< February 4	February 6 >

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. -Splash^talk 23:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ScratchspinImg[edit]

Template:ScratchspinImg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've listed a related page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Scratchspin images. This template is basically an advertisement for a private photographer who does not want to release images. I asked User:Carnildo about this before moving on, and his/her response was: "The terms of use on that site restrict re-use too much. In particular, it doesn't allow non-website use, it does not allow certain classes of commercial use, and it does not appear to allow modification of the images. I'd shoot the template and list the images for deletion -- there's nothing special about the images, so they don't qualify under Wikipedia:Fair use." Delete. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tried to request a copyright review on these images some time ago because I was also doubtful about their status. Dr.frog 00:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Aaron 00:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, incompatible with Wiki philosophy and apparently GFDL. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 141.151.162.212 20:30, 12 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. -Splash^talk 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Icons[edit]

Template:Icons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No text or anything, just adds images to Category:Icons. No need for a template to do that. JYolkowski // talk 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom. -Chairman S. 20:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Useless. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not actually useless, it adds items to the category with the correct sortkey. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we don't need a template to categorise things, and uses of it can be replaced with the correct markup to categorise under the required sort key. Rob Church (talk) 21:38, 6 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. The requested changes have been made. -Splash^talk 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Capmv[edit]

Template:Capmv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant since a speedy deletion criteria (csd-g6) and the related template ((db-histmerge)) exist (and the category that was only populated by this template ended up deleted a few weeks ago). Having two ways of accomplishing the same thing is confusing and not very useful. - Bobet 14:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ((db-histmerge)) seems easiest, but I would not object to deleting this. >Radiant< 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think that ((Capmv)) is more user-friendly than ((db-histmerge)). It is a lot easier to use ((capmv)) because it just means "somebody screwed up the history by a cut-and-paste move, please help!". To use ((db-histmerge)), you need to understand the process well enough to know which of the pages should be deleted. The documentation for this process is currently only directed at admins; user suggestions for cut-and-paste repair should be possible without reading and understanding the process. Or at least it should say somewhere that ((db-histmerge)) needs to be put on the page with the correct title (is that right?). Kusma (討論) 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (Yes, you're right in the last sentence.) I don't see why the page history merging has to be thought of as something difficult, since the actual process is pretty simple (delete, move, undelete, make sure the better version is on top). I tried to clarify the wording a bit on WP:CSD and the ((db-histmerge)) template itself. The thing is that the capmv template is currently pretty unintuitive (because its name among other things) and the fact that to find it you'd most likely have to find Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen first. If the wording on that page was changed to point to ((db-histmerge)) instead and the usage was clarified there, I'm sure it'd be just as easy to use as capmv, and things would get done faster since I assume more admins look at CAT:CSD than the holding pen. - Bobet 20:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't oppose a deletion of capmv once Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen has been updated to explain the process, which indeed seems less arcane than some pages make it sound. m:Help:Moving a page should also probably point to an explanation of the correct process to follow for users instead of just giving the admin procedure. Also, the whole process, or Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen should be more widely advertised. (Of course, some people might also feel it's unnatural to propose a merging by deletion, just like CfD feels weird as the place to rename or merge categories). Kusma (討論) 00:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I changed the wording in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. I didn't want to do that sooner in case there had been a clear consensus that people like having ((capmv)) around, but since that's seemingly not the case, it should be fine now. Please tell if you can think of a better way to word it (or just fix it if you want). - Bobet 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am satisfied with the new wording on Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, the instructions are simple enough now. Delete as redundant (or redirect). Kusma (討論) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with Kusma's reasoning. --AySz88^-^ 19:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete providing that Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen is updated to explain use of ((db-histmerge)) in sufficient detail that a non-admin will understand (since I otherwise do agree with Kusma's reasoning above). _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but only after sufficient clarification at relevant pages. agree with ukpaulo and kusma's reasoning--Pournami 09:40, 6 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 Speedy delete by User:Jimbo Wales. Physchim62 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User paedophile[edit]

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

Content: Userbox saying "This user identifies as a pedophile" with two related symbols

Needlessly provocative. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How is it? Only as much as ((User gay)), ((User lesbian)) and etc., surely. None of which are particularly relevant to Wikipedia, at any rate, but as long as we're doing that sort of thing... // paroxysm (n) 06:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Created in good faith by Paroxysm; doesn't promote a point of view or attack anything, so I don't see how it could be provocative at all. Ashibaka tock 06:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Exceptionally weak keep. It can be considered provacative, and I abhor the viewpoint, but nonetheless, it is helpful to know that a person identifies as a pedophile when working with them on an encyclopedia such as this. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Physchim62 (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it provocative? The template isn't trying to offend anyone. If someone is offended by it that's their own business. Ashibaka tock 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Because once again, the honchos are missing the point. Wikipedia should have the fortitude to say that garbage like pedophiles, fascists, and racists are not welcome here, have no "rights" other than to leave before they are reported to the authorities for harassment.

Until honchos manage to do that, they should have to bear the consequences of their indecision on their conscience. --Daniel 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just for the record, I plan on indefinitely blocking anyone who uses this template. If someone wants to announce their disgusting tendency to have sexual thoughts about children, so be it. You're not welcome here though. I'd also block anyone identifying themselves as a rapist or murderer. The only user to currently include this template is User:Joeyramoney. He's now been blocked. Carbonite | Talk 14:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  take a gander at User:Phyrex/Sandbox. at least i wasn't serious.Joeyramoney 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • And I will unblock anyone you block. Ashibaka tock 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No question - this is just pathetic. violet/riga (t) 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? Ashibaka tock 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (For crying out loud.) If this isn't a divisive userbox, I don't know what is. If your pedophilia is actually relevant to your activities on Wikipedia to the point that you feel you need to express it on your user page, I should hope you could do so in a more well-reasoned manner than just slapping on a silly box. We don't need to encourage people to slap this on without context and explanation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I think self-identifying as a pedophile is an entirely different matter than self-identifying as a murderer or rapist, putting this template on your user page is likely to cause a lot of disruption which is detrimental to what we should be doing here, building an encyclopedia. Junes 15:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you vote to delete ((User Hell)), ((user disBush)) as well? Those are detrimental templates. Ashibaka tock 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not an TfD regular, so no, I did not. However, I probably would've abstained on both. I don't really like the political userboxes because of the usual arguments (divisive, diametrally opposed to ideals of Wikipedia). However, it seems that people are really attached to these userboxes, so as long they're civilly worded, it seems wisest to grudgingly tolerate them. The reasons I oppose this particular template are best explained by Mindspillage. Junes 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So basically, it depends on how many people support the userbox's POV and how many people dislike it. These TfD debates will never end, then. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely Delete. Awful and disruptive userbox. — TheKMan^talk 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DAMN IT ALL, SPEEDY DELETE the blasted thing. Now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG delete. Nuke the cute little thing, it is just another stupid userbox, that either is wikijunk (I am ok with) or inflames people, so it is stricly a waste of server space.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what Mindspillage said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sannse (talk • contribs)
• Very strong delete As a child, I am deeply offended by this userbox — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why are we even having this discussion? --pgk^(talk) 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this isn't a discussion, it's a vote on how many people are okay with the userbox's POV and how many people are offended by it. Ashibaka tock 18:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sorry but no. Fkmd 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP It isn't about wether you approve of other people's tastes. It's about wether they can express them. And I see no reason why they couldn't. And blocking those users who use this template is blatant discrimination by sexual preference. Larix 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't see how this is a personal attack or disrupts the encyclopedia or creates any sort of caballish thing, which are the principal objections to POV userboxes AFAIK. People are allowed to identify themselves as pedophiles on User pages and (as far as I can tell) there aren't any problems with using a userbox instead, so I don't see any reason to delete the box. (Though, I don't know why any sane person would want to self-identify as a pedophile at all, because of the abuse they're bound to attract.) --AySz88^-^ 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteIt's as vile as the people who would want to use it. Giano | talk 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't attacking anyone. Ashibaka tock 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I am a kid, and I am not offended by the presence of this userbox.(Or at least, I can't yet. Someone speedied the darn thing). I don't know what's worse. That people would persecue/discriminate against these people, or won't allow them to say who they are. --D-Day 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Userboxes sitting in the main template space have more of an aura of "official approval" to newcomers to Wikipedia than might be obvious to old-timers. A new editor comes along, fresh from LiveJournal or whatever, and starts setting up their user page based on the oh-so-convenient menu of choices available to them. It sends an abhorrent message to have this be one of those easily available choices. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Provocative and in very poor taste. Harms the credibility of the encyclopaedia. I note, however, that the boy who was blocked indefinitely for using it is sixteen years old, and was obviously just behaving in a rather silly and immature way. I support his unblocking. AnnH ^(talk) 19:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I should make a boilerplate box hat says: This is a list of userboxes that are to be used on userpages only. The Wikipedia Foundation does not support or condone any of the viewpoints expressed here.--God of War 19:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This userbox is different than the others because it has actually caused disruption (see WP:AN). Apparently, the only person using it was a 16-year-old who was probably attempting to get a rise out of people. I favor a liberal policy on userboxes, but this crosses the line. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user wasn't trying to cause disruption, it was the admin who blocked him causing the disruption. Ashibaka tock 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted as attack template. Anyone undeleting this for "process" is a bloody idiot, and you are welcome to RFAr me if you don't like that - David Gerard 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Also, even though I voted delete, I fail to see how this was an "attack template", nor does it fit any other speedy delete criteria that I can see. Let the discussion run its course. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we're idiots for wanting to see what the contents were and if they could be improved rather than just sitting and being told by the admins that it's none of our business and to vote delete? --D-Day 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • David may I suggest that you close the tfd discussion before deleting?--God of War 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop wheel warring over this template, David. Nobody's using it right now, and it's up on TfD, so it's not causing any problems except for the wheel war itself. Ashibaka tock 23:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, i guess* i put it on my user page as just a joke, but i can see how some would be offended by it.Joeyramoney 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It isn't attacking anyone. This falls under the exact same category as the debate at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, where people are, ironically, voting massively to keep the offensive image. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It would help if i could see wat the dam thing actually says! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It sa[id] "This user identifies as a pedophile." Clearly, this is an reprehensible attack and David has rightly deleted it. // paroxysm (n) 20:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete repulsive, way beyond the bounds of acceptability. If this garbage was used the anti-Wikipedia media would have a field day. It would be suicidal for WP to keep it. Frankly anyone using it is sick. Wikipedia must not let itself become a haunt for paedophiles, given that our site is used by children and some of our contributors are children. It is one thing to have templates covering legal sexual relationships between consenting adults. It is quite another to have a template referring to illegal criminal acts involving children. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedophilia != child molesting. This template doesn't encourage anything. Ashibaka tock 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People (including me) may not like these people and their preferences, but I have voted keep for several other expression userboxes, and I cant be inconsistant. I have several politically incorrect views on things, and I would hate it if i couldnt express them on my user page if i wished to do so. And no, the page hasnt been rightly blanked as the discussion hasnt been closed - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though I very nearly voted weak delete. While, yes, it could damage Wikipedia's credibility, there exists no rule against calling oneself a pedophile on one's userpage. Bearing that in mind, the template does not add any functionality in that regard. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete why the f*** are we debating this? en-cy-clo-ped-ia, try saying it and stop this utter stupidity. --Doc ^ask? 23:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. — Dan | talk 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who can possibly be offended by a template merely describing the tastes of the user? If it said something like 'This user will rape children if he gets the chance' it's another story, but as it is, I don't see anything objectionable in it at all. A desire (no matter how perverted) is not a crime. Larix 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep this templte was not an attack, and there were no valid grounds for its deletion. Obviously, given who closed this there is no point in taking this to Deletion review, but this action was a mistake. DES ^(talk) 22:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree completely. Having an orientation towards children has nothing to do with sexual abuse. I find deleting it just as intolerant and repressive as deleting a template marking an individual as having a homosexual or asexual orientation. Such an action is incredibly worrisome to me. Sarge Baldy 20:55, 7 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 ALREADY DELETED, several times.-Splash^talk 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wishful[edit]

Template:User wishful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused template, needlessly provocative. It's one thing to have an opinion, but Wikipedia is not a blog or a soapbox. This sort of polemic does nothing to advance the goal of writing an encyclopedia. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but just because it's not used by anyone. If anyone actually wants to use this nasty polemic leave me a comment and I will change my vote. Ashibaka tock 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. As the user accepts that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, why are we voting on this? ;) Physchim62 (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried, but reverted by Ashibaka. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Divisive. Junes 15:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, needlessly provocative indeed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This userbox was not divisive. Self-appointed honchos patrolling free speech on Wikipedia is divisive. --Daniel 18:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to take a look at what this box had said, if possible. --AySz88^-^ 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been speedied see:

15:50, 5 February 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User wishful" (attack - it is one thing to declare a POV - another to declare that the US is not in fact a democracy)[1]

Why not? I'm declaring it right now; the United States is not, in fact, a democracy. It is a federal republic. And it's better that way. Anyway, Keep for all those who would like to see mob rule. Rogue 9 10:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I always vote keep on any speedied template for the right to see that userbox. I would like to remind Doc that the U.S. is in fact not a democracy, It is technically a Democratic Republic.--God of War 18:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just like above: RESTORE and give people a chance to see what a discussion is about. Larix 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good thing we have admins here who are just like regular users except they know better than them. This TfD will now continue based on what we think the userbox might have said. (Hint: It had to do with George W. Bush!) Just kidding, I will restore it again. I would like to see the admins who deleted it while it was on TfD reprimanded. Ashibaka tock 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for restoring it. I saw the template, and although I don't agree with the contents, I don't see why it should be deleted - it doesn't seem offensive at all to me. Larix 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) - edit: Just to be sure it's counted: I voted KEEP Larix 23:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Admit it, userbox-haters. You've lost. Now go back to writing an encyclopedia like we're supposed to do. --D-Day 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - doesn't seem bad, maybe people didn't realize the reference to the 2000 election. Though if someone uses the userbox inappropriately to stack votes or something, block that user. --AySz88^-^ 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no harm in letting people air their political opinions in userspace unless it becomes disruptive for some specific reason. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User pages don't need to be scrupulously bland and NPOV. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Freedom of speech, user pages are not bound to NPOV, the usual. Plus good political thinking on that democratic republic thing God of War. May i reming you again, user pages are not intended to build the encyclopedia in the sense of articles and other such writing - • | �?ܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused, divisive. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Used and appreciated. --Psotau 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Fang Aili 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - per Crotalus horridus. Damn, I wonder where was this little gem was hiding all this time? This is definitely going to my userboxes. --Dragon695 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an encyclopedia. Needlessly provocative or divisive userboxes are out of place. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Knowledge Seeker Trödel•talk 08:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Doc ^ask? 09:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. violet/riga (t) 09:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Stating a political opinion on your user page is allowed. Having (uncopyrighted) images on your user page is allowed. Using tables on your user page is allowed. No convincing reason given why the combination of all three is against any policy. --Malthusian (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's all good. 65.94.58.104 10:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as provocative. AnnH ^(talk) 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^�? 15:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, user pages shouldn't be always boring & NPOV. MaxSem^talk 16:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Death to all opinion-expressing userboxes. --Deathphoenix 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Life to all opinion-expressing userboxes --T-rex 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Political essays belong on your website, not Wikipedia. Also, name is not descriptive. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keeep until we ahve a clear policy on userboxes. DES ^(talk) 22:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this user believes that deletion of this template would cause irreparable harm to wikipedia. --Dschor 23:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sarge Baldy 05:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Mike McGregor (Can) 08:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Malthusian. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Harmless, even if provocative. Halibutt 11:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Knowledge Seeker. Disparaging userboxes have no place on Wikipedia.--cj | talk 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Free speech! --Revolución (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I echo User:Rogue 9's statement below. I disagree strongly with the sentiment but do not feel attacked, offended, provoked, nor divided from those who emblazon this userbox on their userpage. I see everybody saying, "someone will be really really offended", but I don't see anybody really really offended. I further say if you're the type of person to get all bent out of shape over a political statmement on someone's userpage, perhaps you should leave the community because you probably don't have the emotional control to edit NPOV. Lawyer2b 19:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Lawyer2b per Rogue 9. It's a pathetic sentiment and I can't imagine how anyone can put it on their user page without feeling immense embarrassment, but the fact remains that people are using it, and that's all that really matters to me. --Aaron 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete stomp out political billboards that have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 17:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all userboxes. Though the liberal in me almost had me vote "Keep" cause I hate GWB, but that would be bias. --Cyde Weys 20:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as free speech, but with the caution that you can only have so many varieties of a political opinion before userboxes become meaningless. Go ahead, have multiple anti-W boxes and don't censor, but, seriously, draw the line somewhere. --Pastricide! ^{Non-absorbing} 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Who's it hurting? MiraLuka 03:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There can never be a real democracy. helohe (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's just a troll tool JamesHoadley 16:13, 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.

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. But people should stop using Wikimedia resources for utterly ridiculous purposes. -Splash^talk 23:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User black coffee[edit]

Template:User black coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Where will it stop? We already have Template:user coffee. Do we really need this? What's next, Template:user black coffee, one sugar, Template:user coffee cream, Template:user decaf, half-and-half, no sugar, Template:user capuccino, double shot espresso, soy milk, artificial sweetener? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Template:user coffee is ambiguous. I wanted one to convey my dislike for all the adulterations you listed above. I can see a flavored coffee one. (add i created it, if that's not obvious)Lefty 05:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Unlike most of the userboxes that come up here, this one can't even be construed as an attack template. Your argument that this will result in ridiculously specific userboxes is a wonderful example of the slippery slope fallacy. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in to a user coffee, as a conditional argument. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - So what if there are a hundred userboxes for coffee. We can lump them all together in their own userbox section and you can ignore them.--God of War 18:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Exactly. KEEP with milk. Larix 18:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY KEEP What is this even doing here? --D-Day 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, completely harmless. We're not running out of server space, are we? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Lots of people drink coffee in a variety of ways, so there is a need for a number of coffee templates - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Materially different from other coffee userboxes. Personally, I'm OK with the world not knowing what coffee I like, but let's respect those who feel differently for some reason ;> Adrian Lamo ·· 20:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even though it's just pretentious silliness. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This userbox has one user. Do we really need this boxcruft? --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 01:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment all userboxes started with just one user. Lefty 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep per Cuiviénen. --Dragon695 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or maybe someone can create a modifyable template (not sure exactly what those are called, or how to create them). --Fang Aili 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Doc ^ask? 09:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. violet/riga (t) 09:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Saying what you like to drink on your user page is allowed. Having (uncopyrighted) images on your user page is allowed. Using tables on your user page is allowed. No convincing reason given why the combination of all three is against any policy. --Malthusian (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What is it with people trying to stamp out any form of individuality and interest or community around here? These userboxes help to identify people and bring them together under common ground, stopping one of the really distinct things from Wikipedia would be a shame. 65.94.58.104 10:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not divisive. --Vsion (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Potentially useful tool for identifying Wikipedians with taste. Mark^{your words} 15:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. This is an encyclopedia, not a social networking profile, and templates like this add nothing about a user's editing abilities. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User pages are not part of the encyclopedia in the way articles are. Can people please realise this before voting with "does not build encyclopedia" or something like that. Of course it doesnt, user pages are not intended to! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. But Template space is not User space. We're not talking about users pace here, we're talking about a template. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A template that is used solely on user pages. The concern here is the display of the userbox, not the fact that it takes up server space. I think WP have a big enough budget to handle the space needed for a template page - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Did I say anything about server space? The issue is that the suspension of NPOV applies to user space (you know, pages that start with User: or User talk:). Template space (pages that begin with Template are not part of user space, and are not exempt from the NPOV policy. Users don't need templates to put userboxes expressing viewpoints on their user pages. I used to have a few userboxes expressing viewpoints on my user page, but I hand-rolled them, and they were unique. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, but 'WP:NPOV applies in templatespace' strikes me as nonsense. Why does NPOV need to apply to templates? If a POV template is added to an article, it will be removed (though a userbox in article space wouldn't be POV anyway, it would be patent nonsense). Moreover, there is precedent for not applying Wikipedia policies that apply in article space to template space. WP:V is the most obvious. The vast majority of the userboxes 'violate' WP:V. Same goes for WP:NOR. Of the userboxes on my page, the only one that doesn't violate WP:V is the one about how many times my page has been vandalised, and that one's blatant original research. Bottom line is, the policies relating to encyclopaedic standards do not apply to userboxes. The only policies that I can think of that do are the ones relating to copyright and civility. --Malthusian (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep keep, coffee is disgusting in all forms, but I'm not offended by it --T-rex 19:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into {tl|user coffee)) and create parameters for the variants, if it's really that important to have it. Forking is still bad. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until we have a clear (no sugar) poliicy on userboxes. IMO this is silly, but it is harless, and given the recent history of userbox debate it seems to me that the nominator has not been payign atternion or is trying to make a point. 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep template. Do not merge with ((User:Feureau/UserBox/LovesCoffee)), as this would probably violate WP:AUM. No reason to delete. --Dschor 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This Keep is Strong, just like I like my Coffee...Mike McGregor (Can) 08:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - one coffee template is enough. // Liftarn
• Keep, I guess. But I do wish people didn't feel the need to reconstruct their entire personality via userboxes. Sarge Baldy 16:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah! people that reconstruct their personality via userboxes have a special userbox just for them!!Template:User_ubx-N--God of War 03:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not even going to list a reason why, since it's obvious. --Aaron 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mostly harmless. Insert comic reference to caffeine-induced hyperactivity here. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, but is also harmless.--MONGO 17:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all userboxes. This is ridiculous. --Cyde Weys 20:38, 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 ALREADY DELETED, several times. -Splash^talk 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User USA Police State[edit]

Template:User USA Police State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Needlessly provocative. It's one thing to have an opinion, but Wikipedia is not a blog or a soapbox. This sort of polemic does nothing to advance the goal of writing an encyclopedia, and everything to poison the well and convey the message that the Wikipedia community is all about factions identified by reductionist bumper stickers. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong KEEP ditto God Of War GoodSirJava 03:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The U.S. Secret Services have taken control of my mind and are forcing me to vote delete. Physchim62 (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Doubleplus Ungood, per nom. :)--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst occurences and delete. We don't need this in template space, but I feel that a user should be allowed to express their opinion on this matter in userspace. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You're perfectly free to make a userbox that says "The U.S. is a police state -- and I'd like to make Wikipedia one too!" --Daniel 06:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a coherent argument. I'll ask the closing admin to discount it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this is not a coherent TFD request. --Daniel 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a fine argument. Since when do we discount opinions because of the way they are stated. I have seen many TFD votes with no argument at all or a Keep as per so and so.--God of War 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and other simplistic, divisive userboxes. Junes 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this too, because I am a jackbooted thug this is unnecessarily divisive. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The wording may be strong but the platform limited government has been around forever. While the USA isn't a police state right now, it seems to be headed in that direction with the way Dubya is expanding the powers of government, puttting footnotes on bills saying that the law does not apply to the president and consolidating all of the power in the legislative branch of government.--God of War 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and put the creator in jail As per: — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian. ~ The godking himself
    • COMMENT The quote above was added by user:Ilyanep who cleverly tries to manipulate the discussion by pretending Jimbo commented on it. Larix 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Freedom of expression. Wikipedia isn't a police state. Larix 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above, with the obvious exception of the delete votes. --D-Day 19:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KEEP, if you want to take it seriously, then we have the right to say it. If you find it funny, then you find it funny and there is no reason to delete it... but it should stay both ways. --Bky1701 19:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - strongly worded and controversial, but not uncivil or disruptive. As long as people restrict these opinions to their userspace, I don't see why it's such a problem. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is freedom of speech, and user pages are not NPOV-bound! Userboxes are not intended to greatly improve the encyclopedia, as they go on user pages, so why is it such a problem? If you dont like the userbox, dont use it! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Eleanor Roosevelt rightly observed that no one can offend you without your consent. It's every user's responsibility to maintain a thick skin on the Internet; Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of anything in particular. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Per norm? what norm? If you remember the mass deletion of userboxes with a POV you should know that consensus cleary favored allowing userboxes with a POV. WP:UBP has no agreed upon policy yet. What is this norm you speak of?--God of War 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom., short for per nomination. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Userpages are not NPOV-bound, as User:Dussst stated, thus by definition political viewpoints may be expressed, provided the expression of such is not provocative - which this user box is NOT. In my eyes, it is not more provocative than the statement "This user supports George W. Bush" or "This user is an American Patriot" - no one has ever put up a TfD for that one. For that matter, several users might find this user page very provocative - no one has ever objected to the presentation or the views expressed here. Either ban all content from user pages, which is not an acceptable solution, or do NOT ban ANY (with certain exceptions, of course). Anything else is POV censorship. Vargher 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep If the argument for deleting this is "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", then every single political userbox, and every other userbox which states an opinion, must also be deleted. Being opposed to censorship on Wikipedia, I'd rather keep this, and all the opinionated userboxes with it. ChildOfTheMoon83 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. It is. Try any definition of police state. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Divisive. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 01:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Given the number of articles which might be related to this belief (domestic spying), it is important to know the editor's potential biases. --Dragon695 03:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Userpages aren't NPOV-bound. --Fang Aili 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an encyclopedia. Needlessly provocative or divisive templates are out of place. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User pages are not part of the encyclopedia in the way articles are. Can people please realise this before voting with "does not build encyclopedia" or something like that. Of course it doesnt, user pages are not intended to! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. But Template space is not User space. We're not talking about users pace here, we're talking about a template. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any logic in that. This is a template that is used solely in user space. If we delete this template, we delete content from all the userpages that use it. --Malthusian (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anybody who wants to keep it can subst it. Or roll their own. The point is, template space is not user space, and I see no reason why we should allow POV crap in template space. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 20:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • O! Im telling, you showed an opinion! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete needlessly divisive. Michael Slone (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per nom Trödel•talk 08:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Doc ^ask? 09:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. violet/riga (t) 09:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Stating your political opinions on your user page is allowed. Having (uncopyrighted) images on your user page is allowed. Using tables on your user page is allowed. No convincing reason given why the combination of all three is against any policy. --Malthusian (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Death to all opinion-expressing userboxes. --Deathphoenix 17:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep. per Last Malthusian and all similar viewpoints. --CJ Marsicano 18:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep. I don't agree with the views expressed by this tempalte, but that is irrelevant. Until and unless we ahve a clear policy restricting political or opnion userboxes (or user page conent, use of such userboxes on a user page complies with WP:UP, does not violate any policy, and is in no way an attack, there is therefore no valis reason to delete this, nor can I see even a good faith reason to nominate it, although i presume that the nom thought there was one. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per common sense. This box is not deletable. --Dschor 23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sarge Baldy 05:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I beleave that users who make they're POV know make themselves more accoutable to NPOV standards. also, A.C.A.B.Mike McGregor (Can) 08:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I disagree with the box's premise, I'm not about to try to remove the sentiment because I don't like it. I also don't feel particularly divided from those editors who think this simply because they do so. We can infer from the fact that I, who virulently disagrees with the premise, does not feel any particular animosity towards those who hold it and can work with them perfectly well in building the encyclopedia, that userboxes of this type are not divisive as some so persistently claim without evidence. Rogue 9 11:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but feel free to create a userbox that says "This user thinks that the USA is not a police state.". // Liftarn
• KEEP, not an attack or divisive, and the user is FROM CONNECTICUT so he or she has the right to speak about his or her country in a non-offensive way. //MrD9 02:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I am a jackbooted thug opposed to divisive/negatively opinionated userboxes. Write your own essay on Geocities, or better yet, write your Congresscritter. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: There is no good reason to censor userpages for POV content when they are not bound by NPOV. Dick Clark 19:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: While I think it is a fairly ignorant viewpoint, people can think whatever they want and express it on their page. Besides it's no more inflametory than some of the religion, language, or other political userboxes. Koweja 19:20, 8 February 2006
• Delete. Divisive. Trolling. Contributes nothing. This is NOT ON USER SPACE - it is in template space. If you want it so much, subst it yourself and keep it on your user page, but having it on the template space suggests Wikipedia passively encourages this kind of poop. Yeesh. Proto||type 10:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep userpages are NOT covered by WP:NPOV. Please stop the spurious deletion nominations anti-userbox folks Cynical 11:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This isn't about user space. It's about a template in template space, which is not part of user space, and is subject to NPOV. Like Proto said, if you like the stupid thing so much, subst: it to your user page. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userboxes are not subject to NPOV. Many if not most userboxes clearly fail NPOV, even those relating to Wikipedia - the ones that spring to mind that clearly aren't going to be deleted include ((User wikipedia non commercial)), ((User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Edit Count Usefulness)), ((tlu|User:Feureau/UserBox/ProudWikipedian, ((User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User trusts Jimbo)) etc. etc. ad infinitum. --Malthusian (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointlessly divisive. Disparaging userboxes have no place on Wikipedia.--cj | talk 14:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Free speech! --Revolución (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I echo User:Rogue 9's statement. I disagree strongly with the sentiment but do not feel attacked, offended, provoked, nor divided from those who emblazon this userbox on their userpage. I see everybody saying, "someone will be really really offended", but I don't see anybody really really offended. I further say if you're the type of person to get all bent out of shape over a political statmement on someone's userpage, perhaps you should leave the community because you probably don't have the emotional control to edit NPOV. Lawyer2b 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Lawyer2b per Rogue 9. --Aaron 00:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obtusive and divisive billboard has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 17:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Taxman has deleted the template without a consensus for a deletion. --Revolución (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yeah I speedied it because it clearly met the speedy criteria "Templates that are clearly divisive and/or inflammatory". I've restored it because I didn't see the discussion here. (should have checked) The template has no value to the encyclopedia and that's the only thing we should really be looking at here. - Taxman ^Talk 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all userboxes (Yes Virginia, there is a Userbox Deletionist Cabal). --Cyde Weys 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, but we've got to stop meeting like this. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'll give you three guesses as to who deleted it this time, but you'll only need one. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 04:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Like DES above, I totally disagree with the sentiment behind this User box. Further, I think it's utterly paranoid and ludicrous. That said, I must be a REAL liberal because I believe a person has every right to put this lie on their User page. The thugs who are on a Jihad to ban all User boxes need to find a new hobby. (P.s. Be aware that the same thugs who deleted the User:No Rand box using a 'new' speedydelete loophole, even though 90% of the vote was "keep" will likely use the same undemocratic tactic here.) Nhprman 16:01, 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.

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. -Splash^talk 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StarWarsWiki[edit]

Template:StarWarsWiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Not a Wikipedia sister project. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete... while we ♥ other wikis, only Wikimedia projects get the box link, and, I'm sorry, but Wookiepedia isn't a primary source, so doesn't belong anywhere on the main article pages. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 07:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wouldnt be against them having an external link template like memory alpha. ive voted delete for other external link templates to other wikis but they were all start-up wikis with barely any content, this seems in the league of memory alpha, I havnt checked thoroughly mind. Discordance 16:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doesn't the Death Star in the logo violate WP:FUC? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why; this template isn't going in anyone's userspace. Rogue 9 11:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom and Netoholic _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Compactify and keep as per ((memoryalpha)) and ((imdb name)) etc. —Phil | Talk 11:32, 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. -Splash^talk 23:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Al-Salam poeti[edit]

Template:Al-Salam poeti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template only has one valid link (out of six). None of the sister ships have articles yet, and it's only the Boccaccio 98 which has an "interesting" story. As it is now, there's no point in it. kallemax 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 02:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't want to judge the template if there were more functioning links... but, without them it doesn't seem to be worthwhile. gren グレン ^? 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Zxcvbnm 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete — a pointless template until such time as it includes more than one functioning links _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't have a problem with red links, or with someone creating articles on any of those ships. Sarge Baldy 02:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Red links could be motivating for creating new articles --TheFEARgod 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete goofy template even if the links weren't red. --Grocer 16:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. If and when the other articles get written, let them recreate the template. --Aaron 01:06, 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.