< January 26	January 28 >

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 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DrugWarning[edit]

As usual, warning templates should be deleted because we already have the medical disclaimer. This was only used on one article, Non-medical use of dextromethorphan. I removed it. Rhobite 22:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete general disclaimer handles what this template is supposed to do - unnecessary.. Mikkerpikker ... 03:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per Mikkerpikker xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Legally problematic since it could imply articles without this on are not subject to the medical disclaimer, when in fact, all of them are. Angela. 12:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. AnnH ^(talk) 17:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per all nomination and per Angela. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of fry-babies. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:00, Jan. 29, 2006
• Delete. helohe (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Good argument from Angela. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obsolete. also have a medical disclaimer; as said above. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 DELETED BY OTHER MEANS. -Splash^talk 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ku klux[edit]

I initially speedied this as highly offensive, but the creator recreated it on grounds that KKK is not offensive and its members are human beings too. Radiant_>|< 14:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Fascists on Wikipedia should be kicked off Wikipedia and their IP permanently blocked. But leave the userbox so that it's easier to do so. --Daniel 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now I'm torn here. I hate POV declaring templates and want them all gone. But it either has to be all gone or none. Attacks are one thing, but cnce we go down the line of saying that this POV group, or this society, is too offensive to have a userbox, we really are into subjective censorship. Where does that stop? Wikipedia is not a venue for free speech, but once we start down limmiting it by subjective standards, we are in trouble. --Doc ^ask? 15:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Treading lightly, as I don't wish imply any association or sympathy with or antipathy towards any group. I guess I'd have to ask whether other userbox templates are allowed for groups if a significant set of users find indentification with the group to be offensive. Personally, it seems like a slippery slope to start down as long as the userbox itself is not antagonistic or offensive. Since the userbox does not fail either of these tests, and is even linked to an encyclopedic article, then it is only because the person is identifying themselves with the group that can be considered offensive. I just don't see how you go about determining which groups are allowed and which aren't without introducing POV. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 15:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just becuase one person's ideology of one thing is different of another, doesn't mean to say it should be deleted. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First they came for the Communists... Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does it matter if it's offensive? Userboxes reflect a POV but they shouldn't be deleted because of it. The Wikipedia policies state that "Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor" are not accepted but this template does not indicate a personal attack on any specific contributor. Whether we agree or disagree with the views of the KKK it should be kept. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Offensive and POV, but in userspace. It also helps identify what could be biased edits. In any case, it's always best to know thy enemy. - Cuivienen 22:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Cuivienen. However, I believe we must be very cautious about members of hate groups on Wikipedia. Are people who profess such blatant intolerance really wanted on a site as inclusive as Wikipedia? -Chairman S. 00:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to all: How the heck is it that everyone trips over themselves to prove what free speech advocates they are by defending the Ku Klux Klowns, while I have been steadily harassed by people who have been watering down the anti-fascist userbox I made? Or does free speech exist only to protect white fascists? --Daniel 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would vote to delete the template if it said something like "This Wikipedian doesn't like Jews." This would probably find me on the opposite side voting to delete a template that said "This Wikipedian doesn't like facists." (and definitely voting to delete one stating "This Wikipedian hates facists.") because now you are making a statement against another group of people on Wikipedia in a non-humorous context. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The KKK hates Jews and blacks. What part of that is the least bit ambiguous? You support them, you support lynching. Period. End of story. --Daniel 02:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could use that same argument to deny a userbox that identifies its user as an Islamic Fundamentalist on the grounds that that implies hatred of Jews or the desire to abolish Western cultures. But is that correct? Or what about identifying as a member of a country that is involved in a war with another country? Is identifying with one country the same as making an attack on the opposing country? As long as the userbox is not making a statement against another group, and as long as there is no policy to define what groups someone can identify with, I think we need to not make the leap to assuming that identification with a group equates to making a statement against another group. Just my two cents, but I think you need to step back from the fact that it's the KKK and instead look at what the template actually says. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 03:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call for the deletion of the userbox. I'm asking why the hell people go to exceptional lengths to defend the "right" of members of the Klan to have a userbox to declare their membership, while going to exceptional lengths to take away the right of antifa to declare their opposition to such organizations.

And moreover, let's get something straight here: despite their propaganda, the Klan never were and never will be just a white fraternal group, but has always been and always will be a group in service of white supremacy. Klan membership necessarily entails swearing your undying loyalty to this idea.

If you back freedom of expression for a cause, you should necessarily back freedom of expression for those against it. Unfortunately, this is not the first or last time there are hypocrites and dithering minds in dealing with such questions. --Daniel 04:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete — per WP:NPA etc... _→AzaToth 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to find what part of WP:NPA this template violates. There is no personal attack that I can see by including the template on your user page. The template contains no hate speech and is not directed at any other person on Wikipedia. Not really comfortable defending the KKK, but trying to understand the reasoning. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is no one using the KKK template as of now. -- user:zanimum
  • Seems like it would be hard to be using it since it has been speedily deleted out of order. I have to say I almost find the speedy deletion more disturbing than the template (toss up) unless we are going to add something to the policy governing templates that would apply to this template and could in turn provide a basis for applying this decision to other templates. Then at least there would be some basis for consistent treatment of userboxes instead of arbitrary application of personal preferences to what personal preferences others can express. (Sheesh, I don't know how long I can keep arguing as devil's advocate on the side of someone wanting a KKK userbox, but I feel this is an area to avoid sliding into making subjective, arbitrary decisions without guidance from an official policy.) – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So how is it that multiple persons slid into making subjective, arbitrary decisions to edit Template:User antifa and got away with it? Are only the Klan protected from those subjective, arbitrary decisions? --Daniel 02:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the KKK template wanted to include a picture of a black person being hanged, then that would violate the policy. I see don't see how the template you reference and the KKK template are the same. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 03:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how you are being arbitrary: membership in the Klan means that you necessarily accept and support acts of violence (if you subscribe to using objectivite language, terrorism) against people of color, Jews, and gay people.

So here you have people defending a userbox that says that a user supports the Klan, a terrorist organization - which I hope everyone knows is a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, a number of the same people are saying it is not okay to have a userbox that similarly advertises a user's disgust with such a group - on the grounds that this is "hostile". I'd like to know, what in the hell is not hostile in a statement of membership in a terrorist organization?

As bad as Wikipedia's monotone complexion is, the willingness of some members to force people of color to fight racism with one hand tied behind their back does not bode well for the future. I agreed with keeping this userbox, simply because I'm principled enough to know that the problem of racism on Wikipedia doesn't come from a goddamned userbox. --Daniel 04:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It seems this has been speedily deleted by User:MarkSweep - the same guy that speedied user freedom in the middle of a tfd. I am voting keep on the grounds that we don't accept speedy deletions when there is an active tfd that is favoring keep. Also this box did not have a POV. The KKK are humans too, what they believe in is offensive. This box actually has a NPOV. If you are going to say a whole group of people are offensive then you are in the wrong.--God of War 03:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See the log here: [1]

Notice - Deletion Review is now live here Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Template:User_ku_klux--God of War 03:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Now undeleted by Tony Sidaway--God of War 01:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with disgust for persons who would prohibit a user from proclaiming membership in an organization, controversial or not (KKK, ACLU, AARP, GNAA, NRA, SPCA, SLA, NPS, BLM, whatever) or even suggest they be banned for it, hello? And yes, personally, I hate the KKK. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:13, Jan. 29, 2006

• Excellent Point, Freakofnurture, I believe in the NRA but not the GNAA I think the ACLU has done some good and so on...What group is offensive and what isn't. Who are we to condemn people for the groups they belong too?--God of War 06:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NPA. The NRA is controversial, the KKK is simply a hate group. Identifying with it can only constitute a "racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor(s)." Calling them controversial actually gives them too much credit. And for those invoking slippery slope, note that slippery slope is very often a logical fallacy. Marskell 09:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really... your argument got a bit slippery and sloped off at the end. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:39, Jan. 29, 2006
    • Huh? Slippery slope is probably more often described as a fallacy than a logical argument. "We delete the KKK template and before you know it all user boxes will be banned!" Well, no. Here is a decent spot: [2] for you. Marskell 12:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, no, no. Your argument is using the slippery slope itself. Can only? —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Can only constitute..." is not a slippery slope. It's a statement of opinion (a firm one, obviously) which references no supposed consequent action. If I'd argued, "allowing this template will inevitably lead to a picture of a burning cross in the Wiki logo" I'd be on a slippery slope. Marskell 14:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. helohe (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jest because you don't like an organisation, doesnt entitle you to delete a userbox about it. Otherwise i would have nominated several userboxes for deletion... - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 13:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jimbo says no. Disagree? See Wikipedia:Free speech. --Gmaxwell 17:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't use Jimbo's statement as justification to start another userbox war. As he says here, [3], "I am specifically trying to avoid another mass deletion.".--God of War 20:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's trying to avoid another mass deletion by asking users to clean up their own mess. This is part of cleaning up the mess. In failing to do so, we will only cause another mass deletion. --Gmaxwell 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As Jimbo himself admits, he only makes suggestions, not final decisions. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Have a cite where he says anything of the sort on this subject? --Gmaxwell 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How about we cut it with the ipsedixitisms and make arguments, not citations? What a random individual said or didn't say is not what is under discussion here; what matters is whether this template should or shouldn't be deleted, based on its own content, policies for and against it, and its potential uses (and abuses). If Jimbo said to jump fof a bridge, would you do it? Reasoning and discussion, not authoritarian rhetoric, is what's needed here. -Silence 00:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Because I've already argued against abuses of our user namespace like this in a half dozen places already and I'm tired of wasing my time. 9/10 of the people who participate in these *FD discussions appear to never bother reading any of the arguments in any case.... In the end all these appear to becoming is a contest over who is willing to waste the most time on such nonsense and who can rope in the most newbie me too!s. --Gmaxwell 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not another time wasting argument, but I do have a question: Is there anyone who had this on their userpage except the banned user Zanee? If nothing else it looks like its fine to delete on the grounds of being completely unused. (oops, I guess that was an argument.. darnit) --Gmaxwell 05:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• He asked specifically that people just remove it from their userpage - if you can convince all the users of it and orphan it - then you may have a valid argument. Ian13|talk 17:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as bad-faith creation, with no prejudice against recreation at this time (pending a Userbox policy, anyway). -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ALL. -Splash^talk 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree US State image tags[edit]

Four image copyright tags, created on the incorrect assumption that US State governemnt images are in the public domain, and changed to fair use tags, Template:TXGov, Template:ILGov, Template:IAGov, Template:HIGov. The templates are not aduquate in terms of fair use reporting requirements, and create the misleading impression that images from these sources are "fair use compatible", delete--nixie 04:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and change all images using them to ((no license)). Highly misleading/confusing. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect to ((no license))), confusing and incorrect. JYolkowski // talk 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, too many templates with the same purpose/use is just confusing - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 14:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dablinktop[edit]

Template:Dablinktop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used and other templates exist for this purpose. Should also delete the redirect Template:Otheruses9. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not used - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 14:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. --William Allen Simpson 18:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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