Wiki143:Deletion review/JOIDES Resolution and Chikyu

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was endorse deletion. --Myles Long 17:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

JOIDES Resolution and Chikyu

Copycreated out of Scientific drilling as stubs, former captions of deleted images. Valid informations, deletion vandalism (no regular nomination for deletion) by Nlu. --84.131.68.87 23:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted until and unless proper version is created via a Wikipedia-policy-adherent manner. They were created by an user who was using an intentionally WP:POINT-violative name, and I have no confidence in their accuracy, and since this user had past history of using copyright violations and has vowed to flaunt Wikipedia policies that he/she does not agree with [1], I have no confidence that they are not copyright violations. --Nlu (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• For the record, the blocked user's name is . The name is not only WP:POINT-violative in itself, but shows the user's intent to violative Jimbo's policy of not allowing anons to create pages. --Nlu (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • First, the second and the third account were created because of Block vandalism by Naconkantari. Second I don't have to agree with Jimbo or anyone, Wikipedia = freedom of speech, this includes user names as long as they are not insulting. Third the articles are accurate and I have no "history of copyright violations", I'm contributing to WP for a long time without any copyright violation (as IP). --84.131.68.87 00:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I haven't yet researched the pages above but have to comment because you are operating from a fundamentally mistaken position. Wikipedia has nothing to do with freedom of speech. We are here for one purpose - to volunteer to write the best possible open-source encyclopedia. We do so at the sufferage of the initiator of the project and owner of the servers. As such, we must agree to abide by the project's policies and goals or find some other place to make our contributions. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:NOT: "Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion" - This is democracy... --84.131.94.27 12:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • This is a privately-owned website. You have no more "rights" here than the owner of the site allows. Those rights consist of forking and leaving. Other than that, you are to abide by the rules as established by the owner. You have failed to do so. Does MySpace allow you to spew whatever you want on a page? Does imdb? Does Yahoogroups? I think not. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
          • You're wrong too. As you can read on Wikipedia, the infrastructure and the software is owned bei a non-profit-foundation named Wikimedia Foundation. The content is published under an open license, so nobody owns it. This is completely different than the commercial MySpace, IMDb or Yahoo. And without the support of us, no Jimmy Whales or anybody can decide anthing, because he can't risk to loose the support of the community (concrete: the donations). So in fact, we make the rules. --84.131.79.59 15:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I actually don't object to the blocked username itself, as it could be intended jocularly rather than defiantly; however, the editor's behavior substantiates a charge of bad-faith editing. That behavior provides a reasonable basis for speedying questionable contributions. Xoloz 02:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a valid interpretation of vandalism and WP:POINT, but without prejudice against subsequently creating genuine articles on these ships, which do appear to be verifiable and in the case of Chikyu potentially uniquely significant. Better than all those articles on fictional characters, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 08:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Since when is a discussion started by a contributor a reason to delete articles? They weren't vandalism and had nothing to do with WP:POINT, the reason for creating the original account was to outhouse this from an existing article, a quite normal process at Wikipedia. I'm not responsible for the discussion that followed the block vandalism of Naconkantari. Blame him. --84.131.94.27 12:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "Outhouse"? · rodii · 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • to outhouse - bring something out of the original place of storage. o not O --84.131.94.27 12:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Finally found a couple citations of that sense in the OED--pretty obscure! · rodii · 13:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • It makes much more sense in the traditional meaning of the word :-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.