Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Access Denied/Template:uw-rmwarning2

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Access Denied/Template:uw-rmwarning2
Inaccurate warning template in user space. 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This warning is directly contrary to the guidelines at WP:UP. In template space it would be subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD as a misrepresentation of policy. --RL0919 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as directly contrary to policy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete- directly opposite to policy and established practice. Reyk  YO!  00:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, misleading template, directly contrary to established policy. Nsk92 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. This user is indefinitely blocked, as directly contrary to established policy. JJ98 (Talk) 21:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nsk92. User will unlikely edit it again since he's indefinitely blocked and the template's unnecessary.  WAYNE  SLAM 01:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete blocked user --Mono (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete misrepresents policy to the point where it would be eligible for T2 if it were in the template namespace. But since it's not, just normal delete. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 03:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – Any user CAN delete anything from their talk page. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; users are allowed to remove anything from their own talk page. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 15:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Why are users nominating articles / user subpages for deletion after a user has been indefblocked? Hey  Mid  (contribs) 15:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a template that misrepresents policy; the creator's block status had no bearing on why I nominated this. 28bytes (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.