Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 11 January 13 >

Contents

[edit] January 12

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. I don't think there's any reading of this debate that generates a consensual deletion. Fight it out elsewhere, and come back here once minds are made up. -Splashtalk 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User edit warrior

I'm generally in favor of giving Wikipedians a lot of latitude on user content, but this goes a bit too far, IMO. Edit warring is specifically discouraged, and I'd rather we did not have a template which specifically advocates behavior harmful to the Wikipedia community. (This is a bit different than {{User allow fairuse}}, which was mostly argued based on disputed legal issues.) We don't have {{User vandal}} or {{User POV pusher}}, so I don't think we should have this either. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree here, specifically advocatign violating policy, or claiming to be a violator, is different from advocating changing policy. Delete. DES (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Makes it easier to find and control them. Keep. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Ch. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Yes, I see it as a POV, but it does have some devaluation of Wikipedia Policy involved. Ian13ID:540053 21:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Freedom of speech is involved here, I believe. Merely saying that a person is an edit warrior does not make him an edit warrior, just like how a person doesn't become an admin just because he said he is an admin. Yes, it does devaluate the rules a little bit, but if they do it, we catch them. We cannot prevent people from discussing their beliefs on their own page. Arbiteroftruth 22:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If the template said "This user advocates changing Wikipedia policy to allow edit warring", I wouldn't have nominated it. The only problem I have with it is that it amounts to a confession of deliberately violating Wikipedia guidelines. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Pjacobi 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JYolkowski // talk 22:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — This could be useful for admins, just for them to block everyone using this box for edit warring :) →AzaToth 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thisa is not formatted like a warnign template (of which we already have many, see {{TestTemplate}}), and strioctly speakign beign an edit warrior is not a blockable offense anyway. If soemone thinks we need a warnign template specifically about edit warring that is disruptive enough to be blockable, fine, but this isn't that template. DES (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Hehe, I was merly ironic, I ment, let the warriors mark themselve, so the sdmins don't need to look after them. :-) →AzaToth 01:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - no sign of humorous intent in this template (which would be its only saving grace IMO), and it advertises breaking policy. Philwelch's revamping is better, but still clunky and very poorly named. Vote changed to delete and recreate/rename if necessary, though I find it hard to believe something along these lines doesn't exist already (isn't there a NPOV userbox?). -- nae'blis (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Claiming to be an admin falsely is not kosher, either. I'm sure the Userbox Cabal will come right in telling me I'm trampling all over their fun, however... -- nae'blis (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Editors can say anything they want about themselves on their own user pages. The only thing deleting this template will do is reduce the transparency of Wikipedia. --Peace Inside 23:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 23:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. In a perfect Wikipedia, there would never be a need for edit warriors. But even in this Wikipedia, quite different from that imaginary perfect one, an editor defining him or herself as an edit warrior is on the wrong track. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Speedied by User:MarkSweep. Jkelly 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I was just about to say that myself. If anyone is looking for me, I'll be at an undisclosed location. Thank you. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedied out of process, so I re-created it and changed it to a more inoffensive, ironic wording:
Image:Foilfen.gif This user is an edit warrior, using frequent Wikipedia editing as a weapon against ignorance. (This user does not edit war with other Wikipedians and finds the practice horrendous.)

I hope this is a suitable compromise. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 23:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor comment: User vandal, user van and user POV pusher all exist and are not up for deletion ;D 68.39.174.238 23:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I created those with similar ironic meanings. User vandal identifies someone as someone from the University of Idaho, for instance. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 23:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Emphatic Delete: There is a good side to edit waring?? It is one thing having templates that are useless to this project, it is another having ones that glorify harmful behaviour. --Doc ask? 01:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Doc glasgow. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I completely agree with the nominator --Angelo 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As the creator of the template in question, let me just say that it was in fact a joke. A.J.A. 02:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, joke not appreciated. You have caused another pointless debate on an already tense issue, and wasted a lot of time. No cookies. --Doc ask? 02:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For heavens sake', aint this userbox vs commonsense thing starting to be a nuisance? Couldnt Jim or someome save us from from this crap?
  • 'Keep I agree with User:Peace Inside. --Falcorian | Talk 07:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename, funny content but unnecessarily provocative name. ~~ N (t/c) 15:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Nick, please be advised that Philwelch has revamped the originally posted template considerably; here's the original. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's my point. My vote is based on the current content. ~~ N (t/c) 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question How many times is it going to be deleted and recreated, and just how long a paragraph is it going to contain? I took it off my userpage the second time, and I don't think anybody's even using it. I officially don't care. A.J.A. 21:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and please stop deleting harmless userboxes. Userboxes don't vanadalize wikipedia, Wikipedians vandalize wikipedia. --Dschor 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sense of humour should be allowed. KittenKlub 19:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 19:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've speedied this again. While I appreciate the efforts to make this acceptable, using editing as a weapon is still not compatible with Wikipedia's aims. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless userbox. Nohat 22:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I read the userbox before deleting it. No amount of weaseling could disguise it. I've edit the userbox to say: "This user's only connection with edit warring is in the sense that information is at war with ignorance. Edit warring is always wrong" and moved it to Template:User not edit warrior. If this template goes back to promoting editing as a form of warfare I will speedy it again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Tony, what you are saying is "that there's no consensus doesn't matter, people's arguments don't matter, I'm right, and because I know better than everyone else, I get to use my power in complete contradiction of policy." I realize that you think Wikipedia is better off without this template, but this does not fall under the speedy criteria, and more importantly, people disagree with you and you don't seem to care, even though Wikipedia allegedly runs on consensus. Nobody elected you sole arbiter of what is and isn't good for the 'pedia, and by acting like you are you show massive disrespect for the community. This template isn't going to do any harm, but a precedent that any admin can do what s/he wants definitely will. Let it go. ~~ N (t/c) 03:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Tony, do not engage in these dumbass wheel wars of yours over your personal lack of reading comprehension. Alright? — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep template, delete Tony. You need to grow a sense of humor, or at least stop trying to impose yours on the rest of us. Take a week off, and see if userboxes manage to destroy wikipedia - I'll bet they don't hurt a thing. Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 02:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I strongly suggest that some of you, and especially Tony, look here immediately, and write down some notes while you're there - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 11:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an ironical template. Free speech on user pages! (BTW, {{user van}} does exist.) --Army1987
' This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned.
15:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and then delete, per nom. BlankVerse 15:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bourbons3 - • Dussst • T | C 15:13, 20 January 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 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. Obviously, this debate alone is impossible to pull a consensus from, although all the rattling about "free speech" is pretty irrelevant, since WP:NOT a soapbox, and your only rights on Wikipedia are the right to fork and the right to leave. That is almost enough for me to discard editors who mistakenly think otherwise, and delete. But I'm not going to. I read through the WP:DRV for this too, and that actaully managed a bare majority undelete unlike some other userbox speedies that were taken there. Just in case: I am not interested in userboxes, so don't bother harassing me about this close. -Splashtalk 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User against Saud

I speedied this as having as its sole purpose an attack on the Saudi government, calling for its overthrow. On discussion in WP:DRV, this was rejected as a speedy deletion and so I have undeleted and list it here for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: Reasonable political statement against a brutal regime. Free speech on user pages. Suggest that the nominator's time would be better spent fixing Hyundai Motor Company's NPOV problems. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This and all similar templates until and unless a comprehensive policy on userboxes and/or "Attack templates" gains consensus approval. DES (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed we should develop such a policy and I hope we reach consensus. In that context I'd like to ask you what you think of the merits of this particular template? - Haukur 22:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 18:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as Phil and DES - Keith Greer 19:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete like everything that doesn't help writing an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 19:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Free speech on user pages does not require pages in the template namespace. THis userbox provides no benefit to writing an encyclopedia. Carbonite | Talk 19:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, destructive templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriate use of template space. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: If one cannot speak out against useless decadent, hereditary tyrants, then what is free speech for? --Daniel 19:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Strongest possible delete. End of story. --Daniel 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Why the change of heart?Maprov
If we're all allowed to make random decisions on the acceptability of free speech, then I'm allowed to be totally inconsistent in the manner I vote from hour to hour. --Daniel 06:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why do you require a template to speak out (on this or any other topic)? Carbonite | Talk 19:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

***That's a far more general question than the one presented here. The question is not whether POV userboxes should be banned, it's whether a particular POV userbox should be banned. There is nothing in this particular userbox that is different from many other POV userboxes (many of them against something or other). The only thing different is the target of the attack, the Saudi royal family. Being a believer in the somewhat antiquated idea of equal protection under law - then if other POV userboxes attacking anarchism, Marxism, monarchism, and racism, are allowed then this one is as well.--Daniel 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC) People have made a decision, I guess, and I'm willing to abide by it for the sake of consensus. --Daniel 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

        • I raised the question in response to your comment, which implied that the deletion of this template would in some way prevent you from speaking out against useless decadents and hereditary tyrants. I'm just having a difficult time understanding why some users (perhaps you're not included in this group) equate a template with free speech. To me, POV userboxes reduce everyone's opinion to the level of a bumper sticker. This template doesn't even provide rationale for why "This user thinks the House of Saud should be overthrown." Instead of promoting free speech, these POV userboxes promote McOpinions. Carbonite | Talk 19:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

***That's a fine opinion, if you were calling for the end of POV userboxes in general. Or even if you were calling for the end of POV "attack" boxes. However, you Tony picked out two targets - ones attacking the Nepali and Saudi royal families. Not the ones attacking, say, Marxism or pacifism or Microsoft.

      • As for your dismissal of "McOpinions" - since when was this an elitist institution? Wikipedia is supposed to be by the masses, for the masses. If you're afraid of the political sentiments of the masses, perhaps it's time to change this to a subscriber/editors-only service. --Daniel 20:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) I guess there are some merits to the Ivory Tower approach to Wikipedia. --Daniel 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I actually would like to see the end of POV userboxes in general. I'd especially like to see the end of userboxes that exist solely to attack a person or group. As for targeting certain POVs, I haven't voted on any Nepali userbox, so perhaps you're confusing me with another user? Carbonite | Talk 20:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, that comment was aimed at Tony. But at any rate: I'm of the opinion that our userbox policy be a) a universal ban, b) a ban that can be consistently enforced, or c) freedom of speech. While those questions are still sorted, it's inappropriate to target a few individual userboxes while not punishing comparable ones. --Daniel 21:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Because a member of the House of Saud could be one of your fellow editors right now, and creating a welcoming atmosphere for editors is one of Wikipedia's hallmarks? Thus we should remove pointlessly incendiary templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

***Wikipedia has no law shielding the already over-privileged Saudi royals from criticism. If one were a member of the House of Saud, you'd be offended by any number of things on Wikipedia: women having the right to speak out of turn, people pointing out that you have no divine right to rule over other Arabs, et cetera et cetera. --Daniel 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I, for one, draw the userbox line at "inciting revolution". Lord Bob 19:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Keep. As far as I am aware, nothing in current policy precludes using the template system for expressing opinions on user pages, and frankly, censoring expressions of opinion is chillingly paternalistic. Nohat 20:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete AnnH (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per Lord Bob and others. Guettarda 20:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I applaud Tony for undeleting the template and taking it here. I'm fine with contributors expressing their political viewpoints in their own words on their userpages. But I think it makes the project look silly to use its resources to mass-produce stickers with standardized opinion statements. It gives people the wrong idea about what this place is all about. I would thus like to vote delete but I would like even better to come to some sort of understanding with those who want these templates. - Haukur 20:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

** If you don't like the idea of userboxes then you are perfectly free not to use them. --Daniel 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

      • I know, and I really don't want to force my views on others which is why I'm saying I want to know why you want these templates around and also why I voted for their undeletion at WP:DRV so we could discuss them here. I'm trying to make the case for why individually written political statements would be better both for the people who want to express themselves and for the project itself. - Haukur 22:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Tone Down. "Overthrow" is a bit too strong. You can be opposed to the House of Saud, but calling for a revolution is over the limit. - Cuivienen 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've been bold and changed the wording. I now vote Keep on the new version. Strong Delete. See Template:user against Saud2, which should be moved in to replace this. - Cuivienen 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, within the boundaries of acceptability for userspace content, IMO. WP:NPOV applies to articles, not userpages. I also think the rewording to make it less inflammatory was a good idea. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Doing that when no consensus has been reached is a breach of good faith. This is a jury that is still deliberating; it is inappropriate to unilaterally act as judge and executioner. --Daniel 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy that says we can't edit templates or pages while they're nominated for deletion. In fact, such edits are often encouraged if they result in an increased quality and therefore an increased likelihood of Keep. If you disagree, you are of course free to revert the edit in question. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I did revert it. --Daniel 21:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted thsi to the edited version. By reverting an edit for no reason you are the one violating good faith. See Crotalus horridus. - Cuivienen 23:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Do you see any final consensus here? No. Acting as if your decision is the final consensus is an act of bad faith against this forum.

Moreover, this is an issue of personal free speech - do you know, for a fact, that people who have run this userbox are willing to settle for merely "oppposing" the House of Saud, when they in fact they added the template to their Talk pages when it was written "support the overthrow"? If you didn't, then why not simply go and vandalize their Talk Pages while you're at it?
I'm reverting this back to "support the overthrow" until this matter is settled. In the meantime, "oppose the rule of" is at Template:User against Saud2 --Daniel 01:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You should make yourself more aware of conventions. Editing a template (or an article, or anything else) up for deletion to make it more acceptable is an accepted and encouraged practice. Your unwillingness to cooperate is not going to make you many friends. As it stands, it is clear that the consensus will be against you, and I would recommend that you retire with some dignity and agree to the changes. - Cuivienen 03:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. What a waste of time. --Nick Boalch ?!? 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonconstructive use of template namespace --- Charles Stewart 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. violet/riga (t) 21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What, we can have "serial comma" userboxes but not political ones? The whole concept is stupid, but since the others are allowed, it's retarded to not allow this one. Avriette 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unproductive use of template space. Some user badges handy and useful, but this isn't one of them. --NormanEinstein 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Political. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Opposing a dictatorial regime with an appalling human rights record is perfectly justifiable. Why shouldn't people be able to admit to holding such a view? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    They should. And they should even be allowed to do so on their userpages on Wikipedia. All we're saying (well all I'm saying, anyhow) is that they don't need a standardized sticker to do so. If anything it cheapens the value of the protest. - Haukur 22:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose (subst: into your userspace if you want) --Doc ask? 22:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm fine with people mentioning things like this on their userpage, but we don't need a template in the template namespace to do so. JYolkowski // talk 22:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not your car. Please apply your bumperstickers elsewhere. android79 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible keep per Daniel above.Benami 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. A week ago I was pretty generous about POV userboxes, but stuff like this has me thinking otherwise. I am now leaning towards an idea that a template userbox should either directly aid in the writing of an encyclopdia, or contribute constructively to building a community of editors. That is still a pretty broad definition, but I do not see how this box does either one. I am not suggesting banning such non-template userbox on userpages. In fact, in the Spirit of 1776, I am all for dumping hereditary rulers. Still, I can't say I actually support template space for userboxes against things, it just does not feel constructive. — Eoghanacht talk 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Editors can say anything they want about themselves on their own user pages. The only thing deleting this template will do is reduce the transparency of Wikipedia. --Peace Inside 23:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Attack template. Should have been speedied. DRV is obviously out to lunch. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Is that one of those attacks where people hold a gun to their own head? --Peace Inside 23:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete crap. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Carbonite. CDC (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nothing to do with WP. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I normally accept and use userboxes, even if non-neutral, but now I'm seeing a dangerous growth of "way too POV" ones. There must be a limit for POVism, I think, and userboxes like this clearly get over it. --Angelo 02:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would like to think userboxes can convey any message. But I must point out that at least one anti-Bush userbox -
George W. Bush This user believes that George W. Bush's edits to the constitution need to be reverted.





- has been deleted. If this opinionated userbox can be deleted, there is no reason why an equally useless and insulting box like the one in question should be deleted. joturner 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The template above has been speedily deleted out of process even though it has popular support. It is currently thrown in with other similar templates for undeletion at the DRV page. Keep freespeech in wikipedia.--God of War 03:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep per all userboxes until the userbox hunt ends. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored.karmafist 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe you are reading that policy incorrectly. It reads in full "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors" (emphasis mine). Wikipedia explicitly is censored in other ways, such as policies to prevent and remove personal attacks, as well as xfD, where x can be anything. Lord Bob 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Super Strong Keep Stop attacking Userboxes, people can still write this POv message on their userpage without a userbox. DaGizzaChat (c) 04:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriate use of template space. -- SCZenz 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Strong Strong Keep. I'm getting very tired of this same argument again and again. POV userboxes are allowed, free speech should not be censored. Judging by the number of delete votes suggesting "waste of resources" & "Inappropriate use of template space" (thats a new one) this looks a lot like vote stacking to me! —gorgan_almighty 10:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep because (1) it is reasonable political statement against a brutal regime, and (2) it saves wikispace! Against Saud means: against torture, religious fundamentalism, absolute monarchism, extreme poverty, racism, sexism, the oil industry, the secrecy around the perverted love relation between the Bush clan and Saud clan, etc. etc. See how many userboxes are summerized in one if you would use this one? -- ActiveSelective 10:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm going to modify it so it no longer advocates overthrowal (that really pushes civility and may be illegal), but it's a perfectly legitimate political position. ~~ N (t/c) 15:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have no personal opinion on the retention or deletion of this template, but it scares me that the nominator cannot distinguish between failing to support a monarchic regime and making an inappropriate attack. (Yes, I've read all versions of the template.) Can't distinguish between proselytizing and making an NPOV statement about one's own religion, either, based on previous deletions performed. Suggest nominator take a break from the task of nominating TFDs for a while, as he is clearly too personally worked up. His real reason is he thinks the templates are inappropriate in general and he is grasping for any reason to delete as many as possible, attempting to sidestep the process of policy being made on the subject. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep I'm not sure if I'm actually allowed to vote on this but I will anyway. I agree with Gorgan that it looks like vote stacking is going on. Unsigned comment by Horses In The Sky, 20:21, 13 January 2006) — Ofcourse you're allowed to post a comment here. But it's a comment not a vote.
  • Speedy delete for attack template. We're not here to advocate anything, we're here to report. If you feel so strongly about the House of Saud, write your own damn political screed on your userpage. This is the same phenomenon as internet petitions, and about as useful. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: reasonable opinion appropriate for userspace. We should not be opposed to people stating a point of view that they believe some government should be "overthrown" even if we are nonviolent. Without understanding their point of view, how will we understand which editors advocate violence? James S. 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and stop deleting userbox templates. --Dschor 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Never hurt anyone. Ashibaka tock 04:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete attack template --Jaranda wat's sup 19:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's political expression, not activism - TCorp 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless userbox. Nohat 22:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep - Irishpunktom\talk 14:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is only one user. If there were a dozen or so, I'd be inclined towards a "Keep", but there isn't, so that's my two cents. Palm_Dogg 00:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete. BlankVerse 15:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Delete. Serves only to divide Wikipedians along ideological lines, an abuse of the template namespace. Canderson7 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 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 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:sfd-current

Template formerly used by Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion to announce on TFD and CFD what stub templates and categories were nominated for deletion. Not used over a month (it even says on it that it's been deprecated), and not likely to be needed again. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Conscious 10:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why has this been deprecated? I think it was useful in keeping the variopus deletion processes infomed of what was going on at SfD? DES (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Did it's job well, but not needed or used any more. --TheParanoidOne 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Loopy e 21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 01:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:15, 13 January 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 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 KEEP. -Splashtalk 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Image source

Template:Image source (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete and redirect — This template is redundant with Template:Image copyright, originally created by the same author a few days apart and since expanded. // Pathoschild 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Del and redirect Per nom DaGizzaChat (c) 11:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is for source, the other is for license... just like we have Template:No source and Template:No license. Right? gren グレン ? 14:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per gren. DES (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just redirect, seriously, why even bother with a vote? It's got lots of internal links, and a useful history. -- Netoholic @ 17:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why redirect? why not just keep? This is not redundant as per the nom, it is for a different albiet related case. The two could be merged, just as {{Nosource}} and {{No license}} could be mreged, but there would be a loss of precision and no particular gain IMO. Why Redir? DES (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gren --Loopy e 21:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per gren. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gren, harmless --Jaranda wat's sup 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gren. --Wikiacc 22:50, 16 January 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 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CompTIA

Template:CompTIA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — I have merged all the CompTIA certification stubs into CompTIA. This is the navigation box for those and is no longer needed. See also WP:CFD#Category:CompTIA. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 06:26Z

  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 17:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Loopy e 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- DaGizzaChat (c) 05:06, 13 January 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.