Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Userbox debates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:26, 15 April 2006 editDoc glasgow (talk | contribs)26,084 edits →[]: not a vote← Previous edit Revision as of 10:21, 15 April 2006 edit undoStrangerInParadise (talk | contribs)995 edits →[]: reply to DocNext edit →
Line 57: Line 57:
**It is a vote, brevity is not a basis for disenfranchisement (so don't even think about it). I do not need to supply a reason other than ''I think this should be restored'', the implicit reason (on this page) is ''invalid T1''. Since you ask, however: it is not divisive in the sense of T1. While the issue may polarize voters, there is no evidence to think that any wikipedians are bothered by the userbox. It is this difference which most admins abusing T1 fail to grasp: divisive politics does not make automatically for a divisive userbox. In this vein, various anti-admin-abuse boxes T1-speedied are also not divisive: most Wikipedians do not mind their existence, even if the underlying politics are potentially divisive. ] 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) **It is a vote, brevity is not a basis for disenfranchisement (so don't even think about it). I do not need to supply a reason other than ''I think this should be restored'', the implicit reason (on this page) is ''invalid T1''. Since you ask, however: it is not divisive in the sense of T1. While the issue may polarize voters, there is no evidence to think that any wikipedians are bothered by the userbox. It is this difference which most admins abusing T1 fail to grasp: divisive politics does not make automatically for a divisive userbox. In this vein, various anti-admin-abuse boxes T1-speedied are also not divisive: most Wikipedians do not mind their existence, even if the underlying politics are potentially divisive. ] 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
***Actualy, it is not a vote. It is a discussion to determine whether this is validly deleted under T1. Any comments that do not address that issue (or call for deletion/undeletion on other grounds) may be discounted.--] ] 09:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC) ***Actualy, it is not a vote. It is a discussion to determine whether this is validly deleted under T1. Any comments that do not address that issue (or call for deletion/undeletion on other grounds) may be discounted.--] ] 09:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
***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? ] 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).--'''] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> ]''' 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Undelete''' No evidence has been presented for users taking offense at the sight of this template (besides the anti-userbox party).--'''] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> ]''' 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' (I repeat myself to humour ] Such userboxes are not divisive (in that they create divisions) they merely illuminate divisions which already exist. Unless the only people to edit the encyclopaedia are opinion-less robots it is dishonest for us all to pretend not to have a POV. However, the encyclopaedia articles should be kept free of POV and this is facilitated by everyone else knowing what consistitutes a particular editor's biases. ] 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Undelete''' (I repeat myself to humour ] Such userboxes are not divisive (in that they create divisions) they merely illuminate divisions which already exist. Unless the only people to edit the encyclopaedia are opinion-less robots it is dishonest for us all to pretend not to have a POV. However, the encyclopaedia articles should be kept free of POV and this is facilitated by everyone else knowing what consistitutes a particular editor's biases. ] 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:21, 15 April 2006

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

April 14, 2006

Template:User marriage man-woman

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

Template:User Same Sex Marriage

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

  • 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 — 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)

Archived discussions

See /Archive