< May 10 May 12 >

May 11, 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 delete. Angr (t • c) 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nudity warning[edit]

((Nudity warning))

Wikipedia is not censored. --Doc ask? 22:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It not a censor, it does not remove images in fact it warns viewers not to censor and it directs them to a disclaimer explaining why. --BerserkerBen 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it against wikipedia policy?, how does this message censor images? and how are people suppose to know about a disclaimer: are we suppose to put giant disclaimers at the top of every article?--BerserkerBen 23:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While not really necessary, and thus a Weak delete from me, this differs a bit from the spoiler template in sort of an ironic way in that the spoiler is a warning that WP isn't censored, and that the reader should expect ALL details of a film, not just the usual review they may expect to read in the paper or elsewhere online. It's a common courtesy, because "censorship" isn't usually used in connection with movie reviews (exept perhaps self-censorship.) The double warning isn't needed here, since the "WP not censored" policy, had sexuality and nudity already in mind when it was created. Nhprman 18:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Wikipedia is indeed general disclamered, one more reason not to add specific disclaimer at pages. Kim van der Linde at venus 14:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see such any disclaimer templates on that page for on the main article. I agree with you that the pointing at what wikipedia is not is not providing evidence for deletion. Maybe have a search though the archives of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where this exact discussion also arose and that would be the perfect example of the next disclaimer. Or have a look at the discussion at the Societal attitudes towards homosexuality talk page, for which I know that at least one person want to add the nudity warning template as well as a homosexuality warning template. The question to answer is, were does this stop if we go this way?Kim van der Linde at venus 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go on a slippery slope!, By many arguments here every article would have a NPOV tag, because someone will object to something on the article eventually, lets delete the NPOV tag! This tag is only intended for articles were editing has been done to censor images (censorship vandalism) specifically of nudity, if you wanted to extend the capability of this tag or make a class of such tags they would be limited to articles were censorship vandalism has ALREADY occurred, not will occur thus not every article with possibly objectionable information needs such a tag. Also because of the present policy on censorship here at wiki there is no enforcement, thus the need for such a tag on a article is up to the will of the editors editing that individual article, the tag would not become required on to all applicable articles. --BerserkerBen 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is offended by anyone giving, say, pedophilia a fair treatment, or by mentioning it, they'll be equally upset by a hatnote saying "this article discusses pedophilia", and nobody will be warned off by something like "this article discusses controversial topics". Summaries of offensive text will not, therefore, be effective at reducing the number of people gratuitously offended by our textual content. A note saying "this article contains nudity" will not upset the people who would be upset by the actual nudity; moreover, it wouldn't lead to embarrassing situations at work or school or where other people are around, which is another major function of such a warning. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 May 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 doesn't matter. If you are really concerned, then you'd have bothered to vote on every single one of them. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All userboxes below[edit]

I didn't feel like copying my vote multiple times below, so I just created this section. The following votes (you can add your own) should be accounted for all userboxes listed below:

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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User I2P[edit]

((User I2P))

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User crazy[edit]

((User crazy))

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 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 subst'ed and delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ding[edit]

((User ding))

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 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 subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Gaia[edit]

((User Gaia))

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right, this is not a social networking service. It's actually expressly forbidden by policy (see: WP:NOT.) However, by stubbornly supporting "Keeping" this in the template space, you risk having it deleted again and again. But if it is Deleted from template space now, it 1) remains on your User page 2) is protected from further deletions 3) can be shared with other users as code. What's the problem with that? - Nhprman 22:07, 15 May 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 no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User goon[edit]

goon This user enjoys the Something Awful Forums.

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-1[edit]

((User Hattrick-1))

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-2[edit]

((User Hattrick-2))

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-3[edit]

((User Hattrick-3))

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User LUElinks[edit]

((User LUElinks))

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 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 no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User LEO contributor[edit]

LEOThis user contributes at Link Everything Online.

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one called this box "cool", "neat" or "funny". Whether a template is useful or not is most certainly not irrelevant. There is no reason whatsoever to remove this from template space. Templates are convenient tools for text that is to be repeated in multiple locations, such as this one. Deleting it from template space would not improve Wikipedia. Angr (t • c) 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many reasons to move them. Templates are being abused to stack votes in deletion reviews, "gang-edit" articles to reflect a certain point of view, and create "clubs" of users. All of which are a perversion of Wikipedia's mission: to write a NPOV encyclopedia. A Userbox is not a "tool" for helping write an encyclopedia in any sense of theword. However, they can be fun, and they'll remain on Wikipedian's user pages AS IS - if they are deleted here and go into the User space. - Nhprman 22:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fascinated to know under what scenario you think this userbox could possibly be used for vote-stacking, to "gang-edit" articles to a reflect a certain POV, or create "clubs" of users. Being a contributor to LEO is like being a contributor to Wikipedia or Wiktionary. It's a project to allow people to inform each other of the best way to translate phrases between English and German. And if deleted, this userbox will remain on Wikipedians' user pages only if it gets substed first. User:Cyde didn't say anything about substing this first, he just said he wants it deleted. (Note: if WP:MACK comes to fruition this will become moot.) Angr (t • c) 15:46, 18 May 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Neopets[edit]

((User Neopets))

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 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 no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Onion[edit]

This user's news source is The Onion.

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It still can be, even if deleted from Template space. It will exist as text in User space, and you can still use it. It just shouldn't be in Template space, because that's where the articles are. This distinction doesn't get explained very often. Hope this helps! - Nhprman 06:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles are in main space. Userboxes, and every other template, are in template space. They are not in the same space. They are two distinctly different namespaces. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template space (like article space, but unlike user space) is still a part of the official project, which is working on an encyclopedia. This does nothing to advance that project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just semantics at issue here. Templates should be set aside for assisting in the editing of articles. Funny templates simply don't advance that cause. Still, I agree there should be a separate place for them. Good solution. By voting "Delete" and deleting them from the Template space, they go into the User space, where they can be used there as users see fit. Nhprman 18:59, 14 May 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User RMP[edit]

((User RMP))

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • All userboxes are not advertisements for other sites. Clearly the ones you mention aren't. If you vote "Delete,' this box will not disappear, it will simply be transformed into a text-based box that looks exactly the same. It will just be taken out of the template space. Hense the rather undiplomatic comment that it's "clutter." It doesn't belong in the template space, really. - Nhprman 19:03, 14 May 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 18:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Snopester[edit]

((User Snopester))

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 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 --Cyde Weys 18:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User SG[edit]

This user is a Segway Geek.

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per the nominator. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why should this template be deleted?

Geeklera Segway Geek 23:36, 18 December 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

Template:Unproved[edit]

Template:Unproved (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template isn't particulary helpful, since all it does is to inform the reader that the factual accuracy of the article in question might be disputed or in any other way be considered unreliable. I consider that a bit too vague to be really useful or helpful. There are also plenty of already existing templates available that would substitute this one, in a more specific and helpful way (such as Accuracy, Neutrality, Controversial and Unencyclopedic), making this one redundant. And finally, in my opinion, this one is not NPOV, since even proven theories are frequently disputed, while some theories are never proven, but accepted anyway. Allowing a template like this might trigger edit wars between believers and skeptics in various articles around Wikipedia. Magore 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uncertain wording and other templates are applicable. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template is redundant and silly, it talks down to the reader; if topic is theoretical, it will be stated in the article Judgesurreal777 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to the nom and the above, there is also Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates.--Andrew c 21:52, 11 May 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. Angr (t • c) 21:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empire[edit]

Template:Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A navigation template which is way too large to be useful. bogdan 12:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

----------------------

Given the fact that there are more links at the template of "countries in asia" or very close in "countries in Europe" the quantitative arguments about the size is not really valid. Also the template comes as hidden division, which only covers two lines in its hidden state. People who want to use it can open the (through the link on the right side) division and work with it. Both of these arguments defends the opposide side "Not To Delete"--OttomanReference 14:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitative remarks about the usefullness, which is linked with the organization of the empires, seems to be valid. There should be a better organization than categorizing through centuries. However these questions should be covered in its talk page. However, these talks are develop the arguments toward the need to keep the template. This paragraf is about "Not To Delete" side.--OttomanReference 14:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now it's better, but still, I think a "See also: List of empires" would be better. bogdan 23:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the elementary education in your country, but there is a unifying topic called "World civilizations" which organizes (classify) the topics around empires. There is an idea that an empire is a reflection of its civilization, which can be arguable but in any sense it is here as a teaching tool. The empires page is a good point for you if you have hard time following this idea... Please reconsider your wote. --OttomanReference 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Weak delete - I find the comments by Jon513, below - that the subjects are generally unrelated - rather convincing. I'd like to see the template's creator make an "Ancient Empires" template, however. That would be useful and consistent. Nhprman 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Empire is a classification, like colonial empire. I do not like it, as I do not like the idea of caliphate as an empire but these concepts do exist. I do not see how you can get rid of a concept by deleting a navigational bar. I have a difficulty in understanding if you object the empires as a navigational bar or classification of the empires based on christian. The second can be removed, which is arguable, and would that cover your dissatisfaction?--OttomanReference 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the whole facile classificatory concept. The Great Moravian Empire has imperial status on a plane quite different from (say) the Inca Empire. We have an Empire article which can discuss these distinctions, but a template undermines the differences. -- The concept of a "Christian empire" (has anyone defined this in Wikipedia?) raises particular POV issues. Why classify the Venetian Empire as Christian, but not the militantly Orthodox Russian Empire or the earnestly Lutheran Swedish Empire? Venice favoured trade over religion for much of its imperial career. The Roman Empire spent many decades with Christianity as an official religion ... Pedant17 01:10, 13 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nintendo series developers[edit]

Template:Nintendo series developers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Useless, mangled, redundant with the much more useful ((Nintendo developers)). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:30, 11 May 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. Angr (t • c) 18:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Headgear[edit]

Template:Headgear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Request is to deprecate this template, replacing its use with Template:Headgear box, which is designed as a box for placement at the bottom of affected articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In February there was no consensus, now we hope there will be. Jon513 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Jtdirl's edit above - Jtdirl is the administrator who blocked Schuminweb for removing/changing this template, timestamp 2006-05-09 19:31:25. A questionable block, since it might have been made in order to gain advantage in a conflict with another user on Wikipedia. /Magore 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A complete lie. I uphold WP policy, irrespective of whether I agree with it or not. Schuminweb unilaterally doctored the content of a project page to create the opposite impression to that created by its authors. He then proceeded to use his falsified version of the page to mass delete a template and replace it with the one he had pretended, through doctoring of the page, was the project template. No user can do that. He was repeatedly warned to stop. Other users asked him to stop. He ignored all calls to stop. As a result, in accordance with WP rules, after being warned he was blocked. That is standard procedure and is done by whichever admin finds it happening. No user is allowed to falsify contents of protect, naming convention or manual of style pages and then begin mass deletions on that basis. He was only blocked for 24 hours. Other users have in the past been blocked for such antics for far far longer. One some months ago was blocked indefinitely by another admin. Schuminweb was very lucky to have only got a short block for such a serious act. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without taking this much further off topic, what other users asked me to stop? From what I can tell, the only user who asked me to stop was User:Jtdirl. Jooler questioned my removal of a comment when I moved the box (which I explained), but no one else explicitly asked me to stop. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) it is not a matter of doing no harm. if there is no point it does not belong. and taking up space is harm. 2) who is going to be interested in learning everything there is to know about headgear of every different time and culture. people don't work that way! Jon513 15:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The usual personal abuse. Some things never change with DG. lol When the last attempt to vote this template off was defeated, DG responded by blanking it. His standard of behaviour never changes. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:00, 12 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfa cliche1[edit]

Template:Rfa cliche1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unuseful template, may as well just be typed out. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 11 May 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.
More