Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 19/Userboxes

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log | 2006 February 19
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaron (talk | contribs) at 17:53, 20 February 2006 (→[[Template:User Cannibal]]: keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:User disBush

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guanaco 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Template:User Cannibal

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guanaco 22:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure why I chose that one. When I subst it following it's speedy, I had a picture of Terry Bradshaw in its place. Would you prefer that? ;) --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 22:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)(PS, if someone wants a better picture in there, go for it)[reply]

Template:User wishful

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guanaco 22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User-AmE-0

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guanaco 22:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Anti-UN

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guanaco 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this and all userboxes as terrible misuse of the Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Userboxes are not harmful. The never ending war to delete them is harmful.--God of War 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* Delete. I don't see how this does not fall into CSD T1. if an user feels so strongly to criticize UN, he can write a paragraph or two about it on his userpage. No need for a template. The sole reason people is "voting" keep is due to the template container form. Repeat: There is no need for a template here. People can write about it on their pages. This is a polemical template. It's inflammatory. People are only voting keep since it's an userbox. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As someone who supports the UN, it's important for the anti-UN people to have an easy way to find me so that they can monitor my article edits -- the only edits that matter -- for NPOV, and vice versa. --M@rēino 05:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a reason that supports deleting: it allows wikistalking -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Anti-ACLU

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guanaco 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a reason that supports deleting: it allows wikistalking -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User admins ignoring policy

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guanaco 18:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain in what way is it divisive? Out-of-process behavior of admins (who should be the upmost examples of responsible users) is inadmissible and should be condemned by all users. Some can be particularly annoyed by this (especially if they find their user pages defaced by red links) and have all the rights to express this feeling. Please reconsider your vote. Misza13 (Talk) 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, evil? Elaborate, if you please. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed, divisive. First, it assumes admins ignoring process is inherently bad - which it isn't. If something ought to be deleted, is there any reason to complain and force us to go through unnecessary process? Second, it contributes to factionalism - and doesn't particularly help create a friendly environment to non-admins who might try something Bold but noncontroversial and simply skip process. Process exists so that people can feel as if they had input into a decision - if the decision is obvious, or required regardless of consensus, then process is a pointless waste of time, which detracts from what we're here for - which is to build an encyclopedia. Michael Ralston 20:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is very patronizing, we're not idiotsMike McGregor (Can) 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, while WP:IAR is not inherently bad, its abuse certainly is. But let's don't raise this issue here - we're discussing here whether users have the right to use this template to express their annoyance. Second, the "factionalism" was created by the admins themselves - if they didn't abuse certain rules, the movement associated with this template wouldn't raise. Third, as this (so far) and the WP:DRV discussions prove, the decision was not obvious and thus the process is not a Pointless Waste of Time. Misza13 (Talk) 21:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. But how is that a reason that supports the existence of the template? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ya know, I tried to open a diologue with an admin and all I got was essentally a 'Shut Up and Go Away, you've been warrned' on my Talkpage... so apparently writing about it would just jepordize my chances of staying not banned.Mike McGregor (Can) 14:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a reason that supports deleting: it allows wikistalking -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this is better than the original userbox I nominated for deletion which was just a personal attacking template. I still don't like the userbox however, and I share some of Drini's sentiments. If people absolutely want to use it though, I think it might generate more ill will than good to delete this. I think the userbox should be deleted, but, with a clothing pin attached to my nose, I will vote keep anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete polemical and inflammatory. Ironic since the template violates policy and the supportors are using a vote to ignore that policy - seems ignoring policy only pisses them off when it doesn't go their way Trödel&#149;talk 12:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Freedom of speech before all. --UVnet 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I don't know how many times we have to say this. First there is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia. We don't allow personal attacks: that's not freedom of speech. Also, Trödel above has it aboslutely correct. It is under speedy deletion: you can't undelete because you vote that way. Bratschetalk 15:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not advance the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia. Divisive. Useless. Conveys much less information than prose on a userpage. Liable to be abused. BrokenSegue 15:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Mike McGregor, and because I can't stop laughing at Jtkiefer's allegation that it's "absolutely evil". --Aaron 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_19/Userboxes&oldid=40453897"