Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 2



February 2, 2006

 * 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 Keep, as it has been cleaned up. CFIF 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:EWS CORP
Delete — Ugly, clashes with some pages, needs major cleanup. May as well delete. CFIF 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most of the links presented in this template are completely irrelevant to articles like WCPO-TV. Besides, we already have Category:The E.W. Scripps Company for the curious. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Since there are already templates like Template:CBS and Template:Disney, there's a case to be made to keep this one (even though I don't like these templates to begin with). Major cleanup/streamlining needed if this survives TfD. - Hinto 02:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, similar templates work fine. Should match the others, however, it's currently a mess. -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup  Joe I  22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep-The user who created this is a newbie. VfD's are like poison for newbies, especially when they're this baseless.  Please help the new user clean up the template instead of vfding it, and try to contact newbies before putting up TfD's in the future.  Thanks!--Urthogie 23:19, 3 February 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * 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. -Splash talk 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:PC-461 class coastal patrol ship
Delete — Only used on one article, and the template name is longer than the contents. Not really useful SeventyThree(Talk) 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Evil saltine 05:16, 4 February 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * 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. -Splash talk 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ship fate box
Delete — Not a template, not used or useful, not an article either Rmhermen 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. --CFIF 23:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Delete per nom.  Tvaughn05 e '  (Talk)  (Contribs) 02:50, 5 February 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * 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 Speedily deleted by Mike Rosoft, reason was "Page no longer in use and superceded by other templates". - Bobet 13:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:succession box cont
This page is completely worthless. Its two links have been moved to a more used format and this template is now not used by anyone. Its initial purpose was never necessary to begin with, since a normal Template:Succession box can be compounded with itself. Request speedy deletion. –Whaleyland 19:50, 2 February 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Sex EducatioN
Delete — Another POV pusher template. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all POV pushing templates until POV pushing is officially banned from user pages and an association of Wikipedians created to enforce that policy. Don't confuse the medium with the message. --Malthusian (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Last Malthusian, theres no policy stating that POV userboxes are not allowed - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 15:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - per Jimbo's appeal, political POV templates are not a constructive use of template space, although I don't find this one would prove divisive. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 15:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per personal guideline against the use of POV userboxes. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your personal guideline is not a license to enforce your views on everyone else... which, ironically, you should be against, since you evidently dislike individualism (of which a point of view is part and parcel) so much. Rogue 9 16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My personal guideline is entirely within my purview of what I will vote keep and what I will vote delete on. As there is no userbox policy yet, we are obligated to either follow precedent and/or our own conscience (you are welcome to help develop one, however). Any insinuation that I dislike individuality will be viewed as a personal attack, as this is about userboxes, not userpages or self-expression. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not by ny steach an attack on anyone, nor is it provocatively worded. it is PoV, but does not seem strongly devisive. Keep. DES (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and develop policy against divisive POV userboxes --Doc ask?  18:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see how Wikipedia has actually been divided over the content of a single userbox. I have, however, seen Wikipedia divided due to the continued campaign to censor user opinion, and to harass creators of userboxes. --Daniel 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should stating your opinions be acceptable in prose, but unacceptable when surrounded by a box and accompanied by a little picture? This seems to be an issue of convenience rather than actual belief. --Malthusian (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, and stop making these nominations as they accomplish nothing. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Immediate Keep - another POV deletion nomination. This is not deletable.  --Dschor 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Immediate Keep - Wikipedia userboxes are for all points of views. --CFIF 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't like someone's POV userbox? You're free to a) ignore it or b) make your own. Daniel
 * I hope my vote counts even if I created it, because it's keep. The reason is that this user box is directly opposed to template:User Sex Education which I hope has been nominated too in the sake of equality, and fairness. Chooserr 07:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As soon as this TFD ends with a keep vote, change the box name. EducatioN is confusing. Try Template:User no sex ed or something.--God of War 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ah, divisive axe-grinding propaganda, JUST what Wikipedia needs more of. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks at userbox and feels instantly divided in the community because of the outrage felt from one single box. Now lets get back to what really happens... - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 15:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from the issue of consistency I already mentioned, I too find it difficult to visualize open edit warfare because two editors read each other's userpages and disagreed with their opinion of how teachers should go about telling children where their dicks are and where to put them. --Malthusian (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Death to all opinion-expressing userboxes. --Deathphoenix 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Do I agree with this box? no. Is it a perfectly legitamite opinion? yes. The userbox wars have been going on for more than a month now. Can you guys PLEASE find something better to do. All your doing is wasting everyones time while hoping your side can win by continuing to push these through tfd until you win. That is not what wikipedia is about. TFD discussions have shown a consenus to allow POV in userboxes. Let's update official policy so we can all find something better to do. Seriously, this is getting old.--God of War 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm so tired of these nominations. KEEP Larix 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per calton Trödel• talk 04:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tfd is getting so pointless. I recognize most of the names on here because you guys all vote the same way on every template. It seems like whether or not a template get's deleted or not has more to do with how many people from each "side" show up here than a debate over the merits of this individual userbox. It seems rather pointless to continue to do this for new userboxes week after week when we all know what everyone is going to say. Can we please agree on a userbox policy so we can stop doing this already?--God of War 05:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You should have noticed that I do not vote delete on all userboxes, only on those that are divisive. the latest example is black coffee - unfortunately although i didn't vote delete - i can't find it in me to vote keep either - because i think the whole thing is out of control - so your accusation that i vote the same way on every template is simply not true - some i choose to abstain. Trödel&#149; talk 12:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Opinion in it rubbish IMHO but a user is entitled to hold that view and say that. IMHO. These ridiculous userbox nominations are getting tedious. Should I just create a template to issue the same standard response to all these nutty nominations? lol FearÉIREANN [[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\(caint)  06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Appeal to any user silly enough to include this on their userpage, begging them to remove it before they make themselves look more foolish. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Mark, I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I know from experience what they teach and it is biased. I'm not being foolish. Chooserr 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep helohe (talk)  12:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as expresses a political view and could (just) be divisive. Physchim62 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete la di da --Doc ask?  21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * la di da? What does that mean?  --Dschor 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as God of War. I personally disagree with it, but user pages are the place for POV. The JPS 14:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I personally don't like these political userboxes, but apparently people are desperate for them. At least this one is reasonably civil in its wording. Although I would suggest removing the word 'hopelessly'. Junes 16:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep -- getcrunk   juice  contribs 16:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  21:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep -- per God of War. Can we fucking stop wasting time this nonsense already? There are oodles of articles which are in need of improvement. Mind your own business and go edit some of them. --Dragon695 03:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per David. --F a ng Aili 04:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There is nothing wrong with "POV" 'user-boxes.'--Anglius 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Divisive.--cj | talk 14:03, 9 February 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy
Look, we can all be angry at admins who don't follow policy. I'm annoyed by it myself, and wish that people, and admins especially, stick to policy. But adding a link to Kelly Martin's RFC using the word "pissed" is just a personal attack. Hope I am following policy by bringing it here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Definitely a personal attack. - Chairman S. 11:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * or perhaps not? --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: perusal of WP:CSD suggests that db-attack might well apply. Any takers? —Phil | Talk 11:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if we could, I recommend that we don't. It would just lead to more controversy and more "pissed off" users, and we've had quite enough of that. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already speedied earlier versions for that very reason: so long as this template remains "within policy", let us discuss it here. Physchim62 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, though the link may not be the best choice, the sentiment is valid. It is not a personal attack, because the user is upset about an action, not a person.  If you feel that the link is the source of the problem, find a better page to link to that represents the subject.  --Dschor 12:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A house divided against itself cannot stand.  If wikipedians don't believe in wikipedia then what's the point?  If you chose to be part of any "team" (marriage, football) and don't like how it's going, either work to fix it, or leave.  But hanging around being disparaging isn't a valid option.--Esprit15d 13:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is part of how we fix it. Deleting this template would be an attempt to obscure the problem, rather than solve it. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The link has been changed, plus it is on about an action of disregard, not a person. Espirit15d's suggestion is not true. Are you suggesting that every UK resident that didnt vote Labour leave the country? You dont just quit, you fight for whats right. This userbox can send out a warning to admins that people arent happy about them breaking policy - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The answer is for admins to grow up, and stop violating policy. --Daniel 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Divisive userboxes are not a proper use of template space. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * TfD nominations of harmless userboxes are not a proper use of TfD. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as needlessly divisive. Both sides need to grow up here, but I'm glad to see this one here rather than DRV. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This template is not divisive - it is descriptive. It is also timeous.  (thanks, Doc)  --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep this expresses a PoV about an action, adn a note unreasoanble one. Besides, the box has been edited to remove the link so many above are offended by. DES (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trolling. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never seen any definition for "trolling" that didn't ultimately boil down to "I disagree with him". Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS)</TT> 01:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, please report problem admins (if any) on RFC or ANI, rather than making attacks on them.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not an attack. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete . This template says either one of two things: either that the user doesn't think admins should violate policy (which is a truism and therefore useless) or that the user thinks a certain admin or admins has violated policy, but doesn't feel like saying which, which is cowardice. --Malthusian (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Recreate then delete again. Clearly not a personal attack, but still rubbish (as above). --Malthusian (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete trolling, and develop policy against divisive POV userboxes --Doc ask?  18:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This deletion nomination is the trolling - the box is fine. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, although I see someone already decided to start another fight by deleting it out of process. Make the link point to WP:ACC or something similar instead of to a user RFC. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and keep speedied. personal attack Trödel• talk 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * or not. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * O RLY? --Malthusian (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. And might I say that this out-of-process deletion, and other flagrant bad-faith moves is exactly the reason why this userbox should not only be allowed, but actively encouraged. The clique passing themselves off as "neutral" as they make completely biased and subjective decisions need to see that we've got an eye on them. --Daniel 06:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The irony is, that the thing this userbox brings to people's attention has just happened to it. Maybe if admins started doing their job properly, instead of deleting something they didnt like, then this userbox wouldnt have been needed to start with. The solution is for admins to start following policy instead of acting like God in their own little world, deleting stuff without concensus! - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Restore because I want to see what we're supposed to be reaching consensus on. Rogue 9 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've recreated the box and will do so again if asked if consensus has not been reached here. I don't care if you love this box or hate this box(I don't have any opinion) -- if we disregard this process, those who wish to harm Wikipedia will win. Please, if you dislike the box and you're an admin, just vote like anyone else, or close the debate after 7 days. Karm  a  fist  18:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless, divisive in intent. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the userbox, or the deletion nomination?? --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per arguments above. We don't need another template to encourage divisiveness. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * or a deletion debate that does the same?? --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Poisoning the well. It's one thing to dissent, another to make a badge saying it. --Improv 20:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Expressing opinion is evil? We should all just shut up?  --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Death to all opinion-expressing userboxes. --Deathphoenix 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer the slogan: Speedy Deletion is not a Toy, but yours appears to be catchy as well. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not? Oh boy, I'd better whip out my Undeletion ray gun... --Deathphoenix 14:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Malthusian. --Kbdank71 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete uncivil. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree that the template is inappropriate. However, I think there is a valid question here, which is how is a user supposed to deal with an admin who is violating Wikipedia policy?  There's a clear power differential which could cause (even if only in perception) a case of bullying, where a user with more power (an admin) is pushing their will upon someone with less power (a non-admin user).  I  have no opinion on whether Kelly Martin did or didn't do anything wrong, but for cases where an admin is stepping outside the bounds, is there a clear guideline somewhere on Wikipedia that advises users how to report problems?  An RfC is a bureaucratic nightmare, and AN/I is hard to find, plus it can be a chaotic madhouse, where reports get pounced on by whoever happens to be reading the board at the time (who may or may not have time to give it a serious read).  Another problem with AN/I is that things just scroll off in a few days, so there's no centralized repository.  Perhaps there should be some policy like requiring each admin to have a subpage like "/Reported incidents" where users could express concerns (or praise)?  Sure there'd be a lot of junk that would accumulate on them, but it would also be a straightforward place to post something, that would be easy to find and easy to deal with, but not too public.  Elonka 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Restore again, because MarkSweep is too damned fast. I note that it is ironic that he says Karmafist's recreation was out of process, when the only thing that was out of process was his initial deletion.  Rogue 9 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Smite from above as per above. Jtkiefer T   05:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment to administrators Guys, this is just a userbox. Don't get all in a huff, cast your delete votes and eagerly await the day when this TfD debate expires. Yes, in the deletion log I read that it is "trolling" or a "personal attack", but funnily enough I don't see those criteria at WP:CSD. No vote. Ashibaka tock 05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just realized the irony of admins ignoring policy and speedy deleting this template. Now that's BJAODN quality. Ashibaka tock 05:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, this one should be preserved for posterity. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, then send those users back to the salt mines. Crack that whip! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep helohe (talk)  12:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mark, I failed to notice your appointment to supreme dictator of Wikipedia. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to where you get off deleting things without waiting for consensus?  Rogue 9 13:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Exactly. Even with this userbox, admins still dont get that they act as little dictators going round Wikipedia deleting stuff without concensus! I would have to say that this whole userbox war is making admins look real bad. People become admins, and many are good ones. Its the ones who delete things without concensus that are giving the other admins a bad name. This point in time is a real low point for many admin's credability and reliability in my opinion, and I can see that there a lot of other people who think so too. As I said above, if many admins actually did their job properly, or were demoted to non-admins when they continually did something like this, then this userbox wouldnt have been needed to start with! - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 13:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the two comments above. Really, why such childish behavior? It's disrupting all our efforts to build consensus on what to do with the userboxes. Larix 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The weakest of weak keeps (in its non-PA version). Any user placing this on their user page is basically saying "I don't like the current version of WP:DR". Actually, that might be a more NPOV wording ;) Physchim62 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesnt say that. The user may well like WP:DR, but feels that admins pay absolutely no attention to it or any other rules regarding concensus, as demonstrated by the fact that this template was deleted half-way through the discuccion - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 20:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if the links are changed Chooserr 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User:MarkSweep never explained why he speedy deleted this, so I am now gonna vote Keep so it may be preserved forevermore. Personal attack issue has been cleared up. Ashibaka tock 03:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep current version. (I happen to display a subst'd version on my page).--Blu Aardvark | (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Divisive. Constructive criticism is much harder than slapping on another userbox, but ultimately more useful. Junes 16:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this juvenile nonsense. --  Dalbury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but I do think the links should be changed. After all, Kelly Martin isn't the only one. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep current version, if for no other reason then the fact that this deletion proves it's point. --Dragon695 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in current form, with no links to specific RfCs or RfAs. --F a ng Aili 04:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Damn you admins who can't use wikipedia the correct way.  You take my pictures away.  You block me for no reason.  You propose my two favorite user boxes for deletion.  You revert usefull edits.  You tell me not to "edit peoples user pages", then, you go right around and do it to me.  This is opinion people!  You want to delete this because it offends people, then you can delete this: user GWB2!--Holocron 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Charles Stewart. A (former) personal attack; even if it were recreated afresh without the personal attack, it would still be needlessly divisive. Michael Slone (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that I finally get to see what we're deciding on. To note, the speedy deletion while the template was undergoing TfD pissed me off enough that I'd have voted keep regardless of content at this point.  Rogue 9 12:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you get into the habit of "voting keep" for such spurious reasons on forae that aren't actually votes (like TfD, AfD, RfD, and so on), then sooner or later you're going to get a rude shock. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet voting delete for spurious reasons is perfectly acceptable, evidently. I see.  Also, I would vote keep on this in any case as it does not merit deletion under any Wikipedia policy in it's current form.  Rogue 9 14:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It all depends on the admin who closes the discussion. Votes on way or another, or indeed the opinions of those who insist in believing that this is a vote, can be discounted if they don't actually make any worthwhile argument.  I won't presume to speak for whoever is going to close this TfD, I'm just making sure you understand the possibilities ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep and an honorary adminship for the person who had the courage to make it. --CJ Marsicano 18:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep since it no longer points to a specific action and/or person. // Liftarn
 * Give me a K-E-E-P! Mike McGregor (Can) 12:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment For those who think that this is divisive, why not just cut off the problem at the source and delete admins who speedy delete stuff during concensus? It is those admins that are causing people to be divisive, this is just a justified responce. Us wikipedians dont want to just stand back and see things get speedily deleted during a concensus. I still cant figure out why people do it. All it does, is prevents people from voting on the template, aticle, etc because they cannot see what is there! If the concensus looks like its swinging towards delete, then why not just wait a day or two and see it through properly. These sort of admins bring it on themselves, and if they wonder why people use this sort of userbox, the answer is because this isnt the USSR - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 21:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - linking to Kelly Martin's RFC is probably a personal attack, but since that link has now been changed I don't see any problem with this. Expressing support for Wikipedia policy is not one of the deletion criteria Cynical 11:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Divisive.--cj | talk 14:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The template proposed for deletion no longer exists (the link to Kelly Martin's RfC has been removed), so this nomination is now invalid anyway. Anyone will be free to recreate the template in its current form immediately upon deletion (as Karmafist has already promised to do above), so why drag this out any longer? --Aaron 00:51, 10 February 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> ''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. -Splash talk 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:CityRailSydney/Navigation end

 * Delete — This template was only a copy of Template:CityRailSydney modified to fit Redfern railway station, Sydney. I fixed that so has made this template obsolete. Harryboyles 10:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. - Chairman S. 11:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete if nom is creator. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 13:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the template is a direct copy, it is illegal. The substance of the template, however, is quite useful. If someone removes the cityrail logo, changes the formatting etc, it would be very good for wikipedia. A J Hay 13:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - This template is the same as Template:CityRailSydney, but the only difference is that the author of the modified CityRailSydney template added two |} to deal with incorrect table rendering. I fixed the incorrect table rendering and as such this template is no longer required Harryboyles 05:41, 6 February 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User CAoW

 * See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shanedidona/CAoW, and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 2.


 * Delete — Totally inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - attempt to get around previous AfD decision.--Sar e kOfVulcan 08:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Recreation of deleted content. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Hipocrite. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.