Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User Information-Habitat subpages

Add to this deletion debate

User subpages:

User:Information-Habitat/DataPerfect/Reports

User:Information-Habitat/Collective intelligence agency

User:Information-Habitat/Meditations on One Light in All

User:Information-Habitat/Light cubes

User:Information-Habitat/Information ecology/Domains

User:Information-Habitat/Table of contents

User:Information-Habitat/DataPerfect

Listed by me for deletion (there was some discussion about how they should be listed but I hope this is resolved). I have also left some comments on the owner's talk page. Hopefully we'll get a friendly outcome, but if not I'm serious about deletion in 5 days. This is another abuse of our site, perhaps unintentional, but it must go. Andrewa 17:53, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I too hope that we can reach a friendly, win-win outcome as I have become deeply enamored of, and committed to, Wikipedia, which appears to be an ideal medium for Information Habitat. As contributors to this discussion are no doubt aware, the pages refered to here have been moved to my new identity Information Habitat, which I adopted after realizing that the use of a hyphen between words - a naming convention I have used in a variety of contexts, eg, naming of domains - was not useful in the Wikipedia context.

I should add that I have been monitoring the comments expressed here - as well as others I have received on relevant Talk pages, and this has led to an intensive process of reflection on the nature and dynamics of Information Habitat's relationship with WIkipedia. However, I have found communication through the talk pages to be somewhat cumbersome, my default means being via electronic mailing lists and my favorte being IRC, and I had felt that the best way for me to proceeed was by clarifying Information' Habitat's self-definition / description, which I have now framed as a Taoist information garden - with a nod - not yet acknowledged - to CSS Zen Garden.

I might add that my decision to shift towards developing sub-pages to my User page was largely in response to a suggestion from Alex756 - combined with my seeing how Secretlondon - one of the first Wikipedians to respond to an entry of mine - was using her sub-pages. This allowed me to establish a development area where I would have the freedom to assemble some of the key areas in which Information Habitat has been specializing - without being perceived as a disruptive influence in Wikipedia.

I have taken to heart your suggetion that I download Wikipedia, and I hope to be able to install Linux and wikipedia on a donated computer - something that could happen as early as today with the help of a friend who will be visiting shortly. Once I have done that, I will be happy to move pages that may not be "ready for prime time" to the local host, although I realize that it is likely to involve a day or two's learning process, eg. in terms of how to refer to the pages in Wikipedia proper from such a local host, and would like to postpone that for a few days, as I will be giving a lecture to the Information Ecology SIG at Yale Forestry School this Friday - and plan to make extensive reference to Wikipedia as a vital frontier in information ecology.

The pending visit of the person who will be able to help me set up a Linux box for Wikipedia leads me to cut short my comments - quite possibly for most of the day, however, I hope my responses can help us move forward to a happy and peaceful resolution. Information Habitat 19:03 (UTC), 6 Apr 2004

Delete all. RickK | Talk 02:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not an appropriate use of the user talk namespace. Delete all except maybe /red links and /Common code. Angela . 11:37, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This user has contributed nothing to Wikipedia, and, seemingly, user's only purpose here is archival of personal material. Much can be forgiven if dues are paid, but we don't even have a deposit. Denni 01:05, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Please note some of Information Habitat's recent contributions - eg Consultative Status, Commission on Sustainable Development, Brundtland Commission and minor contributions to a number of related pages, which I hope point to the how Information Habitat can make a useful contribution in the area of the United Nations with a particular focus on the role of ICTs in strengthening NGO participation in the global conferences of the 1990s and in the related development of global civil society. Also of potential value are the wildflower watercolor paintings I have been uploading which hopefully can serve as seeds for a children's wildflower wikipedia.

I hope this may allay some of the concerns about the absence of contructive contributions. Imho, some of the earlier postings may also represent a useful methodological contribution - e.g. the discussion of the shortcoming of red links, and the proposal for their treatment as Search links, and the /Common code page - or imply them as in the unelaborated reference to the use of WordPerfect outline styles to generate Wikipedia pages offline, and in an undocumented use of a DataPerfect digital engine to generate sets of wiki pages. Information Habitat 19:03 (UTC), 6 Apr 2004

- Comment: this is most likely an alter ego of User:Information-Ecologist who did contribute; some of the pages existed earlier as now-deleted articles -- Hankwang 11:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

|*True re alter ego. It had become clear to me that my participation in Wikipedia should properly be in on behalf of Information Habitat, rather than in a personal capacity, although there may be areas in which I might play a more personal role - see my comment above re the change from Information-Habitat to Information Habitat. Information Habitat 19:03 (UTC), 6 Apr 2004

An SQL query also found the following pages. Angela . 22:26, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. These are all part of the same project, and should IMO be the subject of the same vote. I see they all have VfD notices now too. I'm not quite sure what the best procedure is now. The pages seem static, and posts to the user(s) pages are not being replied to, I don't know whether they are being read and I'm not really interested in snooping although the info is there somewhere. Anyway, the important thing is that it doesn't seem at all urgent now, but it does need cleaning up at leisure. So my gut feeling is that, unless anyone objects, we should restart the five day period now. After this delay, I'd like to assume all "delete all" votes apply to these pages too unless otherwise stated, and hopefully delete all the subpages at once. Andrewa 10:26, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

File:HBP-Orchis-morio-1989.05.21-0300.jpg

More pages have sprung up, like weeds.

Through my mother, an avid self-taught botanist, I learned that many flowering plants commony referred to as weeds are more fruitfully understood as wildflowers - and that the biodiversity - and beauty - of a garden can be greatly enhanced by the incluusion of uncultivated areas in which wildflowers are free to grow. You can see some of my mother's wildflower paintings at my user page. Information Habitat 19:03 (UTC), 6 Apr 2004

...and many, many more... He responded to the VfD by deleting his old pages and making new ones under a new username. Ashibaka ✎ 20:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mea culpa re deletion of VfD messages. As to the reason for moving the pages, I have spoke to that in a response above concerning my change in name, which was the principal reason for moving the pages. Information Habitat 19:03 (UTC), 6 Apr 2004

This is bad. I spoke too soon. We need to do something about it. Any suggestions? How can we avoid waiting 5 days to delete these? Or should I just resign myself to listing them every week, until I get sick of it and let someone else take over? Andrewa 13:22, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- If he continues to do it after the pages have been VfD-deleted, he should be referred to arbitration. Angela . 21:43, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I believe that we should proceed with deletion of the pages, which I support. Once that has been done, any duplicate pages subsequently created are candidates for Speedy Deletion according to our policy. UninvitedCompany 21:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As the nominator, I don't think I should actually do the deletion although as a new sysop I do now have the power. But IMO, at the very least the pages which have been on this page for 5 days or more can now be deleted. Andrewa 02:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Pages which are duplicates of those deleted can then be nominated for speedy delete. Perhaps we should let those actually listed here go for the 5 days, but any others are targets. Again, I think someone else should be involved in this, but possibly it's OK for me to either nominate them for speedy delete or action the request, just not both. This is academic until some other sysop does the first deletions - assuming you agree that consensus has been reached! Comments welcome, I'm still feeling my way. Andrewa 02:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A win-win proposal for resolution

According to the Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. "The goals of the foundation are to encourage the further growth and development of open content, social sofware WikiWiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge." I suggest that the work of User:Information Habitat be moved from Wikipedia to either this Wikibooks project or to this meta-wiki location. JWSchmidt 13:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I support this proposal, and I certainly support the lateral thinking behind it.

There is nothing to stop the authors of this material from moving it to either site immediately. I'd recommend the Wikibook rather than the Meta, because it seems to me that this is borderline for the Meta and seems to fit the Wikibook far better. But either would be better than the English Wikipedia User namespace.

As a contributor to the Meta I would personally raise no objection to its going there right now, but I can see a danger that I might raise one in the future (near or far) as the project develops. That's what I mean by borderline. But I also agree that there's enormous potential benefit to Wikipedia in having this material in a sister site. So that's a strong win/win. Excellent.

It would be good to contact the people involved in the Wikibook. I'll do that, and there's no reason that others can't too, in fact I think it would be very good if the supporters of this project (and especially those Wikipedians voting against and otherwise resisting and/or delaying deletion) got involved in this. And, there will be other ways you can help too. There's nothing stopping you from moving this material either, is there?

The author(s) can then request speedy deletion of the user subpages by existing procedures. Or, I'd personally have no objection to some or all of them becoming interwiki redirects, although this does make them a pain to delete or edit if there is the need, and not all may agree with this. AFAIK we have no policy or precedent prohibiting the use of sock puppets by users in good standing, which is the current status of Information-Ecologist etc.

So agree, a very promising win/win suggestion. As such very good stuff, whether it eventually works out or not IMO. I've had a good think about it overnight and now recommend it to others involved. Andrewa 20:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You may now notice that all but one of the original batch of pages listed for deletion has gone. This was by speedy delete (and not by me) at the request of the creator. I admit I suggested this to him, but there was no duress. This is also progress IMO, and true consensus. Andrewa 05:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)