Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 20

< June 19	June 21 >

June 20 edit

Template:AbortionbyCountry 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. We will revisit this at a later time. Right now it's useful. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AbortionbyCountry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. The standard seems to be to group similar articles by {{Europe topic}} and similar ones. {{Abortion in Europe}} is already in use. With the future creation of much more country-specific articles this template will become even more redundant as it can't group all countries. — Darwinek (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Darwinek says, we're definitely going to reach a point where this becomes very unwieldy, once we have a large number of articles on the subject. I'm not sure if we're at that point, just yet, which somewhat inclines me to say we should wait a bit longer on this one. It's apparently useful for the time being, even if it won't be useful indefinitely. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:Righteous 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Righteous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic). The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement. The template should be deleted. — _{Wiki11790 talk} 05:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to be a fairly standard navigational template for articles and sub-pages related to Righteous Among the Nations. While the article might be subject to notability and/or NPOV problems, I'm not sure how that can apply to a navigational template which merely holds links to selected related articles. Looking at the template's Talk page, the only significant debate seems to be the order in which the links are listed. That hardly seems to justify deletion. Personally, I've never thought that nav templates add that much over what's already available through in-line links and see-also sections but they are not uncommon. Keep unless there's a better justification for deletion. Rossami (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; standard navigational template for related articles. The confusion may result from the name "righteous", which is not meant as a POV assessment of the articles or their contents, but is the accepted name for a particular historical phenomenon. --MCB (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Not to bite the three-week-old newbie editor who proposed this deletion, but this is just a list of articles on a particular subject (namely those that relate to a particular Hebrew phrase). We put lists of related articles into infoboxes for navigational convenience all the time, and doing so is not considered a sign of bias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have provided third opinion for issue with list order. Request User:Wiki11790 heads over to article talk page to explain his issue in detail. Species8473 (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Standard template like many out there; seems encyclopedic to me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:03, 22 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:Flobots 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus/keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flobots (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It has three links that are related to the subject matter in it. The template is nearly useless. Rau's Speak Page 21:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - three relevant links is really too few for a navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above, and the fact that I nominated. Rau's Speak Page 00:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I found it useful, and i'm creating articles for the albums, so it's more practical, and btw, Rau J, you didn't need to put delete, the fact that you nominated it counts as a delete vote.
Keep No need to delete. 64.136.26.231 (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the one who created this template, and I refuse to let anyone delete it. Alex (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't really refuse to let it be deleted. And creating a lot of stubs doesn't really help, you've simply made the number go from three to five. I think that it is still hardly enough to keep it. Rau's Speak Page 03:53, 24 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:Dubious 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dubious (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and the page/section variant.

Violates NPOV (Neutral point of view) by injecting editorial opinion into article space. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, possibly even Speedy Keep. A misunderstanding of the purpose of dispute templates; when we cannot agree on the accurate or neutral way to say something, we tag. The solution is to reach consensus on what to do on the section (in our sense of consensus, which does not require unanimity), which will also be consensus that the wording is not dubious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better to fix the dubious statement, or remove it outright (challenge sources)? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging sources is precisely the purpose of this tag. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and speedy keep. This is just an inline alternative to using a whole-article or whole-section tag, like {{Disputed}}. Surely in a long section, with a half-sentence problem, it's better to be specific about the exact word or phrase that needs attention instead of "Something or another is wrong with this article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider the section variant as part of this nomination. I'll adjust the notes above. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the words "disputed" and "dubious" only states a lack of verifiability and states that the proposed fact has not yet been directly disproven. "citation needed" says "I agree that this is true but it needs a source" "disputed" says "I don't agree with this and a source should be found to disprove it." It is not always best to be bold in such situations as sometime the author know better than you do and such tags tend to avoid edit warring. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adds a link to the talk page so that people can elaborate on what they find to be dubious, makes the talk page more obvious to the casual viewer. -Malkinann (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this has a similar purpose to the more prominent article tags, but is more preferable as it picks out a specific questionable statement. It's no more a violation of NPOV than {{Fact}} is. Terraxos (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:WPUW 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD G7 (author request). WjBscribe 02:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPUW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Poorly formated, redundant template, not actually part of the Test series, unused in current systems. MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as creator - was a test template when we started the UW warning system, now obsolete. ^Khukri 10:54, 20 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:Attack-warn 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirected to Template:Uw-npa1. Feel free to change the target if you see one better. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attack-warn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-Test template, redundant to other better warnings, unused in current systems. MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the only problem is redundancy with a better or newer warning, deprecate by redirecting rather than deleting. This avoids any confusion over old uses or old users who are used to the existing name. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:Vandalism watch 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vandalism watch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bizarre "vandal watch" system that is unused and redundant to so many other features on WP, also, doesn't fit into other systems like Test and UTM. MBisanz ^talk 07:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not unused, though it will not show up via whatlinkshere or search since it was only ever used via substitution (and did not include a hidden backlink like many of the newer templates do). It was not commonly used, however.
The intent of this template was never to follow the Test or UTM pattern - it was modeled more on {{repeatvandal}} - a tag that sits on the vandal's page but is really speaking to others leaving the warnings, not to the vandal. The theory behind the template was that certain editors (primarily anon IPs) have a heavy pattern of vandalism in their edits and that once the vandalism is discovered in one article, a responsible editor will often go through the anon IP's other contributions to see if there is additional undiscovered vandalism that needs reverting. I've found literally thousands of cases of unreverted vandalism that needed cleanup that way. So far, this is established practice for vandalism patrolling. Now what if you have an IP with a long history of edits (and perhaps multiple blocks)? If you're the newest editor reviewing the anon's contributions, how far back do you review? How do you know what some other responsible editor has already checked? I'd like to know when I can stop. This was intended to give us a place to record what's already been reviewed so I don't waste time duplicating your work. And since we're reviewing the anon's edits, the logical place seemed to be the top of the anon's Talk page.
If there is any feature already on WP that gives us this capability, I'm unaware of it. I think there is a need to solve this problem. But I'll admit that this template never did catch on. If there's a better solution, I'd like to hear it. Rossami (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what your saying, it would be nice if it caught on, but my worry is that vandals would just edit the template themselves to make it look better. Short of adding it to a full protected page in their userspace and transcluding it, I doubt it would scale to all our vandal types. MBisanz ^talk 08:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, they've never done that. I had the same suspicion when I first drafted the page but thought it was worth the test and have been pleasantly surprised that the anon's don't seem to mess with the table once it's created. Of course, if they did, any edits to a vandal's own Talk page tend to get very closely scrutinized. As I said, I don't think it's an ideal solution but I don't know of anything else that even comes close. Rossami (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:Legalthreatblock 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Uw-lblock. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legalthreatblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, unused template, redundant to better {{Indefblockedbecause}}. MBisanz ^talk 06:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons similar to the pagemove template, I support deletion. seresin (public computer) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if the only problem is redundancy with a better or newer warning, deprecate by redirecting rather than deleting in order to avoid potential confusion over old uses or old users who are used to the existing name. Rossami (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{uw-lblock}} which is more informative than Indefblockedbecause is ever likely to be. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, I just didn't want to be seen as favoring UTM templates over Test templates when I made the nomination. MBisanz ^talk 08:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per zzuuzz - we have a better existing template for this purpose. Terraxos (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The newer warning is better, and it is preferable to have a single template to simplify modifications if policy changes.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:Unb-c 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Uw-ublock. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unb-c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Uw-ublock}}, not a Test template, out of date to current policies, unused in current systems. MBisanz ^talk 06:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used in more than a few block logs. If it's to be deleted, please redirect to {{uw-ublock}} instead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:40, 20 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:UsernameBlocked-noedits 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Uw-ublock. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UsernameBlocked-noedits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of {{Uw-ublock}}, not a Test template, out of date to current policy, unused. MBisanz ^talk 06:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons similar to the pagemove template, I support deletion. seresin (public computer) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the rationale given by the nominator. As a side note: it may be helpful to merge any useful content from this template, into {{uw-ublock}}, before deleting. Anthøny 22:08, 20 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:VOA-UP-note 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Uw-vaublock. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VOA-UP-note (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-Test template, unused in current systems, redundant to {{Uw-vaublock}}. MBisanz ^talk 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if the only problem is redundancy with a better or newer warning, deprecate by redirecting rather than deleting in order to avoid potential confusion over old uses or old users who are used to the existing name. Rossami (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:Spamblock 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 section.

The result of the debate was moot, template already redirected (apparently per consensus here). – Luna Santin (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spamblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template not actually part of the Test series, redundant to {{Spamonlyaccount}} and {{Uw-spamublock}}. MBisanz ^talk 06:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template is different from Uw-spamublock and came before Spamonlyaccount, and it's got a memorable name. It is also used on userpages and in block logs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we could always redirect it to the Spamonlyaccount or vice-versa. MBisanz ^talk 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense to redirect the new template to the established one. {{Spamblock}} has been around for 18 months, and {{Spamonlyaccount}} for only seven days, so redirect Spamonlyaccount to Spamblock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fix as below. Arrrrrgh! :-) Sorry, my bad, I'll fix it. I created {{spamonlyaccount}} because it is in fact different than Uw-spamublock (which has to do with the username, not conduct). It was specifically designed to be parallel in language to uw-voablock and fit into the uw scheme (as uw-soablock). I wanted to try it out before moving it into the uw scheme.

This should be resolved by: (1) restoring the redirected Spamonlyaccount and moving it to Uw-soablock; (2) fixing the "So", "Soa", and "Soab" redirects to point to there (they are parallel to Vo, Voa, and Voab); and (3) redirect Spamonlyaccount and Spamblock to Uw-soablock. If there are no objections I'll just do that and it will be part of the scheme. --MCB (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine by me. MBisanz ^talk 08:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MCB (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:Uw-ublock-famous 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-ublock-famous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly specific duplicate of {{Uw-ublock}} not used in current system. MBisanz ^talk 06:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's intended to avoid WP:BITE in cases where someone may simply be using their own name. What's this about a "current system", anyway? - I thought people were free to choose what tempates to use - we have two entire parallel sets of warning templates in {{test}} vs {{uw-test1}}. --Random832 (contribs) 13:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the linkback Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Uw-ublock-famous its not listed in either Test or UTM. MBisanz ^talk 20:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful, and helpful by not having to remember to use the "reason=" field in uw-ublock. --MCB (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template is still used, and it still has a clear and beneficial use. (example: Someone I reported to WP:UAA was blocked with this template only this month, as there was uncertainty about whether this user was indeed the person their username claimed to be. The alternative would have been to blow WP:AGF out of the water and accuse the editor of violating the username policy, presumably by impersonation. Per Random832, that would be a bit WP:BITEy in this case. The user is Leestonexxx.) ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 01:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the template seems to advocate blocks as a first response to someone editing with the same name as a famous person. What happened to discussing the issue with the person first? Likely responses are (1) it's not my name - in which case the user should be directed to request a rename, (2) I am the famous person - in which case they should email OTRS to confirm this, or (3) I am not that person but it is my name - in which case they can prob carry on using the name but a disclaimer on their talkpage may be a good idea. In none of these situations is a block needed. These accounts should not be being reported to WP:UAA and shouldn't be being blocked without discussion with the user first. Only were they to ignore the query about their name and continue editing might a block be needed. WjBscribe 01:42, 21 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:Pagemoveblock 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Indefblockeduser. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pagemoveblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly specific template, redundant to {{Indefblockedbecause}} MBisanz ^talk 06:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's no need to ever specify in a template why an editor was blocked, really. Unless it's exceptional, but then if it's page–move vandalism and is exceptional, it's probably Grawp, and we just deleted all his stuff per DENY, so there's no need at all for this template. seresin (public computer) 07:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to {{Indefblockeduser}} or one of the other similar templates). I agree with Seresin, there's no need to specify exactly why someone was blocked other than to satisfy morbid curiosity. Terraxos (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2008 (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 section.

Template:Blockedimpersonator 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blockedimpersonator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old template that doesn't make sense as to why we would want to identify who someone is an impersonator of, too specific and anti-deny IMO. MBisanz ^talk 06:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons similar to the pagemove template, I support deletion. seresin (public computer) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Used on userpages of blocked impersonators to prevent confusion with the real account. Useful. No need to delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per zzuuzz - unlike the template above, this one could actually be useful by distinguishing a fake account from a real one. Terraxos (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2008 (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 section.