Category talk:Candidates for Deletion

Copied from deleted category talk (Proposed for deletion) -- Agge (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated those five pages created by user Thebog1 for deletion because they are simply copies of existing zone pages. Thebog1 may have been in the process of working on them at some point, but that work seems to have ended months ago. And the reason that I did it this way was because I don't know exactly how you guys would like this done on the Paragon Wiki, and I was unable to find any information on this process. Either here on the Wiki or on the forums. Peregrine Falcon 05:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to delete a user's sandbox pages. They shouldn't appear in a search unless you go out of your way to specify the User namespace in the advance search options. - SaintNicster 17:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not pages in a user's space are updated is up to the author. Whether they stay or are deleted, it is up to the author. User space belongs to the user, not really to the wiki in general. -- Agge (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What if, as in this case, the user has publicly stated that he is abandoning his work and never coming back to the wiki? -- Blondeshell 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

He has edited the pages since the time of the tantrum. -- Agge (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Those pages were showing up on the Category:CoV City Zones page, along with all of the other City of Villain zones. Also I was under the impression that individual/personal pages (beyond your user page) were not allowed. In the past a number of personal and Supergroup pages (including my own) were deleted with the note that: The Paragon Wiki is only for official information (or words to that effect). I removed the category listing so they no longer show up as multiple copies of the City of Villain zones and nominated them as candidates for deletion, which is what I thought I was supposed to do. I would also like to point out that his pages begin with: "DO NOT TOUCH This is a secondary 'Cap au Diable' wikipage (different than the 'original' for display purposes only, for particular people/person(s). It is 'hosted' via TheBog1's username and therefore not doing anyone/anything any harm. If you don't like it, tough (for the moment)!" - Does that seem appropriate for Paragon Wiki? Also, those pages have not been edited by the user since April 8th, that's over 60 days, and on his user page Thebog1 specifically says: "R.I.P. The contributor, TheBog1, has decided to never waste time attempting to update and add to the Wiki(s). The user has ultimately concluded that the ending result is nothing but a headache and an ear-full of 'politics', in addition to essays and lectures of no end about how 'messed up' the extra information is/was." - That doesn't sound like he's ever coming back to me. Peregrine Falcon 09:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that those pages shouldn't be showing in the CoV City Zones category since they are User pages. Thanks for fixing that.

Individual subpages off of your User page are allowed (one of mine for example) as long as they remain only as subpages from the User page, and you don't go too crazy with them.

I checked the User Contributions to see which pages you are referring to being previously deleted, but didn't find them (were they added under a different User name?) so I can't say for certain what might have happened there. In the past, SG or character pages that have ended up in the main namespace rather than as a User subpage definitely would be removed. Alternately, I think I've sometimes moved those to User pages and left a note on the User's talk page to let them know the content was relocated out of the main namespace. It's less of an issue now with the Ouroboros Portal open.

In this particular case, there were changes made to the actual zone articles that broke the standard format without any discussion of changing the standard formatting. Revisions were undone, opening a dialogue was attempted with the User, and a tantrum ensued. (You'd have to look at the User Talk history to see the discussion since it was all deleted.) However, despite the blanket statement on the User page, edits have been made by that account (both in the main namespace and in those User subpages) since the incident occurred. --Eabrace 11:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)