< April 6 April 8 >

April 7

Template:Notpropaganda

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Consensus seems to be that this is being used in a way not condusive to Wikipedia. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notpropaganda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an absolutely horrible template. It is somewhat inflammatory, very pointish and will discourage editors from editing articles, and goes with a long line of similar templates such as ((POV Russia)), ((Insufficient propaganda)), and just recently ((Let it develop)), in that they lack good faith. We don't need such divisive templates on Wikipedia, and given the last TfD for this, it should have been deleted back then (consensus was clearly in favour of deletion), instead of being allowed to poison article talk pages for so long. It does absolutely nothing that ((controversial)) can not do, except controversial doesn't assume bad faith like this does. Russavia Dialogue 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That voting here is along party lines already proves the hornets are awake. PetersV       TALK 04:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now we get to the WP:POINT of the template. The template is not humourous at all, as I and others have disputed. What the template says that only Latvian POV is valid, and anyone who wishes to insert materials which dispute the Latvian POV, to put it bluntly, can f**k off, because they and their propaganda are not welcome on that article? WOW!! This is absolute evidence that this is nothing but a totally disruptive template and we should have been rid of this blight on WP 2 years ago!! Thanks for clarifying that Vecrumba. --Russavia Dialogue 05:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Russavia, we now see your true stripes. My editorial opinions deal only with verifiable facts. Unfortunately there are many propaganda "truths" out there which through repetition over half a century and more (far more in other cases outside the Baltics) are completely false but which some recite as fact, whether earnestly or choosing to do so in bad faith knowing the truth (no quotes). Regardless, the only editor using the word FUCK here is you. Your screeching self-appointed self-righteous indignation (sorry, my perception) is not contributing to cross-cultural understanding. PetersV       TALK 16:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template doesn't say ANY POV is valid. Can you read it from template? Can you? I can't! It says that if you are influenced by a propaganda, then you should think before editing or falling into battles. It doesn't say one propaganda is better than other. You say it! Because obviously in your heart you feel that you are influenced by some form of it, and this template stops you from editing the article. It's not the template that stops you editing the article, it's the rules and guidelines of wikipedia that do it. The template itself is just a reminder for it. The fact that most WWII topics ARE influenced by various kinds of propaganda, some even apply today. This includes Soviet, American, Nazi, Japanese, etc. propaganda. No point in taking this personally, unless you feel that you are influenced by one of the aforementioned propaganda machines. Suva Чего? 10:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Russivia, the template says nothing about the Latvian viewpoint is correct. The template says that the article should not be seen as an opportunity to push "versions" of history with have as their basis only historical propaganda and nothing else. Nor are reputably sourced facts based in indisputably verifiable events to be labeled "opinions" of history while fact-free fabrications are labeled as equally valid "opinions" of history. I regret you do not see the significance of sticking to facts versus propaganda versus, per your editorial substitution, contending there is "controversy" because some maintain historical opinions which are based in propaganda and not on fact. That is not "controversy". Controversy is a genuine difference of opinion based on the same indisputable facts, not opinion based on fact versus opinion based on fabrications. I hope this clarifies. PetersV       TALK 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI personally can't see any humor in the template itself. The way I got the joke, it's funny that some editors want to delete the template that reminds everybody not to use WP:Propaganda pr. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND on Wikipedia. And in case the template's presence can have a potential effect of turning new editors away from contributing to articles is true, it just shows that the template works just fine. Because the only one who could be turned away by this template would be someone who'd want to edit any of those articles according to one or several historic propaganda campaigns. But Wikipedia was suppose to be based on WP:RS, WP:NPOV instead? --Termer (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation. Nevertheless, the template does not belong to that article's talkpage. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone can abuse anything. If we took abuse as a measure of validity, the way WP:GUIDELINES have been abused and perverted in edit wars would lead to their wholesale deletion. There's nothing silly: as I mentioned as just one example, the Russian Duma has passed a resolution reminding Latvia of its joining the USSR legally according to international law, a flat out lie based on nothing but Stalinist propaganda. Ergo, in this example, the template reminds editors that such propaganda cannot be represented as fact or as an "equally valid opinion" versus Latvian and just about the entire rest of the planet's "opinion" as to whether Latvia was occupied and annexed illegally in gross violation of human rights and international law. Please (to RCS) reconsider your intepretation. PetersV       TALK 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a P.S. to Russavia on "Latvian POV" versus, implication, "(official) Russian POV." It's not "POV" if it's based on indisuptable facts open for the entire world to view. And what does Russia base its "POV" on? Nothing. The template merely reminds editors that on the topic in question, they should reflect upon their editorial POV, look under the cover, and determine if there's actually some basis there or if it's just an empty house of cards. It's an invitation to be thoughtful, which you appear to take as vulgar and offensive judging from your putting expletives in my mouth and the mouths of other editors. PetersV       TALK 16:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not doubt your good faith, PetersV, and i've been to Riga and seen the Memorial Museum. But i'm pretty sure that disagreements concerning mainly, or exclusively, as it were, former Soviet Republics, can lead to the creation of a more focussed, more precise template, that is not as ambiguous as the present one. --RCS (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until then, delete. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)![reply]
The flaw in Petri's argument is that so called "Baltic historiography" is really Western historiography. There is no cabal of Balts lurking in the history departments of Western universities. Martintg (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments While these comments are directed to Petri and Russavia, I'd appreciate other editors perhaps seeing this template for the first time to consider my comments as well.
  • To Petri: Your template belies your personal opinion regarding Baltic oppression of their Russophone minorities and worse during WWII and your (voiced by yourself) perspective that today's accusations of a neo-Soviet/neo-Stalinist Russia and negativity regarding the Soviet era is a post-1991 (after the fall) concoction of Eastern European hordes looking for retribution and ungrateful for their liberation from Hitler by Stalin. If I were to construct a similarly personally POV'ed template to yours (and I do separate editorial from personal) from the supposedly Russophobic side on articles promulgating official Russian propaganda as "history", I might create something based on Putin's statement that even as a "drunk student" he "knew" the Baltics weren't occupied, such as:
  • To Russavia: Regarding "presenting all perspectives": The maligned Baltic "POV" is not a POV, it is a factual accounting supported by more than just Petri's ethno-fascists. As such, the lying official Russian "POV" as represented by the Duma's declaration that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law is not another "POV" to be represented equally to the Baltic so-called "POV", as the Duma's "POV" is one with no factual basis for which no one espousing that position (including WP supporters purportedly with multiple international law degrees) has produced a single shred of supporting evidence over the years that this so-called content dispute (as largely successfully painted by espousers of the Russian position, with no facts on their side, simply by haranguing Baltic editors to the point they leave WP).
To the crux of the issue here: Petri's and Russavia's arguments here demonstrate, in a nutshell, the effort to smear the facts of the case, to denigrate reputable accountings of indisputable facts to a mere "POV" and, in conjunction, elevate and place as equally valid a "POV" which has as its basis nothing but half a century of fact-free Soviet propaganda. As I am bound to assume good faith, I must accept that Petri and Russavia may genuinely believe the Russian position--and such belief is the very reason for the need for the template: Don't repeat what you've heard about history as factual just because you have heard it all your life, consider that what you have heard all your life may not be representative of historical events.
   Lastly, for those uninvolved editors believing it's just a content dispute, check the historical reputably verifiable facts for yourselves before judging the template originated, as has been essentially described, as a Baltic WP editor ploy to offend those who grew up in the Soviet era holding sacrosanct the struggle against Nazism and to fill WP with Baltic fascist/Nazi/Russophibic/et al.--I've heard them all--lies.
And a P.S. to RCS: Misuse of a template is a reflection on the editor, not the template. Don't conflate the two as to which: editorial behavior or the template, is offensive. The template is not, as both Petri and Russavia would misdirect us, about who is the holder of the truth. Nor is it, as Russavia would have us believe, a slanted substitute for an indication that the topic is "controversial." The template embodies no "truth", no "controversy": the template is a reminder that the topic in question has been the subject of extensive historical propaganda--which may be the only "facts" a prospective editor may have learned and heard all their life. That is informative, not offensive, in any language, on any topic. That such a reminder has been portrayed here as "offensive" speaks volumes. PetersV       TALK 15:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Petri, I am sure, was being facetious with that template, in that this is exactly how the current template appears to look to numerous editors; explicitly discounting a particular POV, and that if any editor wants to bring that POV, in any way, shape, or form, to the article, they are not welcome to edit that article, and should go elsewhere. But thank you for also creating an example of exactly what the current template insinuates. But I can say, that if any such thing that you or Petri showed above (Petri I am certain has no intention to create it, but put it here to show how shocking the current template is) was to put on any article, particularly any within the scope of several Arbcoms, I would not hesitate to report it to AE, or contact the arbcom directly, to report what is an absolutely BLATANT breach of those Arbcoms. As to what my opinion on the Baltics history is, don't assume anything with myself, because I have never made my opinion known on that, but if you wish to assume that's your right, but you will only make an ass out of u, but not me. --Russavia Dialogue 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Russavia: Petri, who I have dealt with on this topic in detail, was not being facetious. Nor was I. And look who is using "humor" as a defense now that it suits someone whose opinion falls in your camp. The template insinuates nothing. It states simply and directly that the topic in question has been the target of extensive propaganda and that editors should bring an open mind, not the historic litanies they have heard all their lives, to participating in editing the article. Your histrionics over "shocking" templates are nothing but an attempt to generate the appearance of genuine umbrage. And please now with the open threats to contact Arbcom over anything that doesn't meet your personal POV. And you are correct, you have not made your opinion known at all, you only edit war over categories, templates, and insisting on the deletion of suitably references sources that don't suit your sensibilities regarding Soviet honor. This is just more content- and fact-free fulmination on your part practicing the WP:BATTLGROUND tactics you freely accuse others of. PetersV       TALK 18:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Russavia, consider and contrast the kinds of constructive editing you have done in the past to improve Wikipedia and the contentious diatribes laden with personal attacks you now engage in. Are you sure you're Russavia and not someone who hijacked their account? PetersV       TALK 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not just applicable to territories directly affected by the demise of the USSR. And personally I'm too old to waste energy on animosity (or the hatred, Russophibia, et al. I've been accused of). But to that topic, it's both unfortunate and telling that a cadre of editors sees an invitation to look at a topic through fresh eyes (and there have been times where the facts have caused me to refute "my"--not personally--own nationalist propaganda) as "horrible," "inflammatory," "ugly," "harrassing," "divisive," "poisoning," "ridiculous," telling editors to "fuck off," ad nauseum. The invective being heaped upon the template here would be funny if it weren't so endemic. Where do editors get to put the words "fuck off" in other editors' mouths and not even be reprimanded for being uncivil? Apparently WP:ANYWHERE any editor decides it's open season to lambaste Baltic and other Eastern European editors with WP:IMMUNITY. PetersV       TALK 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly agree with your last statement.Biophys (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2009 (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 section.

Template:CTA Station Needing Image

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CTA Station Needing Image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has been replaced with ((reqphoto|CTA stations)). Tim Pierce (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2009 (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 section.

Template:Road junction types

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 section.

The result of the discussion was close. Improperly proposed. Please re-propose if interested. JPG-GR (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The the new name of the template "Roads and Junctions" is temporary. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2009 (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 section.

Template:Airportpicreq

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airportpicreq (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with ((reqphoto|airports)). Tim Pierce (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2009 (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 section.

Template:Reqimagecomics

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete'. JPG-GR (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reqimagecomics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template adds an article to Category:Wikipedia requested images-comics, but that is already done more widely with ((comicsproj|image=yes)) and ((reqphoto|comics)). Tim Pierce (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (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 section.

Template:Paul London and Brian Kendrick

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paul London and Brian Kendrick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no need for this template as all the individual articles reference the other members a lot and can easily be directed to the repective page without the use of a template. It's pretty much useless and I think it's a bit stupid to include Ashley Massaro in a template named Paul London and Brian kendrick. The Jay Experience 10:59, 7 April 2009 (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 section.

Template:Languages of Louisiana

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Languages of Louisiana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a borderline navbox (per WP:NAVBOX). It is the sort of thing that would be better suited to a category. This, that and the other [talk] 07:37, 7 April 2009 (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 section.

Template:No dishes

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 section.

The result of the discussion was no action here. Take it to MfD. JPG-GR (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No dishes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Okay, this userbox made me laugh out loud. But as much as I agree with the sentiment, I can't help but notice that (a) the grammar is a bit off, and (b) it isn't used or linked to. – Quadell (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (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 section.