< January 10	January 12 >

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 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oldvfd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Obsolete and now unused. —Phil | Talk 19:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obsolete. - Cuivienen 20:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 11:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Template talk:Oldvfd contains useful discussion and should be retained, perhaps as Template talk:Oldafd. Uncle G 19:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Loopy ^e 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect just like what we did when we renamed all the VFD pages and dicussions to AFD. And as per Uncle G, Template talk:Oldvfd contains useful discussion and should be retained. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, unless all linked pages are accessible from templage:oldafd, Though, what of VFD'd pages that survived, have archived discussions, and never got this template? 132.205.45.110 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the new template (((oldafdfull)), is it not?). Johnleemk | Talk 06:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article's past has no bearing on if it will be good in the future. --Shell 17:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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 Karmafist 20:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User allboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The purpose of this template is to stack consultations against anti-userbox deletions, disciplinary actions, and changes to policy. It subverts the attempt to find reasoned positions in these processes into tug of wars, or in brief, it is disruptive. Templates expressing support for userboxes in a non-disruptive manner exist, for example, Template:Userbox Love. The template should be deleted. --- Charles Stewart 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom edited: I missed a non- before disruptive when talking about Template:Userbox Love, which I think is a good template for expressing support for userboxes. Sorry about this. --- Charles Stewart 20:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A user should be allowed to state they are in favour of userboxes. This does so. If I notice a userbox expressing an opposite viewpoint, my vote will be the same. This is a comment on a wikipedia phenomenon. As I understand it, this is not only possible, but encouraged. This is after all, a collaborative project and such projects encourage feeback, even if said feedback may be interpreted as negative in content. - Hayter 19:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This opinion can be expressed in a non-disruptive manner with Template:Userbox Love. Templates can be used for vote-stacking, which is highly discouraged: the emphasis on intent to vote separates this bad template from the love template. --- Charles Stewart 20:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is disruptive, certainly I fail to see how it is more disruptive that the example you provide as an alternative. If it's the inclusion of a category, one need only check the 'what links here' list to find the users who use the box. That aside, not everyone likes pink. - Hayter 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't see this: the disruption is to wikipedia's decision-making process. The box-love template indicates no intention to vote on this preference, and because most people find poll-stacking sleazy, it's likely to be of little use in a poll-stacking operation. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hayter. —Andux 19:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep. 'Nuff said. —CJ Marsicano 19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hayter - Keith Greer 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definately that userbox love. What's disruptive about that?? I can possible see some people thinking User allboxes as disruptive, but it doesn't actually attack anyone either. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This TfD nom does not make the false claim that the template is an attack template, but instead I claim that it is tailor made for vote-stacking. --- Charles Stewart 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. May I highlight the word rampant, if its not rampant, then it should be voted upon how the user so wishes. Ian¹³_ID:540053 20:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Glue. Stating an opinion in a userbox should not be a problem. This crusade really has to stop. - Cuivienen 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and ban all users with a stupid userbox on their page. violet/riga (t) 20:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and ban stupid threats like that directly above). FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A userbox created in an attempt to form a voting bloc to protest the deletion of userboxes that attempt to form voting blocs... the mind boggles. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the template, as User POV is allowed. (I do wonder about the Category:Users who support userboxes as encouraging voter canvassing -- but as I know of no policy against informing interested parties of votes, I see no crime in it.) — Eoghanacht ^talk 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How on earth is this supposed to form a voting bloc, when the only way I even knew it existed was when I saw this TfD? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Station Attendant 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as we should any and all userboxes. --Dschor 23:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Larix 00:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and start a Wikipedia:Userboxes for deletion section where these petty squabbles can take place.--Ezeu 00:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as ungood crimethink and replace with this:

Herostratus 04:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep just let the people show their opinions about userboxes. --Angelo 04:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but perhaps remove the category. Does the nom have evidence that this box is actually being used for vote stacking or is the nom just saying that maybe it might be? #wikipedia IRC might be used for vote stacking too, right? ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two points: first, templates, categories and images all have potential for being used in poll-stacking operations. I am saying the template is well-suited for vote-stacking, because it explicitly advertises an intention to vote, and hence it is (i) not expressing an opinion but advertising an intention and (ii) has a good chance to be used in the future in vote-stacking operations. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 22:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No personal attack or anything. Remove the category, if you want. —Nightstallion (?) 08:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Well, what a surprise! Another userbox is up for deletion! Why don't people get it into there heads that userboxes are here for opinion, lots of people use them, people like them, they're not harming anyone, and they should not be deleted!. This is a huge waste of time. — Wackymacs 08:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and carefully watch the keepers. --Pjacobi 11:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so you know, I created both Template:user allboxes AND Template:user noboxes. Everyone has the right to their opinion.--God of War 22:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I do not see this as in any way disruptive. DES ^(talk) 15:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It advertises a clear intention to vote a particular way. It is the very picture of a vote-stacking template. I'm surprised you don't see the disruptive nature of this template. --- Charles Stewart
• Keep, no evidence of disruption. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest imaginable keep. Fer cryin' out loud, would y'all stop already with the campaign against userboxes? As others have said, there is no evidence of disruption.
• Comment I'm not surprised to see that for many participants find that the issue of freedom of expression trumps the risk of vote-stacking, but I'm very surprised that templates formulated in a manner explicitly inviting vote-stacking are not seen as being in any way disruptive (even to the extend of invoking the pinciple of not shutting barn doors unless the horse has already bolted). Are there any circumstances which keep voters think that vote-stacking templates should be deleted on the grounds of vote-stacking? --- Charles Stewart 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see this as "vote stacking" but rather as expressing an opnion on a currently debated issue of wikipedia policy. If someone wanted to argue for removing the category as possibly likely to lead to block voting, I could understand that. DES ^(talk) 21:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear: you think that This '''[[:Category:Users who support userboxes|user]]''' supports userboxes and '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes/Alerts|votes]]''' to stop their rampant deletion. does not invite attention from people trying to stack polls to protect userboxes? --- Charles Stewart 00:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Postscript I am assuming that you are aware that most (probably 2/3s of) people do not subst templates, and so they can provide an effective tool for vote-stacking. --- Charles Stewart 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anyone who would censor what other editors say about themselves on their own user pages cannot be trusted with administration or arbitration power. --Peace Inside 00:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And stop those that would use the tfd to silence contrary opinions. I noticed that template Template:user noboxes has not been listed for deletion.--God of War 03:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that that template exists is more than slightly ironic and is indicative of the ridiculousness of the position taken by the anti-userbox minority. - Cuivienen 04:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:user noboxes expresses an opinion that is probably pretty closely aligned with voting behaviour, but it does not explicitly advertise an intention to participate in polls in a particular way. It might be possible to argue that it should be deleted as a poll-stacker, but the case is much less clear. I'd be interested to hear of any other possible poll-stackers. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 22:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete using MOAB and send remains (if any) to Yucca Mountain--MONGO 06:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Keep I didn't find this through vote-stacking, I found it on my own, and now that I found it, I will put it on my page b/c it expresses my opinion. That is allowed on userpages, so why do people want to ban that now? I am disturbed by the number of people who want to delete any userbox that dares express a negative opinion of a person (such as King George W. Bush) or an idea. This isn't even all that negative. The Ungovernable Force 06:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of your reasons for putting the userbox on your page, the point is that it expresses your intent to vote in a particular way. That is why it is a poll-stacking template. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 17:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Harmless userbox. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hayter. --Fang Aili 19:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashibaka tock 20:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promoting flocking behavior in votes Consensus is not about mob rule. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as I have yet to see any evidence that this userbox has caused any disruption. --Asarelah
• Strong Keep You want to talk about being disruptive. This very vote for deletion is being disruptive. This whole thing is getting completely out of hand. If you like the userboxes put them on your userpage. If you don't like them DON'T put them on your userpage. FINISH. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy Keep — This isn't hurting anyone. If you don't like it, don't use it, simple as that. There is no "flocking" behaviour going on, there is absolutely nothing wrong with drawing attention to Wikipedia vote processes, as the notice about ArbCom elections on your Special:Watchlist shows. People who try to hide knowledge of votes for deletion and other processes only wish to try exclude newer users from Wikipedia processes and keep their cliques in power. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This kind of Tfd is disgusting. Where is the evidence that this userbox causes disruption besides the paranoia displayed by those who put userboxes up for deletion? The comments made by Pjacobi and MONGO truly make the Deletion process look bad. --D-Day 13:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony Sidaway has documented 3 poll-stacking operations, all of which were foolish enough to be organised on talk pages; I expect the majority of such operations are organised by email. I do not think that people who advertise their intention to vote in a particular way should be permitted to participate in polls: this issue I find to be far more serious that the issue about personal attacks. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Continous deletion of userboxes without due process because some people here believe that there should be no freedom to express your affliations. KittenKlub 19:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep harmless userbox. Nohat 22:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as freedom of speech. The nomination of this just highlights the over-reaction of some people, as well as violet/riga's comment of "Delete and ban all users with a stupid userbox on their page", how stupid! - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 11:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because people use it. Box love only has 2 users. Rich Farmbrough. 13:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Now that I think about, the very fact that this userbox was brought up for deletion is even more proof of out-of-control admins trying to censor user pages. --D-Day 13:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Boddah 18:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Mystache 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't like being censored, and the box is not libelous or slanderous, or anything else that would make it offensive...what's next? Deleting userboxes staing a position of support for Amnesty International or Gay and Lesbian rights?...this whole argument is quite ridiculous. If you don't like userboxes, don't put them on your page, and privately condemn those who use them if you feel so strongly about it, if you really hate userboxes and userbox users that much, state your POV on YOUR userpage...don't try censor people's personal opinions when they are properly confined to their personal userpage. Nobody is forcing you to use userboxes, so don't try to force others not to use them. bcatt 23:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sometimes wonder if it is worth writing an explanation for the TfD and discussing issues various people have with it, when messages that indicate a complete lack of effort at comprehension appear as this one. This template is not offensive, libellous or slanderous, just as the TfD rationale said. It does, however, advertise an intention to vote in a particular way, and if I saw an Amnesty International userbox that said "This user likes Amnesty International and will vote to delete any articles that irritate them", I would put that up for TfD too. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 17:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep There's one that states pratically the opposite of this one so, go delete that one instead.--RBlowes 23:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh yeah, and carefully watch the "deleters" =)
• Keep Harmless... Duran 06:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete factious, used to stack consensus. Iff kept, remove the category so it can't be used for talk page spamming. --Wikiacc 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no compelling reason to delete (and no, I have not put it on my page). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - TCorp 21:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 04:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep it, or lose the 'noboxes' one as well. Makitk, 18 January 2006, 8:02am (GMT+1)
  • Comment I accidentally posted my above vote under Uncyclopedia. Sorry for that.
• Strong keep It's harmless - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 15:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Boddah 15:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep Shell 17:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is currently not used, nor should it be. It somehow survived a TfD debate here.

• Delete. —Ruud 12:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though possibly reword. I suspect this is designed to be used on the user talk pages of Uncyclopedia users who get their wires crossed. -- nae'blis _(talk) 13:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is for the talk pages of articles like Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose humourous subject matter could tempt many to non-encyclopaedic updates. Surprised it's not more widely used. — ciphergoth 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: wangi 14:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NPOV does the job. gren グレン ^? 14:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NPOV covers it's use. If it had a use, it would have been used by now - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Stbalbach 15:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need a template for this. If we did, we certainly wouldn't need one that includes a plug for a specific non-Wikimedia website (rather than referring to satirical wikis in general). —David Levy 20:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It doesn't have to do with NPOV. This is useful for articles such as Flying Spaghetti Monster or Exploding whales that have a tendency to attract silly edits. - Cuivienen 20:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Firstly, uncyclopedia isn't all that famous. Secondly, the guidance the template offers is, or ought to be, common sense. Thirdly, it's unused. I think pages such as FSM have a large majority of sensible people around them who will prevent the page being hijacked by non-sensible editors. David | Talk 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful for Flying Spaghetti Monster and others. Prevents silly and funny edits, not NPOV. DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really unnecessary -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for article talk and user talk pages only. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, probably a sneaky attempt to promote Uncyclopedia.--Ezeu 00:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Uncyclopedia is not completely irrelevant in the scheme of things. For example (and rather unexpectedly), MediaWiki provides it as a built-in interwiki uncyclopedia:. It is also part of Jimbo's commercial project, Wikia. In my understanding, however, Wikia is not anything at all to do with Wikimedia (both Wikicities and Uncyc are absent from http://www.wikimedia.org, the Foundation's homepage). -Splash^talk 02:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Angelo 04:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless advertisements like this will cause more vandalism than they prevent. -Silence 12:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary and pointless. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Levy CDC (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - usually articles which contain nonsense or stupid content get speedied or sent to BJAODN, both using their own templates. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 01:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a WM sisterproject. Radiant_>|< 12:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fucking hilarious if you think about [1] 70.50.109.55 21:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest an alteration to the template, in line with Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies policy. This could be used on User Talk pages as an alternative to ((test)):

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. You're alterations to the [[(({1))}]] article were indeed very funny, but I'm afraid we can't keep them. This is because Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and shouldn't be corrupted by that sort of thing. However, you may be interested to know that there is a very similar wiki called Uncyclopedia that would welcome your comical contributions. This is because Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia, and welcomes comical content written in good taste. You are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, however if you wish to submit comical content please do so at Uncyclopedia instead. Thank you.

—gorgan_almighty 14:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Template is overly large and somewhat unwieldy, and is mostly full of red links. Discussion on the template's talk page shows a preference for this information to be a simple category, rather than a full template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too unwieldy to be of any use. Since all of the articles in the template are now in the same category anyway, I don't see a point in keeping this. - Bobet 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too big (even with the font reduction), and full of red links. Also, I'm not sure if it's particularly useful or warranted. -- MisterHand 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unwieldly, no reason to know who owns all of those places, etc. gren グレン ^? 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it ike9898 14:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MisterHand --Loopy ^e 22:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to a proper category, and delete the template. Rob Church ^Talk 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete - I fixed It, so that almost 30 out of 100 shopping malls remain. LOOK AGAIN: Template:Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpongeJustin4 (talk • contribs)
• Strong Keep - Its use is the same as what the Mills template is used for, PLUS I cut it short. --SpongeJustin4

Comment: The shortening of the template reduced it to Simon malls that already have articles on Wikipedia, meaning that all the red links were cut out. I now consider the template to be incomplete, because it's not giving the whole picture anymore. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Replace by ((otherarticles)) Septentrionalis 05:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like so many navigation templates. DES ^(talk) 15:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A category is enough. Flowerparty■ 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looks like SchuminWeb has been vote stacking (here)! This is abuse of the AutoWikiBrowser tool! —gorgan_almighty 16:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to respectfully disagree with your accusation of vote-stacking and abuse of the AWB tool by extension. Here's why. The same message was sent to four users total: Ike9898, MisterHand, 205.213.111.51, and SpongeJustin4. These four individuals were all listed as contributors on either Template:Simon or Template talk:Simon, and all were contacted regardless of their role with the template. One of these users is the original creator of the template, and cast a "keep" vote. My intention in messaging these users was simply to notify them that the template was up for deletion - in other words, "Getting out the vote". As the link above demonstrates, the message was neutral. It lists the TFD nomination verbatim, and asks users to participate. No suggestion is given suggesting to users on how to vote. In addition, I see no difference between using AWB to send a message to four users and cut-and-pasting the same message to all four users. AWB seems to be designed to automate such a task, so it makes sense to use it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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