Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Greg L

User:Greg L

User:Greg L (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

User:Greg L/Fuzzballs (string theory) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Nominating this page per violation of WP:UP#GOALS. Co-nominating User:Greg L/Fuzzballs (string theory) per WP:COPIES, clearly forked from main space. I learned from the page history it spun off resulting from an edit war. But as written on the top of his user page, the purpose of this pseudo-article is not a temporary user space draft, rather a "book" that is "predicated on Ignore All Rules" to avoid Wikipedia’s “anyone may edit”-manner of participation. So not meeting the purpose of the project, rather using it as a web hosting. Article reads like a hoax. Out of the 15K words in this "draft" I have not encountered once the mention of KK monopole [1], D1 or D5 branes, or even brane itself. Just 3D rendering of slinkies and order-of-magnitude calculation between common objects. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep all The user page is fine. It's got a lot more than many other user pages, but Greg L has been here a lot longer than many other users. It is a good idea to police user space but that is not necessary for old hands with a productive past. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think those policy can be updated to reflect your comment? (add This only applies to young users at the beginning). I think there will definitely be support against adding that so I do not understand your point. What is the use of those policies then? बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep all, WP:UP#GOALS is a guideline. It's also unclear which part of that the nominator believes applies here, or why we would take the drastic action of deletion to resolve it. The nom is a new user (account created ~3 months ago), so while it's possible they're here to do something useful, this kind of action makes me think a further investigation of the nom is necessary to establish whether or not they're here to build an encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  establish whether or not they're here to build an encyclopedia

  Agree with that statement, especially since his user page criticises "Wikipedia’s “anyone may edit”-manner of participation" to introduce the subpage. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep all User:Greg_L/Fuzzballs_(string_theory) is a user sandbox where I invite Ph.D. physicists like Dr. Mathur himself to take a look at what I have and can have greater confidence in what will be there by the time the physicist finally gets there. Moreover, unlike probably 99% of users’ sandboxes on Wikipedia, I’ve invited anyone and everyone who has expertise on the subject to help.

  Since the nom is exceedingly experienced in the process of how articles are nominated for deletion (Contributions/बिनोद_थारू), one would think the nom would be accurate when doing so. Quoting the nom: But as written on the top of his user page, the purpose of this pseudo-article is not a temporary user space draft, rather a "book" that is "predicated on Ignore All Rules" to avoid Wikipedia’s “anyone may edit”-manner of participation. What I actually wrote at the top of my introductory user page, which has existed for nearly 17 years (I had to expunge it and renew it) and which directs editors to my sandbox, says the opposite, as follows:

This exposition is a work in progress. Please don’t let the fact that it resides in a sandbox in user-space deter you from contributing. If you have good reason to believe you are an SME on an aspect of fuzzball theory and desire to improve this exposition meaningfully, you are more than welcome to make edits to it. If you are anticipating a substantial change, please discuss it first on its talk page, which I have set to automatically watch and alert me if you post there.

I find it illuminating that the nom found shortcomings in a wikipedian’s sandbox by writing (referring to my sandbox), I have not encountered once the mention of KK monopole [1], D1 or D5 branes, or even brane itself. Yet the current version of Fuzzball (string theory) article in article-space as of this writing doesn’t mention any of those either. Addressing shortcomings in the actual article in article-space was not something the nom saw fit to tend to, who instead objected to the contents of a sandbox. Interesting. Greg L (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep all I totally agree with Locke Cole, Greg L, and Johnuniq. I've been enjoying reading Greg L's page and was very surprised to see a sign at the top that it was being deleted. According to the contributions history, the user who started this has no record of being interested in details of scientific subjects but has a clear pro-Russian and anti-Israel bias. He nominated an article for deletion involving the death of a Russian journalist, Death of Anatoly Klyan. Greg L has a lengthy story about his son trying to get into the Seals on his main user page. This is just a swatting and the editor who started it all is using lame excuses. MLee1957 (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, MLee1967. The now-closed nomination for deletion initiated by बिनोद थारू (Nepalese, which is one of India’s languages, for “Binod Tharu”, as best I can tell) that MLee1957 referenced regarding Death of Anatoly Klyan, was originally here. The unanimous decision (except of course, Binod) was to keep and was closed out yesterday. That is far from the only AfD Binod initiated that wasted a lot of the community’s time, only to conclude with unanimous or near-unanimous consensuses to keep.

Just today, an administrator, User:Liz, posted here on Binod’s talk page the following concern about Binod:

Part of my duties is reviewing open AFDs and given your policy-rich comments and assertiveness, you don't sound like a new editor who has only been active for several months, you act like a very experienced editor who is knowledgable about Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Greg L (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep for all the reasons outlined above. बिनोद थारू‘s nomination is ill-advised. I recommend they stop taking articles to CSD, PROD and AfD and get more experience, especially by participating in AfDs. Also, Liz’s comment quoted above is duly noted. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t have time to do it myself today but I suggest someone reviewing बिनोद थारू‘s other current CSDs and PRODs to make sure he’s not mistakenly recommending keepable articles for deletion. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)