Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 January 22)
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22, 2006 edit

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Lakes of the Philippines edit

Template:Infobox Lakes of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete — Redundant and just overtemplatization at all. --Darwinek 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom --Loopy e 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too specific and little, if any, use -   • Dussst • T | C 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. They actually have lakes in the Phillipines that are bigger than duck ponds? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 06:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep per consensus. Ian13|talk 17:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User freedom edit

Template:User freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Kill it with fire — Template is counter Jimbo's request, as well as likley to cause disruption and irreprable harm to wikipedia. Remember, there is no free speech on wikipedia. Tznkai 17:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently I was unclear. This is likley to cause disruption and irreprable harm because it is:
  1. A presentation of wikipolitical views
  2. By its nature, confrontational (specificly targeting against supposed policy that may someday exist)
  3. Encourages confrontational attitudes "I don't have to be neutral myself, and I get to keep my userboxes and you can't do otherwise"

Also intrestingly there is policy allowing this template to exist, and Jimbo asked us, and for good reason, to keep our politics off the project.--Tznkai 03:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. No valid basis for deletion specified, just fear-mongering ("irreprable harm to wikipedia"?!). If you wish to propose that "Jimbo isn't pleased by it" be a basis for deletion on its own (i.e. without any other valid justification), feel free to create that proposal so that it can get added to the VfD page. Until then, no go. Also, this template actually doesn't claim anything about free speech: the current version of the template is a vandalized form, due to a single editor's efforts to repeatedly edit the template to express the opposite view and mock those who hold the view, just because he happens to personally disagree with that view himself. That editor was banned for 3RR as a result of the conflict, but unfortunately, some misguided person Protected the page at around the same time, and Protected it right after the vandal's last edit. So now we're in a pretty ridiculous state of affairs, where a single simple revert would solve the problem and instead we've got people jumping through all sorts of arbitrary bureaucratic hoops, taking advantage of a troll's muckraking to try to push their own anti-userbox agenda on a random, rather innocuous box which simply expresses the opinion that people should be allowed to express their opinions in userboxes (it doesn't mention anything about people having the right to do so! it doesn't even mention "Free speech" in its original version, it merely states an opinion about what people should be permitted to do. People on Wikipedia are permitted to use the word "finger" even though there's no "right to say finger" in Wikipedia's rules.). Can we please not turn this into yet another meaningless, drawn-out Userbox Politics Poll ("I hate all userboxes! DELETE" "Damn you deletionist anti-userbox fascists! KEEP!" "You're not being nice to me! DELETE" etc.) and just speedy-keep it? Disagreeing with someone's opinion isn't a reason to delete that opinion, nor is the fact that a single person decided to try to screw around with a page for a few minutes (a person who also vandalized numerous other templates at the same time he did this one) justification to annihilate that page. Plus even if you disagree with the box, it's surely a useful thing, since it identifies people who you feel grossly misunderstand Wikipedia policy. -Silence 17:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the current version of the template is not the vandalised version. Mark1 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake, thanks. It got reverted after the last time I saw it. -Silence 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Please don't use Jimbo's statement as justification to start another userbox war. As he says here, [1], "I am specifically trying to avoid another mass deletion.". This userbox is not harmful in any way.--God of War 18:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Per Silence and God of War. I don't know what "There is no free speech on Wikipedia" is supposed to mean. --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 18:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep You censor user pages, it's only a matter of time before articles are censored as well, perhaps to a certain slant of a certain person... That's not what Wikipedia should be. Karmafist 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Jimbo specificly asked that people stop using templates, not calling for their deletion (although I did menton to him at the time I feared that is what would happen). Ian13ID:540053 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no evidence of any disruptive effect. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Per Silence and God of War - TheKeith   20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless crap --Doc ask? 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as a bad faith nomination. We've had enough of these pointless userbox debates for it to be clear that the vast majority supports non-offensive userboxes. Further nominations of such non-offensive userboxes are in bad faith and waste space on this page. - Cuivienen 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure where you get the evidence to judge my good faith or lacktherof.--Tznkai 06:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Silence and God of War. —Andux 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! The kind of bad-faith actions shown in this template's history is just so sad. Larix 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -- On Wikipedia there is only a certain level of free speech, not general free speech. We need that certain level in order to produce good articles, see: the discussion pages. This userbox fits nicely within such discussion page boundaries. It only states what the user would like there to be (user pages should be able to represent the user, including her POV) and nothing more. This then is only a wish, not a license. Users know that. No user was uncivil or untrue on her user page, and 'justified' that rudeness by a reference to this userbox as if it was a license. Therefore, users opposing the wish cannot pretend that with the stating of the wish people allow themselves to be uncivil or untrue. -- ActiveSelective 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep until a consensus is reached banning expression of beliefs and opinions on unserpages. - Hayter 00:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Silence and God of War. Clarinetplayer 03:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tznkai. I see no nonconfrontational use for this template and in particular no encyclopedic use for it. Michael Slone (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been speedy deleted by User:MarkSweep I asked him to undelete pending this discussion. Larix 13:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why'd you do that? He's clearly going with the majority.[/sarc] - Hayter 16:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reported reason was "Wikipedia is WP:NOT a battleground, soapbox, blog; "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia."; if you disagree, take it to Wikipedia talk:User page and get a consensus there; the way to chan)"--Tznkai 16:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By the by, I can't seem to recall a reason to call this "speedy keep" as opposed to just keep, unless this was nominated fordeletion already recently.--Tznkai 16:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Deletion / Speedy Keep. Yin / Yang. (No, there is no CSK that I know about.) Sct72
  • Here is the deletion log. [2]. This needs to be undeleted quickly. Why do admins think they can get away with this?--God of War 17:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No basis to delete, nom seems in obvious bad faith. This has been deleted out-of-process. I have undelated and am bringign this to WP:DRV. DES (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a little confused on the basis for calling this an obvious bad faith basless deletion, having outlined my reasons above. Care to explain?--Tznkai 17:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given the recent history of user box deletions, and the huge pro-keep consensus for this page, I can not think that the deletion is anything but an abuse. It was celarly out-of-process, not sanctioned by WP:CSD nor any other policy, including Wikipedia:Deletion policy. While the TfD reusults could not have been known at the time of the nom, the history of the userbox conflicts was, and IMO nominating any user box at this time, prior to the adoption of a clear policy on user boxes, or a modification of WP:UP, seems to me to savor of bad faith. I have just finished reporting my own action in undeleting at WP:DRV. DES (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • continued on user talk:DESiegel--Tznkai 17:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In view of the further commetns on my talk page, i now conclude that the nom was actually in good faith, but took so little account of the relevant recent history of this issue as to jsutify a speedy keep regardless of teh intentions of the nominator. DES (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've read those comments and agree that the nominator, while appearing to be acting in bad faith, is simply ignorant of previous discussions on the issue. - Cuivienen 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this a valid deletion nom, and all the Speedy Keeps above are severely off-base. Wikipedia is what it is—an encyclopedia—not what a bunch of its current users happen to think it is, no matter how many of you are upset that your user pages are being attacked. We don't need a policy on userboxes for it to be fair to say "I think this userbox is a bad idea." -- SCZenz 17:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a speedy keep because there are no policies this userbox is violating and the consensus is clear that this is going to be kept.--God of War 17:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "This userbox is not harmful in any way" <-- Not true. It does not help us make the encyclopedia and it is wasting our time. --JWSchmidt 17:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just delete all userpages then? Ian13ID:540053 17:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasting our time? Hah! This wasn't wasting anyone's time until it was nominated for deletion.--God of War 17:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete. Ignore the bad faith keeps above. —Cryptic (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes the alerts box. I understand it was added (athough I personally oppose it), but BOTH sides felt they kept missing votes, and it was introduced so people could fine them ealisy, than then make their own choise. I am amazed by your bad faith however. Ian13ID:540053 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no problem with users expressing opinions in user space. This is outside of userspace and has nothing at all to do with writing an encyclopedia. Rx StrangeLove 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How's this outside a userspace? --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its inside template space--Tznkai 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is my strong view thawt a template obviously intentd to be used exclusively in userspace should be judged by the same rules as content in user space generally (i.e. by WP:UP). That is the case here. A tempalte intended for use in articel space should generally be judged by article space rules (for example [[WP:NPOV should apply); and a tempalte celarly intended for exclusiver or near exclusive use in the wikipedia namespace should be judged by project space rules. What counts withe a tempalte is where it is used. DES (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree, it may be intended for use in userspace but it can be used anywhere. People are using them on talk pages of editors that have not put them there themselves. An individuals personal beliefs should be limited to their userspace and not used in a way where it can be added/displayed where ever someone wants to put it. Rx StrangeLove 06:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep perfectly valid userbox. Those who think is should be deleted don't understand the basic principles of Wikipedia, which this template encapsulates.  Grue  18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those who get so worked up about the deletion of a userbox probably don't understand the goal of Wikipedia. Hint: Wikipedia is not Livejournal or Myspace. Carbonite | Talk 18:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I HATE Livejournal and Myspace, yet I want to see this kept. --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — A valid point to allow people to express POV on their userpage. →AzaToth 20:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — It's to ugly, my eyes are bleeding. →AzaToth 20:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that knowing eachother's POVs helps us to balance them and produce NPOV articles. So I say: this userbox does help us make the encyclopedia! Yes, you may disagree with that and say that no POVs should be allowed on user pages. However, not allowing users to show that they would have liked a POV on the userpage (even without filling in any concrete POV yet) is quite extreme! What then with all the users that have overstepped this small request and immediately went for the many explicite POV-boxes pro/contra Bush, pro/contra Evolution Theory, pro/contra Israel? (I am afraid this will lead to endless annoying edit wars) -- ActiveSelective 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ActiveSelective et al. --James S. 22:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a magnet for POV mongers who resist any effort to make any alteration to their preferred version, and whom abuse Wikipedia policy to silence their opposition. I tried a half dozen different compromises, and rather than discussing they just called my good intentioned edits vandalism.--Gmaxwell 00:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gmaxwell, your edits were clearly, if not vandalism, bad faith actions designed to provoke an angry response. There is no defense for editing a userbox to change its meaning to the opposite (per your first edit to userbox) or your subsequent edits which significantly changed the meaning of what was said. - Cuivienen 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No apparent encyclopedia-building value. (We have 30,000+ untagged images to clean up, that would be far more helpful to spend time on.) Stan 01:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally, 100%, absolute, Keep ad infinitum. The text of the box is "This user feels that only articles need a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned." This seems to be more a anti / pro userbox debate. If we get rid of this userbox, we might as well get rid of the whole "Politics and Beliefs" userbox category - not to mention all self-identifying userboxes! Sct72
  • If you copy-paste all of the above text and replace "keep" with "delete", you get a pretty accurate summation of the view of anti-userbox people. Plenty of people think we should get rid of the whole "Politics and Beliefs" section; that's why debates like this on individual templates are largely useless, and a speedy keep is in order: 95% of the people who vote "delete" on this userboxes would also vote "delete" on most other belief-related userboxes (or on most other userboxes period), so it's inefficient to arbitrarily pick this userbox rather than simply putting the whole mass to the vote (or at least nominating them all simultaneously and letting users vote on which ones to keep and which to delete en masse). -Silence 14:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP тəzєті 06:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep template. Delete deletionism. --Dschor 08:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per God of War and Jimbo Wales: [3], "I am specifically trying to avoid another mass deletion.". -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 15:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Dschor. Stop deleting everything! -   • Dussst • T | C 15:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Theres such thing as legitimate disagreement,but you guys cannot have it both ways. We have people complaining on one hand about the "mass deletion" and on the other hand complaining about this one template being picked on. This isn't supposed to be just a vote, its supposed to be a discussion, and there should be implied rationality involved. If you disagree with any of my statements above, please say so and refute them, point by point if you want to, I relish the idea of a reasoned discussion. Whitewashing people as "deletionist" or "pro/anti userbox isn't going to get us anywhere good.--Tznkai 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think you are turning the argument upside down, splitting it in two. Deleting this soft userbox ("i like to have a POV on my userpage") for being POV logically implies you will mass delete all the hard (or 'worse') userboxes ("i do have a POV on my userpage and it is that i am pro-Gearge UU Bash"). So the people here can rightfully argue that picking on this userbox in order to delete it is a prelude to major edit wars, which we should prevent. Don't pretend we lack rationality, while you are calling to 'kill with fire'. -- ActiveSelective 22:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC) -- However, I do see a point in loosing the subjective userboxes, although I haven't heard the argument here yet. I think it takes a different approach (than just picking on one random userbox) but that is another discussion on another page.[reply]
I'm really nto on a campaign here. I arrived here because of an incident on AN/I. I believe this template is disruptive as I said. I have no agenda otherwise, I just think this template has got to go.--Tznkai 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to get userboxes deleted isn't doing any good either so just leave them be and go edit something.--God of War 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that it isn't doing anything good. This userbox is by its nature confrontational. I don't care if its shaped like an octagon, or a barnstar, its likley to cause disruption. All editors, adminstrators especially, are encouraged to protect the project. This template is picking a fight.--Tznkai 21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is confrontational is this repeated push to get all of the userboxes deleted. It's just not going to happen. If you were to just ignore the userboxes there would be much more peace on wikipedia. Please think about this.--God of War 22:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not a fan of user boxes, but I can't see how this one will "cause disruption and irreparable harm to Wikipedia." Also, it's important to vote against the kind of bullying we've seen around this issue of late. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Change to delete per GraceNote's comment on my talk page, which I found persuasive, though I still want to note that, if this box was deliberately taunting the other "side," it maybe had good reason. But it's time to stop the dynamic, so delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. POV has not yet been banned from userboxes (actually, jsut as this userbox expresses). Currently, user pages do not fall under NPOV, and no consensus has been reached as to whether userbox templates used on user pages fall under NPOV. Deleting this would lead to a needless quick deleteion of all POV userboxes, which happens to be a large amount of them. -Xol 22:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This box is a vehicle for pointless grandstanding. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a blog, soapbox, or battleground. And there is a user page policy which regulates (vaguely) what is acceptable content for user pages. To the extent that this box affirms existing policy it is redundant; and to the extent that it opposes existing policy it is ineffective. Policies are not changed by sticking colorful boxes on one's user page. Policies are changed by discussion. Certain user boxes, and this one in particular, send out a very wrong signal to newcomers and should go. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reply only with this....
  Hi! I am a userbox with a POV. I won't hurt you, I promise! Pretty please don't delete me.

--God of War 22:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we could all do with cooling down. I don't think "irreparable harm" will be done to Wikipedia by this userbox but it certainly won't be helped any by fighting over it. How ridiculous! I do think though that the intent of the userbox is to taunt or upset other users, and consequently I vote to delete it per this very important policy. Grace Note 23:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that Grace Note has the right of it up to a point, though I'm not sure that taunting or upsetting is the intention of users. I'm glad that I missed what seems to have been an almighty and ugly piece of silliness concerning all this over the vacation, so the point is somewhat lost on me — but the box does seem to be no more than a sort of Wiki-political badge, and I don't much like the idea of that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe Kelly Martin's, and more recently GMaxwell's actions were very poor approaches to dealing with userboxes, but the truth still is that we would not want Wikipedia to disintegrate into a bunch of clubs determined by personal beliefs. That does not help in creating a neutral encyclopedia. That said, the more sectarian userboxes must go. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, encourages confrontationalness. JYolkowski // talk 03:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for this. If we want to arue about POV in userboxes, we should go here. Until that is resolved, this box should stay. -Xol 04:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you don't like it, don't use it on your userpage. But I do not see any real good reason to prevent others from using it. — Ливай   04:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tally - 24 Keep, 16 Delete. Continue or close? Sct72 05:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The anti-userbox folks should learn that the best way to avoid a confrontation is to stop sparking them in WP:TFD. --Daniel 05:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Can't we just stop this assault on userboxes. --Horses In The Sky 11:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - TCorp 16:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep My beliefs are important to me and I don't mind displaying them. For all those people who don't like POV userboxes -- don't use them. Conflict is a part of life. Some people choose to run away from it, some to avoid it. I say, allow some people the choice to invite it, if they so choose. After all, any person who id going who is willing to go beyond a discussion, and verbally attack another person for his/her views, lives in a small, small world. My convictions are more important to me than any conflict that might arise from letting them be known. --Brian1979
I'm sorry, you're saying we should allow people to invite conflict? How is inviting conflict over something that does not help write an encyclopedia a good thing? This isn't a place to express your convictions, we are writing an encyclopedia here and I do not see how inviting conflict over someones convictions helps us with that. Rx StrangeLove 18:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my userpage is a place where I can write whatever I want, and I should be able to express myself however I choose. Userpages are not a part of the encyclopedia. Further, the only conflict I've seen has been stirred by this userbox being nominated for deletion. Exressing personal views only invites conflict from small-minded people...and small-minded people are a fact of life. Why should we be censored? --Brian1979 04:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the argument that says this box only encourages people to be confrontational and fuel the userbox arguments. Don't taunt the other side about being able to state your beliefs, just state your beliefs calmly without making a war out of it and without seeming to taunt those who disagree and we won't be in these messes. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (already voted) I argue that this box is NPOV - It does not say that "POV is okay in userboxes/userspace", but rather that the user whose page this box is on feels that way. -Xol 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Xolatron; the box itself is fine within the context of user pages, as it is simply expressing a belief of the user. -Chairman S. 07:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - as there's nothing wrong with expressing ones own view in his/her user page.Those who don't like it don't use it, those who like it can put it in their user pages. It's as simple as that--Wikipedian DOG 10:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MarkSweep and Grace Note --- Charles Stewart(talk) 20:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or cleanup if possible, needlessly confrontational. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First ugly - second another box that seeks to divide us as wikipedians Trödel•talk 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugly is in the eyes of the beholder, and the box seeks no such division. It simply states a users opinion - something that is to be encouraged on User pages. --Dschor 02:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that's where you're wrong. Opinions may be tolerated on user pages, but there is nothing in current policy that would encourage arbitrary opinions to be expressed on user pages. On the contrary, current policy indicates that Wikipedia is NOT a blog or soapbox. This box serves no useful purpose as far as writing an encyclopedia is concerned. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Livajo and common sense. --Aaron 18:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone here please look at the original wording. User:Tony Sidaway is trying to change this box to make it sound like a violation of the soapbox rule.--God of War 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After reviewing the statements in this TfD I can't help but side with the keeps, for all of the reasons stated above. Snurks T C 21:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. 'Nuf Said. 70.70.212.72 22:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Unless a userbox is blatantly violating the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, any userbox should be allowed, including this one. And this one isn't really controversial as it merely states the opinion that Wikipedians should be able to express their opinions using userboxes. I see absolutely no problem with it as long is it doesn't violate any rules or guidelines (as I stated above). --nihon 22:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -- For the love of God, would you actually read the text of this userbox and stop fucking with the userboxes! --Dragon695 22:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sct72. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 23:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Irreparable harm? That's hilarious. If userboxes do any harm, it's because these debates over them put us at each others' throats. We got along fine with userboxes before deletionists started making a big deal out of them. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep No demonstable evidence of any conflict. --Emerald807 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wasn't this up for deletion some 3 times already? Oh right, that was every other template that contained an opinion. --Fang Aili 05:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless Boddah 14:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are people just proposing things for deletion cause they are bored? Stop deleting EVERYTHING. - Mike Beckham 14:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userpages are not articles and do not carry the same NPOV, objective standpoint, they are not encyclopaedic but expressionist. Wikipedia is not a Nanny State!! Ciriii 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I am in favour of allowing userboxes which express a user's POV in his or her own space, and I was certainly opposed to the massive out-of-process deletion, even if it was done out of a sincere wish for the good of the encyclopaedia. I am also aginst the deliberate vandalism of such boxes, to make them say the opposite of what the creator intended. Nevertheless, as far as I can see, part of the purpose of this userbox is to taunt and to be confrontational. So, delete, but just weak delete, as I've seen much worse, and I think the confrontational purpose was only part of the purpose. AnnH (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Silence and God of War.    Guðsþegn – UTCE – 19:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ain't nothing wrong with this userbox. Nate 20:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does't look to be a bad thing, it's even rather popular. Janizary 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What's the harm in a userbox for this? Of course users should be allowed to state opinions on userpages, and of course they ought to be allowed to have a userbox stating this opinion. Down with censorship. Kelisi 21:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whenever I look at my userpage, there's at least one userbox up there that's up for deletion. The war of the userboxes is over, and I see no reason to delete this box. It's not disruptive in any possibly way I can think of. SoothingR 22:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no reason to delete this template. It is perfectly legit. Kickboy 01:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what's the big deal? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:27, Jan. 29, 2006
  • Strong Speedy Keep Like a Cheetah Seriously, why even nom this for deletion if your intentions AREN'T to enforce strict NPOV on user pages?! E. Sn0 =31337= 05:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with user below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeroberts (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep nomination does not claim any valid reason for deletion Cynical 17:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confrontational, Wikipolitical and polemical. --—Wikiacc • ∂ 19:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have great respect for Jimbo and I disagree with him on the userbox issue. Lawyer2b 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep Nothing wrong with it. Why don't we focus on getting rid of ridiculously dumb categories like: Category:Living people. --CFIF 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per Silence and God of War. Why not? It's not like we're saying no NPOV with articles, it's just on non-articles. I don't see any wrong with this category. It's perfectly legit, like Kickboy has said. And if those who feel it's a waste of time having this userbox on userpages, well, nobody asked you to put it on your pages, have we? You say delete because having opinions will start battles, but...People have different opinions, and while we shouldn't start a war over it, we should respect for others' opinions as well, no matter how much we disagree. I don't think such a userbox like this should be deleted—it is not advocating specific views in general that is offending to anyone, just that personal opinions should be allowed to be expressed on non-articles. The point of this userbox, for me, is certainly NOT to "goad" the other side or advocate bullying in any way. —Mirlen 00:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keepety keep - our userpages are sacred... --Username132 02:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. And stop fucking up my userpage formatting by making the deletion notices necessary. Note: I propose doing this by LEAVING USERBOXES THE HELL ALONE, not by not putting in the notice. Rogue 9 02:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Leave the userboxes alone and concentrate on article issues. There are far too many people trying to implement Jimbo's perceived wishes. If he wants to make it an explicit command then abolish ArbCom, Administrators, and Beurocrats to let the Wikimedia Board have dictate on all issues. --StuffOfInterest 14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a vote Can we please close this discussion, and keep this template? It seems clear that it will not be deleted. Thanks. --Dschor 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It shows a user's opinion. Heck, why delete any userboxes? You can just copy and paste the template coding into your user page. I believe that if it's on a userpage, that user wants it there, and it shows that user's opinion on various things in life, and facts about them. Having whatever you want on your user page is completely okay, unless it clearly shows a lethal threat or shows derogation to specific people. --G VOLTT 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With Passion - I agree with Username132, if we don't have our userpages to keep to ourselves, then what do we have? A system trying to quell opinions? This is absurd-we have our own veiws, and should be allowed to express them. Dee man45 21:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Keep Do you really want to censor a userbox for opposing censorship? Perodicticus 21:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is often referred to as a community. How can you have a community if people are not allowed to express their opinions to each other? Userboxes are totally harmless and useful for getting a quick summary of what a particular Wikipedian's views and opinions are.
  • Keep To the best of my knowledge, isn't the policy on user pages they are ours to do what we want with? If we delete all userboxes with a POV, how many would be left?
  • Keep Yes, Jimmy said we couldn't do POV on userboxes, but aren't we allowed to argue the point with these userboxes? Geez, are we trying to be completely political correct people even outside of articles (which is useless and dum)? WriterFromAfar755 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It doesn't really violate any policy, it's Wikipedia-related and it makes perfect sense. And I agree with it. --Cyclopia 23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, absolutely. M.C. Brown Shoes 02:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a good userbox that does nothing to harm the project.Gateman1997 03:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If it's OK for me to state on my user page that I believe "only articles need a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious or other beliefs . . . should not be banned." Then why should it NOT be acceptable to make that statement with or about Userboxes? And if it's not acceptable for me to make that statement of belief, why isn't it?
    — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
  • Strong keep. We've established that userpages don't have to conform to the NPOV policy. Does it damage the prestige of the project to know that Wikipedians have opinions, and that some would prefer not to project a dishonest aura of objectivity? We should concern ourselves more with intellectual honesty than with image. Bhumiya 04:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. Intellectual dishonesty is the bane of any attempt at making a reference, and opinion among the editors is simply human nature. Better that it all be in the open. Rogue 9 05:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is just another attempt to purge userboxes. It states a person's beliefs, which is perfectly acceptable. It's no more disruptive than the ones that proclaim allegience to a sports team. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 06:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and remove nom as bad faith. This is an issue that was dealt with long ago and consensus more or less dictated that POV userboxes are fine. Thank you very much for starting yet another userbox flamewar which is now probably going to go on for months. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs   09:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The consensus, despite allegations of "vote stacking", is clearly to keep. It's time to close this vote out. --Dragon695 10:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more keep - I think there should be free speech on user pages. IMO the "WP is not free speech" only applies to article NS. Deryck C. 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maldives uninhabited island/ImageNo edit

Together with Template:Maldives uninhabited island/ImageYes.
No longer needed. Have been used in Template:Maldives uninhabited island. --Adrian Buehlmann 11:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HR Southeast Asia edit

Template:HR Southeast Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Unused on any pages, never properly linked. If someone wants to go to the bother of properly catagorizing it, putting it into some pages, and so on, please consider this nomination taken back; but if no-one cares about this template, delete it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC) JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_22&oldid=1089796797"