Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 19/Userboxes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log | 2006 February 19

Taken from WP:TFD:

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1 Template:User disBush
2 Template:User Cannibal
3 Template:User wishful
4 Template:User-AmE-0
5 Template:User Anti-UN
6 Template:User Anti-ACLU
7 Template:User admins ignoring policy

[edit] Template:User disBush

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guan aco 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep.--Why can't people from countries other than the US not have this template?We are citizens of sovereign nations and have rights to freedom of speech.As for American citizens-you might not want to show your dislike for Bush,considering the CIA's probably spying on you.But as for me.thankfully I'm no Yank and I can insult old Dubya as much as I like.Prasi90 16:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep forever.--Greasysteve13 00:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete this and all userboxes as terrible misuse of the Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Userboxes are not harmful. The never ending war to delete them is harmful.--God of War 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- And so is the never-ending war to keep them from being deleted. The dilemma is the source of the disruption; neither (or both, it makes no difference) "side" is at fault. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Here, here! My thoughts exactly. Broken Segue 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, it's tame enough (and not inflammatory or polemical). --AySz88 ^-^ 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Irrelevant to the task of building an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete If an user dislikes Bush so strongly that he feels he needs to express it, he can write it so on his userpage. No need for a template. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The political views of editors have no place anywhere on Wikipedia, userpages included. Physchim62 (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2006

(UTC)

Keep While wikipedia may not be a democracy, why should editors not be able to express there political views? --Hamedog^Talk|@ 08:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep discloses editor pov, which contributes to an open and honest atmosphere that is condusive to writing an NPOV encylopedia. That and this is not innflamitory, divisive or polematic. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Freedom of speech before all. --UVnet 15:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- There is no freedom of speech here. Broken Segue 22:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not needed.Bratsch e^talk 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per my vote on the UN template. Broken Segue 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete not necessary - doesn't help mission - to build an encyclopedia Trödel•talk 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It helps the mission of building the encyclopedia by allowing contributors to feel that they are human beings instead of automatons. --Aaron 17:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- That is the weakest argument I have ever heard. This template in no way advances the project's goals. No one is saying that people can't write this on their userpage, just that they shouldn't be using this template. How original (and non-mechanistic) is a person who adds {{User disBush}} to their user page? Does that remind them that they are human? There are webservers out there that will host their content for free. If your argument is valid, why not host games and blogs to remind our users that they shouldn't be bored while working on wiki and that they are individuals whose opinions matter? Broken Segue 22:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Unnecessary and mildly divisive. AnnH ^(talk) 18:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Unnecessary, divisive --Gorgonzilla 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I'm keeping all my userboxes, deleted or not. Piss on anyone who tries to change my page otherwise. Coolgamer 20:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm helping you with that. I substed those in your page, so even if they get deleted, you won't lose them -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep with the new, encyclopedia related (!) text. Now it's primary purpose it to disclose user POV, a useful tool. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Cuivienen. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Many of these templates survived recent TfD discussions. T1 should not be applied until objective criteria can be established for divisive and polemic. It is one thing to say you support something. It is quite another saying someone else can not support something or should be denied a right. The former is not divisive while the later is. Once this can be codified then T1 should be useable without debate for every single deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep keep see my comments on wishfull and anti-UN --T-rex 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I'm sick and tired of the "political userboxes" witch-hunt that has been going on lately. If someone wants to use their profile to display their political beliefs, LET THEM. There's no harm in doing so. (Ibaranoff24 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC))
- Profile? profile???. It's isn't a profile, it's a user page. It exists not because we wish to give you free webhosting, it exists because we know that communication between users will help our project. Slapping a bunch of personal likes and dislikes on your user page is more likely to discourage positive communication than encourage it. --Gmaxwell 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary and divisive. --Gmaxwell 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- What I find divisive is that you insist on defacing users' pages by editing the user box to say something inappropriate. --Nelson Ricardo 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  - If they don't want content on the pages changing they shouldn't be using templates... or for that matter putting their personal views on Wikipedia. In any case, should someone be interested in the validity of an article check it's contributors user and find signs of obvious it would greatly harm their perception of Wikipedia. I don't think people should be putting such things on their user pages, but whenever we do permit such use of userpages it should come with a matching prohibition against editing subjects related to the users expressed bias. --Gmaxwell 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    - The problem is that people will end up voting on essentially different templates entirely - it was first "dislikes" then "This user is forbidden from editing George W. Bush because their severe negative bias has caused them to place expressing their political views above maintaining the professional image of the project" then "may be biased against" and back again. I personally like "may be biased against", but please decide on something and stop changing the template. --AySz88 ^-^ 15:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep pending consensus on an overall policy. Metamagician3000 02:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep; I see no reason why this ought to be deleted. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep; this is not divisive, like saying "This user thinks that George W. Bush is as intelligent as a mushy banana" would be. Sophy's Duckling 02:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep - freedom of speech and opinion. --Arny 09:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep I hate the userbox, but it's a freedom of speech thing, and who says you have to have NPOV in a Userpage? The Republican 01:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Personally, I think this template is stupid, and I would discourage, not advocate, its use. But that's just my opinion, and so long as opinions like this are kept to Talk and User pages, I cannot say that I think deletion is mandatory. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 18:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the matter is indirectly addressed by these Wiki policy pages -

NPOV: "...all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals." [Of course, user pages are not articles, strictly speaking]

Userbox: "User boxes that are designed to provoke, offend, or reflect a POV rather than show expertise are generally discouraged. Jimbo Wales wrote on the matter, below:

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

[And again, of course, the official policy on Userboxes in general is till under development. But it is dialogues like this one that will shape that development.]

Delete along with all those other expressions of dislike. An encyclopedia should not be abused to express dislikes. ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete No longer fun. Rich Farmbrough 21:25 4 March 2006 (UTC).
Keep. What's wrong with that template? If a group of wikipedians have a common opinion, they may create a userbox. That's it. I wouldn't mind if a userbox "I hate everyone" or "I love everyone" existed. They do no harm. Kirils 01:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I beleve in the right of all userboxes to exist. AdamJacobMuller 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete absolutely adolescent trash...get this garbage off Wikipedia.--MONGO 11:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Sincerely people... If someone doesn't like george bush, they should be able to say it! Userboxes are for opinions... not everyone loves george bush, and if a group of wikipedians has a common opinion then a userbx should appear! --Chaos Reaver 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Only articles need to be NPOV. Let users keep what userboxes they like and maybe it won't be such a big deal --Adam Clark ^(User_Talk) ^(email) 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Cannibal

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guan aco 22:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Doesn't meet T1 criteria, or any criteria for deletion for that matter. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 22:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Question: Can someone explain why this particular image is used? Some joke I don't get? Misza13 ^(Talk) 22:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure why I chose that one. When I subst it following it's speedy, I had a picture of Terry Bradshaw in its place. Would you prefer that? ;) --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 22:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)(PS, if someone wants a better picture in there, go for it)

My question was not unfounded, as the discussion below displays. The thing that really might decide here is the selection of the image - depending on it, comments may vary from "Delete, disgusting" to "Keep, harmless joke". Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize that. I'll look for something better.

Delete this and all userboxes as terrible misuse of the Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Userboxes are not harmful. The never ending war to delete them is harmful.--God of War 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, though consider marking it as a joke (but the baby might be a good-enough mark). --AySz88 ^-^ 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete If an user eats people and feels strongly that he needs to express it, he can write it so on his userpage. No need for a template. The use of a baby image for the tempalte however makes it fall under polemical and inflammatory. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, are you really saying that if the image were not of a baby, then you wouldn't find it polemical, and wouldn't delete it? If so, then it's a candidate for cleanup, not for deletion!--M @r ē ino 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
No I'm saying that the baby iamge makes its nature more clearly. I find that template offensive and disgusting. So that at least makes it polemical, and given that it adds zero value to the encyclopedia building, I don't see why T1 should not be applied. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete of no conceivable use in creating an free encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless the photo is changed. It is highly offensive to associate cannibalism and children in any context, and is not at all humourous. I will not err on this stance. Harr o5 08:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment FYI. The userbox is listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny, so it is a joke and nothing inflammatory. Don't tell me you take this seriously. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 13:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
keep It's clearly a joke, and babies taste better then old people (soylent green didn't look to appitizing)...Mike McGregor (Can) 14:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Then write the joke on your userpage, the template form is uncalled for. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is written on his user page (just because he added colours and a picture makes no difference) --T-rex 19:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Freedom of speech before all. --UVnet 15:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is no argument. No one is censoring. You can write on your userpage that you're a cannibal. This is a discussion exclusively about the need of havint this in a template form.-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Insulting, inflammatory, polemic. Bratsch e^talk 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, jokes don't belong in the template namespace. Subst it in if you want it. Broken Segue 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete fine for user space but template space is for our mission - to build an encyclopedia Trödel•talk 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per D-Day. --Aaron 17:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Offensive and also harmful to the credibility of the encyclopaedia. AnnH ^(talk) 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Divisive? Polemic? You people need to look up words before using them. This template is not offensive. It's a joke, and not a nasty one. Admittedly, userboxes should be in a different space than template space, but until that space is created they should be kept in template space. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Many of these templates survived recent TfD discussions. T1 should not be applied until objective criteria can be established for divisive and polemic. It is one thing to say you support something. It is quite another saying someone else can not support something or should be denied a right. The former is not divisive while the later is. Once this can be codified then T1 should be useable without debate for every single deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep it is a joke!! I realize that T1 is being rewritten dailly, but last I checked jokes were not considered to be divicisice, if you took this seripuslly lighten up --T-rex 20:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Amazingly strong keep. This might be the greatest template ever. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, now that the image is better. Misza13 ^(Talk) 09:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, If someone wants to have it on their userpage, that's their personel choice, and, as such, they should be allowed to do so. Sergeant Snopake, 12:01, 22.2.06
Keep, as long as it is categorized as a joke template. (Ibaranoff24 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC))
Keep. I don't see how this can be divisive, since there isn't really an organized anti-cannibalism movement. Although I did prefer the older version that used Terry Bradshaw as its image. Sarge Baldy 14:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete. This template is unnecessarily offensive, and of no encyclopedic value. I do believe that T1 does, in fact, apply here. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It made me laugh. And lots of userboxes have no encylopedic value. This userbox has value in that it displays the users who use it have a sense of humor. Maybe a sick, twisted sense of humor, but those are my kinds of users. --Emperial 15:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep pending policy formulation. There's no need to delete it now. Metamagician3000 02:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep I think it's tasteless, but there is no reason to delete it. Sophy's Duckling 02:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Horrible joke, but last I checked there was no rule against really, really bad jokes.Aaron Stanley 21:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is totaly for humourous purposes only, not if your an actual cannibal. The Republican 01:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and replace meat image with baby image. Not funny and therefore useless without the baby-eating. If you can't laugh at baby-eating, you must love a horrible and bleak life indeed. -Silence 10:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete encyclopedia projects should not be abused to propagate crime. There was a case where a man found a victim via the internet and really ate him! ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Use common sense. Just because an event has happened at some point in history doesn't mean that it is common enough to be significant, and if anyone ever uses a template like this to "find a victim" (how would a userbox actually be of help?!), I'll eat my own right arm. (There, see, I used a joke. You don't have to ban me for making a joke about eating myself just because someone in human history has eaten his own arm; 99.99999953% of the time, such a statement will be a joke.) -Silence 09:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think one victim is already one too much. It would not have happened had dozens of users who read that cannibal forum taken it more seriously. It took months before someone decided to call the police and they found out. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course one victim is already too much (though by the same logic, if a single person falls off a horse and breaks his neck, we're no longer allowed to mention horses on Wikipedia because the same could happen to someone), but you miss the point entirely: there's no correlation, relationship, connection whatsoever between making jokes about something as silly and arcane as cannibalism and Internet predators. You're looking solely at the exception and ignoring both the rule and how overwhelmingly pervasive the rule is; I'm not saying to ignore the exception, but to act like everything (rather than just one out of a billion things) is the exception is beyond distorted, and to go to such absurd lengths as to ban all mentioning of cannibalism or jokes or comments at all linked to cannibalism is clearly extremist, (over)reactionary, unrealistic, and almost manipulative (since you're trying to oppress other user's free expression by fallaciously appealing to their emotions and sensibilities even though you'd probably object to this userbox anyway even if you didn't have a random example of cannibalistic Internet-predation to pull out of your hat). Like I said: let's have some common sense and a little perspective, here. Histeric and unrealistic fearmongering does noone any good. -Silence 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The other users of that canibal forum probably also thought it would be unrealistic someone actually would slaughter someone else. He however did it. The difference with horses is that there is nothing criminal in climbing horses. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Some people just can't take a joke. Kirils 01:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I beleve in the right of all userboxes to exist. AdamJacobMuller 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. Disgraceful.--File Éireann 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Garbage nonsense does nothing to help us write an encyclopedia--MONGO 11:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User wishful

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guan aco 22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete this and all userboxes as terrible misuse of the Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Userboxes are not harmful. The never ending war to delete them is harmful.--God of War 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Reword-and-Move or Delete, the tone can be inflammatory to some. Maybe something like "This user feels the U.S. has lost its democratic roots" or something. --AySz88 ^-^ 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete If an user feels strongly that he needs compare wikipedia with USA goverment, he can write it so on his userpage. No need for a template. However, it factionalizes wikipedia by making a strong political affirmation about the behaviour of USA goverment, which is certainly no relevant to encyclopedia building. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Harmful to the project: an editor's political opinions have no place anywhere on Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep discloses editor pov, which contributes to an open and honest atmosphere that is condusive to writing an NPOV encylopedia. That and this is not innflamitory, divisive or polematic. Mike McGregor (Can) Mike McGregor (Can) 14:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You can write a statement for that effect on your page, with your own words, and then the template becomes redundant. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Per Drini. Bratsch e^talk 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - what is the purpose of this template? It doesn't even express a POV (the US isn't a democracy POV doesn't seriously exist). It isn't humorous (am I missing something?) If it was expressing a POV then the mention of Wikipedia is unnecessary. Broken Segue 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete not necessary - doesn't help mission - to build an encyclopedia Trödel•talk 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Mike McGregor. --Aaron 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You can write a statement for that effect on your page, with your own words, and then the template becomes redundant. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Unnecessary, divisive, and unencyclopaedic. AnnH ^(talk) 19:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Coolgamer 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This a discussion not a vote so please share us your reasons. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Polemic and snide userbox. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, ill-informed and polemical. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Many of these templates survived recent TfD discussions. T1 should not be applied until objective criteria can be established for divisive and polemic. It is one thing to say you support something. It is quite another saying someone else can not support something or should be denied a right. The former is not divisive while the later is. Once this can be codified then T1 should be useable without debate for every single deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't argree with the box, but as long as images are allowed on userpages then there is no reason not to keep this. Userpages are not NPOV --T-rex 20:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, though I question the sanity of whoever puts this on their page. Thank God that the U.S. isn't a true democracy; those things don't work particularily well. It's a republic, which is much, much better. Still, templates like these have no strikes against them--why delete? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Sloganization is not helpful. Michael Ralston 02:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete. This is a valid viewpoint (and one that I share, to an extent), but I can see no convincing reason why this should remain in template form, particularly as it is only used (at least, right now) by three users. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I beleve in the right of all userboxes to exist. AdamJacobMuller 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Absolutely stupid. Does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 11:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User-AmE-0

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guan aco 22:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete this and all userboxes as terrible misuse of the Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Userboxes are not harmful. The never ending war to delete them is harmful.--God of War 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This one is very useful -- it defuses many misunderstandings between the huge number of dialects that have to share the en.wiki. --M @r ē ino 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but I recommend making it clear that the "mistaken for dialect" part is an opinion and not an assertion of fact, as that can cause more annoyance. --AySz88 ^-^ 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Gratuitously divisive. A listing on TfD does not exempt a template from speedy deletion when in is clearly in breach of policy. Physchim62 (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll endorse the speedy deletion of this template, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep discloses editor's tendancies towards language useage, which contributes to an open and honest atmosphere that is condusive to writing an NPOV encylopedia. That and this is not innflamitory, divisive or polematic. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per Physchim62 (good point). Bratsch e^talk 15:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Del, its sole purpose is to be divisive (humorously). Adds nothing to the project. Broken Segue 15:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete not necessary - doesn't help mission - to build an encyclopedia Trödel•talk 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Mike McGregor and Mareino. --Aaron 17:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Adds nothing to the encyclopaedia, and we're probably better off without it. AnnH ^(talk) 19:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Coolgamer 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This a discussion not a vote so please share us your reasons. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep - It's just silliness, not divsive. People who take it seriously need to loosen up a bit. That said, it should be moved to Template:user AmE-0 to conform with standards. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, divisive, condescending, ill-informed. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Many of these templates survived recent TfD discussions. T1 should not be applied until objective criteria can be established for divisive and polemic. It is one thing to say you support something. It is quite another saying someone else can not support something or should be denied a right. The former is not divisive while the later is. Once this can be codified then T1 should be useable without debate for every single deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. for the same reasons I gave two weeks ago --T-rex 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I'm American, and I find it amusing, not insulting in any way. --Nelson Ricardo 20:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. I've lost track of how many times this particular template has been listed on TFD, speedy deleted, listed on DRV, undeleted, speedied again. listed again, and so forth. The consensus to keep this template seems rather apparent to me, and it is simply a harmless joke. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This isn't divisive. cf. Nelson Ricardo. Sophy's Duckling 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Boddah 11:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep If you are offended by this, then you must be offended by pretty much everything! *Hands lots of cotton wool to original nominator* Here, you could use this - • The Giant Puffin • 17:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's silly enough to be amusing. Kirils 01:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I beleve in the right of all userboxes to exist. AdamJacobMuller 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is bigoted nonsense.--MONGO 11:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Anti-UN

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guan aco 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete this and all userboxes as terrible misuse of the Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Userboxes are not harmful. The never ending war to delete them is harmful.--God of War 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* Delete. I don't see how this does not fall into CSD T1. if an user feels so strongly to criticize UN, he can write a paragraph or two about it on his userpage. No need for a template. The sole reason people is "voting" keep is due to the template container form. Repeat: There is no need for a template here. People can write about it on their pages. This is a polemical template. It's inflammatory. People are only voting keep since it's an userbox. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. As someone who supports the UN, it's important for the anti-UN people to have an easy way to find me so that they can monitor my article edits -- the only edits that matter -- for NPOV, and vice versa. --M @r ē ino 05:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a reason that supports deleting: it allows wikistalking -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Harmful to the project: editor's political opinions have no place anywhere in an encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep discloses editor pov, which contributes to an open and honest atmosphere that is condusive to writing an NPOV encylopedia. That and this is not innflamitory, divisive or polematic. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Freedom of speech before all. --UVnet 15:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There is no freedom of speech. Bratsch e^talk 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - if you want to state your POV do so with text. This template is too simplisti to tell anyone anything usefull about your POV (why do you hate the UN?). I can't see any real use to telling us your POV. If you intend to sneak POV into an article you will not put up these templates. If you don't intend to put POV in articles then who cares what your personal opinion is? Broken Segue 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Bratsch Trödel•talk 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Mike McGregor. --Aaron 17:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Does not help with the encyclopaedia. AnnH ^(talk) 19:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pointless --Gorgonzilla 19:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. All opinions are valid. Coolgamer 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not a reason for keeping the template. This discussion is not about the validity of that opinion nor about you can write it or not on your page (certainly you can), it's about keeping it on template form. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Keep - See my comment on anti-ACLU below. The problem isn't the box, it's the image. Not supporting the UN is not divisive (though actively attacking the UN would be). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Coolgamer: opinion, inflammatory, irrelevant to the project. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Many of these templates survived recent TfD discussions. T1 should not be applied until objective criteria can be established for divisive and polemic. It is one thing to say you support something. It is quite another saying someone else can not support something or should be denied a right. The former is not divisive while the later is. Once this can be codified then T1 should be useable without debate for every single deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. some people just don't like the UN. There is no difference if they use a colourfull box to do that or write it in their page. If your argument is that your browser only reads text you need to update --T-rex 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If this is divisive, please be sure to delete {{user UN}} as well. This is not an attack on the UN, or on any of the people who believe in the UN. It may be considered divisive (to the same extend {{user Carrot}} may be considered divisive), but I do not believe this to be sufficiently divisive to warrant a deletion on those grounds. This is a valid viewpoint, and expressing PoV on userpages helps make it easier to work together toward Nuetral Point of View. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Same arguments as others above. Sophy's Duckling 02:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Boddah 11:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Devisive. Imagine someone had Template:User Anti-US or Template:User Anti-Nepal. Don't insult others. ROGNNTUDJUU! 19:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Just because UN is good doesn't mean other people can't disagree with that. There is no problem with having Anti-UN template (or even Anti-US template for that matter). Kirils 01:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I beleve in the right of all userboxes to exist. AdamJacobMuller 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Intelligence insulting garbage that does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 11:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Anti-ACLU

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guan aco 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete this and all userboxes as terrible misuse of the Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Userboxes are not harmful. The never ending war to delete them is harmful.--God of War 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete attack template --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete sure. No help about building an encyclopedia. It's divisive (since it causes tension among those people who DO support ACLU). However people can write on their userpages their reasons for disliking ACLU, no need for a template (after all it's only 7 words, can't users just write them?) People are voting keep just because of it being an userbox, not considering their contents. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And you are only voting to delete because of it being an userbox --T-rex 19:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Once again: As someone who supports the ACLU, it's important for the anti-ACLU people to have an easy way to find me so that they can monitor my article edits -- the only edits that matter -- for NPOV, and vice versa. --M @r ē ino 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a reason that supports deleting: it allows wikistalking -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone is that desperate to go wikistalking pro-ACLU edits, this template would make that about 5% easier to accomplish than it is now. The wikistalking argument is a red herring. --Aaron 17:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete If you don't like the ACLU, you have the right to say so on a personal website, not here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Physchim62 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep discloses editor pov, which contributes to an open and honest atmosphere that is condusive to writing an NPOV encylopedia. That and this is not innflamitory, divisive or polematic. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. As a strong supporter for the ACLU I believe that freedom of speech comes before all. --UVnet 15:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Polemic and inflammatory; falls under CSD T1. Bratsch e^talk 15:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete does not help Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation reach its goals (creating an encyclopedia and other content if you forgot). Waste of bandwith (no matter how little it uses). Waste of space. Potentially divisive. If you want to say this write it as text. Broken Segue 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per BrokenSeque Trödel•talk 16:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Mike McGregor. --Aaron 17:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Slightly divisive. Doesn't help the encyclopaedia. AnnH ^(talk) 19:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pointless --Gorgonzilla 19:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Userboxes are not harmful. The never ending war to delete them is harmful. Coolgamer 20:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Keep - If the image is changed or removed. "Not supporting" the ACLU is not divisive, but the image could be construed as such. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, same as previous one. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Many of these templates survived recent TfD discussions. T1 should not be applied until objective criteria can be established for divisive and polemic. It is one thing to say you support something. It is quite another saying someone else can not support something or should be denied a right. The former is not divisive while the later is. Once this can be codified then T1 should be useable without debate for every single deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I beleive that the ACLU itself would vote to keep this one. Saying that you don't support the ACLU in no worse the saying that you do support them --T-rex 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete This template is in use by only one user, the user who uses it has some 90ish user boxes on his page and has made almost no actual contribution to the encyclopedia. I can see hardly any reason to allow the user a userpage, and there is certantly no reason to have this as a template. I believe it would be in the best interest of the project to delete this template and to block all users who voted here to keep it. --Gmaxwell 05:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've no idea if you're an idiot but this makes you sound like one. "Block all users who voted here to keep it"? You don't think it might be worthwhile checking their contributions beforehand? - Hayter 15:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's hilarious
Keep I never realized having an opinion about something is not allowed. Someone please enlighten me... --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per my argument regarding {{User Anti-UN}}. This is not sufficiently divisive to warrant a deletion on those grounds, and besides, the ACLU would want it this way. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. No need to delete this pending formulation of a policy. Metamagician3000 06:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Gmaxwell is incorrect in assuming that only one person would be using it; I and many others were using it before it was speedily deleted. Sophy's Duckling 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Boddah 11:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep I disagree with the sentiment but there is currenty no community (and I use that word very deliberately) consensus for deletion of POV userboxes. This does not attack anyone/thing (to oppose something is not to attack something) and does not hinder the creation of an encyclopaedia. If there are people who for instance, could contribute a great deal of excellent content to the GOP's page, but would only involve themselves in Wikipedia if they were allowed to use userboxes such as this on their userpage, then surely things such as this are a harmless addition. - Hayter 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Devisive. Encyclopedias should not be abused to express dislikes. You do not need to attack others to express an opinion. That is just respectless. ROGNNTUDJUU! 21:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep per UVnet ( "As a strong supporter for the ACLU I believe that freedom of speech comes before all.") Kirils 01:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I beleve in the right of all userboxes to exist. For the record: I do not under any circumstances believe in the viewpoint of this userbox. I beleve that the ACLU is a force for good in the United States. But, I also believe above all else that the mark of an intelligent person is one who is able to allow other points of view to exist. People who attempt to suppress alternate points of view are simply doing so because they know that their own points of view cannot stand up to competition. Ironically, as it is here, the ACLU protects the right of all people to speak up, even if it is to speak up against the ACLU. I think there is a Gandhi quote that is similar to this. AdamJacobMuller 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. This is not about suppressing criticism, this is about whether to allow official user boxes for divisive purposes. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Just because the ACLU is nuts doesn't mean we make idiotic userboxes like this that do nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 11:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misza13 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User admins ignoring policy

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guan aco 18:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And why the hell not? It's an obvious speedy candidate. Just because you don't agree with T1 doesn't mean it will just go away. Mackensen (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pages that have been undeleted after a successful Wikipedia:Deletion review listing should not be speedily deleted. —Guan aco 19:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What if DRV keeps a copyvio? Or an attack-template? Step back and think for a second. Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we send it back to the appropriate deletion page, as I did here. After a few days, if the page is really as bad as some users claim, it will be deleted by consensus. —Guan aco 19:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bzzt. Wrong. Consensus doesn't override doing whats right. --Gmaxwell 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This is obviously a T1 speedy candidate. David | Talk 19:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep ~~after changing the word "pissed" into something less... well, something different. This single word is "clearly" the only thing that might be considered inflammatory.~~_{(done by Guanaco)} Also, please make sure you understand T1 properly. Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete divisive and absolutely evil. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain in what way is it divisive? Out-of-process behavior of admins (who should be the upmost examples of responsible users) is inadmissible and should be condemned by all users. Some can be particularly annoyed by this (especially if they find their user pages defaced by red links) and have all the rights to express this feeling. Please reconsider your vote. Misza13 ^(Talk) 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, evil? Elaborate, if you please. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Indeed, divisive. First, it assumes admins ignoring process is inherently bad - which it isn't. If something ought to be deleted, is there any reason to complain and force us to go through unnecessary process? Second, it contributes to factionalism - and doesn't particularly help create a friendly environment to non-admins who might try something Bold but noncontroversial and simply skip process. Process exists so that people can feel as if they had input into a decision - if the decision is obvious, or required regardless of consensus, then process is a pointless waste of time, which detracts from what we're here for - which is to build an encyclopedia. Michael Ralston 20:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is very patronizing, we're not idiotsMike McGregor (Can) 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

First, while WP:IAR is not inherently bad, its abuse certainly is. But let's don't raise this issue here - we're discussing here whether users have the right to use this template to express their annoyance. Second, the "factionalism" was created by the admins themselves - if they didn't abuse certain rules, the movement associated with this template wouldn't raise. Third, as this (so far) and the WP:DRV discussions prove, the decision was not obvious and thus the process is not a Pointless Waste of Time. Misza13 ^(Talk) 21:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No we're not discussing that, because it's already clear that that they do not. See Wikipedia:Free speech. What we're discussing is if mob rule will be allowed to prevent us from doing what is right and convert this project from a free encyclopedia to free personal webhosting. --Gmaxwell 5:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

keep Voices legit concerns about admins abusing authority, abusing t1, and a lack of accoutability. also, we voted to keep this. without functioning consensus, wikipedia is nothing. Mike McGregor (Can) 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It wouldnt need to exist if some admins didn't abuse T1 and other such means. And I am perfectly aware ofwhat I mean thanks, I don't need to be told. Ian13/talk 20:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If you're going to abuse T1 or anything else, at least let us say that you're abusing it.Dtm142 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If you want to say admins are abusing T1, you don't need a bumper sticker to do it. Also, I find it generally inappropriate (eg. admins would be fairly unprofessional if they posted the opposite slogan on their user page). --Interiot 20:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The non T1 abusing admins could also put up the userbox.Dtm142 21:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Like Duct Tape --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - If all the admins followed policy then wikipedia would be a much more pleasant place.--God of War 23:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But how is that a reason that supports the existence of the template? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep - This is SO the template that is totally appropriate at this time. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I see it as a mood thing like those stress meters (except this has a reason too), so it's fine by me. --AySz88 ^-^ 00:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete this and all userboxes as terrible misuse of the Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete If you feels admins ignore policy and you feel so strongly about it, WRITE AND EXPLAIN IT ON YOUR PAGE, no need of a template that spreads ill will towards admins, therefore T1 should apply here. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ya know, I tried to open a diologue with an admin and all I got was essentally a 'Shut Up and Go Away, you've been warrned' on my Talkpage... so apparently writing about it would just jepordize my chances of staying not banned.Mike McGregor (Can) 14:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I double Mike's comment. And to Drini: Perhaps I don't like text on my user page and prefer nice colorful stickers? And it is the admins who delete out of process who are ill-willed here. Misza13 ^(Talk) 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's the only way that the admins will be able to track them all down... --M @r ē ino 05:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a reason that supports deleting: it allows wikistalking -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'm happy about this. I want all admins know that for me process is important. Misza13 ^(Talk) 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well this is better than the original userbox I nominated for deletion which was just a personal attacking template. I still don't like the userbox however, and I share some of Drini's sentiments. If people absolutely want to use it though, I think it might generate more ill will than good to delete this. I think the userbox should be deleted, but, with a clothing pin attached to my nose, I will vote keep anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- What was I thinking, wanting it deleted and voting keep? Delete per Drini. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete polemical and inflammatory. Ironic since the template violates policy and the supportors are using a vote to ignore that policy - seems ignoring policy only pisses them off when it doesn't go their way Trödel•talk 12:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Freedom of speech before all. --UVnet 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. I don't know how many times we have to say this. First there is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia. We don't allow personal attacks: that's not freedom of speech. Also, Trödel above has it aboslutely correct. It is under speedy deletion: you can't undelete because you vote that way. Bratsch e^talk 15:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, does not advance the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia. Divisive. Useless. Conveys much less information than prose on a userpage. Liable to be abused. Broken Segue 15:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

First, it helps the Project by allowing users to uniformly express their opinion about a problem on Wikipedia. Second, it is the abusive admins who are building the wall between good-willed users and them by their actions. Third, not that useless if there are users, who wish to display them. Fourth, it conveys just as much information as it should. And can you please direct me to the policy which says that user pages should be filled with prose? Fifth, yes, everything can be abused if bad faith is involved. Misza13 ^(Talk) 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep per Mike McGregor, and because I can't stop laughing at Jtkiefer's allegation that it's "absolutely evil". --Aaron 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. The ignoring of process by some admins is a problem, but this is definitely not the way to deal with it. This is just spreading ill feeling. AnnH ^(talk) 19:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Coolgamer 20:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This a discussion not a vote so please share us your reasons. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, if it remains in roughly this form ("annoyed by admins ignoring process"). ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 07:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep JSIN 10:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but tell all people using it to consider Template:user process instead. I think that userboxes should be separated from the template space, but, until they are, we should settle with leaving the reasonable ones in template space. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. What drini said. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Many of these templates survived recent TfD discussions. T1 should not be applied until objective criteria can be established for divisive and polemic. It is one thing to say you support something. It is quite another saying someone else can not support something or should be denied a right. The former is not divisive while the later is. Once this can be codified then T1 should be useable without debate for every single deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep admins ignoring policy is how this got deleted in the first place --T-rex 20:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Absolutely. Users have the right to say what they want with userboxes on their own pages. Otherwise, these users will just put "I hate it when admins act out of process" on their userpages in plain text (or maybe big red flashing text--what do I know?). Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- But, this userbox isn't in the user namespace (if it was we wouldn't be having this discussion). It's in the template namespace. People can write whatever they want on their pages, but can they also write it in the template space? I would say not. I'd prefer the big flashing test to userboxes (it's more personal, more meaningful and less annoying). BrokenSegue 03:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Er, what? I find it hard to believe that templates somehow have different rules opposed to being judged by their intended usage, since what's the difference between {{User blah}} and {{User:username\blah}} ? --AySz88^-^ 03:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    - (I have since seen Jimbo's post, the solution to which I don't agree with, but answers my question.) --AySz88^-^ 05:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      - I don't know how Jimbo answered this question, but the way I would is as follows: Remember when Template:Support and Template:Oppose were deleted because they were annoying and made everything look like a vote? Well, people who really liked them were allowed to keep copies of them in their userspace and use them as they wished. People have much more freedom in their userspace than they do in the template namespace. Things in the template space should represent Wikipedia policy, rules or practices, not your personal opinion. You can do that in your own space. Broken Segue 23:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        
        It isn't accurate to say that users 'have much more freedom in their userspace'. It would be accurate to say that things which are confined to a users userspace are of far lesser interest project wide and are less likely to see enforcement. Perhaps the result is the same, but the motivation is quite different. No won should believe for a moment that we will allow any userpage to exist which harms our project or its goals. --Gmaxwell 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        
        Quite a few people believe that the small percentage of admins who continually disrupt the project by violating process harm both our project and our goals. Why do we allow these admins to "exist" (ie, remain sysops)? --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as blatant crimethink. Herostratus 05:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Janizary 07:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. And it's nice to see it's being argued through process this time around. Sarge Baldy 20:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete blatantly divisive. --Gmaxwell 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per numerous arguments, but the most convincing in my opinion being Grue's on the DRV discussion. This template is not an attack on admins in the slightest - it is not even expressing annoyance at admins in general. It is expressing annoyance at the small handful of admins who violate policy - something that they shouldn't be doing anyway, per Wikipedia:Adminstrators. Of the 800 or so admins on this project, this template only applies to maybe twenty or thirty of them. If you are one of these admins, may I suggest making it no longer apply to you rather than taking such great offense at the existance of this template? --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. No reason to delete in advance of formulation of an overall policy. Metamagician3000 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 19/Userboxes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Template:User disBush

[edit] Template:User Cannibal

[edit] Template:User wishful

[edit] Template:User-AmE-0

[edit] Template:User Anti-UN

[edit] Template:User Anti-ACLU

[edit] Template:User admins ignoring policy

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search