English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apovolot

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
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 debate was Delete - Beyond the scope of the project. This is very interesting stuff; however, it really belongs on a personal webpage or a Math forum or something. It is WP:OR, which isn't meant to disparage it in any way, it may be of great mathematical value. It is unfortunate that this discussion devolved into a tit for tat between the nominator and the page creator and none of that was helpful at all, nor did it contribute to this decision in any substantive way. Both Nsk92 and Apovolot could stand to WP:CHILL as this is in that zone of things that really don't do much harm but happen to be well outside the scope of the project. The licensing claims of the creator of the page are of no relevance to this discussion, they may or may not be void but that doesn't have anything to do with this MfD. The points made by Grutness and Thinboy were most reflective of community consensus as shown in past decisions, although consensus can change this hasn't and they demonstrate that. If this user were an active contributor and had other info on the page, this would probably still be troubling and active contributors are given a lot more leeway. The suggestion that it should be on a subpage is not supported by policy, userspace is userspace and relating to an area of interest or expertise doesn't mean users can give us their most recent thoughts on politics just because they have a PhD in poli-sci or happen to like it - neither does it mean they can give us their thoughts on math. As the only thing in all of a user's userspace, other than a policy proposal by a newbie, it's particularly not appropriate. The material was moved to userspace after an AFD which is fine, but it has been there about a month and a half and has no reasonable likelihood of ever becoming an article (which is not to say that there is no reasonable likelihood of anyone ever writing an article about the conjectures, just that this material won't become that article). The user has a copy and this is not the place to publish new thought. If the user needs help understanding what is acceptable and the purpose of userspace, contact any experienced user; this one included. Comments made after I first placed the {{closing}} tag were read but had no effect on the outcome. Although there is some interest in continuing discussion, it is unnecessary, consensus has been established. Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Apovolot

The only content of the page is to advertise and promote the user's off-wiki work. Wikipedia is not a free webhost and using a userpage for self-promotion of one's off-wiki activities is inappropriate, per WP:UP. The content of the page is basically taken from the three pages that were deleted from mainspace last month, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1. There is also a strange notice on the userpage about retaining rights to the content and intending to publish it elsewhere, although I am not sure how it squares off with our copyright policies. -- Nsk92 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

comment - He has also released it on GFDL by placing it where it is, so he cannot rescind that now even if he wants to. The bottom of the page says: All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)
I agree. However, the main problem still is that using a Wikipedia userpage as free webhost for advertising one's original research is inappropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Although it may be original research, the piece can hardly be claimed to be promotional, I would recommend keeping, but pointing out that the license reserved is not valid, and he may wish to do a db-author. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keeping it on what possible basis?? The page content is promotional in the sense that its main (and I think only) purpose is to let more people know about his work and his conjectures. This is using Wikipedia as a free webhost, exactly what WP:UP proscribes. The only content of the userpage is about his own mathematical work. That is not what Wikipedia userpages are for. Nsk92 (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but move to subpage Keep but move to subpage - Userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content. Apovolot is allowed to work out his ideas in his user space, Apovolot last edited the page on 24 November 2008, and the page looks like a work in progress to me. The content doesn't look like User page material, so it may be better if Apovolot moved it to a user subpage. If would be better if he writes "information about their areas of expertise and interest" (see What may I have on my user page?) in words us not mathies can understand and link to the user subpage for more info. -- Suntag ☼ 04:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is the case of a user developing a Wikipedia article, or the case where a Wikipedia article can possibly be developed. The AfD was closed essentially as a WP:SNOW delete: the research in question is not even published yet, and there is certainly no evidence of notability and no chance of this research becoming notable until a few years after it gets published (assuming that it ever is published which is a big if). Keeping it as a subpage might have possibly made sense if there was a half-way realistic possibility of an WP article that could stand on its own. That is manifestly not the case here. Usepage and user subpages should not be used as an end-run around WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Nsk92 (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The AfD was closed on 16 October 2008 after five days and the closing admin stated "I am happy to provide the content on request to the author." I don't think the AfD held that the material is immediately offensive in user namespace. User#Copies of other pages appears to require the passage of time as a basis to delete certain user namespace content. From his talk page, Apovolot does not appear to be a vexious editor so moving to a user subpage may be a compromise on this matter. ON THE OTHER HAND, the material has been on Apovolot's visible user page for more than one month (since 19 October 2008). Typically, I use a three month rule of thumb to determine whether content userfied to user subpages has become "indefinitely archive permanent content" under WP:USER. However, the material is on the visible user page, not a user subpage, which shortens the allowed editing period and raises WP:USER issue that the content "functionally substitutes for articles or Wikipedia space pages." Also, the user page material does not seem to be in the spirit of "information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages" as listed at What may I have on my user page?. In addition, there have been no efforts since 19 October 2008 to revise the self-userfied content to address the reasons for deletion listed in the AfD. In view of this, I revised my position above to one of "Weak keep but move to subpage". At the moment, I think Apovolot's comments addressing the above statements are needed in this MfD to keep the page from being deleted. -- Suntag ☼ 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason why copyright is raised as relevant on this, the author remains the author as far as mathematicians are concerned, and generally they do not make money off of conjectures. The article is not spam, advertises nothing, is non-controversial, and seems not to harm anyone (a valid argument for MfD). Collect (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Please read the WP:UP guideline. It explains quite clearly what is and what is not appropriate to have on one's userpage; Suntag quoted some of the key passages above so I am not going to repeat them. I am a professional mathematician myself so I know better than most that mathematicians do not make much money off their conjectures. But that is not the point. A Wikipedia userpage is for things related to one's activities as a Wikipedian, such as the articles a user edited, barnstars, Wikiprojects, general interests, etc; plus possibly a limited amount of personal biographical info of the kind described in Suntag's post. The content of the userpage in question has none of these things. It is no more appropriate than posting one's extensive genealogical record on a Wikipedia userpage. In fact, it is less appropriate, since in this case the Wikipedia userpage is used not for Wikipedia-related info, but instead to publicize to the world the user's mathematical conjectures. The page serves no other conceivable purpose, and the notice that the user intends to publish this work somewhere else later makes it pretty clear. This is both self-promotion and using Wikipedia userpage as a free webhost, both things that are explicitly proscribed by WP:UP. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Already read. Twice or more. This page is not "self-promotion" so does not fall in that area. And I have seen few userpages which fall into your strict interpretation of what is allowed. Collect (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this is not an earth-shaking issue, The material doesn't look like a traditional user page. It looks like a page that the user had previously put in place as an article, and it was not found suitable for article space. The user's assertion about copyright is borderline incorrect, since by placing this material anywhere on Wikipedia, he has already released it under GFDL. Though he retains the right to publish it elsewhere, this particular copy can never be recalled. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Changed my vote (above) to regular Delete due to the relentless campaign by User:Apovolot, who uses arguments like 'free speech' that are not to be found in Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I See No reason why one should claim that this is not the correct material to be published on Wikipedia when he is sharing his personal research to be referenced and reveiwed by others, just as an Enycylopedia is for, to reference un-copyrighted, or copyrighted material to be reveiwed and/or used in other ways lawfully. Bjornke (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
As somebody who has only became a registered Wikipedia user one day ago, you may not be familiar with the basic Wikipedia policies, such as WP:OR: Wikipedia does not publish original research, either in mainspace or in projectspace. As an online encyclopedia, it relies on material that has already been published elsewhere by reliable sources. Nsk92 (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - if my own opinion counts Apovolot (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It certainly counts as much as anybody else's but could you explain why you think the page should be kept? Nsk92 (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Because there is ABSOLUTELY NO intentions by me of using that page for the self promotion purposes. I am not expecting to have any benefits from the contents of my page there ... Conjectures do not fall into the category of the "original research" either. Proving or disproving conjectures DOES constitute research but there is no proof or otherwise disproof on that page ! So both two reasons you Dear Nsk92 have used to nominate my page for deletion are in fact FALSE if not just to stick to formalism ... and from the person of science (per your own statement) I would expect reasonable intelligent non-dogmatic thinking from you on this issue ... I am also willing to adjust the license related statement on that page in accordance with whatever this discussion outcome will prescribe it to be to comply with the spirit of the Wikipedia. Apovolot (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am quite willing to assume that you have the most altruistic motives and that you just want more people to know about these conjectures and to think about them because you think that they are mathematically interesting and important. Even so, a Wikipedia userpage is not an appropriate forum for such things. A Wikipedia userpage is meant for things that you do here on Wikipedia, such as articles you created or are working on, wikiprojects you belong to, barnstars, to-do lists, etc. It should not be used as a free billboard space, even for most noble and altruistic causes. I have absolutely no problem with you disseminating your conjectures and I have no opinion about their mathematical value or importance. They may well be great. But you should do so elsewhere. Nsk92 (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So I am taking from your above posting that you are now removing your original deletion reason of "self promotion purposes" and substituting it by the (another) reason that the content of my page has no relation to Wikipedia activities ... - that new reason of yours is not standing either - because the content of my page was originally intended to be the Wikipedia article, but since it was ruled during AFD discussion that the intended content fails the criteria of NOTABILITY, I moved this content to my user page. In fact (please reread the AFD discussion) several people suggested to me then to move the content to my user page and so I did ... Apovolot (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I am just using the most positive possible interpretation of the word "promotion": it does not have to be something that implies any material gain; one can promote a totally charitable cause, and it would still be promotion. Regarding the AfD, it would make sense to keep the content as a subpage if you intended to produce a Wikipedia article out of it and if such an article actually had a chance of being able to sirvive as an article in mainspace any time soon. That is not the case here, for reasons explained above. Before a topic (such as your conjectures) becomes notable, the material has to be published first (by you) and then a number of other people have to publish papers discussing/proving/disproving/attempting to prove your conjectures. Even under the most optimistic scenario that would take at least a few years. Incidentally, in your own words, what exactly is your purpose in having your conjectures on your userpage? Nsk92 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your latest passage re the meaning of the word "promotion" - respectfully I might say that it reminds me what Ex Pres Clinton once said - something in effect that it is not clear what the meaning of the word "is" is ... There is also old USSR times anecdote when at the Party meeting the accuser told the accused that as a human being he supports the ideas of the accused person but being the communist he just can't. Apovolot (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, what exactly is your reason for having your conjectures posted at your userpage? Nsk92 (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This line of such strong questioning from you, Dear Nsk92, brings to my mind yet another Soviet Russia times anecdote (taking place also at the accusatory style Party meeting - take this as a hint, please)- in a self defense speech the accused claims his innocence because though he (accused) admittedly does have his own strong (dissenting from the dogma) opinions - but yet he (accused) does not agree with those (his own) opinions either. Apovolot (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete user can't release content exclusively under a CC licence, however he can multi-licsence it. Guy0307 (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - am I the only one to be mildly concerned by this user's edit history? One edit to articlespace compared with over 200 to user talk? A bit odd, to say the least... Grutness...wha? 23:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-contributing user. Uses his page for soapboxing and self-promotion. Pcap ping 09:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO - there is no more "soapboxing and self-promotion" on my page, than on plenty of other Main user pages, which contain outright silly (in my mind) statements like: "This user drinks water", "This user eats poutine", "This user is from Earth", etc., etc. ... Apovolot (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear "deletioners" - I am glad that we all live now after the times of Inquisitions's Autodafe (the burning to death of heretics ) and burning books ... I suspect that some of you would actually enjoy taking part in such actions ... ;-). BTW - below are even more blatant cases of "soap-boxing" examples, which I found happily existing on *others* user pages: "This user believes that evolution doesn't have to conflict with Christianity", "This user is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming" ... But I am not against those - one should respect (or at least tolerate) anybody's else FREE SPEECH (unless it is a clear hate message)! Apovolot (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the reminder for eager "deletioners" and especially for Nsk92, who so much refers to strict Wikipedia rules when he so fervently argues to delete my page - the FIFTH PILLAR of WIKIPEDIA clearly says: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Apovolot (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Civility is a virtue. WP:IAR is a conditional: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia,... But your user page doesn't appear to be improving WP. --Thinboy00 @983, i.e. 22:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There are rules which are of UNIVERSAL value - above and beyond local Wikipedia rules, one of them is known as the right for FREE SPEECH. This suggested deletion of the innocent user page is blatant violation of person's FREE SPEECH. Apovolot (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • keep for now for now. The material on the page is not standard for a userpage but is not terribly self-promotional. The question I would ask would be were if we set aside the user's campaigning which triggers understandable negative reactions would we allow such a user page? I'm inclined to think that the answer is likely yes if the user also contributed productively to the encyclopedia. Give him a few weeks. See if he contributes at all. If not and he really does just want a soapbox then delete it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC) delete Nsk92 has convinced me. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I think that even if a user was a productive mainspace contributor, this sort of material would not be appropriate for a userpage. There are newsgroups, bulletin boards and preprint servers for exchanging math ideas and posting one's math work. A Wikipedia userpage is just not the place to do it. Nsk92 (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Really? If say my userpage was just a short note on my current research is on would we put it up for MfD? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Depends on how short, on the details and the context. A brief general explanation of what one does with a link to an external page is certainly fine. But going into significant details about one's scientific/literary/artistic/whatever work belongs somewhere else, such as outside blogs, newsgroups, chatrooms, bulletin boards, preprint servers, and the like. E.g. an edit such as this[1] belongs on something like sci.math.research but not here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
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://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Apovolot&oldid=14682159"