Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:IndigoGenius/Jus cerebri electronici

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another article in Indigo Genius's "personal" encyclopedia. We deleted the last one, and this is more of the same. Further propose that other articles along this vein be considered recreations of old pages and as speedy deletion candidates.

For those not familar with the situation, the relevent section of his main userpage declares that this article is "My Encyclopedia" and that "I am my own Admin, and I don't need those human rejects." The policy on userpages, on the other hand, says that you may not use your userspace as a personal webpage. Previously, User:IndigoGenius/Micronation was deleted for violation of the userpage guidelines - this is an identical case. Snowspinner 21:39, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

By your rather broad definition, there are a large number of user subpages that are equally or more qualified to be deleted. Are you sure you wish to be on this slippery slope? I'm tempted to start listing them here, especially if you start speedy deleting user pages... The Steve 05:36, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's allowed to have pretty much whatever he wants on his own personal user page (exceptions being things like child pronography). Samboy 21:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Untrue. The policy on userpages prohibits use of Wikipedia as a personal webpage, which this explicitly is. Snowspinner 22:37, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Exactly (what Snowspinner said). Wikipedia is not a free webpage host, and user pages and subpages are not for the place for this. He should try Geocities or Tripod. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Snowspinner said. RickK 23:57, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Delete... yupyupyup. Do not support adoption of the Proposition based on discussion taking place in this context, however- list it in multiple locations? - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Honestly, this looks like a draft page or a personal view on law. There is no doubt a history that I'm unaware of, but I take "my encyclopedia" as figurative (i.e. "my sandbox") and this as either an article in preparation or a lost page that shows his views. I don't see the violation of policy. Geogre 00:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The history you're unaware of is that he's taking crap that's routinely deleted from articles and deleted entirely and keeping it in his userspace and calling it "his" article. The articles are about micronations - IndigoGenius claims to be the king of the Indigo Nation, which is an electronic micronation. Cessido Tallini, mentioned in the first sentence of the page in question, is Indigo Genius. Having failed to use Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion, he's cluttering the project with his repeatedly deleted articles, calling them his articles and operating under the mistaken belief that just because its in his userspace it's free from any oversight by anyone else.Snowspinner 01:13, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree, of course, that user pages are not a place for private web hosting, but this particular page, fantastic or not, doesn't seem to me to qualify. The user IndigoGenius may be disruptive or non-contributory. I won't take any stand on that. I'm not encouraged by his statements in this debate. If that's true, though, it seems that ArbCom actions and blocks of the whole person are the solution, if warranted (don't know), rather than killing him by pieces. Outside of the larger context, I see a page that isn't appropriate for main space but doesn't, by itself, seem outside of the lines. More, though, I regret our having these discussions about the person's behavior in general take place on a VfD about a particular page. Geogre 20:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • It's tough - I've certainly considered an arbcom request against IG, but so much of his content has been deleted that it's very difficult to gather evidence. I've considered undeleting some of the pages and moving them into my userspace to present as evidence, but most of them were lost in the database crash in June, and can't be restored at all. Snowspinner 20:57, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: has User:IndigoGenius been asked about this? If he states that it is a draft page or work in progress, then keep, but unless he does so, clearly and distinctly, delete. Wikipedia is not a free webpage host - countless other places are. —Stormie 00:30, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Quite the opposite - its recreation of information that is routinely deleted from the main namespace as rubbish. Snowspinner 01:13, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I can't understand why people are deleting MY Personal Pages which may serve as ideas for future articles or edits. Is Snowspinner even afraid of my ideas? If he is, may I ask why he's qualified to edit the Wiki, even destroy my own personal pages. This is CENSORSHIP from the Wiki. I can call it nothing else. This is "you are guilty, until proven innocent," the reverse of United States legal standard. --IndigoGenius 00:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps if you tried to write articles on things other than made up countries, you'd get further. As for the possibility of ideas for future articles and edits, since you clearly state that you do not care whether your writings get incorporated into the main encyclopedia or not, I have to say, I'm skeptical. Snowspinner 01:13, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Why is TTF-Bucksfan a made up country? It is a nation nonetheless, and like any nation, e.g. Italian-Americans, it has rights. This is not true?
        • Italian-Americans are not a "nation" either. They're an ethnic group within a nation - namely America. Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • Now I understand why you don't like nations; you don't like them because you don't even understand what they are. And a nation and a people like Italian-Americans is the same thing. The US is a multinational state, and each ethnic groups that manages to preserve its own culture, language, and customs, is a people, and a nation. TTF-Bucksfan is a nation also.
      • And what country was not made up at some time in history, however remote?
        • Most of the ones that actually control, say, land. Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • You are confusing the concepts of nation and state. Nations exist even without land, and some in fact exist in exile, like Italian-Americans, who are prosecuted by Hollywood like no other people in America. But I suppose that doesn't matter to you also.
      • Let me add that this article is about the law, not micronations, yet you want to delete all the same.
        • Sorry. You're right. This one is about a made-up law, not about a made-up country. My bad. Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Why don't you just say you don't like me too much, because I certainly don't hide my criticisms of Wiki Admins, and that it shows, no matter what garbage you say here.
        • I don't like you too much because you write articles about your fantasy world and then seem surprised when they're deleted. Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • The fantasy world you speak of cost me over 8,000 USD in TLDs alone. It is also not a fantasy to those that consider themselves Tallinians, Bucksfanians, or Cesidians (a new religion). Fantasies usually come a lot more cheap than that, and the shared fantasies of 17 people or more usually don't exist.
      • Why don't you just say THE TRUTH, that you are violating my rights even as a part-time wiki contributor.
        • Your rights as a Wikipedia contributor are to build an encyclopedia, to follow the rules of Wikipedia, and to go along with community consensus in building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia policy EXPLICITLY DENIES your right to use your userspace as a personal webpage. Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • What you mention is not my "right," but my duty (aka obligation), and Wiki has been so disrespectful towards me and my contributions, that I don't feel duty bound. Wiki is not the product of Tallinians, Bucksfanians, or Fifthworlders, since Wiki doesn't even recognise those people. First you treat me as even less than a 19th century negro slave, and then you expect me to work for you! I don't know where you're coming from Sir, but it isn't the place I live in, and it has been surpassed in the jurisdiction called America, at least with non-Italians. Wiki is even less than a sweat shop, if Wikipedians don't have the right to at least maintain their own personal pages, and you have already deleted one without my permission. You speak of rights, yet you have already violated my rights. I have nothing but contempt for you.
      • Why don't you say the truth, that Wiki will go bankrupt one day, and I promise you it will, because I will give it its final blow as soon as I have enough money. You are attacking my own personal file, yet you don't even see the disgusting things people like Gene Poole are doing right behind your backs, and claiming to be NPOV as well. --IndigoGenius 02:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • And how, exactly, will you "give it the final blow" when you have enough money? Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • Generals never describe the strategy of the battle they will use before they will destroy you, and I will destroy Wiki by destroying something much larger and powerful than Wiki. --IndigoGenius 03:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webpage host, I suggest IndigoGenius stops whining about CENSORSHIP and notes that many if not all computers come equipped with text editors and hard disks - excellent tools for saving "personal pages which may serve as ideas for future articles or edits." —Stormie 01:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not storage for personal files. →Raul654 04:24, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Anybody who wants to vote keep on this garbage, please see how this person who calls himself a King behaves. His articles are psycho. RickK 04:06, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Guanaco 04:31, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC) Delete. Guanaco 04:34, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. User pages are for constructive wikipedia-related work, not for personal promotion, etc. Sjc 05:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. IndigoGenius is a full blown certifiable lunatic who treats Wikipedia's established community standards with pure, unmitigated contempt. While his hallucinogenic ravings about being a "god", a "university dean", a "genius" and an "indigo child" etc provide a certain level of entertainment value, one must ask whether this is sufficient reason for continuing to tolerate his egregious presence. It should also be noted that Samboy who has voted to retain this drivel has been attempting, within the past few hours, to collude with IndigoGenius to promote edit wars and the vandalisation of the Micronation article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samboy#About_the_Atlantium_attack --Gene_poole 05:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The "collusion" that George Cruickshank, "Emperor of Atlantium", a.k.a. Gene Poole is referring to here is deleting the following paragraph that he added himself:
The Kingdom of Bucksfan, an internet-based fantasy created by one Cesidio Tallini, who amongst other things, believes himself to be a god and a genius, although these asertions are unsupported by available evidence. Tallini refers to Bucksfan as being part of the Fifth World - a New Age concept of limited currency, derived from Hopi mythology.
He attempted to revert my change here and only stopped when IndigoGenius removed the description. George furthered the attack against this competing micronation by deleting any links to it on the Micronation page. In addition, George Cruickshank is engaging in a campaign of attacking me personally since I have the courage to stand up to him. Samboy 08:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


  • Keep and stop policing user pages. Go edit some articles instead. Zocky 08:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Who died and left Snowspinner net cop hall monitor with a nifty orange plastic sash? Why does it even matter what Indigo has on his user page? Come back if it gets longer than 500K, and stop wasting VfD's time with personal grudge matches. Surely Snowspinner can find something better to do than to troll User pages looking for things to delete? Like, I dunno, edit an article (no, not a Proposed Policy, an article)? I know that I have better things to do than read these cat fights. -- orthogonal 10:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Then by all means, go do them. I'd hate to think I'm distracting you from adding vital content like putting Christian before uses of "Bible." Snowspinner 14:11, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • (In response to questions as to his vote) My bad. Sorry for not being more explicit. My vote is to Keep. As to IndigoGenius's vote, is there a policy that a page author can't vote on his page on VfD? If so I (and a number of others) have violated this policy all too often, and I owe yet another apology ;) -- orthogonal 06:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure about a policy, that's why I added the disclaimer, just in case. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep What Zocky said. What next, User:Ambivalenthysteria/top sekrit sysop kabal?  ? The Steve 11:00, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriate use of WP as personal web site. Agreed entirely w/ Snowspinner. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • If someone is filling multiple user pages with huge amounts of articles, then I'd have a problem (anyone who says disk space is cheap can buy the next drive for the servers). If they've just got the one short page, they can say whatever they like as long as it's legal for all I care. No vote, as I don't care. Average Earthman 17:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless and until a) someone gives a reasonable estimate of the quantity of disk storage User:IndigoGenius is using in the directory tree underneath his home page. If there is no easy way to do this, then we need to request it as a feature from the developers, and b) we have a stated policy (do we?) about how much space is a reasonable allowance for a user's own user space. Admittedly his own description of how he is using his page is extremely provocative. But until we know how much he's using and how much is reasonable there's no basis for any intelligent discussion. IMHO, a reasonable allowance would be "my $0.02 worth" of disk space. If we assume disk space costs $5 per gig, that would be four megabytes per user. But that's just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) P. S. And I have donated to WIkimedia within the last six months...
  • Delete. MWOT. Andrewa 22:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Of no use in building an encyclopedia. Delete - David Gerard 00:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I have differences with User:IndigoGenius' POV, I believe user pages are sacrosanct, and unless egregiously radical material is contained there, productive users should have the right to use the space as they wish. If Pokemon sub-characters have a right to exist on WP, so too should slightly daft user pages. Denni☯ 03:07, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
  • No vote: although this is a violation of policy, I feel that user pages should be handled by the arbitration committee, not VfD. -Sean Curtin 04:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agree. See the talk page. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete No pages are sacrosanct. If a page is in violation of policy, then delete it or change the policy. Enough of the continual non-enforcement of policies. If policies are not enforced then they are not really policies. Jallan 21:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has no relevance to Wikipedia. Putting pages like this that wouldn't be allowed in the main namespace into the user space is just a sneaky way of trying to avoid deletion. This already exists at wikinfo and I see no need for it to be here as well. Angela.
    • I thought user pages were designed to be ones that would not be allowed in the main namespace. Main userpages tend to be vanity, do they not? The Steve 03:21, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, but this isn't a page about the user designed to tell people about himself. He is trying to put it across as an article which is why it is identical to the one in the main namespace at Wikinfo. Angela. 03:26, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • My point is that both your argument of relevance and that Putting pages like this that wouldn't be allowed in the main namespace are invalid for userpages. I would also have to say that trying to put it across as an article is overruled by it being in user space, which has been designated both non-article and not main namespace but rather what the user feels like putting there. I don't know about you, but this article tells me almost as much about User:IndigoGenius as his user page :) The Steve 04:24, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
          • Then nuke the article in article namespace as each appears. It will be the one to be found by Wiki's search engine. If the user insists on restoring articles from userspace to article namespace, there are disciplinary procedures in place. I've seen a goodly pile of nonsense on user pages, but have never questioned its presence there. Perhaps "sacrosanct" is a little imperative for what I think user pages should be, but I believe nonetheless they should not have to suffer the same scrutiny as articles. Denni☯ 20:57, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
  • Keep -- from a fluffy liberal point of view (and because I think it's important for community building), it seems bad style to put user space subpages on VFD, if they are not copyvios or illegal. Yes, we have a policy that user space isn't a web hosting service, but have take a tour through wikipedia user space, and you'll see masses of user space use that isn't linked to the goal of encyclopedia creation. So, as long as there is no significant bandwidth problem, and as long as it is legal, user space should be rather "private" and not fall under "public observance". ((A related, but not really complete idea: what about a BJAODN:-namespace in wikipedia? Hoax and nonsense articles could be moved into that namespace, articles here wouldn't count as article edits etc., and the page layout would indicate sillyness, e.g. by giving neon pink backgrounds for this namespace. Something like a wikipedia underground (dungeon?), letting falled geniuses play their games without to much disturbance. Problem would be of course the possibility that BJAODN turns in a second Everything2 or something ...)) -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 11:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly extremely gigantically reluctant keep. I'm extremely dissatisfied with the author's conduct, and the encyclopedic value of this article (it's definitely original research, but this doesn't count for much) but the guy can do pretty much whatever he wants with his user page until we get a better definition of personal webspace. He does seem to be designing his user page around a usual homepage concept, but still, the policies are too vague. Take this as a vote for keep, a vote for taking this to a higher authority (Jimbo? Arbitration?), and a vote for a better-defined policy relating to this. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • For the record, at this point, the vote stands at: 15 (Delete), 10 (Keep), 2 (Neutral).
    • I'm not sure whether or not User:IndigoGenius is allowed to vote on this, as it's his article that is being voted on. If he is not allowed to vote here, then there are only 7 votes to keep at current. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen in this discussion. Is he a registered wikipedia user? He is? Then he gets a vote. Suddenly I am starting to worry about censorship. The Steve 06:57, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • Er, no. VfD convention is that the article creator doesn't get a vote - David Gerard 13:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • There is some dispute about that, apparently. I have seen elsewhere (in the context of a VfD debate) that the author of an article shouldn't vote on the article being voted upon, and when I later mentioned it on another VfD debate I was told by a sysop that it wasn't true (it was much more than 5 days ago, so I don't remember which debate it was). So, my question is, is it a convention (which not everyone follows) or a policy? No particular axe to grind, I just felt a bit foolish over the issue. Fire Star 14:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm not aware of any written policy about whether the author gets to vote. "The author" is slightly problematic, since if two people edit, which one is "the author"? (That hasn't been much of a problem on vfd since many articles that wind up here are indeed the work of a single author.) Anyway, I've always assumed the author or authors get to vote. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:33, 14 Aug 2004
            • I'd say "convention", not "policy". I see nothing wrong with an article creator stating their opinion in a VfD (I'd say that's a good thing), but would question counting it as a 'vote'. In any case, it's a straw poll to ascertain consensus, rather than a vote per se - David Gerard 14:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Then why is this page called Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion? 67.149.62.8 04:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
              • Thanks, it makes a bit more sense to me now.. Fire Star 20:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • I really wanted to avoid this dicussion but I must object strongly to David Gerard's earlier comment that authors do not "get a vote". They absolutely do. They are users just like everyone else here. They have no less (and no more) voice than anyone else who chooses to contribute to the debate. It is a point of courtesy to disclose if you have a vested interest in the article but that does not invalidate your vote. (No vote on the discussion of this page) Rossami 22:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • First of all, exact number of votes doesn't mean much. As David says, this is a straw poll to ascertain consensus. Secondly, why would you tally the number of votes after just two days on VFD? For which "record"? And at which point? How would people know at which point if other votes went in above your note? Or did you expect other votes to continue under your lap-time note? So everybody gets a vote, plus some people feel free to add off-hand remarks in the vote list? OTOH, if your intent is just to clarify what's going on, because it's very hard to see people's votes because of all these comments in the middle of the vote list, I would gladly join you in asking people to put their comments at the bottom of the page, so they look like they're commenting and not like they're trying to challenge other people's votes. Zocky 16:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, imagine that you should be expected to have to actually read through what all those bothersome other people have to say. Here's to McWikipedia! 67.149.62.8 04:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Imagine if you could read all the comments and yet be able to have a general idea of the votes without having to read all the comments. Zocky 12:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Zocky, you put it exactly right. My only intention with this is to "clarify what's going on, because it's very hard to see people's votes because of all these comments in the middle of the vote list". blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • When you start voting on personal pages, pages that are not part of the Official Wiki, you are basically voting on whether a person has the right to post a personal page, regardless of its content. While my personal pages are critical especially of Wiki Admins, they are certainly not excessive (I've seen folks with dozens more), and they are certainly not pornographic. Since you folks are voting then on basically whether I have the right to have a personal page, you are basically voting whether I have the right to participate in the Wiki. That is censorship even when the intent isn't censorship. It seems that many folks here believe I don't have the right to post in the Wikipedia, and simply because I'm a creative person. Since creative people can't post in the Wiki, or will be forced to stop posting at a certain point, just like I'm being forced, it is clear the Wikipedia is already dead, because without creative people it will never distinguish itself from the rest. It is not like a living human being, but more like a corpse. That's my two cents. I used to support projects less worthy than the Wiki, but I'm running out of money and inspiration in this case. --IndigoGenius 16:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • While I have no love for IndigoGenius, and have argued for deletion of some of his articles, I believe he has the situation nailed down quite clearly here. A user page is precisely that. It is not something which can be accessed by accident, and it does not pose a fire hazard to Wikipedia, except when some other user with matches and attitude happens by. Any contributor should have the right to a user page of modest size, in which content should not be an issue unless it is illegal. While I don't believe this gives a one-time editor the right to save his doctoral thesis on his userpage (yes, newcomers, it's been done), if a user wishes to promote his greatness in the eyes of the universe and pee on the peons, well, it's his space. While I do not agree with what IndigoGenius has to say, I respect his right to say it in his own space. Denni☯ 19:14, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
  • I've struck through my vote above, and would at this point like to abstain from the VfD process for IndigoGenius's page. Fire Star 20:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Would you like that counted as a neutral vote or just not counted at all? blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Don't count me. I may come up with something before the 5 days run out. Thanks anyway. Fire Star 04:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

An Update[edit]

  • BTW, just wanted you guys that voted against me to know I started my own Wiki at the Fifth World Wiki :P Now I can write articles 'til my heart is content. I'm also pleased to announce that Dr Joe Baptista, Chief Internet Scientist of TTF-Bucksfan, and the Minister that manages our 8 pTLDs (Public Top-Level Domains), has also started a Tiki Wiki with his own server space. I had to put up with hostile Wikipedia Admins and even a Micronational Wiki Admin who was totally unsympathetic, but now I give both the MIDDLE FINGER! See you guys on Judgment Day. I be just a quick to judge you, and just as harsh. --IndigoGenius 21:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So, is that a delete vote from IndigoGenius then? 67.149.62.8
  • Yay for you. The sight of a superego going down in flames thrills and excites me. May your ashes fertilize the good Earth. Denni☯ 04:55, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
  • Delete - IndigoGenius has his own Wiki host and we aren't supposed to be one. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Burn baby burn. - UtherSRG 01:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: What Zocky said. And there is so many other dubious user pages that are much worse than this, like that page with users that had the same password or the page that listed what someone thought was someones sockpuppets. It seems like its not actually what is written that people vote on, but who who writes it. Eric B. and Rakim 13:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article has been duplicated at User:Eric B. and Rakim/Jus cerebri electronici. -Sean Curtin 04:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/User:IndigoGenius/Jus_cerebri_electronici&oldid=1089089240"