Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 9

< February 8	February 10 >

February 9, 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 HUH? It's been blanked and deleted for nearly a week without apparent challenge and is therefore serving absolutely no purpose. I don't see why this excuse for fisticuffs need overturn that status. TfD is not an opportunity for everyone to vent their spleens — please confine such activities to the privacy of your own homes. Even if I take it as no consensus, it is surely kept in its current state! -Splash^talk 23:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User no Rand edit

Speedy deleted as an attack. Somewhat rewritten at DRV, where support was voiced for a proper TFD. No vote from me. R. fiend 18:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as long as its in its current form, "This user rejects all forms of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy." This is a perfectly legitimate expression, even if its in negative (non-offensive) form. For anyone who believes otherwise, I would ask them if ANY user box is legitmate in that case. Nhprman
Keep. Whom does it attack? It simply states that the relevant user rejects the ideas of Ayn Rand. Mikkerpikker ... 20:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mikkerpikker. Morgan695 20:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Free speech! --Revolución (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the original template which was speedied as an attack included the use of a pejorative to describe followers of objectivism. This version is not a recreation of the content which was deleted. -- Jonel | Speak 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essays and opinions belong on your blog or Geocities, not in a cutesy bumper sticker on your userpage. We're here to write an encyclopedia. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why aren't you deleting your opinion from TFD right now? --Daniel 03:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We would be writing an encyclopedia if the administration of Wikipedia would stop engaging in actions that infuriate a gigantic percentage of the userbase. All we need is a single sentence from Jimbo saying, "Forget what I said about userboxes. They're fine." --Aaron 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:To the user that said "We're here to write an encyclopedia": Why do we even have user pages? Why do we have userboxes? If we're writing an encyclopedia, then all of that is unnecessary. The only thing necessary is a talk page. That's it. -- myselfalso 05:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could care less whether user boxes stay or go, as long as it there is a consistent policy. What I find hypocritic though is people saying "we're here to write an encyclopedia" as if somehow their comment on the TFD for a userbox is contributing to writing the encyclopedia. Why don't the people who want to write the encyclopedia not use userboxes and ignore them and the people who want to waste their time with user boxes waste their time. The less everyone pays attention to the "userbox war" the more time will be spent writing the encyclopedia. It's just plain disingenuous to participate in the debate using an argument about wasting time on userboxes. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Mikkerpikker. --Aaron 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only contention I can think of is that objectivism might be considered an incomplete or semi-philosophy, but if we can have boxes for the narrower offshoots of libertarianism (as for anarchy or socialism, e.g.), we can certainly have boxes opposing them. There's no reason a pro-objectivist template can't be created. --Pastricide! ^{Non-absorbing} 00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
aKeep. Personal attack has been removed. Keep the userbox.--God of War 00:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep free speech, Free the user boxes!!! Mike McGregor (Can) 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mikkerpikker, but possibly move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 02:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To post to TFD what I put on WP:DRV -- I created this mostly because various self-described capitalist pig dogs and "libertarians" decided to make Template:User_No_Marxism. Being an actual believer in free speech, I decided that if you don't happen to like what people say, then say something about it and let the chips fall where they may. Of course, much like Mother Ayn herself, the so-called "libertarians" don't believe in liberty for anyone other than a bunch of rich white men, so they promptly acted to censor the userbox, and when that didn't work they decided to try to kill the messenger. --Daniel 03:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be WP:CIVIL. The original User no Rand template contained a pejorative, and was correctly deleted as a personal attack, which are not welcome on Wikipedia. It was not simply a mirror of User no Marx and was not identical to its current form. -- Jonel | Speak 04:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is perfect in it's current form. Stop it already! --Dragon695 03:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep POV ok in userboxes Boddah 12:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete normally i would abstain from a userbox like this - not really directly divisive - but seriously - there would be no wikipedia without the influecne of Ayn Rand. Trödel•talk 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find most of AYN Rand's philosophy to be utter, self-centered rubbish, but even I have to admit that she at least believed in free individual expression, and would find the attempt to ban it here absurd. Nhprman 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, except she also was strongly condemning of those that do not support the mission of an organization or a society. Especially where alternate outlets for that expression exist - i.e myspace and other such websites - IMHO, John Galt would encourage those who want to build pretty boxes to do so in a different project that enhances the society as whole but doesn't detract from those who want to work on the encyclopedia project. Trödeltalk 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wouldn't keel over and die if these boxes went away completely, but since they're here, little busybodies running around trying to censor and deface them is really pathetic, in my view. I hope someone gets the idea of submitting concepts for these boxes to a committee, who then decide on their content and posts them to a page for everyone to use - but not before blocking future edits on them. Spending thousands of hours debating the content of little boxes seems like a huge waste of time, but of course we have to do it as long as the censors and vandals are out there. Nhprman 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep in the current form. As long as there are userboxes, there is freedom of speech, and this userbox is neither "divisive" nor insulting in it's current form. In addition to that, I am slowly seriously annoyed because of very selective TFD nominations. As long as the no Marxism template is not removed completely, the "no Rand" template WILL stay. Vargher 14:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its fine in its current form - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's original purpose and wording was divisive, and it is so ugly now that it will obviously be edited. I have no confidence that it will not become an attack template again, and i see no positive value to the template to compensate for this risk. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you then please be so kind to put up a TFD for Template:User No Marxism as well? It does seem to be "divisive" to me. Besides, "being ugly" is not a relevant argument for a deletion. Vargher 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 17:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why ANY user box exists, then? I would submit that existential, theoretical comments have no place in this page's debate. Nhprman 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is important, Rand, alongside Nietzche, is perhapse the strongest intellectual perponent of Social Darwinism. --IdeArchos 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MONGO. This is unrelated to the encyclopedia.--Alhutch 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone explain why the template has been defaced at this point. Making it ugly and then using "ugly" as a criteria seems to be a gangster tactic, at best. Some people need to get a life. To admins: Why aren't edits halted during debates like this? Nhprman 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The template has already been deleted, but the consensus here appears to me to be for keeping it. What's up? -Acjelen 23:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The template was speedily deleted under the new T1 criterion for speedy deletion, which allows for the deletion of divisive or inflammatory templates.--Alhutch 23:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I find that outrageous. I hope all other politically-related Userboxes are "speedily deleted" as well if that's how it's going to be. Please link to this "T1" policy - and I do hope it's OFFICIAL policy. Nhprman 00:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CSD#Templates--Alhutch 00:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sure a comprimise could easily be reached. Why not "This user does not support the ideals of Ayn Rand"? It is neither divisive or inflammatory. Morgan695 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and a sad one) Meanwhile, the administrators still say NOTHING about the anti-Marx userbox. As a matter of fact, they also say NOTHING about the pro-fascist userbox; they say NOTHING about the pro-eugenics userboxes either. So I take it from their actions (and inaction) that the new Wikipedia policy is that it bans anything to the left of their do-nothing liberal selves. Meanwhile, people who are to the right of Joe McCarthy (and for that matter, people to the right of Genghis Khan) are totally unaffected.

So, administrators, what is next? Am I going to have to answer the question "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America?" before my next edit? --Daniel 00:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- There's really no need for hysteria. enhance your calm, Dtasripin, enhance your calm. If you think that the userboxes you mentioned should be deleted, then you're welcome to nominate them.--Alhutch 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that I will not nominate them, because unlike a bunch of blubbering wimps around these parts, I don't need to cry to Big Daddy Jimbo because I'm offended. I stand up for myself, I work against speech I don't like with my own speech. It would be a lot easier to do so, were there not a billion admins who decide to subject the rest of Wikipedians to the tyranny of the minority of racists, fascists, cultists, free market ideologues, and pedophiles, who screw things up for the rest of us by:

a) admins responding with stupid Neville Chamberlain type appeasement, in taking their snitches at their word that they're "offended" by some statement against their sick ideologies, and not that they're POV-pushing. Even if they were actually offended - when it comes to Nazis, the more we offend them the better. It keeps Wikipedia from b ecoming Stormfront. Then there is case

b) admins responding with force against anybody and everybody everybody other than fascists who has a userbox. You admins tried to conjure up with images of "user against jews" type boxes to scare others into obeying your anti-userbox crusade. Now, of course, you figured out they're useful idiots - meanwhile, everybody else's userbox gets the Dresden treatment.

As for your offer - which I take it was aimed at a lot of others here, rather than just myself - I'd suggest for anyone with a shred of decency and principle to tell you to drop dead. Because if all Wikipedia is going to be are a bunch of snitches, all stepping on each other like crabs in a barrel, then you've done a far better job dividing Wikipedia than a simple userbox ever could. --Daniel 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- My advice for you is to chill out. And remember, userboxes are not more important than Wikipedia. Writing an encyclopedia trumps all other things here, including free use images on your user page, userboxes, and any other stuff that has nothing to do with an enyclopedia. Also, for future reference, people don't really appreciate being told to drop dead and being called fascists.--Alhutch 02:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your advice was neither solicited, nor ever wanted, and I suggest you ditch your patronizing White-Man's-Burden tone with me. I am more than entitled to share my opinion, especially when I have had to deal with a) having this userbox be subjected to Kafkaesque bureaucratic nonsense, b) having to deal with right-wing snitch culture, c) having the userbox taken away from the originally intended message to be palatable to people who think Altruism is a crime against humanity, then d) having to deal with the same userbox still be molested, because there are some people who make it their business to crap on other people's work.

You and your fellow honchos have decided to pick a fight over this issue of "civility" to dead white women. Good, then you've finally shown your true colors. Because of all things on Wikipedia that may be detrimental to its mission - institutional racism, total lack of coverage in some spots, the fact that the U.S. Congress have had this website vandalized by their staff - out of all that, you and your fellow honchos have made userboxes against dead white women, of all things, to be this crime against Wikihumanity. You and your fellow honchos deserve to get both verbal barrels, and you should personally thank me for telling you to your face what most people have wanted to tell you types for some time.--Daniel 02:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course welcome to express your opinion. However, as I told you before, you are not welcome to call people "honchos". I asked you nicely several times not to call people names. Please stop.--Alhutch 03:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Daniel's anger comes from the fact that the rules of the game changed in the middle of a system some of us thought was designed to gauge whether a box should be eliminated or not. If you are in some kind of authority, Alhutch, I hope you pass along the depth of feeling expressed here. Frankly, if rules change on the use of Userboxes, that's fine, but they need to be universal, not arbitrary, and we should stop pretending that voicing our opinions matter if someone's going to delete boxes on a whim in the middle of "voting." Nhprman 20:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The template seems to have been deleted, and a new locked blank one put in place. This seems to violate the TFD process, does it not? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It simply states that the user disagrees with the Objectivist philosophy, I don't see a problem (note that I am a fan of Rand myself). Also, the template should be put back. Deleting a template unilaterally during a TfD is going completely against consensus- and how are editors supposed to know what to decide if they can't even see the userbox? --Rory0 96 04:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per 1. WP:TfD templates must be NPOV, 2. WP:NOT a soapbox, 3. WP:CSD T1 'divisive or inflammetory, 4. Jimbo's request not to use political userboxes. --Doc ^ask? 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to go read Jimbo's request again. It's just that: a "request." He did not order hundreds of footsoldiers into battle to delete anyting they deemed offensive. In fact, he said just the opposite. Nhprman 00:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to make sure that everyone has read the policy at WP:TFD, which Doc cited, which says that all templates must be NPOV and encyclopedic.--Alhutch 00:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be nice if that page, like every other page on policy, noted that it was OFFICIAL policy, or simply disscussion of such, on the top of the page. Interestingly, it's not there. Once I see one appear, I'll know it's "official." If everything on that page is official, though, I wonder how you square the "policy" of "Give due notice" with the deletion of userbox templates DURING the polling process (i.e. this page.) Or does that not apply if someone simply no longer thinks it doesn't? Nhprman 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its original form and in its current form. It certainly serves no purpose now. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:37, 13 February 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 REDIRECT to respective targets, I suppose. WHY? They're unused for goodness' sake. -Splash^talk 23:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regular expression user templates edit

Unused, as far as I can tell. Created almost 6 months ago and, while I cannot say that they have never been used, there is certainly no sign of them being in use currently. - TexasAndroid 15:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed unused and also seems unnecessary. Mikkerpikker ... 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Harmless and potentially useful, if a bit ugly. Redirect per CyberSkull. —Andux^␅ 07:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ~~02:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete, unused. JYolkowski // talk 03:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if unused currently, they can certainly be helpful; just get more people to use them. --AySz88 ^-^ 03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is part of the project to expand expertise catagories. --Dragon695 03:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Redirect per CyberSkull. --Dragon695 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect: There is already a series at {{User re}} et al. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per cyberskull.--Alhutch 20:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:38, 13 February 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 YAWN. -Splash^talk 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User GWB2 edit

Template:User GWB2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I find this absolutely offensive. Come on people! Why can't you just say that you don't support Bush? On Template:User Unamerican, you aren't sent to the terrorist article when you click on unamerican are you? Well why should we be sent to the Patriot Act article when we click on "edits to the constitution, and the "impeach Bush article" when you click reverted. Use some common sense! Couldn't you just use this instead? Please vote for the deletion of this user box!--Holocron 15:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that someone finds something offensive is not even reason enough to delete in the article namespace (see this). There is thus much less of a case to be made for deletion in the user namespace. I understand why u're upset, but that's not sufficient reason, sorry. Mikkerpikker ... 16:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete divisive --Doc ^ask? 17:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Free speech! --Revolución (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was free speech also, but unfortunately it was deleted:

style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: white; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt; color: black;"

This user thinks pacifists make good target practice.

Oh please. I could see the reason for deleting something which advocates murder of pacifists ("target practice"), even if it might be a joke it's not appropriate. --Revolución (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God, your annoying, aren't you? What does this advocate? The impeachment of a president, based souly on your point of veiw. Why do you loonies care if Bush phone taps people who are suspected to be terrorists. What do you have to hide?--Holocron 22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy stop the spurious speedy votes already. No vote. Don't care. --Malthusian (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep, and I don't want to sound rude here or anything, but it makes absolutely no sense to say this is worse than the "user dislikes Bush" box. The only difference is that this one is humorous. But I'm removing it from my userpage for the duration of this TFD, as the notice has completely screwed up the formatting on my userpage. Yeltensic 42 don't panic 18:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only: Might this template be considered too limiting? There are plenty of reasons cited for impeachment besides the PATRIOT Act. Clever, though. --Pastricide! ^{Non-absorbing} 19:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Holocron, you and I have similar political viewpoints (I'm proud to have made the Anti-UN userbox you have on your userpage). I don't understand what you find so offensive about this. Let the liberals (or whoever) vent on their userpages. It's harmless and actually quite funny, don't you think? Be offended when you find POV in an article that is mirrored all over the 'net! Lawyer2b 19:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Revolucion said...free speech ... Why can't I just say that I don't support Bush? Because I'm more concerned about our constitutional rights being violated than offending people. The userbox makes an interesting connection between vandalism on Wikipedia and violations against Constitutional law, as well as the rule of law. Yep, Bush's dubious choices are a big concern for liberals, that's true... classical liberals. There are plenty of Republicans and conservatives who think bringing up these issues are "common sense", as well as moderates and progressives. Anyway... If someone wanted to make a box decrying Mr. Clinton, maybe with a picture of Monica Lewinsky and a link to a cigar, it would be in bad taste... but still free speech. Noirdame 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essays and opinions belong on your blog or Geocities, not in a cutesy bumper sticker on your userpage. We're here to write an encyclopedia. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per Doc. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you follow that logic, that essays and opinions belong on a blog or a website, rather than our userpages or Wikipedia, then by extension, why even have the opportunity to discuss pages and items for deletions? Don't these involve our opinions? Naturally. That argument suggests that we should not have ANY political or opinionated speech on our userpages or anywhere on Wikipedia. These boxes appear in userspace, which have been specifically set up for people to express themselves; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes has quite a bit of argument supporting this and trying to hash out a consistent policy. However, it appears that most people believe that at least SOME personal expression (whether it be text only, textboxes, etc.) is appropriate for userspace. I believe that by being forthright about your opinions and stands, it makes it easier for people to notice your systemic bias, whether it's your political views, preference on Queen's English vs. American English, etc. In that respect, being open about your biases may increase the objectivity of Wikipedia, and help the project. Noirdame

Keep - No Speedy!! - The first GWB template was kept. This says the same thing except it is funnier. Political free speech must be allowed.--God of War 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep, and I say that as someone that finds the template pathetic. --Aaron 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per God of War et al...Mike McGregor (Can) 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is clever rather than merely insulting, as some userboxes are. Catamorphism 01:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is a legitimate expression of opinion on GWB and the Constitution. --Pontifex 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is ridiculous. What the hell is so offensive about criticizing the Patriot Act? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asarelah (talk • contribs)
Keep but possibly move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 02:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ~~01:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep. I guess it wasn't enough for Republicans to use their Congressional staff to vandalize Wikipedia pages, now they have to try to make an issue out of userboxes. --Daniel 02:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, concurring with statements above. Don't you Bush worshippers have anything better to do? I already despise every single one of you for supporting the destruction of this country. Do you now think any dissent should be either off-limits or confined to the compliant half-ass-ity exemplified by the Senate Democrats? —Sesel 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have completely misunderstood the purpose of this discussion. This is not about political partisanship. It's about the fact that any form of political partisanship is needlessly divisive and has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the real world. It's not about aligning yourself with this or that faction and putting their bumper sticker on your user page. It's about writing an encyclopedia, and this template has absolutely nothing to do with that goal. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, you seem to have completely misunderstood that Wikipedia is made by people who live in the real world. It would be nice if you and your fellow anti-free speech honchos would join the rest of us there.

--Daniel 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, that is an unfair comment to make, that others are "completely misunderstanding the purpose of the discussion." That applies to you as well. Did you read the *reason* why Holocron argued to delete this box? He did not argue that it was divisive or partisan (in fact, further down he refers to people who disagree with him as "loonies" - Why do you loonies care if Bush phone taps people who are suspected to be terrorists. What do you have to hide?). He argued that it was offensive to HIM - I find this absolutely offensive. Come on people! and argued that the box should be deleted in favor of the original Bush box. He was hardly arguing against "factionalizing", as you can see by his commentary suggesting people who disagree with him have "something to hide". Noirdame 19:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be speedy-deleted per WP:CSD T.1. Wikipedia has no "free speech" policy. Any arguments based on a "free speech" rationale should be discounted by the closing admin. If you read the instructions at the top of this page, you'll see that you're asked to provide arguments to counter the following claims: (1) the template is neither helpful nor noteworthy (it doesn't help us write an encyclopedia); (4) the template is irreparably biased (obviously). If you don't even attempt to refute these claims, your opinions will have to be tossed out as irrelevant to this debate. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand TFD procedure. You can't ignore opinions you don't agree with.--God of War 03:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MarkSweep is arguing per WP:CSD which states that 1) "Patent nonsense" "does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." In other words, just because the expression is partisan is not reason enough to speedy delete it, counter to MarkSweep's argument. The page also states that attack pages can only be deleted if they have "no purpose but to disparage their subject." (Notice that someone changed the template so that now it only says "dislikes" GW Bush, rather than comments specifically on the Patriot Act and issues of free speech? Is this a prelude to arguing that it's just "disparaging" him?)Noirdame 20:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a funny way of critcising Bush and the Pat Act. Gotta love it Copysan 03:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love it re: No, not really.--Holocron 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Holocron, the result of the TfD on pacifists make good target practice was no-consensus, however some Admin has taken it upon themselves to delete it anyways. I know a few pacifists, including myself, who voted to keep that userbox because we believe you have the right to display it. I will continue to do so, regardless of whether I agree with the content or not. Please respect our desire to display this userbox. Thank you. --Dragon695 03:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as divisive. I wouldn't go so far as to say that {{User disBush}} makes it redundant, though, as one may dislike Bush but like his "edits" or like Bush but dislike the edits. (I do not intend to assert or deny that Bush has edited the constitution.) Michael Slone (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic, and per WP:NOT and WP:JIMBO. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Mark, you you can only vote once. --Dragon695 09:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As well, there is still discussion taking place regarding Jimbo's comments on userboxes. Noirdame 20:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - divisive Trödel•talk 13:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - makes a specific point regarding Bush's actions, indeed it doesn't indicate a dislike of Bush so using Template:User disBush may well be inaccurate for some users. Not liking what he's done with regards to the Constitution is not the same as not liking the man himself, however often the two may associate with each other, and given that the most focal point of his Constitutional modifications is the Patriot Act, it makes perfect sense to include a link to it. This makes a specific point in a humourous manner. No reason to delete other than partisanship against critics and/or userboxes. - Hayter 14:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per others' arguments. I don't see any reason to delete this. I don't view it as redundant with {{User disBush}}. --F a ng Aili 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its funny, and no worse than any of the other anti-bush userboxes - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not speedy delete. No strong opinion on whether this should be kept or merged (deletion is pointless, a merge into a synonymous, and less inflammatory, userbox is better) into the other anti-GWB template (though I think the latter isn't a bad idea: opinion-based userboxes are designed to allow users to self-identify and explain their interests, beliefs, and POVs; it is not designed to campaign or argue for those interests, beliefs, and POVs, nor to serve as a flashy "bumper sticker". belief userboxes are supposed to give us information about the users, not to attempt to further the users' political goals and agendas through). But regardless, speedy-deletion seems inappropriate and would amount to an attempt to curtail any debate on this matter. Since there's obviously disagreement on whether this template is "inflammatory and divisive" (and I myself am a bit dubious about this statement; what's so inflammatory about it? the sarcasm? the Wiki-reference injoke? it just doesn't seem like such a big deal to me, sorry) or not, we should not speedy-delete it, even if we delete it. -Silence 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This template has been redirected to {{User disBush}}. This is what {{User GWB2}} looked like before:

This user believes that George W. Bush's edits to the constitution need to be reverted.

--F a ng Aili 20:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you by the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete divisive and unrelated to the writing of an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or restore {{User Anti-UN}} and {{User Anti-ACLU}} which were speedied from Templates for deletion/February 10 by Physchim62 and have all three share the same fate. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why are there consequences to TfD before "voting" ends? -Acjelen 23:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What the Hell?! We weren't even finished debating this and someone changes it?! This is out of process!
Comment - Yes, inappropriate.
Strong Keep. While I certainly do not support the impeachment of Bush, this is free speech, and only states an opinion. If you don't like where the links direct you, talk about it in the template talk page and try to get a consensus to change it. Rory0 96 04:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've noticed that the the userbox opponents' main argument seems to be that they're in template space, not user space, and so NPOV applies. However, they're only used on userpages, where NPOV does not apply; therefore it only makes sense to apply the same standards to userboxes that we apply to userpages. Yeltensic 42 don't panic 07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like this usrbox.helohe (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why, when debate is still very open on this tfd, and when the majority of that debate says 'keep,' has the template been redirected to another userbox template which says a different thing and has now itself been deleted? I don't often swear on the Internet but this is fucking ridiculous, and an excellent example of why some people believe there is a "cabal" of userbox deletionists. - Hayter 18:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though it's been speedied. Oh man, I most certainly do not like Bush but I also do not like all this POV trolling with userboxes. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:42, 13 February 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. -Splash^talk 23:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test2b edit

Template:Test2b (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Was redundant to {{test2a-n}}. Now redirects to {{test2a-n}}, so it is deadweight and can be cut. Avi 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the servers don't mind redirects (ala Gurubtahma), I am fine rescinding the request. Avi 18:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harmless redirect, which some admins probably are using without previewing. --cesarb 15:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect I agree with cesarb. Though warning templates should always be subst'd, it looks like there are many transclusions still pointing to it. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect. Redirects are cheap. --Gurubrahma 15:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me. Avi 18:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, let's not disrupt RC patrollers unnecessarily. JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful template --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many similarly named templates for the same use. Need to have a single consistent naming pattern and don't need a bunch of redirects. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:46, 10 February 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. Template is unlinked and all but one link in it is red! -Splash^talk 23:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BandungCityMayors edit

Suggest a change to tabular for, EG. {{USSecDHS}}, and keeping it at the bottom of the relevant pages. 68.39.174.238 22:09, 9 February 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. -Splash^talk 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:popmusic edit

Strong keep. WP:POINT nomination of a perfectly valid footer template. Circeus 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Template is used in a valid context across ten or so articles. If the nominator was hoping Template:pop would replace Template:popmusic, he should replace Template:popmusic with Template:pop and then nominate Template:popmusic for deletion - not the other way round. Cedars 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Circeus S iva1979^{Talk to me} 11:48, 14 February 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:pop edit

Template:Pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
TUF-KAT removed this template from articles due to his purposes in which I find his quite uncertain in whether it is okay for this template to be deleted. But I don't know if this is necessary to do so. Gh87 09:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this was nominated. This is an infobox that was being used, contrary to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres, as a seriesbox. Like every other infobox on the wiki, it's supposed to go on precisely one page, in this case pop music. So, I removed it from all pages except pop music. Tuf-Kat 15:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to more generic and delete. Now that the template is used only on one page, there is absolutely no need to use this specific template over {{Infobox Music genre}}. Circeus 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The nomination makes no sense. The nominator suggested this template would replace a template he nominated for deletion above. It feels as though TfD may be being used to try and resolve an editorial dispute. Cedars 00:58, 13 February 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 userfied _→AzaToth 14:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four old and unused Texas highway templates edit

Speedy delete all; (all are now just redirects) Keep (or at very least, Move to personal (my) namespace). I am the creator of these and they are for use on Texas highway pages as part of the route boxes. These four templates are alternate "bottoms" for the route box depending on which type of highway is featured. (See: Texas State Highway 308 for a different “bottom” in use). (These are intended for a Texas Highways Wikiproject, (that I have been unable to put together yet due to outside obligations) — Bellhalla 15:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A move to userspace would be fine with me. BD2412 T 18:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Moved to my user space. — Bellhalla 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, deletion request withdrawn. BD2412 T 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (T1). Physchim62 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Discrimination sidebar edit

Template:Discrimination sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
If an article contains discriminatory statements, {{POV}} should do the job better than this unused, unnecessary template. It was created by the same user who created {{vulgarity}}, which is also on TFD right now. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete. BD2412 T 03:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. "This article is discriminatory" is itself a POV statement, unlike "The neutrality of this article is disputed". --Malthusian (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. {{POV}} is sufficient. Mikkerpikker ... 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, we have better tools for this. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malthusian. The template is itself a gigantic WP:NPOV violation. --Aaron 00:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. Catamorphism 01:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep why should we use {{POV}} and probably just confuse people when there's a more specific template that says what the problem is. Maybe we should just use {{Noncompliant}} for everything; then we could delete all the other templates. Specificity is for people who don't have the luxury of hour-long discussions on talk pages to explain the tags in the atricle. Sheesh. --James S. 07:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this template, as I've already said, is that you can't say "This article is discriminatory". No discussion can take place if the tag assumes that the article is something bad from the start. If this tag was kept its only use would be in continual revert wars. And if takes you an hour to explain why you placed a tag, then you shouldn't have put it there. --Malthusian (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Offensive" isn't against policy --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malthusian. Who is to say what's offensive? - Hayter 14:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Different people are offended by different things - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:18, 10 February 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 USERFY and DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Userpage topmenu1 edit

Delete - Per nom and because it seems to have been a personal template. Templates for personal use should go in personal userspace. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Looks like crap, too.Winvirus 03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user's space. BD2412 T 03:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Move then delete per above. Mikkerpikker ... 16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move then delete per BD2412. For a moment I thought this was some user's attempt at implementing a WP version of a tag cloud. --Aaron 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not used, not likely to be. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:13, 11 February 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.