Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/GordonWattsDotCom


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedy Close (Owner's agreement) -- Delete the images, Rename User:GordonWattsDotCom to User:GordonWatts, and and Keep the userpages..

User:GordonWattsDotCom

 * "...he no longer edits here..." While I don't know if I will edit much here in the near future (I have other responsibilities), and in fact, I do not plan to edit much,  I have made a bunch of recent contributions , simply because I figured I would be productive while I was here answering the posts on this page. Observe: Special:Contributions/GordonWattsDotCom--With kind regards, I am, Sincerely, GordonWattsDotCom 10:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Vote closes: 23:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom.  Cbrown1023  talk  22:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't like the pretend messages bar that directs to the user's own website; I don't like the personal information; I don't like the soapboxing, and I don't think this page meets userpage policy. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment He's active on WP as User:Gordon Watts (well, not for the next week ). I've emailed him to notify him of this VfD. He's got 400 edits (mostly on Abortion) here. I don't like the idea of deleting a user page because the editor hasn't been here for a while. His edits are still in the edit history and he can be contacted on WP via his user page here. He was allowed to have the user name, and there is precedent on WP (WQ links to Wikipedia:Username policy) for established names to be allowed, even when new policy would outlaw them. Users are allowed to have personal biographical info and photos on their user page per Wikipedia:User page, and in fact quite a deal of latitude. It's their responsibility to remove information, if they don't want it there any more. There may be some items that could be considered inappropriate – I would consider the false message boxes to be such, for example. Oh, don't know if it applies here, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tyrenius 01:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You may not be aware, but it is considered bad faith to point that out in a discussion, especially at experienced users who definitely know of that.  Cbrown1023  talk  01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be true,  Cbrown1023  talk , but for a person to be accused of violating policy (like I was) by you and others -and for the person to NOT be notified, and then for the accusations to NOT be supported by policy (you and Fys did not support your claims by citing to documented policy), is very bad faith, in my honest opinion. (I feel this way because I do not think you would like it if what was done to me was, instead, done to you.) So, I can deduce that Tyrenius' reply to such comments was not in bad faith because he or she was correcting what is probably a violation of policy -and what is certainly not polite behaviour. If someone talked about you behind your back, you would want to be defended, so I conclude that Tyrenius' edit was not in bad faith at all. (Unless, of course, a double standard applies, but it should not, as it would not be fair. Are you fair?) I'm not being rude -not intentionally. I am only asking that you treat others as you would want to be treated, that is, that you are fair. Is that an untenable request -or a good one?--GordonWattsDotCom 08:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how it can be bad faith to define the facts that are at the heart of an issue. Nor do I see a basis for assuming that everyone taking part in this VfD will be aware of them (I wasn't until I did some research). Furthermore, I am stating them, so that I can get a community response to them to see if they are viewed on WQ in the same way as on WP, as I have come across differences before. I am, to say the least, puzzled at your response. I think also that this process should have been a last resort, only after dialogue with the editor concerned had failed to be productive, but there is no evidence that it was attempted. Tyrenius 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am sorry about that. As you may have seen, I have been busy around Wikiquote with the Sidebar and Lynx... I overlooked that accidentally and did not e-mail him after you said that you had already.  Cbrown1023  talk  01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I understand busy! WQ email wasn't enabled anyway. Tyrenius 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep some - Delete Some, etc. I vote to keep the User and Talk pages, to rename the page from "GordonWattsDotCom" to "GordonWatts" and to delete all the images. If I later decide to upload an image to Commons, it shall be my responsibility, as Jeff has said. This vote superceded my prior vote, which I am updating, and this compromise should help the Peace Process and increase community goodwill.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't even think that a few votes like this constitutes consensus, and even if so, the standard for consensus is even greater than the standard for a majority. However, since no one else has put a percentage number on what constitutes a "consensus," no one should hold it against me if I don't, but my comment here otherwise seems valid.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep user pages, move properly licensed images to Wikimedia Commons and delete all the images from here. I do not believe we have either policy or practice that suggests we should be nominating user pages so casually. Based on previous Wikiquote experience with soapboxing users, if we have a problem with excessive self-advertisement or soapboxing, we should ask GordonWattsDotCom to tone it down a bit, rather than use the VfD mechanism to force the issue at this time. As far as the images go, we can and should demand explicit sources for them. (Just saying "picture of me" is not a source.) However, they do have an explicit license statement, the lack of which is usually the motivation for deletion. Gordon, please note that since the time you've been occupied elsewhere, Wikiquote has been pruning old images because we are trying to encourage all media be moved to Commons. Now that you are back (at least temporarily), I recommend you upload your images there and include a statement like "private file" or "private image" along with your license statement to make clear that you own the image. There are far too many people who have been applying GFDL tags to images they don't own. As a lawyer I'm sure you can appreciate our reaction to this by insisting on explicit source statements. I can see a concern that Image:GordonEnhancedPicRally.jpg might be used without permission from a newspaper, and Image:GordonThen.jpg from a high-school yearbook, both of which are almost certainly copyrighted. Wikimedia does not consider the use of images in the user namespace to be fair use (see w:Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images for more information). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A clarification, based on the Aphaia's vote below: if we choose to "move" images to Commons, it's an implicit instruction to GordonWattsDotCom to do the Commons uploading. No one else has the legal right to move these unsourced images to Commons, and even Gordon will have to provide an explicit source. I guess that, as far as Wikiquote is concerned, a "move images" is an effective "delete them from WQ". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep user page; move images, per Jeffq. ~ UDScott 12:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep user page (and talk), delete images. The original uploader will be able to re-upload images to commons under free licence(s) he prefers. Since Commons accept no fair use images. So I am hesitant to say "move 'em all". --Aphaia 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Userpages, are they not at the persons own discretion to edit etc but saying that anything thats against policy will have to go.--McNoddy 11:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It would be allowed on Wikipedia.--Poetlister 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Poetlister, are you only referring to the user pages? The "Removal of fair use images" link I provide above indicates that unsourced, apparent "fair use" images used only for user pages would likely be removed from WP as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant that a bit of advertising is tolerated.--Poetlister 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Everyone, please make your votes clear about whether they cover everything nominated or just specific elements. Also, if you include comments that imply you're only talking about some of the elements, the closing sysop may not include your vote for the other elements. Either way, it makes it harder to tally opinions. Thank you for your assistance in this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE a major portion of debate has been moved to the talk page. Tyrenius 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename User:GordonWattsDotCom to User:GordonWatts, which the user has suggested. I thank him for his understanding over this. Keep user page, whether editor is active or not. It occupies minimal disk space. We should honour those who have contributed their time and keep such records. Keep personal info, statements, external links per Poetlister (and images only if properly licensed). These are not excessive. Delete images as lacking full necessary copyright info, unless this is provided satisfactorily by the user. If it is, then it will be GFDL, so they can be moved to Commons per WQ site-wide policy and deleted from here anyway. The user page can still use them in that case with a link to Commons. Delete misleading "new message" boxes and ban any MediaWiki simulation, interference, joke uses etc. Tyrenius 02:08, 24 March 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.