Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 31

< August 30	September 1 >

August 31

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Sherurcij

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Robdurbar 22:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a user-specific version of {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. Either should be userfied or just replaced by {{NoRightsReserved}} or {{PD-self}}. howch e ng {chat} 22:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It, I suggest, should be userfied to User:Sherurcij/CopyrightedFreeUse. The creator may want to use it that includes his/her username indicating as an author. -- ADNghiem501 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm strongly against personalized copyright status tags. Pagra shtak 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Michael 08:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usage of personal tags makes it harder to quickly identify what copyright tag th eimage has. Creator's name should just be put into the description. Hbdragon88 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User Wic

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encourages people to impersonate the Communist Vandal (similar to why other pages were deleted - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2). —Mets501 (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As far as I can tell, the mere fact that "anyone can edit" is encouragement enough for people to vandalize. – Clockwork Soul 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit that WP:DENY makes some very good points. I withdraw my support. – Clockwork Soul 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DENY. Pagra shtak 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:DENY is only an essay, not policy. – ClockworkSoul 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware. I am not saying that this template violates policy, I am simply using WP:DENY to explain my rationale succinctly. Pagra shtak 17:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's an official guideline now. —Mets501 (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not quite: it's a proposed guideline. Of course, I fully support it actually becoming official. – Clockwork Soul 05:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DENY (good essay) --Doc 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DENY - the page Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism is no longer exist. Big top 16:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User vandalized

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - no delete votes but me, apparantly people think I nominated this to prove a point, which is completely wrong —Mets501 (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this does is encourage vandals to vandalize the user page to raise the counter. Strong delete —Mets501 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As one who has it, I have not seen that effect. If we were to use "encourages vandals" as our chief criterion for not doing things, we'd have a Wikipedia without any school articles or deletion discussions since, IMO, those do a lot more to encourage vandalism than that box. Daniel Case 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Daniel Case, the only thing that seems to make people vandalise my user page is reverting their vandalism on other pages. Budgiekiller 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encouraging vandalism is a weak argument for deletion. Wikipedia, by its very nature, encourages vandalism by allowing any user to edit its pages. Shall we delete Wikipedia entirely? I think not. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly as Mets501 has a user box which states "Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with Vandalproof" - surely even more incitement to commit mayhem? Budgiekiller 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what say you, Mets501? Doesn't your Vandal Proof on your page invite people to vandalize your page? Furthermore, nominating this template could be dangerous vandal-wise as well. Scary times? -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring out the duck tape, seal the windows... vandals abound! Budgiekiller 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've never had anyone vandalize my userpage for anything other than reverting them elsewhere. No reason for this to be deleted. EVula 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please cite evidence that this template encourages vandalism. As far as I can tell, the mere fact that "anyone can edit" is encouragement enough. – Clockwork Soul 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and many of the like. —Mets501 (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably one of the most benign examples of vandalism I've ever seen! Still, general consensus seems to be keep, so not to worry. Budgiekiller 19:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Duwayitheru was first alerted to Goldom's page by the later welcoming the former. [2] We should ban use of {{welcome}} instead. EVula 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's very telling. Perhaps we should delete user pages because they encourage people to vandalize them? – Clockwork Soul 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clockworksoul. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. -- ADNghiem501 01:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Bot vandalized

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - no delete votes but me, apparantly people think I nominated this to prove a point, which is completely wrong —Mets501 (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this does is encourage vandals to vandalize the user page to raise the counter. Strong delete —Mets501 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence that this box actually makes people vandalize the page. EVula 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as EVula, where's the evidence that supports this, or is it original research?! Budgiekiller 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As far as I can tell, the mere fact that "anyone can edit" is encouragement enough for people to vandalize. – Clockwork Soul 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User vandalized lots

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - no delete votes but me, apparantly people think I nominated this to prove a point, which is completely wrong —Mets501 (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this does is encourage vandals to vandalize the user page to raise the counter. Strong delete —Mets501 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence that this box actually makes people vandalize the page. EVula 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as EVula, where's the evidence that supports this, or is it original research?! Budgiekiller 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As far as I can tell, the mere fact that "anyone can edit" is encouragement enough for people to vandalize. – Clockwork Soul 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.