Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:06, 12 May 2006

This area of discussion is frequently a locus of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.

• WP:DRV/U

Userboxes are sometimes deleted by administrators if there are thought to be valid reasons for their removal from Misplaced Pages. However, some userboxes may be inappropriately deleted. Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates considers appeals to restore userboxes that have been deleted. It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora. Before using the Review, please read Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy and Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy.

Category:User undeletion lists a number of administrators who are prepared to honour good faith requests for the restoration of deleted content to your user space, for example if you want to work up a more encyclopaedic article. This does not require deletion review, you can ask one of them directly (or post a request at the administrators' noticeboard).

Purpose

This process is about userboxes, not about people. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting userboxes prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators.

If you nominate a page here, be sure to make a note on the administrator's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template is available to make this easier:

{{subst:DRVU note|section heading}} ~~~~

Similarly, if you are a administrator and a page you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Please take general discussion to the talk page.

Template:Policy-change-warning

May 11, 2006

Template:User Christian

This user is a Christian.

Gmaxwell and Cyde began replacing the simple statement "this user is a Christian" with longer and longer formulations of what it might or might not mean to call oneself a Christian. By the end, the template was more than one screen long (on my screen, at least), complete with footnotes, references, and a spinning crucifix. Their stated justification for doing this was to make the template NPOV, since different people mean different things when they self-identify as Christian. However, they went to such ridiculous extremes that (in my view, at least) they violated WP:POINT.

Anyway, when people noticed that their user pages now had a massive essay with a spinning crucifix instead of a little userbox with an ΙΧΘΥΣ symbol, they understandably got upset. This caused some edit warring and flaming (some of which you can see at Template talk:User Christian). And then Mackensen deleted the template, saying that it was "clearly divisive".

However, the template wasn't divisive before Gmaxwell and Cyde's antics. It (along with all the other religious userboxes) survived a previous deletion debate, and sat harmlessly on hundreds of users' pages. Gmaxwell and Cyde provoked an argument, and Mackensen deleted the template because they had started a fight over it. As I've said elsewhere, this is analagous to seeing someone who's been pushed into the mud and condemning them for being dirty. If the template is not restored, this sets a precedent that anyone can start an edit war over a template and get it deleted under T1. Do we really want to endorse that tactic? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. While I'm not happy with the circumstances leading to its deletion, I have no doubt that religious templates are divisive and can be provocative and inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. That's the core and ultimate principle. Users can write "I'm a christian" and put any picture they consider suit on their pages. Having this on template namespace is unneded and not improving the encyclopedia. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  also if people don't want their userpages to be modified by 3rd parties, they shouldn't be using unsubsted shared templates. since that's precisely the point of templates. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  But should this tactic (starting a fight with the intention of causing division, and thus justifying the removal of a template under T1) be endorsed? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Certainly not. Septentrionalis 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  However DRVU is not about the tactic itself. It's about wether restore it or not. Admins behaviour is discussed at other places, don't mix things. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I trust it will be discussed in other places; but one way to discourage misbehavior is to make clear that it will not get the desired results. Septentrionalis 03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• List on TfD This is not inflammatory; it's even pastel. Not properly speedied, and I cannot consider the antics involved evidence of real divisiveness. If it is divisive, the users it divides will vote to delete. Septentrionalis 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Alternatively: rewording is perfectly acceptable, probably desirable, encouraged by Jimbo, and infinitely better than the sort of conduct which led here. Septentrionalis 02:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is a clear undelete. I'll never have this userbox on my page, but what went on today pretty much amounted to WP:POINT. I understand their frustration at not making much progress on the polemic userboxes, but we're not Uncyclopedia and can't use their methods. Incidentally, I think Mackensen made the right call deleting the box when he did. The situation was starting to get out of hand and at the time I think the deletion was the only way to nip it in the bud and force everyone to take a step back. –Abe Dashiell 02:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - T1 now clearly provides for the deletion of such userboxes. However, that does not excuse the disruptive behaviour from people who should know better and, as admins, are supposed to set an example of civility. If this deletion sticks it should reflect acceptance of the expansion and clarification of T1, not of disruptive tactics to make a WP:POINT. Metamagician3000 02:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you don't mean to encourage the circular reasoning: "This box should be deleted because the new T1 says so; and the new T1 is approved because this box has been deleted." Septentrionalis 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or Strong unprotect/undelete and Reword to "This user is interested in Christianity." That would not necessarily define the user as a Christian, but it could be helpful for someone using what links here / user cats to find resourceful individuals to help out with articles on Christianity. In its current form, however, it could easily be used for ballot stuffing purposes, which should be discouraged. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a bad idea (the rewording). We don't need a template to advertise our religious beliefs, but one that says "I can help you understand/edit articles on Christianity" (or Islam, etc., even Scientology for that matter) would be clearly useful, and not at all as problematic as the current crop of "Misplaced Pages as webhost" templates. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That always seemed like an obvious solution to the problem to me, but I didn't know if it would fly with everyone else. I might post a note on the Village Pump suggesting this and see what the reaction would be--who knows, maybe we can stop this ridiculous war and get back to editing yet. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to undelete and reword. I had no idea how horrible this WP:POINT was. After looking through edit after edit after edit of crap like this, I am going to support undeleting the template and allowing the involved users to reword it as I above proposed, simply on the principal of the thing (though I suppose that could be deemed making a WP:POINT as well). If Cyde and Gmaxwell think this horrible abuse of Misplaced Pages is going to fly, they're simply mistaken. If they continue in such fashion, I would propose that they both be desysopped and/or prohibited from editing userboxes. Luckily, Freakofnurture and Tony Sidaway were there and acted in the manner expected of administrators, or else who knows what could have happened here. If Cyde and Gmaxwell were not administrators they would likely have been indefinitely blocked for trolling and vandalism; instead, they got, what, 24hrs?! I expect to see a lengthy apology from both of them, and I pray that they never attempt anything like this again. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed back to keep deleted or reword. After a long internal struggle, I've concluded that a WP:POINT to counter a WP:POINT is nonetheless still a WP:POINT. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Not useful to the encyclopedia. It's probably time precident was set that these things be transcluded, anyway. --InShaneee 02:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't give a fig one way or the other about userboxes but I am concerned that keeping this one deleted will ratify Cyde and Gmaxwell's antics and set a precedent whereby previously noncontroversial userboxes can be turned into controversial ones through a fake edit war that unnecessarily stirs up bystanders who aren't in on the joke. Thatcher131 02:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's my primary concern as well. I support the subst'ing of userboxes, but I find this a very unpleasant precedent to set. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As stated above, this discussion is only about the userbox, based on its own merits. This is not the place to decry the actions of an administrator. --InShaneee 02:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's paranoid fantasy. The edit war was incredibly immature, but it wasn't started as a pretext to delete the box, and the very fact that some of you are silly enough to suggest such a thing reflects badly on your sanity. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:One argument for deletion, however, was to end the revert war. This is, while understandable, fallacious. It should have been protected. The argument that the revert war proves divisiveness does not convince me either. Septentrionalis 03:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not a valid speedy T1. Nothing wrong with the template, nothing particularly decisive about it and useful in context. However I find it very disturbing, both that admins edit war over the wording, when none of them even use it, and others suggest it should be transclued, when they don't transclue any of theirs. MartinRe 02:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, then yell at Cyde a lot. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Although Cyde characterised me as being on a "high horse" and "holier than thou" (as if!) about his antics I totally endorse a stern talking to for him and Gmaxwell, both of whom should know better. That should be elsewhere though, not here. Keep Deleted under the newly clarified CSD:T1. Users should start userifying any of these that they're keep to keep around. If the changes to CSD:T1 stick there will be many of us supporting deletion of a lot of political, religious and philosophical userboxes. NB: Keeping this deleted does NOT in any way endorse what these two did. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Discuss first. Discussion and research really needs to happen first before silly situations like this; one doesn't speedy an article that's been vandalized, for example. I think users also need to have a shot at improving the template to address concerns - speedy deletion of an article while it's been vandalized is the extreme case of people not having such a chance, and this situation, while less consequencial to the project as a whole, feels dangerously close to that extreme to me. I think the speedy deleters should try to slow down before deleting under T1. --AySz88^-^ 03:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm tired of incessant whining about tiny boxes. Go out and write an article. Ral315 (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Novel idea. Hopefully I'll get User:Sean_Black/New Kamen Rider finished :).--Sean Black 06:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - WP is not the place for religious debates. Religious bumperstickers are divisive and don't help accomplish WP's mission. - Nhprman 03:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Cyde and Gmaxwell, you guys made Misplaced Pages a less pleasant place for me today. I'm kind of disgusted. Everyone subst your userboxes already, and you'll have no more reason to look at the train wreck this is becoming. -GTBacchus 04:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per the new T1. In case anyone hasn't seen this ridiculous version, a few minutes before revision the template read: "This user claims to be Christian." TheJabberwʘck 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd also like to throw in that I feel the userbox should not be deleted, but rather it should be preserved in its current {{deletedpage}} form and protected. Given the highly controversial edits to this template, I feel the history is quite relevant and should not be deleted in case similar situations arise (as those of us non-sysops are unable to peer into the vast recycle bin). Thoughts? AmiDaniel (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If this userbox is divisive, so is half of the rest. Unless we intend to ban userboxes in general, there is no reason not to allow people to say they are Christian, which is less divisive than saying they are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. And the procedure used to delete it is dangerous to Misplaced Pages's future. It seems now that a small group of users can disrupt any template or article and then claim it's divisive and should be deleted. We have witnessed a cynical misuse of WP rules. Friendly Neighbour 06:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per everyone else. However, the silliness prior to deletion was, well, silly. Don't do that, it doesn't help.--Sean Black 06:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and block Cyde and Gmaxwell for disruption of Misplaced Pages.  Grue  07:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Jimbo's desires and emerging community consensus. All of these things are unencyclopedic and divisive. We did keep the Communist one deleted, so fair's fair. --Doc 08:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete so long as there's not a category attached to it. No one would have complained or cared if the ridiculous edit antics on that template had never taken place. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per everyone. Apparently some editors have not only forgotten that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, but, judging by the massively uncivil and ABFing respones to Cyde's revisions to the template, they have also forgotten that anyone can edit it. Why are they here? --Sam Blanning 08:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete religion is an important characteristic of editors. -lethe 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  So is the size of one's penis, but you don't see many people waving that around their userpages. --Sam Blanning 08:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Somehow I doubt the size of one's penis effects how one edits. On the other hand, one's religious affiliation most certainly would. In any case, I voted undelete because in the form above its a relatively harmless template and the way in which it was eventually deleted was ridiclous. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  We are required to write from a neutral point of view. If your religious affiliation is affecting how you edit, you're not doing it right. --Sam Blanning 09:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Few can ever claim neutrality. There will always be a hint of POV no matter how one may try to cover it. At the very least, this template gives an idea of where a user is coming from. Also, I seriously doubt that having or not having this template will affect whether or not someone writes with a bias. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 09:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  This utterly bogus argument needs to be countered every time it comes up. We don't need to know where editors are "coming from" through the use of little boxes on their user pages. We know this easily enough through their edits. But a box on their page DOES create a very strong impression that they are biased in one way or another, leading to suspicion and an erosion of assuming good faith. The use of Templated Userboxes is also a sly way to turn this into a purely social networking site, and frankly, through your efforts of relentlessly creating categories of users, you've contributed to tribalism and factionalism on Misplaced Pages, and I think you personally have a lot to answer for. Nhprman 13:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  This discussion dangerously drifts towards suggesting political censorship of userspace. Friendly Neighbour 14:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in free speech, anarchy, democracy, or seeing how many times we can reinforce the commonly-held outside image of a Misplaced Pages editor as an opinionated extremist drama queen in a single day. --Sam Blanning 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and apply some penalty to these pranksters. There's no excuse for this kind of behavior. Everyking 08:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  What, like a hit on the head with a comedy foam mallet? Userboxes are not one but two steps removed from the encyclopaedia, do you honestly think anything done to them justifies action? --Sam Blanning 09:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yes—they disrupted the user pages of many editors, and did so in a particularly insensitive way. Everyking 09:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. One's religious beliefs are not that important for the Project that they'd warrant a precious space in Template: and the servers' resources needed for transclusion. You have the code above. Just put it on your page directly - it'll have the additional benefit that your page won't ever get vandalised by a few people having a good time while violating WP:POINT. Misza13 09:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  What precious resources? Are you living in a separate Universe? The template has 649 bytes (plus 740 bytes for the graphics but no one claims so far that WP should be graphics free) and as long as it was a template, there was only one copy of it. Substing the template on every userpage takes resources, not making them a template. To make it even more ridiculous the template was only four times the length of your signature (158 bytes) you leave with every comment you make. BTW, this discussion was 20,194 bytes long (enough for 31 such templates) even before this comment of mine. Friendly Neighbour 10:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  What resources? Those whose lack cause Misplaced Pages to "have a problem" every now and then. Also, I think you err here limiting the notion of resources to just the bytes occupied (disk space is cheap compared to processing power). Let's assume that a userbox takes up 1000 bytes. My understanding is that it is easier on the servers to fetch a 100'000-byte user page containing 100 substed boxes than query the DB 100 times for each individual box and applying parameters to them (they're templates after all!). But, as you suggest, I might as well be living in a parallel universe, so let's leave the judgement of my l4m3ne$$ to someone compenent. Misza13 12:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• List at TfD Will (_@) T 10:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Let's be clear about something. User Darwinist and User Communist were recently kept deleted. There is precedent, therefore, for this kind of template to be kept deleted. I would argue that conceptually the template was divisive before anyone started altering it. Mackensen (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The underhanded, disrespectful way in which this userbox was vandalized should not be rewarded. If there really is an "emerging consensus" to delete all userboxes, then why not actually go through the established process to accomplish that goal? --MediaMangler 11:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per the revised T1 criteria. Nandesuka 11:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete posthaste and file an RfC or whatever is necessary on all religious templates. We still have Template:User Protestant, Template:User Catholic, Template:User Muslim, Template:User Jewish, Template:User Buddhist, and probably many others that I don't know about. It's a gross WP:POINT violation that the Christian template was chosen for deletion while the others were left alone. I cannot see any other logic behind Cyde and Gmaxwell's actions. — BrianSmithson 12:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm willing to tag all of those for speedy... they all fit the revised T1. However when I went to edit one, it was icky because the "deletebecause" is way too big. Does someone have an example of a userbox that was marked for deletion that isn't huge and intrusive on pages where it is transcluded? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  You can use {{tfd-inline}} and run them through normal deletion. — xaosflux 13:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and make sure its the normal, simple version. If people wish to self-identify as a Christian, there's no reason why Misplaced Pages has to write them an essay trying to put their beliefs in a box for them, let people do that themselves by maybe using a different Christianity-related box (I.E. Protestant, Catholic, whatever), or just let it alone. Besides, if the text they want isn't in the box, all they have to do is subst the box code onto their userpage and write their own text, I did. Homestarmy 12:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  If people want to self-identify as Christian - they can write an accurate description in their own words on their userpage. Why should wikipedia supply words for them at all? --Doc 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  As far as I know Misplaced Pages supplies words up to however many userboxes their are, but not all the words at once, which is what all that hubbub over the template sounded like. For anyone who considers themself a Christian, "This user is a Christian" is excellent, whether they be Mormon, Jehovah's witness, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Oneness Pentecostal, it doesn't matter. If people don't wish to write an essay about their beliefs, then this userbox seems like just the thing. Homestarmy 13:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  What legitimate service does this template provide to the user that he cannot achieve for himself by typing "I am a Christian"? It's even shorter and easier to type than {{user christian}}. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well, this can be put in neat looking box form and it has a picture. What legitimate service do Babel boxes provide that someone cannot achieve by typing "I can sort of speak spanish"? :) Homestarmy 13:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  They enable editors to locate other editors with relevant language skills. For instance I have a Latin languages babel box, and I have sometimes been contacted by someone who knows no Latin, to provide English translations of obscure Latin quotes. This is legitimate because possession of language skills is non-controversial and non-divisive. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Undelete, then reprimand, block, desysop, or any combination of the above to Cyde and GMaxwell. These actions are setting a VERY POOR example to new users. Since nobody has come forward with any evidence saying that userboxes are divisive, that comment should be considered invalid. SPEEDY DELETION IS NOT A TOY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Larix 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Mackensen above and revised T1 - expresses 'personnal beliefs' on a 'controversial issue'. Tom Harrison 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Hell, Template:User Ideal Dictator, and Template:User Elitist

This user is probably going to Hell.

This user is the Ideal Dictator.

This user is an elitist.

I deleted these three userboxes under criteria T1. "User Hell" seemed to me to be the definition of "inflammatory", and the others are almost by definition polemical or divisive. I don't actually want these undeleted, but these are the first userboxes I've deleted under T1, and I figured this was the appropriate place to put them up for review so if people think that I'm off the rails on these they can educate me. Nandesuka 11:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, what was in them? :/ Homestarmy 12:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note I've temporarily restored User Hell as it just surrived a TFD here Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 30. — xaosflux 12:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's my opinion that "this survived a TfD" is not a reason to undelete a speedy delete -- I view the criteria as somewhat disjoint. Inflammatory and divisive userboxes should be speedied, but it makes sense to send userboxes to TfD if there is not consensus that they are inflammatory and/or divisive. All that being said, I'm happy to let the debate continue here, and if the consensus is that it should have been kept deleted, I'll ask another admin to re-speedy it. Nandesuka 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note the "temporary" line in my statement above. If consensus is for deleting this here then deleted it should be. — xaosflux 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that the claim that Template:User Hell is inflammatory and/or divisive was thoroughly debunked in that TfD discussion. I encourage you to read it.  Grue  15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Hell was very recently (May 6) kept on TfD by overwhelming majority. It should be undeleted ASAP. Don't know about the others though.  Grue  12:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently someone restored it.  Grue  12:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also undelete the other two: they look completely harmless.  Grue  12:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• I took a look at these and I think User Hell is a bit different than the other two. Totally support CSD1 on that one, it's divisive all right. The other two I think maybe ought to go through TfD as they seem more like jokes than seriously divisive and therefore do not, in my view anyway, qualify under CSD T1. I'd end up supporting deletion, I see no reason for them to be in templatespace, but I think process is appropriate and should be used, in the interests of fairness. Perhaps we need T2-Tn to cover some of these sorts of things because really, they have little value as templates. Until then, though, I'm opposed to speedying them... PS, full marks for bringing this here on your own without prompting, Nandesuka! (PPS I did not know it went through TfD already when I wrote the above. Still think it qualifies under CSD T1 though) ++Lar: t/c 12:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• These aren't T1's, but they're rubbish, bilge, nonsense, crap. Delete/keep deleted/whatever. All three --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD. I will then vote for deletion, because they are a frivolous use of template space. However, they are not T1's (even the Hell one looks more like a joke than an attack on religion) and I am not going to apply WP:SNOW with these; they might well survive the proper process. Metamagician3000 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all deleted. Not useful in writing an encyclopedia. Misza13 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Agreed, but that is a reason to vote against them in a TfD, not for speedy deleting them under T1. Metamagician3000 13:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete All then send the last 2 to TfD, (The hell one looks like it already ran that gauntlet) -- Dragoonmac - _{o I'll solve it} 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted abuse of resources, restoring useless things to list on TfD would also be a waste of everyone's time. --Doc 15:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You could save yourself some time by not visiting this page anymore.  Grue  15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand, I'm happy to visit it. But if people agree with these being deleted - voting to relist them for reasons of procedural nicety are wasting my (and your) time, --Doc 15:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • If they weren't deleted in the first place, that would've saved everyone's time. As it is, people who used these templates should wait 5 or so days until they are undeleted, and vote in different places to get their templates back. That's what I call waste of time.  Grue  15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • If they weren't created in the first place, that would've saved everyone's time. If people didn't insist in reviews of every deletion of such unencyclopedic crap (we don't do that for articles) that would save everyone's time. To have to go through xfD is just more paperwork - those processes are designed to protect against the hasty deletion of encyclopedic content not to protect myspace nonsense. --Doc 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • • Listing something on TfD takes two edits, which should take two minutes. What's the problem? Septentrionalis 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list the last two on TfD, where a case can be made that they are divisive: if editors actually do object to something, like the late Nagorno-Karabakh box, TfD will delete it. Septentrionalis 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted more junk --pgk 18:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, don't belong as templates, and could be divisive. --Cyde Weys 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, irrelevant to building an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete User:Hell, Delete the 2 others. Comments:
  • How can we vote for 3 userboxes at a time? Completely unrelated userboxes should be discussed one at a time.
  • User:Hell just survived TfD at 29 keeps to 4 deletes (!!). I know that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and all, but speedying a template that was kept at over 7 votes to 1 is ridiculous. Particularly since (let's be honest) if a userbox makes it onto this page it has a 99% chance of being deleted simply because it is always the same anti-userbox people voting. NOTE that I am not an absolute userbox enthusiast, and I am in favour of deleting all religious, political and non-encyclopedic userboxes, but going at it one by one and disregarding previous TfDs etc. is bound to hurt or at least annoy some people, and it certainly doesn't show Misplaced Pages under its best light. Please consider the TfD and restore User:Hell.
    • Comment: Three of those delete votes were the original nominator voting several times. The ratio was actually 29 to 1. -- Rocketgoat 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of energy and time is spent (wasted?) by many users here. Why isn't this effort put into creating a sustainable policy regarding userboxes? Something like User:Misza13's proposal (User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll) seems like a much more worthwhile effort, and it also has the potential of hurting much less sensitivities than this tiresome one-at-a-time deletion process. --IronChris | (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

    We are putting this energy into creating a sustainable policy regarding userboxes, right here. The way we find out what that sustainable policy will be is by deleting a bunch of userboxes, one by one, seeing what sticks, what doesn't, and why, and applying what we learn here to an eventual rewording of the policy to match the best practices we discover through experience. It's an organic process, and this is how it's supposed to work. We don't just guess what a good policy will probably be and then vote on our guess. -GTBacchus 21:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list the last two on TfD. The first one was kept after a TfD vote and can be used to show a user's legitimate views. Just because someone might use it as a joke doesn't mean it's not legitimate sometimes. Would you delete the gay userbox just because someone could use it as a joke? -- Rocketgoat 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list the last two on TfD per everyone else. The first one seems quite divisive and iflammatory to me, but if it recently survived a TfD then there can be no justification for speedily deleting. The other two appear completely harmless. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Something surviving a TfD does not mean that there's no justification for deleting it. If a group at TfD decide to keep something in violation of policy, then they're wrong, and they get overruled. That's built into the system. -GTBacchus 22:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  The approved way to overturn consensus is to produce overriding consensus the other way, either by persuading the members of the first consensus to change their minds or bringing it to the attention of more eyes, as Misplaced Pages:consensus recommends. Ignoring consensus is divisive and inflammatory, as this page should have made clear by now. Septentrionalis 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree. I'm a firm believer that community consensus trumps all, and saying that any admin can unilaterally act against the decisions of the community because of his own interpretation of how T1 applies is, IMO, dead wrong and just an invitation to begin wheel-warring. Wheel-warring, especially over something as insignificant as userboxes, is among the most counterproductive behaviors and should be avoided at all costs. I'll look over the TfD, and if there's anything fishy about it, I may change my opinion. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, that's not correct. What if consensus says, "let's go ahead and violate copyright"? What if consensus says, "let's forget about writing an encyclopedia and use Misplaced Pages as a free webhost"? Then consensus is wrong. Not even WP:Consensus supports your idea that "consensus trumps all". -GTBacchus 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Consensus established and supports those policies in the first place. If there is ever consensus to forget about the encyclopedia, WP has failed; and in that counterfactual case, we might as well make it a free webhost, and if necessary go looking for computers to replace Jimbo's. The queston of fact (is this a copyvio?) is also settled by consensus when debateable; the TfD seems to quite clearly show that deleting the Hell template is divisive. Septentrionalis 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  In your hypothetical argument that the community would vote to violate a copyright, that's when WP:OFFICE comes into play. By "trumps all," I only meant that it trumps the whim of one admin. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and bury them deep as per GTBacchus, Cyde and Doc. Consensus cannot be allowed to overrule common sense, and it's clear that consensus is going against templated userboxes at this time anyway. We need a new definition of "template" if "I'm an elitist" and "I'm going to hell" are considered proper template messages. - Nhprman 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all, they are humorous and not inflammatory. Crumbsucker 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete there is no T1 criteria that applies to humorous, harmless, and non-divisive, non-inflammatory, non-polemical boxes such as these. Speedy deletion particularly troubling in light of the recent TFD on User Hell. --Dschor 01:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There is now. Nandesuka 11:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• strong delete and seal with concrete. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. That's the core and ultimate principle. Misplaced Pages is not an entertainment place. Any process, policy, rule etc that doesn't take part on that principle should be ignored. Anything that it's implied by that core principle is not wrong. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and get to the "pedia" part of Misplaced Pages. Ral315 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all Most of all the "Hell" template... With a 29-1 vote in favor of keeping just days ago - why are we here again? Why aren't all religious userboxes deleted? Just absurd. SKELETOR666 04:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Because Misplaced Pages is not a democracy.. Nandesuka 11:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all to encourage following of process. TheJabberwʘck 05:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted for all as a complete waste of space, as well as political and divisive. move to user space if you want them. -M 05:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete User Hell, keep deleted the other two. User Hell seems like more of a joke than anything inflammatory. I agree with the assessment of the other two. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all of them. Everyking 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for the last two. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all three deleted. Particularly note that under the new T1, all three qualify as speedies. Nandesuka 11:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see, unbeknownst to most people, some individuals stealthily changed the policy to promote their own viewpoint. Good show, folks. Very smart.  Grue  11:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It was especially tricky the way they invisibly discussed the issue on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion and how they silently and quietly announced the changes on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy), thus guaranteeing that no one would discover it. Those perfidious sneak-thiefs! Nandesuka 11:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, those nefarous, sneaky Rouge Admins must be stopped! Er wait... I'm the one that first tried to get the change to stick this time. And so far it is sticking. As others say, the change documents what the emerging consensus here seems to be... all of these sorts of things need to not be in template space. The old T1 admitted of too much wiggle room. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually I'm not sure that these do qualify as speedies under the new T1, but we'll find out. The new, lovable, praiseworthy T1, bless its drafters, isn't necessarily going to deal with every dumb userbox. It's just going to solve the pressing problem of what to do about political, religious, etc., userboxes - if its sponsors can make it stick. Er, I'm one of those of sponsors. I've gone rouge already. Metamagician3000 13:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first one, and sure undelete the other two aswell. Does nobody have a sense of humour? --Falcon9x5 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above Larix 14:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete "It's a joke Joyce." Avalon 15:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

May 10, 2006

Template:User Triceratops Accident

Cyde deleted this 93:22 6 May as nonsense. He then redeleted it as a recreation. 23:27 6 May.

This is silly; but it's not political; it's not divisive; it's not inflammatory. In short, it's not T1. (And it's not patent naonsense. Nor was the recreation G4, which excludes speedies; at that point it should certainly have gone to TfD.) How did speedying it, and so biting the newbie who made it, help to build an encyclopedia?

• Undelete. Take such things to TfD if you think there is a consensus against them. (If it is undeleted, it will adorn my talk page.) Septentrionalis 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted misuse of general template space - I am quite willing to userfy to any userpage on request --Doc 23:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This doesn't make any sense. We routinely delete crap in main article space without having to take it through AfD, and that's article space, which is that actual meat of the encyclopedia. And now you're suggesting that for template space every single fracking thing has to go through TfD?! Users could easily create dozens of these damn things per hour. There's no default right to inclusion for silly unencyclopedic templates. --Cyde Weys 23:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Examples, please. What articles have been speedied without support from any clause of CSD? Septentrionalis 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Cyde, I thought at the time of your RfA you pledged you were done messing about with userboxen? Yet I keep seeing you doing stuff with them. Did I misinterpret what you meant? ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, basically. I was running under the (apparently incorrect) assumption that the Userbox Policy Poll was going to succeed and all of these userboxes were going to move out of Template: space, and thus I wouldn't care about them one whit. That didn't end up happening though. --Cyde Weys 02:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted template namespace is not for making jokes Misplaced Pages is not A kindergarden playground. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or userfy Not at all appropriate for templatespace, nonetheless not a speedy deletion candidate. Is the TfD proccess so scary? By the way, the debate was closed after 30 minutes citing WP:SNOW. I think it's way too early to conclude that (we have tons of nonsensical "humor" userboxes; there may be many who adamently defend this one), so I'm restoring it, hopefully not to be removed again for at least a day. I fail to see what harm it could do to just leave this open for a bit. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Saying "userfy" is meaningless as it has been substituted onto every userpage that was using it. We can just get rid of this thing now. There's no reason it needs to be a template. --Cyde Weys 00:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, then no need to userfy (I only meant to imply that such things are appropriate in userspace, just not templatespace). I endorse the deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you understand now why this DRVU is pointless? Even if this thing is somehow restored, it will just simply be deleted as an orphaned template. --Cyde Weys 00:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • One of the purposes of this page is to determine the limits of T1; I think that we should not waste admin powers on harmless jokes. Furthermore, it took a comsiderable time for the hapless newbie to get Cyde to be so gracious. See User talk:Cyde#templates. Septentrionalis 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • This was not deleted as T1, and nobody ever claimed it was. Misplaced Pages is not a dumping ground for random "harmless jokes". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. You seem to be forgetting that. --Cyde Weys 00:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • But if it was not deleted as T1, then what grounds were there for speedy deletion? As far as I'm aware there is no T2 "patent nonsense" criterion, and as the userbox was clearly created in good faith it would likely have been better (IMHO) to TfD rather than speedy. I'm not saying I disagree that the template should be deleted, just saying there's nothing inherently wrong in listing such userboxes on TfD, gaining consensus to support its deletion, and then deleting--that's how you get rid of the nightmare of DRVU, and it would make life so much less stressful for both you and the poor newb whose new userbox goes inexplicably missing. It seems that when any uncertainty arises we should default to follow the process, as that makes everything so much easier and more peaceful for everyone. Just my thoughts. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Admins have always been able to speedy delete nonsense in any namespace without needing a specific speedy deletion reason. CSD A1 is for articles and is the only one that is specifically listed as a reason. Would you really argue that that means that admins can't speedy delete nonsense in other namespaces, like Misplaced Pages:, Portal:, Image:, Category:, Help:, etc.? No, of course not. --Cyde Weys 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
            • What authority does Cyde claim for this statement? "Patent nonsense" (citerion G1) is defined in WP:PN; this userbox is silly, arguably a hoax, but both of those are excluded - precisely to keep admins from deleting whatever they don't like. Septentrionalis 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
              • (sticks foot in mouth) Okay, per WP:CSD#G1, admins can delete patent nonsense, and as such a "T2" is obviously necessary, though it would seem again that "nonsense" is a highly subjective, and arguably derogative, term that seems to apply differently to userboxes. For instance, {{User 1337-5}}, {{User sdrawkcab}}, {{User alien}} all look like patent nonsense to me, but they would not be deleted under G1 as they are userboxes, for which G1 must be interpreted differently. As Pmanderson stated, they are "hoaxes," which don't fall under G1; the exception is in place as hoaxes are acceptable in some facets of Misplaced Pages, just not in the article namespace. Nonetheless, even with policy on your side, it just seems easier to bring these things to TfD where you can quickly find out if the community is beind your decision or not and thereby save yourself and others a lot of stress. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Take your foot out, Ami, you were right the first time. (I was unclear.) WP:PN says that "patent nonsense" means unsalvagable gibberish; which this isn't. Hoaxes are removable everywhere; they are speediable nowhere - because there may be an argument for what appears to be a hoax (it's a joke, it's a fiction, it's a famous hoax...) Septentrionalis 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC).
• Keep deleted, totally pointless. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is not an appropriate use of project templatespace. If users want to decorate their user pages with stuff like this, let them, we do allow sillyness. Userify but keep the template itself deleted. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As I already said, this already has been "userfied". Check the what links here .. the only page linking to it is DRVU page. --Cyde Weys 00:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no need to check, I take your word for it. So... excellent news, but I was talking about the state it should end up in, not the state it's in now. And as I already asked, why are you involved in this at all, Cyde? Am I misremembering what you said during your RfA? And do you think all DRVU's are pointless, or just this one? I think if the result here is keep deleted, that will make it less contentious in future to speedy (as recreate of deleted content) this template should it appear again, so I am not sure it's pointless to go through the DRVU. But of course I'm a process wonk... and a bit troubled by the lack of information about this supposed userbox moratorium I just heard about. Where all was that announced? ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy compleatly harmless, yet at the same time, it does seem a bit....irrelevant to be a template. Homestarmy 01:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For the third time, this has already been userfied. Are my messages showing up in white font? --Cyde Weys 01:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought you said it was subst'd, isn't that kind of not the same? Doesn't userfy mean make the same box in the User: space thing? Homestarmy 01:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Huh? You mean putting it on its own separate page and transcluding it from other user's pages? I thought that idea was done away with a long time ago, and we decided it was a lot better to just subst and directly copy the code around. I just thought userfy meant convert to userspace ... which, guess, what, substing a template does :-D Cyde Weys 01:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Then why don't people just vote Subst instead of Userfy? Homestarmy 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't know, why don't they? Maybe they aren't aware of the correct terminology? --Cyde Weys 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Terminate with extreme prejudice. --Tony Sidaway 01:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD, where it will die a quick death - much quicker than this whole process. TheJabberwʘck 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Or we could just close this listing as a keep deleted, thus saving lots of time. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand that reasoning, because DRv is neither equivalent nor preferred to TfD but uses as much time and creates more hostility. --AySz88^-^ 03:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  It would've had a much quicker deletion if nobody had even brought this nonsense to DRVU, a much quicker death than having to go through TfD. --Cyde Weys 04:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Not at ALL comfortable with that line of reasoning, or that tone, or that approach. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted have it userfied if it means that much to you. Otherwise it is just nonsense. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What means a great deal to me is acting upon the the recognition that "Process is more Important for admin actions, as one can sow the seeds of malfeasance and distrust much farther with admin actions." from Cyde's RfA. Septentrionalis 04:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • T1 is process. --Cyde Weys 04:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • And by your own statement, this isn't T1. What process do you claim it to be? Septentrionalis 04:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh yes, you're right, this isn't T1, I was confusing it with something else. The process here is "nonsense content may be deleted on sight without having to waste everyone's time", or in other words, "common sense", or, more formally, WP:IAR. --Cyde Weys 04:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Citing WP:IAR is a sign (to me anyway) that you're conceding that you know what you did wasn't quite on the up and up and you shouldn't have done it, and you're looking for cover. I can't speak for anyone else but whenever I see IAR, alarm bells go off. I fail to see why process could not be followed. What's the rush? The box would go away anyway but there would be a lot less uproar. IMNO at any rate. Cyde, I think you really need to disassociate yourself from these crusades. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Fascinating. Then although WP:IAR is more important for normal actions (same sentence of RfA), destroying this piece of moderately attractive silliness (and biting its creator) was important enough to spend hours of your time doing, redoing, justifying to the newbie, substing, and arguing against it here. Nominating for TfD would have taken two minutes. Please explain; how does all this build an encyclopedia? Septentrionalis 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I think we're done here. There's no point in arguing over the deletion of this nonsense. Next think I know there's going to be a huge uproar over me blocking a vandal ... oh wait, that already happened. If you guys wanted your objections to be heard, you had to be reasonable. The past few DRVUs on this page show quite clearly that the pro-userbox crowd is absolutely unreasonable and unwilling to make any compromises. So there's no point in even paying attention anymore. Us admins will just continue doing what is good for Misplaced Pages and you can shout at windmills all you want. --Cyde Weys 05:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Us admins? While of course most admins are doing what they belive is best for wikipedia exactly what that is differs from admin to admin. Do not presume to speak for all of us.Geni 05:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  We admins who cherish grammar, meanwhile, will also keep up the good fight... -GTBacchus 05:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Cyde, I'm not sure if it's fair to cast in that light all individuals who would claim to be of the "pro-userbox crowd". Rexmorgan 05:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Um, dude... you're painting with way too broad of a brush. It is not correct that everyone who thinks you are acting rashly and in a way that may ultimately be harmful to the encyclopedia is "pro userbox". Please review my "nonvote" in this... it's "keep deleted"... does that in and of itself make me pro-userbox? No. My stance here is "pro process". The encyclopedia would have been better served if you had just nomed this for TfD instead of acting out of process. Further, I still think you were wrong to get involved in userboxes again, and especially, wrong to start taking this so personally that you are starting to verge on incivility to others. How much more time are you going to waste on this crusade?? You accuse others of tilting at windmills, but I'm starting to think you're the one tilting here, and I'm truly afraid that you're going to burn yourself out and we are going to lose a good and valuable contributor. ++Lar: t/c 10:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Not a T1, but I can't force myself to support digging anything up just so we can rebury it. That seems so wonky to me. On the other hand, speedying something not within the criteria and hoping to be saved by WP:SNOW is a bad habit to get into. Cyde, why don't you stick to obvious T1s? -GTBacchus 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, crap.--Sean Black 05:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (it is not a T1), userfy (people should be allowed to make harmless jokes in their own userspace), and delete the redirect (because the template is pointless and another TFD will just be more bureaucracy). Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with GTBacchus. This userbox should not have been speedied (that is to say, in this world, where the speedying of some userboxen is not encouraged, this would fit into the category of "userboxen you don't speedy for some reason"). That said, it shouldn't exist either. Resurrecting an idiotic abuse of template space solely so that it can be killed according to process is process wonkism, and that ideology has no good reason to live. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be keep deleted then? --Tony Sidaway 12:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I would agree with you per WP:SNOW if this was a single incident, but it's not, it's a pattern. If the vote after a speedy is the same as a TfD vote, admins will be able to simply speedy any userboxes they don't like and wait for someone to notice, instead of going through TfD. Voting "undelete and send to TfD" is a good way of preventing this. TheJabberwʘck 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • An even better way of preventing it, if it's a pattern of behavior from some admin, is not to break the system (digging things up just to rebury them), but to treat it as a behavior issue, and an example of gaming the system, which it would be in that case. We shouldn't send something to a snowball's TfD to make the wp:point that process is being abused; we should make the point directly to the admin in question. -GTBacchus 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm wrong ... we have "User X", a userbox that everyone (including your good self) agrees needs to die. It gets speedied. You say "send to TfD", and want to send us through useless hoops and help cement the quite silly view that process wonkism has a place on Misplaced Pages, so that ... "User X" doesn't get speedied? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and keep deleted. It made me laugh, but that's not enough to warrant a place in the Template: namespace. Misza13 10:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per GTBacchus and take the next such crappy userbox to TfD rather than relying on WP:SNOW. It's not much more trouble to follow the proper process, and it keeps people's confidence in the system. Metamagician3000 12:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Whoever could use it?? --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 16:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk 18:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Cyde. Templates should really only be created as a means to make a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages; if you like having bizarre things on your user page, then userfy it rather than filling the template space with inappropriate content like this. Tijuana Brass 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - and make all such Userbox templates into fossils (and don't dig them up again.) Nhprman 23:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ral315 (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussions

See /Archive, /Archive 2

• Template:User antiuserboxdeletion (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Darwinist(result kept deleted)
• Template:User Communist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User No Marxism (result kept deleted)
• Template:User infidel undeleted.
• Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master ... it's complicated discussion
• Template:User against Saud (result almost unanimous keep deleted)
• Template:User_Unamerican and others (result nomination delisted early; template kept deleted)
• Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover (result kept deleted).
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts (result kept deleted)
• Template:User admins ignoring policy (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Unamerican and others (result kept deleted)
• Template:User vomit (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Objectivism / Template:User No Objectivism (result: both kept deleted)
• Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker (Archive#Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker: undeleted and relisted on TfD)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Same Sex Marriage (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User independent Iraq (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User antiparty (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User review (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Copyright Nazi (result: kept deleted)
• User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF (result: undeleted)
• Template: User evol-X (result: kept deleted)
• Template: User feminist (result: undeleted)
• Template:User userbox insurgent (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User userbox revolution (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: no majority to endorse deletion, no supermajority to overturn; I'm re-creating and taking it to TFD)
• Template:User opposes ubx screwing (result: kept deleted as protected page)
• Template:User USA Police State (result)
• Template:User No Meat (result: recreated as redirect)
• George W. Bush templates
• Pseudo-templates Userbox:Anti ACLU, Userbox:Anti UN (result)

• Misplaced Pages deletion