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

Template:User disBush

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

Keep forever.--Greasysteve13 00:40, 20 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]
- And so is the never-ending war to keep them from being deleted. The dilemma is the source of the disruption; neither (or both, it makes no difference) "side" is at fault. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here, here! My thoughts exactly. Broken Segue 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's tame enough (and not inflammatory or polemical). --AySz88 ^-^ 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irrelevant to the task of building an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If an user dislikes Bush so strongly that he feels he needs to express it, he can write it so on his userpage. No need for a template. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The political views of editors have no place anywhere on Wikipedia, userpages included. Physchim62 (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2006

(UTC)

Keep While wikipedia may not be a democracy, why should editors not be able to express there political views? --Hamedog^Talk|@ 08:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep discloses editor pov, which contributes to an open and honest atmosphere that is condusive to writing an NPOV encylopedia. That and this is not innflamitory, divisive or polematic. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Freedom of speech before all. --UVnet 15:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not needed.Bratsch e^talk 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my vote on the UN template. Broken Segue 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not necessary - doesn't help mission - to build an encyclopedia Trödeltalk 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It helps the mission of building the encyclopedia by allowing contributors to feel that they are human beings instead of automatons. --Aaron 17:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Cannibal

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

Speedy Keep Doesn't meet T1 criteria, or any criteria for deletion for that matter. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 22:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can someone explain why this particular image is used? Some joke I don't get? Misza13 ^(Talk) 22:39, 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]

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]
Keep, though consider marking it as a joke (but the baby might be a good-enough mark). --AySz88 ^-^ 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If an user eats people and feels strongly that he needs to express it, he can write it so on his userpage. No need for a template. The use of a baby image for the tempalte however makes it fall under polemical and inflammatory. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, are you really saying that if the image were not of a baby, then you wouldn't find it polemical, and wouldn't delete it? If so, then it's a candidate for cleanup, not for deletion!--M @r ē ino 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm saying that the baby iamge makes its nature more clearly. I find that template offensive and disgusting. So that at least makes it polemical, and given that it adds zero value to the encyclopedia building, I don't see why T1 should not be applied. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of no conceivable use in creating an free encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the photo is changed. It is highly offensive to associate cannibalism and children in any context, and is not at all humourous. I will not err on this stance. Harr o5 08:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI. The userbox is listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny, so it is a joke and nothing inflammatory. Don't tell me you take this seriously. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 13:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep It's clearly a joke, and babies taste better then old people (soylent green didn't look to appitizing)...Mike McGregor (Can) 14:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Freedom of speech before all. --UVnet 15:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insulting, inflammatory, polemic. Bratsch e^talk 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, jokes don't belong in the template namespace. Subst it in if you want it. Broken Segue 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fine for user space but template space is for our mission - to build an encyclopedia Trödeltalk 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per D-Day. --Aaron 17:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wishful

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guan aco 22:08, 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]
Reword-and-Move or Delete, the tone can be inflammatory to some. Maybe something like "This user feels the U.S. has lost its democratic roots" or something. --AySz88 ^-^ 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If an user feels strongly that he needs compare wikipedia with USA goverment, he can write it so on his userpage. No need for a template. However, it factionalizes wikipedia by making a strong political affirmation about the behaviour of USA goverment, which is certainly no relevant to encyclopedia building. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Harmful to the project: an editor's political opinions have no place anywhere on Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep discloses editor pov, which contributes to an open and honest atmosphere that is condusive to writing an NPOV encylopedia. That and this is not innflamitory, divisive or polematic. Mike McGregor (Can) Mike McGregor (Can) 14:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Drini. Bratsch e^talk 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what is the purpose of this template? It doesn't even express a POV (the US isn't a democracy POV doesn't seriously exist). It isn't humorous (am I missing something?) If it was expressing a POV then the mention of Wikipedia is unnecessary. Broken Segue 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not necessary - doesn't help mission - to build an encyclopedia Trödeltalk 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User-AmE-0

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

Keep --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:24, 20 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]
Keep. This one is very useful -- it defuses many misunderstandings between the huge number of dialects that have to share the en.wiki. --M @r ē ino 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I recommend making it clear that the "mistaken for dialect" part is an opinion and not an assertion of fact, as that can cause more annoyance. --AySz88 ^-^ 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Gratuitously divisive. A listing on TfD does not exempt a template from speedy deletion when in is clearly in breach of policy. Physchim62 (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endorse the speedy deletion of this template, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep discloses editor's tendancies towards language useage, which contributes to an open and honest atmosphere that is condusive to writing an NPOV encylopedia. That and this is not innflamitory, divisive or polematic. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Physchim62 (good point). Bratsch e^talk 15:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del, its sole purpose is to be divisive (humorously). Adds nothing to the project. Broken Segue 15:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not necessary - doesn't help mission - to build an encyclopedia Trödeltalk 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Anti-UN

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guan aco 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 @r ē ino 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]

Delete Harmful to the project: editor's political opinions have no place anywhere in an encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep discloses editor pov, which contributes to an open and honest atmosphere that is condusive to writing an NPOV encylopedia. That and this is not innflamitory, divisive or polematic. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Freedom of speech before all. --UVnet 15:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no freedom of speech. Bratsch e^talk 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if you want to state your POV do so with text. This template is too simplisti to tell anyone anything usefull about your POV (why do you hate the UN?). I can't see any real use to telling us your POV. If you intend to sneak POV into an article you will not put up these templates. If you don't intend to put POV in articles then who cares what your personal opinion is? Broken Segue 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bratsch Trödeltalk 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Anti-ACLU

Undeleted after a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not speedily delete this. —Guan aco 21:55, 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]
Delete attack template --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sure. No help about building an encyclopedia. It's divisive (since it causes tension among those people who DO support ACLU). However people can write on their userpages their reasons for disliking ACLU, no need for a template (after all it's only 7 words, can't users just write them?) People are voting keep just because of it being an userbox, not considering their contents. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once again: As someone who supports the ACLU, it's important for the anti-ACLU 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 @r ē ino 05:51, 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]

Delete If you don't like the ACLU, you have the right to say so on a personal website, not here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Physchim62 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep discloses editor pov, which contributes to an open and honest atmosphere that is condusive to writing an NPOV encylopedia. That and this is not innflamitory, divisive or polematic. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a strong supporter for the ACLU I believe that freedom of speech comes before all. --UVnet 15:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Polemic and inflammatory; falls under CSD T1. Bratsch e^talk 15:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not help Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation reach its goals (creating an encyclopedia and other content if you forgot). Waste of bandwith (no matter how little it uses). Waste of space. Potentially divisive. If you want to say this write it as text. Broken Segue 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrokenSeque Trödeltalk 16:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User admins ignoring policy

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

And why the hell not? It's an obvious speedy candidate. Just because you don't agree with T1 doesn't mean it will just go away. Mackensen (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pages that have been undeleted after a successful Wikipedia:Deletion review listing should not be speedily deleted. —Guan aco 19:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What if DRV keeps a copyvio? Or an attack-template? Step back and think for a second. Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then we send it back to the appropriate deletion page, as I did here. After a few days, if the page is really as bad as some users claim, it will be deleted by consensus. —Guan aco 19:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously a T1 speedy candidate. David | Talk 19:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~after changing the word "pissed" into something less... well, something different. This single word is "clearly" the only thing that might be considered inflammatory.~~_{(done by Guanaco)} Also, please make sure you understand T1 properly. Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete divisive and absolutely evil. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:04, 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]

keep Voices legit concerns about admins abusing authority, abusing t1, and a lack of accoutability. also, we voted to keep this. without functioning consensus, wikipedia is nothing. Mike McGregor (Can) 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It wouldnt need to exist if some admins didn't abuse T1 and other such means. And I am perfectly aware ofwhat I mean thanks, I don't need to be told. Ian13/talk 20:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you're going to abuse T1 or anything else, at least let us say that you're abusing it.Dtm142 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you want to say admins are abusing T1, you don't need a bumper sticker to do it. Also, I find it generally inappropriate (eg. admins would be fairly unprofessional if they posted the opposite slogan on their user page). --Interiot 20:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The non T1 abusing admins could also put up the userbox.Dtm142 21:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Like Duct Tape --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If all the admins followed policy then wikipedia would be a much more pleasant place.--God of War 23:02, 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]

Keep - This is SO the template that is totally appropriate at this time. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see it as a mood thing like those stress meters (except this has a reason too), so it's fine by me. --AySz88 ^-^ 00:49, 20 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]
Delete If you feels admins ignore policy and you feel so strongly about it, WRITE AND EXPLAIN IT ON YOUR PAGE, no need of a template that spreads ill will towards admins, therefore T1 should apply here. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:43, 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]

Keep. It's the only way that the admins will be able to track them all down... --M @r ē ino 05:50, 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 Trödeltalk 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. Bratsch e^talk 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. Broken Segue 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]