Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 28

< February 27	March 1 >

February 28, 2006 edit

Template:User_Antipope edit

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.

Keep I don't see this as "divisive". MiraLuka 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to reduce electioneering (I've been contacted regarding Judaism-related articles due to the Judaism templates/categories I used to use, and I view this as a Bad Thing). Or keep, but auto-subst with that bot, whatsitsname. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a humorous userbox with only a tenuous link to religion. There's certainly nothing divisive about it, nor can I imagine any situation in which it could be used for electioneering. - Ne ll is 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on they are not divisive. Moe ε 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepTan DX 07:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 10:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This userbox just survived TfD four days ago (albeit with no consensus). I hardly expect that things have changed. These excessive nominations are disruptive. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this some type of joke? ems 14:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep discloses editor's pov and/or religious views, contributing to an open and honest atmosphere and understanding of editor's bias' which makes for a stronger and more creditable 'pedia. also can be seen as a statement of editing intrest, as someone who identifies as someone who rejects the pope would be more likley to edit related articles, finally, no need for these nominations until there is a userbox policy in place or a consensus to mandate these deletions. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nominator. This guy is a bit of a speedy strecher, he tried to tag football teams for speedy for being offensive and/or inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is also outside reasonable bounds, just letting you know. Proof: [1] and [2] WriterFromAfar755 01:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's nothing wrong with these templates. (Ibaranoff24 06:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep In reply to the comment made by "ems". Yes. It is a joke. Laugh - • The Giant Puffin • 16:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Speedy delete the nominator. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Already passed TFD, less than a week ago. No reason to relist. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipeia is hosted in Florida, right? So doesn't that grant freedom of religion under the US Constitution? (If not, well, IANAL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A no-brainer. I suppose Alibabs would have us only characterize ourselves in trivial ways, like "advanced Javascript programmer". --Saforrest 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and find a sense of humour. aliceinlampyland 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this template. Jgp 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing divisive about it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:42, 4 March 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.

Template:User_atheism edit

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

The result of the debate was keep. -Frazzydee|✍ 03:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC) "User_atheism"[reply]
divisive userbox. Alibabs 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how this is any more divisive than saying, for example, "I like carrots." MiraLuka 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to reduce electioneering (I've been contacted regarding Judaism-related articles due to the Judaism templates/categories I used to use, and I view this as a Bad Thing). Or keep, but auto-subst with that bot, whatsitsname. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on they are not divisive. Moe ε 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is in no way divisive or offensive. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 04:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless you want to remove all the boxes on religious views. --metzerly 06:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 10:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boddah 10:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shows no quafications, hence has no point. ems 14:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Given that you argued to keep the religious userboxes, I ask you to justify your claim that this userbox "shows no qualifications." Being knowledgeable about Atheism is just as useful to the project as being knowledgeable about Judaism or Islam. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 17:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not divisive. Jgp 14:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep discloses editor's pov and/or religious (un)affliiation, contributing to an open and honest atmosphere and understanding of editor's bias' which makes for a stronger and more creditable 'pedia. also can be seen as a statement of editing intrest, as someone who rejects religion would be more likley to edit related articles, finally, no need for these nominations until there is a userbox policy in place or a consensus to mandate these deletions. hasen't this one survived a recent (TfD) Mike McGregor (Can) 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all, pending consensus on userboxes. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 17:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this "decisive?" --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nominator. This guy is a bit of a speedy strecher, he tried to tag football teams for speedy for being offensive and/or inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is also outside reasonable bounds, just letting you know. Proof: [3] and [4]WriterFromAfar755 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's nothing wrong with these templates. (Ibaranoff24 06:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep As mentioned several times above, there's nothing wrong with this template, or most of the other templates up for deletion. Its just not needed - • The Giant Puffin • 15:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Speedy delete the nominator. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipeia is hosted in Florida, right? So doesn't that grant freedom of religion under the US Constitution? (If not, well, IANAL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A no-brainer. I suppose Alibabs would have us only characterize ourselves in trivial ways, like "advanced Javascript programmer". --Saforrest 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. aliceinlampyland 21:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 06:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has nothing to do with the writing of an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 06:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No plausible reason to delete. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If templates like this are going to be deleted it should only be after the formulation of a widely-accepted policy with appropriate protections, etc. We are not at that stage. Metamagician3000 11:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PhDP 12:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic keep. Religion userboxes must be valid. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a religious zealot and I see no potential harm by it. You must be crazy. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The different subjects/categories of articles on Wikipedia are almost endless (i.e. religion, sports, comics, germs, videogames, etc). Why would we not want to have like-minded users grouped together to bounce ideas off each other on a particular subject? I get a sense that some people feel the Atheists will not want to support the Christianity/Islam/Judaism articles or vice versa, and that's ridiculous. I want informative articles on every subject possible, whether or not I agree with it personally, philosophically, or spiritually. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 15:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Absolutely NOTHING wrong with this template! (Ibaranoff24 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. I agree --Manwe 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Kross ^Talk 00:53, 7 March 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.

Template:User_Muslim edit

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.

Delete as per Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. --Cyde Weys 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this is any more divisive than saying, for example, "I like carrots." MiraLuka 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to reduce electioneering (I've been contacted regarding Judaism-related articles due to the Judaism templates/categories I used to use, and I view this as a Bad Thing). Or keep, but auto-subst with that bot, whatsitsname. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on they are not divisive. Moe ε 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is in no way divisive or offensive. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 10:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep shows quaifactions. ems 14:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep discloses editor's pov and/or religious affliiation, contributing to an open and honest atmosphere and understanding of editor's bias' which makes for a stronger and more creditable 'pedia. also can be seen as a statement of editing intrest, as someone who identifies as a member of a given religion would be more likley to edit related articles, finally, no need for these nominations until there is a userbox policy in place or a consensus to mandate these deletions. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Chaos 18:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's this thing called respect... --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nominator. This guy is a bit of a speedy strecher, he tried to tag football teams for speedy for being offensive and/or inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is also outside reasonable bounds, just letting you know. Proof: [5] and [6]WriterFromAfar755 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's nothing wrong with these templates. (Ibaranoff24 06:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Speedy delete the nominator. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipeia is hosted in Florida, right? So doesn't that grant freedom of religion under the US Constitution? (If not, well, IANAL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. aliceinlampyland 22:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete has nothing to do with the writing of an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 05:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this template. Jgp 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 06:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No plausible reason to delete. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If templates like this are going to be deleted it should only be after the formulation of a widely-accepted policy with appropriate protections, etc. We are not at that stage. Metamagician3000 11:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus demonstrates that religion userboxes are valid. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a Muslim does not break policy. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is there a mass AfD of religious userboxes? Crazyswordsman 01:43, 6 March 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.

Template:User_Jew edit

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.

Delete as per Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. --Cyde Weys 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this is any more divisive than saying, for example, "I like carrots." MiraLuka 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to reduce electioneering (I've been contacted regarding Judaism-related articles due to the Judaism templates/categories I used to use, and I view this as a Bad Thing). Or keep, but auto-subst with that bot, whatsitsname. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is no more divisive than {{user he}}. - Ne ll is 03:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment just as a comment, there is a difference between knowing Hebrew and being Jewish. Many people speak Hebrew who aren't Jewish, and many Jews do not speak Hebrew. --Bachrach44 21:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on they are not divisive. Moe ε 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is in no way divisive or offensive. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 04:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this decisive? So you have a userbox telling what religion you are. Big deal! --myselfalso 07:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what is wrong with religon userboxes??? --Ter e nc e Ong 10:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep shows some level of knowledge/quifications in Judaism. As long as it isn't used by random people. ems 14:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep discloses editor's pov and/or religious affliiation, contributing to an open and honest atmosphere and understanding of editor's bias' which makes for a stronger and more creditable 'pedia. also can be seen as a statement of editing intrest, as someone who identifies as a member of a given religion would be more likley to edit related articles, finally, no need for these nominations until there is a userbox policy in place or a consensus to mandate these deletions. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep un-decisive, is what I say. --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nominator. This guy is a bit of a speedy strecher, he tried to tag football teams for speedy for being offensive and/or inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is also outside reasonable bounds, just letting you know. Proof: [7] and [8]WriterFromAfar755 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's not divisive Shlomke 04:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MSTCrow 06:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- what's wrong with someone acknowledging their Jewish heritage? (Ibaranoff24 06:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Not divisive. --Lukobe 08:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lutheran box was deleted, why is being a jew better than being Lutheran? You fucking bastards.

Comment. That was unnecessary. The Lutheran box shouldn't have been deleted either. --myselfalso 14:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it deleted? Crazyswordsman 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (the following is a joke) This way if the wikinazis ever get into power they can easy ban all the jewish users. Jon513 16:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not divisive at all. Speedy the nominator for being so stupid nominationg all these perfectly fine userboxes - • The Giant Puffin • 16:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Speedy delete the nominator. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not divisive -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 22:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipeia is hosted in Florida, right? So doesn't that grant freedom of religion under the US Constitution? (If not, well, IANAL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A no-brainer. I suppose Alibabs would have us only characterize ourselves in trivial and inoffensive ways, like "advanced Javascript programmer". (Hey, come to think of it, I find that offensive and divisive! Well, maybe.) --Saforrest 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why are we even arguing this? Freepablo 10:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. All these nominations are disruptive. aliceinlampyland 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Silly debate really. mdmanser 04:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this template. Jgp 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No plausible reason to delete. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this is divisive. Clarinetplayer 05:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see this as divisive at all. It's no more divisive than one that says "I know French!" Meeve 22:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic keep. Stop trashing on religion userboxes; they're valid. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this is divisive--† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 23:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Divisive my ass. Alibabs just called himself a Neo-nazi. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's not go around saying which religions are legit and which aren't. Keep discrimination over what goes into Wikipedia in our topics, not our users' beliefs. Crazyswordsman 01:42, 6 March 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.

Template:User_kosher edit

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.

Delete as per Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. --Cyde Weys 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this is any more divisive than saying, for example, "I like carrots." MiraLuka 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to reduce electioneering (I've been contacted regarding Judaism-related articles due to the Judaism templates/categories I used to use, and I view this as a Bad Thing). Or keep, but auto-subst with that bot, whatsitsname. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on they are not divisive. Moe ε 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moe Epsilon. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It shows that you are quaified to edit the Kosher article. ems 14:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per EMS.Mike McGregor (Can) 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, but these nominations are just a waste of everyone's time. There's nothing wrong with them. --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nominator. This guy is a bit of a speedy strecher, he tried to tag football teams for speedy for being offensive and/or inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is also outside reasonable bounds, just letting you know. Proof: [9] and [10]WriterFromAfar755 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's not divisive Shlomke 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see anything wrong with this template. (Ibaranoff24 06:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I think this userbox is great Jon513 16:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speedy delete the nominator. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipeia is hosted in Florida, right? So doesn't that grant freedom of religion under the US Constitution? (If not, well, IANAL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A no-brainer. I suppose Alibabs would have us only characterize ourselves in trivial ways, like "advanced Javascript programmer". --Saforrest 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. aliceinlampyland 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this template. Jgp 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if you're going to consider things like Template:User Jew divisive (which I don't), this one definitely is not. Clarinetplayer 05:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely no clue why this userbox is here; there's absolutely nothing explicit about religion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This UB is 100% Kosher. Pun intended. -Reuvenk_[T][C] 15:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This voting is ambigous and silly. Kirils 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because there is obviously a mass AfD on religious userboxes, I'm going to say this here, and only here, but it applies to every userbox up for AfD right now. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is also a community. A very large global community at that. For this reason, it is good to get to know different beliefs because it is good for the learning process (forgive my bad grammar). Beliefs are important to us all, but to say they divide Wikipedians is just....not true. These userboxes were AfD'd because they were "divisive" and per the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. I read the policy, which I support, by the way, and I found no objections to religious userboxes. Crazyswordsman 04:49, 6 March 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.

Template:User_Shabbat edit

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.

Delete as per Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. --Cyde Weys 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This box merely helps to explain regular absence of some users on Saturday. I don't see what is "devisive" here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment why not write on your user page that you do not use wikipedia on a Saturday? Alibabs 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is wrong with doing the same in a box? Let me guess: it is "divisive" (your term). I don't have a problem changing the text to wiki-shabbat. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this is any more divisive than saying, for example, "I like carrots." MiraLuka 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to reduce electioneering (I've been contacted regarding Judaism-related articles due to the Judaism templates/categories I used to use, and I view this as a Bad Thing). Or keep, but auto-subst with that bot, whatsitsname. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on they are not divisive. Moe ε 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 10:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep shows they are quified to edit the Shabbat article. ems 14:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EMS. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nominator. This guy is a bit of a speedy strecher, he tried to tag football teams for speedy for being offensive and/or inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is also outside reasonable bounds, just letting you know. Proof: [11] and [12]WriterFromAfar755 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's not divisive Shlomke 04:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see anything wrong with this template. (Ibaranoff24 06:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep look at some shomer shabbos wikiholics user contributions. You see tons of edits and then a 25 hour break and then more edits. For someone who doesn't know about shabbos that can look pretty strange. Jon513 16:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speedy delete the nominator. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipeia is hosted in Florida, right? So doesn't that grant freedom of religion under the US Constitution? (If not, well, IANAL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A no-brainer. I suppose Alibabs would have us only characterize ourselves in trivial ways, like "advanced Javascript programmer". --Saforrest 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. aliceinlampyland 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this template. Jgp 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Divisive. Right. Someone here desparately needs a dictionary. Alibabs, you definitely don't want me to check your user page for divisive userboxes. Misza13 ^{T C E} 11:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus demonstrates that religion userboxes are acceptable. This one in particular has some value even away from religion by explaining personal habits which may relate to Wikipedia participation. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think it is nice and also tells why not on site during Shabbat elizmr 18:09, 6 March 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.

Template:User_ethnic_Jew edit

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.

Delete as per Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. --Cyde Weys 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this is any more divisive than saying, for example, "I like carrots." MiraLuka 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to reduce electioneering (I've been contacted regarding Judaism-related articles due to the Judaism templates/categories I used to use, and I view this as a Bad Thing). Or keep, but auto-subst with that bot, whatsitsname. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on they are not divisive. Moe ε 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second MiraLuka's argument--it's not offensive, and it applies to many Wikipedians (such as myself). Jgp 14:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this shows no quifacations. ems 14:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Userboxes were never intended to be restricted to the purpose of displaying qualifications. --Saforrest 07:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of this template, I might have a non-neutral stance per definition, but I fail to recognize the "divisive" character of the template. It is clearly not a userbox related to religion, which have been labeled "divisive" (although I did not perceive they were a particular threat to the community), but a userbox related to ancestry. The intention of the userbox is clearly expressed in it's own text. Userboxes related to ancestry have not been classified as "divisive". No reason to delete. --Vargher 15:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep discloses editor's pov and/or religious affliiation, contributing to an open and honest atmosphere and understanding of editor's bias' which makes for a stronger and more creditable 'pedia. also can be seen as a statement of editing intrest, as someone who identifies as a member of a given religion would be more likley to edit related articles, finally, no need for these nominations until there is a userbox policy in place or a consensus to mandate these deletions. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll does not apply in this case. Those who use it as an argument for deletion misinterpret the userbox. The original wording of the paragraph of the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll which is presumed to apply here is the following: This provision should be interpreted fairly liberally, and would likely include templates related to language, expertise, geographic or national focus, wiki-status (admin etc.), project membership, editing interests, and wiki-tasking (mediator etc.). (check here). This userbox does relate to ancestry, which frequently, though not always, is a direct declaration of a possible national / geographic focus and language, although the latter issue is not the case here. It does NOT identify a religious belief, nor is it a userbox which can be treated as a so-called "anti"-userbox. By stating that the user in question is "not an adherent of Judaism" the userbox does not reveal personal beliefs or attack Judaism as a belief - it merely helps to distinguish between the concept of an ethnic Jew and a believing Jew / a Jew according to the Halakha. Prove me wrong, but -at least in my eyes- this particular userbox does not meet any of the criteria for deletion. --Vargher 22:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not offensive. --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nominator. This guy is a bit of a speedy strecher, he tried to tag football teams for speedy for being offensive and/or inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is also outside reasonable bounds, just letting you know. Proof: [13] and [14]WriterFromAfar755 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see anything wrong with this template, and I wish you schmucks would stop trying to crackdown on these userboxes like this. It's really annoying. (Ibaranoff24 06:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Not divisive. Ancestry. --Lukobe 08:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipeia is hosted in Florida, right? So doesn't that grant freedom of religion under the US Constitution? (If not, well, IANAL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. There are two rights: the right to leave and the right to fork. See here.--Alhutch 05:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - From that link you put "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline." Now IAOALS (I Am Only A Law Student), but as freedom of speech/religion (not as written in the 1st amendment, but as a fundamental human right of man) is considered a fundamental right, then it implicitly exists until it is infringed, thus applying here too. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. aliceinlampyland 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I have strong ashkenazim genes, so I find deleting this template racistic. :P Anyways, "as per above" --nlitement ^[talk] 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has nothing to do with the writing of an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 05:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment none of the userboxes do. -Joeyramoney 22:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not even a little bit divisive by any reasonable standard. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this could qualify for deltion under the policy. -Lzygenius 00:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Okay, this one is not even religion and you know it. WHY is this here? Let's delete all the templates saying this user is from Spain, or this user is from Japan, or wherever. That would be very similar to this deletion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is useful to know what users know about what topics when trying to edit topics outside ones area of expertise. This template seems to be in this set. JoshuaZ 01:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Niffweed17. This is a personal identifier for many users, just like saying I am near-sighted or I ran a marathon. Any ethnic or national userboxes should be deleted as well if this one is going to be deleted. Cybertooth85 19:43, 6 March 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.

Template:User_Adventist edit

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.

Delete Alibabs 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. --Cyde Weys 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you claim that a poll which has not completed can be a reason for voting one way or the other. Ansell 08:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this is any more divisive than saying, for example, "I like carrots." MiraLuka 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to reduce electioneering (I've been contacted regarding Judaism-related articles due to the Judaism templates/categories I used to use, and I view this as a Bad Thing). Or keep, but auto-subst with that bot, whatsitsname. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on they are not divisive. Moe ε 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 10:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep discloses editor's pov and/or religious affliiation, contributing to an open and honest atmosphere and understanding of editor's bias' which makes for a stronger and more creditable 'pedia. also can be seen as a statement of editing intrest, as someone who identifies as a member of a given religion would be more likley to edit related articles, finally, no need for these nominations until there is a userbox policy in place or a consensus to mandate these deletions.Mike McGregor (Can) 17:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nominator. This guy is a bit of a speedy strecher, he tried to tag football teams for speedy for being offensive and/or inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is also outside reasonable bounds, just letting you know. Proof: [15] and [16]WriterFromAfar755 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's nothing wrong with these templates. (Ibaranoff24 06:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Speedy delete the nominator. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nothing wrong with this template --146.184.0.119 21:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipeia is hosted in Florida, right? So doesn't that grant freedom of religion under the US Constitution? (If not, well, IANAL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A no-brainer. I suppose Alibabs would have us only characterize ourselves in trivial ways, like "advanced Javascript programmer". --Saforrest 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. aliceinlampyland 22:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this template. Jgp 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus demonstrates that religion userboxes are valid. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User boxes are not divisive. Nothing wrong with freedom of religion on wikipedia. Ansell 06:53, 5 March 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.

Template:User_Catholic_Evangelical edit

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.

delete Alibabs 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. --Cyde Weys 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this is any more divisive than saying, for example, "I like carrots." MiraLuka 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to reduce electioneering (I've been contacted regarding Judaism-related articles due to the Judaism templates/categories I used to use, and I view this as a Bad Thing). Or keep, but auto-subst with that bot, whatsitsname. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on they are not divisive. Moe ε 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 10:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep discloses editor's pov and/or religious affliiation, contributing to an open and honest atmosphere and understanding of editor's bias' which makes for a stronger and more creditable 'pedia. also can be seen as a statement of editing intrest, as someone who identifies as a member of a given religion would be more likley to edit related articles, finally, no need for these nominations until there is a userbox policy in place or a consensus to mandate these deletions. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I shouldn't even have to explain why at this *ahem* point... --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nominator. This guy is a bit of a speedy strecher, he tried to tag football teams for speedy for being offensive and/or inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is also outside reasonable bounds, just letting you know. Proof: [17] and [18]WriterFromAfar755 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's nothing wrong with these templates. (Ibaranoff24 06:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Speedy delete the nominator. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipeia is hosted in Florida, right? So doesn't that grant freedom of religion under the US Constitution? (If not, well, IANAL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- there is no right to freedom of speech on wikipedia. see here--Alhutch 05:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - From that link you put "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline." Now IAOALS (I Am Only A Law Student), but as freedom of speech/religion (not as written in the 1st amendment, but as a fundamental human right of man) is considered a fundamental right, then it implicitly exists until it is infringed, thus applying here too.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - ::blinks:: Wikipedia is private property. By definition, no right of freedom of speech here exists. You can say what you want, but Wikimedia is not required to provide you a platform for it. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That does not mean that they lose the right to choose. Ansell 06:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe it's stated that Wikipedia is not a democracy. That having been said, free speech should exist. --myselfalso 15:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You misread him. He said Freedom of religion, not Freedom of Speech. Anyway that essay is designed to be a rebuttal to arguments made by vandals and such, and it has nothing to do with userpages, at least the way I interpret it. Crazyswordsman 21:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A no-brainer. I suppose Alibabs would have us only characterize ourselves in trivial ways, like "advanced Javascript programmer". --Saforrest 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. aliceinlampyland 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete has nothing to do with the writing of an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 05:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this template. Jgp 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HOW MANY TIMES do I have to say keep, undelete, whatever! - This userbox (one I created, hence my anger) was still under another deletion review after having been deleted by User:Improv on 2006-02-20 18:11:50. The conclusion of that DRV has now been held pending this vote. This vote should have never been started because of the DRV. Uuggh. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless/until the userbox policy is implemented. Then, remove it from Templatespace. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Catholicism is not illegal. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't we already vote on this userbox only very recently? Homestarmy 20:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yep, this is legit, too. Crazyswordsman 01:44, 6 March 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.

Template:User_rc edit

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.

delete Was this userbox missed? Alibabs 00:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. --Cyde Weys 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Keep I fail to see how this is any more divisive than saying, for example, "I like carrots." MiraLuka 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to reduce electioneering (I've been contacted regarding Judaism-related articles due to the Judaism templates/categories I used to use, and I view this as a Bad Thing). Or keep, but auto-subst with that bot, whatsitsname. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on they are not divisive. Moe ε 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pending poll outcome. --AySz88 ^-^ 04:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Tan DX 06:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 10:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. -- Korean alpha for knowledge 13:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Why would anyone think self-identifying Faith as divisive? Dominick ^(TALK) 14:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep discloses editor's pov and/or religious affliiation, contributing to an open and honest atmosphere and understanding of editor's bias' which makes for a stronger and more creditable 'pedia. also can be seen as a statement of editing intrest, as someone who identifies as a member of a given religion would be more likley to edit related articles, finally, no need for these nominations until there is a userbox policy in place or a consensus to mandate these deletions. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should vote keep per McGregor as it useful, in no way divisive or otherwise harmful (unless someone's insulted by my beliefs - but then there's something wrong with him), but noone seems to care about that anymore. Instead, I urge to hold the discussion until a consensus on the userbox policy is ready. Or just do yourself a favor, subst it and forget before your Wikistress jumps again. Misza13 ^(Talk) 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nominator. This guy is a bit of a speedy strecher, he tried to tag football teams for speedy for being offensive and/or inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is also outside reasonable bounds, just letting you know. Proof: [19] and [20]WriterFromAfar755 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That shouldn't have to do with any TfD debates. While your accusations may be valid, bringing them up here amounts to a personal attack. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's nothing wrong with these templates. (Ibaranoff24 06:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Not a threat to anyone. Acetic Acid 08:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has nothing to do with the writing of an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 17:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speedy delete the nominator. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipeia is hosted in Florida, right? So doesn't that grant freedom of religion under the US Constitution? (If not, well, IANAL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A no-brainer. I suppose Alibabs would have us only characterize ourselves in trivial ways, like "advanced Javascript programmer". --Saforrest 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cannot see any reason for deleting it. Where is the offence ? And against who ? Ginko 09:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. aliceinlampyland 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Consensus demonstrates that religion userboxes are valid. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to delete Userboxes.
Keep Nothing wrong with this template. Jgp 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 06:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Why should this userbox be deleted? Since when is it offensive to say that one is Catholic? There is nothing wrong with this template, and it should be kept. --Nomader 23:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there is absolutely no reason to delete this userbox. joturner 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails to meet the conditions for deltion. --Lzygenius 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDeletion would amount to a bias crime. There is no valid argument given why this userbox should be deleted. Which then qualifies all userboxes the be deleted.--dirtyliberal 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 23:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no threat posed by it, and there was no valid reason (none, actually...period) to delete it provided by the nominator. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no logical reason for deletion. —Peter McGinley 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It discloses potential bias, contributing interest, and/or knowledge about the subject. None of these is a bad thing.DonaNobisPacem 21:03, 6 March 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. Angr/talk 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1080° Snowboarding edit

Subst and Delete - Single-use template. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst: and delete – per nom – Gurch 18:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete – per nom – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kirils 00:29, 6 March 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.