Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/January 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log | Deleted

1 Template:PD-USGov-LOC
2 Template:Infobox Iranian President
3 Template:If equal g
4 Template:OS-icon-key
5 Various icon image templates
6 Template:Lucidinformationsystems
7 Template:Objective
8 Template:Magic-please-dont-expose
9 Template:Tfd-small
10 Template:Dangh
11 Template:Web reference 3
12 Template:Mosblock
13 Template:MLB Athletics franchise
14 Template:Ac and Template:Ac-reason
15 Template:Events in sport by month links
16 Template:Adult
17 Template:User against jews
18 Template:User oppose Kelly Martin
19 Template:Iff
20 Template:DecencyWikiProject-Member
21 Template:Angel-screenshot
22 Template:Deletion request
23 Template:*-court
24 Template:Hawaiianmusic
25 User:Cjmarsicano/g2K6up
26 Template:User purge
27 Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate
28 Template:Smiley
29 Template:Coin
30 Template:User against scientology
31 Template:Sam Fisher
32 Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession
33 Template:Advertising
34 Template:Cemetery and Template:Cemetery
35 Template:FormerGA
36 Template:User POV pusher

[edit] Template:PD-USGov-LOC

Image copyright tag, provided misleading information about the copyright of images sourced from the Library of Congress. Numerous images in the LOC are not in the public domain. Template needs to be rewritten or deleted and images tagged within the exiting tag set up.--nixie 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete As nixie says, this tag will encourage people to assume that everything from the LoC is public domain. In actual fact, a careful reading of the image description there and information about the photo collection the image comes from is needed to make that determination. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Rewrite. - This template was strongly needed here. Same situation as with other USGov templates, not all images there all in PD, but this is already stated in template and btw. not all images from any USGov site all in PD, so this nomination is like nominating for deletion cat. "Jewish Americans" and not nominating other "ethnic Americans" categories. Look for example at Template:PD-USGov-State, this is confusing, because people assume that all images on state.gov site are in PD. In fact many photos from state.gov are not in PD. And let me give you two nice examples of photos from LOC.
- 1.) Walker Evans. Floyd Burroughs' Farm, from Hale and Perry Counties and Vicinity, Alabama, 1935-1936. from [1] is PD (Office of War Information).
- 2.) Photographer unknown (National Photo Company). President Calvin Coolidge Facing Press Photographers, 1924. from the same page probably isn't PD (National Photo Company Collection).
- Point is that uploader of photos to Wikipedia should always find out copyright information. - Darwinek 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It appears as though that the copyright page does not mention the term "public domain" -- in fact, it seems to hold items that they don't even own! That means there are less PD items than we think. I'd say create an unknown use tag ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) so we can determine what images SHOULD be tagged -- a fair use tag or another PD tag (since the LOC is not going to mean PD). This could be done with a move, so keep and rewrite. This is a tag where just saying "it could be copyrighted, but if it doesn't say so, it's PD" isn't legally correct. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- The tag is misleading and needs to be rewritten. LoC copyright policy states that they do not generally own rights in their collections and that it is the researcher's obligation to determine copyright status. In consideration of this policy, there is no right to assume that material taken from their site is PD unless it is marked as such and a template should reflect that.--Dakota ~ ε 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I agree that it should only be marked PD if it says its PD. Of course, what I basically was trying to say was that just because it was from the LOC does NOT mean it is immediate PD, and your point agrees with this. Saying its all PD is wrong -- for all we know, some are fair use and should be tagged as fair use, some might be for uses that Wikipedia does not accept, and if it IS PD, it is PD because of, say, being pre-1923, which would be tagged with {{PD-US}} anyway. My last point still stands -- that assuming PD if no copyright given is wrong -- but because it will generally always have copyright and SAY if it is PD. All of this can still apply to the vote I gave earlier. In other words, just assume that all images from the LOC are copyrighted unless it says it's PD. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    - On the LOC site you basically haven't written by photos, that they are in PD. Vast majority of that photos are in PD, but there is written only f.ex. "Farm Security Administration", so basically it is in PD. This is exactly the same situation as with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), related tag Template:PD-USGov-NARA reflects it very good. And btw., when some PD photo is on the LOC site, they don't write down "PD", but when there is some copyrighted photo, they claim it (see for example here). That is their policy. - Darwinek 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      - I get the impression that this whole thing is very confusing. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to a less misleading name, of course. The LOC has a huge collection of images (I've uploaded hundreds myself), and there needs to be a category for them. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-31 15:58
Unsure -- This may be appropriate for indicating the SOURCE of an image, but it is entirely inappropriate for making any sort of assumptions regarding the copyright status. If kept, this tag should ALWAYS be accompanied by some other tag that explicitly indicates copyright status. older≠wiser 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Darwinek (thanks for the notice by the way!) and add ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) per Wcquidditch. The point that the tag as used now does not guarantee PD because taking images from the LOC does not guarantee PD, is well taken (and the fact that it says it's not clear argues that it should not be a PD- prefix tag), and something I missed. But that is no reason to delete this tag. Denoting that something came from the LOC, whether known or unknown, seems goodness to me. It's a big source. Images currently tagged this way thus all currently need work/investigation/review, so this tag, at this time, lets you know which images need review. (I put as much as I can in the provenance, but did every other uploader?) For ones that are unverified, chamge to the new tag (using the wording of this one) that WCQidditch suggests but leave this one for the ones that are known good. (I better be off to do some retagging!) To nixie, if you think the template needs rewriting as one outcome, why put it up on TfD? ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I just used it a couple of days ago. The templates we have right now aren't precise enough, and using this one saves time. Primetime 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Misleading. The vast majority of works from the Library of Congress are not in the public domain. --Carnildo 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - It's not even a reasonable assumption that a random image from the LOC is PD. An image's copyright status should be investigated before it's uploaded anyway. "Known good" images should be tagged properly as PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete and alternative proposal. People thoughtlessly uploading images from the LOC website is a major source of unintentional copyright violation. Some images there are PD, but very many are copyrighted. The Library of Congress is rarely an original source of images, and images from their website should normally just be treated like any other images, and be attributed to their original source. There is one distinctive aspect of copyrights and the Library of Congress, though, that is important: they are rather good librarians, and so often document when the copyright on a post-1922 image has not been renewed. They have also sometimes made arrangements with photographers that have allowed their photographs to become public domain much sooner than otherwise would have happened. As the LOC can be a good source on the murky copyright status of post-1922 images, I propose the following template (Template:PD-US-LOC) instead for images it is appropriate for.--Pharos 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
DeleteMisleading--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - if info is public domain, it can be subitted anyway, why should we note it? This just makes readers feel weary of using the article. -Sparky 22:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This image was first published in the United States in 1923 or later, but is considered public domain by the Library of Congress because its copyright has not been renewed or has been formally released, or for another reason.

[edit] Template:Infobox Iranian President

Optional parameters in Template:Infobox President now make this fork unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Loopy 20:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Netoholic - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, redundant template fork. - Bobet 01:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:If equal g

It's deprecated, so let's kill it. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

~~Hack & Slay~~ Delete: it's horrid: put it out of its misery (sorry, burst of enthusiasm there :-). —Phil | Talk 08:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unused and unneded variant. Looks like a leftover from a failed try. Adrian Buehlmann 09:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment — it's not a failed try, it's the mother of them all _→AzaToth 11:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ups. Sorry. Should have taken more care and doing my homework first before writing. Adrian Buehlmann 12:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete — per me _→AzaToth 11:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
delete Niffweed17 01:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:OS-icon-key

Unused, and we don't use fair-use icons for things like this anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various icon image templates

(namely Template:MacOS-icon, Template:Windows-icon, Template:Gnome-icon, Template:Kde-icon, Template:X-icon, Template:Oss-icon, Template:Free-icon, Template:Nix-icon, Template:Linux-icon, Template:FreeBSD-icon)
We don't use templates merely to insert an image at a given size. Further, the only place any of these are used are in Comparison of image viewers, Comparison of accounting software and Comparison of bitmap graphics editors, where their use is purely decorative and thus runs afoul of WP:FUC (at least for MacOs-icon and Windows-icon), and in Template:OS-icon-key, listed below. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I dunno about the fair use argument... but the templates should go away. Someone needs to learn to use image tags. -- Netoholic @ 09:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've replaced the templates with the images themselves on the pages listed. Xerol 18:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lucidinformationsystems

Unused. —Cryptic (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, never been used, and creating templates for every individual company defeats the purpose of having a template in the first place. - Bobet 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Bobet. —gorgan_almighty 12:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Objective

Unused, and redundant with other dispute templates. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Jbamb 14:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant. Kenj0418 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete D a Gizza ^Chat 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Magic-please-dont-expose

Unused, and we don't remove information from the encyclopedia just to help someone sell it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, because the name is silly, and because we already have {{Solution}}.--Sean|Bla ck 10:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per Sean Black. Compu ter Joe 10:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This template's a bit tricky, because it implies that Wikipedia is breaching some form of intellectual property by revealing the solution. If the trick is copyrighted, the information probably shouldn't be in wikipedia - and as such, the template is redundant. If it's not copyrighted, then the template's overkill - all we'd need is {{solution}}, as Sean points out. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The proper template for these cases is {{magic-spoiler}}, not {{solution}}. —Cryptic (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Aaah, that's what I was looking for. {{solution}} was the only thing I could find browsing WP:TM.--Sean|Bla ck 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not tricky at all. A magic trick cannot be copyrighted. Period. A specific description of a trick could be copyrighted, but as long as whoever wrote the article wrote about the trick in their own words, there is no copyright/IP issue.--Srleffler 20:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is part of an ongoing attack on the "secret" parts of numerous magic-trick articles by a host of vandals, called to arms on magic-related mailing-lists. Their particular unfavourite is King levitation (check out its history), and the creator of this template has already indicated his intention to use it on that article (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic). There has been considerable discussion on this matter by magic-interested Wikipedians, including an RfC at Talk:Out of This World (card trick). There's an overwhelming consensus that the secret information concerned should be retained. The fallacy that IP law prevents this disclosure has been explained at great length to the vandals at the above locations, and again at Talk:King levitation, but they don't seem to have any regard for facts. This template is antithetical to the principles of Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- While I agree with most of the above, the user who created this template isn't one of the vandals who've been blanking magic articles; see his contributions. I read this more as an attempt at a compromise. —Cryptic (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of Magicians. (With props to JRM for the line.) Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Smoke it. -- Jbamb 14:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete. -- It's redundant, implies that wikipedia is doing something wrong (It's not, but if it were, then the text should be removed, not taged with this), and for all the other reasons mentioned above. Kenj0418 17:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and User:Kenj0418. DES ^(talk) 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I wanted to suggest Make it vanish (to be cute), but I'm swayed by the compromise argument. Still, how does it help to be able to look things up but then not make use of them? Seems sort of like the Security Risk template, doesn't it? If it's OK to talk about these things here (but I am not sure WP needs to explain how magic tricks work does it?) then we should not require everyone that comes here to take a secrecy oath. It's unworkable anyway! SO... I dunno. I think the problem lies deeper than the template and answering whether WP should have trick mechanics is what to work on. ++Lar 22:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, consumer magic industry should not recieve special protection. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Either redirect to Template:Magic-spoiler or delete. If the creator is so concerned about the secret of a commercial magic trick getting out, then he might as well remove that information from the page. --JB Adder | Talk 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If it's a copyright violation it should be reported as such, otherwise it's redundant with generic spoiler templates. Pleas to readers by means of templates seem silly to me anyway. --IByte 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per all reasons above and several below (forthcoming) -- Krash 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is an attempt at compromise. Yes, please do take a look at my contributions where you will find several tricks explained in full (better than most of the magic material currently on WP). I can contribute a whole lot more, and so could others, if they felt the WP community was respecting them. My hope is that if certain classes of tricks can be declared off limits for exposure, then maybe we can get magicians to contribute and have better quality magic information on WP. Kleg 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- But no tricks are "off limits for exposure". This is an encyclopedia, and if we talk about a trick, we would be remiss if we didn't explain how it works.--Sean|Bla ck 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I just read Talk:Out of This World (card trick), and I am having trouble finding the "overwhelming consensus" which Finlay McWalter speaks of. Could I trouble someone to tell me how I can tell which posts count towards finding a consensus and which ones don't? Also, is "refactoring" of discussions allowed here, like is done on Ward's Wiki? It might make sense for a bunch of the exposure related stuff to go on the Talk:Exposure (magic) page (where I looked for it) rather than being scattered around on the talk pages of random tricks. Kleg 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I don't think refactoring of talk page discussion is generally thought to be a good idea. Summarization of points made, yes, but changing people's words and removing them? No, typically I think you present a summary and then, if consensus is reached it's accurate, archive the old page. (but I'm a newbie so I may be misreading, do your own research). I just read through Talk:Out of This World (card trick), as well as the article itself and I have this comment: I am not an IBM member, not a professional magician by any stretch of the imagination, but I do happen to know a few tricks, including this one (at least a trick that delivers the same effect). Without going into how it actually is done (if you want to know how it's done, teach me one I don't know (in person) and I'll show you), the way I know to present it isn't the way given in the article, not by a long shot (I'm not talking patter, I mean the mechanics and fundamental principle are totally different). I think the way the article is now, presenting a magic specific spoiler and asking people not to read it if they don't want to know, is sufficient, assuming that the information can be sourced... Under WP:V if a particular article section can't be shown to have a publicly verifiable source, or is a copyvio (or a contract violation, I think) deletion of that section can be argued for by those editing it. I guess I'm not seeing how this template helps at all, what it asks people to do seems unencyclopedic (from the perspective of a reader of the encyclopedia, readers come to get information, and shouldn't be asked not to share it). So I favour deletion, as I (sort of) said above. ++Lar 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per everything above. Da Gizza ^Chat ^(c) 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Anti-encyclopedic. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Saw it in half, no wait that would create 2 templates... Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:50, Jan. 2, 2006
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
DeleteDustimagic 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Burn, per numerous above users. - Cuivienen 20:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The implication that Wikipedia shouldn't interfere with someone's ability to make money off this information is particularly offensive.--Srleffler 20:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tfd-small

Despite the name, it isn't any smaller than {{tfd}}; it's just a forked version of it, with different wording and an extra enclosing box. Only ever used on one template, where I've replaced it with the canonical tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, redundant and unnecessary. Kenj0418 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
FIX {{tfd}} first, then delete this one. I have seen at least one place where this template was better, tfd made the page quite ugly.. Perhaps someone cleverer-er than me could fix it (but without using the dreaded {{if}}?)? Until then it's not redundant, although it IS a fork and therefore should be opposed... ++Lar 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I fixed it on Template:Middle-earth portal; the absolute positioning via css there was what prevented the normal tfd from being put into the box without fuss. Position:absolute is Quite Rare, and this was the first template I've seen that needed an additional <div> stuck around the tfd template. (I'm not sure why position:absolute is permitted in css anyway; I've only seen it used for vandalism and for the evil hack that is {{click}}, which would be better done as an additional image tag.) Was this the template you were thinking of, or was it used on another that I'm not aware of? —Cryptic (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes it was, thanks for remembering, Cryptic! So what's the upshot, is {{tfd}} fixed (that is, was that <div> already there or did you add it), or is it more of a "watch out for very weird cases and fix them rather than the template"? Putting some remarks into bracketed by {{tfd}}<noinclude> might be the way to go. (or put them in the instructions here?... I'm thinking this one can now be deleted in any case... ++Lar 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fork. Possibly speedy per a similar discussion several months ago. R adiant _>|< 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's also misleading, as the reall "small version of {{tfd}}" is {{tfd-inline}}, which is much smaller than this one (when used, of course!) By the way, it's just funny how it looks:

‹ The template below (Tfd-small) is being considered for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus. ›

The template

‹ Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/January 2006 ›

has been

proposed for deletion

(used subst: to help its survival) Weird, isn't it? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - redundant and duplicates {{tfd}}. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment — I made {{tfd-small}} for the purpouse that {{tfd}} didn't fit for Template:Middle-earth portal (per a request). Perhaps "small" is missleading, but the purpouse was to have a box that could easly be placed according to the content of the template nominated, without the need to wrap the tfd inside the template (table often). _→AzaToth 13:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Dangh

Fork of {{afd}}. (Though I do agree with the creator's sentiments as expressed in the edit history. Down with Monobook-specific formatting and evil javascript tricks! Torches and pitchforks and all that!) —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Web reference 3

Not used. Variant of Template:Web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete with a big stick: template forking is evil, I say!!! —Phil | Talk 10:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mosblock

A violation of WP:BP. No evidence this has ever actually been used. Firebug 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, someone should go over Category:User warning templates. Do we need 142 separate warnings?! Firebug 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It has been used for MoS vandalism and will continue to be used. And yes those people who deal with vandalism know from experience we do need specific warnings dealing with specific issues. In fact there are many issues that are not covered by warnings which crop up all the time and for which users have been, and will continue to, creating templates as the need arises. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- We do not block contributors for MoS violations. Firebug 21:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. I note that Jtdirl refers to "MoS vandalism" but that the word "vandalism" does not appear anywhere on {{Mosblock}}. android 79 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. It appears as if Jtdirl wants to keep this around so he can use it in ways in which he would be violating Wikipedia policies himself, by definition. Aumakua 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If Jdtirl routinely blocks, or even threatens to block, editors for violating the Manual of Style, he needs to read it himself, noting especially: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." Thus the existance of this template is evidence for a far worse problem than failure to adhere to the MoS, and every use of it, past or future, is a violation of a much more important principle. The sooner it gets deleted, the better. Aumakua 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Or, maybe keep it, so we can see which admins violate Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Unlike WP:MoS, admins are bound to follow that when they use their mop and bucket. -- SCZenz 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. It seems that these kinds of blocks are not for violating the manual of style per se, but rather are about ignoring requests to stop editing editing that way. I am uncertain if the request should bear enough weight to ever justify blocking, but in any case should generally lead to a discussion of some sort. We don't want people editwarring over decided matters like the MoS, but we also don't want to create an environment where making mistakes with grammar/style standards leads to a block. Discussion should usually sort that out, and hopefully everyone will follow the MoS afterwards. Willfully and knowingly violating the MoS after having it brought up, especially for users who have enough grammar skills in English that it's clear they're just being difficult, should perhaps leave the door open to further pressure. --Improv 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no question. It's a violation of policy, simple as that. BTW Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism defines vandalism; no other "vandalism" is blockable. Dan100 (Talk) 09:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep Per Jtdirl. If Wikipedia is not going to enforce content policies, it has no reason for being at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 172 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, deliberately disregarding content policies following repeated warnings is clear vandalism. If Wikipedia is to be sucessful as a project conforming to its goal of writing a reliable encyclopedia, we must tighten our mechanisms for enforcing content policies. 172 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. You cannot be blocked for violating guidelines. You may however be taken to an RFC or an RFAr over it. The probable effect for enforcing a guideline is by consensus reversion; then the 3RR would serve its purpose and not this template. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per Nom and because violating the MoS is not vandalism. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MLB Athletics franchise

Delete — No longer used orphan. Gateman1997 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'd also add similar templates for the Template:MLB Giants franchise, Template:MLB Padres franchise, Template:MLB Dodgers franchise, [[Template:MLB Mariners franchise, Template:MLB Angels franchise, Template:MLB Rockies franchise, Template:MLB Yankees franchise.Gateman1997 00:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Replaced by Template:MLB Team Oakland Athletics -Scm83x 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Niffweed17 01:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delte Dustimagic 01:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ac and Template:Ac-reason

Redundant with teh Wikipedia:General disclaimer plx. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:21, Jan. 2, 2006

delete as extremely POV. Joyous | Talk 16:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. I've been monitoring the actions of User:Flarn2005 for some time now, and his actions have - in my opinion, of course - been nothing but disruption and censorship. A check of his blog, to which he links on his userpage, reveals that he is young - perhaps even a preteen - and attempts to reason with him, likely because of his extremely young age, have been met with difficulty. While I don't think that being young should exclude one from participating in wikipedia, I do think that his history counts against him. jglc | t | c 16:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedily deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #4, recreation of deleted content. Raul654 16:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Events in sport by month links

Delete — Got the name wrong, should have been (and now is) Template:Events in sports by month links. -- SGBailey 22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedily deleted per request by original author. [[Sam Korn]] 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Adult

Another impossibly POV "adult content" warning added to articles such as Penis and Breast. Joyous | Talk 18:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. android 79 18:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT censored. - ulayiti (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --HappyCamper 18:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, definite POV, as I expressed on deletion of a similar template a while ago. --Dave2 18:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I don't really have an opinion on this template, but it strikes me that labeling adult content (for some legal definitions of adult) would not neccesarily by POV and is certainly not in itself an act of censorship. Of course, I'm not sure what good it would do either. After all what does one really expect from an article on the penis? Dragons flight 18:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- If this is kept, I suggest applying it to Mortgage, Divorce, Career, and other similarly-scary "adult" concepts. android 79 18:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. -- Sneltrekker 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This would be a good way for minors in search of a mucky article to find them. David | Talk 18:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I've baleeted it as content multiply reposted and summarily rejected. Also protected it blank. HTH HAND. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:53, Jan. 8, 2006
Comment. As usual, see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. --cesarb 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Support keeping it deleted. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. What they said, pretty much, and whose standards do we use for "adult content?" Saudi standards? Southern Baptist standards? Dutch standards? -- Pak aran 19:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above, Wikipedia is not censored. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not censored. Ohnoitsjamie 19:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete and no recreation — As it should've been in the first place. extremely *OBVIOUS* violation of WP:NOT.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User against jews

Delete — I am fairly userbox tolerant, but this one is over the line for me. Dragons flight 05:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - classic sort of box that gives hardworking friendly harmless boxes a bad name. State what you are FOR, not who you are AGAINST. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete — Intolerant POV with absolutely no potiential. — Seven Days » talk 05:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Lar. Pepsidrinka 05:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, because no rational person would vote to keep it, and it's completely unacceptable for Wikipedia.--Sean|Bla ck 05:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. If you do not support a group, then you can choose to not put their userbox on your userpage. However, this one crosses the line. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 05:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - nosing around a bit after I voted (I looked at who linked what where) I can't help but feel that maybe this box was create to make a WP:POINT rather than as a serious expression of an actual point of view help by an actual well respected editor here? (as perhaps the userboxes regarding user:Kelly Martin were?) I'd prefer to WP:AGF and think that is not the case. But if I am wrong, and it's being done TO make a point can I kindly ask that people not do that? It is just so NOT helpful and so NOT how to make an argument. IMHO. Again apologies if that's not the case. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 05:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice clear bomb throwing. --Wgfinley 05:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Clearly violates WP:POINT. For those who can't see it, the creator's edit summary was "Only fair, if people can be against one religion they should be able to be against more then one...". —Cryptic (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of skirting WP:CIVIL, Speedily shitcan. --CJ Marsicano 06:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't there a word or a famous quote saying that freedom of speech means allowing all speech, not just speech that you agree with.--God of War 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  - If you want to make an online encyclopedia and allow people to insult others' religions on it, feel free. This website belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation, which prioritizes making an encyclopedia over letting anyone post any old nonsense. -- SCZenz 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment This isn't about free speech. It's WP:POINT, related to the TfD on Template:User against scientology. I seriously doubt the creator expected it to stay up any longer than it took people to notice it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete SatuSuro 07:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as fast as possible. Revolting. Giano | talk 09:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment certainly I can see where the above editors are coming from, but I tend to think that this template would still be useful. I think that censorship of user space will do more harm than good, by forcing editors to be less than forthcoming regarding their POV on issues. If it were not already deleted, I would vote keep on principle alone. God of War makes the same point more succinctly. So much for my Template:User against hate template... oh, well. Fight the ground with sticks. Words are not allowed. --Dschor 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The use of this template does not necessarily mean that the user actually hates Jews. It seems to me like a mildly amusing parody. Even if it is used in an anti-Jewish fashion, censoring the user is not the way to fix the problem. That just hides it, which makes it worse. (Are you listening, CNN / PC Police?) Primetime 12:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - clear WP:POINT by Office of Special Affairs propaganda agent User:Gateman1997 as a reaction to the anti-cult template linking to Operation Clambake (which he has also tried to vandalise) - blatant Semitophobia --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, what? Rob Church ^Talk 17:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Firstly I understand that this was made by the guy who is angry at the anti-scientology box and he probably didnt expect it to stay up for long but by deleting it you are just letting him win. I am Jewish (through my mother, but not practicing) yet I still feel that this should be allowed to stay up. You end prejudice like this by arguing down people who make such points not by preventing them to make them. I'll end a quote that was referred to above:

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky --Horses In The Sky 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring that it's fairly clear Chomsky has blind spots in his support for freedom of expression (Since we all do in one way or another), there is a difference between freedom of expression and paying for the microphone. I don't think anyone in this TfD is arguing that disliking Jews and saying you dislike Jews should be illegal. I think they're saying they don't want it here. There's a big differance. Phil Sandifer 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete - I agree with God of War but am inclined to say that this template "violates public safety" on Wikipedia. Free speech only goes as far as it does not cause or instigate actual physical harm. - Cuivienen 20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have a hard time seeing where "actual physical harm" is going to take place on wikipedia. --Dschor 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Offensive and oversteps the line. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone speedied it, so keep deleted as per WP:NPA. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Amusing and inoffensive. Sets a good precedent for other hatred- and bigotry-based infoboxes, which should have their own section in the Wikiproject. Unpopular opinions are still opinions! And it's hardly intolerant to simply express your opinion regarding a certain religious or ethnic group, whether that opinion is positive or negative! What's intolerant is forbidding others to express their own opinion in the manner they choose! If this template is kept deleted, though, then userfy, so Wikipedians can still use it if they choose, but without it being on the main Template namespace, where Wikipedia could be vulnerable to legal attack by the global Jewish conspiracy. -Silence 03:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"global Jewish conspiracy"? damn neo-nazis... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 11:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem angry and possibly hateful. Anger clouds your judgement. For example, in the case above, I think Silence was joking, but you assumed that he wasn't. Anger and hatred against so-called anti-Semites could also be leading many here to vote for deletion. Primetime 11:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with hating neo-nazis. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Many neo-Nazis hate Jewish people. Thus, it seems to me like you're trading hatred of one group for another. This doesn't solve the roots of the hate (there are many).

Being hateful or angry also diminishes the persuasiveness of your vote. (I'm not talking just about you, but several other users who have voted above as well.) Primetime 13:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Nasty WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Also, WP:POINT is not grounds for deletion. It's grounds for warning the user who created the template, not for deleting the template itself. The same would apply to an article or list created just to make a point; it shouldn't be deleted if it's a valid topic, no matter how repugnant the creator may be. Wikipedia pages and templates must be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of the person who created or endorsed them. -Silence 04:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Trust me, I judged it on it's merits.--Sean|Black 04:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - As did I. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Del. If WP:RULES such as WP:CIV are too limiting for your "freedom of expression", you're at the wrong place. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 11:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Ideas cannot be censored. Anti-Semitism, for example, has been around for four thousand years. The deletion of the template does not address its dangerous tenets. In fact, it only diminishes our credibility because we are seen as intolerant (in this case of anti-Hebrews). Displaying a userbox saying that a user is opposed to Jewry will actually help disprove the very concept anyway because its presence looks ridiculous. Primetime 14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User oppose Kelly Martin

This sort of thing is inappropriate, for several reasons. If one wants to express another's fitness for the arbcom, they can do so through the election, and not through the creation of extra templates for campaigning. There are already official channels for campaigning. This sort of template may also set a precedent in attacking other users -- legitimate criticism of other users should be done through proper channels with regard to civility and other Wikipedia guidelines. Dysprosia 11:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep I fail to see how this is uncivil. It is simply the matching box for those who do not support KM for ArbComm. There is no attack, and there is no reasoning offered for deleting this template. Just leave the templates alone. --Dschor 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- The reasoning is in the first six words in my above comment, and the other words in that comment are intended to support the argument put forth in the first six words. Dysprosia 12:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Dysprosia, there are other (productive) venues for expressing opposition to arbcom noms. Hostility userboxes are arguably PA. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP:POINT violation in response to the support KM template. It has been decided there will be no 'disendorsements' in the Arbcom election to stop it descending as did the December 2004 elections. David | Talk 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep — Per #Template:User support Kelly Martin: Both points of view are equally valid. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Completely unproductive and a violation of WP:CIVIL. This is a prime example of userboxes being used to create factions. Carbonite | Talk 13:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Treat same as Template:User support Kelly Martin. My preference would be the removal of both, but I'm ok with both being kept. I'd be concerned with the fairness of allowing support OR opposition, but not both. kenj0418 15:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete I speedied an earlier version of this by the same user, which called Kelly a 'fascist'. That was a personal attck, for which the creator was temp blocked. I am dismayed to see that his disruptive efforts continue. These are created to persue a personal vendetta against an individual editor. Please debate the issues and not the persons. Let's keep the vitriol to RfC (and doubtless the coming election). --Doc ^ask? 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Carbonite and the general ridiculousness of this whole thing. CDC (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Treat same as Template:User support Kelly Martin - It's only fair, not very just to censor one POV but not the oposite. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep now that it no longer calls her a Stalinist, and we should have kept the Support Kelly Martin box as well. Yeltensic42.618 ambition makes you look pretty ugly 17:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources to promote factionalism. Jkelly 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - grow up, folks. Wikipedia is not high school. — Dan | talk 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this template as an attack page. I find it appalling that it was even created in the first place. Templates should never be used to attack other users, and this sort of negative campaigning is highly inappropriate as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete (or, do not recreate) - Wikipolitical userboxes are bad. FreplySpang (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as #Template:User support Kelly Martin Keith Greer 02:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete SatuSuro 07:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Templates are for articles. Articles.... Remember those? They're what we're here for. Personalities are not interesting. Information is interesting. Users vs. users templates are just thuggishness. Cut it out. Geogre 12:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Iff

Not used. Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep It may have its uses in certain situations. --JB Adder | Talk 11:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this one really is a useless metatemplate: it just wraps {{switch}} in different syntax, causing needless server load in the process. Could easily be substed if anyone used it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. ^Blank ^Verse 13:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:DecencyWikiProject-Member

A template which was created for that notorious "WikiProject:Wikipedians for decency". --Victim of signature fascism 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. --Cjmarsicano 02:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- How exactly is this a speedy delete? You were complaining earlier about templates being speedied ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Speedy delete for a user group that the apparent majority doesn't like? That's hardly grounds for a speedy, and arguably even a delete. -- Jbamb 02:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I'm happy to see a template for a now defunct/redefined project deleted. But be aware that the nom was sanctioned for his trolling/vandalism with regard to this project. --Doc ^ask? 02:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The project is dead, so there's no need for the template any longer. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Make into Userbox~~. there areat least3 userboxesfor wikiprojects already. Circeus 04:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as wikiproject is dead. Circeus 04:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete since the wikiproject that works with this template is defunct. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 04:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete defunct Wikiproject. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the last several "deletes". There is no WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency to be a member of, they are defunct and closed, and the WikiProject it redirects to has {{historical}} on it. This is a relic. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Redundant template for inactive/defunct WikiProject. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, defunct wikiproject.Gateman1997 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, or if it must be preserved, userfy it to the creator. Dead WikiProjects don't need live templates. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete dead template for a dead wikiproject. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete and protect — Extremely obvious violation of WP:NOT, linking to a non-existent WikiProject that was deleted for being a violation of WP:NOT itself: Wikipedia is not censored for minors nor anyone else. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete since it's a defunct group. --Daniel 20:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Angel-screenshot

Template:Angel-screenshot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — A bad idea resurfaces. All the specialized {{tv-screenshot}} templates were deleted a while back because they gave the false impression that all screenshots of the program in question were "fair use". -- Carnildo 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nomination. Aside from copyright issues, it's overly specific.--Sean|Bla ck 07:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Carnildo — Mperry 08:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete — EagleOne\^Talk 22:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. – Seancdaug 23:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not needed since there's nothing special about the copyright status of Angel episodes compared to any other TV-series. - Bobet 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Deletion request

Delete — Truly a waste of space, not used in any articles, except on the image that it's on. But there is no need to create a template for it. The uploader could have just added the text. There is also no license on the image: Image:Image009.jpg. Hillhead15 10:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Obvious speedy delete. Why discuss it any longer? ~~ N (t/c) 13:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I have speedied this. gren グレン ^? 14:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:*-court

This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 10:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. These templates are my proudest work on Wikipedia, but they've been deprecated in favor of the smaller year-to-year templates. So be it. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete If author thinks it should be deleted, then its outcome is obvious. Little or no use now, so no need to keep -

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom (tho I'm sad to see those beauties go, and I'm goin' to keep a copy in my user space for personal reference). BD2412 T 04:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, and creator. Unused. Good quality work though. — TheKMan^talk 09:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hawaiianmusic

This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Hawaiianmusic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — Not used, no obvious advantages over the current {{MDmusic}} in use at Music of Hawaii. Circeus 19:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as creator of both, can I authorize a speedy here? Not sure of the current rules for templates. {{MDmusic}} is preferred, and I am gradually switching all the states to use it. Hawaii is done, so this template can be safely deleted. Tuf-Kat 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cjmarsicano/g2K6up

This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 10:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Same as the first template, another fork. However, this is occured at a user page for transclusion. While TFD might not be the scope of this page, I want to keep the discussion of this template at one page. My vote of delete and it's reasoning as the same as the first one: this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by comparing the acts the admin did with acts that took place under the leadership of Soviet Premier Stalin. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as personal attack, or speedy delete as CSD G4 - a re-creation of deleted content. Basically, this message cannot appear on Wikipedia at all. Harro5 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
As above, I believe attacks on this level should be deleted, and constitute grounds for blocking those who use it. —Cryptic (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Apparently we're going to be censoring user pages and subpages, too. How wonderful. -- Cjmarsicano 01:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a attack --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
ITEM ALREADY DELETED BY ITS CREATOR. Are you all happy now? --Cjmarsicano 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- No. I, for one, do not consider myself a censor, and resent you referring to us as such. —Cryptic (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, I resent the censorship. Vehemently. --Cjmarsicano 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    - While you might resent censorship, there are standards to uphold on Wikipedia, and not allowing personal attacks is one of them. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 01:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      - Meanwhile, the so-called "target" the userbox is referring to is waiting for the fuss to die down so that she can abuse her admin privleges by mass-deleting userboxes she disagrees with. So, when are the Wikipedia standards going to include brown shirts? --Cjmarsicano 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a recreation of a previously deleted personal attack that was removed by the author. Let's get this thing out of the history, and, frankly, if the user believes that censoring comparisons of users to people who murder millions of people makes Wikipedia a fascist state, the door is that way. Lord Bob 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is only WP:CIVIL that is standing between your poor attitude and my burning desire to give you a physically impossible suggestion. Have a nice day. --Cjmarsicano 06:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure what you are referring to - the template is a cut n' dry case used solely for a personal attack... (And I'm aware A6 techinically doesn't apply to templates... call it a discretionary call, I guess). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment personal attack revisions flushed. I don't see a problem with the remaining two - sort of a light protest I guess. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. He's breaking no policy by having this in user space. BD2412 T 03:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's already deleted, but notional delete because WP:ISNOT a democracy or anarchy, and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL trump free speech. ~~ N (t/c) 01:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Looks like its back again. Technically this is in user space but WP:IAR applies as this template could interfere with the creation of an encyclopedia. —gorgan_almighty 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete at the least; warning for personal attacks may be necessary (cleverly, I can't see it to comment any longer, because Cjmarsicano deleted it). I wondered how long it would take for transcluded templates with obscure names to appear in this war... -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User purge

This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 10:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This was a fork from the above template that I had deleted under the same reasons, but recreated out of "due process." Listing so that the due process can take place. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Appears identical to me, so my above statement stands. Delete template, block transcluders. WP:NPA. —Cryptic (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- This omits the link to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin so it cannot reasonably be interpreted as a "personal attack" (which has itself been read in a ludicrously broad fashion, to encompass almost any criticisms). Firebug 23:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Ridiculous. If I write "That user is a fuckwit", not naming him directly or linking to his page doesn't make it any less of a personal attack. Everyone knows exactly what you mean by it. —Cryptic (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Well, what kind of criticisms (if any) do you think fall short of NPA? Or is ANY criticism of admin actions a personal attack? How convenient. Firebug 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      - This isn't a matter of censoring criticism. See Wikipedia:Introduction to learn the purpose of Wikipedia. Harro5 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        Don't you dare condescend to me; I've been here just as long as you have. The reason we have policy is to enable us to more easily get on with the business of creating an encyclopedia. Kelly's absurd deletions have caused a major distraction from that. Thousands of man-hours have been spent on arguing these issues, time that could otherwise have been used to work on articles. That is why we don't just let admins do whatever they want. Firebug 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        Get this: personal attacks are not on. Whatever Kelly may or may not have done, you must not make personal attacks. Full stop. [[Sam Korn]] 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      - Comparing someone to Joseph Stalin isn't "criticism". —Cryptic (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete, useless and polarizing.--Sean|Bla ck 23:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Needlessly inflammatory, under the circumstances. – Seancdaug 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been bold and deleted this as a personal attack. Harro5 23:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- It most certainly was not. Inflammatory, yes, but in order to qualify as a personal attack, presumably it would need to, y'know, actually attack someone, which it did not. – Seancdaug 23:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Yes it did. It likened people deleting userboxes to Stalin. How is that not a personal attack? [[Sam Korn]] 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Because it's not personal, obviously. It clearly refers to an action (the deletion of userboxes) and not a specific person or group of people. It refers to an event (the "purge") and not its perpetrators. This is, of course, wildly uncivil (not to mention sort of Godwinny), and you'll notice that I support it's deletion. But it does not fall under any our personal attack policy. – Seancdaug 00:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, keep deleted or otherwise make it go away. I'm quite liberal with user boxes, but this does not advance the mission of writing an encyclopedia in any remote way. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete since nobody can take humour. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I probably would have voted delete, but I can't see it to decide for myself, so abstain with concern. ++Lar: t/c 04:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I would have voted "delete" as well, but since the secret police have taken it out at night and shot it, I'll have to abstain. Calling this a "personal attack" is a load of steaming horseshit. Saying Kelly is vindictive, egotistical, and unable to take critisicm would be a personal attack, but this doesn't say that. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Abstain - per above I can't see the bloody thing to vote one way or another!! Unless some admin wants to send me a copy.... Assuming it pertains to the Userbox "purge" matter, it would probably be a delete vote. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I would prefer that deletion happen after the TfD process, rather than during it. How can one evaluate a template that has been deleted?? --Dschor 00:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - If it's an attack on anything, it's on the purge of userboxes, & that is the Stalinist ref. I don't see anything personal or uncivil here. Trekphiler 14:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Extreme Cold War nuke from orbit. Comparing someone to Stalin, even if the target isn't defined explicitly, is a personal attack. ~~ N (t/c) 04:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. ^Blank ^Verse 13:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, useless --Angelo 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete and all the forks that keep appearing. This is a programme of disruption posing as free-speech. We have ways of expressing our views here (perhaps too many) we don't need this. Standing alone, perhaps comparing an admin's actions to the attrocites of a mass murderer might be trivial - but this part of cordinated nastiness. --Doc ^ask? 19:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Disrupt what? Septentrionalis 23:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
What Titoxd said. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If you've got something to say, say it without using this template. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as the template apparantly has already been deleted and protected from re-creation, I can't exactly vote to delete it. Keep Deleted. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate

This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 10:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — The template is a violation of WP:NPA by characterising what the subject of the RFC (which is linked in white) as Stalinist and comparing the said user to Stalin himself. Not only that is a personal attack by comparing her to Stalin, it is also triviaizing the acts Stalin did while leader of the Soviet Union. Millions of people died under his leadership while all the admin did was to delete userboxes. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as personal attack. Possibly speedy, but I've had enough of being bold today. [[Sam Korn]] 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete if it offends so many people (like everything nowadays seems to). Just for the record, i didnt create this userbox, it was already located on several other people's userpages and on the page it links to. I just moved it to a page for easier access, as people were already using it... -

Bourbons3^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

~~May I go ahead and speedy it? Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)~~

Delete Comparing the subject of the RFC to Stalin? Attack and WP:NPA violation. Rx StrangeLove 21:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep as free-speech statement on Wikipedia. The person being referenced to in this box did indeed act very Stalinist in their quest to delete userboxes, especially political ones. --Cjmarsicano 21:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can't you see that that comment that you have just made is a personal attack in itself? Can't you bear to imagine that Kelly may have been acting in good faith? [[Sam Korn]] 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  - No, because she clearly was not. Her own comments on the matter stand as proof of that. Rogue 9 05:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete template, block transcluders. WP:NPA. —Cryptic (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedied as a single-use template, which is stupid. Don't make templates you're only going to use once. Don't make templates to attack other users. Don't be an idiot. Phil Sandifer 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Let me get this straight, you respond to an NPA vio with an NPA vio...Wow. Then again, it seems per your character described at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3. karmafist 08:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per cj. The person in question acted in an un-diplomatic way in deleting the userboxes, without discussing it with anyone. People have got to stop being so touchy about things, thinking everything will offend everyone - when it wont. And even if it did, so what. People have the right to show their opinions without fear of being scrutinized. Anyone who acts like that is the idiot! «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you could read you would know that I already said that i didnt create it, and that it wasnt used once, i have seen atleast 3 other users with the box on their userpage

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bourbons3 is correct on that one. By just seeing who has the image Image:Stalin3.jpg, you can see that the template is at other places. However, forks have been created of this template. I wish to ask permission to include those forks into this TFD debate. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is one i know of which says "I survived" instead of "I participated"

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about the I survived one, I will TFD that one separately. There was a fork of this one, same text and everything, so I deicded to speedy that one under the same grounds: gross violation of NPA and WP:CIVIL and its only purpose was to attack a user. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There's probably a lot of variations of it by now -

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There are, and I will try to find everyone that I can. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, or rather support the speedy deletion. In short, WP:NPA and agree with Zach above. I also support deletion of any forks that liken User:Kelly Martin to Stalin. "No personal attacks" is one of our most fundamental policies. Anyone who feels that this policy is hypersensitive may prefer to find a different form than Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, I endorse the speedy deletion as an attack page. Apart from that, only you can prevent ForestFires, and people who absolutely insist of having such a template can come up with a non-offensive one themselves. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- That "meatball" crap isn't policy. Firebug 23:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  - True, but there's no policy against linking to things that aren't policy. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and censure User:Snowspinner for his repeated defiance of Wikipedia policy and process. Firebug 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It has been speedied. Any re-creations will likley see the author blocked straight away. Harro5 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone has the authority to revoke an out-of-process deletion. Why bother with WP:TFD at all if admins can go around willy-nilly deleting whatever they want? Firebug 23:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  - It's a personal attack. Do not recreate it. [[Sam Korn]] 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    - It is not and was not a personal attack. It is a call against an abusive admin. So tell me, at the rate things are going, since we already have Wikipedia is not a democracy, when is Wikipedia is a fascist state going to be created? -- Cjmarsicano 00:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: For your information, this template was "created" by User:El C. -- ??????????? ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's completely untrue.--Sean|Black 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Not completely untrue, just mostly. What El C created says "This user actively participated in the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again." What this template says is "This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again." Likening yourself to Stalin is in poor taste. Likening someone else to Stalin is a personal attack. —Cryptic (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Sorry, missed the "rebellion" part. It still is based on his, though. -- ??????????? ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete / support speedy this contributes nothing to building an encyclopedia (or a community). It is time to stop this userbox stupidity before it gets any more out of hand.--Doc ^ask? 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a attack template --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
strong keep. This is not an attack page in any reasoanble sense, and the speedy deletes were way out-of-process. In its current form this comments strongly on a wikipedia action -- not a user -- which many have disapproved of at the relevant RfC. DES ^(talk) 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete as personal attack and possible violation of WP:POINT. I care not to argue the technicality of what constitutes an attack. Common sense tells me this was not created in good faith or friendly spirit but rather to throw a little tantrum and incite factionalism, and that is more than enough cause to delete. --Qirex 13:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as personal attack. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo} ^risin' 15:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I personally found Kelly Martin's recent behaviour inappropriate, but there's certainly no need to aggravate the situation with templates like this. Extraordinary Machine 20:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Kelly Martin's behaviour was a disgrace and it is indicative of the depth of anger about the rampant deletionism now on WP that templates like this come into being. Instead of facing community anger, the now usual response is to . . . delete the evidence! Typical. A classic case of shooting the messenger. Frankly Kelly should be de-admined for her behaviour. This template should be a reminder of just how outrageous her behaviour was. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- So file an RfAr. I'll note now (as it applies to you) that I fully intend to remove all instances of this template if it is deleted, even when not transcluded. [[Sam Korn]] 21:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Jtdirl, if the deletion of the template happens, no evidence will go away, this RFC will not go away and the hurt feelings of those who saw their userbox go *poof* will not go away. While the community and ArbCom will be the judge of who is right or wrong in Kelly's RFC, the template creation, in my view, is also out of bounds itself for the reasons I stated earlier. Two wrongs do not make a right (but three lefts do). Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. Goes directly against Wikipedia:Civility. --cesarb 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep now that the Stalin image has been removed. I agree with Jtdirl–what Kelly Martin did was absolutely indefensible. Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Everyone is allowed free speech. Even if this is an attack people need to have the right to speak out against administrators.--God of War 08:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- NPA , divisive and uncalled for. 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I opposed User:Kelly Martin's actions in her pre-emptive deletion of Userboxes, but this is divisive and inflammatory in the current climate. As is the original prototype spoof "Userbox" which appears to have been created by User:El C supporting the "purge" (and derivatives thereof such as Template:User survived, now gone). A question to User:Sam Korn: will you also be removing all instances of El C's template, even when not transcluded, because that is equally inflammatory? --Cactus.man ✍ 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This is not an attack, it is a creative way to provide a link to an RfC, where concerned wikipedians can voice their opinions on the matter. If this userbox is deleted, wikipedia has lost all perspective. --Dschor 13:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment this reminds me an aweful lot of the time someone was going around signing his name [[communist|Howard Dean]], wasn't terribly funny then...--64.12.116.6 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2^nd Comment that is also one of the ugliest fomrating jobs I've ever seen, obviously one bolds white font when it's in front of a red background--64.12.116.6 14:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - {{User purge}} was much better, but it was deleted and protected against recreation by Martin-supporting admins before even bringing it to TfD.

This is just an example, so people can see what it actually was:

Image:Stalin3.jpg

This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again.

I was actually banned for even having this on my user page, so beware if you're under the misunderstanding that you actually have any right to free speech on your user page. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(??? ¦ ??)} 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete the revisions with stalin in them and Strong Keep the rest. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 16:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Characterising one side of an RfC as Stalinist violates WP:FAITH and WP:CIV; furthermore this userbox has no legitimate use in building the encyclopedia. --- Charles Stewart
- The stalin image has been removed. When presnet it is arguable that it liked the user employing this userbox to stalin, but that was less than clear. DES ^(talk) 17:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 00:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NPA. Rhobite 01:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is a userbox created in bad faith to attack. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
One of the few userboxes I would unequivocally Delete. Wikipedia is not a democracy or anarchy. WP:NPA trumps free speech. ~~ N (t/c) 01:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete – Boasting of a participation in an unpopular POV slash-and-burn campaign is not generating happy feelings. – Clockwork Soul 06:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually this template bosts of resitance against siad unpopular slash-and-burn campaign. IMO it is not a person attack, it is an expression (albiet a quite strong one) of a position of an unsleteld issue of wikipedia policy. DES ^(talk) 17:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thanks for reminding me not to read so quickly. Changing to no vote. – Clockwork Soul 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Extreme delete. Bad faith personal attack. ^Blank^Verse 13:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- What person is this attacking? this opposes an action and expresses a view on an unsettled policy issue. DES ^(talk) 17:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep I'm mindful of no personal attacks rules, but I'm more mindful of freedom of speech. Many people were opposed to what Kelly did and they should be allowed to say so. - Hayter 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, no personal attack here. Just a reminder of one of Wikipedia's dumbest hours.Gateman1997 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. While I think Kelly Martin's actions were abusive and just plain dumb, I don't see how any good can come of this. Let's not throw more fuel on the fire. -R. fiend 20:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. Harro5 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep This isn't so much an attack as a statement about freedom of speech on Wikipedia User pages. Keith Greer 21:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete if possible Speedy Delete'. Goes against WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and possible some more. Garion96 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep B 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Serves no positive purpose and will be out of date in a few weeks, or so I hope. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for the love of God, this is ludicrous. Keep. Rogue 9 01:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it should have just been speedied. Delete Soltak | Talk 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep WikiPedia is not censored. (Putting it on someone else's userpage without consent would be vandalism, however.) Septentrionalis 23:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Soltak. Not only is the naming structure clumsy, it could be viewed as a personal attack, campaigning for negative comments in the RfC, and inappropriate use of our time and resources. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If you've got something to say, say it without a template. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. In its current form (no Stalin, and no personal reference) it is not an example of personal attack/hate. [That, along with patent nonsense, are my only current firm-fixed criteria for deleting userboxes]. — Eoghanacht ^talk 16:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep the way it is now (per Eoghanacht). --Fang Aili 21:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. As Eoghanacht noted, in its current state (without the Stalin picture) the template is not a personal attack any more; consequently, there should be no reason to censor it. And, as «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» noted, calling this offensive is way too touchy! fragmer 05:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is beyond the pale. -- JJay 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Smiley

This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 15:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's Template:Sad (TFD discussion) all over again, with all its friends, all rolled up into one evil template via a {{switch}}. What's so terribly difficult about the image syntax that we need to use a two-level-deep template? They don't even need to be resized. —Cryptic (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep. Useful for talk pages. --CJ Marsicano 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, image tags are every bit as easy to use as a template, making this thing supremely redundant and a waste of the server's time. Lord Bob 21:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Agree with the above. Just link to the image yourself. - Cuivienen 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - no problem. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete you can use the image syntaxes easier. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Cryptic and Zscout370 FreplySpang (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~(Delete). The template is a bunch of crap, ~~but it is harmless. If someone has use for it, well, why not?~~ (and apparently harmful) --Ezeu 01:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not harmless. It makes four database hits when one would suffice. —Cryptic (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  - You mean now that it has the TfD notice slapped on it, right? Otherwise it would only make three. But I do agree with you in principle. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Well. Five now. I was referring to the redirect at Template:Sm, which is how the invocations I've seen get to it. —Cryptic (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Cryptic. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Database access overkill. Directly call the image if you so desire, or just use text. android 79 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. If the image syntax is really that hard to use, I could always make a user script to add the smiley icons to the toolbar... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Or we could re-upload them at Image:).png, Image:(.png, etc. —Cryptic (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Is it that hard to use the images?-Sean|Bla ck 02:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Link the image. --Improv 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. Yes, it's that inconvenient, especially when it requires memorising all the image names. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- As opposed to memorising all the template parameter names? Like, say, {{sm|:-(}}? This helpfully produces a happy face. Image:-(.png would at least give you a redlink. —Cryptic (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  - This template helps centralise everything, is more convenient than using image tags, and as I see it reuploading it would just create a duplicate image. I haven't noticed much problems with speed, either. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You will, given time. Trust me, this one's a bugger on the servers. Rob Church ^Talk 19:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, hurts more than it helps, people can just use :) if they can't be bothered to link to an image. - Bobet 11:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Nuke from orbit and reupload images under convenient names as per Cryptic. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Very much so. the wub "?!" 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Ditto everyone else. Remeber: Wikipedia is not a chat room. --DragonHawk 03:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Gee, that was easy without a template. What do we need it for? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Waste of db resources, not needed. Kenj0418 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep but use subst:. There's no reason not to keep this template if users use the subst: keword. —gorgan_almighty 10:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The use of a metatemplate prevents this from substing cleanly; {{subst:smiley}} produces . Edit this section to see the results. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - horrible thing. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. ^Blank ^Verse 13:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Cyrptic. Pepsidrinka 14:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - no need for it. - Hayter 17:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Shoot. Repeatedly. --Carnildo 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- You got me ... Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif User:Noisy | Talk 10:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. funny.Gateman1997 18:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per the fact I despise it, and per the fact it's a perfect example of the kind of abuse WP:AUM was created to prevent. This is not a "necessary" use of meta-templates. Rob Church ^Talk 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not MySpace. Ashibaka tock 02:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. User:Noisy | Talk 10:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Cookiecaper 10:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - templates are more costly to use than image tags. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Coin

Delete Joe I 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Ingrid 02:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 13:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. per nomination Template:Infobox Coin is quite superior and more visually appealing.--Dakota ~ ε 19:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, or redirect to {{infobox Coin}}. — Insta ntnood 06:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood - no need to redirect as it isn't used. Search 4 Lancer 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom. Redundant, and unused. — TheKMan^talk 07:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per TheKMan Search 4 Lancer 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dustimagic 01:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User against scientology

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep (no consensus for delete) --Adrian Buehlmann 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment about my closing decision: User:splash says the result was instead Delete, by reasons given here. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against scientology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete - This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. gren GuReN6 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Ditto. This place is supposed to encourage NPOV, no? MARussellPESE 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - No value in building encyclopedia, potential for vote-stacking abuse. --- Charles Stewart 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - User space should be a place where wikipedians can describe themselves as they see fit. This userbox can serve that purpose. It is not harmful, and given the recent conflagration over userboxes, I would prefer to leave the user space alone. This userbox could tell editors a great deal about the motivations of an editor, and certainly falls within the freedom of expression that the user space is intended for. --Dschor 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, pending a more compelte userbox policy. I belive that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) Ooops, i typed five tildas instead of four. Sorry. DES ^(talk) 17:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This user box is divisive (as are all userboxes indicating a user's disapproval for some other thing) and mainly exists for linkspamming (I'm sure its presence on Wikipedia increases the pagerank of the external site linked within it). It should be shot dead now. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, slash and burn external link - I've removed the external link and made it go to Operation Clambake instead - Scientology is a scary group of people: See Office of Special Affairs, Suppressive Person or Xenu articles. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(A<=>W | =>*) 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)}
Keep. Userboxes CAN be POV, that's what they are for, for user's to express opinions. That's why we have pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Jew, Muslim, so on user boxes. It might be wise to tone it down a notch, but POV is not valid grounds to delete a user box. -- Jbamb 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- My grounds was civil. It needlessly (and directly) annoys scientologists. Whereas if a pro-lifer dislikes someone because of a pro-choice userbox it's the pro-lifer being offended by the other's ideology passively. When you use this tag it actively offends needlessly. WP:CIVIL#Why_is_it_bad.3F describes why this is not appropriate pretty well... and, this basically amounts to an attack template. gren GuReN6 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. If you want to put it on your user page, write it yourself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want it on your user page, don't add it. This nomination is an attempt to censor the views expressed on user pages, and is a misuse of the deletion process. We are all entitled to our opinions, at least in user space. --Dschor 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not, though. Don't you get it? This is an encyclopedia. A user page is fine for telling people about yourself or expressing yourself a little. It shouldn't be the main focus of your attention, and it certainly shouldn't be used to attack religions you disagree with in a cute boilerplate box. Wikipedia has no rule guaranteeing freedom of expression. Rhobite 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete — Dan | talk 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom and Knowledge Seeker. Palmiro | Talk 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete all advertisements for prejudice. Jkelly 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep (for now). I deplore the use of user pages to make general statements that go beyond the writ of Wikipedia; that's what people's personal websites and homepages are for, on websites which do not rely upon the charitable donations of those who gave to support an encyclopedia. But, as DESiegel and Jbamb point out, we don't have a policy which prohibits using user pages in this manner, and we have other userpage templates which express a user's real-world affinities, of which this is but one of the more extreme cases. I dread to think where this userbox trend will end, but the matter should be settled wholesale with an approved policy, not incrementally nibbled-at by TfD. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per gren. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Userbox fans need to grow up. This isn't LiveJournal. Rhobite 01:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Pending outcome of consensus process on userboxes. This box is being used as an example in that process, and I recommend people to consider participating in the process. Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete if not speedy delete. Totally POV --Doc ^ask? 02:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep for the time being and a Comment - is there any chance of holding back on the listing of userboxes until the issue is resolved outside of TFD, such as here, or perhaps even putting a temporary notice up here to ask people not to until general policy has been decided? Otherwise, the same argument is just going to be repeated over and over everytime someone decides they don't like a userbox (there was already posting an entire list of userboxes they believed should be deleted, before someone deleted the entry). --Loopy 05:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't the same issue. That's why I nominated it. This is an extraordinary userbox which goes beyond the policy argument of categorizing users by belief. This is attacking a certain segment of the wiki population's beliefs. Had this been "this user is a scientologist" it would be completely different. gren GuReN6 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - what Loopy said, this is getting old.--Naha|^(talk) 05:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, generates atmosphere of hostility. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Pepsidrinka 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, with support for continued, consensus-driven discussion of troublesome userboxes on a case-by-case basis. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:34, Jan. 4, 2006
Stong Keep. POV is allowed on a user page. If a user simply entered the text "I am vehemently against Scientology" no one would complain. Therefore no one should object to this userbox either. I don't think this userbox is really the issue here. This is simply yet another pointless dispute between those who like to design user pages and those who think they're a waste of resources. —gorgan_almighty 11:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per all the Keeps. However, I consider it a huge victory that Ms. Martin finally considers herself under the bounds of law by voting here like the rest of us. Perhaps there is some hope for this place yet. karmafist 12:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, there' no hope if we continue with cheap shots like that. --Doc ^ask? 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Jbamb.
Keep until we have a policy on userboxes. I don't want to see every single objectionable userbox individually nominated on TfD, nor do I want to see them unilaterally speedied as was recently done. Picking a few boxes and nominating them "to establish a precedent" is also a lousy solution. -Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Userboxes reflect opinions. If there are people here who are against scientology, let them feel free to say it. D a Gizza ^Chat 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete all non-encyclopedic userboxes. As for not having "attack boxes", I don't see how this is any different than the anti-women's choice userbox (*cough cough* "pro-life", whatever). --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment someone may be pro-life because they consider abortion to be a form of murder. It does not neccessitate they are against women having a choice because the former (i.e murder) trumps the latter (women's right to choose) in importance such that the latter wouldn't even come into consideration. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP: We should be allowed to say what we want on our user pages, including POV and even divicive things. It can be argued that scientology is a cult and we should be against it, but regardless, if someone is against it he/she should be able to say so, just as someone who is for it can say so.Maprov 04:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have moved this comment here from another section, since it appears to have been misplaced there. -Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep - Userpages are for opinion; NPOV & "This is an encyclopedia" don't apply. On that basis, ban all userboxes that aren't strictly descriptive, & maybe the Babel boxes too; tomebody might take offense you don't speak their language. It's my party & I'll whine if I want to. Trekphiler 14:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Withold decisions until userbox issue is resolved--Urthogie
Keep - As I keep saying we need some community discussion without either side pulling out. Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --Ian Pitchford 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete before scientology sues you for using their name! :-) Ant-boxes should only be done with humor intended. Maybe we should change this to "This user is against all brainwashing cults". TCorp 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If you want to, write it on your userpage. Neutrality^talk 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as combative and unrelated to WP. I'm waiting for the inevitable "KEEP per WP:UB#KEEP" though... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete – What would happen if somebody were to create Template:User against jews or Template:User against blacks? This really isn't any different. – Clockwork Soul 06:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per brains. Larix 11:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Pjacobi 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Extreme delete. Violation of WP:CIVIL. ^Blank ^Verse 13:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's a religion. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep for the same reason that I'd keep a pro-monarchist userbox if it came up for deletion (in fact I think I did). Though I may find the idea of a monarchy offensive, others do not. The same principle applies here. - Hayter 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete whatever the outcome of the userbox policy debate is, this doesn't belong so there's no need to wait on that discussion. We don't need people going out of their way to voice disapproval of other editors because of off-Wiki issues. And no, there isn't free speech here. Rx StrangeLove 19:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Totally agree with Neutrality. Garion96 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, This userbox is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. I'm all for the funnies and viewpoint userboxes, but being Anti-some religion is in bad taste.Gateman1997 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Userfy or subst. All Wikipedians should be permitted to state such opinions on their User pages, and if they prefer to state them in brightly-colored boxes than in prose, that's their prerogative. But it is indeed not a good idea to keep such templates in the Template namespace, where Wikipedia implicitly condones their existence. -Silence 22:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep on principal to the extent that I will now make a short speech.

It is a valid POV, even if you don't like it. By my understanding at least, as long as you discuss all the other POV's where NPOV needs to be preserved, then it's actually protected by WP:NPOV as a religion. Not that it matters much in userspace.

Wikipedia has one big thing which guarantees freedom of expression on here, which is that if it doesn't it will rapidly cease to be so good. (Rhobite, I'm talking to you here.) In userspace we don't have to have NPOV, and that is a good thing. For example, there are a small but signifigant number of wikipedians whose user pages say things like "I am a homophobe", etc, etc, etc. My user page has a series of userboxes which say things like "This user identifies as gay", "This user has a boyfriend", and so on. None of these can be mistaken for encyclopedic statements, but, when I clash with otherwise good editiors in articles about sexuality we both know where we stand, and what each others biases are. That makes wikipedia stronger I think because we can never get rid of an individuals bias, and everyone has some biases. Being aware of them is the next best thing. Tom 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Civil opinions are okay on userboxes. This opinion is not expressed in a civil way and does not deserve a cute pastel box. Ashibaka tock 02:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep The giving of personal stances on user pages is wrong? We've got problems then.Tommstein 09:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, in spite of the fact that I cannot stand the Church of Scientology or the religion. If they oppose Scientology, that is their right to express it on their user pages. Likewise, if they want to express their support for the Church of Scientology or Scientologists in general, that is their decision. In fact, I've just created a contrary template (Template:User_scientology) to be fair. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per KnowledgeSeeker. Hostility userboxes are not of any use in expressing anything except hostility, do that elsewhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete on CIVIL grounds not NPOV. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Everyone should be able to express their POV on their userpage. Keith Greer 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment But Scientology should link to Scientology. Keith Greer

17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per, gosh, everyone. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 20:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I think there is a difference between stating what one is or does believe, rather than what one does not believe. Also, this userbox is needlessly divisive. --Fang Aili 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per Dschor Search 4 Lancer 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Does no one who is voting keep understand this is saying the same thing as "I am anti-semetic" or "I am anti-Islmanic" or "I think Christians are whackos" or "I dislike athiests"? This is a personal attack on a group of people and as such is against policy.Gateman1997 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep and tone down. I don't see this as a personal attack, just as saying "I dislike Scientology". Should Wikipedia be a place where merely expressing a negative opinion that might offend somebody is not tolerated? ~~ N (t/c) 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as well as you can tell on your userpage what you like, you should be able to also say what you dislike. What if renaming it in a different way, such as Template:User dislike Scientology? --Angelo 23:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it violates the spirit of the project and WP:CIV & WP:NPA.Gateman1997 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Emphatic Keep - Users should have a right to express their viewpoints on their own user pages. Niffweed17 01:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep userboxes are free of NPOV requirements and users could simply make their own if so desired using existing templates. -Drdisque 01:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Dschor. This is getting ridiculous; if someone doesn't like scientology let him say so. Rogue 9 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Look what you guys have established precedent for... Template:User against jews Ashibaka tock 02:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Gasp! Did it ever occur to you that some people don't like Jews? A lot more people than that don't like Wiccans, but you don't see me crying. Regardless, it should be userfied. Search 4 Lancer 02:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- So, why keep the anti-Scientology one in Template namespace and userfy the anti-Jew one? Ashibaka tock 05:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Possible alternative. Just slapped this together; I hope those who use the anti-global racketeerin... I mean, anti-Scientology template will find this acceptable in the event of this one's deletion. Rogue 9 06:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. {{User against jews}} got speedied--how is this any different? -- SCZenz 06:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Because Judaism isn't a global racket and money laundering scheme. Rogue 9 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Explain to me how Judaism is any different then Scientology? They are both recognized and widely accepted world religions. Being anti one is identical to being anti the other. I am appalled this hasn't been deleted yet and frankly if this is the stance Wikipedia takes on religious issues then frankly it doesn't have a prayer. The ACLU will jump on this site like fly's on crap.Gateman1997 07:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    - The ACLU wouldn't have a chance in Hell if it did try to jump on this. As for the differences, see above. Judaism isn't a global racket and money laundering scheme. Scientology is, and has been involved in many other crimes besides, including wiretapping and obstruction of justice. The Church of Scientology behaves like the Mafia a lot of the time, and as such has earned it's opposition and rightfully so. Rogue 9 08:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    - LOL, the ACLU likes free speech too, so I don't think they're gonna touch this one. And do review WP:POINT, Gateman1997. Creating an anti-semitic template was not the right way to draw attention to this TfD. -- SCZenz
    - The ACLU defends all free-speech not just the popular kind. They lost many members for defending the ku klux klan's right to protest.--God of War 15:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      - How do you know I'm not anti-Jewish? I am Catholic and Catholics don't have the strongest Jew loving stance historically. Also it was a valid point to make. Admins are playing favorites. If Jews are protected then so should all religions from this kind of hate bullshit.Gateman1997 08:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Keep Gateman, you want me to explain how Judaism is different from Scientology in the most blunt possible terms? It's simple. Jews were actual victims of an actual genocide, while Scientologists can only claim to be reincarnated victims of a fictional billions year old intergalactic genocide that was made up by a two-bit hack science fiction writer. The suggestion that members of this lunatic celebrity cult - and especially its paid operatives - are being lined up for gas chambers is far more offensive than the userbox is. --Daniel 07:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for walking right into the kind of bigotted BS I assumed someone would write.Gateman1997 08:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

- Not bigoted if there are, in fact, rational reasons to dislike them. Bigotry is by definition unreasoning, but when an organization engages in money laundering, tax evasion, and domestic espionage there are most excellent reasonable causes for opposing that organization. Rogue 9 09:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I think I've heard this before... oh wait, it was the vast jewish conspiracy. I think Hitler was the one who was most fond of it. Same thing could be said of the Catholic Church, or many Evangelical Christians religions....Gateman1997 09:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Important differences: I'm not saying to kill Scientologists, and I have evidence that this is happening. Further, I'm making these assertions against a group that people choose to join, rather than an ethnic group. Also, Murphy's Law. You lose, good day sir. Rogue 9 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      - Judaaism isn't an ethnic group, they're a religious group.Gateman1997 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        It's both; you're born a Jew. As for Scientology, it is neither. As I've said, it is a global racket and criminal organization. Unless you want to propose that Time Magazine is part of some massive defamation conspiracy, you have basically no argument otherwise. Rogue 9 01:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Yes, you can delete the template but that doesn't stop people from creating an "I'm against scientology" userbox. --Thorri 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete linking to anti anything is not within WP:NPOV.--MONGO 14:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Super Strong Keep I will let you have your opinions and you let me have mine, deal?--God of War 15:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Djegan 15:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. —Nightstallion (?) 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Scientology is not Judaism. Judaism is a mainstream religion, thousands of years old and with a large group of adherents, whose most famous opponents are well-known for killing off lots of Jews. Scientology is a small, very recent "religion", which, if memory serves, is not recognized as a non-profit organization in very many places. It has a relatively small number of adherents, and its opponents, who are many in number, are most famous for getting sued and harrassed by Scientology a lot. Having said that, this is a fairly average userbox and what little damage it does to Wikipedia in terms of bandwidth and CPU usage is not worth trifling over. Lord Bob 21:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, free speech on User pages, but don't take it overboard. I dont think this one is going overboard. Simple as that. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as needlessly antagonistic. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Initially undecided, but per DESiegel, Keep pending development of a general userbox policy. Might it be that keeping this userbox is a bad idea? Yeah, it might be. You know what's a worse one? Telling some people "you have to delete that userbox; you're not allowed to say how opposed you are to Scientology!" and telling others "Oh, you want to put a userbox on your page telling what a fan you are of Scientology? Go ahead, nothing wrong with that!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to know exactly why Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) decided that the fate of this template should be decided, not at Templates for deletion, but by his own unilateral choice. That's frankly the sort of thing admins lose their adminships for, for knowing what the correct process is, but using their admin powers to circumvent it rather than to ensure it runs smoothly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I'm not a fan of Scientology either, but this is uncivil. - Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 12:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment — "I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs..." -Grenavitar (talk · contribs) (nominee of vote) — The thing is, there's nothing to stop people putting such statements on their user page without having a "pretty coloured box" to put the point of view in. And as per WP:NPOV/WP:UP, user pages are not required to be NPOV. Deleting user boxes will not stop people from having points of view.

Important point: In most countries Scientology is not recognised as a religion nor a charitable organisation. And looking at articles like Office of Special Affairs, Rehabilitation Project Force (neo-Gulags) or Xenu you can see why. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Personally I love userboxes -even the POV boxes that don't attack someone-, and I dislike Scientology, but this is a personal attack on a belief. -- Sneltrekker 14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Scientology isn't a religion. 82.26.163.91 14:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (anons can't vote.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω</span> ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

Comment — Scientology is NOT a religion in most countries: The governments of Germany and Belgium officially regard the Church as a totalitarian cult; in France, a parliamentary report classified Scientology as a dangerous cult; in the United Kingdom and Canada the Church is not regarded as meeting the legal standards for being considered a bona fide religion (see Church of Scientology). In America it holds "charitable organisation" status, but it's widely believed that this was obtained through blackmail too.

It's also the only "religion" to hold officially-endorsed concentration camps/Gulags ("Rehabilitation Project Force") and a branch dedicated for propaganda and silencing/defamation of critics/"Suppressive Persons" (Office of Special Affairs).. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I know it is not considered a religion in my own country and others, and I did not label it as a religion. I also dislike their practices and gulags. It is however, still a belief. And attacking it, is still considered personal attacks on the users that uphold this belief to me. -- Sneltrekker 14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Attacking Scientology is not the same as attacking Judaism, it is the same as attacking fascism. Anyway, as I have said in the users againsts Jews section, I think all userboxes should be allowed to remain, and I will repeat, you don't combat beliefs that you depsise by preventing an individual from expressing it, you do it by arguing down the belief once it has been allowed to be expressed. --Horses In The Sky 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete--Sean|Bla ck 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, we shouldn't encourage members of the community to be divisive by giving them such a template to put on their user pages. JYolkowski // talk 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Super Keep as per all keeps above D a Gizza ^Chat 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Userboxes, no problem. Attack boxes, problem. Grace Note 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep"". It's a scam. james_anatidae 08:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: JESUS H. CHRIST! This has to be one of the most immature and emotionally guided discussions I have ever seen on Wikipedia. We are not discussing whether Scientology is a totalitarian cult (which I think it is, and so do many) or not (which many others think is also the case). Yes, Germany regards it as a totalitarian cult. Yes, there are accusations that they bought their way to charitable status in the US. But then there are people against Jews, against Christianity, against Islam. This userbox is not being nominated on the basis of whether Scientology is a viable religion or whether expressing dislike/hatred of it is acceptable. It is being discussed on the basis of whether NPOV is valid on user pages and whether this constitutes a personal attack. This nomination has turned into an anti-userbox, anti-Scientology rant. Grow up people!. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep There is no idea in censoring userboxes. Free expression on talk pages must be allowed. Elrith 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep If a user feels scientology is a hypocritical, psuedoscientific, commericial cult that they should oppose, until freedom of speech is outlawed on WP userpages, they should be allowed to say so. - Hayter 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Although I personally feel that anyone who uses this template is being rather crass and obvious about it (and also not focusing their opposition specifically enough; this template should say "Church of Scientology", not just "Scientology"), I must nonetheless vote Keep for one simple reason: because it says "Scientology", not "Scientologists". The reason the "user against jews" template was deleted is because it said "Jews" (a group of people) rather than "Judaism" (a loose religious ideology). The former may be unacceptable to some (though I don't see a terribly big deal with it; it's about as silly as saying "I hate people with red hair!" or "I hate people who live in the southern hemisphere!"... what's the point of getting mad about such arbitrary nonsense?), but the latter I fail to see any problems with. Would we delete a template that said "I am vehemently opposed to racism" or "I am vehemently opposed to Microsoft" or "I am vehemently opposed to the United States of America"? It's not nearly as bad as saying "I hate racists" or "I hate Bill Gates" or "I hate Americans", now is it? But whatever we decide, let's at least be consistent. -Silence 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I know this debate is pretty much over, but for clarification the template about Jews actually stated quote, "This users is vehemently against Judaism". Not Jews but Judaism and it was deleted.Gateman1997 22:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  - But the template was named User against jews.--Prosfilaes 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- An excellent point, Silence. I wonder if the people who created the "user against Jews" template to make a POINT about their opinions forgot to

Did I miss something? The template is suddenly gone and there is no note here of the discussion closing.--God of War 01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs), who apparently decided that being an admin means you get to ignore ongoing TfD discussions and just do whatever the hell you want to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Scientology is not a religion but a rather scary scam; many courts in many countries have decided so. Let's put it like this: anyone here will not condone murder, fraud or theft but srive to write possibly neutral articles on these crimes. The comparison with Judaism fails miserably. Pilatus 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You're half-wrong there: Scientology is indeed a rather scary scam, but it's also a religion. Whoever said the two were mutually exclusive? A cult is just a type of religion too, and the only people who would argue otherwise are the ones who think that a religion is inherently "good" (and, on the other hand, there are the extremists who say "religion is inherently bad"; we have plenty of both on Wikipedia), much like someone would argue that only a nice guy can be a Christian. Whether something is a scam or not makes little difference; it's an organized spiritual belief system that plenty of people believe in. In that light, it's more of a religion than a lot of other "religions" that we have boxes for, like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Discordianism.
Furthermore, a lot of people seem to have rather jumped a few points in logic and made the unjustified assumption that it's somehow wrong to oppose something just because it's a religion. This makes no sense whatsoever to me, and I fail to see how it furthers Wikipedia's aims; why should religious support be treated differently than religious opposition (if you're only basing it on whether the religion's popular or not, we'll have a real problem), or from support for any other ideology (even more of a problem here; if you aren't allowed to vehemently oppose Scientology in a pastel box, are you not allowed to oppose racism, war, persecution, capitalism, grammatical prescriptionism, etc.?) for that matter? The right to be offensive in what you believe is a fundamental and sacred one, and should not be violated for people's personal userpage layout and content choices. We have userboxes for people who are members of all sorts of religions, for "this user is interested in religion", and for "this user thinks the world would be better off without religion"; why not some more specific variants when it helps people feel special about their ideological differences? Userboxes are like pogs: they're an amusing fad and should be tolerated whenever they do no real harm until people move on. And I'm ranting, so I will go now. -Silence 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have requested undeletion at WP:DRV#Template:User_against_scientology. Regardless of whether or not this template has any merit it should be undeleted for the course of this tfd. All of your opinions count for nothing if the tfd process here is ignored.--God of War 05:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment this TfD might have run its course, though. It has been 7 days since it was nominated, right? Tony's actions may well be out of process, but perhaps less out of process than you think? (I thought the closing admin usually announced their read on the consesus, carried out the deletion if that was consensus, and archived the discussion... none of that has happened but the template apparently is deleted). So color me confused.

Or annoyed that Tony's acting out of process again. I'm just not sure which it is yet. In any case... I'm in the camp that holds that process (despite WP:IAR tradition, and despite my fear of m:instruction creep) is the way to ensure that things are done fairly and that users aren't turned off by the actions of admins. Follow process and people accept that the outcome may not have been as they like (that's what consensus is, after all... not everyone agreeing that the consensus view is RIGHT... just everyone agreeing that the consensus view is one they can go along with even if they personally don't agree with it) but that it was achieved fairly and that the future holds more fairness. Trample process and people become jaded about process, about tradition, about the project, about (perhaps worst) admins in general.... now I think being an admin is a thankless job and one I'm not sure I'd ever want, and the last thing I want to do is make it harder for those admins trying their hardest to do the right thing. So Tony, can you PLEASE follow process? It usually gets the right result, if perhaps not as fast as you like. ++Lar: t/c 06:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sam Fisher

This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, having a separate template for every article defeats the purpose of having a template in the first place. - Bobet 11:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, the same effect can be made with HTML, can't it? --Liface 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The character of "Sam Fisher" is significant enough to warrant his own template. -- Crevaner 13:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: did you look at the template itself? Which other article could you possibly use this on? - Bobet 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It isn't accepted practice to break out portions of an article using templates. Now this is subst:ed, it can go away as unnecessary. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unused. Notability does not come into it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Is not used and not needed - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 19:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Niffweed17 01:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Thorri 11:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Bobet. - Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 11:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession

Comment - the battles that use Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession should be changed to the other one, then it can be deleted.
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Kirill Lok s hin 22:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Advertising

Unused and unuseful. — Dan | talk 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite unuseful (though not quite unused). Delete and re-create as a redirect to Template:Advert. —Cryptic (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Cryptic - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 17:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, was used for the failed Answers.com deal, now only being used as a joke on various user pages. Quaque (talk • contribs) 17:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I remember accidently tagging an article with this one once instead of Template:Advert and thought of listing it myself here... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per Cryptic. the wub "?!" 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. - Hayter 17:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No redirect. User:Noisy | Talk 10:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete As per nom. Dustimagic 18:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. WikiFanatic 03:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cemetery and Template:Cemetery

No idea what this is about. One editor thinks it might be a game. I think it's merely a mistake and propose deletion. -- Longhair 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's supposed to be a template for creating articles about cemeteries. Delete, because it's pretty fairly useless.--Sean|Bla ck 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I created the template for cemetery entries. What is your reason for wanting to delete it? It is used for the same reason as all templates, to create a standardized format for all entries in this category
- Your understanding of the use of templates appears to be misunderstood. Please review Wikipedia:Template_namespace for more information. -- Longhair 23:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am still not sure what you are referring to. Which rule has been broken? Is it not useful? Is it not encylopedic? I use it to ensure that each cemetery I add has the same format when I transclude the template. Should I move it to my namespace? If I do then it defeats the purpose of standardization. Or have a stored my template in the wrong namespace? I am new to templates so be patient with me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

- You can still transclude a template from your userspace, yes. However, the problem here is that it's not really a template- it's fine for a standardised format for cemetery articles, but the problem is that the way trancslusion works will produce just what the template says unless you include optional parameters (which is difficult and confusing). I'd suggest moving the template into your userspace, then dragging it into the empty edit box and filinf it out when making a new article.--Sean|Bla ck 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This isn't the purpose of templates. The logical alternative to such over-templating is to establish a page on a single, important cemetery and use that page as a "template" for future cemetery pages. - Cuivienen 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, looks like a misunderstanding of what templates are per User:Longhair. Templates are something to be included in an article, not a tool for creating substubs through subst:ing. - Bobet 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not what templates are for, although it is an understandable mistake. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
So, um, are there supposed to be two templates under consideration here, or just the same one linked twice? —Cryptic (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not really required. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Userfy and then delete. An understandable mistake. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:FormerGA

"This article has been delisted as a good article". Given the unofficiality of WP:GA, there seems hardly any point to list and categorize articles that were at one point considered "good" and no longer considered so, or were considered "not quite good enough but still decent" or whatever. Delete. R adiant _>|< 10:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep - wasn't this already listed and kept? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I can see this being used. But move it to Template:Former-GA for conventions. - Cuivienen 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Redundant to {{DelistedGA}}, which survived TfD, although I whole-heartedly endorse the GA project. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Template:DelistedGA, which should in turn have the box deleted and replaced with only a category: as long as this is only a proposed project without community consensus support, we should not be defacing the Talk pages of hundreds of articles with a big box that is totally useless by virtue of not in any way improving the editorial process. However, by keeping the template in existence, we can in the future easily re-add the box if there is ever consensus to do so, and in the meanwhile the template can consist entirely of a category that will allow easy navigation of all of these articles for those who are interested, but will be 100% non-intrusive for those who dislike or oppose the project or think there are already too many huge, cluttering, arbitrary boxes on articles and article Talk pages already (which there are). The exact same thing should be done with Template:GA: remove the box, but keep Category:Wikipedia good articles linked so anyone interested in the project can easily navigate it. Win-win situation. -Silence 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Silence, having a box for this is ridiculous. Good Articles is a fine project but we don't need to know what they didn't like, they can just drop a note on the talk page. If it does get kept, delete the box. Ashibaka tock 04:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete What is the difference between, say, an unreferenced article you find by clicking the random article link, and an unreferenced article with {{FormerGA}} or {{DelistedGA}} added to its talk page? The answer is nothing. There are plenty of more specific templates available for noting flawed articles, such as {{unreferenced}} and {{reqimage}}. Noting "good" articles may be useful, noting non-"good" articles is not and if someone is seeking them, plenty can be found at Category:Wikipedia maintenance.—jiy (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete It will be much more useful to make a section on the talk page saying "I removed the GA template because.." Sometimes templates just encourage laziness--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. There is also a template for former featured articles so why delete this one?--Fenice 08:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Silence. Fenice may not be aware that this is only a proposed project, not something which has firm guidelines and process yet. Delisting something from a non-existent process is just silly. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, although my intent for this vote is to point out that (1) the nomination of this template for deletion was not announced on Wikipedia talk: Good articles where this proposed project is being discussed & would have attracted informed votes, & (2) the votes here for & against this template reflect the opinions expressed on that Talk page (that is, those for deleting have stated they are against the Good article proposal & those against deleting this template are in favor of the proposal). If the nominator did want to simplify matters, why not first announce his intent on the Talk page, where we could achive a consensus & have deleted this template very speedily? -- llywrch 20:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, unjustified accusations of bad faith aside (and I notice your advertisement hasn't attracted even a single additional vote so far, so really, what's the big deal...), did you even notice that this article is a lower-quality carbon-copy of Template:DelistedGA? Please read the specific comments before you assume that we're all corrupt, biased system-exploiters out to attack the GA project every chance we get; I said to (1) redirect this one to the standard ("DelistedGA") for the sake of consistency, and (2) to change the content of the templates, not to delete any of the templates used by the GA project. I don't care how many templates you use, I just care that you, like everyone else, use them efficiently and without undue clutter. -Silence 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. DelistedGA seems better but we only need one of them. I choose that one. gren グレン ^? 11:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User POV pusher

Apparantly created only to make a point in the discussion below. Not used, doesn't seem really useful anyway. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedied per creator requested below. --Wgfinley 07:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

- Speedy delete anything that actually encourages violations of Wikipedia policy.--Sean|Bla ck 02:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete and no cookies to the creator's for his weird WP:POINT. This is created and unused, knowing it will be nominated for an acrimonious deletion; what a waste of time! --Doc ^ask? 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... Delete because it was made as a WP:POINT. I would support the return of this template were it not making a point as it explicitly does not promote POV on Wikipedia. - Cuivienen 04:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Del Per all above DaGizza^Chat ^(c) 05:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Serious WP:POINT violation. -- SCZenz 05:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete obvious failure of WP:NOT.--MONGO 06:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, go ahead and delete, not as funny as User vandal. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 09:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)