Template talk:User freedom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Restore it!

This was previously discussed here, and was incorrectly deleted by User:MarkSweep then also. This should never have been deleted. Sct72 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gmaxwell

For relevant discussion of gmaxwell's reverts please see User_talk:Gmaxwell#user_freedom.--God of War 05:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What a stupid revert war. Gmaxwell claiming WP:OWN gives him the right to claim ownership and revert seven times to his interpretation of policy. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The only marginally tragic bit is that Gmaxwell won in the end: he got his version locked into the system where noone can touch it, by being the last one to edit the page before it was Protected, even though he was alone in trying to revise a version where over half a dozen people opposed the changes. Can't say this is the first time I've seen the Protected version of the page be the vandalized one, either. Oh well, we'll restore the previous, accurate version as soon as someone who can unprotect gets around to it; I doubt any of the users who have this on their page will care much. -Silence 06:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is not acceptable to twist the wording of a userbox so that it says the opposite of what was intended by people who created it and put it on their pages. To do so is essentially to put your words in someone else's mouth, and create a straw man. Nor is it acceptable to turn a userbox into a personal attack on its users. The current version lacks any community consensus that I can see, and constitutes disruption. I'm going to request that protection be lifted. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
That's why you should subst: the templates you use, so they don't get changed if someone alters them ;) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD

Templates for deletion
This template survived a vote for deletion. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

--Tznkai 17:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Keep, and the page has been undeleted from 'out-of-process' deletion. Ian13ID:540053 17:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no result yet.--Tznkai 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ooookay. So you unclosed it. I'm sure I read somewhere that editors are welcome to close, and it seemed to have enough speedy keep votes, but still. Ian13ID:540053 17:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I unclosed it, someone else undeleted it, the close was wrong way, and I have legitmate disagreement with the speeyd keep votes. (hell, there isn't even rationale for why they're speedy keeps and not just "keep".) At any rate, DRV and TfD are better places for this discussion--Tznkai 17:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
11SK/2K/1D at time of closure. (And don't violate WP:POINT just because you dislike Speedy Keep). It is commonly accepted that speedy keeps are closed early, but still whats done is done. Ian13ID:540053 18:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we can count Doc, myself Micheal Slone and Mark as delete votes, what about you? and WP:Point is don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point--Tznkai 18:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
If you reopened a TfD purely because you dislike speedy keep, I would see that as point, however I doubt that is reasoning. I counted form the time it was closed, and sorry if I missed any, but I didn't the nominators vote, as its usually bolded in their statement or as the first bulleted vote. Ian13ID:540053 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The nomination of this template for deletion is a violation of WP:POINT, and as such the deletion should be rejected. --Dschor 01:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have closed the TfD as keep, due to overwhelming votes. Even if it wasn't keep, it would be no consensus due to the level of keep votes. Ian13|talk 17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I see someone else decided to go ahead and delete it anyway. So much for consensus. --StuffOfInterest 14:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deliberately broken TfD link

Currently goes to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:

Should go to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User freedom

Please fix it someone, I would do it myself but it's been protected.

I would not be surprised if this is an attempt by Tznkai and Mark Sweep to try stop people voting as they know that the majority of people will be against them. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Second the motion. Is there an administrator in the house? --Dschor 02:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The placement of the template was not a deliberate attempt to hide the TFD, since the template appeared broken when it was added at [1]. I faced this problem myself, and with Tznkai trying to subst the template, things did not work out the way it was supposed to. Instead of trying to suggest that the TFD notice was trying to be hidden so it could be a hidden vote, maybe y'all could have asked to just have the link fixed at the TFD notice. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony's edits

Honestly Tony, what do you think you're doing? You've turned this template into something completely different. Stop changing it to make a point (i.e. changing it from "freedom" to "soapbox"). The template is up for deletion and we will vote on it. It will either be kept or deleted, so why don't you just let the process take its course? --Fang Aili 15:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

His actions on making the template imply soapboxing would also influence TfD since Tony's phrasing implies rulebreaking (Wikipedia is not a soapbox...) Ian13ID:540053 16:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Removal of TfD notice suports this. Ian13ID:540053 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Lol - He's done stuff like this before. On user allow fairuse he changed it to say a change to allow fairuse is about as likely as a change of the value of pi to 3. He then got into an edit war about it.--God of War 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He seems to be one o few experenced editors who is prepared to violate WP:POINT in order to influence/annoy. Ian13|talk 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm seriously considering an RfC against him at this point; his behavior here is just about the last straw. Rogue 9 05:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If you start the RFC I will support you. Tony Sidaway's hatred of process is what really upsets me.--God of War 05:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I too will support. I find it really hard to believe he's an administrator, with the way he acts. --Fang Aili 14:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I too will support it. Larix 15:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
He's up to this again at Template:User pacifist3--God of War 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
RfC withdrawn. I was premature there. Rogue 9 16:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] old TfD link

here. This template has been thoroughly discussed. --Fang Aili 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

This template's Deletion review. --Fang Aili 19:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect

There is no reason for this userbox to be protected from being recreated. It was kept in a Tfd, the consensus is to bring it back. It is time for these abusive admins to stop bullying pro-userbox users and bring it back. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah. Ooh, I have an idea! How about, one of us goes up to be an admin, we all vote for him/her, then they overthrow these abusive admins. Dtm142 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL. I tried that. But it was voted down, partly thanks to MarkSweep. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 23:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is absurd. This particular box has been unilaterally deleted about a hundred times now, and the consensus has always been to recreate it. Incidentally, the latest round of userbox deletions has been ridiculously one-sided. "template:User antimonarchist" was deleted, but "template:User monarchist" was preserved. Who's responsible for all this? Bhumiya/Talk 23:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically, it's Jimbo Wales because of what he said on his talk page. Then Doc Glasgow and the other abusive admins joined in. And yes, it's unfair. All of the userboxes that support userboxes or suggest that what the admins are doing is wrong get deleted, but not the ones that support it. Dtm142 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm one of those abusive admins who followed policy. If you could show me a box which supports "abusive admins" I'd be happy to speedy it per T1. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polemical

I believe this template is polemical, in that it is strongly assertive of a particular viewpoint in such terms that would rouse the passions of those who had views on the issue. Am I wrong? David | Talk 17:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. This is an obvious T1 candidate. Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think T1 is the problem here. This userbox was brought up for deletion, with a consensus of keep, was speedied, then went to deletion review, where it was again voted keep. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 17:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a non-sequitor. Deletion review cannot override policy. The same thing applies to copyright violations. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess you corrupt admin guys lost. Boo hoo. I feel sorry for you. Really, I do.Dtm142 19:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/s/e/Template_talk%7EUser_freedom_5b8b.html"