Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:49, 3 May 2006

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Template:User vomit

This userbox has been repeatedly deleted, and now has been protected from creation. Tony Sidaway says that this is T1. Below are my comments about this action, as posted on the talk page for this userbox:

This has got to be one of the more bizarre deletions I've ever had to witness. Why must this page be protected? This was an admin's reason for deleting this userbox.

1. (Divisive and inflammatory to millions of starving kids worldwide who can't afford FOOD let alone COMPUTERS.)

I'm no admin, but I highly that truly is a serious reason to delete a userbox. And this being "T1" and divisive? I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Here's the dictionary terms for "divisive" and "inflammatory."

1. Divisive-"Creating disagreement or disunity."
2. Inflammatory-"Rousing excitement, anger, etc; of or caused by inflammation."

If someone can tell me how a harmless userbox like this fits any of these categories, please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs)

• Recreate in userspace - Template is neither divisive nor inflammatory, but it's also unencyclopedic and doesn't belong in the template namespace. -GTBacchus 12:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as per GTBacchus Nhprman 13:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted E.N.C.Y.C.L.O.P.E.D.I.A. --Doc 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate as per GTBacchus points. --Shawn 15:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate in userspace. This might seem a bit harsh, but if the children can't afford computers, they probably can't see this userbox :/. And I seriously doubt this userbox is really being used with such a malicious intent as to mock starving children. Homestarmy 16:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• LOL and userfyBJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The author of this piece of juvenilia should perhaps gets himself a blog where he can indulge his tastes to his heart's content. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a joke site. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin, and myself. --Cyde Weys 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not inflammatory at all. Larix 20:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • However, "not inflammatory" is not a standards for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. You certainly wouldn't see this kind of nonsense in an article; why should you see it in a template? Keep in mind that templates were created to make articles better (and are mostly used for that purpose). Templates sure as hell weren't created so they could be used for this. --Cyde Weys 20:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  Content is not the reason for this review. It is instead, rather, the false applications of T1 and divisivesness. Furthermore, if we delete every joke userbox, what else will we have to delete? What is BJAODN doing in Wikipedida namespace?

• Keep deleted More junk. --pgk 21:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, though perhaps we could create a separate wiki for the kindergarten crowd. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL great suggestion. --Cyde Weys 22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted You see? I can be civil when it comes to the userbox debate... just because I support most of them doesn't mean there shouldn't be SOME sort of guideline or control. (Just don't touch my dolphin, and we'll be fine.) Coolgamer 23:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate. There are a multitude of other joke userboxes and there is no community consensus that wikipedia should not contain joke userboxes. This is obviously a joke and claiming that it is derogatory to starving children is plain bullshit. Living in the third world I directly witness starving children and it is such acts of sudden ridiculous comapssion that are more derogatory to them. Shall we delete the entire encyclopaedia because its existence is derogatory to the majority of global population who don't have a computer? Admins should stop spending their time deleting stupid but harmless userboxes and instead do something constructive. Loom91 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Disgusting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This template is inflammatory: in extreme cases, content may be inflammatory simply by being completely witless. Xoloz 18:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I just double checked, and it appears we are indeed still trying to run an encyclopedia here. --InShaneee 22:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD. If people feel this doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages, then nominate it at "Templates for Deletion" like any other unencyclopedic template; nobody's stopping you! But speedy-deletion is reserved for special cases: divisive and inflammatory userboxes, of which this clearly and indisputably is not one. Until "icky :((" or "fucking stupid" are deletion criteria, there's no policy to justify such a deletion, anymore than there would be to justify deleting a userpage that said this text instead. -Silence 22:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Fucking stupid" is and always has been a deletion criteria. Methinks you are being too much of a process wonk and not enough of a WP:IAR type. IAR is very clear that deletions of such ludicrous templates, while technically not mentioned in policy, is the right thing to do. --Cyde Weys 00:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Fucking stupid" is (in the abstract sense; a better justification still has to be given) a deletion criterion, not a speedy deletion criterion. Dismissing contrary opinions with labels and accusing anyone who cares about process one or two degrees more than you do of being a "process wonk" is not the most civil behavior. I believe in process in all cases except where process harms the encyclopedia, and it obviously doesn't harm the encyclopedia in this case, as a TfD vote really isn't such a big deal. If Jimbo (or anyone else) had wanted to add a WP:CSD entry for "templates that are gross" or "templates that are puerile", he easily could have done so; he specifically chose not to because it is only "inflammatory" and "polemic" templates that concern him (e.g. "This user hates Jews", "This user wants George W. Bush to die", "This user says 'Fuck anti-abortion psychos'", etc.), and concern most users in general, not silly joke templates like this. WP:IAR is not policy, and must be tempered by common sense and an understanding of the bigger picture: speedy-deleting this insignificant template is not beneficial enough to Misplaced Pages to justify "ignoring all rules" here, as TfD would work just as well and would have the not-insignificant advantage of not violating Misplaced Pages policy and process. Also, your last sentence is pure interpretation; stating it as though it were fact (WP:IAR says nothing about templates, about ludicrous content, or about speedy-deletion) is potentially misleading. Although I understand where you're coming for to not want to bother with a TfD for such an inane user template, I don't see Speedy-Deletion as a tool, or WP:IAR as a "wild card" policy to justify whatever whims an admin has on a given day of the week; deleting this through the proper channels will not cause the world to end in a rain of ash and flame, whereas not doing so can do naught but unnecessary further escalate tensions and ill-will among users who do care a little bit about process pages like WP:TfD and policy pages like WP:CSD. -Silence 07:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for addressing the issue head-on and openly, but I have to disagree about the applicability of WP:IAR in this case, considering how controversial the T1 speedy deletions have been. If T1 is to be seen as fair, it must be used only when truly appropriate. It's about trust - the trust that is instilled in admins to apply rules fairly. In this case there is so little disadvantage to moving this debate to TFD that is seems foolish not to do so. TheJabberwʘck 02:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)struck out 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC). TheJabberwʘck
• BJAODN and keep deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Policy exists to protect the encyclopedia, not infantile bullshit. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Cyde -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is wikipedia, not myspace. Just because we have some editors who are children, it doesn't mean we need to act like children. --Gmaxwell 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ral315 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It boggles my mind that anyone would create this idiotic crap, and it boggles me even further that someone would fight tooth-and-nail to ensure it's survival. A complete waste of time and effort. Incidentally, I'm 15 years old myself. I shudder to think that the people who created this and find it amusing, let alone those that think it helps to write an encyclopedia, are my peers, or, even worse, my elders.--Sean Black 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete deleted out-of-process. WP:ENC is not a CSD.  Grue  06:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Good point. Someone really ought to add that.--Sean Black 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted It makes me feel sick to look at it. -- Banez 10:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per JzG. --Pjacobi 12:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Disgusting, juvenile, idiotic, not funny, and a waste of space. So what? Undelete and list at TFD per Grue and Silence. TheJabberwʘck 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Vote changed to Keep deleted, but discourage similar speedy deletions in the future. Although it shouldn't have been speedied in the first place, the userbox now falls under WP:SNOW. TheJabberwʘck 02:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Something so pointlessly in poor taste could be argued to be imflammatory. —StrangerInParadise 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this userbox has no point whatsoever and is, well gross -- Tawker 05:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. It was deleted out of process, sure, but what's the point in undeleting it and sending it to TFD, when it will just get deleted again? Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Serves no function to balance potential for polemics.--M@rēino 13:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This serves no purpose other then to show that somebody has poor sense of humor, and such statement shows rather no connection to encyclopedia building at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Totally without worth. Lowers the tone of the project. Metamagician3000 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. WTF? It's stupid, and it could be a prejudice against anorexics. Kind of irrelevant, really. Just a waste of space.brainybassist 19:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Disgusting, juvenile, and unencyclopaedic. AnnH ♫ 22:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD, not T1, where we can go throuhg process and give this disgusting template a quick death. JoshuaZ 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Motion to close - the inevitable outcome somes obvious. Even SIP voted keep deleted fer chrissakes. --Cyde Weys 21:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. Herostratus 00:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against the motion (or whatever). Many people above seem to have misinterpreted the issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the template be recreated if the speedy deletion was improper, no matter how disgusting or useless it is? Most of the votes act as if this is a TFD. I think more discussion on this issue is needed. TheJabberwʘck 01:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Changed to support per WP:SNOW. TheJabberwʘck 05:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I wouldn't oppose moving the debate to TfD, but this seems like a good case for the application of WP:SNOW, even if there's a respectable argument that the right process was not followed. Given the concerns, I suggest leaving the debate here but also leaving it open a little longer so there is no doubt about the overwhelming consensus that this box is unwanted. Metamagician3000 06:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I've never seen that policy, and I guess it makes sense in this case, now that the horse is out of the barn. Still, I think it would be much better for the userbox to have been TFD'ed in the first place, precisely because of the controversialness of T1. T1 is a pretty divisive policy, and I think it should be followed precisely as stated, in the interest of clarity, openness, fairness, and trust. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there's a wider issue here. You suggested that "a template be recreated if the speedy deletion was improper, no matter how disgusting or useless it is" Of course that would be absurd. We don't play silly games here, if something is disgusting and useless it dies. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I wasn't trying to suggest either way, I was just presenting my interpretation of the policy I had seen at that point. WP:SNOW, while not policy, seems reasonable to me, and accordingly I will strike out that comment. However, following process is neither silly nor absurd, though it might not be always correct. I'm surprised you would degrade such a serious issue - with strong feelings on both sides - by calling one view of it silly. There are costs and benefits to both undeleting and keeping deleted, and I don't think it's an obvious judgment as to which would be the better decision. TheJabberwʘck 05:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:SNOW is not a policy. It is an essay (like Misplaced Pages:Process is Important :)), and is no more binding than the many other random essays we have on charming colloquialisms that editors so adore, such as Misplaced Pages:How many legs does a horse have?, Misplaced Pages:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground, Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons, Misplaced Pages:Wonks, Misplaced Pages:Grapefruit, Misplaced Pages:Beware of the tigers, Misplaced Pages:Don't stuff beans up your nose, and, of course, Misplaced Pages:Flower garden. ("Misplaced Pages is like a flower garden... Because the bits at the top are very pretty, the stuff at the bottom is mainly dirt and manure, but also contains some good seeds, many people are just visiting, but we have some dedicated gardeners, and there's thorns all over the place. Be careful you don't sting yourself!") Until random editor-written essays suddenly become policy, WP:SNOW does not override WP:CSD or WP:TfD.
      • Also, I agree with the above comments noting that it is much more important in DRVs like this to establish proper policy and process so that future debates (and there will surely be many, as long as users are more interested in out-of-process speedy-deleting random userboxes than helping construct a userbox policy or working on the encyclopedia) will proceed appropriately and smoothly, than for the sake of any of these insignificant little templates. DRV is a review of process, not a replacement (or "second round") for TfD. If the process is blatantly being violated in a real way (in other words, it's not just some trivial semantic issue of someone deleting something with the wrong policy specified when another policy would have covered it, or forgetting to leave a VfD-closing message or something like that, but is actually a violation of currently-existing Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion official policy), then the correct move is to undelete so the template can be discussed and deleted in the ordinary and usual manner for all such templates. If you disagree, propose a new Speedy Deletion Criterion (T2?) for templates related to juvenile humor; simply ignoring policy and process is unhelpful and divisive, and contributes to a slow erosion of civility and fairness in dealing with these ridiculous boxes. -Silence 03:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
        • You are putting too much emphasis on process wonkery and way too little emphasis on common sense. What does it take to make a new userbox? A minute (or less if you use WikiUbx). And how long should it take to delete an inappropriate userbox? A minute. But instead, with this insistence on TfD wonkery, we are wasting hours of combined time. It's ridiculous. Userboxes are easy to create, provide no benefit to the project (and some harm, in the case of inflammatory ones), and should be easy to delete. I don't understand how some people can keep on insisting that you have to go through a whole deletion vote simply to get rid of an unencyclopedic template. And I can't believe a vomit userbox was brought to DRV, either. --Cyde Weys 05:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not "process wonkery", it's process. My above comments were not just in reference to this userbox, but to many of the templates that have been speedied recently even though they were marginal "inflammatory and divisive" candidates at best. If your sole concern is saving time, then if anything, you should be arguing for sending most of these userboxes to TfD rather than DRV, since it takes much longer to fight endless DRV battles, and generates a lot more hostility due to the perceived abuses of process when non-inflammatory templates are speedied like this, than a simple TfD discussion. Sometimes, following process is the best thing for the encyclopedia, the thing that makes the most common sense, and the thing that is most consistent with policy and established practices. Policy and process are not "last resorts", they're first resorts. If you feel we should be able to speedy any userbox (as you obviously do), then what you should do is propose that such a criterion be added to WP:CSD, not ignore policy and process altogether using an "ends justify the means" mentality. The collateral damage and strife caused by the impressions of unfairness and disorder which consistently ignoring process and policy generates is not worth the minute or two it takes to nominate something on TfD rather than just speedy it, when it doesn't fall under any CSD. -Silence 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Getting the right outcome is the only important thing. If something needs to die, this should happen. All written policy is just an attempt to make it easier to do that. It should never get in the way of what needs to be done. --Tony Sidaway 03:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • Uh, last I checked, TfD is not "getting in the way" of anything; it's the way that things get deleted when they're templates and need to be, and don't fall under T1. What's next, is AfD getting in the way of our ability to delete marginal articles quickly? Is ArbCom getting in the way of our ability to mete out justice on major decisions quickly? Some silly vomit template is not so destructive and imminently dangerous to Misplaced Pages's capacity to function properly (I don't expect to see any lawsuits cropping up about it, for one thing :)) that it was urgently necessary to ignore process in this case. I understand why you did it, but that's still slightly too casual of a complete dismissal of policy and process for me to stomach easily for such a trivial, open-and-shut TfD case. -Silence 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • True, but it seems to me that you're taking too narrow a view of "the right outcome" - one that doesn't consider the costs of speedy deletion. TheJabberwʘck 05:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by the "cost" of speedy deletion, but in the case of a revolting bit of trash like this I don't see that we have much choice. This isn't myspace. --Tony Sidaway 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • One of the costs here is that this piece of waste has now been on WP longer than it would have been if it had been TfD'd in the first place....Septentrionalis 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It may well have been, but I don't see the problem. Why the hurry? This is a deletion review and it appears from the results so far that the deletion is being overwhelmingly endorsed. --Tony Sidaway 15:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

        In other words, sometimes you've got to spend some time killing something, if you want it to stay dead. You can't just scatter salt around, you have to plow it in. -GTBacchus 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

        That's actually not what I meant at all. I think whoever deleted it was right to do so, I deleted it again when someone recreated it, but if someone wants a review of the deletion then they're entitled to ask for that, even if (as in this case) the likelihood of undeletion is extremely low. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

        Then I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth. -GTBacchus 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, we've given it a bit more time. Stick a fork in it someone. Metamagician3000 14:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, serves no purpose to Misplaced Pages. James F. (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. deleted out-of-process. --Dragon695 00:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate in user space as most template-based boxes will eventually go there anyway; however, that recreation should be done by the deleting admin as the justification for its deletion should have been impossible to type with a straight face... RadioKirk talk to me 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Silence's arguments. Abusing T1 will only make things worse in the long run. romarin 02:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Tony and Kelly. WP:NOT Myspace. Garrett 09:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per User:Gmaxwell - Glen _C (Stollery) 04:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, though I'm in reality quite ambivolent about this template and fail to see what all the fuss is about. It's a dumb template (IMO, no offense intended), but apparently some people find it humorous. It's certainly not devisive or inflammatory, though I certainly don't intend to use it myself. If some people think it should be undeleted, then undelete it and let them use it--you don't have to. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per AmiDaniel. Perhaps bad taste, but I don't see T1 and don't see any real reason to not leave it be. --AySz88^-^ 04:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete and send to TfD if you wish. This is a clear abuse of T1. --Rory096 05:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Objectivism / Template:User No Objectivism

• Deleted by Dmcdevit for being "divisive", which is suspicious, given the myriad other such userboxes left untouched. -Objectivist-C 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• I suggested Objectivist-C take his dispute of my deletion here, rather than recreate the template (as he did the first time). I deleted both these templates together as a clearcut reading of the CSD. My reasoning was simple: these are divisive templates. As I explained when he asked me about it, there are plenty of templates that don't contribute to the encyclopedia that I'm fine with, but these ones were blatantly factionalizing, so I thought they were harmful. As for similar ones, that may be, but the existence of divisive templates doesn't justify the existence of divisive templates. And, for obvious reasons, I'm not about to go on a deletion spree in what is still a controversial arena. (Two is enough for this month for me.) I'm not sure what aspect of the deletion is in dispute. In any case, I recommend that we keep deleted. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  And I'll repeat my argument that anything in the Beliefs, Political Parties, Regional Politics, or Religion sections is going to be divisive to some extent. Why these two in particular? -Objectivist-C 05:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep both deleted. Divisive templates, correct application of T1. We can't delete them all divisive userboxes at once, but that's no reason not to keep after them. These two have no more been singled out than the last two divisive templates deleted, nor the next two, nor the two after those, etc. -GTBacchus 05:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Still failing to see how they're divisive, unless you expect Wikipedians to forms some sort of homogeneous blob. -Objectivist-C 06:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  The best, most creative, and most individualistic userpages here use no userboxes. Wikipedians will not ever form a homogeneous blob, but we can establish a culture that this is a place where we set our ideological convictions aside and focus on writing an NPOV encyclopedia. -GTBacchus 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. These are just the type that Jimbo mentioned when talking about what it is to be a Wikipedian: "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." Fully justified T1 deletion. Rx StrangeLove 06:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Where is the T1 policy set out? -Objectivist-C 06:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it's basically felt out by community practice and some attempt to record that practice is made at WP:CSD. -GTBacchus 06:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted for both templates. Again, why are we wasting our time on stuff like this? Kelly Martin (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  I don't know, what does compel you to contribute? -Objectivist-C 06:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• What compels you to contribute?! Your account is only two days old and in that time you've almost exclusively been involved in userboxes, to a degree much more than an actual new user would be. And you seem to know Kelly Martin's history well. --Cyde Weys 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• And you seem to know Kelly Martin's history well.

Not really, have I unintentionally referenced something? -Objectivist-C 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. I am beginning to suspect that these userbox deletions are being chosen at random, they seem to have so little with T1. No, this neither divisive nor inflammatory. Let me explain a little further: most people who put up either userbox would welcome seeing either userbox elsewhere just to see the spectrum of belief which is interesting. To assume that it is to gird oneself up for a harmful dispute is unreasonable- and more importantly unproven. More userboxes, not less! StrangerInParadise 09:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "I am beginning to suspect that these userbox deletions are being chosen at random, they seem to have so little with T1." What's that, another assumption of bad faith? It think I showed clearly that this wasn't random, and the many agreements with my deletion demonstrate that, and if you weren't sure, you could have just asked. I'm a patient person with this sort of thing, but, since I'm acquainted with your history, I'm fairly certain casting aspersions was your intention. Please don't. Dmcdevit·t 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You assume bad faith in error, and oblique references to my history are themselves quite uncivil. Although your listing did seem intentional (if ill-advised), my remark on randomness was on the last several userbox deletions including this one, almost all of which are without evidence of any actual divisiveness. It does appear (given the consistently poor relevance to T1) as if they are picked at random. The more likely cause, however, is the confusion of divisive politics in the outside world with actual divisiveness here on Misplaced Pages, which is a misapplication of T1. When you take that with how many of the keep deleted comments have nothing to do with T1 (e.g. unencyclopedic, useless), early discussion closures, etc, one cannot help but wonder whether this isn't just deletion of userboxes for its own sake. I keep hoping someone will actually consider policy, like whether deleting userboxes rather than listing them for TfD isn't a breach of process. StrangerInParadise 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You can have your own opinions, that's fine, just don't cast aspersions on my good faith. Now calling me "quite uncivil" for saying so is downright silly. I mention your history for one simple reason: I personally wrote the remedy putting you on personal attack parole in your last arbitration case, and included language widening it to include assumptions of bad faith, for exactly this kind of incivility. After extensive discussions with myself on-wiki and on IRC, and with other arbitrators, and warnings from others before the arbitration, and now having been put on parole, damn right I'm irritated that you don't seem give a whit and continue the assumptions of bad faith. I never have and don't plan to take a part in userbox conflicts, and I didn't even engage you on your reasoning. Just stop assuming bad faith. Dmcdevit·t 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, there was no assumption by me of bad faith on your part, though it is clear you have assumed bad faith on my part. Also, I did not call you quite uncivil, I said your references to my history were quite uncivil, which you've just compounded severely by draging the ArbCom process into it (hint: you should have taken it to my talk page). And, yes, you did personally write the ArbCom remedy, and intentionally gave it the widest possible application, and supported it by mischaracterizing my actions, just as you have done here. You are an arbiter, I'm just an editor: if you intend to continue to pursue me like this, there is little I can do about it. BTW, you deleted two userboxes, I explained that this was out of policy: perhaps you should engage me on my reasoning, rather than complaining how you feel slighted that your motives appear to have been questioned. I didn't question your motives, I questioned your judgement: that is what this page is for. —StrangerInParadise 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh please. Now I'm "pursuing you" for responding to your comment disputing my own deletion? And accusing people of deleting templates randomly is not an assumption of bad faith? And now I "mischaracterized" your actions (but somehow 10 arbitrators unanimously agrred to the parole)? And reminding you of that in asking you to stop is uncivil? And I'm assuming bad faith? Your incivility is getting worse, not better. I gladly submit my deletion to community review and will undelete them if that is the consensus; but this page is for disputing deletions, nor deleters. I suggest you quit it (which was the point of my first comment, which you continue to disregard). Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I commented about the seeming randomness of deletions, you took it personally and went after me: it is you who have assumed bad faith and behaved uncivily. Has it occurred to you that you were wrong from the first? —StrangerInParadise 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
            • That last bit is a glaring appeal to semantics. "Random deletions" occur because deleters delete randomly (and there's your assumption of bad faith). When I say comment on the deletion, I mean comment on the merit of it not the motive behind it. In any case, I'm not going to waste my time here any longer. My multiple warnings stand, and I'll enforce them myself if need be. Dmcdevit·t 05:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I say again, userboxes cannot create divisions. They can only reflect them. The only adults without an opinion on anything are stupid. We should not try to hide these but proclaim them, so that other editors may know our biases. POV must be kept out of the articles but should be revealed on the user page. Doing it with little coloured boxes is as good a way as any. I see no evidence that anybody sporting one of the boxes on their userpage would be unable to work with a person displaying the other. (Most of us) are not clue-less robots. It is harmful to the encyclopedia (because it's based on a lie) to pretend that editors are opinion-less automatons. Perhaps we should abolish userpages and all use a number instead of a user name? Avalon 09:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is not a social networking site. Using Userboxes to reflect political beliefs, and creating/deleting/undeleting Userbox templates in support of, or against, specific beliefs, leads to disrpution of the main purpose of Misplaced Pages - to create an encyclopedia. Nhprman 00:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Undelete as this deletion was CSD T1 and divisive. --D-Day) 11:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. as this deletion was CSD T1 and these are divisive. --Doc 12:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted, T1 is policy. --Sam Blanning 12:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Ignorance of policy is never an excuse. Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Divisive.--Commander Keane 15:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted, indeed. T1 exists for these kind of templates. James F. (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. "Kill them, kill them both! Yees precious!" I feel that T1 applies in this instance. -- Banez 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. That we haven't gotten around to deleting every other divisive template is not a good argument to reverse this quite sensible deletion. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted - And block Objectivist-C for wasting our time. What, I can't call for blocking someone, but you guys can call for desysopping of admins? Hypocritical. --Cyde Weys 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Don't bite the newbies --D-Day) 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• He's not a newbie. --Cyde Weys 16:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• If your time is being squandered, it's by your own will. -Objectivist-C 04:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse both deletions polemic.--MONGO 16:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Such templates do nothing to help the encyclopedia and they waste our time. --JWSchmidt 16:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Objectivism causes strong emotions. endorsing or opposing it does likewise. Why should we allow factionalizing bumper stickers? Michael Ralston 18:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Objectivists and their nonsense They've been an ongoing disruptive element on Misplaced Pages, and in real life. --Daniel 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure Jimbo wouldn't endorse that.  Grue  14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I bet Jimbo has not endorsed wiping after taking a dump either - regardless, it's a good thing to do so. --Daniel 15:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You've convinced me: these are divisive. Septentrionalis 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted And begin deletion of Template:User_Communist immediately. Political Userboxes are self-evidently divisive and lead to "dueling Userboxes" like this. Nhprman 00:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both Deleted both, unnecessary - cohesion 05:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and change/discuss wording, etc. first, speedy deletion isn't the only way to solve a problem. --AySz88^-^ 06:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the User Objectivism userbox, it is as valid as the other political/religious userboxes we have been keeping which just have a dry fact. Keep the no objectivism userbox deleted as userboxes which state opposition are divisive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Anyone who can't see why these two are divisive would appear to me not to understand what divisive means - the two of them in juxtapoisition above is all the proof you need, I'd say. Just zis Guy you know? 14:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. If you want to use political/religious etc. userboxes, copy-paste the raw code. Cynical 07:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both. The existence of an opinion is not proof of bias. Just because someone shows their honest opinion on their user page does not mean they are going to violate the NPOV rule. Jimbo's opinion on this subject is well known, yet we don't assume he will be biased. And no proof has been given yet that any divisions will be created by these userboxes just because they show an opinion on their user pages. Slippery slope is a fallacy, you know. -- LGagnon 03:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good thing nobody's arguing that userboxes are indication that someone's going to violate NPOV. That would be silly. -GTBacchus 03:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Then what is the problem with divisiveness? If people will have opinions of their own and not violate the NPOV rule because of it (as they already do), then what's the problem? By the way, you were the one who mentioned the NPOV rule originally. -- LGagnon 20:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• you are one silly dreamer --Shawn 03:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Personal attacks (also a fallacy) help no one. -- LGagnon 20:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, is not a free Web host, and is not a free speech zone. So the idea that we should announce ALL of our biases (or any of them) on the User page is foreign to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp, frankly. Most of us don't walk around with our biases printed our our T-shirts, yet people seem to be able to discover our biases by our actions and interactions with others. The same is true with edits. They are self-evident and a discovery of motive is not necessary and seems a violation of the concept of Assuming Good Faith. Nhprman 13:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neither delete nor keep Here's an idea- make a new userbox for Objectivism followers, without the "strongly" bit. That way, they can show what they think. Delete the oppose template- if they believe something else, they can use a userbox for the other view, or not use one at all. That way, people still can express their views, there are no attacks on either side, and most everyone is happy. Sound fair? Coolgamer 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If the content of the userboxes is divisive, then edit them so as to remedy that state of affairs; obviously the philosophical position of objectivism itself is no more divisive or inflammatory than any other philosophy, even if it's unpopular, so there's no reason to single this one out for the firing squad just because it's an easier target than, say, {{user socialism}}. The main reason I don't think Coolgamer's idea is a good one is because I have enough experience with these situations to realize that once something's deleted, it's a bitch to get it undeleted or do anything similar to it no matter what the situation: if we allow this template to be deleted and then try to create a similar template that isn't so divisive or inflammatory but still says "This user supports objectivism", "This user doesn't support objectivism", etc., rest assured: it will be speedy-deleted by an admin who assumes that everyone who voted "keep deleted" here was saying that objectivism itself is divisive, not just that this specific userbox related to objectivism is. Additionally, I find intolerant comments like Daniel's, above, extremely worrisome. At best, this deletion will undoubtedly lead to a double standard; at worst, outright censorship. Worrisome. -Silence 23:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is why T1 exists. --Gmaxwell 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as per Nhprman, Gmaxwell, etc --Pjacobi 13:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Either Delete both or Undelete both. There cannot be support without opposition. Whether or not these boxes are divisive I am not concerned. Allowing one and deleting the other, however, would certainly be. --horsedreamer 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Philosophy, not personal issues.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neither delete nor keep per Coolgamer. TheJabberwʘck 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and do not re-ignite the userbox wars with another action such as this deletion. Metamagician3000 02:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Reignite? The wars never ended and continue as long as ridiculous, provocative boxes are created to see how far they can insert political conflict into WP, and as long as their creators claim "censorship" when we try to bring a NPOV back to the WP project. Very tiresome. Nhprman 03:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, re-ignite. The whole thing had died down until today. This is the first time for weeks that I've had to worry about it. Metamagician3000 04:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - classic T1 -- Tawker 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Thermostat Bicker

This user bickers with their significant other or co-workers about the thermostat setting.

• Unilaterally deleted by User:Kelly Martin with the lame-o excuse that it's not encyclopediadic. Very few userboxes are encyclopediadic, yet we keep most of them. She should be de-admined for her numerous wp:point violations. (unsigned ad hominem argument by Lefty (talk · contribs) --Doc 17:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is not an ad hominem argument, Doc glasgow, and you should really reserve your criticism of other user's arguments for your own post, not sneak them into user-identification notes. An ad hominem argument would, for example, say "This userbox should be undeleted because Kelly Martin should be de-adminned" or "This userbox should be undeleted because Kelly Martin is an abusive admin". Lefty instead said "This userbox should be undeleted because very few userboxes are encyclopedic, yet they are not deleted" (and various polls have shown that there's no consensus at all for deleting them on those grounds alone, for the same reason that unencyclopedic userboxes are not deleted), and, as a separate comment (a recommendation rather than an argument), said "Kelly Martin should be de-adminned for her violating WP:POINT". Regardless of whether you consider his suggestion a good one or his reasoning valid, he was no more using an ad hominem argument than a judge is when he gives a convicted person his sentence. The recommended punishment or retaliation for an action is not part of the argument that the action occurred; it is an add-on, based on the assumption (previously argued for) that the action did occur and merits punishment. (However, "the lame-o excuse" comment could certainly be considered uncivil, though since it's insulting the excuse rather than Kelly herself, it's not quite a personal attack.) -Silence 17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • • Is it just me, or does the air seem fresher when User:Silence shows up? Agree or disagree with him, when User:Silence is here, you know there's a grown-up in the chat room. Herostratus 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry about forgetting to sign it. Otherwise, as per User:Silence above. Lefty 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as unencyclopedia and per policy Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Please avoid the temptation to use Misplaced Pages for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not. We don't need domestic flaming here. (PS it is not a WP:POINT, a WP:POINT would be to delete all other userboxes as they are also unencyclopedic). --Doc 17:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deletedPer Doc Glasgow. -- Banez 17:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Duh. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Neither inflammatory nor divisive. --Sam Blanning 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, or delete the 150 random generated userboxes hidden on my userpage Sceptre 17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  Sceptre, I think it will have to be one at a time. This is probably a start. Banez 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Seems completely irrelevant, the fact that there is other crap out there which hasn't been deleted doesn't seem a good reason to allow more crap to be kept --pgk 17:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment It's not just that there's other crap out there. Much of said crap has already been TfDed and kept. (e.g. Template:User black coffee and Template:User vomit). At this point, userboxes that don't violate T1 need discussion for deletion. Lefty 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry still doesn't work for me, we've kept crap in the past so must keep all future crap. If that's the case we've seriously lost the plot on that little thing of "creating an encyclopaedia" --pgk 19:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Neither divisive nor inflammatory. And "unencyclopedic" is not a CSD. Relist it on TfD - there's where such matters are discussed. But as this is another joke box, it doesn't matter, really. Misza13 17:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Honestly, this has gotten so old already. --D-Day 18:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete ridiculous, just ridiculous.  Grue  19:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete silly, yet harmless. Homestarmy 19:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It's not useful. Common sense.--Commander Keane 19:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. "Unencyclopedic" isn't a speedy deletion criterion (yet), and neither is "silly" or "pointless". And could someone please claim T1 on this one, I'm in need of a good laugh :P -- grm_wnr Esc 19:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  Laugh away, T1 is the only criterion for SD, so they have asserted T1. If it is on this page, someone has asserted T1. StrangerInParadise 10:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, I worked it out: It's divisive because it's an userbox! Way to go, I'm taking this page off my watchlist now. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. What? Domestic flaming? It's a joke. Who seriously uses their userpage as an output for mocking their family? I'd like to see that.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Its a joke on a userpage, to quote someone else "duh". Avalon 21:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. What's the harm in keeping it? The userbox certainly should not have been speedied, as it is worlds away from satisfying T1. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. "Joke" userboxes (well, all of them are, pretty much, but...) can be manually placed on one's page. It is the use of the template space, and thus the blind sharing around of common elements to distract users from working on the project, that is so terribly bad and damanging about userboxes. James F. (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  We've tried something that would allow substing, but it just can't seem to go through. That's pretty discouraging. --D-Day 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  THere is nothing to prevent you substing. Just do it. --Doc 23:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Out of process deletion. Template:Test serves no "encyclopedic purpose".Geni 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  ??That template is useful to the project of creating an encyclopeia - this one is not. Clear difference. --Doc 23:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  That is not an "encyclopedic purpose". It helps the project. There is a difference. Keeping editors happy aparently helps the project. Aparently creating these boxes keeps some people happy. Can't see the point myself but then I can't really see the point of customised sigs (beyond adding links to usertalk pages). In any case the word encyclopedic does not appear on WP:CSD thus it is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. And don't suggest it should be. Can you imagain the school debate if unencyclopedic had been a CSD criteria?Geni 01:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  To compare useful templates to this 'myspace' crap is silly. No we don't delete articles on the basis of 'encyclopedic merit' because it is subjective and because we have a deliberate inclusionist bias for articles. But there is no reason why userboxes such as this should enjoy that protection. They are not even arguably encyclopedic, and their deletion is not even arguably a loss to the project. And if 'it keeps someone happy' is now a reason to keep, then I despair; we are myspace. --Doc 01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  "MySpace crap"? Just because someone wants to express themselves and crack jokes with colors and pictures instead of plain text doesn't mean they're out to treat Misplaced Pages like MySpace.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  This isn't TFD. The deletion was not within policy. Userboxes may or may not turn wikipedia into myspace (I rather doubt it) however this is the wrong venue for that argument. It has been established the unecyclopedic is not a speedy criteria. Thus the userbox should be undeleted. You would of course then be free to list it on TFD and make whatever arguments you like for it's deletion.Geni 01:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  BJAODN isn't encyclopedic. It serves no use to the project. The userpages themselves aren't useful to the project. Heck, what about those WP:Babel userboxes? Are they "crap" as well? If we can keep those, then by golly, we can keep this one as well.(This is not a vote, by the way) --D-Day) 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Bad comparison. It is useful to the project to know that an editor can translate something from French etc. --Doc 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, not a valid encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 23:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted what Cyde said.--Alhutch 00:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Neither divisive nor inflammatory, and unencyclopedic is not a CSD (Hey, Doc, Cyde, since your comments do not address T1 issues, shouldn't they be discounted?) StrangerInParadise 02:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete does not meet a CSD. Just another star in the night 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If this is deleted, why aren't most of the boxes in the Funny section deleted as well?Freddie 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed. We'll get to them in due course. James F. (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Juvenile nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 16:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Such templates do nothing to help the encclopedia and they waste our time. If you want to play games with templates, go to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 16:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete funny. question: would thermostate bickering constitute a real-world wheel war? ; ) Mike McGregor (Can) 17:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

*keep deleted waste of time, not useful for writing an encyclopedia and not funny. JoshuaZ 18:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Undelete and list at TfD While it is stupid, not funny and not useful writing an encyclopedia, it doesn't meet T1. JoshuaZ 17:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I think that far too many userboxes have been left undeleted that should be, but this isn't one of them. If someone wants to goof off a bit, oh well. There's no plausible way this could be used for "vote" stacking, nor do I know of any acromonious divides this can enhance. Thus, I don't think it qualifies for T1, and shouldn't be deleted. Michael Ralston 18:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is getting old. This is neither divisive nor inflammatory. What it is, however, is silly and there's no rule whatsoever against silly userboxes. What we do need is more admins with a properly functioning sense of humour and who will follow policy. — nathanrdotcom 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete this is neither divisive nor imflamatory Where 23:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I support the undeletion of this userbox because Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy says that userboxes can only be undeleted if they meet CSD. I read through the CSD, and none of the criteria in it apply to this userbox. It is not patent nonsense; it is not divisive or inflamatory; it is not a "test" userbox; it is not vandalism; etc. Thus, this deletion goes against Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy, and is therefore illegal. We cannot tolerate policy violations like this, or they will only grow in severity. But I would support this userbox's deletion on a TFD. Where 14:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. It is funny, but is not useful for writing an encyclopedia. Try pasting the box's code onto your User page (like it is on this page) rather than templatizing it and making it a community issue. Nhprman 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TfD: Neither inflammatory nor divisive. Septentrionalis 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list at TfD In no conceivable way is this divisive or inflammatory, hence inappropriate T1. Xoloz 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that it is a T1, it was deleted as 'not encyclopedic'. --Doc 16:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted. The only valid reasons for speedy deleting a userbox are (a)T1, or (b) if it would obviously fail a TfD. As I pointed out above, it is far from obvious that it would fail a TfD, so Kelly Martin must feei it's divisive and inflammatory. Lefty 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Not encyclopedic" is not a WP:CSD. If no CSD is advanced as a justification, then absent an application of WP:SNOW, this template must be subject to typical consensus-building deliberation. As I find the template funny, and I believe humor aids the Misplaced Pages community, I cannot apply WP:SNOW in good-faith. Hence, my choice. Xoloz 17:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at TfD This is clearly contentious enough to go to TfD, at least. --AySz88^-^ 06:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Utterly useless but nonetheless a harmless template. Not a T1 candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The merely silly should be tolarated on the grounds that the workerbees, contemptible drones as they may be, are nonetheless unfortunately neccessary for the project, at least for the time being. Let them keep their little tchotchkes for now. Herostratus 14:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Acknowledge clever userbox allegory. I say it's too hot in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjakkalle (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What the... This was not my comment! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Spooooky. :F You've been possessed! -Silence 07:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -- why is this a problem? --T-rex 14:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and TFD CSD T1 only covers divisive/polemical/inflammatory userboxes. And given the significant support for userboxes, WP:SNOW does not apply. I'm actually interested to hear what policy justification Kelly claims for this deletion - surely all userspace templates (not just boxen) are 'unencyclopedic'! Cynical 07:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete psssha. We talk about being mature and reasonable while arguing over silly little boxes, then we smile on humor to lighten the mood. No need to get rid of this box. It's actually quite funny. -- Dragoonmac - 20:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and TfD. Does not meet CSD T1. Process is important. - Mailer Diablo 07:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. This template is neither divisive nor inflammatory, but neither is it encyclopedic. It shouldn't be in the Template namespace. -GTBacchus 16:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Maybe this could become a userbox for fans of the TV series "The Office"? Either way, I laughed. Which I really needed... what i've been through I can't even begin to tell you... Coolgamer 23:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, how does a userbox identifying oneself as a fan of a TV series help write the encyclopedia, and second of all, show me where in the inclusion criteria list "it made me laugh" is mentioned as a valid keep reason. --Cyde Weys 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • We are not discussing reasons for keeping.Geni 23:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Then we have a very weird system going on where reasons for not keeping are not the same as reasons for deleting. --Cyde Weys 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
        • All we are saying here is that this place is for reviewing admin discisions to see if they meet our speedy deletion policy (and afd debates, but there is no afd debate here yet) and that the admin's action did not meet said policy. That's all. Just another star in the night 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User marriage man-woman

This user believes a marriage consists only of one woman and one man.

• Kept by a valid TFD, then unilaterally speedied by Sean Black. Recommend restoration. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• TfD is irrelevant, the question is it it a valid T1? Is it 'divisive or inflammatory'? You decide. I say yes, keep deleted. Do you think it is not divisive>? --Doc 10:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Overall result was no consensus to overturn T1. --Cyde Weys 03:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Quite clearly a T1 deletion, also wasn't unilaterally deleted by Sean Black another editor had tagged it for deletion. --pgk 10:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as Pgk and Doc. Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (If I'm allowed to, seeing as how it was my deletion) per my rationale in the deletion summary and on Stifle's talk page.--Sean Black 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - per above. This is a clear application of T1. --Cyde Weys 13:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, T1 all the way. James F. (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this is why we made T1 -- Tawker 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, informs other users of said user's biases.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 14:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How is that a valid reason to overturn a speedy deletion? It's still divisive and inflammatory. There's lots of potential things you could do or say to "inform other people of your biases" that are nevertheless illegal in most jurisdictions. --Cyde Weys 14:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - valid T1, as above, below, etc. - divisive template. -GTBacchus 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for the obvious reason. Please stop wasting our time with these obvious losers. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Purely out of interest, how does one multilaterally speedy something? --Sam Blanning 15:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  A unilateral action is one taken by a single person without the support of anyone else. A multilateral action is one taken with the involvement and/or support of other people. Cynical 15:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  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)

• Keep deleted Per Doc glasgow. -- Banez 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Where were all you people when I was getting harangued for voting to delete it in the first place? :] --CBDunkerson 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Divisive. — nathanrdotcom 21:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The deletion is invalid because it is in no way divisive in the sense intended by CSD-T1. StrangerInParadise 01:18, 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. --Cyde Weys 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a vote, brevity is not a basis for disenfranchisement (so don't even think about it, see below).
• Undelete No evidence has been presented for users taking offense at the sight of this template (besides the anti-userbox party).--God Ω War 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  No evidence of divisiveness? Look around. For the record, I'm 'pro-userbox' and disagree with the T1 policy on free-speech grounds... However, the fact is that it is policy and only suppressing some divisive opinions (while keeping others) would be even worse than suppressing them all. This box seems obviously divisive to me, but that may just be because I find it to be bigoted and offensive. --CBDunkerson 14:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Restore 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. Avalon 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted An expression that the editor is in favor of denying a basic human right to people, including fellow Wikipedians is divisive and inflammatory...a T1 bulls-eye. Rx StrangeLove 06:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, not divisive The Ungovernable Force 07:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - how can this not be divisive? --Constantine Evans 16:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, WP:NOT Fark.com. --Sam Blanning 17:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, not divisive. Misza13 19:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, textbook T1. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore This is absoulte b**shit that a valid opinion is being squashed because a minority feels its rights supercede mine. Total b*llshit and is an indication of why so many good people are leaving Misplaced Pages. TruthCrusader 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages's loss is apparently Free Republic's gain. --Sam Blanning 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion polemic.--MONGO 16:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Such templates do nothing to help the encclopedia and they waste our time. If you want to play games with templates, go to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 16:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete discloses POV, thus voluntarally holding editors to NPOV. a good thing. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Delete this one, and any advocating the opposite view, as per T1. If there's an issue bound to be divisive and inflammatory, this is the one. There is no need to fight these battles in an encyclopedia, especially one that is supposedly advocating a NPOV. Biases will be exposed through biased editing, and those edits will be changed. (Note: I hope all who want this one to stay deleted also support the same policy for the one below, advocating the opposite view.) Nhprman 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete while i personally don't subscribe to this belief, I think that pointing out our own POV is effective and it lets editors know our bias. Secondly, by saying that this userbox is merely divisive we insinuate that we are trying to get rid of all divisive displays. However, putting divisive text on one's userpage is allowed. Therefore, the true effort of deleting userboxes is to delete userboxes, not delete divisive statements. --Shawn 01:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  "...by saying that this userbox is merely divisive we insinuate that we are trying to get rid of all divisive displays." Not true. It would be nice if people chose to make their divisive statements somewhere other than Misplaced Pages, but all we're saying is that it's not ok to use Misplaced Pages templates to do it with, largely because of the potential for abuse, as has happened in the past with people using political userboxes to aid with vote-stacking attempts. -GTBacchus 00:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete a divisive isssue not a divisive userbox --T-rex 14:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted and end this thing once and for all. These boxes have been going on the Speedy - DRV - TfD - Speedy treadmill for ages with no end in sight. The thing is, if userboxes are templatized, we have to regulate their appropriateness; if we have to regulate their appropriateness, unpopular opinions are suppressed or marginalized; this interferes with our ability to write an NPOV encyclopedia (not to mention the waste of time) so it's time for us to stop templatizing advocacy userboxes. You want to make your own box for your userpage with code, that's fine. - AdelaMae 05:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for making your argument explicit. The fallecy lies in the major premise: if userboxes are templatized, we have to regulate their appropriateness. No, we don't. If a user page is offensive or disruptive, it doesn't matter whether it's using a template or not. Septentrionalis 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, just look at the evidence. To the best of my knowledge, nobody's ever taken people to task for making statements like "I believe a marriage consists of one woman and one man" on their userpages as plain text (nor would they), and yet this template has been repeatedly deleted as inappropriate, at least partly because people don't like the opinion it expresses. - AdelaMae 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per CSD T1. Cynical 07:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as it represents a view that some wikipedians hold that could colour their edits. I reiterate my argument that Userboxen allow us to understand eachother better and therefore help us to compromise. -- Dragoonmac - 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Political. All political should go. Should have been userfied first though. Herostratus 06:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, clearly divisive. Just zis Guy you know? 10:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Same Sex Marriage

This user supports the legalization of same-sex marriage.

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

Overall result was no consensus to overturn T1. --Cyde Weys 03:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted as above, and to be even-handed. --Doc 10:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as above, again another editor had tagged for deletion so wasn't unilateral. --pgk 10:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as above. I'll point out that there's no method for two editors to delete something–there's no bilateral deletion here. Pgk is quite right that someone else had tagged it first. Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Doc and Pgk.--Sean Black 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - per above. This is a clear application of T1. --Cyde Weys 13:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, T1 all the way. James F. (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, again, this is why we made T1 -- Tawker 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, informs other users of said user's biases.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 14:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How is that a valid reason to overturn a speedy deletion? It's still divisive and inflammatory. There's lots of potential things you could do or say to "inform other people of your biases" that are nevertheless illegal in most jurisdictions. --Cyde Weys 14:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - valid T1. If there were ever two divisive templates, I think we've found them. -GTBacchus 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for the obvious reason. Please stop wasting our time with these obvious losers. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per above. -- Banez 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Not divisive, not inflammatory unless you're homophobic (and even then, it's your problem). Not T1. POV, yes. Not a reason for deletion. — nathanrdotcom 21:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore.StrangerInParadise 01:19, 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. --Cyde Weys 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. StrangerInParadise 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.--Doc 09:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a dubious notion. By simply saying Restore, I have said that I think this SD to be invalid, and further indicate my likely view on any subsequent RfD. I may have misunderstood Cyde when he said this is not a vote, as I thought he was specifically refering to my entry, not the process. Nevertheless, you now have my answer: the deletion is invalid because it is in no way divisive in the sense intended by CSD-T1. BTW, does this mean that all those anti-userbox comments which don't address the T1 issue are somehow discarded as well, such as when deleters speak of the lack of encyclopedic merits or professional appearances, neither of which are relevant to T1? StrangerInParadise 10:21, 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).--God Ω War 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (I repeat myself to humour User:Cyde 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. Avalon 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid deletion. Rx StrangeLove 06:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete--Not divisive. The Ungovernable Force 07:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as per other review --Constantine Evans 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, WP:NOT Fark.com. --Sam Blanning 17:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, not divisive. Misza13 19:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, textbook T1. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore as per my reasons for marriage man-woman above. Just because a few over-sensitive cretins get all fussed out doesn't mean the voice of free opinion has to be crushed. TruthCrusader 15:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion polemic.--MONGO 16:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Such templates do nothing to help the encclopedia and they waste our time. If you want to play with templates, go to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 16:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete discloses POV, thus voluntarilly holding editors to NPOV. a good thing. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete funny. question: would thermostate bickering constitute a real-world wheel war? ; ) Mike McGregor (Can) 17:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) I'm assuming this was a misplaced comment. --Cyde Weys 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• it sure was... I thought I removed it, oh well.Mike McGregor (Can) 04:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. Delete this one, and any advocating the opposite view, as per T1. If there's an issue bound to be divisive, this is the one. There is no need to fight these battles in an encyclopedia, especially one that is supposedly advocating a NPOV. Biases will be exposed through editing, and those edits will be changed. There is no need to give people cause to Assume Bad Faith or bias by "announcing" supposed biases or giviging people reason to question an editor's objectivity. Let article edits stand or fall on their own, not because of the beliefs expressed on a user's User page via these boxes. Nhprman 00:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - Unfortunately this view is still divisive. --CBDunkerson 14:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• undeleteThe arguement that the box is divisive falls through when we note that users can say divisive things on their pages. We're not trying to defeat divisive userboxes, we're trying to defeat userboxes when we support deletions such as this. --Shawn 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete see above... Homosexuals are Gay --T-rex 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - and sing a happy song Eternalbeans 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) it is unfortunate that it is divisive, yes, but it is still divisive Eternalbeans 23:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted and end this thing once and for all. These boxes have been going on the Speedy - DRV - TfD - Speedy treadmill for ages with no end in sight. The thing is, if userboxes are templatized, we have to regulate their appropriateness; if we have to regulate their appropriateness, unpopular opinions are suppressed or marginalized; this interferes with our ability to write an NPOV encyclopedia (not to mention the waste of time) so it's time for us to stop templatizing advocacy userboxes. You want to make your own box for your userpage with code, that's fine. - AdelaMae 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. Cynical 07:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete valid POV that could affect someones edits. Useful to know biases. -- Dragoonmac - 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Political. All political should go. Should have been userfied first though. Herostratus 06:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User independent Iraq

Kept deleted, note that De mortius and ROGNNTUDJUU! were confirmed by CheckUser as the same person, so their sockpuppetry was not considered in the deletion debate. --Cyde Weys 00:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This user supports the resistance against the US-occupation of Iraq but thinks that different means should be chosen.

There was consensus to keep this. It is by no means more inflammatory than any other independence box, singling it out is divisive and inflammatory. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. As I have pointed out to ROGNNTUDJUU! numerous times, the result of the debate was no consensus not keep. ROGNNTUDJUU!, I can no longer assume good faith here. Please stop telling lies. Snottygobble 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• This template isn't even a borderline case; speedy deleted per Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion T1. Rhobite 04:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Since people seem to care about vote counts, it was actually 7 keep and 5 delete. Anonymous opinions are not considered - anyway, why do anons care about userboxes? They don't have user pages. Rhobite 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Anonymous opinions should be considered – anonymous votes however, should be disregarded. Jon Harald Søby 19:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; per Rhobite, this definitely isn't even close to a borderline case. This is a picture perfect application of Jimbo's T1. --Cyde Weys 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  There was a 9 to 5 vote to keep this template. You cannot just ignore that. And it is just ridiculous to say someone who calls 9 to 5 a consensus is a liar. This is censorship of unwelcome opinions. If you oppose political user boxes, remove all of them. Unless there is a rule to do this, do not pick those you do not like. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  You're picking the wrong person to play hardball with. Guess what, I do want all political userboxes deleted. In fact, I want all userboxes deleted (at least all of them in template space, anyway). And guess what, Misplaced Pages is not a Democracy, so even if there is a vote, it can be overriden by policy. That's exactly what happened here. And I keep hearing these claims of censorship who think every random snippet of text in a colored box deserves to have its own template. I don't think that word means what you think it means. --Cyde Weys 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  9 to 5 is not consensus anywhere. This incivility is the only reason I regret what I must do here. Septentrionalis 05:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  That's exactly it, if all political userboxes were deleted, this could go as well and it would not be censorship but a reasonable policy. Singling those out the most influential do not like is censorship. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Even marathons must first start out with a single step. --Cyde Weys 05:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  How do you want to go for a marathon if you are already short of breath after the first box? ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Do you want me to call the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Metaphors? --Sam Blanning 15:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  If you want political userboxes to be deleted, you can just not single out some, you have to treat all in the same way. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete There is no consensus on the meaning and application of T1. Its use is divisive and inflammatory, and it should not used, except in the most obvious cases. (In fact, that's the problem with it; no speedying should be done in non-obvious cases; and the other criteria are written that way.) This is not obvious, or a majority of a large vote would not have been keep. Since the TfD was no consensus, it can be relisted there. Septentrionalis 05:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Um, "This is not obvious, or a majority of a large vote would not have been keep." First of all, 14 editors is not a large vote. Secondly, this argument is an example of the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum. Counter-argument, as phrased by the philosopher Opus: if a million people do a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. -GTBacchus 05:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Clear T1 for those interested in process. Rx StrangeLove 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - textbook T1. Policy trumps consensus, every time, not that 9-5 is consensus. -GTBacchus 05:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Please explain how non-violent resistance against an occupation is divisive if endorsing a party accused of having raged a war of aggression is not? ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  What are you referring to? When have I said that whatever you're talking about isn't divisive? -GTBacchus 05:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  So agree with me that template:user republican needs to be deleted along with this one? ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, and all other political and religious userboxes. -GTBacchus 05:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Then please go for it instead of singling out one, which is just censorship. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  I'm neither "going for" nor "singling out" anything. I vote on userboxes that are brought to this page when they seem to be to have been appropriate T1 deletions, as I understand the criterion. That's my level of interest in the matter, and if you examine the history, you'll see that I recommend keeping most ideological userboxes deleted, without prejudice as to what "side" they support. You'll also see that I don't delete them myself; that's for people who care about it more than I do, of which there are several. If somebody T1 speedies {{User republican}} and it ends up here, you let me know, and I'll endorse its deletion. -GTBacchus 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Another abuse of T1. StrangerInParadise 06:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - just because other inflammatory userboxes haven't gotten here yet doesn't mean that policy should be ignored. We can't list all of them at one time. --Constantine Evans 07:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, or re-create in userspace. There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. - Mike Rosoft 12:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Respect the community's wishes. Everyking 13:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's kind of a nonsense phrase right there. "Respect the community's wishes"? Well guess what, on this one the community's wish does seem to be " keep deleted", so should we mark you down as keep deleted also? The point of this is to determine the community's wishes; appealing to them as if they already exist is meaningless. --Cyde Weys 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  There already had been a decision about this. Majority was to keep. Accept it. De mortuis... 21:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Respect the encyclopaedia and its wish not to be MySpace. Obvious T1. --Sam Blanning 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Can the encyclopedia itself have a wish, independent of what the community that writes it thinks? Everyking 14:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would think that everyone who comes to a site called Wikipedia expects to find an encyclopaedia, so until the community thinks we should change our name, this stuff has no place. If they want an Internet battleground, Fark.com is that way. --Sam Blanning 14:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. You've got to be joking. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There already had been a decision about this. If you do not agree, you need to take it here, default is keep. I see the point of those who say userboxes need to be userfied, but then it should apply to all of them, not just those certain admins do not agree with. I would also like to point out my concern that this user was picked by certain admins who even deleted stuff from his user space. Do not make fools of yourself. De mortuis... 14:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Per Tony Sidaway, meets T1 better than any other box I've ever seen. Banez 15:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion We have many, many service members who contribute to WP. Having a sanctioned template (by being in the templatespace) that endorses those wo want to kill them, while tacking on a little 'different means' to assuage personal guilt is the definition of divisive. -M 15:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Civil disobedience does not kill anyone. The war of aggression killed tens of thousands. Misplaced Pages by no way has to attach more importance to a certain group of people just because as a matter of coincidence they are present here. That just comes down to bias. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  I really think you're on the wrong website. This is not about whether the Iraq war was right or wrong or whether the Iraqis should blow up the Americans or just throw rocks, this is about writing an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  You cannot say this opinion is on the wrong site while endorsing a party that is accused of having raged a war of aggression is ok. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted AKMask seems to have it about right in my opinion, this doesn't seem to have much to do with politics, in politics you just argue alot, in Iraq people fight and die, there's a very large difference. Yea one could debate that the politics started it, but each side to such a debate would have its own strengths i'd think, and "resistance" in this case pretty much refers immedietly to "suicide bombings" when in reference Iraq or other middle eastern conflicts. That's kinda mean, and asking it to become "civil disobedience" doesn't exactly whitewash it really. Homestarmy 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  You intentionally misrepresent facts. There is no attempt to whitewash, there is a suggestion to find means that can and in the past have led to a constructive non-violent resolution of conflicts. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete If some political userboxes are allowed to stay (and some are even undeleted) then virtually all should be allowed to stay. This isn't any more divisive than other political userboxes. The Ungovernable Force 19:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you accept the deletion of all political userboxes? If not, why use this argument? I certainly think that Misplaced Pages would be immeasurably improved if all political statements were removed from template space and placed on user pages where they belong. --Tony Sidaway 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think Misplaced Pages's quality would be affected in the least one way or the other. You can't tell from looking at someone's user page whether their user boxes are in template space or user space. Now it may well be that Misplaced Pages would be immeasurably improved if we simply did away with user space altogether, but that's a different question. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, appropriate speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - T1 was never given a formal policy vote, it is an invalid and harmful policy.--God Ω War 21:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • T1 was put in place by Jimbo. This is his site, he can decide policy outside of the normal process. T1 is quite valid. -M 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Jimbo for sure does not want to censor certain opinions. If you want to abolish political user boxes altogether you have to find a consensus for it, and Jimbo himself cannot make a consensus happen. De mortuis... 00:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  Jimbo's word is indeed law here, like it or not. However, consider the message at the top of WP:CSD: "This page is an official policy on the English Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." That suggests that policy is based on consensus and common agreement, not on mandates from on high; it is disingenuous to leave that message on WP:CSD if some aspects of that policy have been forced into an otherwise uncontroversial document that cause a huge deal of unrest and controversy throughout the community (not so much because of the criterion itself as because of its vagueness and generality). -Silence 01:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  Wrong. He reverted a page back to someone else's version and may or may not have said please dicuss this. As far as I know he never directly came out and said "I, Jimbo Wales, decree this".--God Ω War 03:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  I dispute the idea that Jimbo putting something in place automatically makes it valid. I think the validity of a policy can only be determined by the community. You're confusing the practical reality of power with what is actually correct. I agree with God of War that it is an invalid and harmful policy, and the community should simply ignore or override it. Everyking 05:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per CSD T1. The raw code is on this page, so anyone who wants to use this userbox can copy-paste that. Cynical 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete declairing beliefs, bias, POV, etc, keeps editors honest by making them more accoutable to NPOV (i.e. they can be called on they're bias if it permiates they're edits, since it's out in the open). thats a good thing for the 'pedia.Mike McGregor (Can) 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If this isn't T1, I'm not sure what is. JDoorjam Talk 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this crap deleted (and delete the users who keep recreating it). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I interpret that as "ban users who recreate a userbox that has significant majority support". And that is distressing. Everyking 03:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you expect with the current national political climate? Seems like totalitarianism is seeping into wikipedia as well. The Ungovernable Force 04:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • For goodness sake, doesn't WP:CIVIL mean anything to you guys??? Rx StrangeLove 04:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Who do you mean? Kelly? Everyking 05:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
          • What makes you think I mean anyone in particular? But while we're talking about it I don't see a "significant majority" supporting this userbox. If anything it's just the opposite. Rx StrangeLove 05:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I didn't see myself as having said anything uncivil—I just made a logical interpretation of Kelly's comment, and said that it distressed me. So I was just wondering about that. Anyway, vote was 9 to 5, I call that a "significant majority". Everyking 05:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Well, it's not even a consensus, much less a significant majority. And considering whats happening here I'd say it was a pretty good call. As far as civil goes, part of being civil is assuming good faith. You took a joke, maybe a little too curt but still a joke and turned it into something she didn't say and didn't mean. And propped your comment up with something that isn't even true. Rx StrangeLove 05:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
                • 9 to 5 isn't a significant majority? Even if it was only 6 to 5, that's still a majority—normally we keep things if even a significant minority want them kept, much less a majority. With a keep majority of any degree, there shouldn't even be anything to talk about—it's case closed. And no, I don't believe Kelly was joking, but I would be happy if she was. But even if it was a joke, she shouldn't be so insensitive. Everyking 06:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
                • (edit conflicted message) She didn't appear to be joking to me. Assume good faith can only go so far. And btw, consensus needs more support than "significant majority". There wasn't consensus, but 9 to 5 seems like a significant majority to me (almost 2/3). The Ungovernable Force 06:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • c'mon guys...do you really think she was serious? Really? Anyway....we've gone on too long here, if you want we can continue it on my talk page or something....Rx StrangeLove 06:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, obviously.--Sean Black 06:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted--Doc 16:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Note also that De mortuis... and ROGNNTUDJUU! have been confirmed as the same user. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Divisive? I have never seen an edit where one user berated another for the userboxes he put on his page. It simply doesn't happen.--God Ω War 18:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User antiparty

Speedy deleted by User:MarkSweep on February 17, 2006 (just realized this, sorry about the late date). No reason given for deletion. If we have userboxes for people to show their support for political parties, there should be a userbox to show a lack of faith in political parties as an instrument of change. Undelete.--The Ungovernable Force 06:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, appropriate T1 speedy. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: What about other political party userboxes? The Ungovernable Force 06:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, they're not much good either. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Why are we wasting time on these? Kelly Martin (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per nom. Mike McGregor (Can) 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't think this template is in any way inflammatory or divisive, but I'm afraid if I vote "undelete" I'll be permablocked for trolling. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Even if this is undeleted and kept on TFD, it will just be deleted again anyway as a T1, and there has been enough warring over such templates now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Please undelete now Why are admins wasting their time getting rid of userboxes if they're not going to go away? --D-Day 14:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. It's the same thing as any other political party box. Nothing wrong.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, although I don't really like it, under the "who cares" principle. Ashibaka tock 00:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per anything deleted out-of-process. — nathanrdotcom 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• KD agree, T1. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:39 UTC (2006-04-04)
• Keep deleted. I agree with Tony Sidaway on this one. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Since when did truisms become divisive? A certain group of people need to find something better to do with their time than this never ending war on userboxen.--God Ω War 05:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Calling a group of people corrupt is an attack and thus inflammatory, easily falls under T1. Rx StrangeLove 06:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Not divisive, (a little) humorous, even if intended seriously. Some admins have too little to do. Avalon 07:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion because I have too little to do. Oh, also it's a textbook T1. -GTBacchus 07:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. This should never have been speedied, and it should not be RfD'd either. It is harmless. StrangerInParadise 08:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, but... since templates are (presumably) going away anyway, recreate in the user's space and, once there, leave it alone as harmless. In fact, as another of those out-of-process speedies in direct contrast to what Jimbo actually said, it should be recreated by MarkSweep. RadioKirk talk to me 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Valid T1 speedy. People who like their parties (eg. Democratic me) are likely to be inflamed by this. Xoloz 16:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - That it was deleted over a month ago and nobody even noticed until now tells me all that I need to know about this. Templates and categories are for encyclopedia-related content only. --Cyde Weys 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete everything speedied out of process. Larix 21:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Misza13  19:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Translation please. The Ungovernable Force 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  There is no translation. Lorem ipsum is basically a meaningless string of Latin words thrown together. I have no idea why Misza13 thought posting nonsense was relevant to this discussion. --Cyde Weys 22:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  An editorial comment, perhaps? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 22:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  I was just suggesting that lorem ipsum makes nearly as much sense as all the discussions herein. Misza13 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  My guess exactly ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete not divisive. The Psycho 22:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete No more devisive than any political userbox. Not Speedy material. We have pages that are more devisive than this. ughh... -- Dragoonmac - 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - all political userboxes are inflammatory. Just because they aren't all listed at once doesn't mean that they shouldn't be deleted. Comparisons to other userboxes is not a part of T1, as far as I know. --Constantine Evans 07:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Some political userboxes have been undeleted though, so clearly there is a lack of consistency with the application of T1. The Ungovernable Force 19:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages isn't consistent. That is no reason not to take action in an individual case. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  If anything, Misplaced Pages should be consistent. If we allow userboxes that have enough people to vote for them and delete ones that don't we are only allowing majority POV's on wikipedia. Either allow all userboxes or none of them.--God Ω War 03:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, or re-create in user space. There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. - Mike Rosoft 12:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. Use the raw code if you're that attached to it. Cynical 10:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Is it just me, or are the contested userboxes getting less and less borderline? There was a time when some of these seemed possibly non-divisive. JDoorjam Talk 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, obviously.--Sean Black 06:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. And if we're going to be process wonks about this, I'd point out that DRV is only supposed to determine whether this was a valid speedy. Any votes which don't address this point shouldn't--according to the blessed policy--be considered. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted certainly a t1. --Doc 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User review

This user has a account,

Previously undeleted after this DRV debate and kept unanimously after this TFD debate. It was speedied again by Kelly Martin, and restored by me. Mackensen has now speedy deleted it again. Since I have no interest in wheel-warring over this, I am bringing it back to DRV for further discussion if needed. The last deletions were clearly out of process. Speedy undelete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, linkspam - linking to a hotbed of neo-nazis and trolls. Utterly unhelpful. --Doc 12:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  I resent the implication that I am either a neo-Nazi or a troll, particularly as I am neither. --Blu Aardvark | 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Of course not. You merely linked to a notorious anti-Semitic and Holocaust denying site, and stated I am of the opinion that many claims and "fact" about the holocaust have been exaggerated or flat-out falsified. Oh, and referred to me as "Jewjg". But certainly not a neo-Nazi. Jayjg 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  You are free to read my statements in whichever way you choose. I am going to interpret yours as trolling and a violation of WP:NPA... I cannot read it in any other way. As I have said further down on this page, I called you "Jewjg" not as a slur, but because I despise you. Why would it come as a surprise that I do, particularly seeing the way you are trolling me here? --BIu Aardvark 22:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it would come as a surprise to me because we've hardly ever interacted, to the best of my recollection. But I do appreciate your clearing that up; you didn't call me "Jewjg" as a "slur", but because "you despise me". Do you call everyone you "despise" a "Jew"? Just curious. Jayjg 22:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  In fairness, Blu Aardvark is currently blocked and cannot respond to these serious points. I would rirect the reader to his talkpage where he has offered a fuller reply, and is able to discuss. --Doc 12:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  According to This, The most popular URL in the Misplaced Pages IRC Channel was http://www.jewsdidwtc.com . So who are the real neo-Nazis? . The Psycho 23:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  That's a GNAA thing, as you know, because you've posted about it elsewhere. SlimVirgin 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yep, GNAA and high ranking Misplaced Pages admins are good friends! Why do you think Gay Nigger Association of America survived 9 consecutive votes for deletion attempts while this little harmless userbox is being deleted!? Because high ranking Wikipedians are racist against black people. The Psycho 00:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Has no conceivable purpose toward our goal of writing an encyclopedia, advertises a forum filled with trolls and dedicated to attacking Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians. Inherently divisive. Putting this userbox on your page is akin to declaring "I am a troll". There is no reason whatsoever why Misplaced Pages needs this template. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. For the last time, speedy deletions are by definition in-process. The only matter that can be up for dispute is whether this fit the speedy criteria. First of all, Misplaced Pages Review, as a hotbed of trolls and the brainchild of a banned neo-Nazi, is divisive to many Wikipedians. This fits T1. Beyond that, this template serves as a link farm for a forum which has little notability outside the Misplaced Pages community, and even then many sysops have never heard of it (to say nothing of regular users). Finally, there is no encyclopedia utility in this template. It does not refer to anything on the encyclopedia. It does not aid in the creation of articles. It does not advertise a needed skill (as the Babel templates). In short and in summation, if this is undeleted than our slouch towards mySpace will progress and we'll be powerless to stop it. Mackensen (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Ha, "for the last time." Yeah, right. So long as there is speedeletion of anything there will be weary administrators explaining that speedy deletions are inherently in process. JDoorjam Talk 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  divisive to many Wikipedians yet many sysops have never heard of it (to say nothing of regular users). Not really that devisive. The wikipedia review idea is harldy new. I think it dates back to Sollog although he added is own unique style (heh). The only legit way to remove something restored by VRV is is XFD or WP:CP so the claim that speedy delete is legit in this case is open to question.Geni 13:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  "speedy deletions are by definition in-process". I disagree most strongly with that sentiment. Speedy deletions are only valid if they fit the criteria for speedy deletion or if the Wikimedia board, Jimbo Wales, or his delegates decree them. The consensus determined this was not a T1 candidate, and since it does not appear to fit any other CSD, this is not a valid in-process speedy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Oh please. I really wanted to ignore this discussion but this comment just made me vote restore. Does not fit T1, is actually quite useful informative, and the only divise thing about it is the endless deletions and discussions thereof. And with every speedy being in-process... Umm, no. Unless you're trying to confuse process fetishists, I can't see how this statement makes sense whatsoever. Or would it be in-process if I started deleting random pages because I don't like them? Only a valid speedy is in-process, and since there are multiple people disagreeing if it was valid makes its validity doubtful at best. I'd file this one under WP:IAR (and there's very good reasons for invoking that non-rule at times, whether this is one of those times is what we are discussing here), nothing else. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• undelete Misplaced Pages is nothing without consensus. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - let's go make an encyclopaedia. Proto||type 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Doc made a comment on WP:ANI that "new contributers would be welcome"; I would like to get a feel for what is going on but I can't see the disputed template or get any context about what the problem is, since its already been deleted. It looks like the only way someone can participate in DRV (as opposed to TfD or AfD) is if they already know what is going on. Thatcher131 15:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  OK, here is the box. But you need to know that wikipedia review is an anti-wikipedia site, with regular posts from users banned by the community, neo-nazis, and trolls (and a few others). The question is, is having a template on our servers to make it easier to link to this assisting this encyclopedia? --Doc 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Doc. These guys have lost all credibility because of the close association between some of them and various Neo-Nazi and anti-semite groups. Their kind of trash don't need free advertising on Misplaced Pages. --Cyde Weys 16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This is a link to a site whose sole purpose is to abuse and carry out personal attacks on editors here. The contributors show nothing but bad faith and a desire to disrupt. For the most part the users are not in good standing here and there's no reason to give them space to continue their abuse. Furthermore, this is nothing more than link spam...it doesn't add to an article and has no value in the creation of an encyclopedia. It is not our purpose to promote external websites, and in fact doing that is against policy and further grounds for deletion. This is a valid deletion. Rx StrangeLove 15:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: why should we provide free advertisement for people who want to rip us apart from within? —Phil | Talk 16:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on TfD. This is clearly not a clear-cut-enough case for a speedy deletion; if it is deleted at all, it should be done so by consensus, not by using force to override (repeated) consensus, as is being done here. We have identical templates for numerous other noteworthy websites, like deviantART and LiveJournal, and none of those have been proposed for deletion or speedy-deleted; singling out this one just demonstrates Misplaced Pages's bias. Being tolerant of dissent, and not characterizing an entire community of editors as "neo-nazis" or "trolls" just because some of their views are unpopular or one of their members has a twisted ideology, is key to Misplaced Pages's neutrality and openness. There's nothing divisive or inflammatory about the template itself, which means it cannot possibly fit T1; it's only "divisive or inflammatory" if you happen to already feel "divided" or "inflamed" by the website it links to, which is a matter of your own personal views and inclination, not of anything the template states or implies. -Silence 16:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this argument. Are you in favor of this template or not? It can be settled here. Requiring that it be undeleted and then shipped over to TfD to deal with just creates more work for more people. --Cyde Weys 16:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Undeleting and relisting on TfD is always process wonking; there is never any legitimate purpose for doing that. Make any argument you might have here, or drop it. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It's already been relisted on TfD; the result was a unanimous keep. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Things change over time. This time it looks like there's a lot more people for deletion. --Cyde Weys 17:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Poor Misplaced Pages admins, always getting fursecuted by the "ill-informed" masses! We know so much better than them about what's good for the community, but they overturn our decisions anyway. Good thing we can fight back by deleting the templates they voted to keep without any respect for process. High fives all around. Ashibaka tock 16:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the phrase "High fives all around" made the the above comment gold.Mike McGregor (Can) 10:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages Review is inflammatory not because of its criticism of Misplaced Pages, but because the community behind Misplaced Pages Review is inflammatory. I'd also like to add that TfD debates about inflammatory userboxes are notoriously unreliable; most people against them have better things to do than dicking around with userboxes. Call it T1, call it IAR, call it whatever you want. The userbox is offensive, and was deleted properly. Ral315 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The arguments above have convinced me that this isn't a template that all can be comfortable with. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious undelete out of process deletion, consider bringing RfC against people who delete it against the will of community. And that neo-nazi stuff? What the hell were you smoking? MSK seems to hate nazis with passion.  Grue  17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, no one's talking about MSK. Misplaced Pages Review was founded by Alex Lindt, noted Neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier, who not incidentally was banned from Misplaced Pages. Also, please don't blank an on-going discussion. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Alex Linder is banned from Misplaced Pages Review, get your facts straight for once. The discussion is not ongoing, it concluded a long time ago and it's pretty much estabilished that the template should be kept. I will block anyone who redeletes it for wheel warring and disruption.  Grue  17:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, he is now–after blocking people who outed him. Note where I said founded. Semantics appear a lost cause here. Moreover, you seem to be aware of his existence, so what's up with pooh-poohing the accusation further up the thread? A little Verwirrungspolitik, or just simple inconsistency? Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • There are still Nazis and anti-semites on Misplaced Pages Review who aren't banned. If you want me to name names in private, I will. And saying you will block anyone who reverts it as wheel-warring is like saying you'll murder anyone for committing murder. It's ludicrous. --Cyde Weys 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • CDRome may be an anti-semite, but that is unconfirmed. Igor may also be, and the evidence for that is even stronger than that of CDRome, but again, it's unconfirmed. There are no anti-semites who at present are active on Misplaced Pages Review, unless you are implicating that I am one, which I resent strongly. As for Alex Linder, he has never posted to Misplaced Pages Review... Igor Alexander and Alex Linder are two different people. Igor Alexander and User:Amalekite are likely the same person, however. --Blu Aardvark | 20:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • CRome is confirmed as the Disruptive Apartheid editor, a notorious anti-Semite. Igor is confirmed as User:Amalekite a neo-Nazi Stormfront member. These issues are not in debate or question. And, of course, Misplaced Pages Review also has at least one Holocaust denying moderator who referred to me as "Jewjg"; I believe you know him quite well. Jayjg 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Confirmed by whom? Yes, it's highly probable that Igor is User:Amalekite, just as it is highly probable that CDRome is your Disruptive Apartheid editor, but nobody can confirm either as fact. The evidence is exceptionally strong that they are, and I don't dispute that, but nobody has absolutely confirmed it, and the users in question have never stated that that is who they are. As for me, I have not in any way denied the holocaust. I believe in open-minded evaluation of all things, even politically incorrect subjects. According to the limitted research that I had done, and the limits of my knowledge, I was able to acknowledge that things may have occured differently than is claimed. As new evidence is pointed out to me, I adjust my conclusions appropriately, and I have done so. As for referring to you as "Jewjg", I only did so because I despise you, you fucking ass. (WP:CIV! WP:NPA! Read the statement above mine and reprimand the admin-troll). I don't have anything against Jews, or any other race for that matter. I do have something against you individually, but can you honestly blame me? --21:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Here's one quote from Blu Aardvark, expressing what seems to be support for User:Amalekite, the neo-Nazi who founded Misplaced Pages Review: "I read that stormfront thread, and it was very educational. Set aside the initial knee-jerk reactions a person often has when confronting Neo-nazis, and evaluate the evidence open-mindedly, and you can see that he had a rather excellent point, which he expressed in a rather civil manner (most of the time, anyway - he did use the term "kike", but he later explained that was because he simply wanted to excercise the right to use the word ..." Yes indeed, Amalekite's only error was to use the word "kike." SlimVirgin 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Screw you, SlimVandal. Of course I support Amalekite... he was banned from Misplaced Pages in violation of the blocking policy, but from what I have read, both on- and off- site, he was not at all acting in bad faith in his editting of Misplaced Pages, and may have had a lot to contribute. I don't agree with his politics - I despise them - but I recognize that he has the right to hold those politics. It's called "Freedom of expression". --Blu Aardvark | 21:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Jay quotes you above as having said: "I am of the opinion that many claims and 'fact' about the holocaust have been exaggerated or flat-out falsified," after linking to a notorious Holocaust-denial site and calling him "Jewjg." Forgive me for not realizing that you despise Amalekite's politics. SlimVirgin 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  In fairness, Blu Aardvark is currently blocked and cannot respond to these serious points. I would rirect the reader to his talkpage where he has offered a fuller reply, and is able to discuss. --Doc 12:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Grue, I can't believe you just undeleted the template and blanked this discussion. A lot of us are admins too, and if we all did the same thing you just did we'd be wheel-warring over whether the template should be deleted or not. Obviously that's unacceptable, and that's why discussion takes place here. You can't just close down the discussion and enforce the result however you want it, because that implies that you are somehow "more equal" than the rest of us, and you aren't. --Cyde Weys 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It was not me who deleted this template without prior discussion. I'm just enforcing Misplaced Pages policy.  Grue  17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages also has a speedy deletion policy that includes patent nonsense pages and divisive templates like these. --Cyde Weys 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Speedy deletion cannot override consensus to keep. "This user has an account on Misplaced Pages Review" If this is offensive for you, I don't think you can handle such stuff like autofellatio. You know, Misplaced Pages is a dangerous place. Don't click that "Random article" link, who knows where you might land...  Grue  17:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • • There is a consenus to keep delete developing here, and your 'speedy undelete' has just overriden that consensus. That looks like an abuse of admin powers to me, and your blankng of this debate looks like contempt for the community and for consensus. --Doc 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Obviously self-blowjobs and neo-Nazism are on the same plane. Excuse me while I set your strawman on fire. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Just where does it talk about neo-nazism? You are the one violating Godwin's law here. Consequently, you lose.  Grue  17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • The box doesn't talk about neo-nazism, no, but the fact that the forum in question was founded by a neo-nazi is well-known, and a major reason why a number of us are rather irate about this. One cannot Godwin if there are actual neo-Nazis involved, and I'm surprised that you're trying to pull that one (especially after the auto-fellatio moral panic gambit; that seems to be favored around here). Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Never having expressed an opinion on userboxes before, my first thought is none of them make the encyclopedia better. Most are neutral in that respect and some are potentially divisive. Mostly it seems like an excercise in user vanity. But that's a discussion for another place, I suppose. Regarding this particular debate my opinion is Undelete. First because the deletion short-circuited 2 debates that resulted in undeletion and keep, and I find the argument that speedy deletion is always "in process" to be peculiar to say the least. Second, undelete because the userbox is not divisive or inflammatory as I interpret the phrase. It is sufficiently far away from racial and ethnic slurs, for example, to not meet those more obvious criteria. If there were no userboxes and instead some users put on their user pages some plain text announcing that they had disagreements with wikipedia and there was a discussion at a linked forum, would we go around censoring their user pages? If some people on the forum have views that do not in any way comport with civilized society do we condemn all the users through guilt be association? The case for and against "Review" is more complex and as it has already passed TfD it does not seem like a speedy candidate. Thatcher131 17:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think we would censor this statement if it was on people's userpages, but you don't seem to understand that what is up for deletion here is a template, not something on someone's userpage, and is inappropriate alongside the rest of the encyclopedic content. --Cyde Weys 17:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And you just forgot that it's not for deletion here, but for undeletion. Misza13 18:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Unless I am much mistaken about userboxes in general, a userbox template is just a tool to make it convenient for multiple users to add the same bit of information to their user page. How exactly is it bad to have a template that says "I participate in an anti-wikipedia forum" but acceptable to state it manually? Thatcher131 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • "Userbox templates" are not a separate thing; they are still in the template namespace, you realize. So they have to adhere to the same rules of being encyclopedic like all of the other templates. Being on a userpage is entirely different than being in template space. --Cyde Weys 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • So basically this is about a technicality. Users can link to web sites critical of wikipedia but not by using a template because of where the wikimedia software requires templates to reside. That's a bit like a dictatorship saying we allow our citizens complete freedom of speech on the internet, but private ownership of computers is illegal. Is this debate really about the use of the template namespace? And can it be that if someone posted a bit of html code on their user page to allow other users to create a userbox without a template that no one would object? Thatcher131 18:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, it really is about template and category space. They should have the same rules on being encyclopedic that main article space does, because they primarily designed and used for encyclopedic content. --Cyde Weys 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • So ban them all. Otherwise, no special reason to single this one out for deletion, much less speedy after it survived a TfD. Thatcher131 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Even a marathon starts by taking a single step. --Cyde Weys 19:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Your argument that something must be encyclopedic just because it is in the templatespace is misleading and faulty; certainly something that harms the encyclopedia shouldn't be tolerated in templacespace, but that doesn't mean it has to hold to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines that specifically apply to articles and reader-facing templates. Deleting userboxes on grounds so semantic and trivial as the fact that they begin with "Template:", which is purely a matter of organizational convenience (to make it immediately obvious that they're templates, not userpages or whatnot), or as trivial as the fact that they're not subst'd or copy-pasted, which is again just a matter of convenience and makes no substantial difference, would be like deleting Category:Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and all other Misplaced Pages-space categories, or Category:Wikipedians by interest and all other User-space categories, just because they begin with "Category:" like article-space categories (but even worse, since unlike those two classes of categories, this class of templates does make it obvious that the templates are userpage-specific through the "user" note). If a category is specifically designed to only be used in userspace, it is a userspace category and does not need to be held to the same standards as article-space categories; likewise, if a category is specifically designed to only be used in Misplaced Pages:-space, and only Misplaced Pages-namespace pages are kept in it, it does not need to be encyclopedic, NPOV, referenced, or anything of the sort (though unlike userspace-specific categories and templates, it should preferably be directly related to editorial tasks, though there are plenty of exceptions, like the "joke" policy pages). So, like usercategories and wikipediacategories, usertemplates (and, more specifically, "userboxes") should be held to essentially the same standards as userpage-imbedded code, with the caveat that it should preferably be something that would be of use to a significant number of users (since if only 1 or 2 people are going to use the template, it's probably more efficient to simply use the raw code).
• Your campaign against userboxes, which are at worst a harmless fad, though well-intentioned, is misguided and disruptive. You should be patient and wait for a consistent policy on userboxes, then help implement it, rather than doing what you are doing and simply blindly voting "delete" on 100% on every userbox that is ever nominated for deletion, regardless of the reasoning or the situation with other, similar boxes, on the vain assumption that your personal views on userboxes, unsupported by any policy or guideline, are the ideal way to deal with every usertemplate. Your arbitrary mass-deletions are only furthering tensions and causing more infighting and factionalism, whereas things had actually calmed down quite a bit before the speedy-deletions started up once again. What's so bad about leaving things more or less be until there's a policy to implement? T1 clearly isn't relevant to this case or appropriate to draw on here, since it requires a lot of interpolation and reaching to find anything divisive or inflammatory about simply stating one's account on a webforum, regardless of the forum's origins or nature. So there's nothing in Misplaced Pages's policy or guidelines that condones speedy-deleting this, especially after two discussions and votes established a consensus for keeping the template; only non-speedy deleting it, through the proper channels (Misplaced Pages:Templates for Deletion), may be acceptable. -Silence 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on TfD if you wish. Misza13 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. You can't ban a userbox based on your personal opinions about the site it links to. You may dislike the community, but personal taste is no reason to censor something.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is about the template. If they want the raw HTML on their page no one, least of all me, is going to stop them. This about the template. Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. To do otherwise would be to acknowledge that dogged out of process behaviour (it's beeen debated and kept twice) will be ultimately rewarded. That's bad for the encyclopedia. Avalon 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and do not relist on TFD. This has already been speedied legitimately, restored after discussion, and kept after a valid TFD. There is no reason to repeat this, and the deletion was not a valid speedy. --Blu Aardvark | 20:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Personally, I think that Misplaced Pages is great and that most of the criticisms are quite over the edge. HOWEVER this does not mean that I agree with actions that supress the opinions of people that hold a different view AND violate wikipedia guidelines or policies. If the majority says "delete this template", then delete it, but if the majority says "keep this template" then it must be kept. If you really want to get this template deleted then start another Articles for Deletion or even Request for Meditation / Request for Arbitration process - simply speedydeleting the template is, in my eyes, an abuse of power. CharonX 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. As Kelly said, having this on your user page is equivalent to saying "I'm a troll." The forum consists largely of neo-Nazis and other banned users making serious personal attacks against Wikipedians, in some instances libellous. We shouldn't give it a platform. SlimVirgin 20:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm usually one for a pretty high bar of "is this inflammatory?" when it comes to deleting userboxes. This is inflammatory. JDoorjam Talk 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Raul654 20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete People contest the speedy, it was listed on TFD with strong consensus to keep two weeks ago also. Give it a month before relisting it. I also find the flagrant disregard for process troubling. While WP:NOT a bureaucracy we do try to stick by consensus. TFD and DRV had consensus. Speedy deleting it because you disagree with that consensus is asinine. Also, chill out with the wheel warring. kotepho 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: at this point this discussion must be considered invalid, due to off-site politicking in relation to it. The decision to keep or delete this template should be made according to first principles, not according to a pitched voting battle. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, because informing people who might not otherwise have noticed your abusive actions is a Bad Thing. There is no "vote-stacking" going on... most of the regular contributors on WR either are not active on Misplaced Pages, or will probably vote to delete it anyway. Any obvious sockpuppets can be picked out with no trouble whatsoever. --Blu Aardvark | 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Serves no encyclopedic purpose; it can only assist inflammatory trolling. Jayjg 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and get Martin and Grue and whoever else cares about this idiocy to settle this with duelling banjos at dawn, because if two polls haven't solved this nonsense yet a third won't. So it's obviously time to try something that makes a bit more sense. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no substantial purpose but trolling. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. WR is a childish forum, with sub-Usenet "discussions", and I can't see why links to it should appear anywhere in Misplaced Pages. I agree with those who think that sticking this template on one's page is equivalent to saying "look at me everyone, I'm an idiot with a chip on my shoulder", but I don't see that as a reason to allow people to do it. I'd add that, to those who don't know what it is, the box makes it look as though the User has some special status within Misplaced Pages when they don't (well "special" in the "I'm Ralph, I'm special" sense, I suppose). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. I wonder at the many ways in which people try to disenfranchise Wikipedians. Are people creating new accounts here just to weigh in? (Hint:this page has been protected all along). Perhaps they are existing members gathering off-site because they can no longer gather on-site. If an invite like "These debates are often a little, well ... unrepresentative, so new contributers would be welcome" may be posted on WP:AN/I, may it also be posted in the Category talk:User review? or Template talk:User review? or why not on an off-site page? IRC #wikipedia is, after all, an off-site channel- is that OK, or do we discount those voters as well? When did assemblages of Wikipedians become so odious that they had to be stamped out at all costs? Why should an assemblage of Wikipedians have to justify- repeatedly to whichever admin happens along (again)- that they gather and interact? StrangerInParadise 22:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, if the disruptive nature of this userbox wasn't evident in the nature of the site it links to, this DRV and the furor surrounding it is evidence enough. InkSplotch 22:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inflammatory and divisive. AnnH ♫ 22:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and work on articles. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this #$%@ delted this template is just dumb, if someone really wants to announce their Review status, have 'em subst the box. Jeez. -- Dragoonmac - 01:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  They can't subst the box on their pages if it's deleted. There's nothing to subst. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of unencyclopedic crap. -GTBacchus 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. per above. Gflores 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and speedy delete any variations anyone attempts. Troll badge. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Absolutely disgusting, all of this. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't think this userbox per se is in any way inflammatory or divisive (whether Misplaced Pages Review is is a different question). The arguments about neo-Nazis and anti-Semites are pure strawmen. Volkswagen was developed by Nazis, does that make you a Nazi for driving one? Wagner was an anti-Semite, does that make you an anti-Semite for listening to Tristan and Isolde? Of course not, and neither does having a Misplaced Pages Review account make that person a troll, neo-Nazi, or anti-Semite. On the other hand, Jimbo has made it clear that he will not tolerate criticism of Misplaced Pages on user pages (which is what this userbox amounts to), and since this is his website, that's his prerogative. So torn between saying "Keep because Misplaced Pages policy does not prohibit it" and "Delete because Jimbo's feelings do not allow it", I'm unable to vote at all. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Speaking of straw men, no one has said that having a WR account makes you a troll, neo-Nazi, or anti-Semite. What has been said is that it was founded by a neo-Nazi, and continued for several months to attract people with the same views. Efforts were recently made to clean it up, and were partly successful, but those views nevertheless continue to be expressed, and some have been quoted above. That aside, the forum is full of defamatory material and unpleasant personal attacks, which is reason enough not to offer it a platform. SlimVirgin 08:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, they did. Doc Glasgow wrote at the top of this discussion "linking to a hotbed of neo-nazis and trolls". Mackensen called it "a hotbed of trolls". Kelly Martin wrote "advertises a forum filled with trolls" and especially "Putting this userbox on your page is akin to declaring 'I am a troll'." But the point is, whether WR is divisive and defamatory is utterly beside the point. The question is whether the userbox under discussion itself is inflammatory and divisive, and I just don't see that it is. The statement it makes isn't even an opinion, it's just a neutral statement of fact. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  There's no question it's full of trolls, but they're not being called trolls because they have a WR account. The user box is inflammatory because most of the posts on the forum are personal attacks, some of them very serious. The box is basically saying: "I know I'm not allowed to make personal attacks against Wikipedians here, but I'm a member of a website that does allow it. Here's a link." There's no reason on earth we should give that mindset publicity. SlimVirgin 08:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete this really should take place on TfD, not here. Just another star in the night 08:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Speedy Undelete Out-of-process. Obvious sympathy for any template deleted by MarkSweep. Let's use a little common sense, people. Not all users of that site are "neo-Nazis, anti-Semetic, trolls", etc. Does that make me one just because I am a member? Think. - natha(?)nrdotcom 09:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I actually have a Misplaced Pages Review account, but consensus is that anything other than 'project boxes' (e.g. admin status, babel, location, wikiproject membership etc.) should be deleted, and replaced with the 'raw code'. This is not a 'project box' therefore it gets deleted, regardless of how valid or otherwise Misplaced Pages Review is. Cynical 10:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted --Constantine Evans 10:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Obvious Undelete Completely out of process deletion by group of administrators who have no respect for the community whatsoever (see the link, Kelly Martin, MarkSweep and Mackensen are the main troublemakers here along with those egging them on from the sidelines).
• Lets look at the facts here:
  1. Template deleted by MarkSweep after removing it from many users' pages. Reason given for deletion is "orphan" - he in fact made it an orphan, justifying it's deletion (in fact even then, there is no policy to delete "orphaned" templates). http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Log/delete?user=MarkSweep&page=&limit=100&offset=303 shows that he deletes a lot. Note the link isn't even the first page, there's many hundreds of deletions by him, but he seems very opposed to userboxes mainly.
  2. After the majority voted to undelete PREVIOUSLY ALREADY here on Deletion Review, the template was then:
  3. Listed on TfD by a neutral party to gain additional consensus for keeping. The result to keep was unanimous.
  4. Template restored as it passed both DrV and TfD with community consensus.
  5. Deleted by Kelly Martin completely unjustifiedably, out of process, no policy cited only "we don't need this".
  6. Kelly Martin's activities reported on the Incidents subsection of the Administrators' Noticeboard as abusive activity. No action taken against the former arbitrator.
  7. Template restored again.
  8. Mackensen this time deletes, again totally ignoring everyone except the small group of administrators pressurizing for this template to be deleted.
  9. Template restored by Grue, who is then blocked by NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), someone who has engaged in userbox deletions on a mass scale with Kelly Martin previously.
  10. MarkSweep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) then deletes the template yet again, totally ignoring the previous DrV and TfD's here and here.
• This shouldn't even be here. It has already passed both DrV and TfD. The admins who are ignoring both community consenus and process should be desysopped immediately. Is this an April Fool's Day joke or are some people just out of control with too much power than they should be trusted with gone to their head?
• This template is the same as any other website userbox at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Computing. There's nothing that could be considered controversial in the actual template even, all it is a link to a users' account on a different website than Misplaced Pages. The problem here is that some administrators seem to just not want anyone to know about the existence of the site because of some of the activities revealed there. Bob, just Bob 14:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Stop process wonking. If the deletion is endorsed here, then it is endorsed. Wikilawyering be damned. --Doc 14:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no "wikilawyering" going on. Anyone looking at the facts can see what's going on. This has already been through DrV and TfD in a very short space of time it has then been totally ignored and deleted anyway, only endorsed by a small group of administrators. This whole situation is ridiculous. Bob, just Bob 14:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Flamebait -1 Cyde Weys 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Fred Bauder 18:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The arguments presented seem to be:
  • Misplaced Pages Review is a nasty place; which is no reason to delete unless we are going to sanction editors who belong to it.
  • it has an anti-WP POV. By the arguments of WP:NPOV, we should welcome this, not harass it. Septentrionalis 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on TfD. Out of process, see ArbCom case regarding MarkSweep's deletions. --Rory096 00:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted -- Kelly Martain has a reputation for deleting too much for no reason, but this is at the very least link spam and should be deleted --T-rex 01:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete It's not much different from linking to one's own MySpace or LJ account, and it's obvious that previous discussions have already kept the template. --AySz88^-^ 05:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Everyone here should be fearing for the future of wikipedia if the oligarchs can ignore consensus and do whatever they want to.--God Ω War 06:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I use this (I! a trusted admin). I go there to try to talk some sense into them. Not that I do not approve of any of the personal attacks made by anyone in connection with this deletion review, that goes for everyone. --bainer (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. And restrict the deleting admins for 3RR (admin), if it's plausible they're working together. As for being divisive, even if the site is as you describe, some of the members could be trolling that site. Linkspam is not grounds for WP:CSD, although perhaps it should be. (And I thought that Kelly's RfC was terminated because she was no longer a Sysop. If she's back, it should be reopened. Of course, I could be wrong.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Apparent misunderstanding. She's still an admin. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• undelete. POV of linked site is no reason to delete. --Mmounties (Talk) 15:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. per Kelly and Fred. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and speedy undelete - deletion of this was ridiculous. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:38 UTC (2006-04-04)
• Keep deleted. If we had a userbox that said "User likes to troll Misplaced Pages" or "User denies the Holocaust", there would be little debate here; and the posters to Misplaced Pages Review are either trolls or neo-Nazis or are foolishly encouraging the former two. My chief problem with the box is that a prime concern of the trolls is to abuse particular editors and carrying the box on your userpage can be interpreted as endorsing this abuse -- certainly, I would interpret it this way. While I do not think anyone should be punished on-wiki for their off-wiki abuse or their views, I do think that creating a faction that implicitly says it's okay to defame editors is a bad idea. Grace Note 02:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. My personal feelings on the review forum are mixed. I find a lot of anti-Misplaced Pages thinking there that I find very obnoxious, but at the same time it is a great place for discussion and criticism of the sort of abusiveness that is almost constant here. And this neo-Nazi stuff seems absurd. The board was started by MSK, as I understand it, who has an icon of some Swastika-labeled weeds being pulled up with the caption "Pull 'em up before they take root." The board is actually run by neo-Nazis but has a vociferous anti-neo-Nazi in front to deceive us? This stretches the very limits of plausibility, in my opinion. Nor do I really think the question matters, anyway; who cares if they're neo-Nazis? Why does that even matter? Do we officially discriminate against neo-Nazis now? Politically I am at the other end of the spectrum from them, but I still believe it would be wrong to discriminate against them on the basis of their political beliefs. Everyking 13:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Gah... so torn... I dont like the place, and anyone who goes there is a dumbass, but it's not divisive, so I have to go with Undelete -M 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• I have seen no objection to this template, besides a blantently ad hominem attack on the users of Misplaced Pages Review. Until I see one, my vote is going to have to be Undelete. _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 11:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list as TFD if desired.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Copyright Nazi

Template:User Copyright Nazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Was deleted on March 16 by MarkSweep. Reason was our old friend: "T1 CSD." If someone can share with us the contents of this userbox, it would be appreciated.

• Keep deleted comparisons of anything less than genocide to Nazis are extremely offensive, and are thus divisive and inflamatory. Where 02:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, for goodness' sake get off your horse. I call my cleaning lady the "Cleaning Nazi". Remember the "Soup Nazi"? It's just part of the idiom. Would it be OK to change it to "Copyright Robespierrist"? Or is that wound still too recent? "Copyright Inquisitionist"? How far back do we have to go here? Herostratus 21:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How about a little politeness and sensitivity? Just because we can behave like this doesn't mean we should. I know a lot of people would be extremely offended by this. Sam Korn 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Right, sorry, I had assumed that it said something like "This user is a copyright Nazi" - a way to poke fun at oneself. Now that I know what it said, I would not have written that. You can't call other people Nazis, I agree. Herostratus 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Where. Some things are just in "Don't go there" territory. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- What were the contents of this userbox, was it something about supporting copyright status for Nazi materials or saying that one is a "Nazi" about copyright? Homestarmy 15:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  It was rather like "This user opposes copyright Nazis" or something. Basically a stronger version of {{User copyright}}, IIRC. Misza13 15:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  "This user hates Copyright Nazis" to be exact.Geni 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Misza13 15:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:CSD T1 Cynical 16:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --Doc 08:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since I know what it said now heh Homestarmy 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion inappropriate. -M 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Sorry, I had assumed it said something like "This user is a Copyright Nazi". Now that I know what it says then yes, it had to go. Perhaps the user can get away with "This user opposes Copyright Robespierrists" after all, though. Herostratus 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inappropriate use of the word "Nazi". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. SlimVirgin 20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Using "Nazi" in this context (as in almost all others which don't deal with the WW2 period) is derogatory and offensive. I won't miss this template. CharonX 20:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. AnnH ♫ 23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Consensus is that anything other than 'project boxes' (e.g. admin status, wikiproject membership etc.) should be deleted, and replaced with the 'raw code'. This is not a 'project box' therefore it gets deleted, end of story. Cynical 10:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Turns out I already voted on this one. See above. Cynical 10:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Cynical, can you drop me a line on my talk and point me in the direction of this consensus you mentioned above? thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 10:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  No, of course he can't, because no such consensus exists. There is no consensus on anything at all regarding userboxes. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  I think there is a fairly good consensus that this one should not exist.Geni 22:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  I meant about userboxes in general, not specific userboxes like this one. Angr (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF

MarkSweep arbitararily deleted a parody userbox that was in my userspace.

A subst of the userbox shows the contents as:

Deletion log shows:
18:45, 27 March 2006 MarkSweep deleted "User:Nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF" (don't)

If you check the userbox, it was (and is) linked to WP:ABF (which is a parody).

"Don't" (assume bad faith) is not a reason. A logical reason why you don't agree with it (posted on my talk page) is more acceptable. I cannot support such out-of-process deletions of people's hard work.

I restored it, then tagged it for deletion (because by restoring it, I might not be following due process). — natha(?)nrdotcom 05:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious undelete. Don't quite know where to begin....StrangerInParadise 08:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: begin with what is useful to an encyclopedia. --Doc 10:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete well the userbox isn't in the article space, is it? I also found the parody policy to be very funny, sometimes laughter is useful.... Homestarmy 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Humour has its uses, even in an encyclopaedia. Why not use that villain picture (that's on WP:ABF itself) in the box to emphasise its humourous nature? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that's an idea... — natha(?)nrdotcom 20:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Harmless parody. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Painfully obvious undelete. Whether it's parody is irrelevant, really (I have a couple ); it earns my vote because it's in the user's space and is not clearly divisive—the criteria, after all... RadioKirk talk to me 15:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Why is this here? My user page gets vandalized all the time (Squidward). I just revert it. Are we supposed to be coming to deletion review for userpage vandalism now? Herostratus 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, wait it was deleted, not blanked. That must mean somebody's hacked into an admin account? Good Lord, isn't that serious? Couldn't they go on an image deletion spree? Is the account blocked now, did you post to WP:ANI? I'm sure the real editor would want that done more than anyone. How did this happen? Yeeesh. Herostratus 18:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Im pretty sure MarkSweep is an admin. Homestarmy 19:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, MarkSweep is an admin. He seems to delete and subst any userbox he doesn't like whenever he feels like it. There's currently a Request for Arbitration (RfAr) against him and another admin regarding this very subject. — natha(?)nrdotcom 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Oh, OK, it was Mark Sweep. I didn't see that, I should have looked. I figured it was a regular admin who's account had been hacked. Sorry, nevermind. Undelete of course. Herostratus 20:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Please try to be more civil. Sam Korn 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Right, sorry. Really, if I'd noticed that it was Mark Sweep I wouldn't have said anything. That would have been unkind, because he's... well, you know. I know he can't help it. I would never on purpose pick on somone who is... well, like him. So, sorry. Herostratus 22:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue there is no excuse for this sort of incivility. Please comment on the issues and not the person. Thank you. Rx StrangeLove 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete . It's like that one poem-thingy, "we will fight them in the sea, we will fight them on the land" etc... "We will delete them in the mainspace, we will delete them in the userspace," well, the Userspace is for personal work and stuffs, there is no reason to delete boxen there -- Dragoonmac - 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read argumentum ad hominem. Cheers, Sam Korn 20:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Point taken, FYI, It wasn't meant as a personal attack (although I realise it could look that way). Edited. -- Dragoonmac - 22:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not attacking MarkSweep as a person (I don't know him, how can I attack someone I don't know?); however I am attacking his methods. — natha(?)nrdotcom 20:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      
      • If I can say this without sounding like a seven year old, I wasn't talking to you. Sam Korn 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, it could be interpreted as a parody, so it is not a clear-cut enough case for it to be speedy-worthy. However, I would support its deletion in a TFD, since it could also be interpreted as being serious (unless something was added, like a villain picture that someone suggested, to make it obvious that it was a parody). Where 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean this? I admit I'd prefer it over the old too.

This Wikipedian tries to assume bad faith.

— natha(?)nrdotcom 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objections over that. Where 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it too. Unfortunately we can use use public-domain and GDFL-licensed images in userboxes... Herostratus

I know that's accurate in template-space, but has that been established for user-space userboxes? RadioKirk talk to me 00:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% certain that it would apply to userspace too. Basically, you can only freely use images that are public domain or GDFL, except to illustrate an article that bears directly on the image. Too bad but there it is. Herostratus 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the villain picture was made for the Villain article by User:J.J., and is GFDL. It can be used in a user template in my understanding of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihcoyc (talk • contribs) 02:55 05 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, it's at least funny Sceptre 17:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (it's funny) and desysop MarkSweep (who's unfunny). Misza13 19:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'da add more to Misza13's comment, but that would violate WP:NPA. I will say though, that said admin has caused me to find this userbox useful. Sad. --D-Day 22:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inflammatory, linked from outside userspace, and no possible use that I can see that wouldn't tend to encourage the assumption of bad faith. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible use = joke. Shared humor promotes good-faith, love, and fellowship. Xoloz 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not "inflammatory" in the slighest. Read the definition of parody again and read what link the userbox links to. WP:ABF is a parody of WP:AGF and that's what was linked to. A sense of humour is required. — natha(?)nrdotcom 18:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Cute little thing, no harm done. Xoloz 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Silly but harmless joke, and was in userspace, not project space. AnnH ♫ 23:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, of course. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete links to an EXTREMELY USEFUL evaluation of WP:AGF - Assume Good Faith is a fairly wooly, 'lets all be friends' sort of policy, WP:ABF although not policy illustrates some of the conduct that is likely to be in violation of WP:AGF, therefore the box should be kept. Consensus is that userboxes related to the project should be kept as templates - an explanation of WP policy is CLEARLY useful to the project, therefore this should be undeleted. Cynical 10:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete wikipedians need to learn how to be funny --T-rex 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete because (1) way too many people around here taking themselves way too seriously, and (2) just because we're working on an encyclopedia doesn't mean that we can't have/it shouldn't be fun. --Mmounties (Talk) 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Replace with a more obviously parodic version, and keep in the userspace. --Constantine Evans 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is clear that WP:ABF is a parody. It was created as such. We all know this. A userbox with a link to said parody is obviously also a parody. Do I need to spell it out to people in big neon letters? Please don't be ridiculous. — nathanrdotcom 01:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and sigh per above. --Pilotguy 21:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• This page is not a template, and in no way meets general speedy deletion criteria. Undelete, candidate for speedy undeletion. - Mike Rosoft 10:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I was hoping this anal mentality would just go away.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Template: User evol-X

This userbox was speedied by NicholasTurnbull, on the grounds of "Criterion T1 - divisive/inflammatory". This userbox was intended to be a spoof of the evolution/creationism userboxes—it's a joke, not an attack.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - Stupid and possibly inflammatory. Certainly doesn't belong in template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted useless at best, inflammatory and trollish at worst --Doc 20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, but impressed with the uniformity. I'm fairly certain that I remember this userbox. Maybe I don't, nevertheless, it is annoying that I do not have it here for reference. If someone would like me to change my vote, please provide a copy for my reference to explain why. StrangerInParadise 21:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Undelete and TfD At this point, the burden of proof is on those speedying userboxes. The text might well convince me that this was justified, but it isn't here. Septentrionalis 01:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's really not funny; but this is the sort of judgment call which ought to be TfD'd. If it were TfD'd, my vote would probably be Conditional Delete; a broadly smiling Stephen Jay Gould picture might give a different impression. (Darwin was a Victorian, with long-exposure photography; there may well be no picture of him smiling.) Septentrionalis 15:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete until someone can tell me what its contents were. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Weak delete as possibly inflammatory and really dumb, although it's not really taking any side on the issue. I don't really see it as "trolling," but I do agree it should be kept out of template space. P.S. Had I abstained, I would have never found out what the userbox said. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  Would it not be better to abstain if you don't know? FWIW, the box was a picture of Darwin and a (copyright violating) picture Henry Morris with the text This user wants to see a staunch evolutionist and a fundamental creationist locked in a room together with a pistol taped to the ceiling. If that's not trolling, what is? --Doc 08:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  Why is it not a point of process that a subst of the userbox in question be listed before deleting it? StrangerInParadise 11:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  By whom, where? We don't list speedy deletions. So why should one subst it before deleton, and where? They only get listed here if someone later believes that the item should be restored. Userboxes should not be treated differently from any other deletion.--Doc 12:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should have a separate log; this discussion might be less acrimonious if these deletions weren't speedies. Septentrionalis 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per the expanded T1: "Divisive, inflammatory, and worst of all not funny". --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Wanting to make jokes about evolution and creationism is one thing, but when you bring pistols and locked rooms into the picture, that's a bit harsh. Plus if that picture's really a copyright violation, I dunno what to tell ya. Homestarmy 13:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam. It being the last which is the clincher... Just zis Guy you know? 13:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Egging people on to shoot each other is beyond ridiculous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  However it may be less painful than a protracted edit war.Geni 13:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Yep, and I'd oppose deleting it if someone decided to speedy it again after a consensus to undelete here. In this case however, I believe this is a valid T1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  What has that got to do with edit waring? Joke man ok not very funny but still.Geni 09:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  I would prefer an edit war over bloodshed. Alright, I see there are policies against edit warring and no policies against shooting eachother... Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. If you want to joke around about faith, do it off-wiki or keep it strictly on your userpage. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  This template is strictly for userpages.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  There's no such thing as a template "strictly for userpages". All templates are templates. If it's strictly for userspace then it would be in userspace. --Cyde Weys 07:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  You mean like the Babelboxes? Yep, finding those on articles all over the place. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Stop being thick-headed. You know exactly what I mean. There's nothing separating encyclopedic templates from silly templates. And yes, I actually have seen userboxes used to vandalize articles. --Cyde Weys 07:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Please re-read WP:NPA. If userboxes are found in articles, remove them. That doesn't mean they aren't intended for use solely in user space. (That's why they all have the word User in them.) Angr (talk • contribs) 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  It's not a personal attack. It's a satire. Can't anyone laugh at themselves on Misplaced Pages? We build all these userboxes so that we can convince ourselves that each view is so strong and important, but each person sees the world differently. This userbox pays homage to people who troll and attack on userpages in order to try and completely destroy the other opinion ad absurdum, to the point where it becomes funny at how seriously they percieve themselves.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 01:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  When I said "Please re-read WP:NPA" I was referring to Cyde Weys calling me "thick-headed", not to the userbox itself. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  The question it seems to me is whether the "seriousness" you refer to will revert to murder. With guns. Taped to cealings. The copyrighted picture thing would also warrent grounds for deletion on its own as well if I understand policy correctly. Homestarmy 02:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  It practically does revert to murder when you look at some of the talkpages. BTW, I was not aware of the copyright policy on userboxes and images, I apologize for that. But we're not removing the userbox on the grounds of copyvio—after all, the images could easily be removed without having to delete the userbox.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  I dunno, i've never heard of a person's typing jumping out of the screen and shooting people with photonic bullets that killed people.... Homestarmy 02:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  That's because it's not possible. The ludicrosity (if that's a word) of the userbox's message was meant to convey a joke.

  P.S. Ever heard of Jason Gastrich?--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because of the copyrighted picture, if it turns out that there is no copyright issue then undelete --T-rex 02:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  You don't speedy a userbox because of image copyvio, that's not the issue here.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  I am given the opinon that copyrighted pics are not allowed on userspace, but if that's not an issue then undelete

  No, they aren't allowed, but you don't delete the whole userbox if there's a copy issue, you just remove the image. If undeleted, I'd remove the copyvio pictures.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 00:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - attacking both sides of an issue is still an attack. Wishing for people killing each other isn't a particularly clever "satire", and seems to fall easily under "divisive and inflammatory". -GTBacchus 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Based on the nomination my vote is undelete, but based on Doc's description of contents my vote is keep deleted.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User userbox insurgent

Reason for deletion was "Enough" by MarkSweep. Doesn't seem like a valid reason to me. The page is also protected.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• undelete Per nom, created in good humor.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; "in good humor" is not a valid reason for something in template space to exist. Misplaced Pages is not Uncyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• This was deleted six weeks ago, and no-one seems to have missed it. It is clearly inflammetory, and whatever one makes of T1, this cleary fits that description. Keep deleted. --Doc 18:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TfD as disused. it divides only from those admins, if any (no-one in this discussion), who do routinely delete out of process, who should be separated from their buttons. Therefore not speediable. Septentrionalis 19:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, trying hard but this is a bad-faith vote, and should be ignored. The deletion is in process (t1) you just don't not like the process and so you engage in personal attacks.--Doc 19:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User userbox revolution

This user doesn't like the phrase "userbox war", but instead prefers "The Glorious Userbox Revolution!

Reason for deletion was "Will not be telivised by MarkSweep. Dosen't seem like a valid reason to me. Reason given seems glib and trollish.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• undelete per nomMike McGregor (Can)
• Keep Deleted - Trolling template. No reason in the world it should stick around. --Cyde Weys 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep deleted. Bad faith nomination, this obviously is divisive and inflammetory trolling, and it has been gone for 6 weeks without complaint. Even if people objected to mass deleting of boxes, this was clearly in process as a textbook t1. --Doc 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TfD as unused Deletion appears to be in bad faith. Septentrionalis 19:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User feminist

Template:User feminist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is a feminist.

The user NicholasTurnbull speedily deleted the template Template:User feminist on the grounds: (Speedy deletion T1 - divisive in respect that feminism, or any other discrimination on the basis of gender, is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages and has no place here.) I don't believe that this template meets CSD T1. I believe that taking feminism to be "discrimination on the basis of gender" is itself POV, and hence the judgment that the template meets CSD T1 is itself a violation of WP:NPOV. Catamorphism 07:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've recently restored this template (along with the other feminist ones) after deciding that it was indeed an improper speedy on my part, so to an extent the debate is a fait accomplis now. Thanks for your time discussing this. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious undelete. Feminism is a legitimate area of interest for a contributor to an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted - yes you can legitimately descvribe yourself as a feminist, but political bumperstickers are divisive. --Doc 08:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Not a clearly divisive template, and there's no policy against POV-expressing userboxes, just against inflammatory ones. If users think this template should be deleted, nominate it at TfD so it can be discussed; T1 speedy-deletion is only appropriate for clear-cut cases, as demonstrated effectively in past userbox debates on this page. -Silence 08:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious undelete. This is an abuse of T1. NicholasTurnbull's apparently total lack of comprehension of what it means to be a feminist demonstrates why T1 is far too dangerous a tool in the hands of a lone admin, however well-intentioned. Admin Doc glasgow's notion that political bumperstickers are divisive only underscores it further. StrangerInParadise 08:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per nom and Doc. And ignore the rantings of the troll/vote-stacker. --Cyde Weys 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, Cyde, I thought you promised to stay away from the userboxes in your admin nom... you know this stuff is like crack to you... whoever you're talking about, try to remain civil plz, thx. Herostratus 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion/Keep Deleted The original reson for UBX deletions was they foster discontent. 'User is from Idaho' does not foster resentment from someone with 'User is from Wyoming', but I imagine the feminist one would. From both non-feminists and people from Wyoming. -M 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, a userbox supporting gender equality is not divisive enough to meet the CSD Where 21:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Valid editing perspective. If someone wants to announce a Feminist leaning,t helps the community understand their perspective. -- Dragoonmac - 22:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Neither divisive or inflammatory. Improper speedy. Septentrionalis 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Does not foster discontent, illuminates the editor's perspective. Avalon 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Has the wikiworld gone crazy or what? How is this divisive? Feminism is pretty common and doesn't upset too many people except maybe Pat Robertson (and who really cares about him anyway?). Anyways, pointing out a feminist leaning helps with NPOV by helping identify user's background and biases. The Ungovernable Force 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete no consensus has been reached on userboxes yet. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete That is the obviously correct choice. PS, I created this userbox too, so please excuse the bias. --D-Day 12:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Aaargh!!! This is divisive? ::Runs off to the nearest bookstore to buy an NPOV dictionary and finally check the meaning of the "accursed word":: Misza13 19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Take it to TFD for discussion if you like, but a speedy? "Feminism" as a political position means that men and women are equal and deserve equal rights. Now it's possible to find that position divisive and inflammatory, though I have no sympathy with the mindset that does, but how on earth can it be "discrimination on the basis of gender"? Bishonen talk 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC).
• Keep Undeleted. If *self-identification* as a feminist is enough to divide and enrage, then self-identification as gay must be much worse. And as long as we're gleefully sliding down that slippery slope, admitting to your own gender inherently divides you from 50% of other contributors. We should all be androgynous creatures without experience... And the fact that you say you are from California makes me angry and confused, too. I, being from Ohio, am inherently opposed to Californians, and as such I demand that any reference to aforementioned state be stricken from userpages domain-wide. (While I admit there is a touch of hyperbole in my comment, I think the point needs to be made) Joey 03:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, once the big one hits, everything east of the Sierras will fall into the Atlantic, and that conflict will go away. =) StrangerInParadise 04:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete -- the box is informative, does not require any response, and may well mediate issues on POV. is also not compulsory. Simon Cursitor 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted. Simple factoid, hardly polemical. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User AmE-0

This request was accidentally listed on Requests to unprotect, I think this is a more apprpriate places for it.

Seeing as Template:User-AmE-0 survived a vote for deletion, and is in essence the same as Template:User AmE-0 was, could we get it back into the consistent position in line with Template:User en-gb-0, Template:User CaE-0 and Template:User SoE-0? (Apologies if this is not the correct place to list this) Ian3055 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also I'm throwing in 2 cents, this box was deleted by User:MarkSweep with no apparent deletion discussion, I think that alone should merit a page restoration. -- Dragoonmac - 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection"

• undelete or restore or do what ever needs to be done to make this exist again... If the consensus was keep, the consensus was keep. just because little Napoleon Sweep has admin powers, doesn't justify his actions. He stoped acting in good faith a long time ago when it became apparent that his deletions were incredibly contraversial. His continuation smacks of WP:POINT Mike McGregor (Can) 18:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Another userbox casualty. And a friendly tip to MarkSweep to please do not delete obvious consensus-reached userboxes; whether or not you like the content. Moe ε 20:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And an equally friendly tip to you: If you want to change speedy deletion policy, take it to WT:CSD. This is not the place. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't want to change policy on userboxes. I'm saying your deletion did not meet the criteria for deletion listed on WP:CSD. Moe ε 23:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Seems like a fine enough userbox to me. Homestarmy 22:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, and wait until we have a consensus policy before engaging in more deletions of boxes in question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion / keep deleted. Properly speedy tagged and deleted polemical, condescending, unencyclopedic template. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. MiraLuka 18:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. - TheKeith 19:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. Ibn Abihi 10:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted clear-cut T1 case.  Grue  10:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Can any T1 case really be "clear-cut"? Ibn Abihi 11:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Mike McGregor Cynical 12:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; condescention of other cultures is clearly inflamatory Where 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete come on, get over it Brian | (Talk) 04:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete pending development of a widely-agreed policy on userboxes. Metamagician3000 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Who really got offended by this? I laughed when I saw the equivalent one about the UK (being British) - why can nobody laugh at themselves? --Celestianpower 16:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per all above, get over it. Stifle 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, obviously. Larix 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User marriage man-woman

Was speedy deleted by Physchim62 per the reason T1. Again, I don't see how this was divisive either. Any TFD elections were all in favor of it's inclusion. Moe ε 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This userbox was put up on TfD on February 16 as part of a block of userboxes for deletion; only three people voted on it before it was speedy kept with the others, and all three voted "keep". It was subsequently speedily deleted and then put on DRV along with Template:User same sex marriage (I'm unsure of the proper capitalization?). By my count, User marriage man-woman received 14 keep deleted votes and 12 13 (counted again) undelete votes, while User same sex marriage received 13 of each keep deleted votes and 14 undelete votes (one user voted differentially for the two). The same sex marriage box can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Sexuality#same_sex_marriage_userbox. I don't know of any place where the marriage man-woman box was subst'd, but the box had a male and female symbol on the left and read, "This user believes a marriage consists of one man and one woman." - AdelaMae 10:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And pray tell, how is believing that a marriage consisting of a man and women divisive?

To reword my previous opening statement, I do NOT care what the content of the userbox is/was/or ever will be. I am posting these on Deletion review to hopefully reverse the decisions made abusively by admins to mass delete userboxes, which includes this entry. Consensus was not made on these userboxes before and that can be settled later on WP:TFD. In short, I brought this here to undo the actions of the admin who deleted it rather than the content, which is disputed. Moe ε 03:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - This template and the one below should be judged the same.--God Ω War 03:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete T1 is too ambiguious... Please stop using it except in cut and dry cases until there is a consensus about the scope of this! Mike McGregor (Can) 05:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. MiraLuka 07:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:UBX. Doesn't the lack of interest in these DRVs tell you something? Allow me to quote from 'The Simpsons': 'Face it Dad, piggy ain't coming back' Cynical 08:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. SlimVirgin 09:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Has this not been DRVd before? David | Talk 22:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia; recreate it as something other than a template, if you like. -GTBacchus 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Again, be fair. Whichever way the consensus goes for the queerrights userbox, I vote we do the same for this one. If we delete this one, but keep boxes advocating for gay rights, what does that say about our ability to write neutrally on topics related to homosexuality? - AdelaMae 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• As you surely agree after the past userbox-deleting fiasco on this matter, the only way to "be fair" is to either delete all of these templates, or undelete templates that have been out-of-process speedy-deleted in the past. Since I find it highly unlikely that that's going to happen, it looks like the only realistic option is to delete both this and all the other LGBT-politics- and LGBT-support-related templates. Users unfamiliar with this matter can see Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Sexuality#anti-gay.3F, Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_25 and the deletion review. Misplaced Pages's editors have decreed that it's uncivil to disagree with the majority on controversial issues; until that is overturned, the sort of intellectually open, neutral, and tolerant atmosphere that people want will never exist on this website. So, these sorts of userboxes will have to wait until people are mature enough to tolerate ("tolerate" meaning "permit the self-expression of", not "don't criticize") both sides of each issue. Only tolerating people you agree with just won't cut it. -Silence 13:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Again, to be fair, one is in favor of human rights and one is against it, so ... --Cyde Weys 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• But see, simply to define this as a human rights issue assumes a POV. People who believe that marriage should be limited to one person of each gender do not characterize this view as one restricting human rights because they tend to believe that human rights are derived from God and God is against same-sex marriage. Also, I should point out that many people who are opposed to same-sex marriage do not consider themselves "anti-gay" because they believe that they ought to act with love towards homosexuals but still oppose same-sex marriage for a variety of reasons (tradition, the belief that having parents of both genders is the ideal situation for children, moral concern, slippery-slope arguments, etc). I am absolutely appalled that we feel it's okay to user Misplaced Pages as a soapbox in this matter, deleting only those userboxes which express POVs we dislike and writing articles like Criticisms of sexual behavior, to persuade rather than inform. - AdelaMae 19:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I voted Undelete on the queer rights one and have the same vote here. The Ungovernable Force 08:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with God of War - this template should be judged the same as the one before it. next one following (Template:User queerrights). I say Keep deleted to both. Johntex\ 20:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm gay, I think that marrige should absolutely not be restricted to between a man and a woman, but I also believe that only someone whoose position is weak needs to suppress opposing viewpoints, I believe in the fair exchange of ideas, even ideas that I might not agree with or ideas that I find wholly disgusting. AdamJacobMuller 20:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, and wait until we have a consensus policy before engaging in more deletions of boxes in question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with its sentiments, but undelete it per GUÐSÞEGN - Metamagician3000 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care anymore. This whole thing is sooooo February. Herostratus 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Lol, that's the best response I heard yet. :-D Moe ε 01:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• In the interests of protecting free speech, keep deleted and re-create content on individual user's pages where it shall be safe from the depredations of us rogue admins. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, because every Wikipedian should have the right to express their opinions on controversal topics on their own user page in the form of a userbox. Ibn Abihi 10:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this is a notable opinion, knowledge of which on the part of other editors would lead to a more neutral encyclopedia. --James S. 02:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per all of the above Cynical 12:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User queerrights

Was speedy deleted per T1. I don't see how a userbox that says that they support gay/queer rights is divisive. It was tagged by a anon IP address whose only edits were tagging userboxes. That fact was disregarded and the template was eventually speedied by Physchim62. Undelete per it's not divisive and it was never orphaned. Moe ε 19:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To reword my previous opening statement, I do NOT care what the content of the userbox is/was/or ever will be. I am posting these on Deletion review to hopefully reverse the decisions made abusively by admins to mass delete userboxes, which includes this entry. Consensus was not made on these userboxes before and that can be settled later on WP:TFD. In short, I brought this here to undo the actions of the admin who deleted it rather than the content, which is disputed. Moe ε 03:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have restored this. Feel free to list it on TFD if it annoys you, but do not speedily delete this again. —Guanaco 03:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete The God of War is not queer but still supports your right to be queer.--God Ω War 20:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and open an RfC against the idiot responsible for the deletion. This messing has gone on long enough. Some admins seem to think they are infallible. They aren't, just arrogant and POV-pushing. FearÉIREANN\ 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't use personal attacks Jtdril. Although an RFC is in progress about the userboxes and Physchim62 is already listed as one of the admins that went and deleted some userboxes. Moe ε 00:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Time for a conspiracy theory. I wonder if the IP who tagged it is a sockpuppet of an admin who then speedies userboxes? This is isn't an attack against Physchim62, but I just couldn't help but notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs)
• Undelete Stupid template, but if people want to use it so what? Gerard Foley 23:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I might support a policy that excludes such userbox templates, but until such a time as there is a widely-accepted policy to that, effect with adequate protections, deletions of userboxes like this one are premature, unnecessary, and provocative. Metamagician3000 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 03:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete There should be a moratorium on T1 until an agreement on just what the hell it means.Mike McGregor (Can) 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hate to go against popular opinion, but I have to say keep deleted unless we're going to start allowing userboxes expressing other points of view on this topic. I support the POV this userbox expresses, but honestly, people - if you don't think that asserting support for gay rights is divisive, you must not watch the news much. If we want to prohibit templates like Template:User marriage man-woman, this one has got to go, too, as do many others on Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Sexuality. I wonder how many of the people who voted "undelete" above would want to bring User marriage man-woman back... - AdelaMae 03:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The point is for the userboxes to be undeleted because of the previous wrong-doings by admins, by that I mean mass-deleting userboxes, that brought about the RFC. If Template:User marriage man-woman was deleted upon consensus from the community, then that was rightfully deleted. But if it was included in the mass deletion of userboxes from before, it should be undeleted too. I would prefer things to be deleted by consensus at WP:TFD, rather than delete them because of personal beliefs. Moe ε 21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Don't need somewhere in the template namespace. If people want to express this view, they can make their own userbox. David | Talk 22:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia; recreate it as something other than a template, if you like. I'd like to add that it would be a shame if we undelete this and keep (Template:User marriage man-woman) deleted just because this one expresses a more popular POV (among those voting). -GTBacchus 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Queer is a perjorative term, despite efforts to 'take it back'. Call it Gay Rights, and I wouldn't have a problem. But just make your own if it matters that much, yeesh. Proto||type 12:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Um, your logic is that "queer" is offensive to you, ergo you will not permit people to self-identify by it, whereas "gay" is inoffensive to you (even though if anything "gay" is a vastly more common pejorative and insulting word in modern English than "queer"; schoolchildren will gladly label anything they dislike "gay", but you'll comparatively rarely hear them use a word like "queer" the same), so you will force people to self-identify by it? Bizarre. I could see the logic of making your vote "Keep and move" just in order to keep things consistent with the gay rights articles, but (1) to vote for deletion based on a simple and trivial (and based on personal taste, not absolutes) terminological issue (thus forcing everyone who uses this template to do the hard work of creating and tracking down the new template, even though a simple page-move would do the job), and (2) to vote based on the assumption that "queer" is universally pejorative and "gay" is universally neutral, seems rather backwards and.. well, queer. :/ -Silence 12:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete as it was speedied when it shouldn't have been. JSIN 08:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete not divisive, shouldn't have been speedied. The Ungovernable Force 08:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - divisive, does not help in any way in our efforts to build an encyclopedia. Johntex\ 20:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, and wait until we have a consensus policy before engaging in more deletions of boxes in question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Obviously, there's nothing wrong with this userbox unless the admins deleting have a political agenda. Bob, just Bob 09:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, as it is neither divisive nor inflammatory (see queer). Ibn Abihi 11:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this is a notable opinion, knowledge of which on the part of other editors would lead to a more neutral encyclopedia. --James S. 02:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per FearEireann Cynical 12:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User review

User:MarkSweep has went around substing this template before speedily deleting this as orphaned. Even if he was following the new policy, which hasn't been made official yet, a time of 4 weeks is supposed to elapse before these are deleted. Subst and delete is still deletion. This userbox does not state a POV only that a user has an account on a certain website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by God of War (talk • contribs)

• Undelete per nominator. "Orphaned" is not a speedy delete criterion, for the reason that any admin can do just what MarkSweep did. I don't object to this template being deleted through process (might even vote delete myself; it isn't a particularly notable forum outside of the context of Wikimedia.), but this out-of-process nonsense is getting ridiculous. --Blu Aardvark | 06:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This template should be Speedy restored - Was deleted with no valid reason - template was deliberately removed from many pages by MarkSweep so he could then use "Orphaned" deletion excuse - See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse of policy to justify template deletion and Template talk:User review

The actual template, for those who want to see what they are voting on, as the edit history has been completely destroyed and the page replaced:

This user has a Misplaced Pages Review account, {{{2}}}

--Mistress Selina Kyle 08:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Im pretty sure it's not just this template. MarkSweep is running all over wikipedia substing templates and then speedying them as orphans. Someone please stop him.--God Ω War 06:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do not resuscitate. It's an unused orphan, and there was an edit war going on. Too much fuss about nothing. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's only unused because you made it unused. There was a minor edit conflict going on, (I adhere to the 1RR, so if there was any further conflict after my statement, I am unaware of it), but edit conflicts don't justify deletion. --Blu Aardvark | 07:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your point? Everybody who wanted to use the template text is still using it, because I subst:ed it everywhere. It was a little used template, not encyclopedic, a troll magnet, and the center of an ongoing edit war. Deleting it solved all of those problems in one, uhm, swell poof. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside whether the above accusations are true, if this template is a troll magnet then why did you subst it instead of deleting it outright? Ashibaka tock 07:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy double-bind, Batman. Not substing it is wrong, and substing it is wrong too? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It was your choice to delete it, not mine. Well, this DRV vote will figure it out one way or the other. Ashibaka tock 08:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

EC: I find it hard to believe that you did this in a good-faith effort to solve an edit conflict, especially in light of your other actions with templates (which you are still performing, last I checked). As I've said, you've been attempting to rape process and policy for months now. In the last two months, you have single-handedly managed to violate nearly every policy on Misplaced Pages, ranging from WP:CIV to WP:DEL to WP:ADMIN. --Blu Aardvark | 07:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a chill pill. Ashibaka tock 08:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You're calling someone on WP:CIVIL after that comment? Rx StrangeLove 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User contributions for MarkSweep

1. 02:04, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Beliefs (subst alt) (top)
2. 02:03, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Beliefs (substing)
3. 02:02, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Army1987 (substing) (top)
4. 02:00, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:VdSV9 (substing) (top)
5. 02:00, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Lord Snoeckx (substing) (top)
6. 01:57, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Moriane (substing) (top)
7. 01:57, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Corvenik (substing) (top)
8. 01:57, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Tanyiliang (substing) (top)
9. 01:56, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Crashnburn1988 (substing) (top)
10. 01:56, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Lilyha (substing) (top)
11. 01:55, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Infil00p (substing) (top)
12. 01:54, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Template:User ITV1 (rm red link) (top)
13. 01:54, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:R4000/Userboxes (substing) (top)
14. 01:53, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Travlr23 (substing) (top)
15. 01:53, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Vargher (substing) (top)
16. 01:52, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:DinoMo (substing) (top)
17. 01:52, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) User:FurciferRNB (rsc) (top)
18. 01:51, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:FurciferRNB (substing)
19. 01:51, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Sumthingweird (rsc) (top)
20. 01:50, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Sumthingweird (substing)
21. 01:50, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Arny (substing) (top)

While there might be a valid reason for your actions here, so I won't vote one way or the other yet, saying "it was an unused orphan so I deleted it" is quite dishonest. Ashibaka tock 07:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a rather elegant solution for a silly problem involving a template that wasn't widely used in the first place. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not being helpful. I think I understand why you deleted this-- you were taking sides in an edit war, and you wanted to make sure the box was being displayed the "right way" so you subst'ed all instances and deleted it to end the edit war in your favor-- but you have neither apologized for your misstatement above nor provided some sort of rationale for this besides it being "silly". I might even be wrong with my hypothesis, but there's no way to know because you haven't explained yourself. Ashibaka tock 07:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How about a little good faith? You can check for yourself that I wasn't involved in any way in that edit war. Besides, deleting it is really the ultimate form of not taking sides. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you were involved in the edit war itself. I said you were taking sides. And the method I described above is a way of taking sides. Once again, feel free to prove me wrong. Ashibaka tock 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument makes even less sense than a "wrong version" complaint after a page protection. In this case, everyone who wanted to use the template text is still using it. The text is not protected or restricted in any way, shape or form. Whoever has it on their userpage can modify it any way they like (within very broad limits). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an attempt to circumenvent policy and process. You've been trying to delete templates that you personally disagree with for ages. If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck. --Blu Aardvark | 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep has excalated to deleting Categori3es he disagrees with, like Category:Neopagan Wikipedians & Category:Wiccan Wikipedians, which would seem to point toward a lack of good faith. Alex Law 23:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete seems to be in line with the unofficial userbox policy, and it actually has some relation to Misplaced Pages unlike these livejournal or DeviantArt userboxes.  Grue  07:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this article was NOT about a religion, it was NOT about a political party, it WAS a template related to Misplaced Pages, and it is NOT anywhere near a T1 speedy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I see nothing wrong with this userbox template, and it seems that it wasn't orphaned before the user stepped in. Therefore, claiming it was an orphaned template is wrong. MiraLuka 08:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It's trying to advertise a highly inflammatory, libelous website, and is therefore divisive. Mark came up with a good compromise. Let it be. SlimVirgin 08:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy restore - Was deleted with no valid reason - template was deliberately removed from many pages by MarkSweep so he could then use "Orphaned" deletion excuse - See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_policy_to_justify_template_deletion --Mistress Selina Kyle 08:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Just write it on your userpages, kids. No reason for Misplaced Pages to think having a trolls' club in template space is actually a good idea. Grace Note 09:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• The only troll I see there is this one. Seriously, it's an open website for criticism of Wikimedia services, both positive and negative. There are some problems still to work out with it, but we're not a "troll's club", which is probably why you feel so unwelcome there. --Blu Aardvark | 09:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. There is currently no Misplaced Pages policy against the use of userboxes which link to a website that not everyone is in love with, so there is no justification for speedying this; WP:NOT might be a reason to put up for WP:TfD, but is not, in itself, a justification for speedying, especially once that speedy's been disputed. Also, arbitrarily picking this site while not deleting userboxes with equally inflammatory or libellous (but significantly less potentially valuable) sites linked to, like Uncyclopedia, is just asking for trouble. Wait until a Userbox policy is in plate, then implement it. Arbitrary rogue action against userboxes will only incite even more controversy and strife and disunity, and thus directly harms the Misplaced Pages project. As such, MarkSweep's recent actions have been very poorly-timed and unhelpful in resolving this conflict, though I see no reason to believe he did any of it in bad faith; please avoid lobbying accusations of trying to sneakily support one side of an edit-war unless there is evidence that this actually happened. It seems more likely that if he was trying to push for any "version" of the template, it was for the version that isn't a template at all, based on his history of intense intolerance for userboxes and usercategories of all kinds. Let's tone it down, undelete this silly userbox, and resume discussing how best to handle all of them, not an arbitrary few. -Silence 09:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted If you want it, keep it in your userspace. No need for such a hateful thing in template space. We need not be straight jacketed by policy when faced with this sort of thing. That concept was even part of a policy somewhere. Rx StrangeLove 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG and SPEEDY undelete - deleted out-of-process under false guise. Harmless. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:23 UTC (2006-03-03)

• keep deleted. Enough already. El_C 09:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you mean "undelete"? Because I don't understand what "enough already" refers to.  Grue  12:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Whatever. El_C 16:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted like El C said.--Alhutch 09:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and give MarkSweep a medal for coming up with this solution. David | Talk 13:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Any userbox that does not directly contribute to building Misplaced Pages should be non-transclused. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 14:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete JSIN 11:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I'd be happy to support a policy narrow enough not to allow this as a template. But there was no need to undelete it in advance of developing such a policy. Action was unnecessary and provocative. Metamagician3000 12:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Moe ε 18:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If people feel that this needs to be deleted, it should be discussed on TFD. "unused" is not a CSD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Where (talk • contribs)
• Undelete. Not even POV, it states a basic fact. Gerard Foley 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Agree with Gerard. Delibately removing images and substing templates and then announcing that they are ophaned and so much be deleted is a gross abuse of procedure. This fad, and the fad of deleting innocuous templates unilaterally without even a vote had to stop. It is proving far more divisive than supposedly divisive templates. FearÉIREANN\ 00:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as 1)process used for deletion was kind of questionable -- the same process (subst all, then delete as orphan) could be used on any userbox, including the language ones, so I'm not sure that that's a good precedent, and 2) While I understand the need to clear out religious, political, and obnoxious userboxes, I haven't gotten a clear sense that userboxes that address internal Wiki issues in a non-inflammatory manner are speediable. 3) What's wrong with Misplaced Pages Review? I look at it sometimes myself. Isn't it sort of a third-party adjunct to Misplaced Pages? It's not that great but sometimes they have something of interest. Herostratus 01:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mperry 02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete There should be a moratorium on T1 until an agreement on just what the hell it means.Mike McGregor (Can) 05:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. And why has the file not been restored and this poll closed by now? Reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Restoring_the_page_.28for_admins.29 and taking into account that this was listed on the March 2 and its now March 13 ... This place is either very unorganized or the people in charge are deliberately ignoring the decision of the voters. --Bob, just Bob 10:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, and wait until we have a consensus policy before engaging in more deletions of boxes in question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Immortal

This page has been restored per consensus, potentially deleted out of process as T1 This restoral does not endorse or condone the content of this page, nor does it make it ineligable for a deletion discussion -- xaosflux /_CVU 04:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This only says that the user is immortal. User:UninvitedCompany deleted this as a T1. I don't even understand how this could be even seen as divisive. This is one of the few userboxes on my page that I don't have subst because I thought it wouldn't be controversial. It is only a statement of fact. I created this because as a Greek God, I am Immortal. Please Undelete.--God Ω War 00:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per my reasons given above.--God Ω War 04:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If this is meant to be serious, rather than (or in addition to) humor, perhaps it should be added to the "religion userboxes" debate? :) Seems more efficient to group them all together (especially since some of the religion userboxes are also meant to be partly humorous, like the two still-deleted Flying Spaghetti Monsterism templates) than to start up a whole new debate. And it doesn't seem that different from, say, "This user is God" ({{user God}}), which was recently undeleted (and subsequently redeleted) as well. -Silence 10:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. However the box is interpreted - as a joke or whatever - there was no need to delete it. Metamagician3000 11:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. Moe ε 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, not divisive Where 19:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I use(d) it to express believe in immortality, but not in the religious sense. Bayerischermann 21:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note that a large number of the deleted boxes on Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Religion did not express strictly "religious" views either. The page encompassed all types of spiritual, supernatural, paranormal, etc. beliefs and interests, including "this user believes in luck", "this user believes in a human soul", "this user doesn't believe in Santa Claus", "this user is interested in the Tarot", and also all the Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Zodiac boxes (though we had so many of them that they were moved to a separate page for organizational purposes, which as a result caused User:Improv to spare them in his mass-deletion of boxes on that page, even while he deleted "this user is interested in the Tarot", etc. If the boxes are undeleted, this one will probably be added to the religion-userboxes page, now that I know it's not just a joke. (It can also, of course, be kept in its original location, as one of the "age" userboxes.) -Silence 08:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Why are you trying to turn it into a religous userbox. When I created this, the AGE userbox list didn't have one that described me, the God of War, so I created one. It is a statement of fact, nothing more.--God Ω War 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• UndeleteDanielDemaret 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Stupid template, but if people want to use it so what? Gerard Foley 23:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The merely silly should probably be left alone for morale purposes. Herostratus 01:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 03:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete There should be a moratorium on T1 until an agreement on just what the hell it means.Mike McGregor (Can) 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Uninvited Company has been deleting a lot of userboxes s/he finds personally offensive out of process and against current policy. Sophy's Duckling 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per this deletion being fucking ridiculous. (WP:NOT censored.) Rogue 9 17:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• RESTORED SEE TOP OF SECTION -- xaosflux /_CVU 04:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

All of Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Religion

These were deleted without consensus and are not inflammatory. —Guanaco 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete It doesn't even seem that all of them were deleted. Why leave some and not others? And these: {{user religion psychological}} {{user religion anthropological}} {{user religion aesthetic}} {{user religion metaphysical}}, even more than the others, should be restored. They show interest in the study of religion, they don't express a view. MiraLuka 03:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. They don't need to be in templates. You can say whatever you want on your user page (subject to the standard rules on user page content) without transcluding userbox templates. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for the most part. Speedy any that were missed, restore the ones that do not express partisanship on religion. --Tony Sidaway 03:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete — few of them is speediable under CSD:T1, the userboxes are stating facts, no purpouse to be divisive or inflamatory _→AzaToth 04:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all and reprimand the admins responsible for this blatant abuse of T1. These are not "polemical and inflammatory", unless you attempt to stretch those words far beyond their original meaning. --Blu Aardvark | 06:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Blu Aardvark, could you try to keep things civil? --Improv 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, although there's far too much incivility in general in these userbox debates, I don't see a single thing uncivil about Blu Aardvark's above comment. He's being perfectly reasonable in the course he's endorsing; you just disagree with his assessment, which is also reasonable. Explain, Improv, why your deletion of all religion-related userboxes (even ones like "This user is interested in religion for sociological or historical reasons") falls under the speedy-deletion criteron T1: "Polemical and inflammatory" (i.e. designed to offend and provoke others). If you can persuasively explain your reasoning (as you attempted to do below, on Template:User atheist), Blu Aardvark may actually change his vote; but if you merely accuse him of incivility, you'll only escalate the conflict and possibly offend him, which surely isn't your intent. -Silence 06:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think his 2¢ is incivil, but rather that his suggestion to reprimand people people is. It would be just as incivil if I suggested that anyone who wants undeletion deserves a reprimand. I have already explained at great length on my userpage my position on the matter, for the interested. I'm just suggesting that regardless of the content of the discussion, we remain civil to each other. --Improv 06:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see how it's uncivil for him to ask for the relevant parties to be reprimanded if he genuinely believes that they have abused their administrator privileges, which one could certainly argue they have. He's simply endorsing a specific course of action; it's not like he said "string 'em up" or called them "vandals", as some of the users below did (and I criticized them for doing so); he simply feels that this mass-deletion is over-the-line and neither in keeping with the spirit nor the letter of the law (and it's certainly indisputable that your actions were not in keeping with the letter of the law; only the spirit is currently under real discussion). If he wants to tone down his comments, that might not be a bad idea, since demanding that someone you're discussing a matter with be reprimanded for his actions can potentially be counter-productive to an open exchange of ideas and can lead to similarly negative reactions (like your own). But he's not being incivil just because he's asking that certain admins be reprimanded. In general, incivility is the way you say something more than what you say. Few ideas are inherently uncivil, but almost any idea can be expressed in an uncivil way (e.g., "reprimand the admins responsible for being dictatorial assholes" rather than simply "reprimand the admins responsible for this blatant abuse of T1"). -Silence 06:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Edit Conflict I understand your concern, but may I point out that there is a difference between deleting a single template as T1, and deciding to delete an entire category of userboxes under that criteria? One template causes conflict, sure. But systematically deleting userboxes leads to conflicts like these. Such actions invite lynch mobs and disruption, and in light of the numerous escalated conflicts that have occured, indicate severely poor judgement. I do not necessarily believe that these admins should be desysopped, but they should at least be warned or otherwise reprimanded, so that this type of disruption does not continue to occur. --Blu Aardvark | 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I support Blu Aardvark here. Whoever did this abused their powers. That was an uncivil, or at least deeply unfriendly, act. Pointing it out and saying that they deserve some sort of reprimand is a statement of opinion. It's one that I more or less agree with. I don't want anything terrible to happen to whoever it was, but someone should make clear that it was, at the least, unnecessarily provocative. Metamagician3000 11:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Divisive, T1, etc. --Improv 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all because there is currently no speedy-deletion criterion that encompasses any of the userboxes on this page that were speedy-deleted (with one exception: the "This user has studied Christianity and doesn't like it" or something like that), which isn't listed on the page currently. leave that one deleted, it is clearly T1). Even if you personally believe that all userboxes (or all that express POVs) should be done away with, that view is not currently supported by Misplaced Pages policy and cannot be sustained. If, after a userbox policy is finally implemented (there are several currently under vote), it is decided that userboxes that express POVs should be done away with, but userboxes that express user interests are fine, then the correct course of action is to replace these userboxes with interest-based userboxes (and leave the interest-based ones that are already there alone: why in God's name was "This user is interested in the Tarot" deleted?! how is that polemical or inflammatory?!) for each topic where that is feasible. Thus, move {{user religion interest}} to {{user religion}} and have it still say "This user is interested in religion"; change {{user spiritual}} to {{user spirituality}} and have it say "This user is interested in spirituality" (which is currently a popular WikiPortal!), not "This user is spiritual". Do the same for all the rest: move {{user christian}} to {{user christianity}} and have it say "This user is interested in Christianity", not "This user is Christian". Divide users by their interests, and thus by their areas of expertise, by what articles they tend to or would be willing to edit, etc., thus instantly making the userboxes relevant and useful towards Misplaced Pages by making them tools for contacting editors who work on (or could work on) articles together, not tools for factionalizing based on POV. That seems like the only real compromise there could be between users who want to be able to identify their association with Paganism or Atheism or Shinto or whatever using systematized userboxes, and users who want to ban all userboxes expressing a POV: you don't need a certain POV to be interested or involved in any topic (I'm not religious but am enormously involved and interested in religion-based articles, for example), so this would eliminate all possible negative sideaffects of dividing users by religion, while preserving the positive, community-growing aspects of userboxes. -Silence 06:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - People should be able to express that, and I don't think it should offend anyone. --Arny 10:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. If you want to declare your religion in a box on your userpage, make your own. David | Talk 12:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted except the study versions. Rich Farmbrough 13:14 27 February 2006 (UTC).
• Undelete, current policy does not justify the speedy deletions. I would say to send to TfD, but they already survived there by overwhelming consensus, so there would be little point. Rogue 9 13:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and recreate. Sorry if you think this is uncivil, but deleting the entire category is vandalism and provocative. given the debates that have been going on for weeks, I can't assume that improv didn't know this was a contentious issue so I cannot assume good faith without rolling my eyes. This mass deleition looks like it was ment as a WP:POINT and to impose an admin's will to me, especally while a policy is being developed. I think improv should be RfCd or RfAd. There, I said it.Mike McGregor (Can) 14:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. At least where religious faiths are concerned, users who want labels on their user pages proclaiming that they hold to a religious belief are making a declaration of interest and/or expertise in matters concerning that faith. I cannot share a belief that such labels are "divisive or inflammatory" per se, which seems to be the assumption. Moreover, the trend seems to be not only to delete the templates, but also to make them protected deleted pages, which hides the history and the sometimes rather arcane code that used to be in them from users who are not admins, and prevents ordinary editors from even viewing what used to be there to include in their pages without transcluding it. If you are going to delete the templates, you could at least do the users the courtesy of preserving their source material for those who want to keep it without transclusion. Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• It works like this. If they delete it and do not impose protection, there is the danger of redlinked template showing up on people's userpages, and consequently, the possibilty that more people may go to DRV, see the discussion, and argue for the template's undeletion. By protecting it deleted (with the notice in <noinclude> tags), it simply transcludes blank, and the deletion isn't as obvious. Now, why would an admin not want their deletion to be obvious? Hmm... --Blu Aardvark | 23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Assume good faith. I can tell you exactly why the deletion notice was put in the noinclude: so that it wouldn't wreck all of the other userboxes on people's pages and cause them to complain. It has nothing to do with trying to carry out secret midnight deletions. --Cyde Weys 00:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - Even by the new policy, these are acceptable. For instance a jewish wikipedian would have more knowledge that would help him work on the Judaism articles. Religion in itself is not inflammatory. Immediate undelete.--God of War 20:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Stop this madness! Undelete all obviously, hold on (i.e. stop further deletions) and wait for a solution. Then inform users of a new policy, help them with subst:ing and finally delete. Is it that difficult? Oh, and one more thing I came up with recently. An exception from every speedy template: "Administrators, remember to check if anything links here..." Need I say more? Misza13 23:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all These are vital and were deleted by Improv out of bias. --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Misplaced Pages:Userbox policy poll. And God of War, these are NOT allowed according to the policy poll; please re-read it again. --Cyde Weys 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • • Look again cyde, It says that usrboxes relating to the wikipedia project will be kept. Users that have a certain religion are more qualified to edit articles about their religion. So this userbox is actually useful to the project.--God Ω War 05:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

      I don't think that's necessarily true, God of War. There are lots of believers who aren't very knowledgable, and lots of very knowledgable non-believers, about any particular religion. The experts find their articles without userboxen. Religion userboxes are very useful for finding those who value their group identification and who might be willing to help you stack a vote if you appeal to their religious feelings rather than their reason. It happens; it shoud stop. -GTBacchus 03:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Undelete for the love of the unoffensive deity of your choice, should you care to choose one at all. Coolgamer 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It is sad that a few admins are allowing zeal to get in the way of a sensible debate. Either Misplaced Pages supports this form of expression, in which case templates are legitimate, or it doesn't, in which case they're not. The current schizophrenia needs to be resolved before action is taken. Recent events are not condoned by CSD:T1. Andy 00:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Why is Misplaced Pages not allowing memebers to support their affiliation on thier own pages? There is nothing offensive in relgion. In fact memebers of the same relgion can easily identify each other and start and work on projects relaitng to the specific religion. Please keep it undeleted.Bless sins 03:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all. This is a suboptimal situation and may be an attempt to thwart consensus. Stifle 17:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete whats wrong with saying what your religion is? Imagine you were writing an article about say, the Mar Thoma Christians and you'd forgotten the name of some important religious concept that was on the tip of your tongue - its quick to go and ask someone with a Mar Thoma userbox. And in the case of POV pushing, it produces a stalemate - no one side is at an advantage by knowing which users have similar pov, wheras presently it is quite plausible for one side to have this unjust advantage. --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 00:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Homestarmy 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all Bkwillwm 07:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all without delay    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 16:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Hermeneus (user/talk) 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all Their deletion was an outrageous abuse of power. FearÉIREANN\ 19:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all All userboxes are divisive. I mean, maybe we should delete all the time zone boxes because they divide the GMTers from the GMT+1ers. Or how about those Citizen of the World boxes? What about the people who aren't Citizens of the World? I understand that some of the userboxes need to be deleted, but we don't need to single out the religious userboxes simply because they state opinions that others may not hold. joturner 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all as I fail to see how a simple statement about an individual's beliefs is "divisive and inflammatory" (the wording in CSD T1.) And, if such statements are "divisive and inflammatory" for some reason that I am not grokking, why does the format (template containing cute little box vs. hard-coded cute little box vs. prose) affect its acceptability? -- AJR | Talk 02:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all, not divisive or inflammatory. JSIN 11:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all speedily. Deletion was not necessary. If any such boxes are to be deleted in the future it should only be if there is, by that time, a policy in place that has general acceptance and appropriate protections. That is not yet the case. Metamagician3000 11:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No need for them. Useless, irritating.--Jyril 17:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I don't see why religion is that big an issue. I say if you don't like the userbox, don't look at it. Moe ε 18:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TFD I don't think these userboxes should be around, but it is out of process for them to be speedily deleted. We should undelete them and list on TFD to let the community decide. Administrators should not be able to decide for the community. Where 19:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and wait for the result of the poll on the userbox policy ChaTo 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and scream ABUSE, send them to TFD if you dont like them or wait for the policy. Discordance 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I fail to see the problem with them. Gerard Foley 00:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It's absurd that there are no userboxes for what is, for many Wikipedians, the central focus of their lives. To assert that mentioning religion is "divisive and inflammatory" is an example of another religion - the religion of tolerance - at its absolute worst. Waitak 07:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete after due consideration, SqueakBox 14:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - TheKeith 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete All, They should not have been deleted in the first place Brian | (Talk) 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete because why not just let people say what they believe in? People can still be divisive about choice of religion without having userboxes, and the userbox doesn't change that. Keep in mind that this is a free encyclopædia.--Methegreat 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Be fair. Either delete all the "This user is a (insert religion here)" templates, or keep them all. I do not care which - just do not, as is the current situation, keep templates like "This user is a Christian" and delete templates like "This user is a pagan." I don't care any more whether these userboxes are kept or deleted as long as they are not deleted selectively to enforce someone's POV, which is what I see happening here and with the sexuality userboxes. (Oh, and Template:User religion interest and its ilk should be an obvious keep, but you knew that.) - AdelaMae 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If any moderator has a problem, he or she should put the template up for a deletion debate. Sophy's Duckling 11:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all The userboxes promote honesty at the Misplaced Pages. The truth is that people have biases and perspectives to which they are attached. Self-describing these biases makes the Misplaced Pages more credible. I agree the Admins involved should be reprimanded for the actions they have already taken, the manner in which they were taken, and the lack of respect for discussion surrounding the action at the time it was taken. ManVhv 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as soon as - And, It should be supported about Christian(protestant, chatollic Buddhist and Islam AS SOON AS. - Ellif 04:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• 39 to undelete, 7 to keep deleted. These userboxes are coming back. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Please note that I have listed Template:User satanist for TFD however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy, again

Why was this deleted? According to Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 19/Userboxes#Template:User admins ignoring policy, the result of the deletion debate was "Keep". Anybody know? (And should I post this to AN/I instead?) _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete. I brought this to to TFD to get it deleted but failed. It was then speedied and brought to DRV, where at least a majority voted to undelete it. It was then brought to TFD a second time and again, no consensus to delete it emerged. I personally would like to see this rather polemic template gone, but I think it is better to let it stay than give users an excuse to use it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per nom and Sjakkalle. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• More of the same, restore. To delete this as "by a banned user" is too much of a stretch. - brenneman 13:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, how does an attack template help us to build an encyclopedia? User:Zoe| 02:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you consider this template an attack on yourself, you'd better resign for the good of Misplaced Pages. We don't need admins ignoring policy.  Grue  09:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: What part of WP:IAR were these users having trouble understanding? Just zis Guy you know? 18:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are admins ignoring WP:IAR. I think the part "use common sense, and don't be a dick" is violated the most often.  Grue  22:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Mechanisms exist to deal with abuse of admin rights. Last war over userboxes resulted in Radiant leaving the project. This userbox is invitation for self-escalating wars. Pavel Vozenilek 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per previous and ongoing TfDs. —Andux 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. SlimVirgin 05:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Pavel. pretty clearly divisive.
• Keep Undeleted if it's divisive, we just need to desysop some admins.  Grue  12:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. David | Talk 12:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No transclusable divisive boxes. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 14:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. It'd bother me if it named specific admins, but I think it's ok to express annoyance about admins who don't follow the rules they have been appointed to uphold. This is entirely in keeping with WP's aspiractions. --Leifern 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete - DRV has ruled this undeleted - TFD was inconclusive. Regardless of the merits of this template the only way to delete should have been through a second TFD nomination.--God Ω War 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clearly unacceptable. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per User:Leifern Avalon 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, acceptable. JSIN 11:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This was deleted against consensus. Personally, I don't think this is the sort of thing that a future policy should allow in template space, but deleting it in the absence of a well-accepted policy is premature and provocative. Metamagician3000 12:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, isn't there some policy regulating how often can an article/template be put up for XfD? If there isn't, shouldn't there be one? Without it, it's highly disruptive. Misza13 12:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not divisive. Moe ε 18:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. FearÉIREANN\ 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Stupid template, but if people want to use it so what? Gerard Foley 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. What's the problem with this one. Seems not to be a T1. Bring it up to TfD, or, if you want, propose a policy that prohibits use of templates to reflect positions on internal Wiki matters.Herostratus 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mperry 02:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete There should be a moratorium on T1 until an agreement on just what the hell it means.Mike McGregor (Can) 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• This template was speedy undeleted by Geni as it was the subject of two previous TFDs ending with "keep" or "no consensus" and a DRV which ended with "undelete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User flag Estonia

In Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions, Template:User flag Australia was one of several listed userbox templates decided to be kept. Since User flag Estonia is the almost the same thing, it should be undeleted as well. Bayerischermann 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per above. --Thorri 11:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted If you want this on your user page, use {{Userbox}}. I don't see how this contributes to building Misplaced Pages. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 12:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How is this different from Template:User flag Australia? Bayerischermann 21:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• undelete and (please) hold off on new nominations and creations until the policy has been decided. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. A compromise policy appears very close to being worked out and all of this subjective deletion activity just makes matters harder to cleanup. --StuffOfInterest 18:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, because I dare say that admins wield a mop, rather the a sceptre! Babajobu 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Outward directed advocacy. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Donald Albury. David | Talk 12:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom. Rogue 9 14:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Hey! Teacher! Leave them kids alone! Coolgamer 00:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like it got restored, anyway. Bayerischermann 05:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Unionist

Currently listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_14#Template:User_Irish_Republican . Result should be keep. But was deleted. helohe (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - Perhaps you've heard of the IRA? this is very definitely capable of being divisive, and could be used for POV-pushing. Just because the votes on userboxes are inherently skewed by the fact that those most likely to see them are those with a vested interest in the userbox shouldn't result in consistant bad decisions. Michael Ralston 23:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. This has already survived TFD. I'd undelete it myself, but I'm afraid to "wheel war". —Guanaco 23:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as inappropriate use of the Template: namespace. If you want to announce your support of unions, do so in userspace, not in templatespace. --Cyde Weys 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Good grief! A Unionist supports Unionism or more specifically the Union of Ireland/Northern Ireland with the British crown; not bloody unions. At least know what is is you want to delete before saying it should be deleted! Jooler 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Guanaco. The Ungovernable Force 01:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per User:Guanaco -- Avalon 02:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 05:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is in the Template: namespace, not user space - this is the wrong place for such things. This vote makes no judgement about this userbox's value to Misplaced Pages. Proto||type 09:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and sanction deleter for Vandalism. a consensus to keep is a consensus to keep.Mike McGregor (Can) 13:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'd also kindly ask users to stop referring to admins as vandals. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • By Michael Ralston: "Perhaps you've heard of the IRA?" Please explain what this has to do with the IRA.
    • My point is simply this: People feel strongly enough about closely-related topics to bomb things. We have no need to be able to advocate for a position. Michael Ralston 02:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I still don't follow you. My question was: What has the IRA got to do with the subject we are discussing? --Mal 08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • By Cyde Weys: "If you want to announce your support of unions, do so in userspace". lol! I propose you edu'macate yerself mate! The userbox Unionist was not anything to do with trade Unionism, but a political Unionist ideology in the UK. --Mal 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Consensus was reached. --Mal 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and RfC deleter. This is getting crazy. A consensus was reached. It is pure arrogance to overrule a community decision in that way. The template is about support for a political party. That is perfectly valid template. And no, Cyde, it has nothing to do with unions. Please learn what the template is about before criticising it. FearÉIREANN\ 23:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, it's probably inappropriate to speedy something that already survived TfD, even if the justification is supposed to be from Jimbo's T1. To apply Jimbo's word, one needs Jimbo clarification that he wants it to override consensus. --AySz88^-^ 04:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, consensus to keep at TfD, on what grounds was it speedy deleted? "WP:NOT a place where admins get to do whatever the hell they want for no good reason." Admins hold a mop, not a sceptre. Babajobu 12:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Appropriate. Mops are better than scepters for cleaning up crud. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 12:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete- *Due to the stress of the deletion of userboxes, this user is incapable of forming coherent thoughts.* Coolgamer 23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There is no reason to overule community consensus to delete a userbox that is hardly objectionable, especially when 1) these actions are known to cause conflict, and 2) an attempt to hammer out a concrete policy on userboxes is being worked on. --Blu Aardvark | 09:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_Irish_Republican

Currently listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_14#Template:User_Irish_Republican. With consensus keep. But somebody deleted it and set the result of the discussion to delete. helohe (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Look at the Unionist box. It seems clear that both should have the same fate, whatever that might be. Michael Ralston 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. This has already survived TFD. I'd undelete it myself, but I'm afraid to "wheel war". —Guanaco 23:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as inappropriate use of the Template: namespace. If you want to announce your support of unions, do so in userspace, not in templatespace. --Cyde Weys 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Again this has nothing to do with unions. How can you say something should be deleted when you don't even know what it is is! Jooler 23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per User:Guanaco -- Avalon 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is in the Template: namespace, not user space - this is the wrong place for such things. This vote makes no judgement about this userbox's value to Misplaced Pages. Proto||type 09:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per the consensus reached on TFD. Stifle 13:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per consensus reached. and sanction deleter for Vandalism. Also, please list all the reason's your TfDing somthing on the first nomination, rather then nominating the box again and again for diffrent reasons until it slips through. (stop gaming the system)Mike McGregor (Can) 13:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Consensus was reached. --Mal 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment for Michael Ralston: The equivalent for Unionist is Nationalist not Republican. --Mal 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Unlike the template above, which is clearly defined (ie, about a party with a clear definition, agenda and policies), Irish republican is a POV concept that is used to push electoral agendas by saying "I'm a true republican. You are not". That oversteps the line between a statement of clearly defined allegiance and self-proclaimed advocacy of a claim to be the true holder of a name. FearÉIREANN\ 23:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually you have a kind of point. Although I should note that "Unionist" isn't necessarily about a single political party. However, your point about POV regarding this userbox does make logical sense to me. I'd like to note that I can't see any reasons for opposing the undeletion of the 'User Irish Nationalist' userbox which I think also existed until recently. It was never proposed for deletion however. In fact, if I knew what exactly it was called, I'd propose it for undeletion here. --Mal 08:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, let us agree that admins hold a mop, not a sceptre, and that this should not have been speedy deleted by a common mop-holder. Babajobu 23:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete- Coolgamer 23:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Abuse of official template namespace. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Why cant they have some pride?! --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User relirespect

Content was "This user repects other people's religions and realises that not all people wish to follow the same path." Deemed as a T1 candidate, "divisive and inflammatory", by the deleting admin. Not sure I agree with that assessment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep If this is inflammatory and devisive, then I'm Martha Stewart. --D-Day 13:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this is exactly the opposite of T1. Stifle 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Gross misapplication of T1, whch in and of itself needs to be rewritten into objective terms. --StuffOfInterest 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is not deleteable as T1. helohe (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete, hold all your actions (i.e. both creation and deletion) and instead of wasting your precious time on DRV's/TfD's start working on a solution (or write an encyclopedia instead - it's not done the last time I've checked). Hint: there is a solution being worked out - why don't you join? Misza13 14:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and stop using T1 until there's a consensus of just what the hell falls under it. T1 is being used WAY TOO BROADLY and INDESCRIMINATLY by a few admins on a rampage. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete that is the very polar opposite of divisive and inflammatory. We either need to beat the administrators who are doing this anti-userbox jihad with boards with rusty nails in them, or they need to stop doing this shit. It's really ticking me off. Janizary 17:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - The opposite of this, "This user doesn't respect other religions and thinks that their own is the one true path," would surely be considered divisive, so this is too. And believe it or not there are lots of people who don't respect other religions and thus this template would be divisive. And since this is a statement of POV it sure as hell shouldn't be in Template: anyway. --Cyde Weys 17:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I also request that all babelboxes be speedied as well as divisive (categorising people by their lingual skills is just plain sick!), inflammatory (example: {{user en-4}} clearly inflames me as I can't speak english that well) and polemical (inspires discussions whether a certain level should be required to be allowed to contribute). Misza13 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea... thats just bad logic clyde, just because a non-existant userbox thats the opposite of this would be considered divisive (by you) dosen't make this one a canidate for speedy-dee. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Clearly not T1 canidate. Sanction deleter for intentional misuse of T1, this is just trolling.Mike McGregor (Can) 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Deleted - If someone had the opposite box, people would be angry. Those willing to make this sort of statement do in fact have a POV on a topic that could concievably be used to organize opposition. Babelboxes are an entirely different case, because they serve a clear purpose for the encyclopedia - these sorts of userboxes do not. Michael Ralston 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 02:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 05:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is in the Template: namespace, not user space - this is the wrong place for such things. This vote makes no judgement about this userbox's value to Misplaced Pages. Proto||type 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, CSD T1 couldn't possibly apply less to this userbox. Admins hold a mop, not a scepter, let's not be wikiMamluks! Babajobu 13:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time and is disruptive to the wikipedia community. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - HAHAHA! Boy, that was a good one, you almost got me! Nice April Fool's gag... *checks date*... Wait a second... Coolgamer 22:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per God of War. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per D-Day. This is in no way divisive or inflammatory. --Blu Aardvark | 02:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Undelete - this is not T1. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:42 UTC (2006-02-25)
• Undelete This is not divisive or inflammitory. --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:user fsm

This user believes in the Noodly Appendage of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

2006-02-21 00:41, Improv deleted a set of Flying Spaghetti Monster templates, much like all of his other actions with userboxes, it was without reason nor with any discussion. This is most egregious and I find that this is insulting that someone would completely overstep the processes by which all users are supposed to have templates removed simply because they have an opinion that what others have done is wrong. Despite what people like Improv think, these actions are not helping the Misplaced Pages, but rather causing increased conflict where if they would simply behave properly there would be none. These kinds of acts of disrespect and self-superiour "tidying" will only breed a greater hatred for the people who are supposed to be top tier members of the community. I call for it's undeletion. Janizary 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - This is an invalid usage of the Template: namespace for something of silly and nonencyclopedic value. Additionally, this template is divisive and easily qualifies under T1. You'd be surprised how many fundies can't take the joke and perceive it as a direct attack upon their religion. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, but you say pretty much the same thing about every userbox. Does my opinion not count? Is completely discounting my beliefs any better? I take insult in the implecating of some imaginary father figure sitting on a cloud watching me masterbate and shaking his head, I take it as a direct attack on common sense and my beliefs. Does that mean that noone is allowed to say "I'm a christian" on their userpage? If that's so, you may as well begin working on removing the userpage functionality. If people are that intolerant, then they should learn to lighten the hell up. Also, have you considered making a template for your "nonencyclopedic value" and "divisive" schtick, it'd make voting against all the userboxes easier. Janizary 05:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• If we could say that about all userboxes then all userboxes could be deleted and I would be very happy. If only that were the solution everyone could agree on :-P Cyde Weys 05:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - Personally, I find the FSM amusing ... but I can easily see how it could be divisive and used in order to stack votes and/or organize POV pushing on, eg, religious topics. I'd say it qualifies under T1. Michael Ralston 04:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I notice that everyone who's voted Keep or Undelete so far (save for Janizary) has a message in their talk page FROM Janizary, specifically relating to this discussion. I'd hope any admin paying attention to this takes that into account. Michael Ralston 09:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't have a message from him and I say undelete. Not divisive, inflammatory or polemical. If you want to stop vote stacking, edit it so there is no category it links to, if you want to get it out of template space, put a tag on it (and all useboxes) saying that in "x" days they will all be deleted, giving people a chance to subset. The Ungovernable Force 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• VERY STRONG KEEP - It should be CRIME to simply delete a userbox that a person disagress with personally. I know about the stupid reasons for deleting the userboxs. They are bogus. If someone wants to spam users of certain beliefs, they can look at categories or the history of edits of a particular article. Userboxes should NOT be blamed for this crap. How does someone with such poor judgement even attain admin status? What he did is akin to Nazi book-burning. There are literally a TON of userboxes that display a fun aspect of people personalities' and deleteing this one is just the same as deleting one that says "I like cheerios". But it isn't cheerios. It's creationism VS. evolution and I do not take this debate lightly. I remain very Pro-Evolution and I am proud to say that every edit and article to Misplaced Pages is very NPOV. I simply put a userbox on my USER page stating that I think creationism is wrong. and Improv doesn't like that so the fuckwad deleted it! Allowing this to occur is a CRIME against free-thinkers. I am totally on board with Janizary in thinking that this is WRONG and that WAY too much time has been wasted arguing about something truly trivial that only USERS will ever see! If I get chastised for making remarks about other users, so be it. If policy here is to allow administrators to delete things they disagree with then show me the door. Say goodbye to all my edits and articles to come. Undelete the fsm template and GO BACK TO WRITING FUCKING ARTICLES!!! MiracleMat 07:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • May I point out that Improv holds a stance /far/ more in agreement with the FSM than in opposition to it? His reason for deleting it was because it was a POV-related template, and he is and has been working on removing those. It's not merely that specific template - it's all like it. As for writing articles ... may I point out that by complaining about this, you're not actually doing so either? Michael Ralston 07:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On a semi-unrelated note, I think anyone using such hyperbole kind of disqualifies what they have to say. It should be a crime?! C'mon, that's ridiculous. I'm used to seeing various religious people play the persecution card, but it is very unbecoming coming from a fellow "free-thinker". Please understand, all of the real religion userboxes are gone and this had to go with it. --Cyde Weys 09:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've always felt that userboxes created a (small) sense of community for people like myself, who contribute when possible, but aren't as active as some(most). As far as being offensive goes, if we did delete everything that was offensive, Misplaced Pages would be significantly smaller, and significantly less popular. It'd mean that articles on just about every religion would be deleted, as well as articles on history and biographies. Userboxes may be of a different class than articles, but because they are only displayed on userpages, I see no reason why any userbox should be deleted. They're kind of like trading cards... just something different you can do.
  
  On a related note, I think at the least speedy deletion should only be limited to userboxes that are beyond a reasonable doubt intentionally divisive, malicious, or otherwise harmful.James Brooks 08:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The thing is, we really don't need "something else you can do" on Misplaced Pages. This is Misplaced Pages, The 💕. Our sole goal here is to build an encyclopedia. You shouldn't be bothered with playing with "trading cards" or whatever. If you want to mess around with little colored boxes I'm sure you can get some webspace somewhere where you can do it. --Cyde Weys 09:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Deleting userboxes is getting a new sport for some admins here. C'mon have you notting better to do? There are many articles that have to be improoved. helohe (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This contains two fallacies. Number one, you are trying to decide for other people what would be a good expenditure of their time, which is unacceptable. Two, you are being hypocritical about what you consider a waste of time ... so actually doing something and deleting a template is a waste of time, but complaining about it isn't? --Cyde Weys 09:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to use my time on this, as deleting the boxes messes up my user page. Btw.: I think userboxes are a perfect way to get people together with common interests. eg. If i would like to find someone wo helps to extend the FSM article I could click on the Fws userbox category to get some people. helohe (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete What's the BFD? Fsiler 09:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe the fact that editors seem to be attempting to create a false consensus by using these boxes as a method of finding people who agree with them? That's a bit of a problem, seeing as how that harms the encyclopedia. Michael Ralston 09:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per sanity. And the fact that the box is divisive. Proto||type 10:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 11:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - It was deleted illegitimately! Deleting them is kind of irrational since we can always make userboxes of our own. Having them as templates only brings this community closer. Heck, I think I'll go make myself a new FSM userbox right away after posting this! --Thorri 11:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Dalbury. Stifle 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Saying something is "unhelpful" does not make it "divisive" or "polemic" which are the reasons given for T1, which as I keep saying needs to be rewritten to be objective. --StuffOfInterest 13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I fail how an example used to demonstrate the weakness of pseudoscience can possibly be "divisive" or "polemic". It's like banning a userbox that says "This user believes in a round earth", or "this user doesn't believe in heliocentrism". Rob 13:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Put junk on your userpage if you want, don't make templates. .:.Jareth.:. 16:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per above arguments. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This should have gone through a deletion review and was not worthy in any way of a speedy. Making this userbox a speedy delete is an abuse of the speedy delete system. Put it up for regular deletion if you think that it deserves to be deleted. I might vote for delete in a regular VfD, but speedy is inappropriate. Harvestdancer 17:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This speedy deletion is offensive to followers of the Pastafari path. --Daniel 17:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I am proud of being a Flying Spaghetti Monsteran and want to show it in my user page. --NorkNork 18:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Harvestdancer. SushiGeek 22:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete With Misplaced Pages, you are entitled to have an opinion. However, you should not let this opinion leak through into your writing. If any FSM believer's beliefs caused articles to be POV, I would understand your reasoning, but, as far as I know, this has not been the case. Just because someone disagrees with something doesn't make it wrong. La Pizza11 00:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete of course. not divisive, not polemic. this would probably be avoided if the template lived in user space. ... aa:talk 00:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Undelete as above have said - we either have open userboxes, or we get rid of them. We don't pick and choose. As for many voters having a message in their Talk page.... that's because he wants it undeleted, and it's the only way I knew this was even here. Not very fair with the speedy delete. -- RevRagnarok 01:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• There are some very scary implications here. I just checked and Janizary has been recruiting "keep" votes on this DRV. How has he been doing it? ... by using the Whatlinkshere on FSM userbox template, naturally. Anyone else find it really ironic that some people are claiming no one ever uses templates for recruitments while at the same time we see templates blatantly being used to recruit votes regarding the template? This discussion has now been tainted by one of the very features of userboxes that make such a strong case for their deletion. To the closing admin: you know what to do. --Cyde Weys 01:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think most of us have realized that that's exactly what Janizary's point was. It wasn't even slightly subtle. But that's not the real problem. This discussion has been tainted from the very beginning by the inherent cowardice and dishonesty of this act of mass speedy deletion, and of CSD T1 itself. And quite frankly, this issue is an excellent example of why recruiting votes can be a good thing. Microtonal 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do you know what an alternative to my very specific, targetted notifications would have been? I could have gone to every user page that links to the FSM page and put that same message on there. It has a similar usage but would have been me bothering random people that have no reason to be in this discussion. I went to the specific users that should have been aware of the attempt to delete the template, which is what should happen when you're going around trying to delete a template used in a user's page, only those users that used that template. I did not notify the users of the other two FSM templates. Cyde, you are simply a paranoid reactionary that for some reason cannot stand the idea of people sharing their interests with one another on a site where people improve the articles which they are interested in. Janizary 05:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should look into the Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages for an idea why this sort of behaviour is a problem, Janizary. It's not just "reactionaries" who have a problem with the idea of being able to manufacture "consensus" by canvassing among those very likely to have a specific point of view, and thus producing a non-representative sample of wikipedians to express their opinion. (I'd also like to remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.) Michael Ralston 06:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Janizary provides a very good example of why userboxes and user categories need to be deleted. --Carnildo 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can we please keep this to reviewing the deletion instead of attacking the everyone on the Undelete side just because one person is abusing the userbox? --AySz88^-^ 04:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to the comment Several of the people proposing it stay deleted are pointing to Janizary's actions not to attack those in favor of undeletion (indeed, I haven't seen anything I'd consider an actual attack on those other than Janizary voting that way), but because they're an example of why these sorts of userboxes are a threat to wikipedia. Michael Ralston 06:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 05:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• I say undelete simply because it was deleted out of process. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Xen0phile 23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, then Userfy, this was speedy deleted as T1. xaosflux /_CVU 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Hermeneus (user/talk) 08:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Damn striaght undelete, and remove the administrative position from the people that are doing this. Nate 16:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time and is disruptive to the wikipedia community. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, and smacks Donald Albury a bit to stop his record from skipping. My word, if you're always going to vote for a deletion, at least mix your words around or say something different for each issue! Coolgamer 22:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - There should definitely be room for sillinesses on Wikipedian userpages, and also, by deleting it, Misplaced Pages has invoked the wrath of His Noodly Appendage, so beware!--Methegreat 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T1. There IS room for silliness on userpages - the argument that deletion of userboxes is tantamount to a suppression of expression or individuality is incredibly disingenuous; the best, most creative and expressive uesrpages here don't use boxen. Can you honestly not find a way to be silly without using a userbox? -GTBacchus 21:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete unless stating in any way that a user is a christian is completely banned as well. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - -Ril-, that seems like a rather willful misunderstanding of what's going on. Nobody's suggesting that you can't say you're into Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. You just can't use a Misplaced Pages template to do it. So, your comparison is utterly meaningless, and I have a hard time believing you mean it, if you take few seconds to think about it. -GTBacchus 19:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  There are people stating that you can't use a Misplaced Pages template to do it, but may I point out that, as of yet, there is no official policy, guideline, or consensus regarding the use of userbox templates? --Blu Aardvark | 06:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  No, but do you really need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows? -GTBacchus 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, apparently you're not very good at cloudwatching GTBacchus, since very few people share your opinion. Janizary 03:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. I really do not see how this qualifies as T1 (with the exception, of course, of "This user does not really believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but agrees that it is more likely than Creationism", which is a T1.) --Blu Aardvark | 06:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is humor, not divisive --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This isn't an insult on anyone, it is a simple joke, and there wasn't any reason for it to be deleted. I agree with Janizary, and I believe that things like this should just be removed because one person didn't agree with it. Change1211 05:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There is currently no Misplaced Pages policy against stupid, banal jokes lacking any subtlety or artisanship. Whether or not this userbox ultimately deserves to exist, the speedy-deletion is clearly not in-line with Misplaced Pages policy, and even if it were, is disputed; a TfD, at the very least, is merited. -Silence 09:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Catholic Evangelical

This user is a catholic and evangelical Christian.

• 2006-02-20 18:11:50 Improv deleted Template:User Catholic Evangelical without warning or any discussion at all. He protected the page from editing, so I can't even retrieve the code to paste onto my userpage directly. No reason was given. From his userpage perhaps it is because he is a self-described "very liberal" "Communist" "Trotskyite" "atheist". I don't know. If it were because he cared about the Misplaced Pages community, then he would have at least attempted to discuss the issue, and preferably nominated it for deletion. Such unilateralism is EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE. My motive behind creating and using the userbox was to identify with both catholic and evangelical ideas and groups. It was an effort to build bridges thwarted by a knee-jerk reactionary.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Further evidence: Userboxes concerning personal beliefs of users were kept by overwhelming consensus (5 January 2006). Keep 185, Delete 28 - See Archive: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions
It seems as if this userbox and others like it have already found a community consensus to keep them. I wonder why the admins thwarting community consensus are being allowed to maintain their offensive.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 22:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Until T1 can be adequately defined to make usage objective rather than subjective it should not be used due to the massive disruption being caused. --StuffOfInterest 19:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Rouge admins are only killing Misplaced Pages. Cut it out now. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 19:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a note -- you might mean "rogue". --Improv 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per all above. Misza13 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per all above.Mike McGregor (Can) 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per all above, if things are going to deleted, reasons need to be supplied - nathanrdotcom 20:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - pointless template that doesn't help in the building of the encyclopedia. Also, it encourages factionalism. The religion userboxes are all gone for good, period, per Jimbo's stance on this issue. None of them are coming back. Ever. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't bet on that. Ultimately, it is the community that drives this encyclopedia, not Jimbo, not the admins, and not you. And T1 is possibly the most divisive and disruptive thing to happen to the community in the history of Misplaced Pages. Undelete. Rogue 9 12:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom MiraLuka 21:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Simple statement of the user's affiliation. --cesarb 21:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. This template is a waste of resources, particularly time that should be spent editing. --JWSchmidt 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I see no reason why this template should remain deleted although my judgement is impaired by the fact I can't view the template. Cedars 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• The template said "This user is a catholic and evangelical Christian", with a blue background and a free-use picture of the planet earth. -Silence 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Silence. I am going to abstain now after much thought I realize I really don't know how many people would use this template if it was restored. Cedars 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per all undeletes above. --Aaron 02:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - It would assist vote stacking and POV warring with regards to, eg, abortion-related articles. Thus, it hinders the encyclopedia. Michael Ralston 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. I think you'll find that this is not because of a bias issue -- I deleted all other religious userboxen at the same time, as per Jimbo's mandate. It is inappropriate to nominate it for deletion, because it is now a candidate for speedy deletion, and does not require going through the long deletion process. I am also telling you that unless T1 is lifted, I will delete this again if undeleted, regardless of how this discussion goes, so you are just wasting your time. --Improv 03:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• You confuse a mandate with an opinion, what Jimbo has given is his opinion. Jimbo does not own Misplaced Pages, nor does he rule it. Consensus rules here. Janizary 06:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment actually where Jimbo disagrees with consensus, his view takes precedence, seemeta:Foundation Issues Cynical 15:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. As a user who edits articles relating to Christian belief and history on a regular basis, I find the ability to search for users that are practicing members of various faiths generally helpful. On the other hand, I understand that one thing that started the userbox ruckus was apparently an attempt to use userboxes and user categories to swarm and otherwhelm other articles and impose the POV of a particular faith. This was a mistake of judgment on the part of some editors. CSD:T1 is still an overreaction; its apparent endorsement of unilateral action does more harm than any userbox ever could. I still see nothing polemical or inflammatory about this userbox. Smerdis of Tlön 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete These kinds of userboxes help people find others which share the same interests, that is a good thing, not a bad one. The best way to get an article improved is to get several people with the same interest involved in improving it. If you don't have these kinds of templates, it makes getting people involved much more difficult. Janizary 06:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Being able to find users with similar interests is a bad thing; the only reason I can think you would need to do this is for vote-stuffing. Even if it's not used for that, it certainly encourages factionalism and divisiveness. --Cyde Weys 06:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't think being able to find people with the same interests helps? You're kidding me right? If I had not gone and nabbed User:NicM from #openbsd on Freenode, the OpenBSD article likely would be not even half as good as it is now. Had I not had the ability to find a user that shares my interest in OpenBSD, the article very likely wouldn't be a featured one right now. Janizary 06:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • But if they're already on wikipedia, why do you have to get them? Userboxes have, in at least one past instance, been used to recruit people in order to engage in "ballot stuffing" - which harms community consensus, and is rather divisive. Michael Ralston 06:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Much like a knife can be used to cut a man's throat, it can also be used to cut a man's meal. That the knife can be used in an unpleasent manner does not negate the usefulness of the knife in positive instances. Janizary 07:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
          • But if you're just looking for someone to help edit an article, there's plenty of other ways to find them - indeed, it's best for wikipedia if you can bring more people in from outside. The only reason someone wouldn't want to do that one is if new users would be at some sort of a "disadvantage" - or if, as seems unlikely, the don't know anyone outside of wikipedia. (If the latter is the case for anyone, I'd suggest they have more important concerns than userboxes. ;) Also, my apologies if my wording of this is poor. I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to engage in ballot stuffing, but the fact is that others do, and there are better ways of finding someone to help - especially if, as has been proposed, userboxes be allowed as long as they only indicate an interest on a topic, and not any sort of position, thus making it much harder to POV push via userbox.) Michael Ralston 07:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
            • You are mistaken if you belive that people want to join in this chaos. People who actually want to do anything here are few and far between, even those people who know a great deal about OpenBSD don't want to be bothered with the site because of all the bureaucratic nonsense and the constant bikesheding of every little detail. The neutrality rules alone make most people cringe. Finding anyone who knows anything and is willing to wade knee deep into this nonsense is hard. NicM was a saint for letting me drag him into this. Janizary 07:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
              • I'd like to point for a moment that I'd been editing for months before even starting to involve myself in the processes. Simple good-faith edits usually go a long way towards improving things, whereas seeking out people to further inflame a discussion, for instance, doesn't. Michael Ralston 07:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that's a relevant example. You're talking about finding someone on IRC, not through userboxes. --Cyde Weys 06:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • If you're dealing with a Catholic article, finding a Catholic user on wikipedia is good. I'd just look through the Religous users categories until I found some interested in improving the article. This drive to improve the OpenBSD article happened prior to the existance of the Category:OpenBSD users. Had it been around, I would not have needed to go into IRC to get help, it would have been just a click away. Janizary 07:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I just don't understand why you're still trying to argue this thing. The writing is chiseled into the granite wall. Jimbo came out very clearly and unequivocally against belief userbox templates. They're not coming back, period. And what makes you think this specific one is going to pass DRV and the other numerous religious userboxes are going to stay deleted? Ain't going to happen. Either they all stay deleted or they all come back; anything inbetween isn't fair and is going to lead itself to even more divisiveness and factionalism ("What?! You restored the Catholic userbox but not the Quaker userbox?!!! OMG!!"). And the odds of all of them coming back are precisely 0%. --Cyde Weys 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
            • And you don't seem to understand that Jimbo is not a god here, his word is not law. The Misplaced Pages Foundation is the controlling body, Jimbo is not the only member. If your beloved Jimbo came out against acronyms, would you go through the entire site expanding them? I am just against spending all my time dinking with the voting process, I don't want any of the userboxes deleted. They help people come together, and it's people like yourself that are causing the divisive rends in the cloth of this community by acting as you do. Mark and Improv are causing more trouble than just leaving these boxes alone would ever have sparked. Janizary 17:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete These userboxes are useful for many reasons, not the least that they can serve as an early warning device and helpful aid for seeking out bias. Noirdame 09:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, divisive, and utterly worthless as regards to building an encyclopaedia. Also, you don't need a userbox to put a user page into a category. Learn how Misplaced Pages actually works before throwing hissy fits about 'freedom of speech' and various over hysterical overreactions. And if you want a box so much, subst it. Jesus. Proto||type 10:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as divisive and inflammatory. Stifle 13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. i don't think it's divisive or inflammatory. however, it is a religious userbox, which is kind of astray of the things we've been trying to cement into policy. I'd be in favor of a keep if it was changed to "this user is interested in catholic and evangelical christanity". ... aa:talk 00:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, how is a simple statement of religious identity "inflammatory or divisive"? Admins hold a mop, not a sceptre. Let's not be wikiMamluks. Babajobu 13:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time and is disruptive to the wikipedia community. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - *Whacks head with keyboard* EVEERYONE has OPINIONS! There is no problem with displaying them! It's not like we're forcing people to say what religion they are... it's just...they... you can't... *breaks down and cries* Coolgamer 23:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Even if it is an oxymoron. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - and somehow... somehow... get over the idea that ANYONE is telling ANYONE that they can't display their opinions, beliefs and affiliations on their userpages. Personal expression is NOT at stake here. Userboxes are. The best, most beautful, and most expressive user pages at Misplaced Pages don't use boxen. Find a way to tell the world that you're a... Catholic Evangelical (whatever that means), or whatever you are, without using a category linked template to do it! -GTBacchus 19:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I might not like Catholicism much, but at least give people the source codes somewhere for these type of userboxes, sometimes being able to declare to the world your intentions in fun little boxes is a very useful thing. Homestarmy 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User userboxes not harmful

This user believes that displaying the userboxes does not divide the Misplaced Pages community but rather emphasises its diversity.

• 2006-02-21 01:30:29 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User userboxes not harmful" (unused, CSD T1)

To read the rationale for its creation, see the template's talk page. Misza13 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete and desysop MarkSweep. Need I say more? Okay, let's go. Inflammatory: where's the attack? Divisive: quite the contrary - it's supposed to unite and help the community (again, see it's talk page). Polemical: laughable. So, we've dealt with CSD T1. As for "unused", the userbox is very sorry for not being widely used just one day after creation - perhaps it'll get wider audience now (the code is substed above). And BTW: "unused" is not a CSD. Misza13 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Based on misapplication of T1, which in and of itself needs to be better fleshed out to build objectivity into application. --StuffOfInterest 18:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Super Strong Speedy Undelete Another speedied userbox? What's next? Speedy BJAODN? Speedy User Pages entirely? To the overzealous admins, enough with the attacks against Misplaced Pages's once strong foundation. This is an outrage! --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete as per Misza13's comments and sanction deleter.Mike McGregor (Can) 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and de-sysop all rogue admins.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 20:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Guðsþegn's reasons. - nathanrdotcom 20:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - pointless template that doesn't help in the building of the encyclopedia. Also, it encourages userbox factionalism. --Cyde Weys 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As of pointless, please do take a look at it's talk page to see the rationale and why is it supposed to help relieve Misplaced Pages from the userbox stress. As of factionalism (note: no such word exists neither here nor on Wiktionary), please be more elaborate. This template does not encourage anything. Misza13 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete as above MiraLuka 21:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how it qualifies under CSD T1? Misza13 23:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion encourages factions, useless for encyclopedia building, sad that anyone thinks the best way to expess diversity is with bumper stickers. -GTBacchus 22:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see my above reply to Cyde. Misza13 23:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, which part? First you reply to Cyde's claim that it's pointless, by referring to a page where you explain that it was created to make a point. Specifically: you're trying to dialogue via userboxes, by creating a userbox in response to a specific message, in order to send an opposing message, and illustrate it at the same time? Am I understanding you correctly? If so, you definitely haven't changed my mind that way.

Anyway, you go on to claim that this userbox does not encourage anything, and cannot therefore be divisive. I don't even know where to start with that. You're clearly aware of the current controversy over userboxes. Yet you don't find waving a flag for one side to encourage anything? You create a userbox for no reason other than to say something defiant in the midst of a very public dispute, and you don't think that's divisive? As in, encouraging a polarization of the community? I'm kind of stunned. -GTBacchus 05:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per others. SushiGeek 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per others. helohe (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If you want to play with useless templates, go to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Aids self-expression, does no harm and I have no problem with correctly placed userboxes. Cedars 00:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 01:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Misza13. This clearly does not meet T1. --Aaron 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the entire userbox situation is right now causing factionalization and interfering with building an encyclopedia. Thus, it is divisive, and meets the T1 criteria. Michael Ralston 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, there was no "userbox situation" until rogue admins and self-appointed honchos made it their business to delete userboxes en masse, then ignore every consensus to overturn their petty actions. Then they had to nerve to blame the situation on userboxes! This is the exact sort of circular logic that has become a hallmark of the userbox deletionists.

Of course, the userbox deletionists always had such an easy solution within their reach: if they didn't like userboxes so much, they could always just not put them on their page. But such elegant solutions to the problem are seemingly above and beyond the call of duty for the rogue admins and their honchos, who seem compelled to make themselves appear useful. I suspect they're not going to rest until the only argument we're allowed to make is whether the Wiki-bureaucracy should come in an Orwellian or Kafkaesque flavor. --Daniel 04:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

May I point out that Jimbo has said he doesn't like these userboxes? And they've been used for vote stacking and POV-pushing already - That is, in fact, what prompted the entire thing. It's not just that people have some sort of objection to the entire concept of expressing things on user-pages. If it were, you wouldn't see people like Tony who have been deleting some of these userboxes ALSO suggest ways to resolve the entire situation that should, if the point of the userboxes is primarily to express viewpoints, be acceptable. Michael Ralston 05:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any argument more lame than "Jimbo don't like it, ergo I have to destroy it?" I take it that if this is the way things go around here, that were Jimbo to just decide today that he doesn't like wiping his ass, the rest of us would be forced to wear diapers? This interpretation of Misplaced Pages-as-personality cult isn't just "unencyclopedic" it's becoming quite anti-encyclopedic. --Daniel 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Care to address the three sentences that made up the majority of my response now? I mean, okay - you don't think Jimbo declared it to be policy. That may be so, but it doesn't address the other concerns I raised. Michael Ralston 23:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete-I really don't see the harm here.Fsiler 09:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is a very polite approach to viewing the Misplaced Pages community and the use of userboxes; agreeing to disagree. It is unfortunate that it has been rushed for deletion before voting has even completed, because it only argues more strongly the userbox's point. Noirdame 09:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It doesn't matter whether or not it causes harm. It's stupid, worthless and pointless. Proto||type 10:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, no valid reason for deletion. It's certainly not a speedy candidate, but relist it on TFD. Stifle 13:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted no need to factionize. .:.Jareth.:. 16:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. MarkSweep should know better. This is poking fingers into the eyes of the people on the other side of the fence. However, the userbox is clearly intended to polarize its viewers. That's called "polemic". And as such, I don't see a need for it. Try "this user creates userboxes" or "this user is helping form userbox policy." ... aa:talk 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --> Comment (i "voted" already....) I can't assume good faith on this T1. I think the deleter needs a cooldown. Also, I beleve T1 was ment for much more sever cases of divisivness, inflammitory...ness(?) and polematary (New Word?), then this template acheives. I think this deletion has more to do with ongoing WP:POINT Mike McGregor (Can) 13:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously polemical. Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not harmful Funky Monkey 00:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Desysop the person responsible --Thorri 13:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, a pretty harmless little statement on the user's position on a particular issue. CSD T1 simply not revelevant. Admins wield a mop, not a sceptre. Babajobu 16:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time and is disruptive to the wikipedia community. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Desysop whoever pulled this one. Coolgamer 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Guðsþegn. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• VERY STRONG UNDELETE and remove admin privledges from the guy who did this. MiracleMat 09:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Whetever happened to assume good faith? I find this constant calling for de-sysopping or banning of someone because the poster disagrees with something the target did to be very uncivil and verging on personal attacks. I think Misplaced Pages is being damaged by the increasing strident tone of these discussions. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 14:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and desysop Mark Sweep. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Let them have their beleifs --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete' Harmess, no point to in deleting it, agree with Misza13, desysop MarkSweep Change1211 08:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Libertarian US

Since I can argue political affiliation deletions as a generality and get no action therefrom, I propose undeletion of this template. More specifically, I propose to replace the late template with User:RadioKirk/Template:User Libertarian US.

• Undelete per self-nom. RadioKirk talk to me 15:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Coolgamer 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom.--M@rēino 23:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 01:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• UndeleteNoirdame 10:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom. --Siva1979 14:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Until a published, agreed upon (or dictated by Jimbo), consistent, objective policy is present this deletion effort is disruptive and counterproductive. --StuffOfInterest 14:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as inappropriate use of the Template: namespace. If you want to announce your support of unions, do so in userspace, not in templatespace. All political party userboxes are gone for good, there's no way just this one is going to be undeleted. --Cyde Weys 00:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is in the Template: namespace, not user space - this is the wrong place for such things. This vote makes no judgement about this userbox's value to Misplaced Pages. Proto||type 09:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time and is disruptive to the wikipedia community. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pro concealed carry

As with many other userboxes this template has been through a TFD round and has been kept. As with many other userboxes this template was then speedy deleted with the criterion T1. T1 has caused more grief on Misplaced Pages than most other things and it is disrupting the harmony of the encyclopedia. We are not talking about a legal situation like copyvios and we are not talking about main space articles where NPOV certainly reigns. We are talking about advocacy of something that is legal in most of the United States and will likely become legal in even more of the United States this coming year. Until and unless T1 can be re-written into a more objective and implementable form userboxes that have been speedied on that criterion alone should not be speedied. They should go through the normal TFD process. Undelete. David Newton 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be significantly easier with warning of the template's impending deletion. But if we got that via TfD, you might find consensus against you, and you certainly couldn't have that, could you? Undelete. Rogue 9 13:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I don't see how letting other people know you're packing could possibly be of benefit to writing the encyclopedia. If anything, it's threatening. --Cyde Weys 02:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I totally disagree with the idea of concealed carry, but I respect other people's opinions. MiraLuka 02:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor clarification: carrying a concealed weapon is a statement of fact, not an opinion. And your statement is implying that those of us voting "Delete" don't respect other people's opinions, which is absolutely untrue. --Cyde Weys 03:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Coolgamer 03:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. It furthers factionalization. Michael Ralston 04:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I have seen no evidence of factionalization by this userbox.--God of War 05:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That isn't good enough anymore. For something to be on Misplaced Pages (i.e. "kept"), it has to be of value. Especially in the Template: namespace. And something about packing heat is not of value. --Cyde Weys 05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keeep Deleted Belongs in user pages, has nothing at all to do with writing an encyclopedia. Rx StrangeLove 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - another template that doesn't support the mission. Trödel&#149;talk 07:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There is nothing divisive or inflammatory about the right to armed self-defense. --Daniel 15:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - was that irony? Tell Michael Moore and the NRA there's nothing divisive or inflammatory about people's opinions on gun control/gun rights. Wow. -GTBacchus 18:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Your strawmen aside, concealed carry laws are (gasp!) laws. The Second Amendment is still a part of the American constitution. If you think they're divisive and inflammatory, then you may as well ban Americans from using Misplaced Pages. --Daniel 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

    Not a strawman, a direct reply to what you actually said: "there is nothing divisive or inflammatory about the right to armed self-defense." That is an absurd statement; I stand by my reply. It is, empirically, divisive, because it divides people in, for example, America. It's a controversial issue. People get inflamed about it. Taking a stand on it is inherently divisive, as it encourages polarization - agree or don't! A Misplaced Pages article on concealed-carry laws describes the controversy - this userbox advocates for one side of it. If you can't understand how advocacy is divisive, then you don't know the meanings of the words involved. You might be surprised to learn that I strongly support concealed carry laws. I have lots of political opinions, but I don't advertise them on my user page using Misplaced Pages templates. That would be divisive and inflammatory. You go on to say "you may as well ban Americans from using Misplaced Pages". I'll let you figure out which logical fallacy that is. -GTBacchus 16:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. This effort needs put down until T1 can be put in objective terms. --StuffOfInterest 15:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Until we can agree as to what the heck it means, T1 shouldn't be invoked. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 15:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete suspect mis-use or mis-understanding of T1.Mike McGregor (Can) 15:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is precisely what T1 is for; political userboxes have no place in the template namespace. Hard-code it onto your page, if you want it so badly. -GTBacchus 18:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. This template has no role in creating an encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keeep deleted. Obscure and bizarre template that would be much better kept as raw source on your userpage. I can't see many Wikipedians feeling the need to express this exact opinion. Cedars 00:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom. --Aaron 02:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• 'Undelete as useful way to keep track of which Wikipedians not to meet in person. ;) Also useful for NPOV on weapons-related pages.--M@rēino 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Threatening, worthless, divisive crap. Proto||type 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JWSchmidt. Stifle 13:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. SushiGeek 22:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete -- and change wording. I don't think "pro carry" is the right thing to say here, and I get the feeling the user isn't necessarily trying to say that. Let's undelete it and change it to something more appropriate, such as "user understands concealed carry laws." And Cyde, this isn't threatening in the least. ... aa:talk 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Everyone has a right to an opinion. Coolgamer 22:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. Get a blog if you want to express your opinion. There is no case for this ever being productive for an encyclopaedia. User is a Republican, okay. User is a Buddhist, okay. User is for a particular political stance, get a blog. Grace Note 09:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)