has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. The user is under the impression that Wikipedia is a free webhost, even after I pointed out WP:NOTWEBHOST, see User_talk:Neptunerover#User:Neptunerover.2FTheory_About_Everything. This is their own speculative theorising that has no place here. Fences&Windows 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack noted in Cyclopia's opinion. "hopeless quackery". All votes showing bias not based on actual rules should be discounted. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Neptune. Straw polls on the various "X for Deletion" pages may look like majority votes, but they're actually a means of determining consensus, and the final outcome is based more on the the merits of the arguments used than the number of editors with a particular opinion. – ClockworkSoul 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neptunerover, I am sorry if the comment offended you, but it was not a personal attack. I am not talking about you, I am talking about the page. Your page is in my opinion hopeless quackery: even if I am sure you have all the best intentions and you are in good faith, the page objectively brings WP into a bad light. I am sorry if this sounds blunt or rude, but that's it. That said, my personal advice is to actually study some physics (say, up to Ph.D. degree) before even thinking of putting a T.O.E. together. --Cyclopiatalk 23:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not on Wikipedia the Encyclopedia (wherein resides plenty of hopeless quackery already), but rather on a user page. I don't make people go there. I imagine most people wouldn't be able to make much sense of it. But that doesn't matter, because it's not an encyclopedic article, but just one of a user's play around pages, which shouldn't be against the rules. Only adult rules restrict play, and Wikipedia is FREE, which flies right in the face of all those people who want to keep information expensive and copyrighted and limited. I say screw that! We're free! So don't cry for me. I laugh at these pathetic chaining attempted, but the beast of freedom cannot be contained! -Neptunerover (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User has actively edited in mainspace. Essay, clearly marked, is within normal userspace guidelines. No rule requires userspace to be only for articles which could be in mainspace (d'uh). Nor is there any rule I find which bars "speculative theorizing" (is there any other kind?) from userspace. Lacing a reason to delete, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason to delete as WP:NOTWEBHOST is policy: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." This information isn't relevant to working on Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 00:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at MfDs -- the issue is whether the material is "compatible" with WP, which has generally been interpreted to mean that userspace has a different standard from mainspace as to what is allowed. Almost no essays are "necessary" - but that is not the issue to be discussed. Collect (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "web host" as it pertains to the page in question. Note: Unreferenced material should be deemed inadmissible for purposes of this proposed deletion action. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It pertains because it is not material related to Wikipedia in any way. It doesn't serve any purpose within the WP community, nor it helps editing or improvement of any article, nor it is a userspace draft of a possible real article. Therefore, it is something that you could bring on a personal web page. Since we are not a web host, that is, userspace is not a dump where you can post whatever you like, you are invited to bring that page outside Wikipedia. It is clearer now? --Cyclopiatalk 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non affirmative. I require all sources of information from within the wikispace, referenced from outside. I believe this is the format here. --Neptunerover (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The user plainly states that the page has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Although I'm not for the over censorship of userspace, WP:NOTWEBHOST may apply here. Although one might also ask what secret pages and some of the userboxes have to do with building the encyclopedia? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously saying that we should avoid taking appropriate action because the miscreant might retaliate?!?! Seriously?! We simply need to point out to NeptuneRover that he should not personally delete such material but instead refer them to MfD. If he turns into an active patroller of inappropriate material then that is a good outcome. SteveBaker (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey SteveBaker, come on by my talk page if you ever wanna chat (call me names like "miscreant") or play a nice game of chess. Don't mind Jules, he won't bother you as long as you avoid eye contact. But be warned against attempting any vandalism in my section of free space like F&W. --Neptunerover (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider that it could lead to a useful scenario. However this user's eccentricities and cherry picking of WP rules lead me to think that he may instead just nominate practically every userpage essay that he comes across as WP:NOTWEBHOST. In the end, everybody's time is wasted. (I should note that I'm not appealing to popularity in that I think the article should be kept because there is so much other useless crap on userpages. I'm saying that this user could cause a lot of time-wasting if this article gets deleted, which overall is probably negative for Wikipedia. I'm fine if you disagree with that). --Mark PEA (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but exactly who is doing "cherry picking" and wasting everyone's time here? Certainly not the person who neither started it nor is willing to bow down before tyranny? One person started us all on this joyride, and were he to simply retire instead of being forced into it, he would then be able to consider himself an accomplished human being.--Neptunerover (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the original nominator has caused a lot of wasted time or not is irrelevant; that time has already been wasted. My argument for weak keep is base upon the additional wasted time that could potentially occur if the article gets deleted. If SteveBaker is correct in saying that you (Neptunerover) will enforce the WP:NOTWEBHOST rule rationally as a result of a delete, then I completely agree with deleting the article. --Mark PEA (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It would not make Wikipedia look bad because it's not an article. While Wikipedia is not a soapbox, there is nothing wrong with making a self-evident argument. An exchange of ideas sometimes useful for thinking outside the box, and when people ask questions about these things on the Reference desk, it's possible to find ideas (and even inspiration) to edit and improve certain articles with reliable sources. ~AH1(TCU) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is a citation. Einstein himself submitted articles and theories to a science foundation without citations. Today we know where these ideas go–directly into the trash bin. ~AH1(TCU) 03:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. It's a little weird and a little long, but not utterly outrageous in length. Also it might aid collaboration by giving other editors a better sense of where this editor is coming from. There's a limit somewhere, but I don't think this page has quite gotten there. --Trovatore (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Neptunerover really created these pages for "practice" (as he claims on the new contribs help page), he could reduce the amount of content, and improve his disclaimers explaining what the pages are for. The fact that this has come this far, shows that he is unwilling to do this, so deletion is the best resolution. I don't believe all this was created just for practice. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate the required timeline for user practice page content reduction as well as the content requirements for such pages. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Summary Dismissal Request.

One user has invaded another user's free space and imposed an ugly sign there while making accusations based upon their personal disagreement with a distinctly different manner of thinking, therefore, the action before this senate is one which is specifically pointed out here in the rules as exactly the thing that this process is not to be used as a forum for. I believe Fences should be given a warning about misusing this process, and the ugly sign should be removed posthaste. Thank you fellow Wikipedians, and have a wonderful day. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NR, there's a reasonable chance that this will go your way, provided you don't take the opportunity to make everyone irritated at you. As an advocate of giving people some latitude in userspace, I'd prefer you didn't do that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are merely confused as to which side you are on. That's easy enough. Fear not, for you have told me nothing that you have to worry about. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant. The matter is not a content dispute (that would be something like "this article says too much about theory X and not enough about theory Y"), it's a disagreement over whether the page even falls within Wikipedia's scope at all, which is the exact purpose of deletion discussions. There's no need to warn anyone, and no need to close the discussion early. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user." This is from the very rule you say does not apply in this case. How can that be? Not about content? Um, actually nevermind, I don't even need to respond to you since you obviously don't understand the nature of this dispute. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


In order that the accused be allowed to marshal a proper defense, I repeat my much earlier request for the information he requires for a proper understanding of the charges.

For the benefit of anyone puzzling over the repeated statement about "unreferenced material", Neptunerover has looked at 10 different Wikipedia articles about web hosting (so he does know what it means), and has noted that all have "unreferenced material" section topper boxes, and is proposing deleting some of this content here, presumably in retaliation for this deletion proposal. I have advised him against it. I (and others) have also advised him on how to deal with his userpage situation (he has posted several consecutive sections on the new contribs help page), but he has stated he doesn't want our opinions, and also doesn't want to post anything on the deletion proposer's talk page page prior to opening an admin incident report complaint against him, even though this is a requirement (which is a point Neptunerover himself raised). Better cooperation and laying off pseudo-lawyer stalling tactics would probably have gained him more support; sorry if that sounds harsh. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How am I not being cooperative? Please explain. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. That sounds like rather POINTy behavior. I think Neptunerover would benefit from reading these pages: WP:POINT, WP:LAWYER, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT, WP:FREE. As for his question: A webhost is a website or service that make content publicly available on the internet. Wikipedia does not make all content submitted to it available just because it was submitted, so it is not a webhost. No I do not have a citation for that. If you don't believe me, then go get a copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica and look it up. --Thinboy00 @873, i.e. 19:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Internet. But what is web host? I am limited to Wikispace, and without outside references, the loops go nowhere. Are you reading me?--Neptunerover (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? "This page in a nutshell: If you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked." Who here disagrees with what? What rules am I disagreeing with, tell me please? Who here has been disruptive? I am merely defensive when necessary. I in fact agree with all the rules, which is why I find this action so curious. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bottom line: This user is using Wikipedia to promote his particular brand of Time Cube-like pseudo-science - and we don't allow that kind of thing. He has pushed this pseudo-science on the Science reference desk in the form of a long diatribe with no real question at the end of it and he is also promoting it in this sub-page. This is not content that would ever be notable enough (or true enough, or referenced enough or...anything-enough) to become a Wikipedia article and it's very clear that it's not sandbox editing or anything like that. NeptuneRover is using this page as a place to push his ideas of how cosmology works. That is without doubt: "content that is unrelated to Wikipedia" and that makes it a clear breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST. If he claims that this sub-page was merely an effort to learn editing techniques in a sandbox-like environment - then it's purpose is done and he should have no objection to us deleting the content. Claiming otherwise is an insult to our intelligence. The fact that NeptuneRover claims not to understand what a web host is (he claims not to understand quite a lot of things that he does not wish to address) is quite irrelevant. Failure to understand a Wikipedia rule is no defense against removal of inappropriate pages. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your own brand of pseudo-science. SteveBaker (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I fail to comprehend "Time Cube", although it is an article on Wikipedia. Can you please study it for me and explain to me what you are referring to. Might I be wrong? --Neptunerover (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, thanks for pointing to us this page too. At this point your abuse of namespace and violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST is obvious. Do you have any other?--Cyclopiatalk 12:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All target locations are being determined at this time. Calculated list arrival will be soon. Further lists will be forthcoming as they become available. --Neptunerover (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that was not just a rhetorical question, see Special:PrefixIndex (although I don't see how that information is relevant to this discussion). Gandalf61 (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It came up in my mind just after I posted. It seems these two are the ones worth attention. It is vaguely relevant, in that the argument that it is just a sandbox is obviously denied by the fact that the user has already a sandbox page and that there is a pattern of using userspace to host stuff.--Cyclopiatalk 12:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The full set of NeptuneRover sub-pages (as of this post) are:
  1. User:Neptunerover/Anonymous Quotes
  2. User:Neptunerover/another talk page
  3. User:Neptunerover/Anonymous Quotes/Paradoxes
  4. User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything
  5. User:Neptunerover/Theories About Everything
  6. User:Neptunerover/My First Practice Article
SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Steve, Please ignore that request. I need you much more urgently for another matter of possible importance to a guard like you. I do not know who else to turn to. This just came in. Here is the message:

"Have no fear, I fed the warden earlier. He's sleeping now."

— Overheard Prison Inmate Message, Could they be planning an escape?
--Neptunerover (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment I really don't think whether or not it's pseudoscience has anything to do with the question. I know of no policies or guidelines that preferentially delete pseudoscience. Nor are MfD discussions the right forum, in general, to decide what's pseudoscience and what's not. (I'm talking about the general case here, of course; as to the specific case I thought my remark about aiding collaboration by helping other editors understand this one's point of departure, was rather sly.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Wikipedia:User page says: "In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute". Maybe "disrepute" is a strong word here but scientifically minded readers may think less of Wikipedia or its editors if they see things like this. It's userspace but people may wonder whether such things also find their way into articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, perhaps we should come up with a whole encyclopedia of contingency plans. Good idea. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of whether it's specifically pseudoscience - it's that we do not encourage personal-opinion/original-research pieces that are not relevant to the process or practice of writing an encyclopedia. These personal diatribes simply do not belong in Wikipedia - even in user sub-pages. SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I were to move all the material from the page in question back to my own talk page where it all was just a few days ago? Not that I ever would, but would that solve the "problem?" --Neptunerover (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We are not debating whether these things are in the wrong place. We're questioning whether they belong in any form whatever or in any place whatever within the entire Wikipedia web site. We do not exist to provide free web space for any individuals' opinions or theories unless they relate very specifically to the art or practice of encyclopedia writing - so, IMHO, these pages need to be deleted and not be recreated anywhere on this site. NeptuneRover needs to go and create his own web site where he can post anything his imagination desires - Wikipedia doesn't welcome this kind of activity. SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with Steve. I must have my own webhostsight. This will allow me complete internet domination. Tell me, does Wikipedia explain webhostsight construction? --Neptunerover (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This userpage does not contribute to improving Wikipedia, so there is no reason for it to remain here. Also, delete per Wikipedia:User page, which states: "Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." Cunard (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but he page in question is absolutely not unrelated to Wikipedia. It's just a practice page for a new user to practice how to work on articles with, as well as it is helping him to learn how to deal with the rule processes of Wikipedia and with the people who attempt to impose them artificially. They are being dealt with right here, right now. -Neptunerover (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not that I need to voice my thoughts at this late stage, but the page in question is obviously a large statement of the user's alternative and non-Wikipedia-related ideas, which for myriad reasons, we do not host here. Looking at the goings on, this is starting to seem to me like a WP:SNOW event. – ClockworkSoul 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who cares what it's a statement of? It's a user page! This user is not trying to force anything on anyone. Please keep in mind this user requires no one to go to his personal user page wherein he is doing his own private thing without harming anyone, except for users who like to be bossy. And it is entirely thanks to them and the big fuss they have created that people are going there now. All of my pages, and I'll just keep making more, because by doing so I am not hurting anyone except for petty rule tyrants, who we all know need theirs. -Neptunerover (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2010 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Neptunerover/Theory_About_Everything&oldid=1146510397"