Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 5



January 5

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

The result of the debate was delete. → Aza Toth 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sq 300 et al.
Delete all — This is actually a TfD for 14 incomplete, obsolete, unused and long-dormant templates on Polish squadrons. BD2412 T 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The templates are:
 * Template:Sq 300
 * Template:Sq_301
 * Template:Sq_302
 * Template:Sq_304
 * Template:Sq_305
 * Template:Sq_306
 * Template:Sq_307
 * Template:Sq_308
 * Template:Sq_309
 * Template:Sq_315
 * Template:Sq_316
 * Template:Sq_317
 * Template:Sq_318
 * Template:Sq_663


 * Delete all, absolutely no reason to have a separate template (that looks just the same) for each of these. - Bobet 01:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Unfinished and unused templates, which were created by a user that has not contributed since Feb. 2005. Don't really see a future for them.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  07:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Not only are they unfinished, unused, and unlikely to be finished, to the extent that they are finished they don't seem to fill a role best served by templates; it would be better to just put the code on the squadron's page itself. Lord Bob 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all--Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Totally unnecessary. Dustimagic 01:28, 7 January 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 templates's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was orphan, then delete. → Aza Toth 19:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:PA-KingCountyGOV
Delete — image copyright tag that is not compatible with the GFDL as it precludes the sale of the material. Discussed at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Non-free license. Possibly WP:CSD reason I3. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, incompatible with the restriction on "no comerical use" image tags. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It is a non-commercial use template created after the date where new non-commercial or permission images would be speedies.  To that extent, I've added noncommercial so that images tagged with this will be easy to deal with. -- WC Quidditch   &#9742;  &#9998;  14:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Important Comment: Please go through and delete the images that use this template before you delete the template itself. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 15:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense sort of - The people here probably should make the county to change it's policy, as it was created by a 'government' it should be fully PD and not only partally PD


 * 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 article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was speedied at creator's request --Doc ask? 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User support Kelly Martin
I think it was pretty obvious from Requests for comment/Kelly Martin that she doesn't like boxes like these. Let's do her a favor and go through proper process to remove this insult to her beliefs from Wikipedia. karmafist 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since a user page doesn't have to be NPOV and this message of endorsement cannot be regarded as insulting. ( +Comment somehow two templates got mixed up, can somebody please fix that, because I do not want to modify it ). KittenKlub 16:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. David | Talk 16:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you please explain your reasoning? I'm just saving her the trouble of nominating this. karmafist 17:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See this edit from Kelly Martin. She includes as an unacceptable class of box "Any userbox which tends to serve the purpose of organizing Wikipedians along political, ideological (other than Wikipedia-specific ideologies...)" (my emphasis). Support for a particular Wikipedian in an internal election is clearly a Wikipedia-specific stance. Therefore Kelly has not identified this as an unacceptable type of userbox (it was created by one who has in general supported her reasoning on the userbox issue) and you are exhibiting bad faith in suggesting that she does. David | Talk 17:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think that the nomination could perhaps have been phrased differently, but this isn't an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources, and promotes factionalism.  Jkelly 16:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hey, I think there's an encyclopedia around here somewhere, and it ain't finished yet. android  79  17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep pending a more complete userbox policy. I believe that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. DES (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Does anyone realise how HARD it is not to post the photoshopped image I have of "her" with a Stalinesque moustache and eating a baby? :| I know people have no sense of humour. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be damn careful if I were you. Joke or not, such an image could lead to legal action. That's something the dear "community" can't protect you from. Rob Church Talk 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seeing as Ms. Martin hates these things so much, we'd probably be doing her a service. Morgan695 17:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Can it get any more ironic than this? My eyes almost popped out when I saw this on my watchlist. BJAODn-fy or Delete. --Gurubrahma 17:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How did it get on your watchlist if you hadn't already seen it? ~Confused~ -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also saw this on my watchlist, because I have TFD on it, and the edit summary is telling enough. -- grm_wnr Esc  17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a superb parody of the whole saga. Also, per all your arguments that I can do what I like with my user space. Rob Church Talk 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You forgot the "Nyaa-nyaa :P". Great, are we now down to the "lol PWNED YOURSSLF N00B" level of discussion (that goes for many people here, but I'm replying to you because I thought you'd be above this)? Oh, and keep plus stop listing stuff here just to make some point. -- grm_wnr Esc  18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stronger Than Dirt Keep - and I'm no fan of Ms. Martin's actions, either. How's that for NPOV? ;) --CJ Marsicano 17:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No vote. But I wanted to state that David hit the nail on the head.  Contrary to popular belief, I have no objection to userboxes generally, and even have seven of them on my user page.  Furthermore, I'm touched that there are people who feel strongly enough about my competency and committment to go so far as to create such a template.  I do think that many of the people involved in this particular discussion are exhibiting a great deal of hypocrisy, however ("userboxes are fine, except when they support that woman we don't like, then they need to be deleted" is a good summary of some of the arguments for deletion above).  I encourage the administrator who closes this discussion to give due weight to the arguments of editors who are recommending deletion based on personal animosity instead of reasoned principle.  I'd also suggest that the people who insist that I "hate these things so much" need to (a) go back and reread my comments on the matter of userboxes and (b) go reread WP:CIVIL.    I also think that nominating this template for deletion was a very poor move on the part of whoever did it (I didn't notice) since it was virtually certain to create strife in the community.  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep an eye on people using it. TCorp 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If templates that are attacking Kelly have to be deleted, then these should be deleted too. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 18:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Templates that attack Kelly go against WP policy of no personal attacks. As far as I know, there is no policy against "defending" another's actions. Pepsidrinka 21:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't it go against WP:NPOV, since for some reason people insist on applying that to userboxes too?Tommstein 09:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree but keep - I totally disagree with the template and its contents, but I'll defend to the death its right to exist. [[Image:Anglo-Indian identity.svg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As above. I'm in favor of keeping userboxes I don't agree with as well. Larix 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, naturally. Hurts noone IMO. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 19:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipolitical userboxes are no good. Divisive and factionalizing. (Note: my original vote here was deleted in an edit conflict. Everyone, please watch out for this.) FreplySpang (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Haha very funny. the wub "?!"  20:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Kelly hates userboxes.Gateman1997 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. People should be able to express their views on userpages, within reason. Templates like this are part of that process. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Deano. D-Day 21:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per norm.--God of War 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Keith Greer [[Image:Flag of Northern Ireland2.svg|30px]] 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, bad faith, WP:POINT, attack. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep bad faith nom. Sarah Ewart 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this box as well as all others. It was created for the purposes of being nominated for deletion anyway.  I think it is funny, myself -  but it should be part of a set.  How about this for a partner?
 * --Dschor 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect, regrettably, that there are some here that might say Keep if Kelly said Delete and Delete if Kelly said Keep... so what does her "no vote" mean under that logic? If I vote keep does that mean we are going to get 43 other boxes showing who is supporting whom? Blech. If I vote Delete do I get accused of hypocrisy because I'm a supporter of boxes, even ones that show POV? Blech again. Whoever nominated this really ought to ask him or herself why exactly they did it! So, dear readers, after reading all that, you probably are hoping I'll finally express my opinion!. Well here you go: Mu ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I offered "no vote"? I'm not totally stupid. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm fine with people expressing support for Kelly or anyone else, but there's no need to have a template for it. This sort of thing could get silly.  JYolkowski // talk 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. By the logic espoused by kelly martin in her recent purge on boxes, this would be a very strong contender for deletion, since its entire aim is to further factions on wiki. However, i do not see this as such a bad thing. She has become a real issue which needs to be debated and faced. Declarations of peoples positions on this should not be discouraged.
 *  Strong Keep  &mdash; And also any userboxes saying the opposite, for example: "this user thinks Kelly Martin should no way be an arbitrator or hold any position of power whatsoever": Both are just as much valid points of view. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  10:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. as per reasoning in TfD above. Dysprosia 11:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete campaign buttons. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Treat same as Template:User oppose Kelly Martin. My preference would be the removal of both, but I'm ok with both being kept.  I'd be concerned with the fairness of allowing support OR opposition, but not both. kenj0418 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete was originally parody and humour by Rob Church, but is now being used as grounds for nastiness by Kelly's detractors. Perhaps BJAODN. --Doc ask? 15:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete was originally parody and humour by Rob Church, but is now being used as grounds for nastiness by Kelly's detractors. Perhaps BJAODN. --Doc ask? 15:36, 6 January 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; 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 templates's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete, rather weak thou. → Aza Toth 19:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but what was your vote count and what is the threshold for templates? James S. 20:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User allow fairuse
I don't think this needs a massive amount of explanation. Suffice it to say, that this template may be used to convey the opinion that our users don't like US copyright law. Sorry, but you can't vote that away. Rob Church Talk 12:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Whoever created and whoever uses this template needs to have the difference between the law and Wikipedia policy explained to them.  [[Sam Korn ]] 12:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Just another attempt at censorship in the user space. This template has not hurt anybody - leave it be.  --Dschor 12:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for now Fair use provision in the US copyright law does not (and will not) specifically target the use of copyrighted image within a particularly defined (in the law) namespace in a particularly defined website. The statement "it's the law" in Template talk:User allow fairuse immutable version implies such a misleading statement, that, the action of which, is explicitly and/or specifically prohibited and/or targeted by law. Keep until relevant discussions in WP:FU and Proposed policy on userboxes have reached a consensus regarding the issue. -- Carlsmith 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete speedily as disruption. --Pjacobi 13:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carlsmith. Larix 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, for two reasons. First, that whole law thing.  Second, it says "vote".  Users who don't know how "voting" works on Wikipedia should not be displaying templates encouraging misuse of policy discussions. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Dschor. It's ironic that those who want to delete this invoke dislike of George W. Bush since they've invoked his mindset over the past week: i.e "the ends justify the means". karmafist 15:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Images which qualify as fair use in an article might not qualify as fair use in a userbox, and this is not the fault of any Wikipedia policy. Fair use is a complicated concept, and it's not Wikipedia's idea. To me, usage of this templates suggests misunderstanding of the concept of fair use. However, deleting the template won't do anything about that, and keeping it will not do further harm. So I lean towards weak keep. EldKatt (Talk) 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * After some further thought, I realize that this template can indeed do further harm, by increasing the number of copyvios that have to be dealt with. Ignorance of legal issues can't be deleted, but it can be at least slightly prevented from spreading via templates. I change my mind to delete. EldKatt (Talk) 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Opinions may vary but copyright law is law and no vote on Wikipedia will change it. David | Talk 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - the creator and users of this template obviously have a weak grasp on copyright law. The use of this template advocates actions that would be copyright infringement - illegal under U.S. Copyright law.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - As I understand it, the rational behind this is inspired by Wikipedia's own rules on fair use images appearing in userboxes being somewhat over-the-top, as is explored in the Firefox template discussions. A logo or such that the creator and/or company allows to be used to support that product and/or company is currently not allowed in userboxes, per WP's rules - not US copyright laws. If I misunderstand this, I'm sure someone will correct me. - Hayter 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats not my understanding. Wikipedia contributions are licensed under the GFDL or a compatible license (cc-by-sa, public domain, etc.).  Logos and such are not licensed under the GFDL and so must be used under the fair use provision of U.S. copyright law, or not be used at all.  So there are two options for image use: free content or fair use.  Any use that falls outside of that is copyright or license infringement.  So even if the license says that you can do X, but the image is not under a GFDL-compatible license, the only way that image is usable in Wikipedia is under fair use. Even if you are doing X, if X falls outside of fair use, you can't do it in Wikipedia.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But that's it - even when an image falls under fair use, WP does not allow it to be used in a userbox - only on a relevant article. As DES says below, this is a stricter application than US law. - Hayter 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, "fair use" is a defence for a use in a particular context. If you want to write up a detailed rationale for the use of an image in a userbox template, do so.  Use Template:foo.  The generic logo fair use rationale is that the image is used for identification purposes in an article.  Use of a logo image in a userbox is what is against policy.  If you can write up a reasonable rationale and use Non-free fair use in that would pass fairusereview, then by all means, do so.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per fuddlemark. Jkelly 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per law of the United States of America. Stupid United States of America. Why can't your copyright law allow encyclopaedias to use whatever the heck we want? Someday, we will have an encyclopaedic wikistate of our own...perhaps we should buy Sealand with that $336,539.23 we just raised. Lord Bob 17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Wikipedia policy is currently significantly strictler than U.S. copyright law. Some uses of fair uses images which are pretty clearly legel, and others which are at least arguably legal, are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. This template advocates changing Wikipedia policy, not copyright law. There is at least a good argument that the changes it advocates would be legal under U.S. copyright law, at least in many specific cases. Whether this is a good idwa for Wikipedia is debatable, but this template is precisely an attempt to join that debate. There is no valid reason to delete this. DES (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stronger Than Dirt Keep as per all other supporters, especially DESiegel. --CJ Marsicano 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Copyright law is complex and this just perpetuates the muddled lack of clarity regarding this. There is no such thing as a "Fair use image". There are images for which "Fair use" can be claimed. It is relatively straightforward to make a strong case for such use on articles directly pertaining to a topic. Making a case for legitimate fair use in the user namespace is much more tenuous (not impossible, but likely far less likely than many proponents seem to think). Better to err on the side of caution with this one, IMO. older≠wiser 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The people voting delete here seem to be arguing against the ideology behind this template rather than the template itself. As I have explained above, I also disagree with the view expressed by the template, but that does not provide me with a reason to vote delete for the very template, as far as I can see: if people feel a desire to say, in effect, (my free interpretation) "I don't know what fair use means and intend to vote on the basis of a misunderstanding", so be it. I'd sooner delete all the meaningless templates about what beverages you prefer, but there doesn't seem to be much consensus towards that either. EldKatt (Talk) 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure if your comment was directed at me, but my vote was not only about the ideology of the template. The template as written perpetuates a fundamental misunderstaning that there is a category of things such as "Fair use images". There is not. There is only specific uses of specific images that can claimed to be "fair use". Beyond that however, this template is not directly helpful in building an encyclopedia. I have no objection if people were to write the equivalent text on their User pages; but there is no need for a template. older≠wiser 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO "Fair use image" in this context meas eaither a) "An image tagfed with one of the fair use licese tags" or b) "an image not available under a free license, and so usable only under fair use if at all" or c) both of the above. Given that understanding I find the phrase useful, although some people may misunderstand it. But then some people may misunderestand almost anything to do with copyright. DES (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Bkonrad makes a case for not changing wikipedia policy on this issue -- but not a case for suippresing arguments or views on Wikipedia policy, and so no case for deleting this template. Remember that this template does not itself contain any images of any sort -- it merely advocates a change in Wikipedia policy on how and where such images are acceptable. DES (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. My objections are twofold. First, the template perpetuates an incorrect undetanding of fair use. While you might know better, this template is simply wrong about how it characterizes fair use. Second, it serves no useful purpose for building an encylopedia. Now, people are perfectly free to display their ignorance of fair use on their user pages, but we don't need to keep a template around to make it easy to do so. older≠wiser 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno, a template that said "this user knows nothing of fair use, but feels free to hold forth anyway" could be useful, especially if they're about to get in trouble for uploading dodgy images. However a template that helps spread ignorance about both the law and policy is an unqualified Bad Thing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipolitical userboxes must go. Created to be divisive and factionalizing. (Deleteing them is also divisive and factionalizing, but seems the lesser evil.) Also, I agree with fuddlemark's second reason. FreplySpang (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * comment I see no policy authorizing such deltions. Such deletions should wait on settling the policy issue.
 * You "see no policy authorizing such deltions"? Perhaps you should refrain from holding forth on this issue until you understand the deletion process better. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless and futile. US law is miniimal to Wikipedia policy on fair use images (now a policy). Wikipedia strives to serve beyong US borders. <span style="font:1.1em Courier New, Serif;background:#000;color:#0f0;padding:0 3px;">TCorp 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, but you can't vote away US copyright law. --Carnildo 18:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually you can, but not here. US Law is writtne and can be changed by US legislatiors, who are chosen by vote. however that is irrelevant, because this tempalte expresses an opnion not on US law, but on places where Wikipedia policy is at least arguably more strict than US law requires. DES (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This userbox is not about US copyright law, but about Wikipedia policy <span style="font:1.1em Courier New, Serif;background:#000;color:#0f0;padding:0 3px;">TCorp 18:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, wasn't this up for TFD yesterday and was kept.?Gateman1997 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultra-ultra-super-duper-hyper-strong Keep The principal that we can have a userbox saying people want fair-use images in userboxes says that we keep it. Tom 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, what? Seriously, that was ultra-ultra-super-duper-hyper-strong unclear.  Do you mean you'd like for there to be a template that says "this user wishes fair use images were allowed in userboxen, but recognises that it's not really fair use to do so?" 'Cos that would possibly be acceptable. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see no problem with people making clear their views on Wiki policy. the wub "?!"  20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. You want to change policy, go to the relavant policy page and discuss. Garion96 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ian13ID:540053 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, deleting policy proposals because of disagreement with them is usually considered ill-advised. Secondly, since userspace is not part of the encyclopedia proper, I see no reason why we shouldn't use a more lenient standard (like "whatever won't get Wikipedia in trouble"). I understand why we want to try to avoid fair use images in article space whenever possible, due to distributional issues and preserving the GFDL, but user space is different. Much of the concern here is an example of Copyright paranoia. The fact is that a corporation is not going to sue us because a user has a box on his page saying "I support X product". <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 20:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Super Strong Keep - I wrote this box. The law may be the law and policy may be policy- but in a free country you are allowed to dislike the law and speak out against the law so long as you follow the law. All this box is saying is that the user wishes policy to change, not that they are breaking policy.--God of War 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a free country. The userbox urges a change to policy, yes.  But that change is probably stupid, and the mechanism you want to use to force that change is definitely stupid.  Stupid userboxen I can live with; stupid userboxen urging stupid changes to policy I cannot. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So maybe you can use this box to find all the "stupid" users. :) --God of War 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - the nom's reason for proposed deletion is not very good - damn right I don't respect US copyright law - why would I? Not everyone here is American, so why should we give a rats about US copyright law?  The fact that it influences Wiki is the issue that I presume you're concerned with, but that does not stop people's right to an opinion, does it?  Or does US law prohibit the right to disagree with the law?  [[Image:Anglo-Indian identity.svg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I'm fed up of seeing user boxes up for deletion! Everyone has their own point of view and their right to express this on user pages wether it be with text, images or userboxes. Why should we take that right away from our very own loyal Wikipedians!? — Wackymacs 21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech. If you want a web page where you can express whatever you want, there's plenty of hosts out there. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. If there were any such vote it would not be binding, as we can't vote to override law.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Detele, but feel free to create boxes declaring your support or otherwise of US copyright policy. Regardless of how you feel about a law, Wikipedia must obey all laws that apply to the State of Florida in the United States. Thryduulf 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This user wants Wikipedia to violate copyright law for the sake of his precious userboxes, and doesn't realize that Wikipedia is not a democracy.  Much more of this and I'm gonna start speedy-deleting userboxes myself. -- SCZenz 23:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per DES. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this userbox is clearly advocating votestacking and nothing else. It is a textbook example of the sort of box that userbox detractors drag out as an example to bring all boxes down. Further, it may (possibly) actually be advocating breaking the law, which is an advocacy I oppose. ++Lar: t/c 00:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only positive use I can imagine for this template is similar to Template:User vand, a way to identify users who need to be informed that Wikipedia policy (and indeed the law) are in conflict with their position and who need to be watched in case they violate it. Bryan 00:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, copyright laws and their interpretation in Wikipedia isn't going to change through voting (at least, not through voting in Wikipedia). And whoever is making these, please concentrate on something else. Having or not having a logo in a userbox is totally inconsequential. - Bobet 01:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per Zoe. We can't disobey policy and US copyright law, which the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated and located in. <font color="#006666">Bratsche <font color="#FF6600">talk 01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Bryan Derksen and everyone else. Oh, and there are no votes on Wikipedia, so the template's creator seems to show even further unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  JYolkowski // talk 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Give him a break, that is a recent development. We had WP:VFD mere months ago.Gateman1997 03:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Which was renamed for precisely that reason - "VFD" was never a vote, always a determination of community consensus. The process was misnamed from the beginning, and quite properly renamed. FCYTravis 04:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And determining community consensus involves polling the community on what to do about an issue, i.e. a vote. You might not want to call it that, but it's the textbook definition.  Rogue 9 01:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and preemptively ban anyone including it for copyright violation. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're going to call for that then I DEMAND that you show how this userbox is itself a copyright violation NOW or retract your statement. Rogue 9 01:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see preemptive. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of what it means. So you admit to having absolutely no basis besides being ban-happy.  Rogue 9 05:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not admitting anything, merely pointing out your strawman. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're admitting that you want to permanently ban people who haven't done anything wrong. Am I the only one who sees a problem with that?  Rogue 9 06:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Bratsche. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a sad state of affairs indeed when we won't even let people express an opinion. What's next? Sending out duct tape brigades to silence people you disagree with? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, and there are certain views that indicate a clear desire to undermine the project, and that's bad. If people want to fully exercize their free speech rights, they can make their own website; this one is Jimbo's. -- SCZenz 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware it's an encyclopedia, and I'm also aware that free speech doesn't apply here (but thanks for the strawman response). I don't consider wanting to revise Wikipedia's views on fair-use to be an attempt at undermining the project. I consider it an opinion, and as we usually encourage discussion, I don't see the harm in this template. Shutting people down because they hold a minority opinion is so anti-wiki and anti-consensus as to be reprehensible. I could see the problem if the userbox said something like "this user ignores guidelines and policy on fair-use images and uses them everywhere they want", but it doesn't say that. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fuddlemark. Sarah Ewart 04:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete though allowing users to advertise that they are not just willing but eager to cause Wikipedia financial harm has its uses ➥the Epopt 05:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was planning to make a donation to Wikipedia in the next few days. It was going to be a pretty good one too, but given the attitude of some people, I chose to find something else to do with the money for the time being. --CJ Marsicano 06:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, dearie me, I'm so upset now, I'll hasten to retract my so-thoughtless comment if you'll just please resume planning to make that imaginary donation &mdash; not. ➥the Epopt 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends on whether I'm allowed to block anyone who displays it. If I am, keep. If not, delete. My guess is delete. Phil Sandifer 08:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to refrain from displaying the template on your user page, Phil - please leave it available for those who disagree. Your silly name change doesn't fool anyone, Snowspinner - we all recognize you.  --Dschor 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What on Earth? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Phil Sandifer is Snowspinner?! Someone do a CheckUser, quick! Carbonite | Talk 13:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I knew I should have worn Clark Kent glasses too. Phil Sandifer 20:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And not have your signature link to User:Snowspinner. And not still use that account to edit. You didn't do a very good job covering your tracks&mdash;it's amazing that no one figured out you were the same user until now! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 10:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, 'this user wants Wikipedia to break laws as policy'. - ulayiti <font color="#226b22"> (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Extreme delete. This template is pretty useless considering that the ArbComm has clearly come down against the use of fair use images on talk pages. Everybody who has boted keep should read what United States copyright law says about fair use. The section isn't very long, and the criteria for fair use is very simple. <sup style="color:green;">Blank <sup style="color:#F88017;">Verse 13:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I could quote US copyright law, but that doesn't mean I can't express my disapproval too. Tom 14:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per DES. I might vote delete if U.S. copyright law was clear, but the voters here certainly don't agree (and I myself cannot understand why an image that's called "fair use" can be used on one internet page and not another). Meanwhile this userbox is not hurting anything. --Fang Aili 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it is a viatal aspec of "fair use" that where and how you use it matters a great deal, and so what is reasoanble fair use on one internet page may well be nothign of the sort when used for a differen purpose in a different context on a different page. That is the main reason behind the current policy, as I understand it. Most of our usuall justifications for fair use would not apply, or not nearly as strongly, on user pages, and when an image is on a temple it is all too easy for it to be added to pages where the stated rationale does not apply. There are cases, however (like the image on the SEPTA template, and other logo cases) where IMO a plausisible rationale for fair use on templates could apply, and other cases where a valid rationale could apply for user pages. But current policy seems to forbid this, even if copyright law does not. DES (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Jimbo has voiced opinion on this template, stating "I think it should be deleted, and I think it's silly for users to think that they can vote on copyright policy. That's a matter for our legal team." Carbonite | Talk 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Dan | talk 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. It's just stupid to think we can simply vote about this. Jon Harald Søby 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and get on with building the damn encyclopaedia. --Nick Boalch?!? 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jimbo, I agree. --Wgfinley 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stronger than a silly diamond keep This vote is about the userbox, not the idea behind the userbox. I have seen plenty of other userboxes for people supporting proposed policies and policy changes, no reason this one has to go. Remember, we're voting on the userbox, not the idea behind it. <font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Search <font color="red" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">4 <font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Lancer 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As said elsewhere, Wikipedia fairuse policy is more restrictive than necessary according to U.S. copyright law.  If a user wishes to express their interest toward changing policy, a userbox should be allowed as one of those methods of expression.  Silensor 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this template is useful as a n00b marker if nothing more. In any case, free speech. N (t/c) 22:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - note that Jimbo actually deleted this template himself before someone informed him about this TfD debate. (See and ). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This userbox shows peoples support for a change of policy. Don't delete a person's right to free speech. mdmanser 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A surprising number of people seem to think that this is America, and that we have a right to free speech on here. I am baffled as to why they think that. That being, Nickptar and Mdmanser, that I can see right now without scrolling. You two (and anyone else who might have said it) are horribly wrong - there is no such right here in Wikipedialand. <font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Search <font color="red" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">4 <font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Lancer 00:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but I think free speech ought to be respected except under clearly defined circumstances (i.e. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:NLT). N (t/c) 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - any speech is only tolerated here in so far as it furthers the end of creating an WP:NPOV encyclopedia. --Doc ask? 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Removed misleading "vote" reference to clarify that this is about users' opinions regarding Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright law, not about some fictitious "vote". -Silence 01:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not again. Keep, and a curse upon the head of whoever is incapable of figuring out that userpages are protected under fair use and that the only thing preventing the use of fair use images in user namespace is extralegal Wikipedia policy, not the law.  Rogue 9 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I find this rather surprising as well. Look at any personal webpage outside of Wikipedia and you are very likely to see various fair-use images. Some Wikipedians - who I'm sure are well-meaning and sincere, but who I think are engaging in Copyright paranoia - think all of this is illegal. How many hundreds of New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox fan pages have team logos boosting their support for the team (and often denigrating the other one)? How many of these people have ever even been asked to take them down? What evidence do we have that the copyright holders care about such trivial and incidental uses at all? We're not talking about users hosting copyrighted MP3s on their user pages. We're talking about instances where there is a reasonable claim of fair use and where the rights holders have not even attempted to tell people that they can't use the materials in this manner. Three of the primary criteria for fair use are that the use is not for profit (and obviously this applies to user pages), that the amount used is minimal (again the case - in many cases, we are talking about single screenshots from movies or TV shows, or individual logos), and that the use does not affect the rights holder's ability to make a profit (and how are any of the uses on user pages possibly going to affect that?) In short, I think we have reasonable fair use claims for most of the instances involved here. It's fine if Wikipedia wants to adopt a more restrictive policy. In article space, I completely agree with trying to minimize fair use whenever a free alternative is possible. I see no reason to do this in userspace, but it's not really a big deal one way or the other. But these over-the-top claims that people are "breaking the law" must go - they border on violating No legal threats. These individuals are acting in good faith and with reasonable claims. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 03:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Most personal webpages on the internet do violate copyright; outside of Wikipedia, reuse of images from other websites is quite common. But without a license, that is generally illegal.  The issue is not whether the copyright holders care, but what's legal, because the Wikimedia Foundation might be held responsible for deliberate misuse of copyrighted material.  Your user page is not your personal page, it's part of  the project, and fair use is least likely to apply there because it's not an article about something that requires a picture.  Jimbo says (see above) that the current policy on fair use images was adopted on the advice of the project's lawyers&mdash;if you think they're wrong, you can copy all of Wikipedia to your own servers, start your own encyclopedia, and get your own lawyers. -- SCZenz 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To say that "most personal webpages on the internet violate copyright" is a rather sweeping claim, with little evidence to back it up. I have pointed out how the de minimis use of copyrighted materials generally under discussion here (usually individual screenshots, or logos for the purpose of showing fan support) meet three of the legal criteria for fair use: not for profit, minimal portion of the original work, and no adverse impact on the company's business. If the Foundation wants to have more restrictive rules on fair use images than copyright law requres, that's fine; I don't really care. (I don't even have a user page of my own, just a redirect to my Talk page.) My objection is specifically to the over-the-top claims of "lawbreaking", which I think are unreasonable given that these are good-faith claims of fair use, and with the more general attitude of copyright paranoia that seems to be running rampant. This is my last comment on this particular issue, since I've wasted enough time here that I should have been using to write actual articles. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep' <font color="#0000cc">Keith Greer   [[Image:Flag of Northern Ireland2.svg|30px]] 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wishful thinking versus reality. Why does this remind me of "Loretta" from Monty Python's Life of Brian? Perhaps I can create the "User allow free beer" template, to match. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perm-ban all users with this template then Delete. Users with this template are expressing a desire to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to additional legal liability and create greatly increased workload for those cleaning up fair use abuse. Wikipedia is not geocities. If you want a home page, go some place else. Wikipedia is for building an encyclopedia, and you can't vote to change that. Not here, not in some silly userbox, and not anywhere else. --Gmaxwell 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, with a rebuttal: Users with this template are expressing a desire to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to additional legal liability and create greatly increased workload for those cleaning up fair use abuse. Should we file that line under B.S. or a strawman argument? Let's be realistic: The real "fair use abuse" here is coming from those wishing to discourage policy change by consensus. You scream "Don't rock the boat!" but it's those that are being falsely accused of rocking the boat that are trying to steady the ship. Those of you who repeat the obvious "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" mantra along with "Wikipedia is not a free speech zone" seem to forget that English Wikipedia would not EXIST without free speech. We now return you to the WikiRevolution already in progress. --CJ Marsicano 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Users with this template are expressing an opinion. Something we are all allowed to do on talk pages and such. They are not getting wikipedia into trouble by actually using hundreds of fair use images. All they are doing is saying what they think about things.--God of War 07:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Copylefting our content is a foundation issue, and such cannot be changed by a vote or local consensus. This template falsely implies otherwise.  Delete. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Who cares, it doesn't change anything. There's no reason someone can't sport this if they feel that's necessary. Cookiecaper 10:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete violates policy, period.--MONGO 14:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As free speech, and is POV so it cannot be deleted on the basis that it promoted an opinion - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» Talk 15:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This template advocates that we change policy to disregard the law. Delete per Jimbo.  Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepDustimagic 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 19:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hyper-Strength Keep - Userboxes should only be deleted when they consist of personal attacks against fellow members. Promotion of a change to Wikimedia's policies is not something that makes a userbox worthy of deletion. Remember, the debate here is about the userbox, not the merits of the idea proposed by the userbox. - Cuivienen 20:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Free speech arguments are specious because people donate huge sums of money for the advancement of the encyclopedia, not of userpages.  If people want an ad-supported homepage, log in to MySpace.  --Interiot 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and watch the supporters. --Pjacobi 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If the image is part of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or research" then it can be used on userspace. USA/Florida law supercedes proposed WP policy. If the law is changed, policy can reflect the changes; until then delete the template. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-08t00:14z
 * But a user may engage in criticism or comment on a user page, nor is the above list an exhastuive list of the legitimate purposes for which fair use images can be used. In any case, deleting this tempalte is not only saying that wikipedia policy on this issue should not be changed, it is saying that people should not be allowed to advocate making such changes. DES (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Re : I don't see userbox use of non-free images as covered by fair use law. We can't have a policy that supports doing something which is illegal where the servers and foundation is. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-08t10:18z
 * Strong delete, speedy even. Trödel• talk 08:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In at least some cases, there is a strong case that such image use is lageal under copyright law. Curent wikipedia policy appears to prohibit such use even in such cases. Example, images intended and relased by their creators for individual identification, such as political party logos. DES (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, destructive -- advocates placing the encyclopedia into needless legal risk. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this destructive template for reasons specified above. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 10:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plain and simple... copyright law. Gflores Talk 18:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can serve no purpose except to attempt to hinder the smooth implementation of the copyright policy, which safeguards Wikipedia from liability.  As long as users don't indemnify Wikipedia against third party liability, they're not entitled to use Wikipedia facilities to break the copyright law or to obstruct its application.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Patent keep. Next we'll be trying to delete anarchy userboxes...  22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the really good userboxes, we should try to get "permission on behalf of all wikipedians" for those considered fair use (eg. the Camino icon, etc). kelvSYC 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The arguments for deletion seem to be based entirely on the  details of U.S. copyright law, while the actual question is whether or not one should be allow to list an opinion concerning such law on a Wikipedia user page.  The expression of this opinion does not open Wikipedia or any of its users to legal action - nor, of course, does the expression of this opinion render Wikipedia or its users immune from prosecution under the law. - Scooter 03:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In that case, should the template not be protesting the law? If and until that's changed it's frankly foolhardy to advocate a change in Wikipolicy that breaks it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. It's harmful to encourage people to think that this is an issue on which community opinion matters. If you don't like the fair use policy, talk to the legal team, talk to the Foundation, but for the current time this is not a community issue but rather one for the Foundation and its decision to remain the free encyclopedia, and to minimize legal risk. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete' and salt the earth. Legal issues trump community opinion in some cases. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete legal issues, policy issues, and and unnessary for building an encyclopedia. --  Dalbury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  02:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Keep. Deletion of templates that are used exclusively on user pages and merely express an opinion is chillingly paternalistic. All the supposed "problems" with this template are merely proxies for an attempt to stamp out dissent. The existence of this template and its inclusion on user pages causes no harm or risk to anyone. Knowingly allowing the template to exist doesn't mean anyone tacitly agrees with it: it just means that we tolerate dissent. If there were any harm or risk here (and I am highly dubious that there is), it would be from the people who hold the opinion expressed by this template, not from the template itself. And I would have expected it to be obvious that deleting this template doesn't actually delete the opinion expressed therein. Nohat 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete That said, I have nothing against users expressing their opinions about what the law "should be." This does not mean they're going to break the present laws or policies.  -- Pakaran 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Editors can say anything they want about themselves on their own user pages. The only thing deleting this template will do is reduce the transparency of Wikipedia. I visualize two people having tea in the garden and one of them saying, "I think fair-use law would apply to personal user pages." Suddenly Rob Church, Sam Korn and Carbonite drop from helicopters, dressed in black Ninja suits. They duct-tape the mouths of the friends having tea and charge them with heresy based on Wikipedia:Make up whatever rule we want policy. --Peace Inside 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, Peace Inside, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please allow me to state how impressed I am at how quickly you managed to find WP:TFD, one of our most obscure backwaters.  That you've managed to acclimate yourself to Wikipedia so well that you immediately recognize three of the most outspoken proponents of our fair use policy [not even a day and half after registering is doubly impressive.  Again, welcome! &mdash;[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Peace Inside.&mdash;thegreentrilby 03:03, 13 January 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: #F3F9FF; 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 templates's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. → Aza Toth 19:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Measurement
Delete — This is an unfinished template that does not seem to be currently in use. The material covered is dealt with well elsewhere and I see no need for this table. Srleffler 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Gene Nygaard 03:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. CG 10:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Hayter 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Sarah Ewart 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. kenj0418 14:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete--<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  18:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * detele Niffweed17 01:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» Talk 16:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Loopy e 00:49, 12 January 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.