- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:User dislikes Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No transclusions; unhelpful template. Qwerfjkltalk 11:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. IMHO, its a bit ludicrous to be on Wikipedia, use it, and have a userbox like this at the same time. —Sundostund (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's not ridiculous at all. Quite a few people dislike Wikipedia or dislike a lot of its processes but still actively edit it. We have historically granted plenty of userspace latitude for users who leave Wikipedia in a huff, or post "why Wikipedia sucks" essays, etc.. The same logic applies here. Again, we need to dial back on censoring opinions that we don't like to see...--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not disruptive, in my opinion it’s actually pretty funny due to the obvious irony. Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hopefully meant in humor, but even if not, there isn't really a problem with it. Curbon7 (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can see this being used in a humorous way, if an editor really disliked Wikipedia then they would just leave. I don't see any evidence that this template played a role with a disruptive editor's behavior. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2022 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.