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

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Taken from WP:TFD:

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Yes I'm helping you with that. I substed those in your page, so even if they get deleted, you won't lose them -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the new, encyclopedia related (!) text. Now it's primary purpose it to disclose user POV, a useful tool. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Cuivienen. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of these templates survived recent TfD discussions. T1 should not be applied until objective criteria can be established for divisive and polemic. It is one thing to say you support something. It is quite another saying someone else can not support something or should be denied a right. The former is not divisive while the later is. Once this can be codified then T1 should be useable without debate for every single deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep keep see my comments on wishfull and anti-UN --T-rex 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm sick and tired of the "political userboxes" witch-hunt that has been going on lately. If someone wants to use their profile to display their political beliefs, LET THEM. There's no harm in doing so. (Ibaranoff24 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Profile? profile???. It's isn't a profile, it's a user page. It exists not because we wish to give you free webhosting, it exists because we know that communication between users will help our project. Slapping a bunch of personal likes and dislikes on your user page is more likely to discourage positive communication than encourage it. --Gmaxwell 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary and divisive. --Gmaxwell 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I find divisive is that you insist on defacing users' pages by editing the user box to say something inappropriate. --Nelson Ricardo 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they don't want content on the pages changing they shouldn't be using templates... or for that matter putting their personal views on Wikipedia. In any case, should someone be interested in the validity of an article check it's contributors user and find signs of obvious it would greatly harm their perception of Wikipedia. I don't think people should be putting such things on their user pages, but whenever we do permit such use of userpages it should come with a matching prohibition against editing subjects related to the users expressed bias. --Gmaxwell 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that people will end up voting on essentially different templates entirely - it was first "dislikes" then "This user is forbidden from editing George W. Bush because their severe negative bias has caused them to place expressing their political views above maintaining the professional image of the project" then "may be biased against" and back again. I personally like "may be biased against", but please decide on something and stop changing the template. --AySz88^-^ 15:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending consensus on an overall policy. Metamagician3000 02:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I see no reason why this ought to be deleted. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is not divisive, like saying "This user thinks that George W. Bush is as intelligent as a mushy banana" would be. Sophy's Duckling 02:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Personally, I think this template is stupid, and I would discourage, not advocate, its use. But that's just my opinion, and so long as opinions like this are kept to Talk and User pages, I cannot say that I think deletion is mandatory. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 18:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, the matter is indirectly addressed by these Wiki policy pages -
NPOV: "...all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals." [Of course, user pages are not articles, strictly speaking]
Userbox: "User boxes that are designed to provoke, offend, or reflect a POV rather than show expertise are generally discouraged. Jimbo Wales wrote on the matter, below:

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

[And again, of course, the official policy on Userboxes in general is till under development. But it is dialogues like this one that will shape that development.]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]
My question was not unfounded, as the discussion below displays. The thing that really might decide here is the selection of the image - depending on it, comments may vary from "Delete, disgusting" to "Keep, harmless joke". Misza13 (Talk) 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that. I'll look for something better.
Then write the joke on your userpage, the template form is uncalled for. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is written on his user page (just because he added colours and a picture makes no difference) --T-rex 19:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is no argument. No one is censoring. You can write on your userpage that you're a cannibal. This is a discussion exclusively about the need of havint this in a template form.-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review Wikipedia:Use common sense. Just because an event has happened at some point in history doesn't mean that it is common enough to be significant, and if anyone ever uses a template like this to "find a victim" (how would a userbox actually be of help?!), I'll eat my own right arm. (There, see, I used a joke. You don't have to ban me for making a joke about eating myself just because someone in human history has eaten his own arm; 99.99999953% of the time, such a statement will be a joke.) -Silence 09:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think one victim is already one too much. It would not have happened had dozens of users who read that cannibal forum taken it more seriously. It took months before someone decided to call the police and they found out. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course one victim is already too much (though by the same logic, if a single person falls off a horse and breaks his neck, we're no longer allowed to mention horses on Wikipedia because the same could happen to someone), but you miss the point entirely: there's no correlation, relationship, connection whatsoever between making jokes about something as silly and arcane as cannibalism and Internet predators. You're looking solely at the exception and ignoring both the rule and how overwhelmingly pervasive the rule is; I'm not saying to ignore the exception, but to act like everything (rather than just one out of a billion things) is the exception is beyond distorted, and to go to such absurd lengths as to ban all mentioning of cannibalism or jokes or comments at all linked to cannibalism is clearly extremist, (over)reactionary, unrealistic, and almost manipulative (since you're trying to oppress other user's free expression by fallaciously appealing to their emotions and sensibilities even though you'd probably object to this userbox anyway even if you didn't have a random example of cannibalistic Internet-predation to pull out of your hat). Like I said: let's have some common sense and a little perspective, here. Histeric and unrealistic fearmongering does noone any good. -Silence 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other users of that canibal forum probably also thought it would be unrealistic someone actually would slaughter someone else. He however did it. The difference with horses is that there is nothing criminal in climbing horses. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[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]

You can write a statement for that effect on your page, with your own words, and then the template becomes redundant. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can write a statement for that effect on your page, with your own words, and then the template becomes redundant. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This a discussion not a vote so please share us your reasons. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:27, 9 March 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]

This a discussion not a vote so please share us your reasons. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:18, 9 March 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]
Yes, but that's not a reason for keeping the template. This discussion is not about the validity of that opinion nor about you can write it or not on your page (certainly you can), it's about keeping it on template form. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:11, 9 March 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]

And you are only voting to delete because of it being an userbox --T-rex 19:07, 24 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@rēino 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]
If someone is that desperate to go wikistalking pro-ACLU edits, this template would make that about 5% easier to accomplish than it is now. The wikistalking argument is a red herring. --Aaron 17:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. This is not about suppressing criticism, this is about whether to allow official user boxes for divisive purposes. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because the ACLU is nuts doesn't mean we make idiotic userboxes like this that do nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 11:54, 9 March 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 Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misza13 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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]
No we're not discussing that, because it's already clear that that they do not. See Wikipedia:Free speech. What we're discussing is if mob rule will be allowed to prevent us from doing what is right and convert this project from a free encyclopedia to free personal webhosting. --Gmaxwell 5:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
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]
  • I double Mike's comment. And to Drini: Perhaps I don't like text on my user page and prefer nice colorful stickers? And it is the admins who delete out of process who are ill-willed here. Misza13 (Talk) 20:13, 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]
And I'm happy about this. I want all admins know that for me process is important. Misza13 (Talk) 20:13, 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•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]
First, it helps the Project by allowing users to uniformly express their opinion about a problem on Wikipedia. Second, it is the abusive admins who are building the wall between good-willed users and them by their actions. Third, not that useless if there are users, who wish to display them. Fourth, it conveys just as much information as it should. And can you please direct me to the policy which says that user pages should be filled with prose? Fifth, yes, everything can be abused if bad faith is involved. Misza13 (Talk) 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This a discussion not a vote so please share us your reasons. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it remains in roughly this form ("annoyed by admins ignoring process"). Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 07:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JSIN 10:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but tell all people using it to consider Template:user process instead. I think that userboxes should be separated from the template space, but, until they are, we should settle with leaving the reasonable ones in template space. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. What drini said. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of these templates survived recent TfD discussions. T1 should not be applied until objective criteria can be established for divisive and polemic. It is one thing to say you support something. It is quite another saying someone else can not support something or should be denied a right. The former is not divisive while the later is. Once this can be codified then T1 should be useable without debate for every single deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep admins ignoring policy is how this got deleted in the first place --T-rex 20:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely. Users have the right to say what they want with userboxes on their own pages. Otherwise, these users will just put "I hate it when admins act out of process" on their userpages in plain text (or maybe big red flashing text--what do I know?). Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, this userbox isn't in the user namespace (if it was we wouldn't be having this discussion). It's in the template namespace. People can write whatever they want on their pages, but can they also write it in the template space? I would say not. I'd prefer the big flashing test to userboxes (it's more personal, more meaningful and less annoying). BrokenSegue 03:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, what? I find it hard to believe that templates somehow have different rules opposed to being judged by their intended usage, since what's the difference between {{User blah}} and {{User:username\blah}} ? --AySz88^-^ 03:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (I have since seen Jimbo's post, the solution to which I don't agree with, but answers my question.) --AySz88^-^ 05:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know how Jimbo answered this question, but the way I would is as follows: Remember when Template:Support and Template:Oppose were deleted because they were annoying and made everything look like a vote? Well, people who really liked them were allowed to keep copies of them in their userspace and use them as they wished. People have much more freedom in their userspace than they do in the template namespace. Things in the template space should represent Wikipedia policy, rules or practices, not your personal opinion. You can do that in your own space. BrokenSegue 23:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It isn't accurate to say that users 'have much more freedom in their userspace'. It would be accurate to say that things which are confined to a users userspace are of far lesser interest project wide and are less likely to see enforcement. Perhaps the result is the same, but the motivation is quite different. No won should believe for a moment that we will allow any userpage to exist which harms our project or its goals. --Gmaxwell 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant crimethink. Herostratus 05:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Janizary 07:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And it's nice to see it's being argued through process this time around. Sarge Baldy 20:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatantly divisive. --Gmaxwell 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per numerous arguments, but the most convincing in my opinion being Grue's on the DRV discussion. This template is not an attack on admins in the slightest - it is not even expressing annoyance at admins in general. It is expressing annoyance at the small handful of admins who violate policy - something that they shouldn't be doing anyway, per Wikipedia:Adminstrators. Of the 800 or so admins on this project, this template only applies to maybe twenty or thirty of them. If you are one of these admins, may I suggest making it no longer apply to you rather than taking such great offense at the existance of this template? --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete in advance of formulation of an overall policy. Metamagician3000 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_19/Userboxes&oldid=1136067424"