Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:26, 15 April 2006

Shortcut

[[:|WP:UBD]]

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.

Kept by a valid TFD, then unilaterally speedied by Sean Black. Recommend restoration. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^ask? 10:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Quite clearly a T1 deletion, also wasn't unilaterally deleted by Sean Black another editor had tagged it for deletion. --pgk^(talk) 10:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as Pgk and Doc. Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - per above. This is a clear application of T1. --Cyde Weys 13:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, T1 all the way. James F. (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, this is why we made T1 -- Tawker 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Keep deleted - valid T1, as above, below, etc. - divisive template. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for the obvious reason. Please stop wasting our time with these obvious losers. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Purely out of interest, how does one multilaterally speedy something? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

This is basically the proposed new policy that, unlike articles, categories, images and other templates, userboxes are so precious to Wikipedia, 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 ^ask? 16:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+1, Insightful --Cyde Weys 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted Per Doc glasgow. -- Banez 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep deleted — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 21:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore.StrangerInParadise 01:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Undelete, not divisive The Ungovernable Force 07:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Same Sex Marriage

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

Keep deleted as above, and to be even-handed. --Doc ^ask? 10:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as above, again another editor had tagged for deletion so wasn't unilateral. --pgk^(talk) 10:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep deleted per Doc and Pgk.--Sean Black ^(talk) 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - per above. This is a clear application of T1. --Cyde Weys 13:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, T1 all the way. James F. (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, again, this is why we made T1 -- Tawker 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Keep deleted - valid T1. If there were ever two divisive templates, I think we've found them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for the obvious reason. Please stop wasting our time with these obvious losers. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Per above. -- Banez 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 21:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore.StrangerInParadise 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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 ^ask? 09:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep Deleted. Valid deletion. Rx StrangeLove 06:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete--Not divisive. The Ungovernable Force 07:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussions

See /Archive

Template:User independent Iraq (result: kept deleted)
Template:User antiparty (result: kept deleted)
Template:User review (result: kept deleted)
Template:User Copyright Nazi (result: kept deleted)
User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF (result: undeleted)
Template: User evol-X (result: kept deleted)
Template: User feminist (result: undeleted)
Template:User userbox insurgent (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
Template:User userbox revolution (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
Template:User marriage man-woman (result: no majority to endorse deletion, no supermajority to overturn; I'm re-creating and taking it to TFD)
Template:User opposes ubx screwing (result: kept deleted as protected page)
Template:User USA Police State (result)
Template:User No Meat (result: recreated as redirect)
George W. Bush templates
Pseudo-templates Userbox:Anti ACLU, Userbox:Anti UN (result)

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 **Sorry, but this isn't a vote.  You haven't addressed any of the substantive issues as to why you think T1 should be overriden in this case.  I'd love to hear why you think this template isn't divisive.  --[[User:Cyde|<font color="#0055aa"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''Cyde&nbsp;Weys'''</span></font>]] 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.  [[User:StrangerInParadise|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.--[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] 09:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Undelete''' No evidence has been presented for users taking offense at the sight of this template (besides the anti-userbox party).--'''[[User:God_of_War|God]] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> [[User Talk:God_of_War| 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. [[User:Avalon|Avalon]] 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)