Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Userbox debates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:22, 15 April 2006 editThe Ungovernable Force (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,877 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 09:26, 15 April 2006 edit undoDoc glasgow (talk | contribs)26,084 edits →[]: not a voteNext edit →
Line 56: Line 56:
**Sorry, but this isn't a vote. You haven't addressed any of the substantive issues as to why you think T1 should be overriden in this case. I'd love to hear why you think this template isn't divisive. --] 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC) **Sorry, but this isn't a vote. You haven't addressed any of the substantive issues as to why you think T1 should be overriden in this case. I'd love to hear why you think this template isn't divisive. --] 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
**It is a vote, brevity is not a basis for disenfranchisement (so don't even think about it). I do not need to supply a reason other than ''I think this should be restored'', the implicit reason (on this page) is ''invalid T1''. Since you ask, however: it is not divisive in the sense of T1. While the issue may polarize voters, there is no evidence to think that any wikipedians are bothered by the userbox. It is this difference which most admins abusing T1 fail to grasp: divisive politics does not make automatically for a divisive userbox. In this vein, various anti-admin-abuse boxes T1-speedied are also not divisive: most Wikipedians do not mind their existence, even if the underlying politics are potentially divisive. ] 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) **It is a vote, brevity is not a basis for disenfranchisement (so don't even think about it). I do not need to supply a reason other than ''I think this should be restored'', the implicit reason (on this page) is ''invalid T1''. Since you ask, however: it is not divisive in the sense of T1. While the issue may polarize voters, there is no evidence to think that any wikipedians are bothered by the userbox. It is this difference which most admins abusing T1 fail to grasp: divisive politics does not make automatically for a divisive userbox. In this vein, various anti-admin-abuse boxes T1-speedied are also not divisive: most Wikipedians do not mind their existence, even if the underlying politics are potentially divisive. ] 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
***Actualy, it is not a vote. It is a discussion to determine whether this is validly deleted under T1. Any comments that do not address that issue (or call for deletion/undeletion on other grounds) may be discounted.--] ] 09:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' No evidence has been presented for users taking offense at the sight of this template (besides the anti-userbox party).--'''] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> ]''' 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Undelete''' No evidence has been presented for users taking offense at the sight of this template (besides the anti-userbox party).--'''] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> ]''' 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' (I repeat myself to humour ] Such userboxes are not divisive (in that they create divisions) they merely illuminate divisions which already exist. Unless the only people to edit the encyclopaedia are opinion-less robots it is dishonest for us all to pretend not to have a POV. However, the encyclopaedia articles should be kept free of POV and this is facilitated by everyone else knowing what consistitutes a particular editor's biases. ] 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Undelete''' (I repeat myself to humour ] Such userboxes are not divisive (in that they create divisions) they merely illuminate divisions which already exist. Unless the only people to edit the encyclopaedia are opinion-less robots it is dishonest for us all to pretend not to have a POV. However, the encyclopaedia articles should be kept free of POV and this is facilitated by everyone else knowing what consistitutes a particular editor's biases. ] 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:26, 15 April 2006

Shortcut
  • ]
Please take general discussion to the talk page.

April 14, 2006

Template:User marriage man-woman

This user believes a marriage consists only of one woman and one man.
This is basically the proposed new policy that, unlike articles, categories, images and other templates, userboxes are so precious to Misplaced Pages, and such a loss when deleted, that they should enjoy the special privillage of a unique exemption from speedy deletion. I'm surprised no-one has formally suggested it, it is such a cool idea. --Doc 16:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
+1, Insightful --Cyde Weys 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Same Sex Marriage

Recommend restoration with a TFD, perhaps, unilaterally speedied by Mackensen. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussions

See /Archive