Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

List of tallest buildings and structures

2006-01-15T20:41:29Z

Bourbons3: /* See also */ removed duplicate link

[[Image:ost.jpg|thumb|220px|[[Ostankino Tower]] in [[Moscow]] has been the tallest free-standing structure in Eurasia since [[1967]].]]

Until the mid 20th century the record for the '''world's tallest structure''' was relatively clearly defined (see [[#Tallest structures before 1954|table below]].) Since that time however, more debate and confusion has been present over the criteria and definitions involved. In terms of absolute height, most of the tallest structures are the dozens of radio and television broadcasting towers that are around 600 meters (2000 feet) tall.

Tall-structure enthusiasts debate:

* whether [[guy-wire]]–supported structures should be eligible to be counted
* whether only habitable height counts and if so;
** whether observation galleries on communication towers make them into habitable buildings
* whether roof-top [[antenna (electronics)|antenna]]s can be counted towards height of buildings (the debate over this has especially focused on the fact that things that look like [[spire]]s can be either classified as an antenna or an "architectural detail")
* whether structures currently under construction can be included in the list
* whether structures rising out of water should have their below-water height included.

==Tallest structures==
'''Tallest Structure by Category'''
{| class="wikitable"
|- bgcolor="#ececec"
! Category !! Structure !! Country/Region !! City !! Height to relevant point
|-
|Supported structure - under construction||[[Magnolia Tension-leg Platform]]|| Gulf of Mexico || || 1,430 m (est.) (4,700')
|-
|Supported structure||[[Mars Tension-leg Platform]]|| Gulf of Mexico || || 990.6 [[meter|m]] (3,250 [[foot (unit of length)|ft]])
|-
|Building - under construction ||[[Burj Dubai]]|| UAE || Dubai || 800 m (est.) (2,624 ft)
|-
|Supported structure on land ever built||[[Warsaw Radio Mast]]|| Poland || Gabin || 646.38 m (2,120 ft) (collapsed in 1991)
|-
|Supported structure on land||[[KVLY-TV mast]]||USA|| Blanchard, North Dakota || 629 m (2,063 ft)
|-
|Freestanding structure||[[Petronius Platform]]|| Gulf of Mexico || || 610 m (2,001 ft)
|-
|Freestanding structure on land || [[CN Tower]] || Canada || Toronto || 553 m (1,815 ft)
|-
|Building - to highest point ||[[Sears Tower]]|| USA || Chicago || 529 m (1,736 ft)
|-
|Building - to top of antenna||[[Sears Tower]]|| USA || Chicago || 529 m (1,736 ft)
|-
|Building - to architectural top||[[Taipei 101]]|| Taiwan || Taipei || 508 m (1,667 ft)
|-
|Building - to top of the roof||[[Taipei 101]]|| Taiwan || Taipei || 448 m (1,470 ft)
|-
|Building - to highest occupied floor||[[Taipei 101]]|| Taiwan || Taipei || 438 m (1,437 ft)
|-
|Twin Towers ||[[Petronas Twin Towers]]|| Malaysia || Kuala Lumpur || 452 m (1,482 ft)
|-
|Chimney ||[[GRES-2 Power Station]]|| Kazakhstan || Ekibastusz || 419.7 m (1,375 ft)
|-
|Lattice tower||[[Kiev TV Tower]]|| Ukraine || Kiev || 385 m (1,263 ft)
|-
|Chimney - freestanding ||[[Inco Superstack]]|| Canada || Sudbury || 381m (1,257 ft)
|-
|Partially guyed tower||[[Gerbrandy Tower]]|| Netherlands || Lopik|| 375 m (1,230 ft)
|-
|Bridge pillar||[[Millau Viaduct]]||France || Millau || 341 m (1,119 ft)
|-
|Incomplete building||[[Ryugyong Hotel]]|| North Korea || Pyongyang|| 330 m (1,083 ft)
|-
|Residential building||[[Q1 (building) | Q1]]||Australia || Gold Coast || 323 m (1,059 ft)
|-
|Electricity pylon||[[Pylons of Pearl River Crossing]]|| China || Pearl River || 253 m (830 ft)
|-
|Minaret||[[Hassan II Mosque]]|| Morocco || Casablanca || 210 m (689 ft)
|-
|Tallest wooden tower ever built||[[Transmitter Muehlacker|Radio Tower Muehlacker]]|| Germany || Mühlacker || 190 m (689 ft) (demolished in 1945)
|-
|Masonry building||[[Philadelphia City Hall]]|| USA || Philadelphia || 167 m (548 ft)
|-
|Church tower||[[Ulm Münster]]|| Germany || Ulm || 161 m (528 ft)
|-
|Industrial hall ||[[Vehicle Assembly Building]]|| USA || Kennedy Space Center || 160 m (525 ft)
|-
|Memorial cross ||[[Santa Cruz del Valle de los Caídos]]|| Spain || El Escorial|| 152.4 m (500 ft)
|-
|Educational Building ||[[Moscow State University]]|| Russia || Moscow || 240 m (787 ft)
|-
|Silo ||[[Henninger Turm]]|| Germany || Frankfurt || 120 m (394 ft)
|-
|Air-traffic-control tower ||[[KUL Control Tower]]|| Malaysia || Kuala Lumpur || 130 m (427 ft)
|-
|Light advertisement ||[[Bayer Cross Leverkusen]]|| Germany || Leverkusen || 118 m (387 ft)
|-
|Wooden tower ||[[Radio Tower Gliwice]]|| Poland || Gliwice || 118 m (387 ft)
|-
|Support tower of aerial tramway ||[[Kaprun|Pillar of third section of Gletscherbahn Kaprun]]|| Austria || Kaprun || 113.6 m (373 ft)
|}
[[Image:Mars Tension-leg Platform.jpg|right|thumb|Mars Tension-leg Platform]]
[[Image:Mars Tension-leg Platform after Katrina.jpg|thumb|Mars Tension-leg Platform showing damage from Hurricane Katrina (2005)]]
The tallest currently standing structure, including those structures which are partially under water, is the [[Mars Tension-leg Platform|Mars Platform]] in the [[Gulf of Mexico]], at 990.6 m (3,250 ft). It is a [[tension-leg platform]], meaning that it consists of a deck located atop a hull which is connected to pontoons located far below the water surface, which provide buoyancy support. The structure is connected to foundation piles on the sea floor by rigid tendons, which are analogous to guy-wires. As this [[oil]] and [[natural gas]] platform is partially supported by [[buoyancy]], some critics argue that the below-water height should not be counted, in the same manner as the underground 'height' of buildings is not taken into account.

The Mars Platform, while still standing and predominantly intact, is currently not functioning due to the effects of [[Hurricane Katrina]] in late August of 2005. The platform was engineered to withstand 22 m (72 ft) waves and 225 km/h (120 mph) winds simultaneously; however, winds alone from Katrina were estimated to be in the 265 to 280 km/h (165 to 175 mph) range in the vicinity of the platform. ***The structural height of the above-deck portion of the platform was temporarily affected by as much as 20 m (65 ft).

[[Image:KVLYFromBase.jpeg|thumb|100px|KVLY-TV mast]]
The tallest currently standing structure on land is the [[KVLY-TV mast]] near [[Mayville, North Dakota|Mayville]], [[North Dakota]], at 629 m (2,063 ft). It is a transmission antenna, consisting of a bare [[metal]] structure supported by guy-wires. The [[Warsaw radio mast]] at [[Gabin]]-[[Konstantynow]] near [[Warsaw]], [[Poland]] at 645 m (2,115 ft) was taller, but it collapsed on [[August 8]], [[1991]]. Masts such as these are generally not considered 'tall buildings', primarilly because they are not self-supporting. They require guy wires to remain upright. For greater detail on communication masts, see either [[List of the world's tallest structures]], [[List of masts]], or [[Table of masts]].

The [[Petronius Platform]] stands 610 m (2,001 ft) tall, making it the tallest freestanding structure in the world. However, as this [[oil]] and [[natural gas]] platform is partially supported by [[buoyancy]], some critics argue that the below-water height should not be counted, in the same manner as the underground 'height' of buildings is not taken into account.

The [[CN Tower]] in [[Toronto]] stands at 553.33 m (1,815 ft) tall, and it is the tallest freestanding structure above ground.

The tallest tower built of lattice steel is [[Kiev TV Tower]] with a height of 386 metres. Built in 1934 and demolished in 1945, the tallest tower ever built of wood was the 190 metre high radio tower of the [[transmitter Mühlacker]] in Germany. The tallest tower built of wood is currently the transmission tower of the [[Radio Tower Gliwice|transmitter Gliwice]] in [[Poland]] at 118 meters.

== Way of comparison ==
There are two ways of comparison,
the CTBUH way (explained later in this article) and the AA Skyscraper way.
[[All About Skyscrapers]] (AA Skyscrapers) divided the comparison of structures into seven different categories.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Fully habitable structures - Spire
| Taipei 101
| Taipei
| 1,671 ft (509m)
|-
| Fully habitable structures - Antenna,
| Sears Tower
| Chicago
| 1,736 ft (529m)
|-
| Fully habitable structures - Highest Floor,
| Taipei 101
| Taipei
| 1,437 ft (438m)
|-
| Partially habitable structures - Spire,
| CN Tower
| Toronto
| 1,481 ft (452m)
|-
| Partially habitable structures - Antenna,
| CN Tower
| Toronto
| 1,816 ft (554m)
|-
| Partially habitable structures - Highest Floor,
| CN Tower
| Toronto
| 1,481 ft (452m)
|}

== Tallest buildings ==

[[Image:Skyscrapercompare1.PNG|thumb|450px|Comparison of top skyscrapers]]

Up until [[1998]] the tallest building status was essentially uncontested. Counting buildings as structures with floors throughout, [[New York City]]'s [[World Trade Center]] was the tallest including the antennas, [[Sears Tower]] in [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]] excluding the antennas. As antennas were usually excluded, Sears Tower was counted as the tallest. When [[Petronas Twin Towers]] in [[Kuala Lumpur]], [[Malaysia]] was built, some felt that the "spire" extending to 9 meters higher than the roof of the Sears Tower was just added to "cheat" its way into the spot as tallest building. Excluding the spire, the Petronas Towers were not taller than the Sears Tower. Therefore, before the Petronas Towers were completed, the [[Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat]] defined four categories in which the "world's tallest building" can be measured:

# Height to the structural or architectural top (including [[spire]]s and pinnacles, but not antennas, masts or flagpoles)
# Height to the highest occupied floor
# Height to the top of the roof
# Height to the top of antenna

The height is measured from the sidewalk level of the main entrance. In all of these categories, Sears Tower had held the top spot. After Petronas was built, Sears Tower became second in the first category only.

On [[April 20]], [[2004]], the [[Taipei 101]] in [[Taipei]], [[Taiwan]] was completed. Its completion gave it the record for the first category.

Today, the Taipei 101 leads in the first category with 508 m (1,667 ft); in the second category with an occupied floor at 438 m (1,437 ft); and in the third category with 448 m (1,470 ft). The first category was formerly held by the Petronas Twin Towers with 452 m (1,483 ft), and before that by Sears Tower with 443 m (1,448 ft). The second category was held by the Sears Tower, with 435 m (1,431 ft). The third category was formerly held by the Sears Tower with 442 m (1,445 ft).

The Sears Tower still leads in the fourth category with 529 m (1,736 ft), previously held by the World Trade Center until its [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack|destruction]] in 2001; its antenna included, it measured 536 m (1,758 ft). The World Trade Center became the world's tallest buildings to be demolished–indeed, its site entered the record books twice on [[September 11]], [[2001]], in that category, replacing the [[Singer Building]], which once stood a block from the WTC site.

The [[Ostankino Tower]] and the [[CN Tower]] are excluded from these categories because they are not "habitable buildings", which are defined as frame structures made with floors and walls throughout.

'''History of Record Holders in each [[Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat|CTBUH]] category'''
{| class="wikitable"
|- align="wrap"
|Date (Event)|||'''1. Height to the architectural top'''|| '''2. Height to the highest occupied floor''' || '''3. Height to the top of the roof'''||'''4. Height to the top of antenna'''
|-
|'''2003''' (Completion of [[Taipei 101]])||[[Taipei 101]]||[[Taipei 101]]||[[Taipei 101]]||[[Sears Tower]]
|-
|'''2001''' (Destruction of [[World Trade Center]])||[[Petronas Twin Towers]]||[[Sears Tower]]||[[Sears Tower]]||[[Sears Tower]]
|-
|'''1998''' (Completion of [[Petronas Towers]])||[[Petronas Twin Towers]]||[[Sears Tower]]||[[Sears Tower]]||[[World Trade Center]]
|-
|'''1996''' (CTBUH defines the four categories)||[[Sears Tower]]||[[Sears Tower]]||[[Sears Tower]]||[[World Trade Center]]
|}

==Tallest buildings in world history==
{| class="wikitable"
|- style="background: #ececec;"
! colspan="2" | Held record
! rowspan="2" | Name and Location
! rowspan="2" | Constructed
! rowspan="2" | Height (m)
! rowspan="2" | Height (ft)
! rowspan="2" | Notes
|- style="background: #ececec;"
! From
! To
|-
|c. [[26th century BC|2600 BC]]
|c. [[26th century BC|2570 BC]]
| align="left" | [[Red Pyramid]] of [[Sneferu]], [[Egypt]]
|c. [[26th century BC|2600 BC]]
|105
|345
| 
|-
|c. [[26th century BC|2570 BC]]
|c. [[1300|AD 1300]]
| align="left" | [[Great Pyramid of Giza]], [[Egypt]]
|c. [[26th century BC|2570 BC]]
|146
|481
| align="left" | By [[1439|AD 1439]] the Great Pyramid had eroded to a height of approximately 139 m (455 ft)
|-
|c. [[1300]]
|[[1549]]
| align="left" | [[Lincoln Cathedral]], [[England]]
|[[1092]]–[[1311]]
|160
|524
| align="left" | The central spire was destroyed in a storm in 1549
|-
|[[1549]]
|[[1625]]
| align="left" | St. Olav's Church, [[Tallinn]] (Reval), [[Estonia]]
|[[1438]]–[[1519]]
|159
|522
| align="left" | The spire burnt down after a lightning strike in 1625, rebuilt several times, current overall height is 123 m
|-
|[[1625]]
|[[1847]]
| align="left" | Notre Dame [[Minster (cathedral)|Minster]], [[Strasbourg]], [[Germany]], now [[France]]
|[[1439]]
|143
|469
| align="left" |
|-
|[[1847]]
|[[1876]]
| align="left" | St. Nikolaikirche, [[Hamburg]], [[Germany]]
|[[1846]]–[[1847]]
|147
|483
| align="left" | Designed by [[George Gilbert Scott]]
|-
|[[1876]]
|[[1880]]
| align="left" | Cathédrale Notre Dame, [[Rouen]], [[France]]
|[[1202]]–[[1876]]
|151
|495
| 
|-
|[[1880]]
|[[1884]]
| align="left" | [[Cologne Cathedral]], [[Germany]]
|[[1248]]–[[1880]]
|157
|515
| align="left" | Still the tallest Gothic spires
|-
|[[1884]]
|[[1889]]
| align="left" | [[Washington Monument]], [[United States]]
|[[1848]]–[[1884]]
|169
|555
| align="left" | Still the tallest free-standing stone structure in the world
|-
|[[1889]]
|[[1930]]
| align="left" | [[Eiffel Tower]], [[Paris]], [[France]]
|[[1889]]
|300
|986
| align="left" | The addition of a telecommunications tower brought the overall height to 324 meters in the 1950s
|-
|[[1930]]
|[[1931]]
| align="left" | [[Chrysler Building]], [[New York]], [[United States]]
|[[1928]]–[[1930]]
|319
|1046
| 
|-
|[[1931]]
|[[1972]]
| align="left" | [[Empire State Building]], [[New York]], [[United States]]
|[[1930]]–[[1931]]
|381
|1250
| 
|-
|[[1972]]
|[[1974]]
| align="left" | [[World Trade Center]], Tower One, [[New York]], [[United States]]
|[[1972]]
|417
|1368
| align="left" | Destroyed in [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]
|-
|[[1974]]
|[[1998]]
| align="left" | [[Sears Tower]], [[Chicago, Illinois]], [[United States]]
|[[1974]]
|442
|1451
| 
|-
|[[1998]]
|[[2004]]
| align="left" | [[Petronas Towers]], [[Kuala Lumpur]], [[Malaysia]]
|[[1998]]
|452
|1483
| 
|-
|[[2004]]
|
| align="left" | [[Taipei 101]], [[Taipei]], [[Taiwan]]
|[[2004]]
|508
|1668
| 
|}

==Currently-standing tallest skyscrapers==
<big><center>'''Listed by height to the architectural top.'''</center></big>

Note that this list, with the exception of the comparison section, is limited to a certain type of structure, and is characterized by a very specific type of height measurement. Most of the tallest structures in the world are guyed broadcasting towers. The structures on this list are ''not'' sorted by the absolute highest point on the building, due to the nature of the skyscrapers.

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="background: #ececec; vertical-align: bottom;"
! rowspan="2" | Rank
! rowspan="2" | Name and location
! rowspan="2" | Year completed
! colspan="2" | Height to architectural top1
! rowspan="2" | Stories
|- style="background: #ececec;"
!m
!ft
|-
|1
| align="left" | [[Taipei 101]], [[Taipei]], [[Taiwan]]
|2004
|508
|1,668
|101
|-
|2
| align="left" | [[Petronas Towers|Petronas Tower I]], [[Kuala Lumpur]], [[Malaysia]]
|1998
|452
|1,483
|88
|-
|(tie) 2
| align="left" | [[Petronas Towers|Petronas Tower II]], [[Kuala Lumpur]], [[Malaysia]]
|1998
|452
|1,483
|88
|-
|4
| align="left" | [[Sears Tower]], [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]] ([[Illinois|IL]]), [[United States]]
|1974
|442
|1,451
|108
|-
|5
| align="left" | [[Jin Mao Building]], [[Shanghai]], [[People's Republic of China|China]]
|1998
|421
|1,380
|88
|-
|6
| align="left" | [[International Finance Centre|Two International Finance Centre]], [[Hong Kong]], [[People's Republic of China|China]]
|2003
|420
|1,377
|88
|-
|7
| align="left" | [[CITIC Plaza]], [[Guangzhou]], [[People's Republic of China|China]]
|1997
|391
|1,283
|80
|-
|8
| align="left" | [[Shun Hing Square]], [[Shenzhen]], [[People's Republic of China|China]]
|1996
|384
|1,260
|69
|-
|9
| align="left" | [[Empire State Building]], [[New York City|New York]] (NY), [[United States]]
|1931
|381
|1,250
|102
|-
|10
| align="left" | [[Central Plaza]], [[Hong Kong]], [[People's Republic of China|China]]
|1992
|374
|1,227
|78
|-
|11
| align="left" | [[Bank of China Tower]], [[Hong Kong]], [[People's Republic of China|China]]
|1989
|368
|1,209
|72
|-
|12
| align="left" | [[Emirates Office Tower]], [[Dubai]], [[United Arab Emirates]]
|1999
|355
|1,165
|55
|-
|13
| align="left" | [[T & C Tower]], [[Kaohsiung]], [[Taiwan]]
|1997
|347
|1,140
|85
|-
|14
| align="left" | [[Aon Center]], [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]] (IL), [[United States]]
|1973
|346
|1,136
|80
|-
|15
| align="left" | [[The Center]], [[Hong Kong]], [[People's Republic of China|China]]
|1998
|346
|1,135
|73
|-
|16
| align="left" | [[John Hancock Center]], [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]] (IL), [[United States]]
|1967
|344
|1,127
|100
|-
|17
| align="left" | [[Ryugyong Hotel]], [[Pyongyang]], [[North Korea]]
|1995
|330
|1,083
|105
|-
|18
| align="left" | [[Burj al Arab Hotel]], [[Dubai]], [[United Arab Emirates]]
|1999
|321
|1,053
|60
|-
|19
| align="left" | [[Chrysler Building]], [[New York City|New York]] (NY), [[United States]]
|1930
|319
|1,046
|77
|-
|20
| align="left" | [[Bank of America Plaza (Atlanta)|Bank of America Plaza]], [[Atlanta, Georgia|Atlanta]] ([[Georgia (U.S. state)|GA]]), [[United States]]
|1993
|312
|1,023
|55
|-
|21
| align="left" | [[U.S. Bank Tower]], [[Los Angeles]] ([[California|CA]]), [[United States]]
|1990
|310
|1,018
|75
|-
|22
| align="left" | [[Telekom Malaysia Headquarters]], [[Kuala Lumpur]], [[Malaysia]]
|1999
|310
|1,017
|55
|-
|23
| align="left" | [[Emirates Towers Hotel]], [[Dubai]], [[United Arab Emirates]]
|2000
|309
|1,014
|56
|-
|24
| align="left" | [[AT&T Corporate Center]], [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]] (IL), [[United States]]
|1989
|307
|1,007
|60
|-
|25
| align="left" | [[First Canadian Place]], [[Toronto]] ([[Ontario|ON]]), [[Canada]]
|1975
|298
|978
|72
|- style="background: #f9f9f9;"
! colspan="6" align="left" | Towers and Other Structures for comparison
|-

|-
|–
| align="left" | [[KVLY-TV mast]], [[Fargo, North Dakota|Fargo]] ([[North Dakota|ND]]), [[United States]]
|1963
|629
|2,063
|–
|-
|1
| align="left" | [[CN Tower]], [[Toronto]] ([[Ontario|ON]]), [[Canada]]
|1976
|553
|1,815
|–
|-
|2
| align="left" | [[Ostankino Tower]], [[Moscow]], [[Russia]]
|1967
|540
|1,772
|–
|}
1 Height for inhabited buildings (with stories) does not include TV towers and antennas. 
2 The tallest tower in the Southern Hemisphere.

''Source: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.''

== Proposed record-breaking structures ==

[[Image:worldstallestucoctprogress9iw.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Chart of progress of buildings currently under construction (as of October 2005)]]
[[Image:UItower.png|thumb|115px|left|[[Urbis Interminatus]], 5416 ft (1651 m)]]

In [[1956]], [[Frank Lloyd Wright]] proposed a structure known as [[The Illinois]], which would have been one mile (1609 m) high. This structure was considered by many both technically impossible, and wholly unneeded. Since that time some 4000 ft (1220 m) tall or higher skyscrapers or pyramids have been proposed as population pressures have seemed to indicate a need for them, but as of now, no structure approaching the height of The Illinois is past a planning stage. (See [[X-Seed 4000]] and [[Sky City 1000]])

The UK architectural firm, Eric Kuhne and Associates, based in London, is in talks with the Kuwaiti Government about building a 1,001 meter tall tower in Madinat al-Hareer.

The proposed [[solar chimney]] referred to as [[Solar Tower Buronga]] in [[Buronga]], [[New South Wales]], [[Australia]] would be 1,000 m (3,281 ft) tall. Engineering feasibility has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of consulting engineers, and construction is a matter of financial viability.

The 492 m (1,614 ft; roof height) [[Shanghai World Financial Center]] in [[Shanghai]], [[China]] has proposed completion in 2007, but has been delayed by evaluation of soil stability. A competing on-going project for the world's tallest is the 490 m (1,608 ft) [[Union Square Phase 7]] in [[Hong Kong]], also scheduled for completion in 2007. This would make either building the tallest under categories 2 and 3 by the CTBUH.

The [[Freedom Tower]] of the new [[World Trade Center]] in [[New York City]] will reach 1,776 ft (541.3 metres) to its spire and about 1,368 ft (416.9 metres) to its roof once completed in [[2011]]. This would make it the tallest building under categories 1 and 4 by the CTBUH, if no other record-breakers were built until then. The cornerstone was laid on [[July 4]], 2004.

The [[Al Burj]] and the [[Burj Dubai]] are [[skyscraper]]s currently under development in [[Dubai]], [[United Arab Emirates]]. The final heights for both are unknown, but both will be at least 700 meters (2,296 feet). The Burj Dubai is designed to be completed around [[2008]], which would put it at the number one spot in all four of CTBUH's categories, as well as make it the tallest manmade structure of any kind in history.

The new [[Guangdong TV Tower]] at [[Guangzhou]], [[China]] may also become one of the world's tallest structures.

There are some plans for a 609.6 metre high free-standing TV tower at [[Bayonne, New Jersey]].

[[Maharishi Mahesh Yogi]] announced his own "world's tallest" proposal, the 677m-tall pyramid-shaped [[World Centre of Vedic Learning]], in 1998.

Serious thought and design work has been invested in a concept called the [[Space elevator]], which could conceivably extend from ground level to well past [[geosynchronous orbit]]; a height of 100,000 km, although the current state-of-the-art in technology cannot produce the materials needed for such an engineering feat. If built, it would shatter the current record for the tallest structure by a factor of almost 200,000.

Throughout the internet many building design proposals can be found, several of which surpass the height of [[Taipei 101]], including [[Twin Towers 2]] and [[Urbis Interminatus]].

==Other proposed very tall towers==

===Radio masts taller than 600 metres===

{| class="wikitable"
|- align="center" bgcolor="cccccc"
|Tower || Pinnacle height || Country || Town || Weblinks
|-
|Central Missouri State University Tower Syracuse
|609.6 metres
|[[USA]]
|Syracuse, Missouri
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=603905]
|-
|Liberman Broadcasting Tower Sargent
|609.6 metres
|USA
|Sargent, Texas
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2640248]
|-
|Cumulus Broadcasting Tower Winnie
|609.6 metres
|USA
|Winnie, Texas
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2641027]
|-
|American Media Services Tower Agate
|609.5 metres
|USA
|Agate, Colorado
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2638987]
|-
|Vertical Properties Tower Busterville
|609.5 metres
|USA
|Busterville, Texas
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2621630], [http://www.skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?b7157]
|-
|Cumulus Broadcasting Tower Stowell
|609.3 metres
|USA
|Stowell, Texas
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2610727]
|-
|Pegasus Broadcasting Tower
|609 metres
|USA
|Metcalf, Georgia
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=615734]
|-
|SpectraSite Tower Raymond
|608.8 metres
|USA
|Raymond, Mississippi
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2618667]
|-
|Beasley Tower
|608.7 metres
|USA
|Immokalee, Florida
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2633535]
|-
|KKDD-FM Tower
|608.1 metres
|USA
|Hoyt, Colorado
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2633333]
|-
|Liberman Broadcasting Tower Devers
|607.7 metres
|USA
|Devers, Texas
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2647054]
|-
|Wiliam Smith Tower Walker
|607 metres
|USA
|Walker, Iowa
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2620935]
|-
|CBC Real Estate Tower Auburn
|606.4 metres
|USA
|Auburn, North Carolina
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=613408]
|-
|Gray TV Tower Grifton
|605 metres
|USA
|Grifton, North Carolina
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=98245]
|-
|Pappas Telecasting Tower Plymouth County 2
|603.5 metres
|USA
|Plymouth County, Iowa
|[http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=618602]
|}

===Towers/Skyscrapers===
*TV tower of Djakarta [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=208756].

==See also==
* [[Skyscraper]]s
* [[List of tallest buildings and structures by country]]
* [[World's biggest and largest buildings]]
* [[Tallest buildings in the U.S.]]
* [[Tallest structures in Canada]]
* [[Tallest structures in the U.S.]]
* [[List of the world's tallest structures]]
* [[List of buildings]]
* [[List of skyscrapers]]
* [[List of towers]]
* [[List of masts]]
* [[List of tallest churches]]
* [[Tallest structures in the former Soviet Union]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.skyscraperpage.com/ SkyscraperPage]
* [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/ SkyscraperCity forum]
* [http://www.emporis.com/ Emporis]
* [http://www.skyscrapercity.info/ SkyscraperCity]
* [http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com Guinness Book of world Records]
* [http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/gwr5/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=50105 Guinness Entry for 'Tallest Office Building']
* [http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/gwr5/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=49675 Guinness Entry for 'Tallest Building']
* http://www.skyscrapernews.com
* [http://www.allaboutskyscrapers.com/ All About Skyscrapers]
* http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001338.html
* http://www.xs4all.nl/~hnetten/tallest.html
* http://www.civl.port.ac.uk/comp_prog/weird/tallest.html
* http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/buildings/buildings.html
*[http://www.nyc-architecture.com/ARCH/Notes-Tallest.htm New York Architecture Images- "Tallest building in the world!!"]
{{Supertall}}
[[Category:Buildings and structures]]
[[Category:World records|Structures]]
[[Category:Lists of structures|*Tallest]]

[[nl:Lijst van hoogste bouwwerken ter wereld (chronologisch)]]
[[pt:Estruturas mais altas do mundo]]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Holliday

2006-01-15T20:17:07Z

Bourbons3: added signiture

===[[Sydney Holliday]]===
Non notable advert for a website - google brings up no relevant hits for "Sydney Holliday" + journal. [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Googling just on 'Sydney Holliday' gets 116 hits, the first few pages of which contain no reference to fictional victorian characters. --[[User:Squiddy|Squiddy]] | [[User talk:Squiddy|(squirt ink?)]] 00:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' as [[WP:WEB|non-notable website]], [[WP:FICT|non-notable reference to fictional work]]. No (individual) Alexa rank for journal.atspace.com. —[[User:Quarl|Quarl]] ([[User Talk:Quarl|talk]]) [[2006-01-15]] 00:25[[ISO 8601|Z]]
* '''Delete''' non-notable -- [[User:That Guy, From That Show!|That Guy, From That Show!]] 03:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' agreed with above [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 03:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' hasta la vista--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 08:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Benami|Benami]] 09:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Nooby god|Nooby god]] 15:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per nom. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|M]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|@]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|th]][[User:Mathwiz2020|wiz]][[Special:Contributions/Mathwiz2020|2020]] 16:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' advertising, vanity. -- [[User:MisterHand|MisterHand]] 16:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Delete''' - - ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by [[User:Chazz88|Chazz]] @ 19:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Holliday

2006-01-15T20:16:41Z

Bourbons3: /* Sydney Holliday */ Delete

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports

2006-01-15T20:09:07Z

Bourbons3: I dont remember seeing a ball in Sumo Wrestling...

{{TOCright}}

See also '''''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games]]''''' and '''''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests]]'''''.

==General==
{| class="wikitable"
!Code
!Result
|-
|{{tl|user IOC}}||{{user IOC}}
|-
|{{tl|user F1}}||{{user F1}}
|}

==Participating in sports==
{| class="wikitable"
!Code
!Result
|-
|{{tl|User Cheerleader}}||{{User Cheerleader}}
|-
|{{tl|user curler}}||{{user curler}}
|-
|{{tl|User Skeet Shooter}}||{{User Skeet Shooter}}
|-
|{{tl|User Sumo Wrestler}}||{{User Sumo Wrestler}}
|-
|{{tl|User Weight Training}}||{{User Weight Training}}
|-
|{{tl|User Wrestler}}||{{User Wrestler}}
|}

===Racing and riding sports===
{| class="wikitable"
!Code
!Result
|-
|{{tl|User Cross Country}}||{{User Cross Country}}
|-
|{{tl|user Cycling}}||{{user Cycling}}
|-
|{{tl|user Llama}}||{{user Llama}}
|-
|{{tl|User Orienteer}}||{{User Orienteer}}
|-
|{{tl|User Recreational Runner}}||{{User Recreational Runner}}
|-
|{{tl|user riding}}||{{user riding}}
|-
|{{t1|User Skateboard}}||{{User Skateboard}}
|-
|{{tl|user snowboard}}||{{user snowboard}}
|-
|{{tl|User Swimmer}}||{{User Swimmer}}
|-
|{{tl|User Track Runner}}||{{User Track Runner}}
|-
|{{tl|User Triathlete}}||{{User Triathlete}}
|}

===Ball games===
See ''[[ball game]]''.

{| class="wikitable"
!Code
!Result
|-
|{{tl|User Baseball Player}}||{{User Baseball Player}}
|-
|{{tl|user Basketball}}||{{user Basketball}}
|-
|{{tl|user Bowling}}||{{user Bowling}}
|-
|{{tl|User Cricketer}}||{{User Cricketer}}
|-
|{{tl|user Footballer}}||{{user Footballer}}
|-
|{{tl|user American Footballer}}||{{user American Footballer}}
|-
|{{tl|user Golfer}}||{{user Golfer}}
|-
|{{tl|user Golfer woods}}||{{user Golfer woods}}
|-
|{{tl|user Hockey}}||{{user Hockey}}
|-
|{{tl|user Rugby League Player}}||{{user Rugby League Player}}
|-
|{{tl|user Rugby Union Player}}||{{user Rugby Union Player}}
|-
|{{tl|User Soccer}}||{{User Soccer}}
|-
|{{tl|user Tennis}}||{{user Tennis}}
|-
|{{tl|User Volleyball Player}}||{{User Volleyball Player}}
|}

==Supporting sports teams==
See:
*[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/US Sports]]
*[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Football]]
*[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Rugby Union]]
*[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Rugby League]]
*[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Aussie Rules]]

===Cricket===
{| class="wikitable"
!Code
!Result
|-
|{{tl|user Australian Cricket Team}}||{{user Australian Cricket Team}}
|-
|{{tl|user Bangladesh Cricket Team}}||{{user Bangladesh Cricket Team}}
|-
|{{tl|Black Caps}}||{{Black Caps}}
|-
|{{tl|user India cricket}}||{{user India cricket}}
|-
|{{tl|user Superseries}}||{{user Superseries}}
|}
{{WP:UBS}}

User talk:Interiot/archive1

2006-01-15T12:42:03Z

Bourbons3: Bug

My toolserver tools are listed at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/.

For the edit counting tools, I have two versions that aren't on the toolserver, though I don't often work on them:
* http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate / [[User:Interiot/Tool]] — no longer in development; blocked by Wikipedia because HTML-scraping is a no-no. It may or may not be okay to run it on your own private server.
* http://paperlined.org/apps/wikipedia/Tool2/ — I may sporadically work on this, as needed by ko and other sites that aren't available via the toolserver

== Welcome! ==

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! You might be interested in [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers]], [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]], and the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]. If you ever get bored, take a look at the list of [[Template:opentask|open tasks]].

You can sign your name and timestamp on talk pages and whatnot using four tildes: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Feel free to [[User talk:Rdsmith4|ask me]] if you have any questions, or inquire at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]] or [[Wikipedia:village pump|village pump]]. Add yourself to the list of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedians]] if you like.

Glad to have you, and [[WP:BB|be bold]]! [[User:Rdsmith4|{{User:Rdsmith4/sig}}]] 02:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HI! Well the thing is i started off trying to hunt down movies that are somewhat related to computer science/programming/hacking/It etc. Even, google, a great search engine as it is, couldn't get me a decent link, so I thought I'd add one myself. The criteria for these movies is just that. Anything to do with Computers, Electronics, Hacking, Programming. I came across a list where somebody listed Final Fantasy: Spirits Within as a techie movie, which it is not. Its a futuristic movie but it has nothing to do with the afore mentioned topics, apart from the fact that it is CG. [[User:Harrisbhatti]]
:(reply left [[Talk:List of techie movies|on the article's talk page]]) -[[User:Interiot|Interiot]]

== Indiana Academy ==

The suicide issue on the Indiana Academy page is currently unsubstantiated. I think (and am considering acting on) that, until substantiated links are provided, references to the suicide rate at the Academy should be left out. Let me know what you think! --[[User:Martin Osterman|Martin Osterman]] 12:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:I was just showing some deference to the original poster but trying to give a more balanced view. I would lean towards removing the material also. However, I don't think it's wholly unsubstantiated, even without links. At the least, there was a perception of a problem during the start of my class. However, I don't think it's something that's important enough to mention in a three-paragraph summary of the school, especially if there aren't any solid references. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::The perception isn't shared by just your class. :) Granted, though, I have heard nothing of suicides in the time I have attended or since then (2000 to present). If someone can provide references, then I'll be all for keeping it mentioned. And yes, I agree that it's not wholly unsubstantiated -- just difficult to prove! (Sorry if I seemed cranky with that first comment... it's what I get for checking Wiki at 7:30 AM LOL)--[[User:Martin Osterman|Martin Osterman]] 16:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

== Sorry ==

I don't remember making that revert which probably means that either some got into my account or I had more than one article open at once and reverted the wrong one. My sincere apologies. -[[User:Goeagles4321|Voltaire]]|[[User_talk:Goeagles4321|Talk]]|[[User:Goeagles4321/Desk|My Desk]]|[[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Goeagles4321 Français]] 18:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

== Adding details to your uploaded images. ==

Hi,

When uploading an image, could you please mention the source of the image. Also, in the case of screenshots of computer games, could you specify the platform from which the screenshot was taken, and if the image has been scaled up? That's what the image-page is for.
I have done this for you on [[:Image:PopulousII.gif]]. Could you please do this yourself to other images that you've uploaded? Cheers. [[User:Ae-a|Ae-a]] 01:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

== Edit-counting tool ==

{{Award|image=Barnstar.png|text=I hereby award this [[Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia|barnstar]] to [[User:Interiot|Interiot]] for his creation of a back-up to [[Wikipedia:Kate's tool|Kate's tool]] --[[User:TantalumTelluride|TantalumTelluride]] 23:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC).}}
We have to show appreciation for things like this. Otherwise, the contributors might become so discouraged that they consider leaving Wikipedia. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|TantalumTelluride]] 23:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

::Fantastic job filling in for Kate's tool. Many of us Wiki-stalkers would like to thank you. [[User:JHMM13|JHMM13]] ([[User talk:JHMM13|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/JHMM13|C]]) 05:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

*Any plans to add features that Kate's tool doesn't have ? Maybe a month-by-month or day-by-day breakup. A list showing how many edits were made on each page. Etc. [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:*Those metrics aren't very difficult to create, so I might implement that. However my method is clearly sub-par compared to Kate's tool (slow, a bandwidth hog), so many users probably want those enhancements on top of Kate's instead. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:*Okay, I updated it to include a month-by-month graph, with edit-summary information as well, hopefully that will be useful for RfAs. Is there a strong case for including other statistics? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 07:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
::Just a question to the bar-graphs: what are the meanings of red and green bars? --[[User:Gunter.krebs|Gunter.krebs]] 09:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:*Thank you. Can you please put a link back from the generated results page to [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate the query page]. Minor bug report - it doesn't show the current month. [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] 13:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== Nitpick note ==

"Privileged" is mis-spelled on the info page for your editcounting tool. [[User:BDAbramson|''BDAbramson'']] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

*Greetings, he-whose-editcountitis-consumes-200MB-of-bandwidth-a-day. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BDAbramson&diff=prev&oldid=30296589] [[Image:Smiley icon.png]] Anyway, fixed, thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

*It isn't possible to check edits on commons - as commons.wikimedia.org has one too many characters for the box. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 11:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
**Fixed. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

== Re: [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|My version of Flcelloguy's Tool]] ==

''Regarding the namespaces that are listed here, the current ones are for en.wikipedia.org. However, the namespaces for other languages are very different ([http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=iirolaiho&site=fi.wikipedia.org example]). (though, as far as I can tell, I think they're all at most "word1 word2:"). The best way that I've figured out so far is to [[m:MediaWiki_localization|fetch the language files via CVS]] (a copy is [http://paperlined.org/tmp/wiki_lang/ here]), and extract the entries somehow. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 04:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)''
: True. I haven't worked on inter-wiki operability ''yet''. That'll have to wait until we have the tool working properly here, then deploy to other projects. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|did you read this?]]) 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== Software error on count ==

Hi, i've found en error. By the way what is the graph reds and greens:)
[http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=Ugur+Basak&site=tr.wikipedia.org]

''Software error:
Illegal division by zero at /home/interiot/faleg/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate line 199.''

I just want to inform you.--[[User:Ugur Basak|Ugur Basak]] 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
:Same error on [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=Ugur+Basak&site=az.wikipedia.org]
:One more info. For example '''Wikipedia''' and its new form '''Vikipedi''' must be both counted as Vikipedi or Wikipedia--[[User:Ugur Basak|Ugur Basak]] 09:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks for the note, I've fixed it to some extent (eg. it doesn't spit out an error message). Unfortunately, support for other languages is currently somewhat limited (though EN, DE, and IT should work 100%). Apologies to other languages, but the method that Kate's tool uses really is superior. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Thanks, Kate's tool may be superior, but you can improve yours:) '''there's no buggy program'''--[[User:Ugur Basak|Ugur Basak]] 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== Bug report ==

Please see Nichalp's count here - [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=Nichalp&site=en.wikipedia.org] and contributions at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Nichalp&offset=20040218193719&limit=50] He had 5 edits in Jan 2004 and 93 in Feb 2004. But the tool shows no count for January and 98 for February. [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] 21:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
*Thanks for the sharp eye. It was caused by a timezone problem, and it's fixed. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
**and thanks for fixing it so promptly ! [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] 21:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Does your tool handle Portal and Portal talk edits? I've got a few and they're not showing up. Oh, and thanks for the tool, it's nice to have while Kate's missing. [[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] [[User talk:Blackcap|(talk)]] 01:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

:Ahh, another bug. It should be fixed now. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
::Lovely, thanks. Nice and fast, you are. [[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] [[User talk:Blackcap|(talk)]] 02:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

==Hey==

[[Image:Barnstar3.png]] I give you this barnstar as a result of your hard work building Interiot's tool...a.k.a. "wannabe Kate." I like the graphs too, I say keep it up. '''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''[[User:Encyclopedist|γκυκλοπαίδεια]]''[[Wikipedia|*]]''[[User_talk:Encyclopedist| (talk)]] 02:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

:Seconded. Cheers! [[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] [[User talk:Blackcap|(talk)]] 02:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

::Thanks very much. <tt>:)</tt> --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

== Suggested change for your tool ==

You should change the <nowiki><div>'s for the color bars into <td>'s</nowiki> instead so they never force a line break for months where the total number of edits is greater than the highest green bar, which presently is guaranteed to happen at least once. — [[User:Freakofnurture/|FREAK OF NURxTURE]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freakofnurture&action=edit&section=new TALK]) 08:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
*Yeah, I was thinking the same thing too. The bars are presently rescaled to fit into "500px", so most users wouldn't see a line break. And it's not the end of the world if it breaks — no information is lost, it's just a little harder to compare. But it's also an easy change. *shrug* --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

== Your tool ==
I have listed on my page all of the articles that I have created. I believe that there are in the order of 100 articles that I basically created from scratch and are lengthy articles of a good standard. There were another 20 more articles that were merged, and about 30 others which were taken over by someone else. I think that you are wrong in suggesting that Mo0 has made more edits than me. If you check out his contributions, 90% of them were made in the past month. In other words, he is a newbie. Secondly, you will note that much more than half of his edits were simply reverting vandalism (or should I say "alleged vandalism" since I haven't checked them out - note that a lot of people claim it is vandalism when it is a legitimate edit). Just have a look at what I did on [[Peter Falconio disappearance]], where I have made 90% of the contributions myself, as well as all of the associated articles, before you start saying that I haven't contributed anything. I have also participated in AFDs and in discussions of ways to improve Wikipedia. I don't think that Mo0 has done either. My point of course is that I am basically a newbie, and I don't know what I am doing and it would be ridiculous to suggest that I could make admin. Yet you are suggesting someone who is twice the newbie I am to be made admin. That is the ridiculousness of the suggestion, put bluntly. [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]] [[User_talk:Zordrac|(talk)]] [[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD|Wishy Washy]] [[M:Darwikinism|Darwikinian]] [[M:Eventualism|Eventualist]] 09:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
*(reply posted on your user page. Short of it: I didn't mean to offend you, or in any way discount your obviously large contributions) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

== Edit counting tool ==

Hi I just wanted to let you know that I like your tool very much. The graph showing the edit summaries is a very nice plus. Anyway thanks for your tool. [[User:KnowledgeOfSelf|KnowledgeOf]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Self]] | [[User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf|talk]] 22:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

== Improved tool ==
I just clicked on the link, and it is much improved! Thank you! It surprised me actually as to how much I'd edited certain edits. However, there is one note. My major contribution has actually been to [[Peter Falconio disappearance]], its just that each edit has been enormous, and I have mainly only done this one day apart. Also, the first 50 edits I made to that page have not been counted because I didn't have an account then. Whilst I suppose that you can't do anything about that, I wonder if perhaps it could note just how much work I've spent on that one. Whilst other ones I've mostly just done fiddly bits for. For example when I made [[Barrow Creek, Northern Territory]], that took me 4 hours to do that, with all of the research. I don't know if there is some way to do that. A word count? Maybe I am asking too much here. I guess it is all subjective. Also note that many of my edits were then merged all in to one file later on lol so in effect the [[talker]] page has had over 700 edits in it by me. [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]] [[User_talk:Zordrac|(talk)]] [[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD|Wishy Washy]] [[M:Darwikinism|Darwikinian]] [[M:Eventualism|Eventualist]] 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

:Yeah, well, that's sort of what I was alluding to on the RfA comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mo0&diff=30804941&oldid=30803792]. In the RfA process, I think the community generally prefers to see an edit pattern closer to Mo0's.

:Unfortunately, it's not possible for my tool to do metrics based on the contents of the changes. And yup, it's all subjective in the end. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 01:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

:The new additions are just fabulous. [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] 01:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:Barnstar.png|left|frame|I hereby award [[User:Interiot|Interiot]] another [[Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia|barnstar]] for his incredibly amazing additions to his edit-counting tool. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|Tantalum]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|T]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|lluride]] 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC) [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Kindness Campaign|(KC)]]]]
Wow! I'm going to stay up all night counting edits! (Not really.) Your edit counter is amazing. Now it's as good as (if not better than) [[WP:KT|Kate's tool]]. I can't describe the utter coolness of your tool with barnstars. Your achievement is beyond barnstars. You are now a Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/April Fools' Day 2005/Requests for de-Godkingship|God-King]]. Please keep up the good work, and '''never''' think about leaving Wikipedia! --[[User:TantalumTelluride|Tantalum]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|T]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|lluride]] 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

:: I have to say it, Interiot- I like your tool more than I like Kate's Tool. The per-page and the division of pages into types of pages helps me understand both the focus of my edits as well as where I am slackig. Well done.
::→ [[User:Pádraic_MacUidhir|'''P''''''.''''''M''''''a''''''c''''''U''''''i''''''d''''''h''''''i''''''r''']] [[User talk:Pádraic MacUidhir|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Pádraic MacUidhir|(c)]] 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

== Grr... ==
You beat us to implementing per-page statistics! <tt>:P</tt> Anyways, good job on the tool. Anyways, here's some minor nit-picking. You could change the following text on your page:
:''It should work with most wikis out there that use Wikimedia code, since it doesn't need privileged access to databases.''
to:
:''It should work with most wikis out there that use [[MediaWiki]], since it doesn't need privileged access to the databases.''
This gives me an idea... perhaps there should be a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters|WikiProject edit counters]] or something! <tt>:P</tt> [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|did you read this?]]) 01:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

::Thanks for the note, I'll update it. I've got several more ideas to flesh out on the data counter, and perl lets me slice and dice data all day, but I'm pretty limited working from an HTML-scrapper standpoint. I'd love to work with others, or otherwise get more direct access to the data. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 01:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
::: Well, there used to be a time when we could make direct SQL queries to the database, but that was disabled for performance reasons. So, the only way we can do this is through scraping the HTML (or getting a separate account on the [[:m:Toolserver|Toolserver]], but then, that kinda defeats the purpose of an alternate edit counter). But sure, it would be good to trade ideas and code every once in a while. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|did you read this?]]) 01:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Actually, I think the ''best'' backup to the SQL/toolserver is AJAX running on en.wikipedia.org itself (like [[Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups|Lupin's popups]]). It would be easier for users to set up, is browser-based, but unlike mine, isn't dependent on any outside servers (and especially not dependent on them providing free bandwidth). Right now though, I'm more interested in analysis (which, for me, is easier to do in Perl) rather than a simplified backup. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

== Edit counter (minor edits) ==

Is it possible for the edit counter to count how many edits were minor (and maybe give a percentage)? Thanks for the helpful tool. [[User:Gflores|Gflores]] [[User Talk:Gflores|Talk]] 22:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

:I was thinking about something along those lines too, as well as doing a count of how many edit summaries start with "rv" or "revert". Regarding minor edits though, I don't quite grok yet where they're used, or how they're useful. Do you think many people would use the minor-counting functionality? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

::This could be useful in a number of ways. The first thing that pops into my mind is for RfAs. It could be useful in counting the number of reverted vandals, and the number of non-minor content edits on main pages, instead of lumping them together. Also another note, it could be useful to have the actual number for both commented and non-commented edits per month listed. The visual is pretty nifty, but it might be nice to get an exact count. Anyway, really nice work! — [[User:TheKMan|'''TheKMan''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|talk]] 17:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I'm mainly only interested in enhancing the tool to support RfA at this point. I'll add these some time this week, if only to try it out. With the extra analysis I've added so far, I'm always suprised because it ends up being more useful than I thought it would be. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

== Aha!!! So I'm your model, eh? ==
Couldn't help noticing that you've used my edit count as the model at [[User:Interiot/Tool]]. Well, carry on, then. :-D [[User:BDAbramson|'''''BDAbramson''''']] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

: <tt>;)</tt> Well, Ed Poor's history is downright ancestral, and takes way way too long. But yes, yours is the second-scariest history I've run across so far. I was wondering whether you'd notice. <tt>:)</tt> --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
:: How sad that I noticed it was BD without looking at this page... <tt>:P</tt>. By the way, I noticed something strange while testing my latest addition to Flcelloguy's Tool. [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki&user=Titoxd Kate's Tool] says I have 6,854 edits, but your tool (and Flcelloguy's) say that I have 6,855 (6,856 now). Does that mean that [[WP:KT|KT]] is not real-time? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|did you read this?]]) 18:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
::: No, it means I have a bug. Actually, I'd consider it to be a MediaWiki bug, in that when you hit the "next 500" link, the first link is actually a repeat entry from the previous page. This is particularly bad if you ever try to look through your history one at a time... hitting "next 1" actually ends up doing nothing! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Interiot&offset=20051215005328&limit=1] Nonetheless, this is a known issue that I plan to change my code to accomodate. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 19:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

== Using the edit counter with other sites ==
Hey, had a quick question, is your edit counter limited to the wikipedia only? When I try to use it with my wiki ([http://brandt-watch.org http://brandt-watch.org]) I get 'Invalid value. email Interiot if this is incorrect.'. No complaints here, if it is, but I'm curious ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|негіднийлють]]</big> ([[User_Talk:Vilerage|Reply]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|Spam Me!]][[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|*]]|[[User_talk:Vilerage/RfS|RfS]]) 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

: Ahh, I see the problem. I'll see if I can fix it soon. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

== Pearle is breaking templates ==

Sorry about that...should be all fixed now. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

== RnB-album-stub ==

I have created the <nowiki>{{RnB-album-stub}}</nowiki> template, because one previously didn't exist, and I found ''[[Back to the Future: The Very Best of Jodeci]]'' tagged as a hip-hop album stub. --[[User:FuriousFreddy|FuriousFreddy]] 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

== Fillet ==

Thanks for splitting Fillet. I, too, am an eventualist and this is just what I hoped for. —[[User:BenFrantzDale|BenFrantzDale]] 05:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

== Oinkness ( [[Newbie]] ) ==

HELLO! Thanks for the welcome to [[Wikipedia]] by taking such a.... *cough*... interest in the [[Rainwound]] article! I'm slowly but surely figuring out how to use the discussion area of the site. I don't know if I am doing it right though, I hit edit on Fillet and put my thing in under the Fillet comment.... I don't know if that is what I am supposed to do.... well thanks! --[[User:Oinkness|Oinkness]] 19:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

== Edit counter ==

Would it be possible to add an edits/per day - overall, and maybe for the previous 30 days ? tia, [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

== Tool down? ==

Hmm... while trying to debug [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|Flcelloguy's Tool]] by comparing our output with yours, I got a "faleg.org cannot be found" error. Is your tool down, or did we eat all your alloted bandwidth already? <tt>:P</tt>

P.S: We're thinking about moving the tool to a subpage of [[Wikipedia:Tools]]. You should do it too, so all the editcounters are on the same place. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] is the one who is organizing the move, so you might want to talk to him. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 05:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

*''sigh''. No, the ISP's connection just goes away sometimes. I can't SSH in either. It should be back in an hour or two, sorry about that. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 06:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
**Well, the server the CGI script runs on seems to be blocked by *.wikipedia.org now... until that's fixed, it looks like the tool is down, sorry. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
*** Does this mean indefinitely? I'm getting a 403 when trying to run the tool. [[User:Tedernst|Tedernst]] | [[User talk:Tedernst|talk]] 04:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
**** The tool should be back [http://paperlined.org/apps/wikipedia/Tool2/ here] in the next day or two, and hopefully it can be on the toolserver at some point, since the cache admins indicated that's the proper way to go. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
***** Got it working that new way, but it's still missing the graphics from before ;-) [[Image: Pentacle-circumscribed.png|20px]][[User:Search4Lancer|Search]][[Special:Contributions/Search4Lancer|4]][[User_talk:Search4Lancer|Lancer]][[Image: Pennsylvania state flag.png|25px]] 03:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
****** Yeah, should be working soonish. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BDAbramson|BDAbramson's RFA]] ==

By the way, thanks for supporting my RfA, Interiot (and for your tool, which made it possible for [[User:Prodego|Prodego]] to track the thousand edits I made that week) - I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! [[User:BDAbramson|'''''BDAbramson''''']] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 22:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

== Feature request ==

In some respects, your "wannabe_kate" tool is actually better than Kate's original. I especially like the graphic display of use of edit summaries. Can you add a numeric percentage displayed next to each bar? Alternately (or maybe additioanlly), can you please add a lifetime edit-summary percentage column for each of the namespaces displayed? Thank you! [[User:OwenX|Owen×]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>☎</big>]] 17:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

:The overLIB tooltips would work, although it may be an overkill for just showing the monthly edit-summary percentage (unless you planned on displaying additional information in the tooltips). As for the edit-summary column: the first list currently displayed is the lifetime total edits for each namespace. What I suggested was adding a second column, showing the edit-summary usage (in percent) for each of those namespaces. So if you, for example, have a total of 13 edits in the Image_talk namesapce and 5 of them have an edit summary, it would show a ''38.5%'' next to the ''13''. [[User:OwenX|Owen×]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>☎</big>]] 20:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

::Yeah, some features people have asked for include: 1) the actual number of edit summaries, 2) the percentage of edit summaries, 3) what do red and green mean anyway? Plus, I'm going to add minor/non-minor, and some things like that, and the tooltip can be used to explain blue/green/red/purple, rather than having a legend. Ahh, I see, yeah, the namespaces, I'm going to break them out sort of like I do the edit summaries, and major/minor (you'll see in a couple days/weeks, when I get it done). Once those changes are in, ping me if you think they don't completely do what you were hoping they would. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Sounds great. Thanks! [[User:OwenX|Owen×]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>☎</big>]] 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Sorry, my edit counter was blocked, because screen scraping isn't the most efficient way to do it. If I'm able to do this in a more efficient way, or if I otherwise get it to be more accessible to users, I'll implement the above suggestions. (my todo list is quite long, I was hoping to get the new features implemented over christmas break, but we'll see). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 01:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

== Code.js ==

I've tried to get this to work, and I've made it all the way to where I can submit the username and it "retrives the data," but then it stops and shows me no information. Any suggestions? [[User:JHMM13|JHMM13]] ([[User talk:JHMM13|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/JHMM13|C]]) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 22:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

:Could you give me the server/URL/username you're running it with? Most likely, it's because the tool needs some amount of work to get it working on non-English servers. I'm halfway through setting it up for the korean server, for instance, but still have a bug or two to work out. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::I honestly don't know what that means (sometimes you should dumb it down for us non-code-speaking people!), but I think I'm running it in your english wikipedia thing...I copied into my monobook.js exactly what is on your website and after a refresh, looking at your code.js page allowed me to see what you said it would see (the entry box and a "Sumbit" button). I typed in my user name (and several others), and it said "retrieving data" and when it finished that, those words went away and an empty page remained. Thanks, [[User:JHMM13|JHMM13]] ([[User talk:JHMM13|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/JHMM13|C]]) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Ahh, it's because of javascript differences between Internet Explorer and Firefox. I'm not currently maintaining the .js though. But kate's tool is running properly [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits here], and runs faster, and provides no less info than the .js, so that's probably better to use. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

== Your editcounter ==

Hi!

When I call your editcounter it gives me this message:
<pre>
While trying to fetch <a href='http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Klever&offset=0&limit=5000'>http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Klever&offset=0&limit=5000</a>, de.wikipedia.org responded: 
403 Forbidden <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved</TITLE>
<STYLE type="text/css"></STYLE>
</HEAD><BODY>
<H1>ERROR</H1>

<H2>The requested URL could not be retrieved</H2>
<HR noshade size="1px">

While trying to retrieve the URL:
<A HREF="http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Klever&offset=0&limit=5000">http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Klever&offset=0&limit=5000</A>

The following error was encountered:
<UL>
<LI>

Access Denied.



Access control configuration prevents your request from
being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if
you feel this is incorrect.
</UL>
Your cache administrator is <A HREF="mailto:wikidown@bomis.com">wikidown@bomis.com</A>.

 
<HR noshade size="1px">
<ADDRESS>
Generated Mon, 02 Jan 2006 12:51:02 GMT by srv6.wikimedia.org (squid/2.5.STABLE12)
</ADDRESS>
</BODY></HTML>
</pre>
What is this??

Thanks, [[:de:User:Klever]]

PS: At the time it was working it was much better than kate's...

: I've posted a "summary of development" note at the top of this page. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

== Screenshot ==

[[Image:Flcelloguy's Tool UI.PNG|thumb|right|300px|Current [[GUI]]]]
Here's a copy of the UI as it appears now. We've finally figured out how to get around the local-file-save method, so we're going to start working on the tool more. The thing is, I'm not a Java programmer, I'm more of a BASIC writer... *sigh*. Just wondering, how much Java do you know? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
: Well, I do agree that the tool server is the best way to access the contribs, and I would gladly help out with the Javascript version, only that I really suck at Javascript. :( Besides, we were planning on adding additional features (like the ability to save queries to the local disk for storage, etc.) that might be blocked by the AJAX security restrictions, and we want to have something in case the tool server fails (which was the whole reason we started the project) so I'll probably keep programming here. But hey, I don't mind sharing code back and forth (We had already implemented minor-edit analysis, and we were working on per-month analysis to go with those). [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 03:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

== count_edits & namespaces ==

hi. you can't assume namespace 100 is always "Portal" - on meta, for example, it's "Hilfe" (German Help namespace), and on commons "Creator". (this will be easier when they're stored in the database...) [[User talk:Kate|kate]]. 09:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

* Ahh, thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 14:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

== Edit counting tool 2==

I've been running a edit counting tool at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] for several days now (with discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Edit summary usage for RfA candidates?]]), see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wgfinley&diff=prev&oldid=33789276 sample]. Well, today OwenX told me that you are working on the same thing, and that actually you had the code for a while. Now, what to do? :) I don't care much either way, I did not know you were working on that tool and you have it ready. I wonder if you can comment at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Edit summary usage for RfA candidates?]] about this. Thanks. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 18:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:FYI, I've responded at [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/ArbCom candidates]]. Great work! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] ([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A note?]]) 23:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

== Minor edit message ==

Well, I was viewing it in normal non-preview mode the whole time, and I distinctly saw an external link appear. True, I don't know exactly what you were doing at the time, but ''something'' you did almost worked. And most likely that something was the <a href>. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 05:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:Having tested it now on my home copy, I think you're right, Interiot. Do I try it out? I think the preview-edit thing was just a quirk cause by multiple servers. [[user:jnothman|jnothman]] [[User_talk:jnothman|talk]] 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

== Edit counter ==

Hi!
I installed your editcounter on my server today and my webserver gave me the error when I was trying to check de.user.Klever:
<pre>
Illegal division by zero at C:/Programme/xampp/htdocs/kate2.pl line 214, line 968. ,
</pre>
What's this??

thanks, [[:de:User:Klever]]

==Unknown namespace==
Thank you for your work. I was checking a user contribution for rfa and noticed Unknown namespace 100 and 101. Had not seen it before. What does it refer to?--[[User:DakotaKahn|''Dakota'']] [[User talk:DakotaKahn|~]] [[WP:EA|ε]] 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

: That happens on [[WP:KATE]] too. On en.wikipedia.org, 100 refers to Portal: and 101 refers to Portal talk:. Unfortunately, on other servers the namespace is used for other things (see kate's message above), so a more ambiguous message is displayed for now. Eventually we'll get this displaying a server-specific namespace. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 23:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for the reply. The edit summary function is especially helpful. Keep up the good work.--[[User:DakotaKahn|''Dakota'']] [[User talk:DakotaKahn|~]] [[WP:EA|ε]] 02:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

== More on the tool ==

I see that you added links to your very userful tool in people's RfA, which is great. If you want, I can train my bot which is adding edit summary usage anyway to also add the link to your tools (edit summary usage tool and edit count tool). Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Cheers, [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 22:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

: By the way, when your own bot adding edit stats to people's RfA pages comes online, I would suggest it use less graphics on the actual RfA pages than it uses on the server. One could write some shorter version in the RfA pages and refer for more to the server. What do you think? [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 23:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

::Well, the current reports I generate [http://paperlined.org/apps/wikipedia/reports/ here], I'm generating by hand, running a perl script from the command line. I don't want to get the script blocked again, so I'm running it the minimum times required.

::Regarding the newer version, I guess I wasn't intending to edit people's RFA's directly like you're currently doing. *shrug* I could, but like you pointed out, there aren't as many options for displaying a lot of data. I had always intended for people to just visit the tool's URL like they always have (either individually, or by a human adding the link to the RFA, though it could be automated too, I guess...)

::I don't know, the only advantage I can think of adding the report to the RFA is that it creates a permanent record that's still available if the tool goes down. What do you think? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

::: I think the advantage of adding things to the RfA directly is that more people will see the data that way. Otherwise, if somebody wants to see a current RfA candidate edit count, one would need to open a new tab (window) in the browser, type or get from a bookmark the address of your tool or Kate's tool, type in the user's name, and wait for the result, then go back to the RfA. I don't think many people bother. And for myself, the [[edit summary]] usage is a very important benchmark of how attentive a user is, I truly want ''everybody'' to see it. :)

::: So, should I also add a link to your tool or not? :) (OK, there are two tools, one is the edit count, which is automatical, and the second is the edit summary, which you do by hand, so I guess I am asking about the first one). [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 00:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

:::: I've always hoped that the people voting in RfA were experienced, that they were people who had watched a number of votes, and were familiar with the tools that people sometimes use. I guess it's possible that's overly optimistic in some cases.

:::: I don't have a problem if you link to my tool. <tt>;)</tt> I guess, since you're already going to the effort to add another line to the history, it doesn't hurt to add more links. At some point, the URL will change, to allow users to optionally get non-realtime data that's more comprehensive, but if you have your bot add the links, I can ping you once that change goes in.

:::: Also, for what it's worth, kate's tool currently spits out a couple different kinds of output that can be used for data bots. [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=interiot&dbname=enwiki&machread=1] [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=interiot&dbname=enwiki&nodec=1] I dont' support this sort of thing now, because the data products are still changing, but something like that could eventually be used to give data to other programs. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: OK, I will add the link to your tool, maybe tomorrow. I see you are not very enthusiastic about the idea though. I think we just have different mindsets, I like to use bots to edit pages directly, you like to do things externally. :) [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::: *shrug* I don't care much. I have a timid personality, I'm often afraid of forcing things on people. Go for it though. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::: He-he. :) So we ''are'' different. :) Each day I bug at least five users about missing edit summaries, poor style, bad use of the rollback button. Come on Interiot, that's the joy of life, bugging others (as long as one keeps some manners that is :) OK, I will add the link this weekend. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

== Tendercrisp Bacon Cheddar Ranch photos ==

Cool photo for the article. Do you have any of Hootie doing his thing?
[[User:Youngamerican|Youngamerican]] 04:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks for Contributing ==

Cute edit to the user box. Next time, try adding something, rather than altering accurate information. Quite amusing. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 08:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:Let me know if you want a hand formatting your user page - it looks a bit funny with that image running into the userboxes. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 08:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::Much better. Thanks for the new box, too. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 08:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm more good-natured than you might have guessed. BTW, your procrastinator box looks lopsided - is that intentional? If it is, it is a clever subtlety. I'm tempted to templatize that one, but I would probably center the emblem. Let me know what you think. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 09:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

== Does the pile-on... ==
Include me? - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 09:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:I think that's probably for each of us to decide for our selves. I think on balance you've been a moderating influence. </excessive seriousness> --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 09:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

== Your arbcom stats parser... ==

...won't correctly interpret any lines starting with <tt>#*<tt>. Adding a <tt>*<tt> to the character character sets in your <tt>@supports</tt>/<tt>@opposes</tt> regexes will fix it, ie
my @supports = ($support =~ m/^(#[^:#;].*)/mgi);
my @opposes = ($oppose =~ m/^(#[^:#;].*)/mgi);
to
my @supports = ($support =~ m/^(#[^:#;*].*)/mgi);
my @opposes = ($oppose =~ m/^(#[^:#;*].*)/mgi);
—[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

#* Fixed, thanks for the look over. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey...awesome idea and I bookmarked it. You may want to take a look at taking aranda56 off the list since he resigned. —[[User:Ilyanep|Ilyan]][[WP:EA|e]][[User:Ilyanep|p]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|(Talk)]] 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

: Changing it <s>now</s> as soon as my SSH connection to the toolserver behaves. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

*Where is this ? [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] [[User_talk:Tintin1107|Talk]] 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/arbcom --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] [[User_talk:Tintin1107|Talk]] 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lovely idea, very useful. Please put a word or two about this onto your entry on [[meta:Toolserver/Projects]]. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks, and done. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what does 'will beback' mean? —[[User:Ilyanep|Ilyan]][[WP:EA|e]][[User:Ilyanep|p]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|(Talk)]] 12:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Will%20Beback&dbname=enwiki_p User Will Beback]'s first edit was on 2005/12/31 08:30:08, and Will voted for several candidates, but it's not clear that the user has suffrage. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 16:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

::Of course there are exceptions that automatic tools can't detect, so that's what human review and whitelists are for, and Will Beback has been whitelisted. On the other hand, toolserver database replication is down right now, so my tool is currently... less than useful. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Gotcha... —[[User:Ilyanep|Ilyan]][[WP:EA|e]][[User:Ilyanep|p]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|(Talk)]] 18:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

== Edit counter ==
Interiot, looks like the edits/day in http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits has got stuck. [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] [[User_talk:Tintin1107|Talk]] 19:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:Which specific field, and could you describe "stuck" a little more? If you're talking about "Median edits/day" though, that one's a tiny bit deceptive. It really means "Median edits per month / 30.42, ignoring months that have 0 edits". That statement has some tricky implications, but one of them is that, because it's a median, and because only one month's values are changing, typically "median edits per month" is constant over periods of time. I guess it would be better to do some sort of operation to discount months that are outliers, and then do an average (instead of a median) of the remaining months, though with only two decimal places displayed, I'm still not sure you'd see any short-term change since you have ~4300 total edits over several months. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

::Okay <scratches head>. I somehow interpreted it to mean edits/day from the day of the first post. Thanks. [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] [[User_talk:Tintin1107|Talk]] 20:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

::If that's the case, displaying it as "Median edits/month" would be the correct way, as it's not really calculating a daily median. Too bad you got rid of the edit summary statistics; any progress with implementing [[User_talk:Interiot#Feature_request|my idea]]? [[User:OwenX|Owen×]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>☎</big>]] 18:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:::But it's divided by 30.42. :) I don't know, I have the feeling that people grok daily edit counts better than monthly edit counts, because the default view of their own Special:Contributions quickly gives them some kind of comparison to say "this person is editing more than me" or visa versa.

:::Yeah, greatly improved edit counting is somewhere near the top of my list of things to do, though it's a little more difficult than I thought, and things like the [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/arbcom arbcom script] keep taking more time than I think they will. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the tool is barfing on special characters again. ;) The 'á' in my own name as an example. Figured you would want to know.
→ [[User:Pádraic_MacUidhir|'''P''''''.''''''M''''''a''''''c''''''U''''''i''''''d''''''h''''''i''''''r''']] [[User talk:Pádraic MacUidhir|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Pádraic MacUidhir|(c)]] 19:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

: Old bugs crop up because the code is entirely new now. But thanks for the note, it should work now. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

*No, actually, I was going through your tool and manually checking (with Lupin's popups) the ones that your tool had highlighted. Most of them did not have suffrage, although one created an account (but did not edit) before the deadline. Great tool! Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] ([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A note?]]) 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

== Ok, I've removed the fake vote ... ==

Thanks for letting me know. --- [[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

== Oblique Shock ==

Hi Interiot. You put a cleanup and stub marker on [[Oblique_shock]]. It [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oblique_shock|survived AFD]] after I rewrote it, but there doesn't seem to be any interest in expanding it. Any problem with letting it be redirected to [[Shock wave]]? [[User:AKAF|AKAF]] 06:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

== Contrib tree tool ==

Hello, Interiot. Your contributions_tree script is quite spiffy! <tt>:)</tt> One thing, though: It sorts out the edited pages per number of edits by default in all namespaces, except the Wikipedia namespace (#4), which is sorted out alphabetically. Here's an example: [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?user=Titoxd&dbname=enwiki_p&namespace=4]. Is there a particular reason for that? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

:Uh oh, my first two bug reports are about the same thing, maybe it's not as user-friendly as I'd hoped.

:This is actually a feature. On any of the namespaces, you can choose to either sort by name, or by edit counts (the header has a little link that you can click to change the sort order... though I suppose that links like this, on webpages at least, often aren't intuitive to users). Anyway, if the user doesn't choose a particular sort order, I usually default to number of edits, but I default to sorting by name for the Wikipedia: space so that 1) users realize there's more than one way to sort, and 2) because I think the sort-by-name is more useful in wikipedia space, because there are many different kinds of edits (wikiprojects, afd, etc) that are easier to sort through by name. If any of these intuitions are off though, please let me know. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 22:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

::Hehe, the <tt><blink><tt> is probably too obnoxious. :) I've turned off the underline-only-on-hover for that link though too, hopefully that makes it slightly more intuitive though. I'm not sure if there are any other good ideas to try or not. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 22:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add a sum of the edits in the main page. [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] [[User_talk:Tintin1107|Talk]] 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for the comments. I'm not too sure how far I want to take this, as there are so many people (you, Oleg, Titoxd, etc.) who seem to have far better programming skills than me. :-) Also, I've never worked with large projects like this - I've been mainly working on local implementations of Java, and some simulations. I'll consider your comments. By the way, I noticed that you weren't an admin yet - do you have any interest in becoming one? Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] ([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A note?]]) 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
:: *Blushes* <tt>:)</tt> A good idea would be to create a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters|WikiProject]] (or a subpage of [[Wikipedia:Tools]]) to coordinate efforts for this, and move both tools there, with a central coordination area. I've already got [[User:AySz88|another user]] who has said he's interesting in helping, so it would better to do it sooner than later. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

:::What if I ''don't'' know [[SQL]]? :-) Anyways, I'll do a [[WP:RfA|nomination]] for you, Interiot, as soon as possible (probably tomorrow; I hope you don't mind the delay). A WikiProject would be a great idea, Titoxd - I'm going to '''[[WP:BB|go ahead]]''' and create it. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] ([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A note?]]) 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

::::I was just noting that it's a nice opportunity either way. Tommorow would be fine, of course. <tt>:)</tt> Something like a tools version of [[Wikipedia:Press_coverage]] would be good, or weekly digest of what goes on in wikitech-l, or... I don't know. [[Wikipedia:Tools]] is something to start with too. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
::::: Well, the link to the WikiProject is a bluelink now... :) [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 01:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
::::: I've replied to your questions at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject edit counters]]. One question, though: are you going to add yourself to the member list? I'm a bit iffy to add a link to [[WP:INT]] until you add yourself to the list of participants... [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 02:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
:Sorry for the delay; I was busy yesterday. Your nomination is now completed at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Interiot]]. Once you accept and answer the question, change the time (use the five tildes <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>) and the date, if needed, and then place the transclusion on the RfA page. Good luck! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] ([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A note?]]) 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

::Good luck! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] ([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A note?]]) 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

::Oh, by the way: your ArbCom tool, at the bottom, says it flags votes if "...the user created their account on or before September 30, 2005". Shouldn't that be ''after'' September 30? Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] ([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A note?]]) 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

== Buffer Overflow Article ==

Alot has improved in [[Buffer overflow]], saw you linked to the article. still work to do, but what do you think? -- [[User:Tompsci|Tompsci]] 01:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

== Reply:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Ultraexactzz ==

Thanks for pointing that out to me. It was just a mistake, and I have gotten rid of my "Oppose" vote. [[User:Steveo2|Jared]] 12:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

== Edit counter ==

Hi, sorry for seeming to bug you the whole day today, I had a look at your[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits edit counter] today and got the shock of my life. Median edits/day in my case was 6.02; however, a rough calculation shows me that mean edits/day is close to 20. In my case, the huge difference could be due to the fact that I barely edited for the first four months. Anyways, I believe mean edits/day is more intuitive and easier to understand than median edits/day. You may want to include mean edits/day as well or remove median edits/day. Thanks a ton for your great work in providing these tools, especially the tree - it is fabulous. and btw, your user page was one of the best I've seen around. :) --[[User:Gurubrahma|Gurubrahma]] 13:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

: I was hoping to remove lower-end outliers, especially wikibreaks, but you're right, median doesn't do it, so I changed it per request. Read the caveats somewhere above about medians, the same caveats apply (I'm actually using months, not days), so that will depress the average a little bit. If this is a noticable problem, ping me again, and it wouldn't take too much work to change it to use the two day-boundaries instead.

: Thanks for the many kind words. <tt>:)</tt> --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 15:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

== ArbCom ==

Thanks for asking! I'm afraid I'm not around much these days, but I did took the time to evaluate the new candidates. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Radiant%21 my contribs] for details. Yours, [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_>|<]] 17:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

== Topaz's Wikiscripts ==

Have a look at my [[User:Topaz/Wikiscripts|Wikiscripts]]... the edit count util lets people right click on links to userpages and load your tool instead! ~[[User:Topaz|Topaz]][[User talk:Topaz|♪]][[Special:Emailuser/Topaz|♫]][[Special:Contributions/Topaz|∆]] 18:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

== Analysis of Wikipedia growth ==

The current articles analysing Wikipedia's growth are out of date, so I thought I'd try to update them. As a basis for that I would need data of the number of articles at any given time, and the most flexible basis for this would be a list of article creation dates. The database is a tad to big for me to install on my small server, though, so it would be nice if you could run a query for me, generating a list consisting of simply the date of creation of each article, without any other information about the articles. For example:
2006-01-14 21:51:51
2002-12-12 01:25:14
2005-11-13 08:28:27
and so on with about 900000 lines. Getting it in sorted order would be handy, but sorting it myself won't be too much trouble either. I will create a script taking such a list as input and producing a set of images showing the growth in various ways, along with predictions according to a few models. If this turns out well, it could be used to make regularily updated growth predictions, much like the current size statistics. [[User:Amaurea|Amaurea]] 20:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

: Yeah, that looks doable, I think. It would product a 17mb output file, and gziped it wouldn't be too bad. Have you seen [[m:Wikistats]] though? If you haven't, you might want to talk with Erik Zachte to see how much your interests overlap with his. And, for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm this] looks very close to what you're looking for? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
::I am aware of the wikistats, but they are pretty low resolution, and they do not try to fit the data to a model (as far as I can see, atleast). It would probably be easy for Erik Zachte to expand his system to include what I'd like to make, though, since he probably is doing quite similar database queries anyway, so I think I'll try talking to him at some point. By the way: Would it be much harder to query for the date the articles fulfilled the official article criterion instead of just the creation date? It would make the numbers a bit more accurate, but it isn't important if it is harder to do. [[User:Amaurea|Amaurea]] 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, the toolserver has a table of the links as they ''currently'' stand, with no dates on them, so it's much easier to do the former. And just so I'm clear, the official definition of the 900,000 articles is... articles that have at least one outbound link (eg. articles that link to at least one other article), right? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

== Imposter ==

FYI, you have an impoter [[User:Interiot`]]. Of course, I've blocked indefinately. No damage done. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
: <s>Cool. <tt>:)</tt></s> --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
:: I was a tiny bit honored to have an imposter for the first time, but the vandalism was not so cool. If there are legitimate grievences about my behavior, bring it up in my RFA, or better yet, please let me know so I can try to make amends. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

== Bug ==

*In the last couple of days the edit counter has been inaccurate for my edits. It says that i have 1030 edits, but i have 1050+ edits. Maybe this is a bug? - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 12:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux

2006-01-15T12:26:38Z

Bourbons3: Support

===[[User:Redux|Redux]]===
'''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux|action=edit}} Vote here] (21/9/2) ending 03:30 [[18 January]] [[2006]] (UTC)'''

''Self-nominated. No acceptance required. [[User:Redux|Redux]] 03:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)''

{{user2|Redux}} — I suppose the very first point to address is why am I requesting Bureaucratship, especially when there is some notion that there are sufficient bureaucrats around. That answer is really a two-part: 
# I disagree with that idea. Our [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|page on Bureaucrats]] shows that there are only twelve Bureaucrats active. I don't believe that is enough to handle the project's needs. We have stormed passed the milestone of 500,000 accounts, and are steadly marching towards an impressive 1 million accounts. This brings the natural question: <cite>So? Bureaucratship has nothing to do with that</cite>. Again, I disagree. Our ever-growing project needs Admins to keep it at least somewhat orderly. This makes this page, the RfA, one of ''the'' most important forums in the project, and Bureaucrats are essential to keep this page running properly. That brings me to the second part of this.
# Bureaucratship involves basically two extra tools: rights setting (the ability to promote other users) and username changing. Why am I interested in that? That's the simplest of all answers: because I want to help. Of those twelve active Bureaucrats, {{user|Cecropia}} is doing about 80% of the work around here. I want to help. I used to be very active on this forum, but due to time constraints, I had to cut back on some of my activities and privileged content contributions. I've also seen several cases of users who wanted to change their identities on Wikipedia, but just registered another account and turned their user pages into redirects to their new account's user page. I am always willing to help others in the project, especially less experienced users who demonstrate a disposition to contribute constructively.

'''As an Admininistrator''': I have been one for nearly seven months. During this time, I am very proud to say that my record has been next to spotless. I made one or two small mistakes during my first couple of weeks as an Admin, but since I have become, as I like to think, an exemplary Admin. I have not misused my privileges (I really don't like the word "powers"), I have been proactive to perform whenever I spotted a situation where an Admin would be required, but never acting without a previous attempt to reason with the [often multiple] parties involved (as I have [[Talk:Omnipotence paradox#Easy now|just done]]) — this shows in my [[User:Redux/Protect|personal template to justify page protection]].

'''Why request Bureaucratship now?''' I already have experience as an Admin, and it will not get much better than this. Furthermore, as I said before, I had been absent from the RfA forum for a while. I was about to return, but then I thought that this was an ideal moment for presenting this request, since I am completely bias-free in case of promotion — meaning: there can be no claim that I have promoted a user whose RfA I had just supported, or refused a user whose RfA I had opposed. In my view, this neutrality is essential for this kind of request. What I want is to be here and help this so-very-important part of our project run smoothly, that is the basic aim of this request for Bureaucratship.

'''As a Wikipedia user''', I must say that I enjoy engaging in discussions on talk pages (article's, project forums', anything). I see them as essential for the improvement of our project. I'd like to think that I'm always friendly, flexible and open for suggestions. True, I have not been active in forums such as the VfD, RfC and others, but again, time constraints. I am, however, always willing to step in when requested and give it my best. However, I'd like to state, ''for the record'': part of the reason why I'm not more active in certain forums as an Admin is because our other Admins are so efficient! Because I'm usually not on-line for too long, and I have to attend to articles an discussions with which I am already involved, I just keep being beaten to the finish line in some Admin-restricted jobs.

I am particularly proud of the time when I worked directly with Jimbo to address a story that was run by [[Brazil]]ian magazine [[Veja (magazine)|VEJA]] and which all but slandered Wikipedia in Brazil. Unfortunately, the magazine decided to ignore us, but they had to listen (or read) to what Jimbo had to say.

I really, really want to keep this very simple and clear: all I want is to do more for the project. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If promoted, WP:RfA is going into my Watchlist (which I check ever more often). I hope the community will give a willing user the chance to become more useful to the project. I don't ''need'' bureaucratship, I ''want'' it, but only so long as I can make myself useful by being a Bureaucrat, which I know I can and would be.

'''Support'''
#'''Support''' - I'll throw my support in on this one. They way you explained it was truthful and seemed legit, besides, you've been an admin and Wikipedia is still sitting here fine, so obviousl vandalism isn't an issue to worry about. I'm all for this one. [[User:VanillaX]] 9:36 PM, 09 January, 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' One of the better self noms I seen in a while --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|wat's sup]] 04:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#*Note that "self-noms" are the norm for bureaucratship (and in theory are actually required). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - give him a bigger mop I say! --[[User:Admrboltz|Admrboltz]] ([[User talk:Admrboltz|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Admrboltz|C]]) 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. You make two good points: 1. We need more BCs, 2. You'd make a good one. I'm convinced, very well argumented. [[User:The Minister of War|The Minist]][[WP:EA|e]][[User:The Minister of War|r of War]] [[User talk:The Minister of War|(Peace)]] 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#Why not. --[[User:Merovingian|King of All the Franks]] 17:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Hail Fellow Well met.--[[User:Alhutch|Alhutch]] 17:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per [[User:The Minister of War|The Minister of War]]. [[User:BDAbramson|'''''BDAbramson''''']] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Redux makes a strong, well-argued case for the need for more bureaucrats, and for his own membership of that elite group. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]'' 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - the info provided by Redux in the self-nom and in the answers to the questions below are persuasive to me. [[User:Johntex|Johntex]]\[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]] 01:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I agree with Redux's argument that we need more 'crats, and we have every reason to trust Redux. --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] 04:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Great arguments. [[User:KnowledgeOfSelf|KnowledgeOf]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Self]] | [[User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf|talk]] 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Terence Ong]] [[User talk:Terenceong1992|Talk]] 13:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Redux is true to his word. He says that he wants bureaucratship power to help and I believe him. --[[User:Peace Inside|Peace Inside]] 05:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Has always been there when I was in need, answers promptly and very detailed. Very friendly. this is only the natural next step. Good luck to you. [[User:Gryffindor|Gryffindor]] 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#I am not truly convinced that we are in a dire need for more BCrats at the moment. In fact I'm not sure we ''need'' more at all (They are doing a great job). However, like Adminship, this should really be not that big of a deal either. It wouldn't ''hurt'' us to have another BCrat, would it? This editor seems to be reliable and very unlikely to abuse the few additional tools given the BCrats. Why not promote? Good Luck. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|LV]] [[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]] 16:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. We will clearly need more bureaucrats soon. We are notoriously picky about whom we'll approve for that position. Therefore, when an obviously solid candidate comes along, we should put him in, rather than waiting for a desperate need to exist. [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Redux is clearly a strong candidate for b'ship, and I don't think having lots of inactive bureaucrats is a terribly valid reason to oppose another candidate. Obviously something needs to be done with that situation, but meanwhile we can't bar people from being made into bureaucrats for reasons that have nothing to do with their suitability for the job. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|(talk)]] 13:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. He is a very good editor, and a very good administrator. He probably will be a great bureaucrat too. [[User:Carioca|Carioca]] 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - [[User:Pádraic_MacUidhir|'''P''''''.''''''M''''''a''''''c''''''U''''''i''''''d''''''h''''''i''''''r''']] [[User talk:Pádraic MacUidhir|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Pádraic MacUidhir|(c)]] 23:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 04:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Trustworthy, reliable - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 12:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
#'''Oppose''' until long inactive users are demoted from Bureaucrat to Sysop. Here is the list [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrats]. You are right about 1/2 the BCrats being inactive. Nichalps and Linuxbreak do renames and Cecropia does most RfA stuff. It could go faster and you would make a good BCrat. However, a I want to replace inactive BCrats, not just make more. This is due to security issues. If you contact [[User:Angela]] or [[User:Jimbo Whales]] or other stewards and they plan on demoting inactive BCrats (like [[user:Optim]]), then I will change to Support.'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|Voice of All]]'''[[user_talk:Voice_of_All(MTG)|T]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All(MTG)|@]]|[[WP:EA|ESP]] 01:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#*I am not sure that security issues would arise from the inclusion of a new Bureaucrat. Perhaps there could be issues if we were facing a "boom" of Bureaucrats. But we are nowhere near that. What I can say for my part is that I am very conscientious about all my actions on Wikipeida, and even more so when it comes to restricted abilities, which the community has (or would have) entrusted to me. And if I might add, it would appear unjustified, for lack of a better term (that I can think of right now), to prevent a user who is willing to contribute from doing so because others have left the project but still retain their status as Bureaucrats, especially when Bureaucrat activities are severely concentrated on far too few users. As I said, I believe that the project needs more Bureaucrats at the time, also because the inactive Bureaucrats need to be replaced, but it would seem to do little to no good to the project that we should wait, perhaps indefinitely, for the demotion of inactive Bureaucrats before we can suply the need for active ones. Regards, [[User:Redux|Redux]] 01:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#**One BCrat likely will not hurt much. But I am not going to fall into the "just one more cookie" trap. You seem like a good candidate, so I dropped the ole Stewards a note. Anyway, how active are you in RfA?'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|Voice of All]]'''[[user_talk:Voice_of_All(MTG)|T]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All(MTG)|@]]|[[WP:EA|ESP]] 04:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#***Thank you for your confidence in my capacity. There was no trap. I was referring to context. Consider how slow the process of selecting new Bureaucrats is. You mentioned ''replacing'' Bureaucrats. Imagine how long it would take us to select about 10 (or more) new Bureaucrats to replace the inactive ones. The Bureaucrat-specific activities are severely concentrated on a very small number of users — even though there are twelve Bureaucrats listed as active, only four are "really active" on a regular basis. This must be combined with the fact that we usually don't get too many RfBs. Thus, given that we are not facing any possibilities of a "sudden", dramatic increase in the number of Bureaucrats, and that the system is unbalanced right now, given those circumstances, there appeared (to me, naturally) to be no reasons for concerns about making the system unstable by promoting a new Bureaucrat. In effect, we would be already working towards replenishing our Bureaucrats board. About your question about my RfA activity, I would request that you review my "essay", namely the final part of point n.2 at the beginning and the section I called "Why request Bureaucratship now?". At your disposal for any further clarifications. [[User:Redux|Redux]] 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#****Well you have voted quite a bit and the past,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Redux&offset=20050907051351&limit=500]. I can see what you mean about voting bais too. I will wait for the Steward's reply and then decide what to do, possibly supporting regardless. I've got to get to bed now though, its late here :).'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|Voice of All]]'''[[user_talk:Voice_of_All(MTG)|T]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All(MTG)|@]]|[[WP:EA|ESP]] 05:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#*****I would be honored to have your support. I have never allowed any bias to influence my voting, the RfAs are too important for that. But as a candidate for Bureaucratship, I feel that there cannot be any shadow of a doubt about my neutrality. Hence my refraining from returning to vote right before or during my RfB (because, if promoted, I might be the one to close some of the RfAs that were up at the same time as my RfB). [[User:Redux|Redux]] 05:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#******The BCrats managed to run things before. And no we have Francs2000(who I voted for) to help. With that said, I don't see the need for more BCrats. If we can get a demotion policy up, and demote the inactive one, I would support much more easily, even if the BCrats can manage without.'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|Voice of All]]'''[[user_talk:Voice_of_All(MTG)|T]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All(MTG)|@]]|[[WP:EA|ESP]] 16:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - It is my inclination at this time that we do not need more bureaucrats. Over the past few months, the community has promoted a handful of them already, and I would like to see these users process more RfAs first before promoting any more. I want to get a better sense of the balance and impact of adding new bureaucrats to the existing group. From the bureaucrat related logs, there is relatively little activity from these newly promoted bureaucrats, and there are insufficient grounds for me to conclude that the RfA process is non-functional in the sense that it currently needs more bureaucrats to oversee it. Finally, the RfA process is supposed to be something which is processed on a reasonably uniform basis by bureaucrats and the addition of extra members to that group unnecessarily complicates this when it is not needed. Granted, if the community is thoroughly comfortable with promoting more users to bureaucratships knowing that it would not be unreasonable to say at the moment that they may only promote a small fraction of RfA candidates, then I would add that indeed, perhaps RfBs are "no big deal" too, and consequently modify this vote. --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 16:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Although this nomination is well-crafted, I am not convinced more b'crats are necessary. Before I support the granting of the power, I must be persuaded the user is truly superb; this nom. comes ''close'' to doing that, but it doesn't quite surmount my "better-safe-than-sorry" personal policy. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#*To address these last votes, I would like to state: first (pertaining to HappyCamper's vote), that I did not say that the RfA process was non-functional right now. It is functioning, but mainly thanks to Cecropia. I said that this situation, backed by the reality of Bureaucrat activity (1/2 the Bureaucrats are inactive in general, and of the other half, only a third perform Bureaucrat functions with some degree of regularity), poses a real problem, as it concentrates activities severely on too few users. As a further exercise, we might consider that, if all the users with Bureaucrat status were performing as such, we would have somewhere around 18 to 20 Bureaucrats (that's disconsidering the latest promotions, that might not have happened). That would indicate a number that the community would have deemed as "sufficient", "good" or maybe "ideal" (let's not get too much into semantics). For all practical purposes, however, we only have twelve users active that have Bureaucrat status, and only four performing as such. On the "in-and-out" front (pardon the expression, but I cound't think of something better at the time), we have had about twelve Bureaucrats leave the project, and, in recent times, only two users (a sixth) have been promoted to fill their shoes. About Xoloz's post: perhaps you could tell me where do you believe I fell short of meeting your standards for this job. Perhaps I might be able to provide you with further reassurance of my commitment to doing this job not just well, but with excelency. Regards, [[User:Redux|Redux]] 18:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose''' now - we do not need more bureaucrats. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 19:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#*I would request that you review my rationale on why we do need more Bureaucrats at the time. "More" is actually a tricky term, since half of the existing Bureaucrats are all but gone and two thirds of the remaining half do not perform as Bureaucrats with a minimum regularity. The system is strained right now. Regards, [[User:Redux|Redux]] 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#::I am more than well aware of the current bureaucrat status (see [[Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats]] and [[User talk:Angela]]). ONE bureaucrat is enough to administer to the ammount of admin requests. Look up - there are 15 current nominations, plus the inevitable early (pile on) finishes, we'll say accross seven days, that's 3 a day. There are five or six very active bureaucrats. That's more than enough. Even if we had 70 nominations up, that's still an easy 2 a day per b'cat. Bureaucratship is nothing more than a status symbol and popularity contest, which is borne out by the lack of active b'cats, period. I will continue to strongly oppose all bureaucrat nominations regardless of who is up. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 15:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#:::I'm sorry to hear that that's how you feel. I respect your opinion, but I cannot agree with it. Concentrating tasks in one user's hands is not the wiki way, and it poses very real problems, even if (''yet'') potentially. There may be six users who are Bureaucrats that are very active, but not all six are ''very'' active ''as Bureaucrats''. With the constantly growing number of users/accounts, which is bound to reflect on RfA, with an also ever-growing traffic (we often have more than 20 requests up simultaneously, and that's just for now, in six months time, who knows?), the project simply has a need for more people to be involved. Regards, [[User:Redux|Redux]] 15:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Unsure on the matter of whether we need more bureaucrats or not, but in any case I'd prefer a candidate who hasn't "''been absent from the RfA forum for a while''". [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#I agree with Carbonite that giving someone the ability to create new administrators, when they haven't been observing the process by which this happens, doesn't seem like a good idea. Assessing nominations depends on having a good "sense of the room", which is impossible to have if you haven't even been in the room. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#*Please review my latest entry at the "Comments" section. I am very well acquainted with the room. Regards, [[User:Redux|Redux]] 23:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' as per [[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]]. I too am not convinced we need more. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 04:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''': nothing personal, but I do think there are enough right now. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 05:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''--[[User:Masssiveego|Masssiveego]] 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#:Note to closing 'crat - seems [[User:Masssiveego|Masssiveego]] is the new Boothy. [[User:BDAbramson|'''''BDAbramson''''']] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 03:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#::Noted without comment. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Neutral'''
#Inclining towards opposition. Your 'disagreements' with the nigh-inevitable reasons for opposition don't really rise to the level of arguments: ''why'' is it somehow bad that Cecropia is doing 80% of the promotion? That in itself hardly indicates a massive workload. What evidence is there that there any ''in''sufficiency? Service level? Quality of existing promotion decisions? Desirability of multiple people making the decisions semi-independently? I also didn't find your answers to the standard questions especially enlightening (and on a very small point, the A1 seems to be slightly self-contradictory, though I assume that's just phraseology: do you mean 80%+ ''assures'' promotion, as the next clause asserts that it's not ''necessary''). I remain open to be convinced you'd be so indispensible for the job as to demand "creating a vacancy", though. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#:It is not "bad" that Cecropia is doing the bulk of the work here. He's doing a fine job. But the fact that he is next to alone in it indicates room for more labor force. Cecropia went on a Wikibreak early in last year's second semester. Fortunately for us, {{user|UninvitedCompany}} took over for a while. We might not always be that lucky. Relying this much on just one user, even if he is great, poses a potential problem. I am willing to share the work. About the answer to question 1: 80% ensures promotion. If this percentage is reached, promotion is mandatory (unless some sort of manipulation of the voting is detected). In case of a consensus anywhere below 80%, but equal to or above 75%, the system allows discretion to the Bureaucrat(s), to analize the circumstances of the RfA and verify if the candidate is in fact eligible for Adminship. It is a "critical consensus for promotion", and it is allowed because we recognize that RfAs don't always run smoothly. In effect, however, I would discourage emphatically that this discretion be exercised by only one Bureaucrat. In fact, the closer to 75% the consensus is, and the more contentional a RfA is, the more important it is that Bureaucrats "convene" to debate the circumstances of the RfA in order to decide on whether or not to promote. I would favor that, especially in my early days in the job. [[User:Redux|Redux]] 04:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:NSLE|NSL]][[WP:EA|E]] ([[User_talk:NSLE|T]]+[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]]) 08:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#*May I ask why you have preferred to be neutral? If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Regards, [[User:Redux|Redux]] 10:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#*:I chose to be neutral because I agree that we've enough bureaucrats. However, you have put forth a good argument why you should be one, and I do not feel it would be fair to oppose. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[WP:EA|E]] ([[User_talk:NSLE|T]]+[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]]) 06:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments'''
* I feel the need to point out two things:
# I did a lot of "talking" in my "opening essay". Some of the issues from the standard questions are developed there. I did it because I they were connected to other points I wanted to make, and I felt that it would be better to keep it together, rather than braking up my line of thought or overextending my answers to the questions by talking about off-topic things there.
# About the current Bureaucrats: As I said, there are twelve active Bureaucrats. Considering that ''the'' most important Bureaucrat function is the ability to promote other users, we must consider: of those twelve, only about four perform this task with some regularity, in the following ''ratio'' (approximately, of course): Cecropia does about 80% of the work; the other 20% are shared by UninvitedCompany, Linuxbreak and, more recently, Nichalp. So, there's really four "really active" Bureaucrats, and one of them is doing most of the work. This is a critical level of activity for Bureaucrats. We have not had major problems thus far, but I believe that's because we've been lucky. [[User:Redux|Redux]] 04:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#*Your analysis seems not to consider the possibility -- nay, probability -- that this is somewhat inherent to the job, as there's ''only so much for them to do''. The activity is certainly a vital one, but the "level of activity" is decidedly far from "critical": indeed, a better characterisation for me would be that there's so much "slack", that most of the existing B's, many of whom are highly active as admins and/or editors, feel "not required to perform" admin-promotion tasks. Short of a situation where all 12 are regularly rushing to be the first to accomplish it, I don't see how this could reasonably be expected to be otherwise. One might indeed argue that a single person performing the majority at any given time is likely to lead to consistency, and to avoidance of any appearance of "most liberally promoting 'crat takes effect".
#*Far from "being lucky", it seems to me to require a large conspiracy of adverse factors for even as slight an alleged difficulty as "the Thanksgiving Crisis", which would require considerable dramatisation to be construed as even a ''minor'' problem. "We need more" just does not fly for me, even a smidgen. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#**Slack? Maybe that was true once, but not anymore. In the "old days", there used to be only a handful of RfAs up at the same time. Now the list hardly ever shortens considerably. At the time of this post, there are 19 simultaneous RfAs (and plus ''this'' RfB, which makes it 20 requests of some sort), and there's every chance that a new one, or more, might be put up today. And some of the RfAs get really, really long, with a lot of material to be read by the time of closing. I can't assume that all other Bureaucrats are simply "kicking back" because they think Cecropia "has got it covered". A much safer assumption would be that they have a lot on their hands, both elsewhere in the project and in real life. Besides, nowhere in the project, except perhaps for the functions reserved to Jimbo, do we encourage concentration of tasks in one user's hand. That's not how Wikipedia should work, by any measure. My point with this RfB is that ''I can be of use'', not all over the project (by being a Bureaucrat, that is), but right here, on RfA. More importantly, I'm willing to. [[User:Redux|Redux]] 11:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#***Indeed, slack. 20 requests ''spanning a week''' of consideration time, please note. So, roughly speaking, some small constant * 3 edits per day to process them. Between ''12 people'', none of whom have reported an inability to contribute. You must assume as you think best, but ''I'm'' far from convinced. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* Are you trying to mess me up, Redux? Once I "push the button" 500 times, I get a [[T-shirt]] ("I pushed the button 500 times for Wikipedia Admins and all I got was this stupid T-shirt"), a year's supply of Orville Reddenbacher [[popcorn]], and a one-night all-expenses paid dream vacation in [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania|Philadelphia]]. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] 05:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
:::What can I say, I really like popcorn. But you shouldn't worry, since you are my role model Bureaucrat, if promoted, I'm going to be asking you for so much advice you'll get extra points for that! But seriously, I find it tremendously unfair to you that you should have to bear practically all the responsibility for the timely closing of RfAs. [[User:Redux|Redux]] 11:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A new question for you: [[User:Brion VIBBER]] told me not long ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brion_VIBBER&diff=next&oldid=29346951] that Bureaucrats can
[[Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit|change attribution for an edit]]. There's an enormous backlog on that page, and no one has touched it in months - will you look into this? [[User:BDAbramson|'''''BDAbramson''''']] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 20:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
:No, you need a developer for that. You have to have database access. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] 22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
::For the record, I was writing my asnwer to BDAbramson and got an edit coflict due to Cecropia's post. I was finding this strange, since I had not heard of Bureaucrats being able to change attribution for edits. Plus, as I was pointing out, the very project page states <cite>Instructions for developers</cite>; and there's the fact that [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Other access types|our page]] states that changing attribution for edits is one of the two administrative tasks carried out by ''Developers'' (along with sock puppet checks). I would have been more than willing to help out on that front, though, if a Bureaucrat status were to give me that ability. Too bad. [[User:Redux|Redux]] 22:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
:*Cecropia, I asked because Brion Vibber (a developer) pointed me to the bureaucrats. Being neither a 'crat nor a developer myself, I was thus confused as to whether the info on that page was correct. I have heard different things from different folks, and want to nail it down. [[User:BDAbramson|'''''BDAbramson''''']] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
::*I'll look into it. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] 04:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*Much appreciated. [[User:BDAbramson|'''''BDAbramson''''']] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 23:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

*Since this has just been brought up to oppose, I will clarify this: when I say that I have "been absent for a while", this means that I have not ''voted'', but I am always quite aware of what is going on here. Voting, however, requires that a user spends time to analyze the candidate's credentials, the arguments brought up by other voting users both for and against the candidate, and so on. I had not had this time available, or else I would have had to suspend contributing content, which I'd never do. Because I do not vote lightly, I have not voted for a while. That's what I meant by "absent", and that's why being "absent" meant that I enjoyed a much needed (in my view) neutrality to request Bureaucratship now. [[User:Redux|Redux]] 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Questions for the candidate''' 
''A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:''
:'''1.''' Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
::'''A'''. I have. I would not dare requesting Bureaucratship without having full knowledge of the criteria. A consensus of at least 80% is required for promotion. A consensus between 75% and 80% ''may'' result in promotion, depending on the circumstances of the RfA, such as bad faith, or malicious votes, as well as the influence that certain votes, cast by users who enjoy a certain prestige in the community, can have on the general outcome of the RfA. Consulting with other Bureaucrats, especially while I am still new to the job, is of utmost importance, in my view. Promoting a user to Adminship is a big deal, not just for the user concerned, but for the community in general.
:'''2.''' How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
::'''A'''. A combination of factors: my best judgment and conferring with other Bureaucrats. If the decision falls to me, I will make it. I will take full responsibility for my decision and its consequences. I have never hidden anything on Wikipedia, and I shall not start with the things that matter the most.
:'''3.''' Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
::'''A'''. Because I expect and accept nothing less of myself. People who have been in contact with me in the project know this. The very few users that I have wronged in the project, for any reason, have received a full-hearted apology. And again, nothing of a sort has happened since I became an Admininstrator.
:'''4.''' If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?
::'''A'''. Absolutely. I don't use IRC or any other means of communication outside of Wikipedia to discuss Wikipedia-related issues. Transparency is not negotiable. It is a requirement. As a corollary to this, I can say this: even though I am able to communicate in several languages, I do not post in any language other than English on the English-language Wikipedia. On occasions, I have been contacted in French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian on ''this'' Wikipedia, and I have responded to those all in English. I have refused to discuss how to best handle a troublemaker via e-mail, preferring to address the issue on Wikipedia talk pages. There is no compromising transparency. There will never be.
:'''5.''' Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
::'''A'''. Yes. That is the very soul of my request for Bureaucratship. I will honor this compromise!
:'''6.''' I'm just curious, but according to [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=Redux Interiot's Tool], it took you over six months since you began regularly editing to edit a project (Wikipedia:) namespace, and in the past four months your project namespace has also been relatively low. Could you explain this? (I know that most users don't edit Wikipedia: much, but I just wish to hear your response to this.) Thanks a lot! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] ([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A note?]]) 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
::First of all, I apologize for the delay in answering your question. Well, there's a combination of factors involved in this. First, it must be noted that my "pace of contributing", if we can call it that, was never particularly high (there have been only a few periods when I was able to pick up the pace for a while). When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, I was doing it more like a hobby. But then I realized that this project was something really especial, and a priceless asset in a world where we can't even find out what the wheather is going to be like without providing a credit card number first. So I started contributing as a matter of principle. This transition did not happen as fast for me as it does for some other dedicated users that we have here, mainly due to time constraints. But once it happened, I understood that I wanted, and I should, do more for the project than just contribute to the article namespace. That didn't take '''that''' long to happen though, but I was never one to rush into something I don't understand fully first. As best I can remember, I was always bold in editing articles, but I took my time before getting involved with the other aspects of the project. Still, we are not talking about as long a time as six months, no where near that in fact. That it had taken that long for me to actually edit a project namespace, I did not even know. I do remember that by the time I had been here for six months I was already a big enthusiast of the project, so it might have been more of a coincidence that it didn't take five, or four months instead of six. And it could have just as easily been even less. Besides, content contribution has always been high on my list of priorities (and that, in my view, includes discussions on talk pages and user talk pages, which, as I said, I view as an essential part of the process of building this encyclopedia), so this is probably related to the reason why it might have taken me a little longer to get around to contributing in the project namespace. And this is also the reason why my level of contribution on that front has dropped in the last few months: as I said in my statement, time constraints forced me to cut back on some of my activities, and I privileged content contributions (and discussions associated). Now I'm hoping to pick up on all of those again. I am, however, proud that whatever "real life issues" I have had over these almost two years that I have been with the project, I have never taken extended leaves of absence, never leaving it — I took my first wikibreak only in mid 2005, and even that was only because I went to Yosemite, and shockingly, they didn't have internet access in the park. Have I addressed everything? Regards, [[User:Redux|Redux]] 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the reply. By the way, I left out a word in my question above (''I know that most '''new''' users...''), but I think you got the gist of the question. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] ([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A note?]]) 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''7.''' What is your take on [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges]]? If adopted policy, is this something you would participate in? Do you think it necessary for BCrats to be involved at all? Are BCrats too busy as it is to take this on as well?
::Philosophically, I have no reasons to oppose the bestowing of rollback privileges onto users who have already demonstrated their commitment to the community. In the talk page, it was suggested that maybe a procedure would not be necessary, and rollback could be an automatic privilege of all registered users after a certain number of edits. With that I cannot agree. Although rollback action can be easily reverted, unchecked access to this tool would make a vandal's life a lot easier, and that's never good. A willing vandal would not have too much difficulty working around the minimum number of edits. The points raised by [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] over there are also of great pertinence, especially the part about the risk of compromising edit summaries. If a procedure similar to the RfA is implemented, however, there's the practical problem of making it almost as tough for a user to get as Adminship — although the general requirements would not be as demanding, and a lower percentage for required consensus could be set. As for the Bureaucrats' part in this, yes they should be involved. Rights setting is ''the'' task reserved to Bureaucrats, so I cannot see how it would not be them the ones responsible for carrying out promotions. It's an increase in the work load, but there's no reason to believe that the Bureaucrat community would not be able to adjust. The only technical catch in the proposal is that, currently, Bureaucrats can only increase a user's access level. Demotions are a privilege reserved to Developers. This means that the proposal also involves an increase in the privileges reserved to Bureaucrats (even if related only to rollback rights), which is all the more reason for them to be involved. Finally, for my part in this. As a user, I would be willing to participate there and vote. If I were to be promoted and become a Bureaucrat, then my pledge to be of service at the RfA forum would be extended to the new forum with the same diligence, provided that this proposal had become policy, of course. [[User:Redux|Redux]] 03:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Nickptar

2006-01-15T12:23:17Z

Bourbons3: made "pissed" bold

<div style="float: left; border:solid {{{1|{{{border-c|{{{id-c|#999999}}}}}}}}} 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: {{{2|{{{info-c|#eeeeee}}}}}};"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: {{{1|{{{id-c|#dddddd}}}}}}; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | '''{{{3|[[Image:Face-sad.svg]]}}}'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | {{{4|This user is '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Comments_by_Nickptar|pissed]]''' about admins ignoring policy.}}}
|}</div>
[[Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 4]]

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia

2006-01-15T12:22:55Z

Bourbons3: /* Views, attitude and preferences */ added User admins ignoring policy link

{{TOCright}}



For userboxes related to WikiProjects, see '''''[[Wikipedia:userboxes/WikiProjects]]'''''

==Organizations==
{| class="wikitable"
!Code
!Result
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Association of Members' Advocates}}||{{User wikipedia/Association of Members' Advocates}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit}}||{{User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit (alternative)}}||{{User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit (alternative)}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Esperanza}}||{{user wikipedia/Esperanza}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/WikiFairy}}||{{User wikipedia/WikiFairy}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/WikiGnome}}||{{User wikipedia/WikiGnome}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians}}||{{User wikipedia/Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Kindness Campaign}}||{{User wikipedia/Kindness Campaign}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Welcoming Committee}}||{{user wikipedia/Welcoming Committee}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Department of Fun}}||{{User wikipedia/Department of Fun}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/United Groups And Committees}}||{{User wikipedia/United Groups And Committees}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Helping Hand Group}}||{{User wikipedia/Helping Hand Group}}
|}


==Position==
{| class="wikitable"
|{{tl|User wikipedia}}||{{user wikipedia}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Administrator}}||{{user wikipedia/Administrator}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}}||{{user wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Hope-Administrator}}||{{User wikipedia/Hope-Administrator}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Administrator Nominee}}||{{User wikipedia/Administrator Nominee}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Bureaucrat}}||{{User wikipedia/Bureaucrat}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Bureaucrat Nominee}}||{{User wikipedia/Bureaucrat Nominee}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Arbitration Committee}}||{{User wikipedia/Arbitration Committee}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Arbitration Committee Nominee}}||{{User wikipedia/Arbitration Committee Nominee}}
|-
|{{tl|User wikipedia/Mediation Committee}}||{{User wikipedia/Mediation Committee}}
|}

==Vandalism==
{| class="wikitable"
|{{tl2|user wikipedia|rcp}}||{{user wikipedia|rcp}}
|-
|{{tl|user van}}||{{user van}}
|-
|{{tl|user vandalized}}||{{user vandalized}}
|-
|{{tl2|user vandalized|0}}
|{{user vandalized|0}}
|-
|{{tl|user Vandal Fighter}}||{{user Vandal Fighter}}
|-
|{{tl2|user Wic|Fake Name}}
|{{user Wic|ClockvvorkSoul}}
|-
|{{[[user:Cool Cat/Wow]] | Fake Name}}
|{{user:Cool Cat/Wow|Aranda56 on Wheels!}}
|}

==Views, attitude and preferences==
{| class="wikitable"
|{{tl|user please be nice}}||{{user please be nice}}
|-
|{{tl|user AGF}}||{{user AGF}}
|-
|{{tl|user oops}}||{{user oops}}
|-
|{{tl2|user wikipedia|npa}}||{{user wikipedia|npa}}
|-
|{{tl|user NPOV}}||{{user NPOV}}
|-
|{{tl|User recursively neutral}}||{{User recursively neutral}}
|-
|{{tl|user not censored}}||{{user not censored}}
|-
|{{tl|user copyright}}||{{user copyright}}
|-
|{{tl|user RV War}}||{{user RV War}}
|-
|{{tl|user piglet}}||{{user piglet}}
|-
|{{tl|user screw}}||{{user screw}}
|-
|{{tl|User infallible}}||{{User infallible}}
|-
|{{tl|user nude}}||{{user nude}}
|-
|{{tl|user pd}}||{{user pd}}
|-
|{{tl|user Puppet Master}}||{{user Puppet Master}}
|-
|<nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:user Sock Puppet|user Sock Puppet]]<nowiki>|Username}}</nowiki>||{{user Sock Puppet|Username}}
|-
|{{tl|user pwd}}||{{user pwd}}
|-
|{{tl|User alphabetical categories}}||{{User alphabetical categories}}
|-
|{{tl|User adminstandards}}||{{User adminstandards}}
|-
|{{tl|User admins ignoring policy}}||{{User admins ignoring policy}}
|}

===Wikilosophy===
{| class="wikitable"
|{{tl|user incl}}||{{user incl}}
|-
|{{tl|user delete}}||{{user delete}}
|-
|{{tl|user dar}}||{{user dar}}
|-
|{{tl|user delu}}||{{user delu}}
|-
|{{tl|user even}}||{{user even}}
|-
|{{tl|user exclu}}||{{user exclu}}
|-
|{{tl|user exo}}||{{user exo}}
|-
|{{tl|user imm}}||{{user imm}}
|-
|{{tl|user merge}}||{{user merge}}
|-
|{{tl|user meta}}||{{user meta}}
|}

==Research tools==
For online research tools, see [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing]].

{| class="wikitable"
|{{tl|User Britannica}}||{{User Britannica}}
|-
|{{tl|user encarta}}||{{user encarta}}
|}

==Personal statistics==
{| class="wikitable"
|{{tl2|user wikipedia|Wikipediholic|score=type score here}}
|{{user wikipedia|Wikipediholic|score=''type score here''}}
|-
|{{tl2u|user:WAvegetarian/deletededits|number}}
|{{user:WAvegetarian/deletededits|number}}
|-
|{{tl|user tonofedits}}||{{user tonofedits}}
|-
|{{tl|user toomanyedits}}||{{user toomanyedits}}
|-
|{{tl|user toomanyedits user page}}||{{user toomanyedits user page}}
|-
|{{tl2|user AfD|number of AfDs}}
|{{user AfD|7}}
|-
|{{tl2|user FA|number of FAs}}
|{{user FA|2}}
|-
|{{tl|user 1000 edits}}|||{{user 1000 edits}}
|-
|{{tl|user email}} – works only on user pages|||{{user email}}
|-
|{{tl|user infobox}}|||{{user infobox}}
|}

==Wikipedia Sister Project user Pages==
These may be useful if you have ''user pages'' on other wikipedia sites. The templates presume that the page names are the same on the referring site.
Note that the link to "a page" changes once the template is placed on a user page.
{| class="wikitable"
|{{tl|user page wikiquote}}||{{user page wikiquote}}
|-
|{{tl|User Page Wikibooks}}||{{User Page Wikibooks}}
|-
|{{tl|user page wikicommons}}||{{user page wikicommons}}
|-
|{{tl|User Page Wikinews}}||{{User Page Wikinews}}
|-
|{{tl|User Wikisource}}||{{User Wikisource}}
|-
|{{tl|User Meta-Wiki}}||{{User Meta-Wiki}}
|-
|{{tl|User Wikitionary}}||{{User Wikitionary}}
|-
|{{tl|User Wikispecies}}||{{User Wikispecies}}
|}

[[Category:Wikipedia userboxes]]
{{WP:UBS}}

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 9

2006-01-15T12:07:09Z

Bourbons3: /* Template:User-AmE-0 */ Comment

<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{| width = "100%"
|-
! width="50%" align="left" | < [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 8|January 8]]
! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 10|January 10]] >
|}
</div></noinclude>
=== January 9 ===


==== [[Template:Event y]] ====
Templates that just create categories makes that space hard to maintain... ask anyone that works [[WP:CFD]]. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' after manually updating any pages using it. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 20:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per CBD. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep''' The month and day of many events is not known, only the year. Add [[Template:Event ym]] for when only the year/month is known. [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 12:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*<s>'''Delete''': Only used on a handful of pages. [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)<s>
* '''[[Motion_of_No_Confidence|No Confidence]]''' Read the [[WP:AUM]] carefully, it isnt wikipedia policy, only a (very recent) suggestion. - [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness [[Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:Ninjastars|or something]] and then '''delete 'em all'''. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]]) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. per nom. What links here is empty. --[[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 23:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:Locale length]] ====
Meta-template. Uses the "P" templates mentioned below. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' after manually updating any pages using it. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per CBD. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep''' Converts meters to '''locale (feet)'''
::eg. <nowiki>{{Locale length|10}}</nowiki> gives '''{{Locale length|10}}''' and <nowiki>{{Locale length|1000}}</nowiki> gives '''{{Locale length|1000}}''', useful when metric measurments (without imperial feet) are encountered in some pages. Also can be used to in sed no-line-break-space after the between number and unit. eg 1000 m, this is commonly missed and leads to messy pages. - [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 09:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*<s>'''Delete''': Only used on a handful of pages. [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
* '''[[Motion_of_No_Confidence|No Confidence]]''' Read the [[WP:AUM]] carefully, it isnt wikipedia policy, only a (very recent) suggestion. - [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. This conversion to feet should be done by hand to ensure that the correct number of significant digits is used. Or you will get something like "approximately 1000 m (3281 feet)" instead of "approximately 1000m (3300 feet)" which is more appropriate. [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma|(討論)]] 13:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness [[Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:Ninjastars|or something]] and then '''delete 'em all'''. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]]) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' meta meta [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] [[Wikipedia:Limited administrators|?]] 14:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*I think Mediawiki says it best: "This page is 55 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see [[Wikipedia:article size|article size]]." And it's all but a few bytes on a '''''single line'''''! '''Obliterate''' this template. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 22:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:Country GB]], etc. ====
([[Template:Country GB]], [[Template:Country PT]], [[Template:Country NP]], [[Template:Country NZ]])

Meta-templates. Used with the "event" templates mentioned below. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 08:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' after manually updating any pages using it. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per CBD. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Does it ''have'' a purpose? - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Keep''' - Some templates, eg '''[[Template:Infobox Country]]''', are passed the XX country code, and, this provides enough information determin Country name: '''Britian''', and even Nationality: '''British'''. i.e. esp useful for template. Maybe we should limit these to important tags... such as '''only''' country, nationality and type of event etc... This approach is used extensively by the '''[[Template:coor dms]]''', '''[[Template:coor dm]]''', '''[[Template:coor d]]''' and '''[[Template:coor]]''' etc and documented in the wiki help pages. [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
** Don't use other poor examples to defend this. Those templates as well are on my list. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete''': Only used on a handful of pages on a sup-trial basis. Also I will nominate the "poor examples" [[:Template:coor]], [[:Template:coor d]], [[:Template:coor dm]] [[:Template:coor dms]] for deletion tomorrow. [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
* '''[[Motion_of_No_Confidence|No Confidence]]''' Read the [[WP:AUM]] carefully, it isnt wikipedia policy, only a (very recent) suggestion. - [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness [[Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:Ninjastars|or something]] and then '''delete 'em all'''. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]]) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

==== Several meta-templates related to months ====
([[Special:Allpages/Template:P|all templates in the form of "P#"]], [[Template:CentaryN]], [[Template:MonthN]], [[Template:Convert month]], [[Template:Month name]], [[Template:Born]], [[Template:Died]], [[Template:Battle]], [[Template:Disaster]], [[Template:Event]])

I stumbled onto a pretty arcane series of [[WP:AUM|nested meta-templates]]. They seem basically devised to compose a complicated structure around converting numbers to months and back again. [[Template:CentaryN]] and [[Template:MonthN]] seems to be used only for sorting articles into strict time order within categories. This can be achieved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_2005_in_Britain_and_Ireland&diff=34472417&oldid=25555569 manually] without all this template-within-template structure. [[Template:Born|Born]], [[Template:Died|Died]], [[Template:Event|Event]], [[Template:Battle|Battle]], [[Template:Disaster|Disaster]], and others create four-layer-deep meta-templates that seem to be used to present dates in a non-standard format (see [[Edmund Hillary]]). -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 08:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' after manually updating any pages using it. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per CBD. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep''': I checked the [[Edmund Hillary]] page and it has entries like: <nowiki> {{Born|1919|7|20|region=NZ}} </nowiki> that correctly puts Edmund into the [[:Category:New Zealand people]] and [[:Category:1919 births]]. And correctly formats the dates as per wiki standard. The templates Born, Died, Battle, Disastor and Event seem to categorise corectly also. [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 08:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*<s>'''Delete''': Only used on a handful of pages. [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
* '''[[Motion_of_No_Confidence|No Confidence]]''' Read the [[WP:AUM]] carefully, it isnt wikipedia policy, only a (very recent) suggestion. - [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
** You "checked" it and it "seems to"? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edmund_Hillary&diff=19300317&oldid=19260494 (Edmund Hillary) Aren't you the one ] that created all this and put it there in the first place? Have you read [[WP:AUM]]? I don't blame you too much for creating this system, but it's disallowed by policy. Categorization and dates are already handled by existing mechanisms that are easier to maintain and avoid being hogs on the server. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
***ThanX for your "friendly" feedback. [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 12:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
***BTW: The [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] the vote hasn't eveb finished yet... have some grace. I note you have butchered the page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Shadbolt&action=history Tim_Shadbolt] history 4 times with your (mega-edit) bot.
**Many of these (not 'Locale length') could be converted to non-meta templates. I like the concept behind standardized data formatting, but I think these templates should then always be subst'd in once they are formatted to use widely agreed upon standards. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 13:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. My wiki forensic revealed that there are 10'000 (in words: '''ten thousand''') templates P1..P10000. Patrick created P1..P3 and NevilleDNZ continued up to astronomic 10000. I must say Neto ''is'' very friendly... --[[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 13:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Actually, it looks like they go up to p31 and then only hit major milestones and specific instances up to p10000. So not quite as bad, but wouldn't work properly until all of the entries were filled out. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
***Poor admin who has to delete them. I'm asking myself whether it makes sense to do that delete work at all. Deleted articles/templates are still around just marked as deleted, right? So we just increase the garbage by deleting them without gaining much. --[[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 13:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
****<s>'''Comment''' there are only about 20 of them (as CBDunkerson mentions), I will nominate them for deletion tomorrow. [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness [[Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:Ninjastars|or something]] and then '''delete 'em all'''. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]]) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:User-AmE-0]] ====
{{tln|User-AmE-0}} 
'''Delete''' — Quite rudely claims that American English isn't English and is actually spelling and grammatical errors, in contradiction to official policies here. Serves no purpose other than nationalistic arrogance. {{unsigned|DreamGuy}}
*'''Keep''' this and all American English templates. Someone should make a policy about userboxes so these don't keep coming up. [[User:Cookiecaper|cooki]][[WP:EA|e]][[User:Cookiecaper|caper]] ([[User talk:Cookiecaper|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Cookiecaper|contribs]]) 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:This TFD discussion is tainted by talk page spamming by [[User:Jamal al din|Jamal al din]]: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brian_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=34534893] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Captain_scarlet&diff=prev&oldid=34534978] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolynparrishfan&diff=prev&oldid=34535014] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Celestianpower&diff=prev&oldid=34535136] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chairman_S.&diff=prev&oldid=34535172] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chaosfeary&diff=prev&oldid=34535281] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Closedmouth&diff=prev&oldid=34535371] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daisy-berkowitz&diff=prev&oldid=34535612] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deadkid_dk&diff=prev&oldid=34535688] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DivineShadow218&diff=prev&oldid=34535750] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Djr_xi&diff=prev&oldid=34535814] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dleigh&diff=prev&oldid=34535838] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duke_toaster&diff=prev&oldid=34535888] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dwilke&diff=prev&oldid=34535922] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElizabethEeyore&diff=prev&oldid=34535978] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Englishrose&diff=prev&oldid=34536154] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EuropracBHIT&diff=prev&oldid=34536221] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elian&diff=prev&oldid=34536665] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Falcon9x5&diff=prev&oldid=34536760] [[User:Demi|Demi]] [[User_talk:Demi|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]] 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
::'Tainted'? Are those people's opinions unworthy of consideration because they had to be told there was a vote? Do you think they are only voting because somebody else wants them to? ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' Templates like these are the reason why everyone wants to delete useful Babel templates now, without taking to drawing up a policy proposal. And cookiecaper, there ''is'' a policy discussion on userboxes: [[WP:UBP]]. This template is just for user-fun and bears no relevance to writing an encyclopedia or translating. If it has to be kept the wording needs to be changed because as accessed now it is offensive. --[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 09:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' on the grounds that it's offensive. There aren't enough offensive templates on Wikipedia right now. Templates by and large tend to be far too pleasant and civil; it's repulsive and runs contrary to our interests here, which is to create a hostile and factionalist environment for inefficient and contentious editing. However, I vote to keep this template only on the grounds that I can also make a template calling all of the Romance languages "poorly-spoken Latin" in a similar way to how American English is poorly-spoken English. Fair's fair. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. There is another userbox with the same text {{[[Template:User AmE-0]]}}. In itself it is not any more offensive than {{[[Template:User AIM-0]]}}, {{[[Template:user gb-0]]}} or {{[[Template:user 1337-0]]}}. -- [[User:Sneltrekker|Sneltrekker]] 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I'm ambivalent about this style of userbox (I've removed the joke userboes I created for myself), but I think we should hold on ad-hoc deletions until there is some consensus on a coherent policy about userboxes. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Dalbury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 10:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|"?!"]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges|RFR - a good idea?]] 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' this and its counterpart that insults users of Commonwealth English, if it exists. Not useful for user categorization. Wikipedia itself is dialect-neutral; if its users aren't, there's no reason to allow themselves to factionalize like this. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - I live in America so I speak American English; saying things like color and fall. I don't find this offensive at all. I have no problems with people stating their choosen dialect.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:*Yes, this applies to me as well; it's all very silly, isn't it? Like linguistic nationalism. Fact is, some Americanisms are more linguistically efficient than the Britishisms ("color" is simply faster and simpler to type than "colour"), some Britishisms are more linguistically efficient than the Americanisms ("arse" rather than "ass" makes sense as a handy way to avoid confusion with the donkey "ass"), and most variations are just too trivial for any sane person to make a fuss about. If I was the God of Language, I'd just hold a giant international superpoll and have all the neutral parties go through every spelling and meaning variance and pick the most coherent, efficient, simple, and clear form for each and forget about the rest. But since I'm not that, best to just live with it, and to let people hate on (or poke fun at hating on) whichever dialect they want. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per [[User:Silence|Silence]]. — [[User:BrianSmithson|BrianSmithson]] 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' There's a whole list of American English templates, these language templates shouldnt be deleted. Plus, if something like this causes offence, then you're obviously too touchy - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Saying any language is an improper form of another is a completely false statement. In fact, by saying this, this user should also have taken into account that English is a form of Germanic and, by there way of thinking, is also just "grammatical errors". Not acknowledging this means, or atleast how I have interpreted, just a biased, rude thing to say.
*'''Keep''' [[User:Keithgreer|Keith Greer ]] [[Image:Flag of Northern Ireland2.svg|30px]] 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' --[[User:Kiand|Kiand]] 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' — Offensive, useless. — [[User:Seven Days|Seven Days]] » [[User talk:Seven Days|talk]] 17:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per God of War. —[[User:Andux|Andux]] 17:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I know Am English's beginnings, I know modern English's beginning and I know where old Germanic languages came from. Knowing all this, I can offer my educated opinion. This is humerous. Leave it be. [[User:Silence|Silence]] is right, though. - [[User:Hayter|Hayter]] 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*Strong keep. —[[User:Nightstallion|Nightstallion]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I personally find this userbox a bit offensive, but everyone has their opinions, and they are free to express them in the user namespace. — [[User:TheKMan|'''TheKMan''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|talk]] 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Seems fairly light hearted to me. [[User:Boddah|Boddah]] 18:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Silence, and make some more for other ignorant deviations from proper Proto-Indo-European. —[[User:Mirv|Charles P.]][[User talk:Mirv| (Mirv)]] 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:*That's what I'm talkin' about! Bring back PIE! Lazy linguistic louses, losing lingering locatives later! -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''keep''' as it is humorous and not offensive at all. [[User:Larix|Larix]] 19:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. If it's a joke, it's not a very funny one. So it sounds more like an attack than a joke. [[User:Rspeer|'''rspeer''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|ɹəədsɹ ]] 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:*I agree, though that hasn't influenced my vote. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Comment:''' The idea behind these userboxes is to entertain. While I'm no longer a member of the userboxes project (and not particularly such a large fan of userboxes anymore), let 'em have their fun. [[User:Cernen|Cernen]] 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
**With that said, '''Keep.''' [[User:Cernen|Cernen]] 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Delete immediately''' - while I am a big fan of British English and sometimes make fun of American English, I do believe that this opinion espressed in such a way is far too vulgar to be accepted by anyone[[User:Msoos|Msoos]]
**'''Comment''' For the record, British English is just English (its not a version of the language, it '''is''' the language) and it's not exactly immoral. People get offended by anything nowadays. Seeing as it's not hugely bad, can't you just resort to not using it? An American above said they werent offended, maybe if people were as sensible as him we wouldnt have a backlog in the deletion section - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:*Are you saying that it ''isn't'' accepted by anyone (in which case the template won't find any use and can be deleted as an orphan (just as we do with human orphans)), or are you saying that we shouldn't ''let'' it be accepted by anyone? Both seem like strange statements to make; I can understand saying that we should make people express this opinion in customized or fully userfied templates, or simply have them express it in prose, but saying that it's too vulgar to be expressed ''at all'' seems a tad odd... What's so terrible about being vulgar every once in a while? -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''' - How would you non-American speakers of English feel if I created a userbox mocking Commonwealth English? --[[User:TML1988|TML1988]] 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
**I wouldnt be bothered. It wouldnt take a userbox mocking proper English for me to know that Americans dont like Brits. Plus, if u mocked English, then you would be mocking American English because it is the original version of your "language" - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
::*Actually, no, for the record American English is closer to the original version of English than British English. Studies show that people living in the Appalachia Mountains are closest to Elizabethan English... not that it is somehow better for that. You might want to go educate yourself instead of assuming that your version is somehow more correct. The point, however, is that nobody should be mocking anyone, especially ikn a way that goes against clear Wikipedia policies that American English is just as real as British English. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:::The moon is made of cheese. See, i can do it too - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::He's telling the truth. Spoken American English, at least the Appalachian form, is more like spoken Elizabethan English than any other form still around today. Given the inconsistency of spelling in Elizabethan times, no form can be said to be the most similar in spelling. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' (as a user of american english). This is an expression of opnion. Any edits in which such a user attempted to "correct" such "errors" would be in violation of policy, and would I trust, be promptly revted. But I see no reason why the suer should not be entitled to express such a view, at elast until there is a more comprehensive policy on user boxes. If a user had such a statement on his or her user page not in a box, how far would soemone get who wanted to remove it as a policy violation? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. I'm a supporter of userboxes in general, but this one is just so silly I have to vote delete. I mean gees, all languages evolve. That doesn't make one more "right" than the other. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*Wrong. Written chinese doesn't evolve, not that is in any way relevant.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', a harmless userbox with a sense of fun, adds colour to this encyclopaedia. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*Concur completely with Lord Bob. All you people who are offended, every language template as a -0 version, and stop being to touchy! - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' factionalizing userbox --[[User:Wikiacc|Wikiacc]] [[User talk:Wikiacc|¶]] 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' This is undoubtedly the stupidest TfD nomination ever. Mindboggling. [[User:Jtdirl|'''Fear''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]] 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', as per [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]]. It's clearly very tongue-in-cheek; I don't think it warrants your evident indignation.--[[User:CapitalLetterBeginning|CapitalLetterBeginning]] 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. While I don't understand how this could be considered offensive, I know that I find other various things offensive which others don't understand and tell me I'm "being too touchy" (eg, butchers' windows, horse racing). No need for a template which offends others. --[[User:Qirex|Qirex]] 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete'''. Violates Wikipedia's ideals about etiquette and "good faith". We are supposed to be working ''together'' here, not sniping at one another over language differences.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', mostly harmless userspace template. [[User:Gerritholl|Gerrit]] [[Special:Contributions/Gerritholl|C]][[User:Gerritholl|U]][[User_talk:Gerritholl|T]][[Special:Emailuser/Gerritholl|E]][[Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Gerritholl|D]][http://topjaklont.student.utwente.nl/ H] 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', elitist and factually incorrect. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' — Has to be one of the most ridiculous TFD's so far.. --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] '''('''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|Α⇔Ω]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|⇒✉]]''')''''' 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment #2''': My watchlist has seen at least a few of these userboxes be sent here to die. Can't Wikiproject Userboxes make their own TfD page? This is supposed to be for ''useful'' templates that might have outlived their usefulness, not usercruft. [[User:Cernen|Cernen]] 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', offensive and insulting. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', serves no purpose but to violate [[WP:CIVIL]].--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]] 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — Will this be deleted too? Just the same, but the opposing POV: [[Template:User AmE-5]]:
*'''Keep'''. No problems with the template; it's a reasonable template, and its "rude" factor is totally irrelevant due to the fact that it's a POV template. [[User:Niffweed17|Niffweed17]] 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
{{User AmE-5}}{{clear}}
:Definite American bias here - but that's not surprising when such a large portion of editors are American..--''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] '''('''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|Α⇔Ω]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|⇒✉]]''')''''' 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::[[WP:AFG|Assume god faith]], will ya? And yes, I hope that one is deleted too.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]] 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Nice tough of silliness, nothing rude to be seen here. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as per [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] and untill userbox poilcy is sorted out [[User:Brian New Zealand|Brian]] | [[User talk:Brian New Zealand|(Talk)]] 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&diff=34555172&oldid=34554191 '''Delete'''. POV, this is not the place for it.] —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 04:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**[[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion]] isn't, no. At least not rudely shoving your own comment right up at the top as though you think you're more important than everyone else. [[WP:UP]] and [[WP:NPOV]] give clearly the right to free speech on individual user pages: '''NPOV does not apply to user pages.''' --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] '''('''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|Α⇔Ω]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|⇒✉]]''')''''' 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. How is this offensive? 1) He is entitled to his opinion. 2) It won't harm anyone by him always using British English instead of American English, and 3) It's not like it's going to be used outside of his user page. Saying this is biased and offensive is like saying somebody not liking a certain type of music is offensive. [[User:Bob rulz|bob rulz]] 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Totally harmless. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 08:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''. Totally useless. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 11:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Anyone heard of the word "humour"? That's "humour", not "humor" --[[User:Falcon9x5|Falcon9x5]] 11:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I speak enough languages to know that this is a bit of harmeless fun over some minor differences in dialect. Also second what ''Bob rulz'' said. [[User:Tomothy|Tom]] 12:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I guess - this looks an awful lot like [[irony]] to me, but some of the above comments show that we should at least give consideration to the idea that some find it genuinely offensive rather than funny. We have enough trouble with disputes around use of language caused by simple misunderstandings without fanning the flames. Plus, as any student of language should know, the British English spellings are often modern affectations, and the US versions are in many ways more correct (and are found in sources such as Chaucer). I'd almost make an honourable exception for aluminium (per IUPAC) but that means I'd have to accept sulfur, and I'm not going to have ''that''. So, away with it. [[User:JzG|Just zis  Guy, you know?]] [[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]/[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG|RfA!]]'' 14:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' People should be entitled to express their opinions on their user pages, whatever those opinions may be. Especially so considering the lightheartedness of this particular template. --[[User:TheCardinal|TheCardinal]] 15:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - *sigh*, some of you obviously have no sense of humour. You may think I'm being biased, not being a user of American English, but I do not find Template:User AmE-5 offensive one bit. I put the template on my user page simply for a bit of a laugh - I was only more amused to see this TfD with people calling it "factionalising" and "elitist"! I am ''frightened'' at how seriously some of you are taking a stupid little userbox. I think people should be allowed to say what they like on their user pages - it's not their fault if it's taken the completely wrong way. --[[User:Zilog Jones|Zilog Jones]] 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Very weak delete''' Only because there is already a {{tl|user AmE-0}}, and the dash after "user" in the template name is against my bias toward userbox syntax. All the AmE templates are pointless jokes, but are not quite patent nonsense, so I have no reason to ban them. An attitude about a language is not a personal attack or group hate. — [[User:Eoghanacht|''Eoghanacht'']] [[User_talk:Eoghanacht|talk]] 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep'''. I think that it is an important template, it's lighthearted and harmless. I also feel that the nomination could be construed as [[WP:POINT|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 16:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - stop being distracting. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A major vote was completed recently, reaching a concensus that POV userboxes ''should not'' be deleted. This is a POV userbox. All opinions are going to offend, you can't help or prevent that (unless you eliminate opinions, which is against freedom of speech). If you disagree with this, dont use it. I disagree with a lot of POV userboxes but i dont complain, and I certainly dont try to delete them. You call this bias, what ''I'' call bias is this being nominated and the AmE-5 template not. I call that deleting in favour of a particular language or nationality. Guess which one - American! So if this template gets deleted, and my numerous appeals dont work, I call for the AmE-5 template and any other language template with a shred of opinion in it be deleted ''immediately''. Wikipedia userpages will be more boring places, but if you people want to make it that way, don't do it in a biased way just because there are more of you from America than Britain. - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**I'm not the only one that also expressed a desire to see a counterpart template (one that insults Commonwealth English) deleted. Where is this "vote" that you speak of? [[WP:UBP]] isn't policy. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]]
***You can find it [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions|here]] - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
****There's a more detailed link [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions#Vote is 174 'Keep' to 24. Please get this proposal off my user page|here]] in case you find it difficult going through the archive, it is pretty long - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 17:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep''' but only if it's actually made witty, like the anti-British one above. As it is, it's just mean. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Harmless userspace content. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] ([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</TT> 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' - userboxes are free to be NPOV and act as a mechanism whereby people can express things they ''would be free to express anyway'' in a standardised format. Plus- it is true. [[Image:Anglo-Indian Indentity.svg|20px]] [[User:Djr xi|Deano]] ([[User talk:Djr_xi|Talk]]) 18:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep.''' I ''do'' think that American English is crap and I ''am'' rude, so having this on my user page is totally encyclopedic and NPOV. Besides, I don't feel like having the same discussion for all userboxes one by one. --[[User:Valmi|Valmi]][[User_talk:Valmi| ✒]] 18:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Speedy Delete''' I don't know how many people are aware of this, but this encyclopedia was founded by american english speakers, and this mess is a disgrace--[[User:Nn-user|Nn-user]] 18:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
: '''Comment''' I don't think you are aware that American (English) is based on English, should that make a difference? - [[User:Keithgreer|Keith Greer ]] [[Image:Flag of Northern Ireland2.svg|30px]] 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' And America was originally under British rule. Does it matter? No. If this is such a disgrace, then Jimbo Wales would be making comments. But as of yet he hasnt, so i think you're exagerrating a bit. Take a look at the discussion I linked to a few points up. For every person who voted ''delete'' on POV userboxes, over 6 people voted ''keep''. O and Valmi, '''you sum up my opinion completely'''. If there is any disgrace, it's American English (which '''is not''' an official language, it's a version - look up America on this encyclopedia if you want). '''NPOV does not apply to user pages''', which is why POV userboxes should stay. We dont need this discussion. Such a lareg amount of POV userboxes were voted on based upon the fact that they were POV, not their individual content - and the overwhelming result was '''Keep'''. I'll fight to keep as many as these POV userboxes as possible, but I'd appreciate it if you didnt nominate so many of them. - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::''If this is such a disgrace, then Jimbo Wales would be making comments. But as of yet he hasnt'' Actually, he -- tangentially -- has, leaving a comment at [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians_by_politics&diff=prev&oldid=33156588 Category:Wikipedians by politics]:
:::''''Just a comment from Jimbo:''' I would like to discourage the use of these and similar templates on user pages, instead encourage people to adopt an attitude of 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act '''in Wikipedia''' as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)'' --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - more garbage templates. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' it's not very professional. [[User:Thumbelina|Thumbelina]] 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Provincialist attack. Inferiority-complex issues ought to be acted out elsewhere. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Whilst I would never advocate actually banning American English, the thought of it is quite entertaining, and people expressing that view on their talk pages is fine. --[[User:Newprogressive|New Progressive]] 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I'm a huge USA patriot and I don't find this opinion offensive at all. [[User:Lawyer2b|Lawyer2b]] 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' a) because it is a light hearted piece of ''humour'' and b) because we need definite Wikipedia policy on userboxes before we start culling them. --[[User:Loopy|Loopy]] [[WP:EA|e]] 04:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. You can mark me as another American who thinks you're all being far too touchy. [[User:Kairos|Kairos]] 06:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Utterly offensive. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' clearly the wikipedia userspace has gone beyond the boundaries of being "encylopedic" in nature. Besides, who cares. I rest easy at night knowing that I'm heeding the advice of my mother who said, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." But if some other jag-off (there's an Americanism for you, specifically western-Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh area dialect) wants to show how much of a jerk he or she can be, who am I to stop them? Here's another thing my mom used to say, "actions speak louder then words." Lucky for us here on the WP we have both at the same time. --[[User:Easter Monkey|Easter Monkey]] 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. To be insulted at something you have to have cared of their opinion. It shows to people that there is different types of the english language and its only a laugh. The userspace of WP is separate to rest of WP therefore IMO NPOV should not need to apply, if it does then there is no point to the userspace. --[[User:Neocal|Neocal]] 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. Harmless, amusing, etc etc. --[[User:Garykirk|Gary Kirk]] [[User_talk:Garykirk|(talk)]] 13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The general reason people are giving for deletion is the fact that is may be offensive. But you can't delete something based solely on the fact that it offends (except if it is completely immoral, which this isnt). In an ideal world, everyone would live in harmony, peace on earth, etc etc. But you have to '''wake up''' because that is '''never going to happen'''. We will ''never'' have world peace, and there will ''always'' be offense in one form or another. Its called reality. This template, as well as others, is going to offend someone somewhere. Im sorry that's true, but its not hugely contraversial. All other Babel templates have one that says '''This user does not like x language''', but i dont see those here for deletion. Do you? What i think is happening is everyone falling into this pro-America thing going on, creating different rules for anti-AmE templates. You can deny it as much as much as you like, like all the "official" opinions that exist, there is always some fabrication in there. Once again, i call for the deletion for any babel templates with opinion in them to be deleted if this template ''does'' get deleted. If we are going to have a NPOV thing going, it must apply to deletiong similar userboxes. Pro-USA bias just wont cut it. - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I find it quite useful in letting people know in a light-hearted way that I don't really want my articles "Americanising" where people change all the words/terms to American variations. Anyway it's just a bit of fun and it's an over the top reaction. I wouldn't care if it was the other way round. Rule Britainnia! [[User:Englishrose|Englishrose]] 17:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' seriously get over it, it's just a bloody userbox. Our userpage is a place for our own personal opinions and information, and if i prefer to use UK english over US english then so be it. If i want other people to look at my page and see that i use UK english and not US english then they can. If you really have something against it then create your own userbox saying "US english is the ultimate english and all other forms are inferior and wrong".
:And if your Seriously taking offence to this, then think about this...
:Every other country in the world is getting your American crap beemed onto their TV's and movie screens. So think about all those people that have to hear your bloody annoying accents and pronouciations! e.g. "Skeduel" instead of "Schedule" and "Aluminum" instead of "Aluminium".
:So in conclusion i tell you... GET A LIFE! stop complaining about something that doesn't need complaining about. We put up with your crap everywhere everyday! and we don't file complaints or law suits or start bitching about it, we just sit back and say "bloody Americans". And being offended by the personal opinion of a userbox is just childish...
:[[User:Frexe|Frexe]] 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' Amen to that. People can show their POV on their userpages if they want to. If you dont like it, tough. Trying to get this deleted is totally over-reacting. - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' I retract my earlier vote. Jim suggests we toss it, I say we toss it. He's right. We're all Wikipedians here, not Americans, nor Britons, nor Germans... [[User:Cernen|Cernen]] [[User Talk:Cernen|Xanthine]] [[Special:Contributions/Cernen|Katrena]] 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' What happened to free thought? Just because Jim said delete, doesnt mean that the discussion automatically becomes a general delete. That's just a stupid way of voting - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
::: I can't agree less with [[User:Cernen|Cernen]]. Jimbo is not the autocrat of Wikipedia, and I do not agree with his assessment. Anybody should be allowed to put whatever they want in terms of POV userboxes on their userpages, and this is no exception. [[User:Niffweed17|Niffweed17]] 20:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' It's just a joke. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' Same as it's anti-american equivalent. It's a reasonable template expressing a POV, which should not be censored. [[User:Niffweed17|Niffweed17]] 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' neither funny nor useful. --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 04:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. What is WP coming to? Has Zombie Stalin taken over Wikipedia? -- '''Миборовский''' [[User:Miborovsky|U]]|[[User talk:Miborovsky|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Miborovsky|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Miborovsky|M]]|[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|E]]|[[User:Miborovsky#Wiki-not-so-fun|Chugoku Banzai]]! 04:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak delete'''. Sure it's probably a joke to most people but it's mean in tone, rather than funny. How about some more [[Wikilove]]? --[[User:Singkong2005|Singkong2005]] 05:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' If someone feels this way, I'd rather know about it; and if this is taken away from him, he'll find other, and more obnoxious, ways to say it. Wikipedia is not censored; and the proper use of Wikilove is in voluntarily taking this down, not having it forcibly removed.[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 06:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', how silly. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|(talk)]] 11:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', its fine. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Terence Ong]] [[User talk:Terenceong1992|Talk]] 12:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' If you can be offended by something as minor as that then I laugh for England. Beside if you're going to delete that I suggest in the "interest of fairness" every single box regarding language be deleted otherwise there'll be the usual "american-favourism" and all the boring anti-americanism that will come with it. There's better things to debate a deletion over, this isn't one of them and if the majority of deletions are coming from Americans who believe they are being dissed there's a nice quote somewhere in that consistion of theirs which would reccommend allowing it to stay and not be deleted. =D Gotta love this stuff. --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Userboxes are not required to be either useful or non-offensive, nor are they even required to be accurate. It's all in fun. "Humour". [[User:Peter T.S.|Peter T.S.]] 21:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''''Change''''' Connotes [[WP:POV|partiality]] that isn't necessarily based on best practise or consensus. Why not rephrase/rejig it to indicate preferred usage of American English, Commonwealth English, Australian English, et al.? All this may fly in the face of [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English|Wp guidelines regarding varied English usage]]; if it can't or won't be changed (or opened up to include other dialects), '''''delete'''''. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 22:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Editors can say anything they want about themselves on their own user pages. The only thing deleting this template will do is reduce the transparency of Wikipedia. --[[User:Peace Inside|Peace Inside]] 23:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''comment''' I agree, deleting this template will remove our "freedom of speech" and i know how much you Americans love your "freedom". So if your so patriotic towards you flag and country, then stop whinging about something that's so small and incignificant compared to whats going on all over world (that place beyond your waters).
:[[User:Frexe|Frexe]] 10:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''keep''' is just an opinion to go where opinions go. the only people who should be offended by it are the people who want to be offended by it, so that's okay. —[[User:Cassowary|Felix the Cassowary]] 13:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**En-5 was kept waitng for policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_en-5]. Since this tfd is about the exact same issue I believe that it should follow suit and this discussion be listed as a no-consensus.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 20:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and reword carefully. I see AmE-0 and AmE-5 as humorous and a good foil for each other, though the swear word on AmE-0 is neither necessary, nor matched (by AmE-5). --[[User:Wiki_alf|Alf]] [[User_talk:Wiki_alf|melmac]] 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Keep''' this template: I don't think that this template is meant to be offensive. It may be taken as such, however, you have to admit, "American English" is different from "English (ie. of an origin from England) English". Furthermore, Americans do tend to have not so good American (no offense). American myself (see [[user:MYT|MYT]]), i hear people incorrectly use grammar, and, when corrected, neglect the correction and even take offense sometimes. (Please don't be offended by my comments. They are not meant to be offensive, but rather just what I know from experience).[[User:MYT|MYT]] 22:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and I'm perfectly aware that what I write is an awfull mix of US and proper English. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
* '''Very Strong Keep''' Keep it and don't change it. [[User:Duke toaster|Duke toaster]] 13:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keeper''' it's great just the way it is. And there is the one mocking commonwealth english, so it's even. I use commonwealth english (in canada it's about half and half), and I laughed at the "how quaint" one as much as I did at the american one. The deletionists just have no sense of humour...if you can't laugh at yourself (and everybody should be able to do this - keep an eye on my user page for a good example) then you really have to learn to lighten up. It's a joke, it's a break from the seriousness of encyclopedic work. [[User:Bcatt|bcatt]] 14:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Sense of humour should be allowed. [[User:KittenKlub|KittenKlub]] 19:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' harmless userbox. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 22:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' "OMG we msut deleet it becoz it mite ''OFFEND'' sum ppl!!!!!!! If ppl get OFFENDED their gonna be emosionaly scared 4 lyfe!!!! 0h n0es!" [[User:Darobsta|Darobsta]] 22:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Exactly, what happened to the time when people didn't care if something offended people? Its called stading by your views and putting freedom of speech over the fear that it might offend someone. '''Be Bold''' and voice your opinions! Plus AmE is an annoying "language". It gets beamed out all over the world and you expect us to put up with it! Im absolutely behind this userbox, and it was the second userbox i added after User en. Rule Britannia! - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 12:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I am 100% behind this userbox. Ok, it might need a juice up in the humour department, but a lot of us Brits hate the way American English is sliding into laziness. Especially since more and more it is sliding into the "hai ppl rnt i kool cos i kant spel or rite propa" - which drives me insane

Besides, It's better then the 'Commonwealth English' which is boring as hell 
[[User:Confused.brit|C.B]] 03:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 12

2006-01-15T11:58:00Z

Bourbons3: /* Template:User edit warrior */ Strong keep

<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{| width = "100%"
|-
! width="50%" align="left" | < [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 11|January 11]]
! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 13|January 13]] >
|}
</div></noinclude>
=== January 12 ===


==== [[Template:User edit warrior]] ====
I'm generally in favor of giving Wikipedians a lot of latitude on user content, but this goes a bit too far, IMO. Edit warring is [[Wikipedia:Edit war|specifically discouraged]], and I'd rather we did not have a template which specifically advocates behavior harmful to the Wikipedia community. (This is a bit different than {{tl|User allow fairuse}}, which was mostly argued based on disputed legal issues.) We don't have {{tl|User vandal}} or {{tl|User POV pusher}}, so I don't think we should have this either. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] ([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</TT> 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*I agree here, specifically advocatign violating policy, or claiming to be a violator, is different from advocating changing policy. '''Delete'''. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*Makes it easier to find and control them. '''Keep'''. — '''[[User:Philwelch|Phil]]''' ''[[User_talk:Philwelch|Welch]]'' [[User:Katefan0/Poll|Are you a fan of the band Rush?]] 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''''Delete''''', as per Ch. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak Delete'''. Yes, I see it as a POV, but it does have some devaluation of Wikipedia Policy involved. [[User:Ian13|Ian]][[User_talk:Ian13|13]]ID:540053 21:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak Keep'''. Freedom of speech is involved here, I believe. Merely saying that a person is an edit warrior does not make him an edit warrior, just like how a person doesn't become an admin just because he said he is an admin. Yes, it does devaluate the rules a little bit, but if they do it, we catch them. We cannot prevent people from discussing their beliefs on their own page. [[User:Arbiteroftruth|Arbiteroftruth]] 22:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' If the template said "This user advocates changing Wikipedia policy to allow edit warring", I wouldn't have nominated it. The only problem I have with it is that it amounts to a confession of deliberately violating Wikipedia guidelines. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] ([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</TT> 22:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 22:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — This could be useful for admins, just for them to block everyone using this box for edit warring :) →[[User:AzaToth|Aza]][[User_talk:AzaToth|Toth]] 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**Thisa is not formatted like a warnign template (of which we already have many, see {{tl|TestTemplate}}), and strioctly speakign beign an edit warrior is not a blockable offense anyway. If soemone thinks we need a warnign template specifically about edit warring that is disruptive enough to be blockable, fine, but this isn't that template. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***Hehe, I was merly ironic, I ment, let the warriors mark themselve, so the sdmins don't need to look after them. :-) →[[User:AzaToth|Aza]][[User_talk:AzaToth|Toth]] 01:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Strong delete''' - no sign of humorous intent in this template (which would be its only saving grace IMO), and it advertises breaking policy.</s> Philwelch's revamping is better, but still clunky and ''very'' poorly named. Vote changed to '''delete and recreate/rename''' if necessary, though I find it hard to believe something along these lines doesn't exist already (isn't there a NPOV userbox?). -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 20:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
: Claiming to be an admin falsely is not kosher, either. I'm sure the Userbox Cabal will come right in telling me I'm trampling all over their fun, however... -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Editors can say anything they want about themselves on their own user pages. The only thing deleting this template will do is reduce the transparency of Wikipedia. --[[User:Peace Inside|Peace Inside]] 23:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''BJAODN''' --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] . o º O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]]) 23:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. In a perfect Wikipedia, there would never be a need for edit warriors. But even in this Wikipedia, quite different from that imaginary perfect one, an editor ''defining him or herself'' as an edit warrior is on the wrong track. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Speedied by [[User:MarkSweep]]. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
** I was just about to say that myself. If anyone is looking for me, I'll be at an undisclosed location. Thank you. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]] [[User talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]] 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*Speedied out of process, so I re-created it and changed it to a more inoffensive, ironic wording:
<div style="float: left; border:solid red 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: CRIMSON;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: white; text-align: center; font-size: 8pt; color: lightgrey;" | '''[[Image:foilfen.gif|45px]]'''
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 0pt; padding-left: 4px; line-height: 1.25em; color: black;" |This user is an '''edit warrior,''' using frequent Wikipedia editing as a weapon against ignorance. ('''This user does not [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war with other Wikipedians]] and finds the practice horrendous'''.)
|}</div>
I hope this is a suitable compromise. — '''[[User:Philwelch|Phil]]''' ''[[User_talk:Philwelch|Welch]]'' [[User:Katefan0/Poll|Are you a fan of the band Rush?]] 23:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

: Minor comment: User vandal, user van and user POV pusher all exist and are not up for deletion ;D [[User:68.39.174.238|68.39.174.238]] 23:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
::I created those with similar ironic meanings. User vandal identifies someone as someone from the [[University of Idaho]], for instance. — '''[[User:Philwelch|Phil]]''' ''[[User_talk:Philwelch|Welch]]'' [[User:Katefan0/Poll|Are you a fan of the band Rush?]] 23:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Emphatic Delete''': There is a good side to edit waring?? It is one thing having templates that are useless to this project, it is another having ones that glorify harmful behaviour. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 01:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Doc glasgow. -- [[User:Ianbrown|Ian]] &equiv; [[User_talk:Ianbrown|talk]] 02:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I completely agree with the nominator --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' As the creator of the template in question, let me just say that it was in fact a joke. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 02:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
:Sorry, joke not appreciated. You have caused another pointless debate on an already tense issue, and wasted a lot of time. No cookies. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 02:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''For heavens sake'''', aint this userbox vs commonsense thing starting to be a nuisance? Couldnt Jim or someome save us from from this crap?
*'''Keep'' I agree with [[User:Peace Inside]]. --[[User:Falcorian|Falcorian]] | [[User talk:Falcorian|Talk]] 07:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep and rename''', funny content but unnecessarily provocative name. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 15:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
** Nick, please be advised that Philwelch has revamped the originally posted template considerably; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_edit_warrior&oldid=34932805 here]'s the original. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 20:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*** That's my point. My vote is based on the current content. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Question''' How many times is it going to be deleted and recreated, and just how long a paragraph is it going to contain? I took it off my userpage the second time, and I don't think anybody's even using it. I officially don't care. [[User:A.J.A.|A.J.A.]] 21:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and please stop deleting harmless userboxes. Userboxes don't vanadalize wikipedia, Wikipedians vandalize wikipedia. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Sense of humour should be allowed. [[User:KittenKlub|KittenKlub]] 19:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|wat's sup]] 19:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*I've speedied this again. While I appreciate the efforts to make this acceptable, using editing as a weapon is still not compatible with Wikipedia's aims. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**Using editing as a weapon ''against ignorance''. Try reading the template before you delete it out of process. — '''[[User:Philwelch|Phil]]''' ''[[User_talk:Philwelch|Welch]]'' [[User:Katefan0/Poll|Are you a fan of the band Rush?]] 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' harmless userbox. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 22:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*I read the userbox before deleting it. No amount of weaseling could disguise it. I've edit the userbox to say: "This user's only connection with edit warring is in the sense that information is at war with ignorance. [[Edit war]]ring is always wrong" and moved it to [[Template:User not edit warrior]]. If this template goes back to promoting editing as a form of warfare I will speedy it again. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
**Tony, what you are saying is "that there's no consensus doesn't matter, people's arguments don't matter, I'm right, and because I know better than everyone else, I get to use my power in complete contradiction of policy." I realize that you think Wikipedia is better off without this template, but this does not fall under the speedy criteria, and more importantly, '''people disagree with you''' and you don't seem to care, even though Wikipedia allegedly runs on consensus. Nobody elected you sole arbiter of what is and isn't good for the 'pedia, and by acting like you are you show massive disrespect for the community. This template isn't going to do any harm, but a precedent that any admin can do what s/he wants definitely will. Let it go. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 03:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
**Tony, do not engage in these dumbass wheel wars of yours over your personal lack of reading comprehension. Alright? — '''[[User:Philwelch|Phil]]''' ''[[User_talk:Philwelch|Welch]]'' [[User:Katefan0/Poll|Are you a fan of the band Rush?]] 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' template, '''delete''' Tony. You need to grow a sense of humor, or at least stop trying to impose yours on the rest of us. Take a week off, and see if userboxes manage to destroy wikipedia - I'll bet they don't hurt a thing. '''Speedy deletion is not a toy'''. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 02:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' I strongly suggest that some of you, and especially Tony, look [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humour here] immediately, and write down some notes while you're there - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 11:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:User against Saud]] ====
I speedied this as having as its sole purpose an attack on the Saudi government, calling for its overthrow. On discussion in [[WP:DRV]], this was rejected as a speedy deletion and so I have undeleted and list it here for deletion. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''': Reasonable political statement against a brutal regime. Free speech on user pages. Suggest that the nominator's time would be better spent fixing [[Hyundai Motor Company]]'s NPOV problems. — '''[[User:Philwelch|Phil]]''' ''[[User_talk:Philwelch|Welch]]'' [[User:Katefan0/Poll|Are you a fan of the band Rush?]] 18:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' This and all similar templates until and unless a comprehensive policy on userboxes and/or "Attack templates" gains consensus approval. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*:Indeed we should develop such a policy and I hope we reach consensus. In that context I'd like to ask you what you think of the merits of this particular template? - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 22:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 18:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', as Phil and DES - [[User:Keithgreer|Keith Greer ]] [[Image:Flag of Northern Ireland2.svg|30px]] 19:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' like everything that doesn't help writing an encyclopedia. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 19:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Free speech on user pages does not require pages in the template namespace. THis userbox provides no benefit to writing an encyclopedia. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 19:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', destructive templates. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 19:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Inappropriate use of template space. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 19:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Strong Keep''': If one cannot speak out against useless decadent, hereditary tyrants, then what is free speech for? --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 19:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</strike> '''Strongest possible delete'''. End of story. --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Why the change of heart?[[User:Maprov|Maprov]]
:::If we're all allowed to make random decisions on the acceptability of free speech, then I'm allowed to be totally inconsistent in the manner I vote from hour to hour. --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 06:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**Why do you require a template to speak out (on this or any other topic)? [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 19:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
<strike>***That's a far more general question than the one presented here. The question is not whether POV userboxes should be banned, it's whether a ''particular'' POV userbox should be banned. There is nothing in this particular userbox that is different from many other POV userboxes (many of them against something or other). The only thing different is the target of the attack, the Saudi royal family. Being a believer in the somewhat antiquated idea of equal protection under law - then if other POV userboxes attacking anarchism, Marxism, monarchism, and racism, are allowed then this one is as well.--[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</strike> People have made a decision, I guess, and I'm willing to abide by it for the sake of consensus. --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
****I raised the question in response to your comment, which implied that the deletion of this template would in some way prevent you from speaking out against useless decadents and hereditary tyrants. I'm just having a difficult time understanding why some users (perhaps you're not included in this group) equate a template with free speech. To me, POV userboxes reduce everyone's opinion to the level of a bumper sticker. This template doesn't even provide rationale for ''why'' "''This user thinks the House of Saud should be overthrown.''" Instead of promoting free speech, these POV userboxes promote [[McDonaldization|McOpinions]]. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 19:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
<strike>***That's a fine opinion, if you were calling for the end of POV userboxes in general. Or even if you were calling for the end of POV "attack" boxes. However, <strike>you</strike> Tony picked out two targets - ones attacking the Nepali and Saudi royal families. Not the ones attacking, say, Marxism or pacifism or Microsoft.
***As for your dismissal of "McOpinions" - since when was this an elitist institution? Wikipedia is supposed to be by the masses, for the masses. If you're afraid of the political sentiments of the masses, perhaps it's time to change this to a subscriber/editors-only service. --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 20:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</strike> I guess there are some merits to the Ivory Tower approach to Wikipedia. --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
****Well, I actually would like to see the end of POV userboxes in general. I'd especially like to see the end of userboxes that exist solely to attack a person or group. As for targeting certain POVs, I haven't voted on any Nepali userbox, so perhaps you're confusing me with another user? [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 20:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***Sorry, that comment was aimed at Tony. <strike>But at any rate: I'm of the opinion that our userbox policy be a) a universal ban, b) a ban that can be consistently enforced, or c) freedom of speech. While those questions are still sorted, it's inappropriate to target a few individual userboxes while not punishing comparable ones. --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 21:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</strike>
**Because a member of the House of Saud could be one of your fellow editors right now, and creating a welcoming atmosphere for editors is one of Wikipedia's hallmarks? Thus we should remove pointlessly incendiary templates. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 20:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
<strike>***Wikipedia has no law shielding the already over-privileged Saudi royals from criticism. If one were a member of the House of Saud, you'd be offended by any number of things on Wikipedia: women having the right to speak out of turn, people pointing out that you have no divine right to rule over other Arabs, et cetera et cetera. --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</strike>
*'''Delete'''. I, for one, draw the userbox line at "inciting revolution". [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 19:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strongest Possible Keep'''. As far as I am aware, nothing in current policy precludes using the template system for expressing opinions on user pages, and frankly, censoring expressions of opinion is chillingly paternalistic. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 20:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|(talk)]] 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Delete''' as per Lord Bob and others. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*I applaud Tony for undeleting the template and taking it here. I'm fine with contributors expressing their political viewpoints in their own words on their userpages. But I think it makes the project look silly to use its resources to mass-produce stickers with standardized opinion statements. It gives people the wrong idea about what this place is all about. I would thus like to vote '''delete''' but I would like even better to come to some sort of understanding with those who want these templates. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 20:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
<strike>** If you don't like the idea of userboxes then you are perfectly free '''not to use them.''' --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</strike>
*** I know, and I really don't want to force my views on others which is why I'm saying I want to know why you want these templates around and also why I voted for their undeletion at [[WP:DRV]] so we could discuss them here. I'm trying to make the case for why individually written political statements would be better both for the people who want to express themselves and for the project itself. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 22:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete''' or '''Tone Down.'''</s> "Overthrow" is a bit too strong. You can be opposed to the House of Saud, but calling for a revolution is over the limit. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**<s>I've [[WP:BOLD|been bold]] and changed the wording. I now vote '''Keep''' on the new version.</s> '''Strong Delete'''. See [[:Template:user against Saud2]], which should be moved in to replace this. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', within the boundaries of acceptability for userspace content, IMO. [[WP:NPOV]] applies to articles, not userpages. I also think the rewording to make it less inflammatory was a good idea. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] ([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</TT> 20:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
<strike>:::Doing that when no consensus has been reached is a breach of good faith. This is a jury that is still deliberating; it is inappropriate to unilaterally act as judge and executioner. --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</strike>
::::I'm not aware of any policy that says we can't edit templates or pages while they're nominated for deletion. In fact, such edits are often encouraged if they result in an increased quality and therefore an increased likelihood of Keep. If you disagree, you are of course free to revert the edit in question. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] ([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</TT> 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
<strike>:::I did revert it. --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 21:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</strike>
::::I have reverted thsi to the edited version. By reverting an edit for no reason you are the one violating good faith. See [[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]]. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 23:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
<strike>:::Do you see any final consensus here? No. Acting as if your decision is the final consensus is an act of bad faith against this forum.
:::Moreover, this is an issue of personal free speech - do you know, for a fact, that people who have run this userbox are willing to settle for merely "oppposing" the House of Saud, when they in fact they added the template to their Talk pages when it was written "support the overthrow"? If you didn't, then why not simply go and vandalize their Talk Pages while you're at it?
:::I'm reverting this back to "support the overthrow" until this matter is settled. In the meantime, "oppose the rule of" is at [[Template:User against Saud2]] --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 01:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)</strike>
::::You should make yourself more aware of conventions. Editing a template (or an article, or anything else) up for deletion to make it more acceptable is an accepted and encouraged practice. Your unwillingness to cooperate is not going to make you many friends. As it stands, it is clear that the consensus will be against you, and I would recommend that you retire with some dignity and agree to the changes. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 03:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', of course. What a waste of time. --[[User:Ngb|Nick Boalch]] [[User_talk:Ngb|?!?]] 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - nonconstructive use of template namespace --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. What, we can have "serial comma" userboxes but not political ones? The whole concept is stupid, but since the others are allowed, it's retarded to not allow this one. [[User:Avriette|Avriette]] 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Unproductive use of template space. Some user badges handy and useful, but this isn't one of them. --[[User:NormanEinstein|NormanEinstein]] 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''''Delete''''' Political. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Opposing a dictatorial regime with an appalling human rights record is perfectly justifiable. Why shouldn't people be able to admit to holding such a view? [[User:Jtdirl|'''Fear''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]] 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*:They should. And they should even be allowed to do so on their userpages on Wikipedia. All we're saying (well all ''I'm'' saying, anyhow) is that they don't need a standardized sticker to do so. If anything it cheapens the value of the protest. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 22:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose (subst: into your userspace if you want) --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 22:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', I'm fine with people mentioning things like this on their userpage, but we don't need a template in the template namespace to do so. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 22:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Wikipedia is not your car. Please apply your bumperstickers elsewhere. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strongest possible keep''' per <strike>Daniel</strike> above.[[User:Benami|Benami]] 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Neutral'''. A week ago I was pretty generous about POV userboxes, but stuff like this has me thinking otherwise. I am now leaning towards an idea that a template userbox should either directly aid in the writing of an encyclopdia, or contribute constructively to building a community of editors. That is still a pretty broad definition, but I do not see how this box does either one. I am not suggesting banning such non-template userbox on userpages. In fact, in the Spirit of 1776, I am all for dumping hereditary rulers. Still, I can't say I actually support template space for userboxes ''against'' things, it just does not feel constructive. — [[User:Eoghanacht|''Eoghanacht'']] [[User_talk:Eoghanacht|talk]] 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Editors can say anything they want about themselves on their own user pages. The only thing deleting this template will do is reduce the transparency of Wikipedia. --[[User:Peace Inside|Peace Inside]] 23:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Attack template. Should have been speedied. DRV is obviously out to lunch. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
::Is that one of those attacks where people hold a gun to their own head? --[[User:Peace Inside|Peace Inside]] 23:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' crap. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] . o º O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]]) 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Carbonite. [[User:Cdc|CDC]] [[User talk:Cdc|(talk)]] 00:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - nothing to do with WP. -- [[User:Ianbrown|Ian]] &equiv; [[User_talk:Ianbrown|talk]] 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak delete''' I normally accept and use userboxes, even if non-neutral, but now I'm seeing a dangerous growth of "way too POV" ones. There must be a limit for POVism, I think, and userboxes like this clearly get over it. --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 02:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I would like to think userboxes can convey any message. But I must point out that at least one anti-Bush userbox -
<div style="float:left;border:solid #ffb3b3 1px;margin:1px">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#ffe0e8"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#ffb3b3;text-align:center;font-size:10pt" | [[image:George-W-Bush.jpeg|44px|George W. Bush]]
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | This '''[[:Category:Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush|user]]''' believes that [[George W. Bush]]'s [[USA PATRIOT Act|edits to the constitution]] need to be [[Movement to impeach George W. Bush|reverted]].
|}</div>
 
:- has been deleted. If this opinionated userbox can be deleted, there is no reason why an equally useless and insulting box like the one in question should be deleted. [[User:Joturner|joturner]] 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The template above has been speedily deleted out of process even though it has popular support. It is currently thrown in with other similar templates for undeletion at the DRV page. '''Keep''' freespeech in wikipedia.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 03:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' per all userboxes until the userbox hunt ends. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT]] censored.[[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**I believe you are reading that policy incorrectly. It reads in full "Wikipedia is not censored ''for the protection of minors''" (emphasis mine). Wikipedia explicitly is censored in other ways, such as policies to prevent and remove personal attacks, as well as ''x''fD, where ''x'' can be anything. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Super Strong Keep''' Stop attacking Userboxes, people can still write this POv message on their userpage without a userbox. [[User:DaGizza| DaGizza]]''[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]'' [[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|(c)]] 04:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Inappropriate use of template space. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Strong Strong Keep'''. I'm getting very tired of this same argument again and again. POV userboxes are allowed, free speech should not be censored. Judging by the number of delete votes suggesting ''"waste of resources"'' & ''"Inappropriate use of template space"'' (thats a new one) '''this looks a lot like vote stacking to me!''' —[[User:Gorgan almighty|gorgan_almighty]] 10:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' because (1) it is reasonable political statement against a brutal regime, and (2) it saves wikispace! Against Saud means: against torture, religious fundamentalism, absolute monarchism, extreme poverty, racism, sexism, the oil industry, the secrecy around the perverted love relation between the Bush clan and Saud clan, etc. etc. See how many userboxes are summerized in one if you would use this one? -- [[User:ActiveSelective|ActiveSelective]] 10:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I'm going to modify it so it no longer advocates overthrowal (that really pushes civility and may be illegal), but it's a perfectly legitimate political position. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 15:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I have no personal opinion on the retention or deletion of this template, but it scares me that the nominator cannot distinguish between failing to support a monarchic regime and making an inappropriate attack. (Yes, I've read all versions of the template.) Can't distinguish between proselytizing and making an NPOV statement about one's own religion, either, based on previous deletions performed. Suggest nominator take a break from the task of nominating TFDs for a while, as he is clearly too personally worked up. His real reason is he thinks the templates are inappropriate in general and he is grasping for any reason to delete as many as possible, attempting to sidestep the process of policy being made on the subject. [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] ([[User_talk:Jdavidb|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jdavidb|contribs]]) 16:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Stong Keep''' I'm not sure if I'm actually allowed to vote on this but I will anyway. I agree with Gorgan that it looks like vote stacking is going on.
*'''Speedy delete''' for attack template. We're not here to ''advocate'' anything, we're here to ''report''. If you feel so strongly about the House of Saud, write your own damn political screed on your userpage. This is the same phenomenon as internet petitions, and about as useful. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep:''' reasonable opinion appropriate for userspace. We should not be opposed to people stating a point of view that they believe some government should be "overthrown" even if we are nonviolent. Without understanding their point of view, how will we understand which editors advocate violence? ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and stop deleting userbox templates. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Never hurt anyone. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] [[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]] 04:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' attack template --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|wat's sup]] 19:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - It's political expression, not activism - [[User:TCorp|TCorp]] 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' harmless userbox. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 22:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:sfd-current]] ====
Template formerly used by [[Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion]] to announce on TFD and CFD what stub templates and categories were nominated for deletion. Not used over a month (it even says on it that it's been deprecated), and not likely to be needed again. '''Delete'''. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]'' 06:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as per nom. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 10:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*Why has this been deprecated? I think it was useful in keeping the variopus deletion processes infomed of what was going on at SfD? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 15:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
** Probably because it was tedious to keep it updated. It served it's purposed when stub-templates were split from this page, so I vote '''delete''' -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 17:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***see [[Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion#SFD]] - also it looks like it was only intended to be a temporary thing while sfd was getting established (see [[Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion/archive2#Stub types for deletion]]). '''delete'''. [[User:BL Lacertae|BL]] [[User talk:BL Lacertae|kiss the lizard]] 23:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Did it's job well, but not needed or used any more. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom --[[User:Loopy|Loopy]] [[WP:EA|e]] 21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nomination. --[[User:Lbmixpro|LBMixPro]][[User talk:Lbmixpro|<Sp]][[WP:EA|e]][[User talk:Lbmixpro|ak|on|it!>]] 01:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nominator. -- [[User:Ianbrown|Ian]] &equiv; [[User_talk:Ianbrown|talk]] 02:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:Image source]] ====
{{tln|image source}} 
'''Delete and redirect''' — This template is redundant with [[Template:Image copyright]], originally created by the same author a few days apart and since expanded. // [[User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]] 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Del and redirect''' Per nom [[User:DaGizza| DaGizza]]''[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]'' [[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|(c)]] 11:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', this is for source, the other is for license... just like we have [[Template:No source]] and [[Template:No license]]. Right? [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] [[Wikipedia:Limited administrators|?]] 14:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as per [[User:Grenavitar|gren]]. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 15:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Just redirect''', seriously, why even bother with a vote? It's got lots of internal links, and a useful history. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 17:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**Why redirect? why not just keep? This is not redundant as per the nom, it is for a different albiet related case. The two could be merged, just as {{tl|Nosource}} and {{tl|No license}} could be mreged, but there would be a loss of precision and no particular gain IMO. Why Redir? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Gren --[[User:Loopy|Loopy]] [[WP:EA|e]] 21:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as per [[User:Grenavitar|gren]]. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 01:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Gren, harmless --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|wat's sup]] 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:CompTIA]] ====
{{tln|CompTIA}} 
'''Delete''' — I have merged all the CompTIA certification stubs into [[CompTIA]]. This is the navigation box for those and is no longer needed. See also [[WP:CFD#Category:CompTIA]]. —[[User:Quarl|Quarl]] ([[User Talk:Quarl|talk]]) [[2006-01-12]] 06:26[[ISO 8601|Z]]
* '''Delete''' -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 17:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom --[[User:Loopy|Loopy]] [[WP:EA|e]] 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nominator. -- [[User:Ianbrown|Ian]] &equiv; [[User_talk:Ianbrown|talk]] 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom -- [[User:DaGizza| DaGizza]]''[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]'' [[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|(c)]] 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 13

2006-01-15T11:54:13Z

Bourbons3: /* Template:User vandal */ Keep

Wikipedia:Deletion review

2006-01-15T11:50:36Z

Bourbons3: /* More attack templates */ Undelete all

{{Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header}}
This page is about ''articles'', not about ''people''. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators]]. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.
[[Category:Wikipedia deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[ja:Wikipedia:削除の復帰依頼]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Request_for_undeletion]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Biểu quyết phục hồi bài]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:恢复条目投票]]
[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance]]

== Content review ==
Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.
As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using [[Special:Export]], and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the [[m:Help:Import|import]] feature is completed.

Many admins will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See [[:Category:User undeletion]].

=== [[Gallery of Socialist Realism]] ===
This article has been deleted following an AfD, and the outcome of that AfD was disputed here and the closure endorsed. During the DRV, [[User:Aaron Brenneman]] requested that, if the deletion was endorsed, the page be userfied to his space, so that he could work on it. This was not done: since the topic arose in a discussion, can the article be userfied now? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 10:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*Your userspace or Aaron Brennemans? -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 15:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Aaron's. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 03:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Done. The page is available at [[User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism]]. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 07:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
****Thanks. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
****Thanks from me, too. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

== History only undeletion ==
History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on [[Fred Flintstone]], it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on ''Fred Flintstone''. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the ''Fred Flintstone'' article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.

== Decisions to be reviewed ==
{{Template:Vfu mechanics}}

===[[2006-01-15]]===
====[[Michael E. Berumen]]====
I was an original supporter of deletion of this article. The consensus was - not by a great deal - to keep it. Yesterday, I received an email from a person claiming to be Michael E. Berumen. I have no reason to doubt its authenticity (though if Mr Berumen is reading I would ask him to verify it) containing the following (which has been edited only to remove references to specific editors):

:"[...] Well over a year ago, I demanded that the head of this enterprise, Mr. James Wales, remove untoward remarks made about me made [...] along with any references in articles made by others. He complied with this [...]. Mr. Wales personally asked me if he could keep the article about me, which he apparently liked and thought harmless enough. Reluctantly, I agreed, notwithstanding its several minor errors. Having thought that the matter was put rest, I discover the whole thing started again in an attempt to promulgate my views and correct some of the previous damages. [...]

:"I certainly concur that I am not especially notable, most particularly in relation to my scholarly pursuits. If anything, I am more notable for my business dealings, only some of which is mentioned in the article. Fact is, [...] I do not wish to be notable in any serious way (other than amongst friends and clients of course), for, among other things, that would eliminate some of my legal protections. I am a private person, which has a strict legal definition in this country. I prefer to control my own public persona, and not to have it controlled by others, including you. The article ought to have been deleted long ago when I suggested as much. Some of the reasons you adduced for doing this are quite correct, though not all of them. But your conclusion nevertheless is. I therefore support the idea of eliminating the article about me. Anything you could do to facilitate this would be greatly appreciated by me.

:[...]

:"Sincerely,

:"Michael E. Berumen"

Given that the subject of the article appears not to want to be included in the Enclyclopaedia, and the two main contributors to the article ([[icut4u]] and [[ockham]]) seem to have ceased activity on Wikipedia, it seems to me that it is wholly appropriate to grant Mr Berumen's wishes and remove this article from the database altogether, therefore '''overturn''' the original decision. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
**Is there a viable alternative? My suggestion would be, we protect the page in an approximation or the exact current state (which is pretty dull but at least contains no information that could be disputed or regarded as offensive by M. Berumen). I am somewhat inclusionsist, but I respect the wishes of individuals to keep a low public profile. I do realize there could be a "Wrong Version" issue. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 10:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-14]]===
====[[DND]]====
Please do a history only undeletion of this disambig page. It was a valid disambig and should never have been speedied. [[User:Gracefool|··gracefool]] |[[User talk:gracefool|☺]] 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*Never deleted, was (for some reason) moved to [[DND (diambiguation)]]. Should be back now (though I'm getting a lag on the server). -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 01:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Circumcision fetish]]====
Page was [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circumcision_fetish|first time]] put on VFD for no given reason, and 54% of the votes decided to keep the article. Almost a year later, after several attempts to censor the article, was put on VFD [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circumcision_fetish_(second_nomination)|a second time]] with the basis that no [[WP:RS]] could be found.
Vote was 71% for deletion 9 keep 22 delete, when ''circumcision fetish'' could be found
described in the ''The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' by Brenda Love, published by Barricade Books, 1994, ISBN 1569800111, verifiable online [http://www.odd-sex.com/ here]. However, without further votes given, or any changes to existing votes, the article was deleted by [[User:Ulayiti]].

I contest this decision: With a [[WP:RS]] found, the basis for the VFD was not met anymore, effectively nullifying all votes for deletion with the reasoning that the article would violate [[WP:RS]] or [[WP:NOR]]. A recount on this basis would yield only two votes for deletion, as only [[User:Tony_Sidaway]], who argued to remove it on for being part of a flame war, and [[User:Humus sapiens]], who did not give any reason at all, did not reason their vote for deletion on the basis of a supposed [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:RS]] violation. Thus, even by vote recount (and not just invalidating the VFD) the article would have to stay. For further info, read [[meta:polls are evil]]

Further info, [http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/fetish-c.htm]
::''Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, by Brenda Love (Barricade Books, Inc., 1992). "More than 750 entries and 150 original illustrations on the world's strange sex activities". Under "Circumcision" (page 6): "Men sometimes incorporate their fear of circumcision into sex play as a means for arousal. They fake a circumcision by having their partner blindfold and bind them, placing a reservoir tipped condom and then slicing off the tip with a knife ... Women who are only sexually aroused by circumcised males are referred to as acucullophiles."

I have meanwhile ordered the book, sounds like a good read o_O

'''Update:''' I have changed my opinion. The arguments brought forward on this page have convinced me to wait for the arrival of the book, do some additional research, and then recreate the page, rather than to undelete the current article. I retract my motion. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 09:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse/Keep deleted''' (updated, originally overturn/undelete at [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 15:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC) ) [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 09:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' A minor correction, the votes were 22/9 (del/keep), not 20/12 as you stated. The ''Encyclopaedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' website only shows that there's an entry for 'circumcision', not what it contains. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|(talk)]] 15:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**I corrected that figure already (Damn where's my coffee) [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**Oh, and another thing: [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circumcision_fetish|the original VfD]] had 6 votes for keep, 5 for delete and 1 for merge, not 100% keep. You must have missed them since they weren't in bold. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|(talk)]] 16:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
***I definitely need more coffee then. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I was promised free beer, titties and penis on IRC if I went here. It's a scam :\ --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - [[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]) 16:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
** I think maybe they gave you the wrong URL? You know how those IRC [[WP:TINC|Cabalists]] are... Hope that helps. Oh... '''Keep deleted'''. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 17:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Page was certainly original research. The text above would be insufficient to write more than the shortest of stubs. I see no evidence that Ulayiti did not follow the correct procedure. [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] 16:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**This is only an excerpt. As I said, I have ordered the book. To claim it was original research in the light that it is described in 1992 sexual literature, is just bizarre. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
***Not at all. This does not appear to use the same terminology (different from the article), talks about fake circumcision as a form of sex play (unlike the article), and essentially has nothing in common with the article. The article cannot in any way be said to be based upon this, and was purely original research. The fact that a short stub could potentially written, with a different title, and with different text ''could'' be written based upon Love's book does nothing to change this. Consider this: If I were to write an article about F. moli (which everybody else calls E. coli) bacteria in which I explained that they actually had an enlightened, technological civilisation, that would be original research in spite of the fact that sensible research on E coli existed. [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] 16:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
****So you argue for entering the relevant information into [[circumcision]]. That sounds like an agreeable idea to me. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per AFD. VFDs are not permanently binding decisions. There were no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to [[WP:CITE|cite]] for this, making it [[WP:OR|original research]]. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] . o º O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]]) 16:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Based on the references provided at the time, the result was correct. If you have new sources, feel free to recreate the article, as long as you can avoid both copyright violation and original research. [[User:OwenX|Owen×]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>☎</big>]] 16:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**You're a smart guy OwenX. This is actually the reason why I am opposed to the [[WP:NOR]] policy. If the policy is used unreasonably strict, then in combination with [[WP:C]] all information can be blocked/filibustered from entering Wikipedia, making [[WP:NOR]] ultimately a censor's tool that is not in the interest of free flow of information. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 17:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Nothing in the nomination has convinced me there was malpractice in the AfD vote. As circumcision can happen only once, it's a bit of a worthless fetish to have. Of those who are sexually attracted to men, it is routine to have a preference either for or against circumcised penises, but it's not a fetish. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Yawn. Per above.'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|Voice of All]]'''[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|T]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|ESP]] 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. The [[Circumcision fetish]] article seemed to describe "circumcision fetish" as a [[Sexual fetishism|sexual fetish]]. It seems like the thing to do is include mention of "circumcision fetish" (and references) at the "sexual fetishism" page. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted) but without prejudice against the creation of a new article based on verified and reliable sources. (If/when a new article is created, my first inclination is that we should avoid cluttering it's edit history with the old, unverified content - but if there are extenuating circumstances, we can evaluate them then.) [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Oh boy, it's s sick world.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-13]]===

====[[Template:User allow fairuse]]====
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&oldid=35038410#Template:User_allow_fairuse TFD discussion]
This template was deleted without a clear consensus, and without substantial justification. As it is to be used in userspace, it ought to be restored, as the deletion of this template is not supported by deletion policy. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' What the deleting admin did was he subsituted the template in the userspace, so those who wish to use the template still can, but not in the actual template name space. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]] [[WP:FU|Fair use policy]] 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' - but as this one raised some pseudolegal questions, I'd say if you want to push it for undeletion, get onto Jimbo and ask. [[User:BigStabbyStick|BigStabbyStick]] 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I '''endorse''' the decision of the person who closed it (note that I was the person who deleted the template based on his decision). While the percentage of people voting was somewhat less than what is normally considered a rough consensus, discussions aren't votes, and I feel that the people who voted delete generally made more persuasive arguments than those that voted keep. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 23:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. This template does not help us make an encyclopedia. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Alot of users don't help us make an encyclopedia either, that doesn't mean we just delete them. '''''Karm'''''[[WP:ESP|'''''a''''']]'''''fist''''' 02:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* Let it stay dead and delete anything similar. It advocates something that would expose the Foundation, for reasons that do not help the encyclopedia in any way. If editors want to break the law, they should find a web host and try to persuade the host company to permit them to do so. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted'''. Closing admin has discretion. He had justification, in my opinion, to discount many keep votes that were not well-reasoned—but at the same time, he probably ought to have explained his decision better. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Strong Undelete''' Final vote was 51-36, 58% for deletion, which I doubt meets anyone's threshold for consensus unless you're in a [[WP:NOT|Democracy]], which we're not. Add to that the resounding amount of [[strawman]] [[WP:NLT]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] vios in terms of those who wished to delete this in the first place makes leaving this deleted into a precedent that bullying people with legal boogiemen is acceptable behavior. karmafist 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''overturn close''' This was nowhere near consensus. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Per Tony Sidaway, and others. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 01:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' those who want this are still free to create it on their userpage. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Wikipedia is not a democracy and there was clear consensus to delete, despite raw mechanical vote counting. There's a ''reason'' we don't use bots to close deletion discussions. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Question''': It's pretty rare for Jimbo to get involved in a deletion dispute. He was the first person to delete it saying "we do not get to vote here on copyright law". Then 15 min later he restored it. Has anyone asked him for his reasoning? Was this discussed in some other channel? [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**[[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Template:User_allow_fairuse]]. While Jimbo restored it because of the TFD, he said that "I think it should be deleted, and I think it's silly for users to think that they can vote on copyright policy. That's a matter for our legal team. --Jimbo Wales 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)" [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]] [[WP:FU|Fair use policy]] 02:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*Once again I see that people are voting on the userbox and not the process under which it was deleted. There was '''no-consensus''' there - it does not matter how many people don't like the userbox here, that is not what we are supposed to discussing.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
** Fuck the process. Crap gets deleted because the question we are tasked with answering her by the undeletion policy is ''is Wikipedia a better place with this page?'' The question has been answered and the template has been deleted. Let's continue to make the internet not suck. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - Process is here to help us write the encyclopedia. When process does not help us write the encyclopedia, it may be discarded. How many times does that have to be explained? [[WP:NOT]] a bureaucracy. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per FCYTravis and others. [[User:Jtkiefer|Jtkiefer]][[User talk:Jtkiefer|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|C]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|@]] ---- 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Per FCYTravis and others. Also, consensus is not based on raw vote counts. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Still think this is a very strange thing for a userbox template. It's slightly like saying "This user would vote to give Wikipedia the right to sentence users to death" - all very well, but it would still be illegal. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - sockpuppeteering aside, the userbox was a non-starter for the reasons Jimbo and others mentioned. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' Closing admin should have at least given a better explanation for their decision, given the size and activity of the discussion. Saying "rather weak thou" is ambiguous to me -- do they mean it was a close call on a simple vote count? If so, I'd certainly remind people that *fD is more than a simple vote count, and that even when it is a vote count, the rule is not generally a simply majority. Closers have a responsibility to explain their decision: since I do not think this was done here, overturn and relist. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Yes, the viewpoint it expresses is retarded and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia metapolicy and civil law. No, it doesn't matter what those expressing that viewpoint think. Undelete it anyway. [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Weishampel exchange]]====
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weishampel_exchange&action=history speedied] by [[User:Linuxbeak]]
The page on "Weishampel Exchange" was unfairly deleted due to an erroneus link to a college humor website and a Google result of a professor in some unknown college. My research has documentation of this term from Germany, the U.K., and both coasts of the United States. This was deleted with haste, and possibly bias towards the gay/homosexual community! {{unsigned|Outer-nationalist}}
*'''Keep deleted''' certainly a neologism, likely also an attack/hoax. '''0 Google hits'''. If nominator's research includes evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it with us. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - Starblind 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Starblind. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* Certainly a neologism and very likely a hoax but ''nothing'' in the versions I reviewed could be considered at "attack". I would definitely vote to delete this in a regular AFD but I can not endorse its speedy-deletion. '''Restore and immediately list on AFD''' for regular deletion. Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but we have to stop this inappropriate stretching of the speedy "attack" criterion. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**The talk page seemed to indicate that it was an attack on a college professor named Weishampel. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - Starblind 03:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Don't use that as a criterion. That was wild speculation on my part. I mean, it's obvious the article was crap, especially given the number of times the year of creation was changed, but I've zero evidence it was a prank or an attack. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] 03:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Restore and immediately list on AFD''' as per Rossami. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] 04:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*Ick. '''KD''' per Andrew, unless somebody is able to cite a source on this. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_>|<]] 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Pussy_City_Pimps]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pussy_City_Pimps]]
OK, I just closed this with a delete result (which I think is correct), but it has been challenged by Kappa, with the message
:"That was 2-1 at best, and almost all the delete votes were plain "delete" without any reasoning, and should have been given less weight."
Kappa is threatening to stop contributing, plus I've kind of always wondered what it would be like to be on the receiving end of the stick here, so I guess this is the best place to go (as a side note after doing 100 or so WP:RM it is always good to get a reality check every now and then). '''No vote''' since I am the closing admin, of course :). [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 09:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' valid AFD. The numbers add up, and whether to discount votes without stated reasons is a decision up to the closing admin (and, IMHO, should only be done in cases of suspected ballot-stuffing/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry). Threatening to stop contributing because an article about a ''hacked video game ROM'' got deleted? That's one for the "WTF?" file. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - Starblind 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**I happen to think that wikipedia users should have a chance to read about at least some of these things, not everyone is as lucky as us. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 18:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', and call Kappa's bluff. We just went through this here. 2-1 is a perfectly valid delete, and I don't see Kappa complaining when people just vote "Keep" with no other comments. Plenty of reasons for deletion were given; users often do not feel like reiterating what's already been said. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. The consensus is pretty clear, and almost every vote on either side of the debate has IMO a satisfactory explaination attached. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and merge'''. Note that there were a few merge votes. Kappa should heed the advice and incorporate the content into [[River City Ransom]] and maybe we can restore [[Pussy City Pimps]] and convert it to a redirect for GFDL purposes. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 19:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. And lets leave this dead horse alone.'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|Voice of All]]'''[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|T]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|ESP]] 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. While a close decision, this meets the generally accepted threshold for a "rough consensus" to delete. The argument to merge was made during the discussion and failed to sway the community. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 19:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' I counted 15 delete, 4 keep and 3 merge. 3 of the delete votes gave no reasoning, not "almost all", other than the simple desire to have the article deleted. [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 20:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-12]]===
====Unknown article====
I recently wrote an article which was somewhat of a biography of an MC/Street perfomer named Ninjah Pendragon and the article was deleted because it was a biography of an non widely known individual. To an extent, this is true, as Ninjah is not widely known outside of Cardiff. He is not known globally. However I feel that, he is widely known to people of Cardiff due to the fact that he is there every day, the BBC have also written a biography about his album, as have several newspapers. I would be able to site references if you would like. Thankyou very much.
* This unsigned comment was left by [[user:Cockers]]. I believe he/she is referring to [[Ninjah pendragon]] which was moved to [[Ninjah Pendragon]] where it was speedy-deleted as a "non-notable bio". [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Believe it or not, wikipedia still has some standards about who gets an article. Your basic street performer don't cut it. Oh, and I deleted the redirect. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 04:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
** The redirect at [[Ninjah]] has now also been speedy-deleted. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*Please point to the BBC and newspaper coverage. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 10:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*Hi. I appreciate the standards that Wikipedia like to keep and I understand that it would be reasonable to keep a general street performer off an encyclopedia. However I feel that Ninjah is more than just a street perfomer as he has appeared in a film, a television program and has had an album released. The link to the BBC's minisite of Ninjah is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/sites/ninjah/]. This website [http://livecardiff.com/?p=18] mentions how Ninjah appeared in [[NME]]'s student guide to Cardiff and in two films. Here is a forum post discussing Ninjah's newpaper appearence [http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-124376.html]. I would also like to point out that my inspiration for writing the article was due to discovering another article about a street performer [[Toy Mic Trevor]] which has been on Wikipedia for 6 months. This is my final appeal for the entertainer and street poet to gain recognition in Wikipedia. I promise not to keep pestering and I will provide better references in future articles. (This was my first one). [[User:Cockers]] 17:49, 13 Janurary 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' Unfortunately, the BBC minisite is akin to a wiki, where anyone can submit his/her own band. See [http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/] and look in the "Profiles and Minisites" section: "Want to be featured on this site? Submit your details here." As far as I'm concerned, even though it has the air of authority of the Beeb, it's not a reliable source. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 18:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' street performer(!) and thus definitely a nn-bio/speedy candidate. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - Starblind 23:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Template:User against Saud]] and [[Template:User Nepal Maoists]] speedies====
I have speedy deleted a template with the following words:
: ''This user thinks the House of Saud should be overthrown''
I bring this action here for review. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: The same user had created [[Template:User Nepal Maoists]] containing the words: ''This user thinks the Monarchy of Nepal should be overthrown and supports the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in their armed and political struggle'' and I have deleted it as an attack template. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*I'm not interested in the whole userbox theatrics thing, but I am wondering you delete first and ''then'' ask questions, rather than the other way around. It should be safe enough to presume that asking first will produce the same result. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
** This is how speedy deletions are done. It is my opinion that attacks of this nature have no place on Wikipedia. You're welcome to object to this as policy, as we don't yet have any policy on this and I'm just taking action that I believe is necessary to safeguard the encyclopedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***No, if we are sure a speedy is right, we don't have to ask questions afterwards. I've never listed my own speedies after deleting them, because if I knew I was going to do that, I'd have ''x''fD'd them instead. Deletion review is not the forum for establishing a policy - the discussion running elsewhere is. If you believe the action is necessary, you don't need to come here (a forum you consider irrelevant, anyway) to make sure. Someone else need bring it here if (and only if) they would disagree with it. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***Not by a long shot is this "how speedy deletions are done". Normally they're just done and in the vast majority of cases there is no discussion on them here, certainly not inititated by the sysop performing the deletions. As I noted on your talk page, however, I do appreciate that bringing the issue up here gives it another audience than it would have on TfD. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
****I disagree (though as a non-admin, take it for what it's worth): Speedy deletions of 'attacks' are warranted, just as a review of them may be warranted. Tony's bringing his own deletions here for review is unorthodox, but if he didn't bring them here, you can bet there'd be screams of bloody murder from his opponents. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and don't speedy any more of these pending a clear policy on user boxes or a new CSD (which is under discusson). [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and nominate for deletion where I will happily vote to delete them. And continue work on expanding CSD to include stuff like this, which I also support. And continue work on deletion reform in general :) And try to have a dialogue with the users creating these templates and convince them that they should voluntarily refrain from creating them - stop pulling the rug from under their feet, there are enough bad feelings about this already. There is no emergency here which warrants taking action out of process. Nor is out-of-process action required to draw more attention to this issue - it has enough attention already and then some. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
** Would it be okay if someone created a template advocating the overthrow of the government of your country? It may be that you think that is an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources; I do not. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***It is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources and I support deleting templates like that. I just don't think this is an emergency which warrants out-of-process action. And I try to overthrow the government of my country every four years. No luck so far. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 17:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**** I guess this means that in two or three years time I'll be doing a lot of speedying of US election-based nonsense from template space. So be it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*As others, '''Keep Undeleted''', send to TFD, and quit trying to create new policy by fiat. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 18:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* I disagree with Dragons flight's suggestion that making policy through action is unacceptable (see Tuesday's discussions for a good counter-example). I have undeleted these templates and edited one to remove the attack on the Nepal government, and sent the User against Saud one to tfd. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and list on TfD''' - I don't think that this is a good userbox, but it is not an attack directed at other editors, so I do not see the case for urgent action. I think that Tony's approach to userboxes is responsible, and is helping us find a middle ground. Pace Dragon's flight, making policy through action is the wiki spirit. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' all templates which disparage or criticize their subject. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' all attack templates. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and list on TfD''' if it hadn't been done already. This is ''not'' how things are done. Clearly there are reasonable differences of opinion, and thus speedy deletion is not applicable. Speedy deletion is for clear and unambigious deletions only. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 23:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' since the ''User against Saud'' entry has been moved to TfD and the other undeleted, shouldn't this debate be edited/closed? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-11]]===
====[[LUEshi]]====
I believe that the process was not followed correctly in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUEshi]]. The count was 3 Keep votes, 3 Delete, and 5 Merge. For the first Keep, the rationale was that Miyamoto has signed it; this does not establish notability. The second one is from a GameFAQer who personally felt that LUEshi was important, but did not state its importance in relation to Wikipedia policy. The third had no reason at all. I believe that the article should have been merged or deleted, not kept. - [[User:Hbdragon88|Hbdragon88]] 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*Holy cow! '''There are VfD pages all over the place for this one!''' Anyway, I think the chronology is:
#[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUEshi]] - MAYBE the first one, unanimous delete
#[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LUEshi]] - No idea, a mix of a merge, keep and a couple deletes..?
#[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lueshi]] - Speedy delete, but with some keeps
#[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lueshi_(2nd_nomination)]] - THIS is the one referenced here.
<s>I'm not making a descision yet but</s> I feel sorry for the people who have to sort through those. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' at any rate, as the closest to consensus is merge at 5m/3k/1d or 5/4 which does not meet the afd minimums. As the arguments go though, while they sort of go to process we can't usually discount "votes" of established editors because they give no opinion etc., although I sometimes wish we could. Whether or not Miyamoto signing it establishes notability is not really our descision, unfortunately. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 05:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', but this should be merged, redirected, and protected to prevent recreation of the article. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 07:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' since there was clearly no consensus to delete on the last AFD, just be bold and merge it if you want to. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 08:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Pedelec]]====
As per [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion]]: deletion was "out of process" as discussed within the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedelec]]. Motion of non-suite. POV Fork was never properly defined by nominator or supporters. No substantial proof was given to indicate this is/was a POV FORK. 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~
Unsigned nomination by {{user|72.57.8.215}} (static IP used by {{user|CyclePat}})</a>
*The basis of the nomination resting on out-of-process is very clearly wrong. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 03:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*A nasty RfD, but it looks like 5D/1k to me, and I see no process violations on the part of thaoe arguing for deletion. '''Endorse close''' (keep deleted). [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*What does "motion of non-suite" mean? When did this become a courtroom? The closing of the previous discussion was proper. '''Keep deleted'''. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**definition of [[Non-suit]]. (see the canadian law section). 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Sorry, but "POV fork" was indeed properly defined by the nominator and the article clearly meets the definition of one. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' and keep deleted, for what it's worth (as nominator but non-voter, as usual for me). Evidence was provided of why this is a POV fork (see also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric bicycle]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_bicycle&action=history] and the various archives of [[Talk:Motorized bicycle]]), and I believe both [[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] and [[User:Katefan0|Katefan0]] can speak to the history here. This is not a "spinout" as no attempt was made to incorporate this into the existing section at [[motorized bicycle]] (where pedelec was mentioned by name and which article was and still is linked to [[:de:pedelec]]). Even bearding [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] did not gain any support for Pat's assertion of process irregularities. Pat, if you think this is a vendetta I suggest you raise an RfC, as I have said before. - [[User:JzG|Just zis  Guy, you know?]] [[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]/[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Review''' and send to '''Arbitration''': The example you give for electric bicycles only substantiates that there is a lack of process. Anyone that actually looks into that will realize that, that article failed to be deleted for lack of process. It was put through the redirected for deletions and remains redirected to motorized bicycle. The lack of definition of the issue of POV Fork is not a major issue, the lack of proof is what is being questioned. If the question of lack of proof was raised regarding a POV fork, then an independant review should be done to determine whether there is enough proof to substantiate the POV Fork. If there was not enought proof, there obviously would be no reason for a POV FORK. Hence the reason for the out of process. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 16:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
:*No need to vote twice, Pat. Your view is already in the nomination. - [[User:JzG|Just zis  Guy, you know?]] [[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]/[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
:**Those are serious allegations and I don't appreciate them. There is a fine line between voting, requesting undeletion, an leaving a comment, and to my knowledge I haven't voted. This is yet another example of your generalizations leading into what I believe is a ill faithed assumptions. (or putting words into other peoples mouths) Not only is this insulting but this is what has plagued this issue from the start. Seemingly, it's what, according to me, plagues wikipedia. Secondly I don't know who put my IP and name at the top of this nomination but that goes against [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#To request that a page (or image) be restored]] (A.K.A.: undeletion policy). It is clearly stated to sign with <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>, and this just re-enforces my idea that wikipedia is corrupt. (Even my local news paper the "Ottawa Citizen" has indicated in an article that wikipedia is no longer NPOV). Finally as for RFC's I couldn't agree better then with [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RFCs do not work because nobody seems to care: edit wars are better|this comment]]. All this supporting my assumption that wikipedia is just as corrupt as our Canadian [[Liberal]] [[government]]/ Thanks even more to these enlightening facts, I think this entire process should be stayed, re-nominated and independently reviewed by an arbitration comity. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' Some day, in a perfect world, Pat will learn our policies and procedures. Instead, I'm still seeing bad faith afd nominations and deletion reviews for every deletion of Pat's material and forking and everything else. And now we have "send this to arbitration". You can't. Have you read [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] Pat? Knowing you, you haven't. You can't send this to arbitration. It doesn't work that way. And of course this is a POV fork Pat. [[Gallery of motorized bicycles]] is a fork...Pedelec is a fork...[[Gallery of motorized trikes]] is a fork. They are all forks from [[motorized bicycle]] because *3 months ago* the decision was made to move [[electric bicycle]] to motorized bicycle. Even though you had a chance to speak up, you didn't. Since then, you've made numerous attempts to get it back by doing things like this. Community vote was to delete gallery of motorized bicycles so you created trikes, immediately put it up for deletion and then hoped it would be kept so that you could bring back gallery of motorized bikes. This is the same thing. You hope that Pedelec is restored so then you can restore electric bicycles even though that went through a rfd vote already. And I'm not making this up. You've made your intentions clear. Just stop. Please. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']][[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]] 01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
**Well actually Woohookitty I have read [[WP:DR]]. I remember seeing a section [[WP:AP]] that would be more specific to the issue. And we can infer from section "Scope", #2, which states: ''Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help.'' that there are issues that are heard without mediation. (I also believe the previous steps have been attempted). Now everyone knows Wikipedia is a learning process. If what you are saying is we can't use past precedences to develop on making wikipedia a better place, then I think that is plain wrong and perhaps you should start looking elsewhere. I really didn't want to go into this discussion here but since you brought it up, here we go: first off, your inherent interest in the article is obvious. You created [[motorized bicycle]]. It's your baby. In Oregon a [[Motorized bicycle]] is like a [[moped]]. In other parts of the US it also a [[moped]] but includes smaller sub-class, similar vehicles such as the [[electric bicycle]] (that of which you merged to motorized bicycle). Here in Canada we have something similar called a [[motor assisted bicycle]] or a [[moped]]. But we also have the [[power-assisted bicycle]] another class of vehicle. All that to say, it is my belief that just like [[truck]] is an [[automobile]] and [[SUV]], [[Car]], etc... they, electric bicycle, pedelec, power assisted bicycle should have their own articles. Not only that, but so closely related is the [[moped]] and it even has it's own article. Previously, you have indicated your disagreement to merge moped with motorized bicycle. JzG, also indicated a vote against the merger of this article with moped. One of his reasons being was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motorized_bicycle&diff=prev&oldid=29274760 because the two strands of development are entirely separate]. What are the major differences between these two strands of development? And if so, could this not be inferable for the use with the "entirely" different strand of development between electric pedelecs (or electric motor assisted bicycles) vs our most commonly know (fossil fuel guzzlers) IC motor assisted bicycles? (hint the answer is right in the question there!). --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
::I took your advice and have filled for mediation regarding this case (well, technically speaking, similar cases that we never really resolved): [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]] --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 06:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Gallery of motorized bicycles]]====
As per [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion]]: Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article, either to use its content elsewhere, or alternatively, because they cannot tell if it was wrongly deleted without seeing what exactly was deleted. ('''temporary undeletion''')
To permit a deleted article to be transwikified or properly moved to a sister wiki-site. 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~
*To which "sister site" do you plan to move it? You wrote it, so you know very well what's in it. Having failed to persuade anyone that this was not a fork, it will be speediable if you simply reinstate the text elsewhere on Wikipedia under some other title. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 03:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**Please move a copy to [[user:CyclePat/gallery of motorized bicycles|Gallery of motorized bicycles]] so I may begin trans-wiki. Thank you. 04:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***See [[User:CyclePat/Gallery of motorized bicycles]], and note the message on your talk page. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 19:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Game Central Network]]====
The article [[Game Central Network]] was deleted due to the mere fact that it did not hold up to [[WP:WEB]]. No one in my community, nor myself were informed that there was even speculation of deletion.

No, game central network is not a "notable" as stated in wp:web, but I cannot agree to it's deletion based on the guidelines placed before us.

Game Central Network's began as a small fan website, hl2central.net, based on the rumor of the second [[Half-Life]] game. It was and is a key resource for many websites including [[IGN]] (http://www.planethalflife.com/news/search.asp?function=search&search=hl2central), FileFront, among other "notable" websites. On top of this, we have interviews with major players in the game development industry, most notably, [[Gabe Newell]] of Valve software (http://www.hl2central.net/?id=1480). Notable enough, in-fact, that it still remains listed upon an IGN website, http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/press/.

Our content is even of such value that it has been translated by people we do not even know so that their users can read it. (http://www.hl2.ru/interviews/hl2central/)

You can also find our website listed on many websites just due to the fact that they like our site...
http://www.bloodthirst.org/links.php
http://halflife2.filefront.com/ (right column)
http://www.planethalflife.com/community/links.shtm
http://reinstatement-mod.co.uk/hl2_news.shtml
http://www.ultimate-gamer.com/halflife2/hl2links.htm
http://www.halflife2.net/page.php?p=comm_links
http://www.hlfallout.net/view.php/hl2info/sitelinks.php

WP:WEB is a proposal, for those who dont know already. Our article was to outline the history of the website, it's effects, and it's future. It was written as neutrally as possible and i encouraged my community to edit it to be even more so. So umm i dont know but it's deletion was wrong.

[[User:Thepcnerd|Thepcnerd]] 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Central Network|here]]. This page is for discussion of process, not notability (unless things have changed since I was gone). --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
** That is factually incorrect. Good articles are undeleted on the basis of content. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse decision''' (keep deleted). I see no process problems with the AFD discussion. The arguments above do not seem to be new evidence enough to reopen the debate. Indeed, the nominator's very comment that he wants to "encourage my community to edit it ..." highlights his/her misunderstanding of the key problems with the article. Contributions must be [[Wikipedia:verifiable|verifiable]] by an average reader/editor. Contributions by community members would in general violate our prohibition against [[Wikipedia:original research|original research]]. I would encourage you to document your website's history, effects and future, but on your own site or blog. That kind of content is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 22:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' valid Afd discussion. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 11:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD discussion. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' no evidence of failure of process, no new evidence in the above. - [[User:JzG|JzG]] 11:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Pms clan]]====
The article PMS Clan was deleted for vanity / hoax.

PMS Clan are not a hoax. They are geniune world famous female gaming team, specialisng on the FPS genre. That compete at all major championships around the world, and attend all major video gaming events.

They are well known in the video gaming world, and have been sponsored by both Nintendo and Microsoft to attend events and promotions.

Admittedly the text my have been accused of 'vanity', however this is becase they are a very successful team. The text could be toned down (to reduce the vanity element)if necessary, however, the entry is valid - with potential for editing, not deleteing.

Please rethink the deltion of this page.

Many thanks.

[[C Johnson]]16:12, 11 January 2006 (GMT)
*'''Overturn deletion and AfD'''. The speedy deletion under criteria A7 (Unremarkable people or groups) has been questioned. A Google search turns up news reports from the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4254259.stm BBC] and [http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,1885,00.html Wired news], so the clan appears to meet [[WP:V|verifiability criteria]] even thought the deleted article failed to [[WP:CITE|cite]] any sources. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn deletion and list on AfD'''. This speedy is questionable enough to warrant an AfD. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 20:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn deletion and list on AfD''' - It is routine to overturn CSD A7s in these kind of circumstances, and hoaxes are not speediable. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 22:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn speedy deletion and list on AFD''' per above. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 22:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and list on AfD''' I agree with charles. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 22:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and list on AfD, as it appears to not be speediable, and I'm curious if it will survive an AfD. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 02:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* As there seems to be unanimity that this was not suitable for speedy deletion, I've undeleted it. If anybody wants to delete, if can go to AfD. Speaking purely for myself, it looks like more of a cleanup job than a deletion candidate. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*It was respeedied as "nn". I have re-undeleted and listed it at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pms clan]]. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**Sources have been added, now looking like a keep on AfD. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 01:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Ludvig Strigeus]]====
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludvig Strigeus]]

All the delete votes were made when the article was a one-liner. I expanded on the article and voted keep. I think the subject is notable and request an undelete, please.  -- [[User:WP| W  P ]][[User talk:WP|Talk]] 10:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* The nomination was made on 6 Jan. The delete votes were made on 6 and 7 Jan. The article was expanded on 8 Jan. The person who did the expansion was the only keep voter. The discussion was closed on 12 Jan. While many people had the opportunity to revisit the article and the discussion, apparently none chose to do so. Looking at the expanded article itself, I don't think that this person yet meets the recommended [[Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies|criteria for inclusion of biographies]]. I am inclined to '''endorse the closure''' (keep deleted) even though the nominator may be right that the original discussion paricipants may not have re-evaluated their decisions after the expansion. Note: This decision is without prejudice against re-creation if the subject of the article goes on to do more notable work and ''does'' eventually become eligible under our inclusion criteria. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 17:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. This may be a case where the nominator should simply recreate the *expanded* article, per policy, and be ready to defend it better when/if it gets renominated. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete'''. The closer did not take into account the fact that the article was substantially improved and that no delete votes followed the expansion. The subject is the original developer of three reasonably famous pieces of software that have their own Wikipedia articles: [[MTorrent]], [[ScummVM]] and [[OpenTTD]]. Thus the close was wrong on process and (most important) made the wrong decision for Wikipedia by deleting good content. I agree with Turnstep's proposal and if [[User:WP]] or anyone else makes a good faith request for a temporary undelete for that purpose I will grant it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Is every person who votes delete in the early stages of a discussion to be disenfranchised, or must they keep checking back on every article they've already reviewed on a daily basis to go back to the discussion and say, "Nope, despite the edits made since the last time, my vote stands."? The fact that there were no further delete votes after the expansion may well be due to the fact that everyone who came to the discussion saw sufficient delete votes and didn't feel like adding any more. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist'''. It appears the article was judged on its initial stubby content. I believe that being an important contributor to 4 software projects makes one notable. I think there's enough new information added to warrant a reevaluation of the deletion debate. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 09:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist'''. Zoe's point is well-taken, but it's an assumption. It could just as easily have been the case where others, seeing the delete votes, did not bother to investigate the article after its expansion. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*As a comprimise what about just doing a normal relisting with the other comments intact? [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[The Ditherals]]====
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ditherals]]

I believe this page was speedily deleted by [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] without reference to due process. Just requesting a '''relist'''. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 11:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* I'm torn on this one. If I'd seen the AFD discussion, I would have argued for the article's deletion on the basis of the inherent unverifiability of this neologism. Based on the evidence available, I see no possibility that this article would have survived the full AFD debate. On the other hand, this article did not meet any of the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria. Being an ''obvious'' delete is not the same as being a ''speedy'' delete. I have to reluctantly recommend '''overturning''' the speedy-deletion and '''reopening''' the AFD discussion. Speedy-deletions should continue to be narrowly interpreted to the specific cases. The encyclopedia will not suffer too badly from allowing the article to stay for the 5 day discussion period. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 16:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*As far as I'm concerned, as an inherently and irreparably POV article on a politically motivated ''nickname'' for a political party coming right in the middle of an election campaign, this essentially constituted an '''attack page''' (which ''is'' a speedy deletion criterion), no less than if somebody wrote up an article legitimizing a POV nickname for one of their opponents, such as "The Blocheads", "The New Dumbocrats" or "The Fasco-Cons", which are all just as verifiable as to their existence, and yet completely inappropriate as Wikipedia content. While I admittedly can't stop recreation if that happens to be the consensus here, I'm not going to apologize for my own judgment in the matter. (And I won't apologize for being of the belief that only a [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]] supporter could possibly even ''imagine'' that this term somehow deserved its own Wikipedia article in the first place, either.) I won't officially cast a vote since it's my action that's being challenged here, but these are my bottom line points:
*# Attack pages are speedyable.
*# I won't apologize for viewing it as an attack page and acting in accordance with that view. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 19:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
** When this speedy criterion was first approved, it was strictly limited to ''personal'' attack pages. There were reasonable arguments made on [[WT:CSD]] that the criterion should be expanded to small groups. [[Wikipedia:Attack page]] was reworded to allow a bit more flexibility and may have gone too far into ambiguity. No discussion that I've found authorized the expansion of this criterion to large groups like entire political parties. That seems to me to be an overly broad interpretation of the criterion. Furthermore, a case could be made that the wording on the article was relatively neutral - it was an attempt to define an objectionable term in as neutral language as was possible. I still believe that it was deletable as a dicdef and as a neologism but can not endorse the assessment of it as an "attack page". No change of vote, I'm afraid. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Well, that's fine. You're free to believe I was wrong in my assessment; my only point was that I won't ''apologize'' for assessing it as I did. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

*This is in no way an ''attack page.'' It is a neutral definition of an unflattering nickname. Are all unflattering nicknames banned from wikipedia? By the way, [[Mr. Dithers]] is in Wikipedia, just so you know. The definition does indeed come in the middle of the election campaign.. this is because the word is being use more and more often in Canadian political blogs. I have once again been accused by Bearcat of being a Conservative party supporter. Again, I request a retraction. According to Bearcat's logic, Clyde Sanger of [[The Economist]] must be a Conservative party supporter since he coined the term [[Mr. Dithers]] [http://economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3669408] Ditherals is simply play on words of Mr. Sanger's nickname. As for the "The Blocheads", "The New Dumbocrats" or "The Fasco-Cons", these names are not widely used in political commentary like Ditherals or [[Mr. Dithers]] and certainly never made it to [[The Economist]]. At the next [[google dance]] we will likely see the pages for Ditherals increase several fold. As for Rossami's clain of ''inherent unverifiability'' pretty much every entry in Google for Ditheral refers to the [[Liberal Party of Canada]] unless it is a spelling mistake on an unrelated page. -Palmerston
**[[Mr. Dithers]] doesn't deserve its own article either — the only reason it's had one as long as it has is that nobody knew it was here. Unless they're caught instantly by RC patrol, there's virtually no way ''to'' know these things exist if they're not filed in a category. And besides, the [[Paul Martin]] reference is an entirely secondary meaning of the term; any article on it has to, at minimum, mention that the ''original'' (and vastly more widely known) use of the name refers to [[Dagwood Bumstead|Dagwood]]'s boss in the comic strip ''[[Blondie (comic strip)|Blondie]]''. Paul Martin can be a side note in an article about ''that'' meaning; he can't be the ''main'' article at that title. As for my "accusation", well, let's see here. Does it actually in any significant way impair your personal reputation or your ability to function in life? No, it does neither; and those are the basic criteria under which any court of law would require a statement to be retracted. It requires a ''wild'' leap of logic to turn "this person is assuming that I'm a supporter of a perfectly legal political party with a fairly solid level of popular support" into some kind of ''libel'', especially when logic ''compels'' the conclusion that a Liberal Party supporter would never think that an unflattering nickname for their ''own'' party deserved any more attention than it was already getting, and it would never even occur to a New Democrat to even ''consider'' an unflattering nickname for ''any'' political party to be encyclopedia material (we're ''way'' too earnest and goody-two-shoes for that.) So unless you can somehow provide evidence that you've been materially ''damaged'' in some way by the assertion, there'll be no retractions from me. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Relist''' I voted [[NDP]] this morning and, yes, I consider it a [[libel]] to be called a [[Conservative]]. Please retract the Conservative accusation as well as the accusation that I am "too earnest and goody-two-shoes". Seriously, what's with the [[Pigeonhole]]ing and name-calling? Regarding [[Mr. Dithers]]... you state that the [[Paul Martin]] reference is secondary; in fact Google has the Paul Martin reference first and foremost amoung the natural search results. Anyway, that's not the issue. The issue is [[Ditherals]] and your lack of respect for [[due process]]. Please '''relist''' [[Ditherals]] and next time don't be so eager to jump to conclustions about editors. Perhaps your Wiki-authorities should be reconsidered-Palmerston
***I do not have a "lack of respect for [[due process]]". I assessed the article in a specific way, and acted in accordance with my assessment. You're free to disagree with that assessment. You're free to nominate the item for reconsideration as you have done here. That does not mean I'm ignoring due process; this ''is'' the due process in such a situation. (And you still have to prove that you've suffered actual material damage to have a legitimate libel claim. Never mind that my assertion about the earnestness of NDPers involved the word "'''we'''"; I'm making fun of ''myself'' as much as anyone else.) [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist'''. IMHO this does not qualify as an attack page. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 19:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*According to Bearcat, "this ''is'' the due process in such a situation." No it isn't. There was no [[due process]] for Ditherals and there is no [[due process]] for Ditherals because Ditherals ''has already been deleted''. ''[[Due process]] cannot come [[ex post facto]].'' I therefore ask you to agree to a '''relisting''' of Ditherals so that [[due process]] in the deletion process can begin with a proper appliction of Wiki's rules. -Palmerston
** Comment: You are incorrect. Due process in this case includes ''all'' aspects of Wikipedia's deletion process - specifically including the [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] process. I disagree with his application of the process in this specific situation but there definitely is a process and he followed it. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-11]]===
====Valhalla Legends====
Being a fairly inexperienced Wikipedian, I will defer to experience if appropriate, however:

The article on Valhalla Legends has been deleted following a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valhalla_legends vote]]. The reasons given by many of the delete voters expose the fact that many/most of them really are not at all familiar with the subject matter at hand.

* Valhalla Legends is not a gaming clan ("Yet another frag-fest clan"/"gamercruft" is deeply inaccurate)
* The clan is most certainly notable for the achievements of its members over the years
* Said achievements are verifiable.

Admittedly, the clan exists within a rather small niche, but I don't see that as being a reason not to have a page on the subject. I accept that the page may have suffered from some vanity in the past, however, the changes I made last week were more than enough to address that. Considering that most of the voters were not familiar with subject, and that most of the keep votes were dismissed as 'sock-puppeting' by the deleting administrator, I'd like this deletion to be reconsidered.

[[User:Harrym|Harrym]] 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

*It is within the right of a AFD closer to discount votes by new people (reason being that they wouldn't be sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia to know what belongs here and that new accounts can be made simply to try and sway the vote. That said, if this not a gaming clan, then what kind of clan is it and can you provide sources that talk about those verifiable achievements you mention? We can't just take your word for it. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 12:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

* Ok - that seems fair.

The clan is primarily a programming clan, although its membership requirements focus more on proficiency in a technical area:

<blockquote>
... most of Valhalla Legends' members have been highly technical. Over half of the members have some solid programming skills while the rest are knowledgeable and/or experienced in networking, hacking, cracking, or were simply legendary in some way on Battle.net during its history.
</blockquote>

The clan has not, and has never been, a gaming clan. [http://www.valhallalegends.com/aboutvL.asp More here].

[[BNLS]] is a little hard to verify, however, it seems that it has its own wikipedia page. Perhaps that counts in its favour. The only reliable information about the use of the service would come from the operators of the service - ie, clan members - and so might not be considered reliable. The following [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=BNLS+Battle.net&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Google search] has some useful information, most notably the [http://www.valhallalegends.com/yoni/BNLSProtocolSpec.txt protocol spec]. The system is used by many people, as [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=BNLS+bot+%28help+%7C+tutorial+%7C+faq%29&btnG=Search&meta= evidenced] by the number of bots that use it, and the number of people asking for help!

[http://bnetdocs.valhallalegends.com/content.php BnetDocs] is the community's primary source of technical information about [[Battle.net]] and its related protocols. The huge majority of the information on the site has been reverse-engineered by clan members. The site regularly has 40-60 unique visitors per day, and has over a 1000 registered users. It is maintained by a group of volunteers (not all of whom are members). I run the site, and am able to provide usage logs if that's useful. Hundreds of protocol messages for 4 different proprietary protocols are documented. This is a considerable volume of work which mostly originates from the activities of clan members. It is, in other words, a notable accomplishment.

On a historical note, one of the earliest third-party clients (perhaps the first) for Battle.net was written by a clan member, although, this is largely unverifiable considering the lack of reliable documentation.

I do not consider the clan to be of any great historical importance, however, it is most certainly notable within its niche. I feel that [[WP:NOT]] a paper encyclopedia applies. I recognise that things such as these can be hard to verify, and I'm happy to do my best to address any specific questions or concerns.

Primarily, I just object to the article being deleted on the basis of such an uninformed vote.

[[User:Harrym|Harrym]] 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - I found the AfD flawed: clearly this page and [[BNLS]] are closely related, since BNLS is only used on vH, but the question of how the information then contained in the two articles should best be covered was thought out by few of the participants. I'm leaning towards ''undelete and list together with BNLS''. I'd also say that I think that developer communities are pretty much inherently more noteworthy participant than fancruftish gamer communities, certainly the two sorts of community should not be confused. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. If this is more than just a gaming clan, then most of the delete votes should be given less weight. Combined with the overlooked "keep" vote of user [[User:Oscarthecat|Oscarthecat]], this is probably a no-consensus. Undelete and give it a chance to get cleaned up, with some information on how it is not merely a gaming clan, before tossing it back to AfD. I'm not convinced it will survive an AfD even then, but I think the new information warrants giving it another shot without the "gamecruft" voters. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**That is the problem, because as far as I can see it is a gaming clan - at least from the linked site -
*:"Valhalla Legends is a Battle.Net clan that wears the tag [vL]. The purpose of the clan is to provide for its members a single place to gather and talk"
*Not only that but the basically same argument given here is the same one that ''replaced the nomination halfway through'' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valhalla_legends&diff=prev&oldid=34290456]), so I think the users had more than enough time to look at. I'll give JIP a message though and endorse whatever (s)he says. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - There is a gaming clan aspect to the site, but according to the posting distribution it is principally a developer's forum [http://forum.valhallalegends.com/index.php/]. It appears to be much more than a gaming clan. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**I don't know... it still appears to me like a gaming clan that does occasional development, which was highlighted during the debate. I'll admit that I can understand how it could be taken differently, I just don't know if this is a somewhat clever attempt to make it appear as something different then it really is. If we do undelete this I think (re)listing both of them as you say is the best way to go. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
***These kinds of content issues are best sorted out on AfD anyway: all that is needed to go back to AfD is to think that there is a high probablity that it will result in a different outcome to the one that resulted in the appeal here. I think we are likely to keep vL and delete BNLS. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**Alright, '''Undelete and (re)list both''' [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete, relist and list [[BNLS]] on AfD''' - My, I convinced RN before I convinced myself! --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''comment''' Thanks. I think this is a good decision. I'll clarify the above poster's concern over tags: Battle.net was, and still is to some extent, the place where most of the clan members congregate and talk. Of course, many members do play games. That, however, is not the primary purpose of the clan. [[User:Harrym|Harrym]] 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-10]]===
====[[Online Gaming League]]====
Please undelete the "Online Gaming League" (online electronic sports). I'm unsure why the article was deleted however, other gaming leagues such as CAL and CPL are listed as Online Games and Leagues that cover these games. OGL was the first of it's kind and certainly should not be deleted if other gaming leagues are allowed to remain (such as CAL and CEVO and CPL). Please review this and undelete OGL (Online Gaming League). January 11, 2006 1:27 PM EST.
*I've put a header on this request. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 11:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Gaming League|here]]. Also, the original page certainly read like spam. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per above. AfD was perfectly valid - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 20:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. No problems seen with AfD, no new information supplied. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 03:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' OGL is very notable in the gaming world, someone ought to write a useful article about them. I agree that the deleted article was not ideal. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 06:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[TRANGO_real-time_embedded_hypervisor]]====
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRANGO_real-time_embedded_hypervisor] The article has been deleted because noted as an advertisement and not-notable technology. As proposed by Andrew pmk, I propose to consider keeping the page without the diagram. --[[User:Pcoulombeau|Pcoulombeau]] 17:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*Moved from content review since this appears to be a full review. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 01:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I can't make sense of this case without seeing the page, since it turns on whether [[User:Andrew pmk]] is right to say that the page is reparable. Can we have a DRV-duration undelete? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Done. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' on AfD. I think the original vote would qualify for a ''no consensus'', though in its current state, it certainly could use some cleanup. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist on AfD''' - While I think the article was full of puffery, I think the article is reparable per Andrew pmk, and furthermore the technology appears notable (it is one of only two software based hypervisor VMs per the [[Hypervisor]] article). A 2nd AfD would go the other way, I think. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Template:User noie]]====
Was speedily deleted as a [[WP:CSD#R1|R1]] (target does not exist), even though according to the summary it apparently redirected to a target that does exist. In addition, there seems to still be references to it. This template should, therefore, be restored as an invalid speedy (which may have been a mistake -- but of course, we are not perfect!). --'''[[User:Wcquidditch|WC''Quidditch'']]''' <big>[[User talk:Wcquidditch|☎]] [[Special:Contributions/Wcquidditch|✎]]</big> 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:I've restored it. At the time the target ''didn't'' exist (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Template:User_browser:Other its log]). —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 04:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Interflop]]====
* 2:37 EST, 10 January 2006. [[Interflop]] is marked for deletion. Requesting undelete as it is a large internet forum, and belongs in that category. 4chan, Something Awful, etc have their own. The argument of Google hits is void, as Interflop once had over 100,000 Google hits, but the site went down once and lost the hits.
*This is now open for discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interflop (2nd nom)]], plese take your comments there. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[EUROFUTURES]]====
Please undelete the above page. It is a bona fide page on an NGO-in-creation prepared by a German futures professor. When we returned here in order to improve it and link it to more pages, we find it was simply deleted - without any substantial reasons! It was not a stub but a rather long article, so it is hard to re-create from scratch. --[[User:Tjfulopp|Tjfulopp]] 10:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': AfD located at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EUROFUTURES]]. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure (keep deleted)'''. Valid AfD that points out the article had problems with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball]]. Recreation of the article should be delayed until after EUROFUTURES is actually created and they are able to provide independent sources to reference the material in the article. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Allen3. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted) per Allen3. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 15:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' valid afd. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

====More attack templates====

Doc glasgow found these and I speedied them.

# 11:22, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User War on drugs]]" (Sole purpose attack on US government policy)
#* This is an attack on the US policy on illegal drugs.
#**As the author of this template, I would like to say that my sole purpose was '''not''' to attack US govt policy. My main purpose (and perhaps there were others) was to create a community of Wikipedians interested in writing articles on the decriminalization of drugs. --[[User:Tiger_Marc|Tiger Marc]][[User talk:Tiger_Marc|ROAR!]] 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#*** How would the template be useful for that purpose? Of those opposed to the war on drugs, wouldn't you expect a disproportionate number of them to be in favor of decriminalization? If you're interested in writing an article, according to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view, you need to find people with relevant expertise and a reasonably diverse range of opinions, or at least some detachment from the subject, but how could this single-opinion template help you to find them? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#**** NPOV requires presenting all sides of an issue and sourcing the information. This template would help find people who are likely to know sources of information about decriminalization. There is nothing about NPOV that says ''editors'' have to have to be detached from a subject. In fact, I would argue that editors who are more passionate about a subject write better articles. --[[User:Tiger_Marc|Tiger Marc]][[User talk:Tiger_Marc|ROAR!]] 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#* Are users here not allowed to disagree with US policy? There after all are for '''personal user pages'''. Userboxes are for expressing personal opinion and I don't see how you can find a valid reason for the censorship of them. -[[User:James Anatidae|james_anatidae]] 04:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
# 11:22, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User No EU]]" (Sole purpose attack on EU)
#* This is an attack on the EU.
#**How is it an "attack" on the EU ??? and who gives you the right to judge that ? It's simply saying one is against the EU which is a perfectly legitimate political stance. MANY people are in strong opposition of the EU ! No wonder no one takes Wikipedia seriously. [[User:Epf|Epf]] 20:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#***Why should we care what a user's view of the EU is? I could understand a template saying a user was ''interested'' in the EU, or otherwise more knowledgeable than usual about it, but when it comes to creating an NPOV encyclopedia I don't see the use in keeping track of views like this. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 01:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#****People should be able to say what opinion they have on the EU. If people feel so upset if someone like me says they dislike the EU then they're completely over-reacting...or they're French - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 11:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
# 11:21, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User Fear Bush]]" (Sole purpose link Bush admistration with neo-fascism)
#* This attacks George W. Bush and his administration by associating US foreign policy with fascism.
# 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User GWB]]" (Sole purpose attack on George W. Bush)
#* This is a personal attack on George W. Bush
#** '''''Note:''''' I have speedy undeleted this as the [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_GWB|associated TFD]] is running >70% in favor of '''keeping''' with more than 70 voters. I believe in that circumstance it is simply inappropriate to have deleted this. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 14:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#***That's okay, soon as this is over, I'll renominate it for deletion, and or speedy it at my descretion. This is a place to write encyclopedic articles, not plaster ones userpage with bumbersticker nonsense.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#**** The implied bad faith in this statement is unbecoming an admin and is directly in violation of [[WP:Consensus]] — [[User:Falerin|Falerin]]<[[User talk:Falerin|talk]]>,<[[Special:Contributions/Falerin|contrib]]> 01:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#***** Note however that I am not endorsing the undeletion of the template either. I frankly do not think any of these templates have a place here. It is the way that this was presented that I oppose. — [[User:Falerin|Falerin]]<[[User talk:Falerin|talk]]>,<[[Special:Contributions/Falerin|contrib]]> 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
# 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User Anti-ACLU]]" (Sole purpose attack on ACLU)
#* This is an attack on the American Civil Liberties Union.
# 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User Anti-UN]]" (sole purpose attack on UN)
#* This is an attack on the United Nations Organisation.

* As with the earlier speedies on User apple sucks, User ms sucks and User Bad EU, the criterion I adopted was that: ''a person, persons, a corporation, government or other organisation was being attacked.

* Of those listed by Doc, I did not delete some for the following reasons:

* [[Template:user illegal-immigration-0]]
** Opposition to an process or activity not associated exclusively with any particular group.
*** I'm not advocating this, but for the sake of consistency.... Since the "attack" policy is to delete the "war on drugs" template (above), which opposed a process or activity of the US govt, you should delete this as well because it opposes an activity or process of the US govt -- namely the patriation of illegal immigrants. Note that this template links to -- sacre bleu! -- an entry on illegal immigration ''in the U.S.'' --[[User:Tiger_Marc|Tiger Marc]][[User talk:Tiger_Marc|ROAR!]] 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** No, it does not mention the government of any country, nor does it represent any policy of any government as "illegal immigration". The War on Drugs template, on the other hand, specifically references a well known US government policy by name, and links to an article that says: ''The War on Drugs is an initiative undertaken in the United States to carry out an "all-out offensive" (as President Nixon described it) against the prohibited use of certain legally controlled drugs.'' --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* [[Template:User No Marxism]]
** Opposition to a political ideology
* [[Template:User Antipope]]
** Jokey expression of the primacy of one's claim to be pope.

* It may be that for other reasons we might want to discuss limiting, regulating or even deleting some of those articles, but they're not what I consider attack templates. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' - and wish I'd been bolder myself. Although, I'm not sure I'm following the subtleties of Tony's differentiations. If we are get rough consensus on this, we may need to work out a more simple form of words. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 11:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*: To clarify, I'll take the war on drugs policy. This is a specific policy adopted by a specific government, and an attack on the policy ''in those terms'' is an attack on the government. A user who says he's opposed to the criminalization of drugs is making a more general statement and, although we may want to regulate, limit, or even forbid the use of that latter kind of template, it wouldn't be an attack. On this occasion I'm performing test speedies of articles that I believe all fall under a particular criterion that I think could command consensus as attack speedies, so I'm only deleting what I think qualifies as an attack on person, persons or a group of people. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' of them all. Opposition to illegal immigration is political movement in U.S., aligns one on a side of an issue of intense debate in the U.S. No Marxism, also aligns a person in a political category, and the use of category is less in your face than the userbox. Antipope could easily be construed to mean anti-Catholic and needs to go.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*I think you may not have been paying attention for the last week or so. There is an ongoing policy discussion, and deleting these templates out of process is a sure way to upset folks. Just because you are no longer running for ArbCom does not mean you should act unilaterally. Speedy deletion is not a toy. Opposition to the war on drugs is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the EU is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to George W Bush is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the ACLU is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the UN is an opinion, not an attack. Your criterion would be acceptable if you were capable of applying it. Please revert the deletions and place these templates on TfD if you truly feel that they need to be removed from wikipedia. '''Speedy deletion is not a toy.''' --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 11:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*:Hm, 'not a toy' is a good catchphrase. I move we add it to [[WP:NOT]] - and remember [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia|Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia]]. But I don't think it is Tony that is guilty of using its resources as a toy! If your opinions leave you wanting to attack and disparage, fine (indeed I abhor some of these subjects myself). But use you 'own' userspace, not the wiki-wide-template space as a playpark. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 12:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*::I am fine with adding 'not a toy' to [[WP:NOT]]. The use of templates for userboxes may not be your favorite use of resources, but I think speedy deletion of these templates should at least be supported by policy - and in this case there is no support. These templates should be placed on TfD where they can be properly discussed. None of them are attacks, they are simply opinions. If they were being placed in the article space, I would see your point, but these are for use in user space, and they ought not be deleted in this manner. '''Speedy deletion is not a toy.''' --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 12:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*:::Wikipedia is also not a toy. '''Endorse Speedy Deletion''' - attack templates step considerably beyond the scope of the project, divide the community, etc. Wikipedia is not Myspace. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*::::'''Wikipedia resources''' - Actually, it takes less drive space to have one template user box that is included in many user pages than to have each of those Wikipedians copy the user box to their individual pages. This resource argument seems specious. I think it cuts both ways. --[[User:Tiger_Marc|Tiger Marc]][[User talk:Tiger_Marc|ROAR!]] 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete All except "Fear Bush"'''. Tony, as it turns out I think we have a different conception of what constitutes an attack. I generally believe that Wikipedians should have the right to express their opposition to any politically important out-of-wiki government, organization, policy or person. In my opinion, if conveyed by an infobox, such opposition should be conveyed in a civil manner. I will agree with you that several of these could be made more civil, but that is a matter of small edits to their content and does not call for deletion. By speedying these, you give the impression that you are opposed to ''any'' expression of opposition when directed against a specific organization, policy or person. If that is your intention, then I certainly do not agree with you. I would also like to voice my opinion that it is disrespectful to the voters in TFD to speedy User GWB while it was being discussed there. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Note: I have speedy undeleted {{tl|User GWB}} on the grounds that the [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_GWB|associated and ongoing TFD]] shows a strong consensus favoring it's existence. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 14:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**What you're actually seeing is a majority in a straw poll on a particular template. The opinion expressed by the majority is in favor of abusing Wikipedia resources in the name of free speech. This doesn't mean there is a consensus on Wikipedia to keep that template. I've redeleted as it's obviously an attack template, and expresses support for some of our most serious vandalism into the bargain. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***Agreed. I've re-deleted the template. An attack is not permissible simply because it's contained in a template. In addition, deletion review isn't a venue for voting to ignore [[WP:NPA]] or to support vandalism on a particular page. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 16:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
****'''Comment''' Attacking politicans is considered protected political speech. There may be reasons for not keeping it, but NPA is irrelevant. Even for you Yanks, I believe. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*****If this was a trial in the US, the concept of "protected political speech" may be valid. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. [[WP:NPA]] is perfectly valid and relevant to this issue. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 01:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
******Attacking Bush, like attacking any national leader, doesn't fit into personal attacks; it is a valid and recognised vehicle for the expression of political dissent and to characterise it as a personal attack is willfully jejune and supine. As to whether it belongs in an encyclopedia is another matter. Personally I don't care one way or the other, but NPA is not the argument to make here. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 03:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
******* The term "protected speech" gives the game away, really. Wikipedia policy does not protect free speech. The only speech you're guaranteed to be able to make here is that which serves the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and I honestly don't see how expressing your personal opinion on political matters is helping that. When it comes to denigration, we do have a policy in place against attacks, so why do we allow them here? User pages aren't homepages, if you want a webhost of those there is a list somewhere. Go on, get yourself a homepage and make all the political statements you want. If you want to do that in a community, go to myspace or something. Let's use this space to build and encyclopedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation. There's a big difference between these userboxes and those that state how well you speak [[pig latin]]. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep speedies deleted''', and delete ALL opposition/support templates infavor of "interest templates". The goal of NPOV is not to fork articles or encyclopaedias, foster ill-will, change someone's beliefs, or show how much you want to screw some actor/actress. Userboxes should be used to foster a dialogue between opposing viewpoints, o that some sort of consensus view can be brought into articles on the subject. If all pro- and anti- folks had to use the same userbox/usercat system, then they would all get informed equally, and neither side could claim bias or vote-stuffing. Userboxes which violate [[WP:NPA]] need not wait on the userbox policy to be formulated, Dschor. Check your userbox POV at the door and look at the good of the encyclopaedia. I can't even edit these days because the servers are crashing from all the vitriol flying. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 14:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' pending on-going policy discussion, which is in its infancy. Policy is good. I shall say no more for fear of stomping [[WP:CIVIL]] into little pieces in an angry, profane tirade. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 15:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', these have no place on Wikipedia.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]] 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong undelete all''' of these. "Attack on US policy"! That is simply foolish, IMO. If that is an "attack page" then any page that expresses in opnion of any govenment policy is an attack page. Since articels are supposed to include such opnions (properly sourced and attributed) this might lead to the deletion of valid articels. In any case the [[WP:NPOV]] policy page says that it applies to '''articles''' -- expression of opnion on user pages is perfectly legitimate under current policy, and disagreeing with current government policy is not in any rational sense an "attack" on anyone. This is WAY out-of-process. I am going to restore several of these. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. We already have policies against attacks. Putting an attack in template form does not in any way exempt it from policy. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 16:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' [[WP:CSD]] A6 says "Attack pages. '''Articles''' which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject" (Emphasis mine). There is currently no policy againt attacks on user pages or in tempaltes except [[WP:NPA]], and several of the above are by no reasoanble streach '''Personal''' attacks. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:THat;s just plain wikilawyering. Can I thus create templates saying 'user x is an asshole' and expect them not to be speedied as they are not artilces? --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::No becuase that is clearly '''personal''' and so violates [[WP:NPA]]. But templates that "attack" US policy on an issue, or the US as a whole, or the EU, or a particular wikipedia policy are in no rational sense attacks. IMO such templates should not be speedied, and i would probably oppose their deletion at TfD. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', disruptive attack templates. Here's to Tony. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 18:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' [[User:BlankVerse|''Blank'']][[User talk:BlankVerse|''Verse'']] 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Undelete''' The only difference between writing out an opinion and using a template is ease of use, both for the proprietor of the personal page and for the readers. Deleting these templates opens the box of user page censorship. That is one box an open project cannot afford to open. --[[User:Pandora Rodriguez|۩ Pandora ۩]] 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)</s> ''Strike comment from sockpuppet of banned [[User:Zephram Stark]] (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser&curid=3677740&diff=34671167&oldid=34671130 evidence])'' [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 22:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***The only difference between writing out an opinion and using a template is ease of use, both for the proprietor of the personal page and for the readers. Deleting these templates opens the box of user page censorship. If we are to adopt the priciple of user page censorship (which perhaps we should) let's do so openly and after a considered discsion on amending [[WP:UP]], not by deleting individual templates. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**I think to some degree it's one that we can't affod ''not'' to open. The Wikimedia Foundation is under no obligation to host irrelevant opinions, especially those that may hurt the encyclopedia by being divisive. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Ahh, bush's favorite argument. These protestors are dividing the country and therefore we have are right to stop them. These templates are not divisive, what's divisive are all the admins ignoring process and attacking people's personal opinion boxes. Censorship is divisive.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Wikipedia's not a country, nor a message board system; it's an [[encyclopedia]]. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***Why would ''your'' "personal opinions" need to be in the template namespace? [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Because these were speedy deleted, I cannot see what these User boxes said. Based on a presumption of innocence, I would like them reverted and sent to deletion page for further discussion. --[[User:Tiger_Marc|Tiger Marc]][[User talk:Tiger_Marc|ROAR!]] 21:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''; not attack pages. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - [[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]) 22:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion, except for war on drugs template'''. This attacks a policy, not the government itself, or a person, or whoever. The US are not the only country that fights a war on drugs. Nearly all of Asia does so as well. If this has to stay deleted then the illegal immigration template should be judged equally to this one. -- [[user:Sneltrekker|Sneltrekker]]'''†'''[[User_talk:Sneltrekker|My Talk]] 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore and take to TfD.''' This is taking a good thing too far. Like any other deletion, if there is reasonable disagreement than it is ''no longer'' a speedy. It doesn't matter if we agree with the argument that critisicm of the EU is not an attack. All that matters is that this is not the venue in which to have that discussion. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore and take to TfD''' While I think all of these should have been deleted I have to agree that the ammount of disagreement presented makes speedy a questionable descision. — [[User:Falerin|Falerin]]<[[User talk:Falerin|talk]]>,<[[Special:Contributions/Falerin|contrib]]> 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' as has been said, these go well beyond the scope here, are disruptive and are nothing more than bumperstickers that set a poor precedent. If you want to say that you are against something or hate something write it in your userpage and you'll probably get away with it. These are in general Wikipedia template space and don't belong. There's no free speech/protected speech there. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete All'''. Political userboxes in general have already passed a vote for deletion. [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strongest Possible Undelete''', or you might as well delete [[WP:CSD]]. [[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 06:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete all''' so I can go to TfD and vote for deleting them there. The way to keep stuff like that deleted is to ''convince people why it should be''. This SD/DRV method of short-circuiting the usual deletion procedure is annoying the people involved and hurting our chances of reaching a consensus. Please, please stop. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 07:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*:And note that by deleting first and discussing second ''you're taking non-admins out of the loop'' since only admins can view deleted material and thus make an informed comment on whether it should be kept deleted. Cross-posted to Tony's talk page :) - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' Is there a good reason to keep these templates? How does "I think Bush is a Neo-Nazi pigdog" and "Bush is my hero" (I know, neither of those phrases excist in userboxes.) help further our goal of writing an encylopedia? I'm not against userboxes, some of them make me laugh out loud (a good thing :)) but these really strong, and controversial pov ones just divide people. Dont let wikipedia become like many other places on the web, where "libs" and "cons" spend their time slugging it out, hurling abuse at one another. P.S. I do agree fully with the above comment though. '''''[[User:Banes|Ban]]''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]''[[User_talk:Banes|s]]''''' 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* I've produced a gallery of the templates as they appeared when I speedied them. Only a few categories have been removed; the templates are as you would have seen them on a user page.
** [[User:Tony Sidaway/Attack speedies, 2006-01-10]] --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*:Thank you, I applaud you for that. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 10:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete all''' and discuss them at TFD. Calling a template where the user says he is against the war on drugs as an "attack template" is over the top. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 09:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete All''' As a person with an [[MBA]], even though wiki is not-for-profit, let me tell you the same principles apply here as in business. Userboxes help users (employees) write an encyclopedia the same way [[Wikipedia:Barnstars|Barnstars]] do: They make users (employees) feel good (through self-expression) and make them more likely to contribute. Also, neophytes, like me, learn about technical things (programming syntax, how to upload images, fair use, etc.) in the course of making userboxes. It's an enlightened management decision to keep them. Regardless, please take note that, per my request, {{tl|User Anti-UN}} and {{tl|User Anti-ACLU}} have been temporarily undeleted and modified so as to not "attack". I request that they be removed from the list of "attack" templates up for deletion.
*'''Keep Deleted''' and re-delete re-created ones. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse speedy''' - listing controversial speedies on WP:DRV is the right thing to do, endorse per reasons given by nominator. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* The original appearance and current status of all the templates is here:
*: [[User:Tony Sidaway/Attack speedies, 2006-01-10]]
* The upshot is that nearly all speedied articles were resurrected in a form without the attacks, two of the most extreme remain deleted, and one or two milder ones were recreated. I'm happy with that and so it seems, by and large, is the community. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''keep deleted''' -- ( [[User:Drini|drini's page]] [[User talk:Drini|<big>☎</big>]] ) 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', there's no point in keeping track of a user's POV unless it's causing problems with his or her editing (in which case I doubt these boxes will be much use). [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' on TFD, users are entitled to an opinion. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 15:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*The deletion process seems to have been inverted. Now, userboxes are being speedily deleted and then people are left to argue about it afterwards without being able to see the actual template. Speedy deletion is only for cases where it is obvious that the userbox would be soundly defeated at the tfd page. With the level of the debate here I think it is obvious that were these listed at tfd, there would not be an overwhelming majority to delete. Please follow the tfd process from now on. Speedy deletion causes nothing but strife within the wikipedia community. With a transparent tfd process, even the inclusionist will see that process has been followed and will not have as much reason to be upset. Divisive userboxes have a possiblity to be harmful - the userbox wars are destroying the wikipedia community. Please use tfd from now on.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*: The templates as they originally were when speedied were placed into a gallery by me: [[User:Tony Sidaway/Attack speedies, 2006-01-10]]. I think it's been established that attack userboxes can be speedied, although for now they should probably be brought here. Attacks aren't permitted on Wikipedia, and I see no reason to start permitting them now. When you chose your username, perhaps you might have chosen a less obvious one. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
::*That is factually incorrect. Of all the templates that you speedied only one is still deleted. Attack or no attack, everyone will be happier if you use the tfd.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 07:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete all''' Over the top. People should be able to make their political views heard. '''NPOV does not apply to user pages''' - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 11:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====Various attack templates====
As we're still making policy on this, I'll discuss these recent speedy deletions in detail, with the hope that we can decide what kind of attack can acceptably be speedied. Reverse chronological order because that's how the deletion log lists them.

# 08:13, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User ms sucks]]" (sole purpose attack on microsoft and its customers)
#* Companion to apple sucks. Expresses contempt for Microsoft and its customers, "drones".
# 08:09, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User jerk]]" (sole purpose personal attack)
#* Appears to have been used by people to describe themselves, but has obvious applications as an attack and no redeeming encyclopedic use.
# 08:08, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User jacko wacko]]" (sole purpose personal attack)
#* Attack on [[Michael Jackson]]
# 08:03, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User does not trust Jimbo]]" (sole purpose personal attack)
#* Attack on [[Jimbo Wales]]
# 08:03, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User delete deletionists]]" (sole purpose is attack on group (albeit jokey))
#* Partly jokey, but ventures deep into partisan advocacy and attacking a subgroup of Wikipedians.
# 08:00, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User browser:Other]]" (Sole purpose is attack on Microsoft's IE browser (yes I know it sucks))
#* I have doubts about this deletion. Is it an attack, or just a particularly vague expression of browser preference? "This user contributes using any browser other than Internet Explorer" I think I'll go with the intent--which seems to be to denigrate a software product for the purpose of advocacy.
# 07:58, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User apple sucks]]" (Sole purpose is an attack on Apple Computer.)
#* As ms sucks, almost identical wording.
# 07:54, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User bad eu]]" (redirect to deleted userbox that denigrated the EU)
#* See below
# 07:52, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User bad EU]]" (Sole purpose is denigration of the EU)
#* This is a very harsh condemnation of the EU.

* Overall I think that userbox templates of this kind have no place on Wikipedia because they abuse Wikipedia facilities in the service of attacking a person, a group of people, a company, or the works uniquely associated with a person, persons or a company. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse''' I'm actually glad to see those gone - although the "user does not trust Jimbo" one is hilarious :). [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 09:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**The I.E./browser one is a close call though - personally I think it promotes factionalism etc. but it isn't as egregious as the others. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 09:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' of all templates which criticize or disparage their subject. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 09:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse, weak in some cases'''. I feel like the EU and major corporations are too large for "attacking" them to be a big deal; attacking their users is another matter. It's also worth noting that [[Template:User does not trust Jimbo]] was created as a humorous counterpoint to my own userbox {{[[Template:User trusts Jimbo|User trusts Jimbo]]}}; one could argue that if a userbox supporting Mr. Wales is ok, then the counterpoint should also (albeit probably not in this form). -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 09:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**One could argue that, although I would argue that it is not necessarily so. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 09:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
** (To SCZenz): On the EU one, how about a template that said something similar about the USA? Although the EU is not a nation state like the EU, it does have a social apparatus, and its membership is open only to members of the Council of Europe, who are bound by one overriding constitution governing human rights, its citizens vote in Europe-wide democratic elections to its Parliament, and most of its executive decisions are taken by senior elected cabinet ministers of the member countries in session. The box describes the EU as "an over-powerful, non-democratic bureaucracy" as a matter of fact rather than opinion, which seems to be use of template space to get around the neutrality policy
** On your argument for symmetry, I think I can imagine a very mild, jokey template as a counterpart to yours, but I must admit I have to screw my eyes tight shut to do so. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Anything that's unacceptable regarding the EU would be unacceptable regarding the US, and vice versa. There's should be a similar equivalence for any country or international organization. The question is, whether attacks that are so massively ''im''personal, because the targets are so huge, really a problem? -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 09:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*I'm making a conscious effort to avoid further userbox dramatics... but several of these had associated categories, which someone may want to zap as well. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 09:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If there is indeed consensus that the deletions above are basically sensible, I suggest we add it to [[WP:CSD]]. See [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Attack_templates]]. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 09:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. However, framing a 'policy' could be difficult. What about 'user against apartheid'? I'd suggest: 1) ''any'' userboxes are generally allowed (subject to [[WP:NPA]]). Howerer, as for ''templates''. 2) No commenting whatsoever, even implicitly, on individual wikipedians. 2) No disparraging of groups of wikipedians. 3) No campaigning or wiki-politicing 3) No disparaging of any individual figure (remember Seigenthaler). Any of the above should be speediable - anything debatable then TfD. As I say, you can still do most of the above in your userspace, just not using wiki-wide-templates. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
** User against apartheid, etc, are probably not attacks because they're expression of (albeit often extreme) shades of political opinion, on which I think I'd want to see a separate policy. Here I'm concentrating on attacks on ''a person, a group of people, a goverment, corporation or other organisation, or works '''uniquely associated''' with a person, persons, or a government, corporation or other organisation''. So attacking Microsoft by going after their browser is covered, but saying you don't use non-tabbing browsers with undisclosed security bugs isn't. Saying you hate communists is covered, saying you hate communism isn't. Saying you are vehemently opposed to scientology is covered, saying you support the longstanding antiscientology project "Operation Clambake isn't (at least, notunder the proposed extension of A6). --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::*I agree with this opinion completely. I love userboxes, and use a ton myself, but if all they contain is hatespeech they only ruin the community, instead of improving it, which as far as I can see is their main goal. -- [[user:Sneltrekker|Sneltrekker]]'''†'''[[User_talk:Sneltrekker|My Talk]] 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* One template that I chose not to speedy is one that expresses implacable opposition to illegal immigration, "without forgiveness". While the wording there is a little odd (''forgiveness''?) and such templates may still be deletable if they damage wikipedia, they're not attacks. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' speedy deletion is not a toy. None of these are, properly speaking, attack templates. All of the express an opinion, but not one is an attack. These are not intended for use in the article space, and NPOV is not required in user space. Please list these templates properly. '''Speedy deletion is not a toy.''' --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 11:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Tentative support deletion''', but '''temporarily undelete''' and substub where humorous use was appropriate. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
** I like that idea. There were half-a-dozen humorous uses of the jerk template, so I substed them. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' except for the jerk template if it was self-applied (as noted above), I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*Really wishing these were not a block item:
*#'''Undelete and reword [[Template:User bad EU|User bad EU]]''': As per my comments above ([[Wikipedia:Deletion_review#More_attack_templates]]), legitimiate expressions of political opposition should be rewritten to be made civil, but should not be uniformly deleted.
*#'''Undelete [[Template:User browser:Other|User browser:Other]]''': I simply see no problem with this.
*#'''Undelete and TFD [[Template:User does not trust Jimbo|User does not trust Jimbo]] and [[Template:User delete deletionists|User delete deletionists]]''': While I am not a fan of these and might well vote for their deletion, they are both apparently intended as humourous and I do not think they rise to the level of something that should be speedied. Had it been any other Wikipedian than Jimbo, I would have endorsed deletion of that one, but he is in fact a very visible public person and I think there is room for legitimate discussion of to what extent we should be able to poke fun at our Godking.
*#'''Keep deleted [[Template:User jerk|User jerk]] and [[Template:User jacko wacko|User jacko wacko]]''': Jerk may have legitimate uses, but is likely to also be used as an attack. The Jackson template is clearly inappropriate.
*#'''Mixed feelings on [[Template:User apple sucks|User apple sucks]] and [[Template:User ms sucks|User ms sucks]]''': I might support anti-ms/anti-apple templates if someone was prepared to give them a better name and far more civil content, but as presented these are rather far over the top and it might be better to start over than to use these as a foundation for anything. Even with a rewrite, I'm not sure I'd support these, but I would have to see it first.
**[[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* Somebody undeleted [[Template:GWB]], but I think it's obvious that its intention is to denigrate George W. Bush. There's also the problem of advocating vandalism. I'm unwilling to let a template of this type stand, so I've deleted it again. I've also deleted [[Template:GWB2]], which is another attack on Bush. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::GWB2 is actually nicer than the fist GWB. GWB2 said Bush's edits to the constitution should be reverted. This is following NPA as cricising the action, not the person. The link in GWB2 was to legislation of the patriot act, not bush. If you were to read the tfd for GWB, people were suggesting switching to GWB2 as it was nicer than GWB. Please '''undelete''' this and list it properly if you must.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 21:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep speedies deleted''', and delete ALL opposition/support templates in favor of "interest templates". The goal of NPOV is not to fork articles or encyclopaedias, foster ill-will, change someone's beliefs, or show how much you want to screw some actor/actress. Userboxes should be used to foster a dialogue between opposing viewpoints, o that some sort of consensus view can be brought into articles on the subject. If all pro- and anti- folks had to use the same userbox/usercat system, then they would all get informed equally, and neither side could claim bias or vote-stuffing. Userboxes which violate WP:NPA need not wait on the userbox policy to be formulated; now can we get back to making an encyclopaedia?? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and TfD [[Template:User jerk|User jerk]] and [[Template:User browser:Other|User browser:Other]]''', but do as you like with the others. —[[User:Andux|Andux]] 16:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete all''' Tfd ones that are '''personal''' attacks, leave all others pending agreement on userbox policy. i have undelteded all of these that were not clear personal attacks (and I do not regard the EU as a "person") as obviously out-of-process spedies. Take them to TfD if you must. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' deleted. These are all personal attacks in violation of Wikipedia policies.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', these templates were primarily used as personal attacks. Endorse the proviso noted by Mgm. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletions'''. [[User:BlankVerse|''Blank'']][[User talk:BlankVerse|''Verse'']] 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Respectfully Disagree''' The Michael Jackson template was meant in [[humor]]. Also consider it was pretty widely used, and does anyone seriously think Michael Jackson cares what we think about him? --[[User:D-Day|D-Day]] 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**You'd be surprised. Someone claiming to be Jackson's publicist recently commented at [[Talk:Michael Jackson]]. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* Someone keeps resuscitating [[Template: User GWB]]. As it's both an attack and an incitement to vandalism and there is substantial consensus that (a) vandalism must not be encouraged, (b) personal attacks are not allowed and (c) this applies in template space too, I'd appreciate it if someone else would help us to pull the plug on this especially toxic template. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore and TfD,''' mostly per Dragons flight. Once there is rational opposition, it's not a speedy anymore. None of these appear to rise to the level of acrimony that an attack speedy requires. Unless we're ''trying'' to create a divide between admins and regular users, these discussions should take place where everyone can judge the contents. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
** I'm just not seeing a policy reason to restore here. There was a bit of a kerfuffle over User GWB but that seems to have resolved itself by a bit of inspired editing that managed to remove the attack and the incitement while still adhering to the original author's stated intention (and I believe him) of expressing abhorrence of vandalism to the George W. Bush article. There ''is'' a policy divide between administrators and users. Administrators don't slavishly follow what other users want them to do. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* Okay, why did nothing show up in the deletion logs when I checked? I thought there was some sort of error. Anywho, '''oppose deletion''' on most of them. I'll have to review some, but the idea that userboxes should be uniformly banned from disagreement with the subject is simply wrong. [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep Deleted''' For the same reasons as the other group. Comments are on the next section up if you'd care to look. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' Per above. Except the "jerk" one, that is self depracatory. '''''[[User:Banes|Ban]]''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]''[[User_talk:Banes|s]]''''' 09:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' and re-delete re-created ones. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 14:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I have undeleted {{tl|User GWB2}} as it is celarly an expression of opnion on specificv policy actions, not an "attack on Bush". Unless all political PoV statements are to be banned from user space, this clearly is not over the line. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore and Use Process''' if you want them deleted, not speedy stuff. I think they aren't attacks so much as expressions of aversion. Some of them are perhaps over the top. They shouldn't be a block. ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 20:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete all'''. If templates like 'user jerk' are used as a personal attack treat the attack as such (warn user and remove) but don't delete the template. The others are mostly expressions of opinions or just meant to be funny. '''Except: keep deleted 'attack' on Jimbo if he sees it as such'''.--[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 07:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure]]====
Was deleted with notices that it was a betting pool (it was not) or attacked deeceevoice (it did not). It was created after deeceevoice's suggestion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deeceevoice&diff=34561412&oldid=34561131]. [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* Is ''that'' a suggestion? It was, more than anything else, deeceevoice showing she was annoyed over the betting pool. '''Endorse speedy, keep deleted'''. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 06:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::There was no betting pool, as there were no bets suggested.
::If "take it elsewhere" means something other than "take it elsewhere", then I'm just lost from the beginning. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::: If she had told you, "you can put it somewhere else", it might. But she just removed it from her talk page, which is a "Stop bugging me" from any angle you see it. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::: The edit summary is "you can put it somewhere else". [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 07:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::: deecee also said that she does not care about the speculation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deeceevoice&diff=34563934&oldid=34563623]. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 07:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::If you said "I don't care what people say about me", that would not be an invitation for me to call you names, nor would it grant me an exception to [[WP:NPA]]. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 07:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::There was not one personal attack on the page in question. I'm not asking for an exception to NPA, since I don't intend to make any PAs. [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 07:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted'''. [[m:Don't be a dick]]. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 06:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::Please be don't call me any names. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::He's not, that's an actual page on meta, SCZenz wants you to read. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 12:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Just because something is an actual page doesn't mean it's not actually calling someone a name. It would be rude to point to [[Mental retardation]] or [[reading comprehension]]. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::I mean in general in a dispute. I'm not calling anyone here slow. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 14:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' And its creator should read the essay that [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] cited. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 07:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore, not a valid speedy.''' Just kidding. Would have been better had Jim Apple understood why it was wanted deleted, but maybe with a smerge of us not panicking quite so much. I'm just glad it's gone. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Attack page. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 07:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::What was the attack? There were no insults; the page specifically said that I want dcv to stay, so I don't know how it could be considered hostile. [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::It ''is'' an insulting page, making fun of a user in good standing by speculating how long it takes to get fed up with Wikipedia and leave. Deeceevoice is under quite a lot of stress now, due to an ArbCom case against her, and that makes such a page all the worse. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 07:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::There is no "making fun". See [[User talk talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure]]. The question is quite serious - what happens when someone who has thousands of contributions gets fed up? Just because my page was in chart form, rather than in anecdote form as on [[user talk:deeceevoice]], doesn't make it a joke. [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:: You're trolling. Stop it. Wikipedia userspace is for work in furtherance of the project, not for making personal attacks, slights, speculation, etc, on the people associated with the project. If you must engage in such speculation, do it elsewhere and do not link there from Wikipedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::: It's a nice idea that userspace furthers the project, but often userspace is random musings, political affiliations, wikistress meters or photos of the editor in question. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' nasty, nasty attack page - the kind that is guaranteed to drive people away. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 10:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' without argument.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I think this is a particularly nasty idea. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 12:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Such speculations may just be enough to cause someone to leave. It doesn't help the project in any way and only causes grief to deeceevoice. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 12:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as a clear attack page. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Unpleasant. [[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt Crypto]] 13:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', and sanction user. [[User:El C|El_C]] 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted'''. Sanction editor if he continues to troll Wikipedia. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Can't see it, but if the above comments about it are true, it seems useless vitriol. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Extreme keep deleted''', in very poor taste. User sould be cautioned about repetition. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 17:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per the above. [[User:Jtkiefer|Jtkiefer]][[User talk:Jtkiefer|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|C]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|@]] ---- 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' It's just throwing salt...[[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 03:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep deleted''' [[User:CanadianCaesar|CanadianCaesar]] [[User_talk:CanadianCaesar|The Republic Restored]] 05:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-09]]===
====[[Template:User against scientology]]====
*Out of Process - There is a debate still on-going at [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_against_scientology]]. [[User:Tony Sidaway]] has deleted this template in the middle of the debate without any notice in the tfd. Regardless of whether or not the template has any merit, it should be undeleted for the course of tfd as cleary no consensus has yet been reached there.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Keep deleted'''. Templates that exist only to attack groups of people ('''any''' people) have absolutley no place on Wikipedia.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]] 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***That is your opinion, but wouldn't things be better if you were saying these words at the on-going tfd?--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
****Honestly, no. I speedied {{tl|user against jews}}, and no one overturned me- I'm sorry, but these things simply can't exist. [[WP:CIV]]--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]] 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*****Including the creators of that template, who had by their own admission made it as a [[WP:POINT|POINT]], and who made it a very improper analogue to the template they were trying to get deleted (if they had named it correctly, it would have been "User against Judaism" and it wouldn't have been the knee-jerk case that they and you are arguing the template ''actually'' under discussion is.) -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
******Actually if you'd read the template it only referred to Judaism. Granted it was named wrong but the message on it was correctly pointing to [[Judaism]] not [[Jew]]. The name of the template was irrelevant, similar to if I had a template named {{user:people who eat worms}} that had the message "This user supports rainbows".[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*******Ah, I see, so if I want to delete {{tl|user cpp}}, all I have to do is create a new template called {{tl|user wants to kill all Visual Basic programmers}}, and have the text of that template be "This user is a C++ programmer". That way, people will judge the template based on the title rather than the contents, and then once it's deleted I can tell people that they ''have to'' delete {{tl|user cpp}}, as its contents are ''exactly the same as'' a template we've already deleted. I see! ... You "grant" that the template was named wrong as if that misleading name had ''no effect at all'' on whether it was deleted, something that I for one am not at all inclined to take on faith.-- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
********Hey it was named appropriately since [[Jew]] does refer to somone of the Jewish faith or Judaism. Jew is not an exclusive term for someone of Hebrew decent. It could easily have been moved, but of course everyone for the Scientolgy one looked for the easy out to support their case. In either case they're both gone now and should remain so since they are nothing but divisive hate speech that do NOTHING to further the project and are not in the spirit Jimbo has put forth for the project. Many of the disputed userboxes that are considered "silly" are, but this one is not.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Undelete/Overturn''' I wouldn't mind any of these gone, but we really should let the community decide, and the speedy was not valid. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 05:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)</s> Actually, I noticed that the scientology linked to an anti-scientology site, which very well could make this fall under an A6-type speedy - so I'll withdraw from this one. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I have no problem with this being speedied. While speedy-deletion criterion A6 technically applies only to pages in the main space, extending it to pages in the Template: space seems quite reasonable to me. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 06:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' for obvious reasons.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Should have been speedied as fast as {{[[Template:user against jews|user against jews]]}}, and I'm frankly embarrased that I didn't do it myself. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. No reason to treat this differently than "user against jews". [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Well, except that "Scientology" is a belief system, where as "Jews" may designate a belief system ''or'' a racial classification. Are we going to have a general policy stating that a user cannot declare themselves against ''any'' belief system? -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***I don't see this as a slippery slope. If you're going to declare yourself "against" a religion, you should spend the 2 seconds and express your bias in your own words. Also: Since "Muslim" only refers to a belief system, would you support a "user against muslims" userbox? In your view, is there a moral difference between being bigoted against a religion and being bigoted against a race? [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
****To answer your first question, then point out how it's a poorly constructed question: No, I wouldn't support a "user against Muslims" template. However, I would give the same vote to "user against Islam", "user against Judaism" and "user against Roman Catholicism" (my religion, BTW) the same vote I gave to "user against Scientology", namely "Keep until such time as we have a policy worked out that covers userboxes like this in general." If you don't believe that my money is where my mouth is, just let me know and I'll be the first to create {{tl|user against Roman Catholicism}}. You see, when you subtract the prejudicial terminology from your second question, and make it into an ''actual'' question, it becomes "Is there a moral difference between being opposed to a belief system and being opposed to a race?" And the answer is quite obviously yes. No one has any control over what race they belong to. However, people clearly have control over what belief system they choose to adopt; to suggest that it is automatically "bigoted" to oppose any such belief system is to support the premise that ''no'' belief system should ever be opposed -- which is clearly ludicrous. Is it wrong to oppose the belief system of Nazism? Would it suddenly ''become'' wrong if Nazism suddenly became a "religion"; would the racial hatred of Nazism get a free pass then? Do the prejudices embedded in Scientology, that "anyone who criticizes Scientology is a criminal" who in a perfect Scientology world would be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow", that ''every single psychiatrist'' practicing is a sociopathic murderer -- do these hatreds suddenly become ''acceptable'' once the belief system that contains them is classified as a "religion"? Did you notice that we now have this template, {{tl|user scientology}}? What about it? Is it okay to express support for a belief system that contains bigotries, but "bigoted" to express opposition to that same belief system? '''This''' is why my vote was to keep '''until''' a policy fair to ''everyone'' was worked out. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' We shouldn't be handcuffed from exercising commonsense in such an obvious case as this. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''', was speedily deleted without consensus while TfD discussion is still ongoing at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion]]... --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] '''('''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|Α⇔Ω]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|⇒✉]]''')''''' 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Sorry, this is ''way'' beyond the line. This is an attack template, deletable on sight. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 06:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' and speedy any similar hatemongering. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Look at that. I checked and each and every person here voting for deletion is an administrator. So much for community consensus.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 06:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Look at that. We've been here long enough to realize we're here to write an encyclopedia, not attack people. If you do a bit more research, you'll see this is the first time I've ever supported one of Tony's "out-of-process" speedies; maybe there's a reason for that, eh? -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***Okay, that does it. I was going to abstain, but I'd say this has tipped my opinion just enough to one side. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]]) 07:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I voted ''keep'' at TfD on procedural grounds, but I see no problem extending [[WP:CSD#A6|CSD A6]] to templates per Knowledge Seeker. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]]) 07:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*I'm the person who speedied this. While there has been strong opposition to deletion of belief-based userboxes in general, this seems to fit into a small category of userboxes that exist solely for denigration and disparagement of a group of people. I notice that a few people, for instance [[User:Rogue 9]], have substed the template onto their user pages, and that may be acceptable (I won't make a judgement either way at the moment) because it then falls solely within userspace. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
** Unfortunately, substing has become the only way to protect yourself from waking-up to find your userpage desecrated with red-links with your only chance of review at a board like this one full of like minded people to the admin that deleted all of your boxes without warning anyone.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Most of the people who hang around here would probably be quite insulted to be considered like-minded with Tony. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 08:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***:I wouldn't be, so I guess I don't fit into the "most" category. Userboxes have gotten out of control. I'm thinking a policy change needs implementation--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
****That's why this deletion out of process is an insult to those of us whose vote was "Keep, until a '''general''' policy is in place."
*** Well ''often'' the editors in this most bureaucratic of discussion pages do endorse non-bureaucratic deletions of unsuitable material. So on this issue I think that, despite our differences on form, there is substantial agreement. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation, no matter how much I agree with the userbox (and I agree with the sentiments in this one). --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', and I'm not an admin, God of War. Guess that breaks your conspiracy theory, eh? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 14:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore'''. If this was going to be speedied on a single admin's decision that it was unsuitable, it should have been done at the beginning of the discussion. The fact that for six days the discussion went on without a single admin who looked at it saying "This is clearly speedy-delete material" means that it was ''not'' a case clear enough that one admin should step in at the end and say "I don't care that there is a wide variety of opinions being expressed here, '''I''' only choose to see it one way and because I'm an admin, I will force that on everyone else." -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', does nothing to further the project, is divisive, violates [[WP:CIV]], and is a personal attack on a group of people. Also Tony waited 7 days and then deleted as is his right as an admin, remember WP isn't a democracy.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 18:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**You have got to be ''kidding'' me! "His right as an admin"?! I think you are ''slightly'' confused, because you seem to be mistaken between what Tony did and what a responsible admin might have done. A responsible admin might have checked the date that the discussion started, seen that enough time had elapsed for points and counter-points to be well-discussed, and decided to close the discussion. A responsible admin would then have counted the various votes to assess what the will of the community was, and either announce the results of consensus if the consensus was clear, or use their discretion between the options supported by the community if there was no clear consensus, and then announce at the ongoing discussion what the result was and why. ''This is '''not''' what Tony did.'' What Tony did was to delete the template immediately, unilaterally, and ''not even announce that he'd done so.'' This wasn't an admin legitimately closing the debate; this was a rogue admin using his powers illegitimately to enforce the result ''he'' wanted, and showing his contempt for the process. That is the whole reason this is at [[Wikipedia:deletion review|deletion review]]; people have been casting "Keep deleted" votes as if this was just an extension of the debate about whether or not the template should be deleted. It's not. It's about whether Tony should be looking at a TfD debate and saying "Well, there's a spectrum of opinion here: some people think it should be speedy-deleted, some think it should be regularly deleted, some think it should be kept, some think it should be kept and then reviewed once we have a general policy in place that covers all userboxes of this kind. However, screw them all; not only do their opinions not matter a bit in the face of the fact that ''I'' think it should be speedy-deleted, they don't even deserve to know ''why'' the template suddenly disappeared with no explanation. Why should I bother to explain myself to lowly non-admin users?" -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** '''Comment''' We have [[WP:NPA]] for a reason. An admin acting regarding this acts correctly and frankly the tenor of this response against said admin smacks of violating [[WP:NPA]] too... — [[User:Falerin|Falerin]]<[[User talk:Falerin|talk]]>,<[[Special:Contributions/Falerin|contrib]]> 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''UNDELETE''' and relist at TfD. The problem here is that this is not the first out of process deletion Tony has done, and he has said (in so many words) that it won't be the last. In this case the template discussion was only a '''few hours''' away from being over. This should be brought back and the discussion allowed to run its course, and then properly closed with proper notices. There seem to be a few admins that think that process is unimportant, that their view of the "good of wikipedia" trumps everything else and they can speedy anything they want... I think that's incorrect. [[WP:IAR]] is not an excuse to trample anyone or anything that is "in your way". I am not the only person that thinks that either, given that there seems to be a number of RfCs and RfArs lately addressing this very topic. We have [[WP:NPA]] for very good reasons, but we have [[WP:BITE]] for a reason too. Process is the way to ensure the perception of fairness is maintained. As WP grows, there will be more need for process, or it won't scale. Admins who think the process is flawed should be working to change it, not trample it. (there is an ongoing and robust discussion of Userbox policy as we speak) ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted'''. For all the reasons listed above. [[User:BlankVerse|''Blank'']][[User talk:BlankVerse|''Verse'']] 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted'''. [[WP:NPA]]. A notice on [[WP:TfD]] would have been nice though. -- [[user:Sneltrekker|Sneltrekker]]'''†'''[[User_talk:Sneltrekker|My Talk]] 22:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted'''. "Wikipedia is not a place to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs or their orientation, neither is it the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view." --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' as per [[WP:NPA]] and the many things above. — [[User:Falerin|Falerin]]<[[User talk:Falerin|talk]]>,<[[Special:Contributions/Falerin|contrib]]> 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' Forever, per all of the above. '''''[[User:Banes|Ban]]''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]''[[User_talk:Banes|s]]''''' 09:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Virago]]====
:''See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virago 2]]''
Deleted against the policy; the debate ended in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virago|"no consensus"]], which means that the article stays. Since there was almost no participation in this VfD, it is a fair game for AfD-relisting, but definitelyt not deletion. [[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*The afd debate is actually at [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virago_2]] and is a delete - '''Endorse''' [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure'''. The second discussion was decisive. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' per Rossami. The article was an OR expansion of a dictdef. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 03:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*Sorry, again. My link to the wrong AfD in the deletion log is probably the cause of this. I've restored and redeleted it with the correct link, to the second of the two debates. Apologies again. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' per Rossami. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD the second time 'round. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[LUElinks]]====
I feel that, after [[Ebaumsworld#YTMND|the "raid"]] yesterday, LUElinks merits an article. They did pass the [[WP:WEB]] before it was changed recently, having over 5,000 members, and it's made an impact out of its community many a time (as the [[GameFAQs]] counterpart LUE). It was actually deleted last month for failing WP:WEB, as it is a closed community, of which I am a member. Please see [[Talk:LUElinks]] for discussion '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptr]][[WP:EA|e]]''' ([[User_talk:Sceptre|Talk]]) 21:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Articles about LUElinks have already been deleted several times; The website is inaccessible to outsiders making an article inherently unverifiable; and I still don't see how this meets [[WP:WEB]] guidelines. Site is not notable. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Rhobite. Neither verifiable or notable in any encyclopedic sense. Fails [[WP:WEB]]. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - Starblind 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' This valid title should redirect to [[GameFAQs message boards]], where it is of some notability. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] [[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]] 01:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Um, that wouldn't really be overturning - but I agree. '''Keep deleted''' and '''Protect and Redirect''' to [[GameFAQs message boards]]. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 01:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rewrite'''. LUELinks is significant in the events that it has created/taken part in, such as the (unsuccesful) U.S.-wide UFO Hoax and the recent participation in the Ebuams raid. While I understand that it is difficult to write about a site closed to outsiders, there is enough known information to write into an article, and there are other wikipedia articles written that are also unverifiable. Keeping it deleted seems to suggest that it is not significant to the rest of the internet in any way whatsoever. I also disagree that it should redirect to [[GameFAQs message boards]] because LUELinks is only related to GameFAQS from its conception and userbase. LUELinks is not a GameFAQs board. Making LUELinks a section under the GameFAQs boards would be akin to placing [[4chan]] under the [[Something_Awful_forums]], as 4chan was created in a similar manner (albeit without the privatization of the site to outsiders). [[User:Kyre Elsion|Kyre Elsion]] 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Writing about it is easy. However fact-checking what is written is something that is impossible to most of Wikipedia. Also, the difference between 4-chan and SA and LL and GFAQs is that 4-chan is not closed off to anyone that does not have an SA account. You needed a GFAQs account at some point to get into LL.--[[User:Toffile|Toffile]] 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I enjoy the site, but the verifiability for outsiders and teh fact that outside of the e-Baum's invasion is almost nil in terms of it having an effect on the outside world. Yes, there was the UFO hoax, but that failed. The only other one I can think of was the boxing, but even then....the site in the grand scheme of things is non-notable. As for a redirect to [[GameFAQs]] or [[GameFAQs Message Boards]], I don't support either. I respect that LUELinks has some autonomy from GFAQs, but even then it's really just a spinoff.--[[User:Toffile|Toffile]] 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Tiny Rewrite''': LUELinks has played a part in the YTMND-Day demonstrations, and that should be noted on the page, especially since it is linked directly from [[eBaum's World]]. By all means, keep it limited to that, and keep it protected, but it does deserve a sentence or two noting what it is and how it was involved. And yes, I am a member of LUELinks, although I try to keep as NPOV as possible. [[User:Gtdp|gtdp]] ([[User_talk:Gtdp|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Gtdp|contribs]]) 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**As an extension to my above comment, I would be happy to provide a screenshot of LL's involvement in the riots as a source if the article is re-written (feel free to leave a comment on my talk page if you want to). [[User:Gtdp|gtdp]] ([[User_talk:Gtdp|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Gtdp|contribs]]) 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' and '''redirect and protect'''. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - until someone outside of Ebaumsworld and YTMND cares about "the raid." [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 03:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': It's quite possible to just take screenshots to ensure verificability. The [http://www.luelinks.net LL front page] has a list of recent news articles (visible when not signed in) that were posted and upvoted by LL users; where else would these articles come from if there was not a userbase at the site? In any case, I and probably several other people would be willing to provide screenshots or mirrors to any LL content requird for "verificability." —[[User:Shoecream|shoecream]] 05:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Not only is there no way to know that the screenshots weren't created in Photoshop, but even if they weren't, they'd be primary sources. Wikipedia requires ''secondary'' sources so that we don't run afoul of [[WP:NOR]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*** I can think of a few secondary sources off the top of my head; I believe some blogs and perhaps a news site reported the UFO hoax, so there's at least a few secondary sources to ''prove'' that it exists and has actually done something notable. [[User:Shoecream|shoecream]] 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**** Blogs are not generally considered [[WP:CITE|reliable sources]] for the purposes of [[WP:V|verification]]. News sites get closer but it depends on the site, their reputation and the longevity of their information. A single news site is almost always considered inadequate since it requires multiple independent coverages in order to have any reasonable expectation of a balanced perspective on the issue. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''': The GameFAQs community as a whole does not regard LL as a part of GameFAQs, they played a major organizing role in the eBaums schism, and the inaccessability to outsiders hasn't stopped WP from having articles about groups such as [[Freemasonry]]. [[User:Stevemcl|Steve McLinden]] 00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted and protected'''. Constant vandalism target; inherently unverifiable subject prone to original research when a "real" article. Badly fails [[WP:WEB]]. More original research after the afd is not a convincing reason to overturn. As for the redirect, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the deletion process at [[WP:RFD]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-07]]===

====[[:Category:List of Christian Entertainers]]====
All that is left is subcategories for people of specific faiths.If a person doesn't fit into those categories, there is no longer a place for them.Some people such as Tom Hanks for example don't fit neatly into any sub-category.This list included all Christians both Protestant and Catholic.[[User:California 12|California 12]] 02:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:I am unable to find any evidence that the category for which you are requesting undeletion ever existed. Are you perhaps looking for [[:Category:Christian actors]], [[:Category:Christian writers]], or some other subcategory of [[:Category:Christian people]]? --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Christian Entertainers did exist.You can find it on google search.I had contributed quite a bit to it and was suprised to find it gone.However I did not realize the lists that you mentioned above existed.In light of this I will add some of the names that were lost on the other list which was much longer.And will withdraw my request for the deletion review as I did not realize there was a list that was similar.Although it is a shame that the info off the other list was not merged with these.Thanks
.[[User:California 12|California 12]] 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

*Do you mean [[List of Christian entertainers]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian entertainers|afd]])? [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's it.Maybe it could be brought back with a different title.Perhaps it could be called List of Entertainers who are Christians? Would that be allowed?
[[User:California 12|California 12]] 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

*The closure of that debate was pretty questionable: strictly on the numbers, it was only 60% for deletion, and it appears that some effort ''was'' made to resolve the concerns of those who voted delete as the nomination progressed. You could take it up with the closing admin, [[User:Enochlau]], on his talk page, or ask here for the article to be undeleted, in which case it quite possibly would be. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 08:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I hate to keep going back and forth , but with the information you've just given me I would like to request the page be undeleted.I don't care that much about the name, it's the content that matters.I've never requested an article be undeleted before.If I'm not going about it correctly then I apologize and please don't hesitate to admonish me if I am doing this incorrectly.The thing that bothers me is if there is a list of famous people who just happened to be atheist, so why not a list of famous people who happen to be Christians? Is this not the fair and neutral thing? As a Christian I have no urge to delete the atheist list.[[User:California 12|California 12]]01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''comment''': IMHO this list should stay deleted, and be replaced with a Category. Lists such as this are inherently hard to maintain, whereas Cats are self-updating. I would also, as a parenthetical remark, vote Delete if a List of Atheist Entertainers showed on Afd. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]] 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please pardon my ignorance but could you direct me to a page explaining the list versus category ? Also with regards to the atheist list I do strongly believe it sends a very biased message to allow some lists with regards to a certain situation while omitting the other side of the coin.[[User:California12|California 12]]10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:User:Zigger has a partially written FAQ: [[User:Zigger/Categorisation_FAQ#What_is_the_difference_between_a_list_and_a_category.3F]], there is a talk page at [[Wikipedia talk:Merge some redundant lists to categories]] which may help explain a bit, and if you have any further questions please bring to my talk page - there are major advantages to having this as a Category, and lists have a lot of inherent problems. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]] 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok after reading this it occurs to me that it might be better to bring back Christian Entertainers as a category, rather than a list? Because the Christian actors category listed above leaves no place for other types of entertainers.So perhaps it could be renamed? If something on this order is allowed, then perhaps it would not be needed to bring back the list.I would like to thank those who took the time to explain the categories vs. list to me as I have used the category link on several pages and not even realized it wasn't the same as a list.I don't want to clutter this page with my ramblings so will bring the discussion to Killer Chihuahua's page or mine at least temporarily.
.[[User:California12|California 12]]01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Lists and categories, although rather similar in intent and display are implemented differeently, and considered different things on wikipedia. The previous deletion of a list in no way prevents anyoen from simply creating a category, and marking appropriate articles as members of that category. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[:Category:German-American mobsters]]====
As creator of this category I was neither notified of its nomination or of its deletion. However, the main arguments for deletion seem to be over categorization by way of (at least in my opinion) the debatable categorization of "ethnic group of Americans by profession" and underpopulated.

First, I believe there are at least some instances where categorization by ethnicity is appropriate and within organized crime essential for the classification of American organized crime figures as, in the US alone, diffrent organized crime groups are identified specifically by ethnicity (with the exception of syndicate organizations). From a historical perpectictive, it has remained a source of conflict between rival organizations for well over a century.

As for the category's unperpopulation, had this been brought to my attention I would have at least entered it into [[:Category:Underpopulated categories]], particularly for a category which has been around for only a few months, if not compiled a few more articles. This does raise a concern however as I have many categories which are more or less underpopulated (such as [[:Category:Asian-American mobsters]] and [[:Category:Polish-American mobsters]]) which, as set by the recent vote for deletion, despite the fact there are quite a few notible mobsters to be able to fill those appropriate categories.

However, compiling each one myself is quite time consuming (my early work on the Irish mobsters has now around 60+ articles) and thus many categories appear underpopulated. This issue has been brought up several times are far back as the recreation of [[:Category:Italian-American mobsters]] and yet categories continue to be deleted or nominated for deletion fairly quickly. I hope someone can look into this and hopefully settle this issue. [[User:MadMax|MadMax]] 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - Two things. Firstly, reading the CfD, it appears the concern with overcatergorisation stands in as concern with underpopulation: I'd say underpopulatioon is the main concern cited in that CfD discussion. Second, why can't [[:Category:American mobsters]] be populated first, and only when enough entries appear create subcategories? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 01:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:*As of a year ago it was fully populated before it was cleared out to make the present subcategories by myself, [[User:Stefanomione|Stefanomione]], and a few others. The articles themselves can easily be added back to the [[:Category:American mobsters]] however given the large numbers of article which exist I'd think it might seem a bit redundant to have them listed in that category as well. Unfortunatly, as there are only a few which I'm aware of, organized crime contributions are slow in coming and, as a result, categories are often underpopulated (not to mention the uncategorized article I come across now and again). If this category were empty for at least a year or more I could see the concern, however, deleting the category without even listing it on underpopulated categories, I fail to see the chance for Users to work on it (as I personally can only work on one category at a time). [[User:MadMax|MadMax]] 04:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:::So how many articles are there that would go in this category? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Presently there were only two existing articles, however more then twenty articles could be added in Chicago alone (including the Chicago crime syndicate). I suppose notibility would be a factor, however I would estimate around 100 depending on how far back one would include as organized crime such as Micheal Cassius MacDonalds organization or California's Barabary Coast. [[User:MadMax|MadMax]] 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''Endorse decision, keep deleted''' - It's a natural enough category, but until it has more currently existing entries, the articles should go in [[:Category:American mobsters]]. Starting a ''List of German-American mobsters'' might be helpful. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''Undelete'''. I'm going to go with the category creator on this one. Organized crime in the United States has often organized itself on an ethnic basis. This hinders infiltration by law enforcement and enhances the criminals' power over their respective communities. It is misleading to categorize such people generically. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 18:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[List of anti-heroes]]====
:''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anti-heroes]]''

:''Note: I have never made an edit to this article, so my following arguments are not slighted in that regard. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]]''

When it was deleted earlier today, this article was nearly three years old and had over 700 edits. [[User:Howcheng]] deleted it despite a 20+% ''keep'' sentiment. The article that has been worked on by '''''over 100''''' regiestered users and dozens of anonymous (nearly 30 of which made three or more edits) and not one saw it fit to nominate it for deletion. Moreover, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Talk:List_of_anti-heroes TALK page] of the article was used civilly, apporpriately and successfully to make the article better. Certainly, VfD nominator [[User:CaveatLector]] could have used the TALK page to work with the contributors in improving the article. Certainly some of the compliants voiced in the VfD could have been addressed in the TALK page.

I think it is a diservice to these contributors to leave them out of the VfD process. Yes, yes, you'll say, they had their chance - but I don't think you realize that VfD tags often go unnoticed. Tags can get buried in or vanish from watchlists; users can be away. Contributors should be not punished for this. Indeed, I considered notifying eighteen of the registered contributors who had made 3+ edits to tell them to tell them of the VfD - NOT to campaign, but to let them know - as a service to them and the community. Before I did, I asked in two places ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#etiquette_and_VfD] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#etiquette_and_VfD]) to get an idea of how and if such notification should be done. By the time I started getting answers, though, it was too late.

Therefore, I propose the article be re-instated because:
#20+% voted to keep
#issues with defining anti-hero and with renaming the article can be cleared up in TALK
#over 100 people have worked on the article and successfully used TALK to resolve matters

Sincerely, [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 21:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse/keep deleted'''. I see absolutely nothing wrong with process. An argument based on the number of edits and contributors is faulty, and has nothing to do with deletion process. In fact, too often with lists like this too many contributors are the problem; people add anything/anyone that comes into their mind with no discussion, and these lists quickly become unmaintainable, POV, and meaningless. I believe [[List of heroes]] was deleted under similar circumstances. I'm starting to think it's about time to nominate [[List of unusual personal names]] for similar reasons. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**i think contributors have a right to know that their work is being considered for deletion. tagging an article is not sufficient. ideally i think all significant contributors (who are registered) should be personally notified. since that is not practical, then at least the originator of the article should be personally notified (if that person is registered). this is about courtesy and kindness. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
***And ''I'' think a vast majority of the crap on AfD should be deleted on sight. I also think zucchini is an overrated vegetable. Anyway, if people really care about an article and their contributions to it they'll keep it on their watchlist. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**R fiend, VfD tags don't make it to watchlists. if a VfD tag is added at 8 PM and another edit on the article happens at 9 PM and someone looks at their watchlist at 9:15pm, that VfD tag is missed. a kinder, gentler way is for the VfD nominator to personally alert the creator of the article. it should be part of the VfD process - if not formally, than customarily. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
***If someone adds an AfD template to an article, it certainly does appear on the watchlist. If another change is made afterwards, that doesn't make the earlier change disappear; anyone clicking the "diff" on the newest edit will also see the entire article appear below the highlighted change, and a big old AfD template is hard to miss. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
**you're expecting someone on a more than weekly basis to click on "diff" on each of their 1800 watchlist articles? it just doesn't work that way. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
***Well, no one has to have 1800 articles on their watchlist, and, yes, I would expect people to pretty carefully check the articles that are most important to them. If all you're doing is looking at the summary of the last edit to any article you aren't really watching it, and maybe your watchlist should be brought down to a more managable number. A potential solution I can think of is to try to introduce a system in which tags are posted on talk pages as well, since they generally get fewer edits the "AFD" summary won't be pre-empted as frequently by more recent edits. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
**plenty of people have 1000s in their watchlists. it helps broaden the scope against vandalism. nevertheless, things still get past watchlists. a potential system i can think of is for the VfD nominator to courteously inform the author of the article that said article has been nominated. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted). The AFD discussion was fair and balanced and considered the case for and against the article. I see no process problems with this decision. Please remember that no user can review every article or even every deletion discussion. The nature of a wiki is that we trust that enough interested users ''are'' watching that the right thing gets done. Kingturtle is correct that some users who worked on versions of this article may not have had the chance to participate in the debate. It is equally true that other users did not get to participate who may have opposed the article but weren't motivated enough to nominate it themselves. In a perfect world, we'd all have unlimited time and interest. The real processes are messier but they do seem to work. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**I do not think it is fair. simply tagging an article for deletion does not announce the nomination properly. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Arguments given on VfD were convincing. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**many of those arguments could have been hashed out in the TALK page. that is what TALK pages are for. if there are concerns about the title of the article or the how to define words, discuss it in TALK. that article had a very lengthy and well-used TALK page. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. I believe that what those who want to keep the list deleted are voicing here amounts to a misguided attempt at democracy (no one is excluded from voting, it's your job to stay informed) which shows a striking likeness to a [[Point_of_no_return#False_Rubicons|False Rubicon]]. Kingturtle has pointed out very well how hard it is to keep up to date about such things. If one single user had been in a different mood and had not put up this article for deletion it would have gone unnoticed for a long time to come. Please do not delude yourselves into thinking that everything is okay if collaborative work of more than three years is destroyed on the whim of a handful of deletionists. [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**Although I don't really care about the article one way or another, saying that the article might have gone unnoticed for a long time is not a reason to keep it. The reason to keep the article should be that it's NPOV and properly referenced. Collaborative work on a non-encyclopedic article should not stay regardless of how much work is put into it. That's a [[sunk cost]]. We judge the article based on its contents, not on how much effort went into it. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***What you write about is not what I'm saying, and anyway this is not the place for a discussion—that would have been the article's talk page (or [[Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Deleting_lists.2C_and_a_proposal|this discussion page]]). Does the "we" in "We judge the article ..." exclude me? Who is "we"? [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
****"We" = people who are experienced in AfD discussions. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 07:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*****Oh. [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 09:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. If the most convincing argument available for restoration is "awww, shucks, it had some edits" then I'm really not persuaded. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**some edits? this was an article worked on for years by dozens of users. it should be common courtesy to alert contributors that their work is under consideration for deletion. it is common courtesy. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close'''. 9D/3K looks like a fairly clear consensus to me, and I see no process problems. The arguments against the article were spelled out in the AfD in some detail, and look reasonable and fairly convincing. No process problems, no issues raised but ignored, no new info provided here, no policy violations. Sorry. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 22:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**er...75% is not a consensus. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' I feel the deletion is unfortunate, but to be perfectly honest it wasn't an article, or a subject, in which I had much emotional or intellectual investment. [[User:Lee M|Lee M]] 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close''' and keep deleted. This is a prime example of listcruft; the Afd process was followed. The argument given for undeletion is not germane, per DESiegal. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]] 23:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**keep your mind open to topics that others find interesting. just because it isn't up your alley doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone else. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' as per DESiegel. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' per DESiegel. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' 20% is not exactly a close result, its not like 40% voted keep. Also, basing the overturning of a deletion on the number of edits and editors does not act as a sufficient reason - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**No? Who says so? Before this is repeated over and over and over again, let me point out for a second time that I've tried to describe the problem I see at [[Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Deleting_lists.2C_and_a_proposal|this discussion page]]. [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
***80% is not a consensus. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
****I will normally close 10K / 21D as a delete, and so will many other admins. This is far stronger than that. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 17:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
****Not that much stronger. 9/3 means a 25% keep. If '''one single person''' had decided that the page was worth a keep instead of a delete, the vote would be 8/4, or a 33% keep. Or a less than 70% consensus for deletion, and it is very likely that the closing admin might have changed their evaluation. Seems a shame that a three-year old article's fate can swing on a single voter like that. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' The delete votes in the AfD makes a set of very good points about the innate problems with the article; the fact that many people have laboured on a bad article is unfortunate, but not sufficient to redeem the subject. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the closure was flawed. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**Having fun, aren't you? As I can see, the same "argument" is being repeated over and over and over again. Please point me to the guideline/policy/whatever where it says that "the fact that many people have laboured on a bad article is unfortunate, but not sufficient to redeem the subject". What were all those people thinking when they contributed? That they were taking part in a futile effort that would eventually be deleted by a small set of other people? Meanwhile, for the third time, these are my reasons for wanting to have this list undeleted (from [[Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Deleting_lists.2C_and_a_proposal]]):
**:While I agree that "lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations", recent deletions of what at least some consider useful lists have alerted me. True, the above [[List of anti-heroes]] ("a prime example of listcruft", according to one deletionist) should have been called [[List of fictional anti-heroes]] to make it absolutely clear that no politicians or other real people must be added.
**:"The usefulness of lists in Wikipedia is very clear as it often provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject." Search printed encyclopaedias or other reference material, search the Internet—some of the lists here at Wikipedia are unique, or were until they were deleted (just think of [[List of song titles phrased as questions]]). (Fortunately, Wikipedia mirror sites still have those lists.) As for literature lists, students of literature browsing such a list may find valuable advice on what books to choose and read.
**:There is hardly any problem with [[WP:NOR|original research]] as, by definition, a list of titles is, if anything, the basis for research rather than research itself. [[WP:V|Verifiability]] depends on the individual list—song titles phrased as questions are no problem. The same holds true for the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy.
**:My point is that [[fiction]] needs to be treated as a special case as far as verifiability and NPOV are concerned (see [[:Category:Literature lists]] for examples). The [[List of fictional war heroes]], which has also been put up for deletion, is a case in point. I claim that the vast majority of people who use the Internet to consult an encyclopaedia are mature enough not to believe every word they read. Additionally, a special template (to be created) might point them to the fact not that the list is incomplete and they should add something to it but that it is deliberately so and will always contain contentious items because it is in the nature of fiction to be debatable. Thus, to me such a ''[[sapere aude]]'' hint would be most welcome. Each and everyone can make up their own mind: This, I believe, is part of [[human nature]]. The alternative, which is currently being practised, is wholesale deletion, which is radical and to all intents and purposes counterproductive but nothing else.
**:Problems inherent in the collaborative nature of this project must be considered and dealt with, not deleted. How long will it take until someone calls the [[List of film remakes]] (which already has that stupid <nowiki>{{listdev}}</nowiki> tag) POV, unmaintainable, ambiguous, incomplete, too short, too long, unmanagable, unreferenced, unencyclopaedic, unbalanced? In the long run, what will happen with the [[List of years in literature]] pages if people keep adding births, deaths, "events", and book titles? Will they all have to be deleted?
**:"9D/3K looks like a fairly clear consensus to me, and I see no process problems", writes one deletionist at [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_anti-heroes]], and subsequent contributors mutely endorse him. However, in [[democracy|democratic thought]], [[voting]] is an '''alternative''' to, not a synonym for, [[consensus decision-making]]. But this is quite a different problem, which I'll have to address at some other place. [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**:*As soon as someone starts namecalling, I start filtering out everything they say. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**:**Excuse me, what are you referring to? [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 05:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**:***Your use of "deletionist" in an obviously pejorative sense. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''comment'''. i have had this complaint about VfD for a long time. we are going down a slippery slope if 80% is considered a consensus. we are also going down a slippery slope if we don't have the common courtesy to alert contributors that their work is under review for deletion. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**It's [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], not [[wikt:consensus|consensus]]. If Wikipedia decisionmaking required actual consensus, nothing would ever happen. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
***i know that there is a difference, and wikipedia's notion of consensus is absurd. we should use the term super-majority, because consensus is the wrong word. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
****You're right about that, but the word is ingrained into Wikipedia culture. That's a change that just won't happen. Whenever you read "consensus", just think "rough consensus" or "supermajority". [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 06:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**I'm pleased that Kingturtle is volunteering to go through today's AfD log and drop each contributor to each article a note on their talk pages regarding their article's AfD. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
***That's neat - someday I'd like this to be a software feature... oh, and '''Keep Deleted'''. I would have voted delete myself too and remember this afd - along with KingTurtle's commentary which seemed to [[appeal to emotion]] rather than addressing the actual problems with the article. Anyway, that's really a side note as the AfD was quite valid in nearly every way. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 22:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
****If any, what are the "actual problems with the article"? A reference to an (almost) "quite valid AfD" is immaterial here: If the deletion of the list had violated Wikipedia's deletion policy we would not be having a discussion here and the article would immediately have been restored. I believe it is '''new''' arguments which, for some reason or other, were not mentioned during the AfD process that count here. However, new arguments seem to be generously ignored or sidetracked here ("As soon as someone starts namecalling, I start filtering out everything they say"). Also, I don't think Kingturtle's mention of the many contributors to this article is an appeal to emotion: If dozens of people over a period of more than three years collaboratively create an article they do so in good faith and because they want to improve Wikipedia—we might consider their contributions to the deleted article keep votes [[eo ipso]]. ([[Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia/Alternative_version#Literature_lists|more]]) [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist on AfD''' - There's a serious problem with the article that was deleted, namely that it is a magnet for POV and unverifiable claims, and CaveatLector put together a good AfD. I am nonethless unhappy with it: I think that, despite its flaws, the list brought together at that page had value (was it an anti-list? Nevermind...) and given the long history and much work put into the page, the main question asked at the AfD should not have been: does this list meet our standards, but can this list be repaired? I think that, given the definition at [[anti-hero]], the list could be and deserves a second hearing. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I dislike the new fashion for deleting talk pages when executing delete decisions. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. That's not a new trend. Deciding whether or not to delete the orphaned Talk Page is a long-standing rule - a required step of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|Deletion process]] since the first version of that page and, before that, a required step in the [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators|Deletion guidelines for administrators]]. For those not familiar with it, deletion of the associated Talk page is not an absolute rule (though the vast majority of such Talk pages are deleted). The deleting admin is required to make a decision about whether or not the Talk page should be preserved. By long tradition, that decision is left to the admin's discretion. We do not require a second deletion discussion to make the decision. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
***Sorry I missed this. On policy, I stand corrected, but I have quite often seen marooned talk pages, and have frequently found them useful. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. First, I have problems with some of the math used. By my count, there were 9 delete votes, and 3 keep votes. That leads to a 25% keep faction, and a 75% delete faction. I think that the age and amount of work on the article should also be a factor: certainly the fact that it has been around and hevily edited for three years at least discounts the "unmaintainable" arguments. The AfD process is entirely too random and arbitrary. I think if this had been nominated some other week, the votes could have easily been 10d/2k, or 8/4, or even 6/7, depending on who happened to be reading AfD that week. Therefore, especially in the case of established articles with a long history, the bar for deletion should be set higher than 75%. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Undelete'''. While I think that the ''process'' was proper, this is one of those instances where deletion review should look at the big picture. We are supposed to work on consensus. Can we really say that there is a "consensus to delete" an article that over '''100 registered editors''' worked on simply because '''nine''' people in a particular five day period expressed a desire to delete, particluarly when the nominee (as most nominees do, including me) only pointed out the reasons to delete. Note that no one during the voting pointed out the facts that Kingturtle does. Lets put it back on AfD with both the pros and the cons and see how it fares. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] [[User_talk:DS1953|talk]] 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure.''' There is no bar for ratio of participants in AfD to editors of the article, no quota for how long or short an article's history must be before we can delete it, and certainly no requirement that we notify anyone. You edit an article, and if you care about it you watch over it. Part of the beauty of the self-selection excercise is impartiality of participants. Lists in particular attract large numbers of editors, and I despair at the thought of the sorting out the mess if we involved every one. The process works well enough, and these are all bad ways we're talking about changing it. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:*Aaron, at least on my part, I don't think I am arguing to change anything. I made two points. First, the statement at the top of this page says that undoing a deletion is proper if you "have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate". I am saying that the information posted by Kingturtle was relevant to the discussion and should be aired. Second, there have been discussions in the past about how many delete "votes" is "enough" or whether, for example, debate should be extended. Nine votes is far more than necessary for most articles. On the other hand, if a former Featured Article made it through an AfD vote with a 4-0 delete vote, I would be very disappointed if the closer did not question whether 4 votes to delete an article that probably had a hundred hours invested in it really represented a consensus to delete. I hope that is not a change, because if everyone is so rigidly evaluating "consensus" that they would allow 4 people to delete a Featured Article then we ought to automate the counting and eliminate the personal judgment instead of pretending to determine consensus. I am not arguing for this article to be kept, just that 9 delete votes on the facts before us is not a consensus to delete. Relist, post the relevant facts - pro and con - and let the people decide. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] [[User_talk:DS1953|talk]] 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
::*What is this based on? A supposition that a relisting will magically have the effect of 50 participants, when getting 12 (not 9) in the first place is highly unusual? It might, and statistically probably would, get fewer participants; will we relist the relisting because the relisting of the relisting didn't get enough? Are the original 12's opinion somehow not good enough? Kingturtle's 'information' relies on looking at the history of the article — this was available to all at the time of the AfD and is hardly new information. Posting the relevant facts, pro and con, was doing already, and I don't see how "aww, shucks, it's got some edits" makes an article either good, encyclopedic, or keepable. And, incidentally, you imply that the people were excluded from things the first time around; I wonder how you have reached such a conclusion? -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*Splash, I'll take your points in the reverse order since the last two are the easiest to answer. I don't know what I said that you think implies that people were excluded from the AfD but no such implication was intended. I also don't think that a large number of edits make "an article either good, encyclopedic, or keepable" and again, no such implication was intended. I don't suggest that anyone should vote "keep" on any basis other than whether the article is one which should be kept under the applicable standards. My only concern is that AfD is not infallable and that nine editors voting to delete may express the consensus of the voters during that five day period but seems to hardly represent a consensus of Wikipedians when so many editors have contributed to the article over a three year period. This is an uncommon situation. And you are absolutely correct that Kingturtle's information was available to anyone who wanted to delve into the page's history and talk page. However, I think that as the number of pages on AfD has continued to grow, it is unrealistic to assume that ''potential'' voters will do any more than read what is on the AfD page. Hopefully, those that are attracted to stop and record their opinion will look at the history and talk pages but from all appearances many simply parrot the previous opinions and don't even look at the page itself, let alone the talk page and history. Finally, I don't know if relisting on AfD will get more attention, but if the pros and cons are both set out succinctly, that is about all that we can ask of the process. If the result is still 9-3 in favor of deletion, we can't guess the opinion of those who chose not to express their choice (or more likely, were unaware of AfD). What all this boils down to is simply that in those relatively rare instances that we think that the AfD ''process'' hasn't worked well as a process, we should try to fix it. We can't fix all the problems at once, but this one seems easy to do. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] [[User_talk:DS1953|talk]] 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This is absurd, on multiple counts. First of all, assuming that the 100+ edits actually wanted to keep the article is downright silly - some people are nuetral and others might have just worked on the article because they couldn't take it any more (the reason why I work on some schools...). Second, the argument that the opening statement biases it is wrong - I've heard that argument a million times on [[WP:RM]], people asking me to do it over etc., but it just doesn't pan out and you get the same result anyway. This was a valid AfD if I ever saw one - as the burden of proof was on the nominator to give a good reason to delete the article and he/she did so, and the following keeps simply didn't have much of a reason at all to keep the article. "It's been here a long time and had lots of editors" is an [[appeal to emotion]] and ultimately has little to do with the validity of the article. "I want to make the same argument again because this article had lots of editors" is ''not'' a reason for relisting, in fact it is probably offensive to those who took the time on the first one, especially since they already heard that argument. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - Kingturtle's (possibly) facetious arguments about the definition of [[wikt:consensus|consensus]] notwithstanding, this seems to have followed process. Old lists can be better served by categorization in many cases. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse closure'''. FWIW, I'm one of those 100+ who edited the list, and also one of the nine who voted to delete for the reasons given in the AfD. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Actually, you did not give a reason, you merely suggested possibly a redirect to [[anti-hero]] or [[List of heroes]] (the latter of which was not redlinked because it was deleted and given the salt-the-earth treatment). [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete''' and re-list. I am particularly worried about the closing admin's comment "Yikes, this article was almost three years old!": are we to take it that all the old articles should be cleared out to make room? Also note that the "discussion" took place over the New Year holiday, which makes it less likely that people were available to notice that it was taking place. The comment "anything that classes [[Rincewind]] and [[Thomas Covenant]] as the same sort of person is too vague" implies that the editor has failed to appreciate the point of what an [[anti-hero]] is. Lastly, the discussion raises the worry that the old nastiness of "list-cruft, die, die, die!" is rearing its ugly head again: there are many precedents for having lists on Wikipedia, we even have [[Wikipedia:featured lists|featured lists]] for crying out loud. HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 10:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Mostly excellent points, but I understood the closing admins intent was to say: now we see that the article isn't worthy of inclusion - look how long it's been messing up WP. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 11:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**For the record, if this had not happened around the New Year, I would have more than likely seen it and voted keep. (Of course, other deletionists may have also voted, but at least I've be a little happier with a larger number of people participating). [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' Having watched the article in question degenerate into a list of people who aren't perfectly virtuous, I voted to have it deleted because I felt it was a lost cause. Any attempt at a [[List of fictional anti-heroes]] would be better off starting from scratch. -[[User:Rjo|Rjo]] 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Godcasting]]====
'''This by howcheng, on [[Godcasting]]'''

Please note that this article has been deleted yet again and the page is now protected from re-creation. You wrote on the article page, "To not have an entry for Godcasting shows an anti-religion censorship by Wikipedia and I think this might be best brought to the media's attention." This is not censorship; the article was deleted appropriately in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy, primarily because the term is a neologism and no verification up to the standards that we require has been provided. If in fact the term has made it into the mainstream, you should cite reliable sources on Talk:Godcasting and I and other administrators will re-evaluate and restore the page. If you feel the deletion has been out of process, please visit Wikipedia:Deletion review and make your case there. Regards, howcheng {chat} 07:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

'''This by CentrOS'''

This may have been true many months ago when this was first created, but it certainly is not true today. You said: "If in fact the term has made it into the mainstream, you should cite reliable sources". A simple Google search of "godcast" returns 103,000 results. This is mainstream. On that Google search you'll find that '''Business Week''' http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2005/tc20050525_0375_tc_211.htm has an article entitled '''Need a Lift? Try a Godcast'''. Again, showing not only is the term in the '''mainstream''', but is used by exceedingly '''reliable sources'''. This meets both the requirements you asked for, and a simple Google search could have saved both of us a lot of trouble. I don't believe I need to present any further evidence due to the weight of what i have already presented. Please reinstate the article and I will build a deeper history and provide more information over the next few days. And BTW, the term "godcasting" has 149,000 entries on Google and as you scan the entries you will see MANY are from mainstream AND reliable sources.
[[User:CentrOS|CentrOS]] 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn/Undelete''' Term has entered mainstream and has been used by many reliable sources [[User:CentrOS|CentrOS]] 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''', seems notable, but I'd still like to let the community decide. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|(talk)]] 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''', let the community decide as above. FWIW, I get 149,000 Google hits. It might also help to see the article circa Dec 24, 2005-- [http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:dt1EByD_OoIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godcasting+godcasting&hl=en] —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 12:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' on AfD. Now that this term has hit the mainstream, it deserves to be examined again. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', 232 unique Google hits is not mainstream. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 16:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**Just curious, how are you coming up with 232? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***Type in Godcast in Google and Search for it. I get "Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for Godcast". But if you go to the last page of the returned search, which is Page 24, it says "231 - 232 of about 101,000". That means all of those hits are multiple occurrences on a page. Not on ''the same'' page, of course, but only 232 pages have this word on them. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
****Zoe, you are making a common technical error. Google's process is to select the first 1000 results and then eliminate redunancies without replacement. So the best that can be said is that of the top 1000 results on Google for Godcast, ~77% are viewed as being redundant. This says nothing at all about the remaining 100,000 results as google will never in any case give more than 1000 results even when insructed to show duplicates. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. No substantial change in usage from last AfD vote and I would have classed this as a dicdef. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*The article was hardly more than a dicdef, so I don't see a point to restoring. The term is already mentioned in [[Podcasting]], so I've made this into a redirect. If it's still too much of a neologism, I wouldn't really object to the redirect going away, but it seems fairly harmless to me. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
* ''[[WP:NPA|personal attack deleted]]'' [[User:Xerves|Xerves]] 18:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*The point in restoring it is quite simple. Religious podcasts, godcasts, are dominating the podcast landscape. It is by far and away the largest single genre and has been legitimately coined by many as podcasting's killer app, and for good reason. In the history of anything, the driving force, or a significant force behind the success of such, is something that should be recorded. The argument that it was a stub and had little content is not valid as I have already agreed to expand it once restored, and I can get others to do so as well. Religion, whether you like it or not, has and always will play an enormous part of our lives. How religion is influencing new technology, in this case podcasting, is important enough to have its own entry and not just a redirect from [[podcasting]]. Should we should remove Princess Diana and just put a redirect to the Royal Family? This is akin to what we have here. Please do not censor religion on the Wikipedia. The history of godcasting needs to be documented and preserved. Thank you.
*Err, the article is "alive" again. It's been made into a redirect, unredirected and made into an article again, and subsequently re-redirected. Unless there are lingering concerns over the deletion, I think we're done here. If people have opinions on whether to redirect, thats a matter for [[Talk:Godcasting]]. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*Let's not argue over semantics. A redirect is NOT a restoration of the entry. There are effectively 4 votes to restore the article and only one to delete it, so we have a clear consensus. Zoe's vote does not count because it is based on in an incorrect assertion. Please remove the redirect and allow the entry to stand on its own so I may edit it. [[User:CentrOS|CentrOS]] 07:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**I restored the article with the ''BusinessWeek'' reference you supplied. As [[User:Friday|Friday]] says, it's really now a discussion for [[Talk:Godcasting]] and beyond the purview of DRV. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 07:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''''Excuse me!!!!!''''' MY VOTE DOESN'T COUNT? Who the '''''hell''''' made '''''you''''' God? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
***You seem...tense. [[User:Extreme Unction|Ξxtreme Unction]]|[[User talk:Extreme Unction|yakkity yak]]<;/sub> 22:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
****You might say that. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 02:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*Re-List and un-delete. -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 04:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* I cannot see why this is being debated. There is what looks like a perfectly good article there now. I willl now restore the earlier (deleted) revisions in case they may be useful to people wanting to write some other article (there seems to be no suggestion of overriding legal issues which would have contraindicated this). --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Saugeen Stripper]]====

Why was this article deleted? AfD result was non consensus, with the decision that the article would be kept. But now it is gone? Can someone please undelete? This was cleary done in error.? [[User:Tokyojoe2002|Tokyojoe2002]] 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*According to the deletion log: "[[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] deleted "Saugeen Stripper" (undoing failure of AFD)". '''overturn out-of-process deletion.''' If someon thinks than an AfD "failed" that person should either re-nominate or bring the matter here. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**Thanks for the help DES. We had a pretty lively week long discussion on this page that got a lot of feedback. if was a reasonably even split, slight edge to delete but no consensus and admin decided to keep it. Frustrating that a week of good debate disregarded like that, and glad it was undeleted. Thanks again. [[User:Tokyojoe2002|Tokyojoe2002]] 18:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***Technically, a ''no consensus'' is an automatic keep. I didn't really decide anything, and still believe the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mind]][[User_talk:Mindmatrix|matrix]] 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
****No, I understand, I just meant that whoever closed the AfD declared that it was a non consensus/auto keep. I value your opinion, and appreciated that you stuck to process. I think this is truly a divided issue. I do believe, however, that there was sufficient discussion in the AfD to have all viewpoints heard, and to make it clear that while there is an arguement not to keep, as you share, there certainly are valid arguments to keep, and hopefully we can all just ''''agree to disagree''' and the issue can be laid to rest. [User:Tokyojoe2002|Tokyojoe2002]] 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*You people have absolutely no idea what the term "encyclopedic" means, I guess. On the other hand I am not surprised that it's already undeleted. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 19:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**I have a very good idea what the term "'''out-of-process'''" means. If you felt this was unencyclopedic (although coverage in multiple major newspapers makes at least an argument for encyclopedic inclusion) you could have 1) brought the matter here -- this page reveiws allegedly improper keeps as well as allegedly improper deletions, or 2) started a new AfD nomination in which you made your views clearer. IMO simply ignoring the lack of expressd consensus to delete and deleting unilaterally was wrong in this case, and is almost always wrong. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***And it does not help, Adam, when you do this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saugeen_Stripper&diff=34143882&oldid=34127158] [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
****adam now has tried to redirect again for a second time. Clearly, he has no desire to obey or follow established processes. [[User:Tokyojoe2002|Tokyojoe2002]] 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**Adam, I can sympathize with the fact that you want the article deleted - I think it should go too, and expressed that sentiment on the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper|AfD]]. However, we have to take into account the AfD process (which I think is ineffective in some cases, but that's a different matter). I don't think any administrator should have the privilege to delete an article without some broader justification, which is the very reason AfD and CSD exist. In this instance, undeletion is appropriate from the perspective of "process", and most likely a follow-up AfD will ensue. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mind]][[User_talk:Mindmatrix|matrix]] 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**Adam's comments on [[Talk:Saugeen Stripper]] even indicate he knew he was working out-of-process and that it was likely to be reversed. I've had at least one article that I felt had no place in Wikipedia, but the community didn't agree with me. Learn to live with it. [[User:Wrathchild-K|Wrathchild]] 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***And he's a sore loser. See: [[Template:Frown]]
*'''Relist'''. There is obviously some unresolved controversy here, and the result could have gone either way, depending on the closer. There was, at least, a solid majority for deletion, which could have been considered a consensus by some. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. Tokyojoe2002's listed this at [[WP:RFP]]. Not touching that one with a 10-foot pole. · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']][[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]/[[User:Katefan0/Poll|mrp]] 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***I would support a '''relist'''. Stripping in dorms? Hardly a first...and very unencyclopedic. To Adam: please follow the standard processes. — [[User:TheKMan|'''TheKMan''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|talk]] 09:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*I would also support a '''Relist''' although I doubt that enough consensus will emerge to delete this. Unfortunately, too many contributors conflate news with encyclopedic notability. Obviously, some random coed stripping incident is not encyclopedic and it is discouraging that people express interest in retaining material like this. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 21:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**It's now looking like the residence hall where this took place has a long-standing reputation for being a "wild" place. I am now thinking that this article should be merged to the article about the residence hall where it took place, along with any other verifiable information that can be gleaned. [[User:Wrathchild-K|Wrathchild]] 23:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
***And I would likely argue that an article on the residence hall should be included in an article on the college. Maybe this could be smerged there, but I suppose that's more of an issue for AfD than for DRV. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete (and perhaps relist)''', deleting against the concensus of AFD is a bad thing. Adam should have followed procedure or ask Mindmatrix to review his own decision. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 11:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*AFAIK this has already been '''undelete'''d, but I'd prefer it was merged into the article about the residence hall (which has notability, see [[Talk:Saugeen-Maitland_Hall|talk page]]). -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Note:''' currently changed to a redirect to [[Saugeen-Maitland Hall]] (which has a short blurb on the ''Saugeen Stripper''). — [[User:TheKMan|'''TheKMan''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|talk]] 03:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-06]]===

====[[The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler]]====
See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler]]

The article about this well-known blog was deleted as a result of GNAA members teaming up and voting. Skrewler, Femmina, Timecop, supers, Eusebeus have voted in concert to delete many blog articles, listed [[User:Timecop/The war on blogs|here]]. Many of these users contribute nothing to Wikipedia other than delete votes on blog-related articles. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 03:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler|Looking]] at this poor excuse for a discussion, the "keep" crowd failed to provide anything to counter the argument put forward by the nominator. A puacity of meaningful exchange does not an invalid closure make. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**So in the world of Aaron Brenneman, "keep" voters are required to cite external sources but "delete" voters can vote "nn" if they want? Very hypocritical. Please don't arbitrarily "refactor" deletion discussions by striking through votes you disagree with. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***I'd encourage Rhobite to pay a bit more attention. Any one of several things might have alerted him to the fact that I wasn't refactoring the deletion discussions: The lack of the coloured background, my caveat at the top of the page, or the word "talk" in the page's title.
***As to my "hypocritical" actions with regards to how I interpret votes: When making a claim, the burden is clearly on the ''claiment'' to provide evidence. A single link to, for example, a review in major media would counteract any number of "not notable" opinions. No such evidence was provided here. [[WP:CITE|Testimony by wikipedia editors]] is not sufficient. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Consensus, clearly, was to delete it. — '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/|FREAK OF NURxTURE]]'' ([{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} TALK])''' 05:58, Jan. 6, 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD, though the discussion was on the border. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist on AfD''' - Properly closed AfD, which missed easily discovered information: the weblog has won two web awards, namely two of the <s>Weblogger</s> Warblogger awards organised by the ''Right Wing News'' weblog for ''Most Bloodthirsty Blog'' in 2002 [http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/warblogger.php], and ''Most annoying right-of-center blogger'' for 2003 [http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/warblogger2003.php] which technically qualify it for keeping under [[WP:WEB]]. Passing notoriety among right-wing US webloggers falls somewhat under my notability threshold, but I think it's worth throwing open to discussion. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (fix [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
**Following the post of Tony Sidaway below, I had noticed but took no account of Rhobite's claim of manipulation, in the above. If there is evidence of substantive manipulation, the AfD should be reopened regardless of this DRV's verdict. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Discussion clearly shows that the majority wanted to delete the article - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Closure''' and '''KD'''. The GNAA may be a childish group, but i agree with their efforts to eliminate blogcruft. To [User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] I would note that before you make such claims about my activity here, you check out any of the various articles I have created and maintain. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' The majority argument found that this blog is uninfluential outside of the blogosphere. If it scoops a major story then feel free to recreate the article. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] [[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]] 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Tons of google hits. This blog is especially notable for the intemperate tone of its posts and has often been cited and discussed for this reason. If this isn't undeleted, I may write a new article on it myself. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] ([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</TT> 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. AfD was fair. It's a blog, and the bar is properly set high for that by the community. We should be glad to have this gone. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
* I agree partly with Charles Stewart on this. Like him I found the awards, and although the rightwing weblogger awards are trash (allowing multiple votes) the warblogger awards are much more selective. A shortlist is selected and only recognised right wing bloggers are invited to vote. This ensures some quality control (obviously as a leftie I'm going to disagree with some aspects of this but I don't come to Wikipedia to discuss politics). I've honestly no idea why this was ever nominated for deletion, and if the trolls were involved then it bloody well should be undeleted without ceremony. On that I'm completely in agreement with Rhobite. I'll be investigating the allegations he has made and will of course undelete any articles that have been deleted as a result of collusion by trolls, if this has indeed occurred. [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn, relist on AFD'''Majority is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a series of "nn" vote does not a consensus make. If lefty readers think it's valuable as a benchmark, that I think is a good sign of notability from both sides of the aisle. --[[User:Mmx1|Mmx1]] 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', evidence here suggests it was removed in error. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Unfortunately discusionless debate, but there's nothing new to present and there was nothing inheritly wrong with the debate and the close was valid. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The key words to note in the box at the top of the page are ''"'''significant''' new information."'' (Emphasis mine.) The "awards" cited are, um, tenous indications of notability at best. As to "rightwingnews" itself - [http://www.google.com.au/search?q=rightwingnews+blog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nw lots of google], but the only substantial one was [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7288400/ a single unannotated line on MSN] out of about 250 other blogs, starting with "Chimps in the news". Ironically, [http://news.google.com.au/news?q=rightwingnews%20blog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn rightwingnews gets 0 hits for news.] And as to the awards it presents: "most bloodthirsty" - [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22The+Most+Bloodthirsty+Blog%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= 16 google hits], [http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&q=%22The%20Most%20Bloodthirsty%20Blog%22&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn no news], and "most annoying" - [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22Most+annoying+right-of-center+blogger%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= 117 google], [http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&q=%22Most%20annoying%20right-of-center%20blogger%22&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn no news]. If we are seriously thinking of restoring an article based upon this paucity of notability, than the world has gone mad. And I'd urge Tony Sidaway to "of course" present any new information he may discover about collusion here rather than engaging in further unilateral action leading, in all likelyhood, to yet another wheel war. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 07:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:*I don't think notability has been established, but there are two reasons i think we should go back to AfD anyway: (i) to repeat myself, it satisfies the letter of [[WP:WEB]] since it has won an award, (ii) The RWN warblogger award actually has some credibility: it's a pretty good measure of what the warblogger community think, and whether ''that'' matters is really an AfD decision, not a policywonkish DRV decision --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 10:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:**Well, WEB's quote on awards is "''well known and independent award"'', which I think we've established this isn't.
:**I'm unclear on how trying to use some common sense is "policy-wonking" while insisting that this go through ''another'' round of hoops is not. I will, however, at this point yield the floor. [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:***Re award: if it's not well known, it's not obscure either. What I meant by policy-wonking (been reading too many ArbCom platforms, sorry about that) is that DRV is about something like judicial oversight, whose remit to review content is fairly limited. Thorny questions about notability really should go to back to AfD, and I think this qualifies. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 10:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. If my understanding of the process is correct, we should overturn AfD that were improperly closed or in cases where Wikipedia would clearly be better off including them. It is also the responsibility of the author of the article to provide references proving that the article meets the threshold of notability, in this case [[WP:WEB]]. Looking at the AfD discussion, I see no arguement that asserts the article is in compliance with [[WP:WEB]] and see no valid reason why the AfD should be relisted. That is not to say that the article should not be recreated, but the AfD was closed correctly in my opinion. If someone wanted to recreate the article with bonafide evidence of compliance with [[WP:WEB]], I would vote for ''temporary undeletion'' in accordance with the [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy|undeletion policy]]. [[User:Movementarian|Movementarian]] 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' per Tony's comments on the awards. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]]
*'''Undelete'''. Enough questions have been raised about notability of subject and legitimacy of process that I think this deserves another look. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 06:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Wikipedia is not an advertisement for every category of blogs out there. --[[User:Timecop|Timecop]] 07:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', '''keep deleted''' per Timecop. --[[User:Hosterweis|Hosterweis]] 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure and keep deleted''' per Brenneman and timecop. There was no failur of due process, the site fails [[WP:WEB]], and the AfD went through correctly. [[User:Proto|Proto]] [[User_talk:Proto|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Proto|c]] 12:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', voting was skewed by self-proclaimed [[Gay Nigger Association of America|GNAA]] members [[User:Timecop]] and [[User:Femmina]] (and [[User:supers]]' contribution history is mostly GNAA-related or pro-blog-deletion Afd voting, likely as part of [[User:Timecop/The war on blogs|Timecop's "war on blogs" campaign]], which Timecop and Femmina and other GNAA members have largely participate in). -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 21:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**I don't understand this argument. Are we saying that these recomendations shouldn't count because these editors contribute to AfD a lot? Because if that's your argument, I've got a few "keep" voters who never miss and AfD that I'd like to ignore while we're at it. It's got to cut both ways. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 06:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*** GNAA is a self-identified group of trolls. That people proclaiming themselves to be trolls are permitted to edit Wikiepdia ''at all'' is an act of grace and favor that may be revoked. Giving credence to their campaigns to delete articles, if that it what is happening, would be folly. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-05]]===

==== [[Zoner, Inc.]] ====
See [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zoner%2C_Inc.]] 
I believe that the Zoner, Inc. meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Zoner is not a small "garage" company. See google hits: [http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22Zoner%2C+Inc.%22&btnG=Search 13,600 hits for "Zoner, Inc."] [http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22Zoner+software%22&btnG=Search 559,000 hists for "Zoner software"], [http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=Zoner&btnG=Search 1,670,000 for Zoner] and [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine]], part Advertising. I would like to translate article to Czech Wikipedia. Thanks. --[[User:Michal Jurosz|Michal Jurosz]] 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' to AfD. The votes in the AfD were too few to properly gauge consensus. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
* Unless there is better evidence that can be presented that this company meets the recommended criteria at [[WP:CORP]], I have to '''endorse closure''' (keep deleted). The vast majority of the google hits cited above (and during the AFD discussion) are irrelevant. They include the software company's own site (reasonable but not relevant for the purposes of [[WP:V|verification]]), download sites, advertising sites and lots of irrelevant use of "zoner" by a variety of people as a username. The google statistics failed to convince the participants of the previous decision. Note: In circumstances like this, a Google Groups search can be more informative. That returns 10,800 hits just for "zoner" but, again, many are irrelevant. I would agree to a relisting if ''new'' evidence is presented. Mere google hits are not, in my opinion, meeting that threshold. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
** [[WP:CORP]] is a proposed Wikipedia policy. I used official policy [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|WP:NOT]], part Advertising: ''Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. ...'' --[[User:Michal Jurosz|Michal Jurosz]] 16:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*** That doesn't automatically mean that ''all'' articles about companies or products are appropriate. The "garage" company is a clear example at the extreme end of the spectrum. Companies in the middle are judgment calls. They are generally kept or deleted based on the evidence presented. [[WP:CORP]], while still tagged as a proposal, is a widely respected attempt to provide more specific guidance based on the community's history of decisions. By the way, I'd overlooked your request above to translate the article for the Czech Wikipedia. If you participate on both projects and are familiar with their general inclusion criteria, I have no objection to a temporary undelete either to [[m:transwiki]] or to your userspace for translation and cross-posting. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 05:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*Michal, my counting skills seem to differ from yours. Where you report 13,600, when I click on the link ''you'' provided, I get 998, of which 232 are unique. Where you report 559,000, I get 438,000, of which 326 are unique. However, of 1,670,000 you report, ''I'' get 2,900,000, of which 760 are unique. But that is for every single possible use of the word Zoner, most of which have nothing to do with this software. Not notable, '''keep deleted'''. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 16:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:: Zoe, the unique hits are per the thousand sample, and not across the entire returned hit count - you have to multiply the unique count by the overall total divided by a thousand. As you say, though, google is irrelevant due to the multiple uses of the word. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::It is bit confusing for me, because when I click on these links, I get the exactly the same count of hits as Michal Juros. --[[User:Petr.adamek|Petr.adamek]] 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. I see no fault in the Afd and no content-related reason to overturn it. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' Zoner is wel known in Czech Republic; it is big software development company and domain registrator. I dont agree, that google hits are completely irrelevant. --[[User:Petr.adamek|Petr.adamek]] 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Relist''', it is important and well known IT company in Czech Republic, local leader in software development and internet services, the third biggest in webhosting. Examples of third party references: about company: [http://www.zive.cz/h/Info/Ar.asp?ARI=127131&CAI=2133] [http://www.linuxexpres.cz/zoner-vyrabi-vlastni-antivirovy-system-pro-linux], products recensions [http://www.fotografovani.cz/art/forec_soft/recenze-zoner-photo-studio-7-dil-4.html] [http://technet.idnes.cz/software.asp?r=software&c=A021010_5171455_software], interviews [http://www.zive.cz/h/Byznys/AR.asp?ARI=127240&CAI=2035] --[[User:RuM|RuM]] 17:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
* Comment: [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+benny&num=100&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Zoner+software+&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images Czech virus writer joins Zoner software], [http://www.doingbusiness.cz/r/article.asp?id=322], [http://www.topshareware.com/Zoner-Draw-download-957.htm], [http://www.wdvl.com/Reviews/Graphics/Zoner/], [http://printer.konicaminoltaeurope.com/eu/en/software.php?id=1], [http://node1.bvv.cz/i2000/Akce/b-inv.nsf/WWWAllPDocsID/VJEK-6HHAA4?OpenDocument&NAV=1]. Seems like I can use [http://www.answers.com/topic/zoner-inc] for cs.wikipedia article about Zoner. --[[User:Michal Jurosz|Michal Jurosz]] 18:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Nothing out of process here. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 23:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Closure''' and '''KD''' per Howcheng. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist'''. -[[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 01:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-03]]===

====[[Seth Ravin]]====
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin]] 
Slightly hazy. A couple of clear delete opinions (one mine, please note), a couple of clear keep opinions (JJay and Kurt Weber). The rest are pretty clear that they consider him less notable than [[Rimini Street]]. We don't expect AfDs to be consistant, but the real issue are the pseudo-merges. I think that everyone who took part would be suprised at this outcome. My prefered option would be to ping the participants, un-close/extend this, and run it for a few more days. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*Eek... a pretty difficult AFD to close, further complicated by the fact that the suggested merge target, [[Rimini Street]] was deleted. I think that we should '''relist''' this one for a new AFD debate now that the staus of Rimini Street has clarified. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 07:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*It seems there was a consensus that this topic doesn't deserve it's own article. Votes to merge to a non-existant target should be discounted. Thus, it should have been '''deleted'''. Re-list if necessary. — '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/|FREAK OF NURxTURE]]'' ([{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} TALK])''' 07:51, Jan. 4, 2006
*'''Delete'''. It should have been merged with Rimini Street and deleted along with it. Let's face it, it's vanity. Kurt Weber's opinion basically boils down to "he exists so he should have an article", a view he's expressed about anything that could theoretically exist, and has been universally rejected. Relist if need be, but deletion is preferable. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' and '''delete''', Any argument that rests on "it exists, so keep" should be rejected out of hand (at least Kmweber has laid off the "deletionist vandal" schtick), and votes that are later rendered impossible should be discounted, IMO, though JIP's handling of it as a no consensus also makes sense. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Overturn and delete'''</s> - From here, the three merge votes count as delete votes given that the AfD said delete Rimini Street (two of them including Howcheng explicitly said they were delete in this case, the last said per Howcheng), and the four keep votes were all weak keeps. Note that Aaron voted delete in a roundabout manner (he said same as the Rimini AfD). That makes 7 delete against 4 weak keeps: given no real defence of the article was mounted, I count that as a consensus to delete. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
**I actually ''did'' say delete explicitly, I just didn't bold it. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
***Indeed, my error. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Endorse no consensus closure''' following the WSJ article Tony found. I still think delete is the outcome that most fairly represents the AfD, but clear evidence that a decent article can be made from the juice of the article we have has emerged. Leave it to the talk page how best to figure out what that article should be (on Ravin, on TomorrowNow or on something else). --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''', per above, altho the original "no consensus" call was not unreasonable. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Despite the fact that ''merges'' often count as keeps, these merge votes all seemed to depend on the outcome of Rimini Street, and since Rimini Street was deleted, so should this. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*Funny one. '''Overturn and delete''', as good arguments have been made, or failing that, just reopen and extend for 2 days, asking the merge voters to reconsider their opinions. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
* No need to delete. In 2004, Ravin persuaded H. David Anderson IV, director of information technology for the state of Georgia's employee retirement system, to switch contracts from Peoplesoft to Mr Ravin's company, TomorrowNow Inc ['Rebel' Customers May Cut Into Profits At Big Software Firms By DAVID BANK Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, September 30, 2004; Page B1]. Undercutting the big boys, verifiably in a non-fluff piece in a reputable newspaper, seems noteworthy to me. Not one if the big boys, but not a blue sky dreamer either. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:Good call. How much of the article discussed Ravin and his company? Did you get this via LexisNexis? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 10:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:: Sorry, I forgot to link it. It's on the WSJ site but you need a subscription for that. There are quite a few copies, such as: [http://classwork.busadm.mu.edu/Economics%20Newspaper%20Articles/Microeconomics/Price%20Searching%20Markets/2004/2004%2009%2030%20'Rebel'%20customers%20may%20cut%20into%20profits%20at%20big%20software%20firms.PDF here] (PDF), [http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ozfAVdlmKKEJ:classwork.busadm.mu.edu/Economics%2520Newspaper%2520Articles/Microeconomics/Price%2520Searching%2520Markets/2004/2004%252009%252030%2520%27Rebel%27%2520customers%2520may%2520cut%2520into%2520profits%2520at%2520big%2520software%2520firms.PDF+David+Anderson+IV++ravin++peoplesoft&hl=en Here] is a html cache copy. The article is about a customer revolt in response to poor and costly service from Peoplesoft/Oracle, and focused primarily on the growth of FutureNow's business at the expense of the giant. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - There hasn't been much reaction to the article Tony cited, which quotes Ravin at length and mentions him by name 3 times. Given that this was a very borderline delete outcome, and the article is clearly cogent to the claim of notability that was at the heart of the AfD, I find this strange. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**I find this discussion inadequate: the endorse voters, who have the majority, have taken no account of Tony's evidence. I don't want to DRV this DRV once it is closed... --- Charles Stewart[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]] 18:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
***Well, I'm taking it into account and not changing my vote. I don't think Wikipedia needs to include everyone ever mentioned in a single newspaper article. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 18:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
* Well obviously there's no point in deleting an article that is verifiable and passed an AfD. It would just be restored. I don't see why we should be bloody minded about this and I suggest that we just close the DRV without prejudice so that anyone who really thinks it should be deleted can list it on AfD. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**One should eschew the passive voice. Why not just say "I will undelete it"? -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 18:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**Or it will be undeleted by someone else. With all these Cabals flying around, there just has to be more than one member. :) Seriously though if someone wants to delete this they're perfectly welcome to list it again and get a real, bona fide delete close. All we've found on this review is that the guy in question verifiably persuaded at least one sizeable US state to switch its employee pension policy from Oracle/Peoplesoft to his company. Not a deletion candidate. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

==Recently concluded==


#[[Template:Test7]]: Redirected to [[Template:Vandalblock]]. 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Margolinian Satanism]]: No such article ever existed; another article may have been intended, but no argument or support put forward for its undeletion. [[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 18:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Pussy City Pimps]]: Undeleted, sent to AfD, deleted, relisted at DRV above. 18:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[:Image:Fem isa 2.gif]]: Images cannot be undeleted. This was re-uploaded, evidently without protest. 18:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking]]: Kept deleted. 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Template:User userbox purge]]: Kept deleted (protected). 18:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[:Category:Moneyball]]: Repopulation of category allowed, but will probably be sent to CFD if/when that hapens. 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[:Category:Contemporary philosophers]]: Undeleted. Currently relisted at [[WP:CFD]]. 18:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Bloody Shot]]: Kept deleted. 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[That Guy]]: Speedily undeleted. Deletion was in error. 17:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Template:Album infobox 2]]: Kept redirected to [[Template:Album infobox]]. 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Oven rack guard]]: Kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[List of real names of professional wrestlers]]: Closure of keep endorsed. 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Mootstormfront]]: Closure of Keep endorsed. It has since been turned into a redirect (not an issue for DRV). 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[List of wiki farms]]: Speedy undeleted, listed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wiki farms]] . 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Back Door Sluts 9]]: Unprotected, now a redirect. 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Full Bodying]]: Kept deleted (already at BJAODN). 19:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Chris Jenny Harrison]]: Kept deleted. 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[WP:RFC/KM]]: Undeleted; sent to [[WP:RFD]], where it was kept. 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[:Template:User Seigenthaler]]: Kept deleted (protected). 19:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[:Template:Help Wikiboxes]]: Kept deleted (protected). 19:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Timeline for missing persons following the September 11, 2001 Attacks]]: kept deleted. May be temporarily undeletd for transwiki, if it hasn't been done so already. 19:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Blumpkin]]: completely rewritten 10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[List of Netflix distribution centers]]: withdrawn by nominator 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bonestown]]: history of discussion page restored. 14:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[John Noble Goodwin]]: restored 14:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
#User boxes deleted by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]: speedily undeleted. 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review

2006-01-15T11:44:49Z

Bourbons3: /* More attack templates */ Freedom of speech on EU opinions

{{Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header}}
This page is about ''articles'', not about ''people''. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators]]. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.
[[Category:Wikipedia deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[ja:Wikipedia:削除の復帰依頼]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Request_for_undeletion]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Biểu quyết phục hồi bài]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:恢复条目投票]]
[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance]]

== Content review ==
Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.
As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using [[Special:Export]], and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the [[m:Help:Import|import]] feature is completed.

Many admins will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See [[:Category:User undeletion]].

=== [[Gallery of Socialist Realism]] ===
This article has been deleted following an AfD, and the outcome of that AfD was disputed here and the closure endorsed. During the DRV, [[User:Aaron Brenneman]] requested that, if the deletion was endorsed, the page be userfied to his space, so that he could work on it. This was not done: since the topic arose in a discussion, can the article be userfied now? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 10:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*Your userspace or Aaron Brennemans? -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 15:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Aaron's. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 03:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Done. The page is available at [[User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism]]. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 07:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
****Thanks. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
****Thanks from me, too. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

== History only undeletion ==
History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on [[Fred Flintstone]], it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on ''Fred Flintstone''. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the ''Fred Flintstone'' article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.

== Decisions to be reviewed ==
{{Template:Vfu mechanics}}

===[[2006-01-15]]===
====[[Michael E. Berumen]]====
I was an original supporter of deletion of this article. The consensus was - not by a great deal - to keep it. Yesterday, I received an email from a person claiming to be Michael E. Berumen. I have no reason to doubt its authenticity (though if Mr Berumen is reading I would ask him to verify it) containing the following (which has been edited only to remove references to specific editors):

:"[...] Well over a year ago, I demanded that the head of this enterprise, Mr. James Wales, remove untoward remarks made about me made [...] along with any references in articles made by others. He complied with this [...]. Mr. Wales personally asked me if he could keep the article about me, which he apparently liked and thought harmless enough. Reluctantly, I agreed, notwithstanding its several minor errors. Having thought that the matter was put rest, I discover the whole thing started again in an attempt to promulgate my views and correct some of the previous damages. [...]

:"I certainly concur that I am not especially notable, most particularly in relation to my scholarly pursuits. If anything, I am more notable for my business dealings, only some of which is mentioned in the article. Fact is, [...] I do not wish to be notable in any serious way (other than amongst friends and clients of course), for, among other things, that would eliminate some of my legal protections. I am a private person, which has a strict legal definition in this country. I prefer to control my own public persona, and not to have it controlled by others, including you. The article ought to have been deleted long ago when I suggested as much. Some of the reasons you adduced for doing this are quite correct, though not all of them. But your conclusion nevertheless is. I therefore support the idea of eliminating the article about me. Anything you could do to facilitate this would be greatly appreciated by me.

:[...]

:"Sincerely,

:"Michael E. Berumen"

Given that the subject of the article appears not to want to be included in the Enclyclopaedia, and the two main contributors to the article ([[icut4u]] and [[ockham]]) seem to have ceased activity on Wikipedia, it seems to me that it is wholly appropriate to grant Mr Berumen's wishes and remove this article from the database altogether, therefore '''overturn''' the original decision. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
**Is there a viable alternative? My suggestion would be, we protect the page in an approximation or the exact current state (which is pretty dull but at least contains no information that could be disputed or regarded as offensive by M. Berumen). I am somewhat inclusionsist, but I respect the wishes of individuals to keep a low public profile. I do realize there could be a "Wrong Version" issue. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 10:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-14]]===
====[[DND]]====
Please do a history only undeletion of this disambig page. It was a valid disambig and should never have been speedied. [[User:Gracefool|··gracefool]] |[[User talk:gracefool|☺]] 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*Never deleted, was (for some reason) moved to [[DND (diambiguation)]]. Should be back now (though I'm getting a lag on the server). -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 01:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Circumcision fetish]]====
Page was [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circumcision_fetish|first time]] put on VFD for no given reason, and 54% of the votes decided to keep the article. Almost a year later, after several attempts to censor the article, was put on VFD [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circumcision_fetish_(second_nomination)|a second time]] with the basis that no [[WP:RS]] could be found.
Vote was 71% for deletion 9 keep 22 delete, when ''circumcision fetish'' could be found
described in the ''The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' by Brenda Love, published by Barricade Books, 1994, ISBN 1569800111, verifiable online [http://www.odd-sex.com/ here]. However, without further votes given, or any changes to existing votes, the article was deleted by [[User:Ulayiti]].

I contest this decision: With a [[WP:RS]] found, the basis for the VFD was not met anymore, effectively nullifying all votes for deletion with the reasoning that the article would violate [[WP:RS]] or [[WP:NOR]]. A recount on this basis would yield only two votes for deletion, as only [[User:Tony_Sidaway]], who argued to remove it on for being part of a flame war, and [[User:Humus sapiens]], who did not give any reason at all, did not reason their vote for deletion on the basis of a supposed [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:RS]] violation. Thus, even by vote recount (and not just invalidating the VFD) the article would have to stay. For further info, read [[meta:polls are evil]]

Further info, [http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/fetish-c.htm]
::''Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, by Brenda Love (Barricade Books, Inc., 1992). "More than 750 entries and 150 original illustrations on the world's strange sex activities". Under "Circumcision" (page 6): "Men sometimes incorporate their fear of circumcision into sex play as a means for arousal. They fake a circumcision by having their partner blindfold and bind them, placing a reservoir tipped condom and then slicing off the tip with a knife ... Women who are only sexually aroused by circumcised males are referred to as acucullophiles."

I have meanwhile ordered the book, sounds like a good read o_O

'''Update:''' I have changed my opinion. The arguments brought forward on this page have convinced me to wait for the arrival of the book, do some additional research, and then recreate the page, rather than to undelete the current article. I retract my motion. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 09:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse/Keep deleted''' (updated, originally overturn/undelete at [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 15:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC) ) [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 09:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' A minor correction, the votes were 22/9 (del/keep), not 20/12 as you stated. The ''Encyclopaedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' website only shows that there's an entry for 'circumcision', not what it contains. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|(talk)]] 15:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**I corrected that figure already (Damn where's my coffee) [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**Oh, and another thing: [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circumcision_fetish|the original VfD]] had 6 votes for keep, 5 for delete and 1 for merge, not 100% keep. You must have missed them since they weren't in bold. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|(talk)]] 16:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
***I definitely need more coffee then. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I was promised free beer, titties and penis on IRC if I went here. It's a scam :\ --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - [[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]) 16:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
** I think maybe they gave you the wrong URL? You know how those IRC [[WP:TINC|Cabalists]] are... Hope that helps. Oh... '''Keep deleted'''. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 17:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Page was certainly original research. The text above would be insufficient to write more than the shortest of stubs. I see no evidence that Ulayiti did not follow the correct procedure. [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] 16:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**This is only an excerpt. As I said, I have ordered the book. To claim it was original research in the light that it is described in 1992 sexual literature, is just bizarre. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
***Not at all. This does not appear to use the same terminology (different from the article), talks about fake circumcision as a form of sex play (unlike the article), and essentially has nothing in common with the article. The article cannot in any way be said to be based upon this, and was purely original research. The fact that a short stub could potentially written, with a different title, and with different text ''could'' be written based upon Love's book does nothing to change this. Consider this: If I were to write an article about F. moli (which everybody else calls E. coli) bacteria in which I explained that they actually had an enlightened, technological civilisation, that would be original research in spite of the fact that sensible research on E coli existed. [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] 16:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
****So you argue for entering the relevant information into [[circumcision]]. That sounds like an agreeable idea to me. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per AFD. VFDs are not permanently binding decisions. There were no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to [[WP:CITE|cite]] for this, making it [[WP:OR|original research]]. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] . o º O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]]) 16:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Based on the references provided at the time, the result was correct. If you have new sources, feel free to recreate the article, as long as you can avoid both copyright violation and original research. [[User:OwenX|Owen×]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>☎</big>]] 16:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**You're a smart guy OwenX. This is actually the reason why I am opposed to the [[WP:NOR]] policy. If the policy is used unreasonably strict, then in combination with [[WP:C]] all information can be blocked/filibustered from entering Wikipedia, making [[WP:NOR]] ultimately a censor's tool that is not in the interest of free flow of information. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 17:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Nothing in the nomination has convinced me there was malpractice in the AfD vote. As circumcision can happen only once, it's a bit of a worthless fetish to have. Of those who are sexually attracted to men, it is routine to have a preference either for or against circumcised penises, but it's not a fetish. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Yawn. Per above.'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|Voice of All]]'''[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|T]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|ESP]] 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. The [[Circumcision fetish]] article seemed to describe "circumcision fetish" as a [[Sexual fetishism|sexual fetish]]. It seems like the thing to do is include mention of "circumcision fetish" (and references) at the "sexual fetishism" page. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted) but without prejudice against the creation of a new article based on verified and reliable sources. (If/when a new article is created, my first inclination is that we should avoid cluttering it's edit history with the old, unverified content - but if there are extenuating circumstances, we can evaluate them then.) [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Oh boy, it's s sick world.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-13]]===

====[[Template:User allow fairuse]]====
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&oldid=35038410#Template:User_allow_fairuse TFD discussion]
This template was deleted without a clear consensus, and without substantial justification. As it is to be used in userspace, it ought to be restored, as the deletion of this template is not supported by deletion policy. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' What the deleting admin did was he subsituted the template in the userspace, so those who wish to use the template still can, but not in the actual template name space. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]] [[WP:FU|Fair use policy]] 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' - but as this one raised some pseudolegal questions, I'd say if you want to push it for undeletion, get onto Jimbo and ask. [[User:BigStabbyStick|BigStabbyStick]] 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I '''endorse''' the decision of the person who closed it (note that I was the person who deleted the template based on his decision). While the percentage of people voting was somewhat less than what is normally considered a rough consensus, discussions aren't votes, and I feel that the people who voted delete generally made more persuasive arguments than those that voted keep. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 23:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. This template does not help us make an encyclopedia. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Alot of users don't help us make an encyclopedia either, that doesn't mean we just delete them. '''''Karm'''''[[WP:ESP|'''''a''''']]'''''fist''''' 02:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* Let it stay dead and delete anything similar. It advocates something that would expose the Foundation, for reasons that do not help the encyclopedia in any way. If editors want to break the law, they should find a web host and try to persuade the host company to permit them to do so. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted'''. Closing admin has discretion. He had justification, in my opinion, to discount many keep votes that were not well-reasoned—but at the same time, he probably ought to have explained his decision better. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Strong Undelete''' Final vote was 51-36, 58% for deletion, which I doubt meets anyone's threshold for consensus unless you're in a [[WP:NOT|Democracy]], which we're not. Add to that the resounding amount of [[strawman]] [[WP:NLT]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] vios in terms of those who wished to delete this in the first place makes leaving this deleted into a precedent that bullying people with legal boogiemen is acceptable behavior. karmafist 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''overturn close''' This was nowhere near consensus. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Per Tony Sidaway, and others. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 01:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' those who want this are still free to create it on their userpage. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Wikipedia is not a democracy and there was clear consensus to delete, despite raw mechanical vote counting. There's a ''reason'' we don't use bots to close deletion discussions. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Question''': It's pretty rare for Jimbo to get involved in a deletion dispute. He was the first person to delete it saying "we do not get to vote here on copyright law". Then 15 min later he restored it. Has anyone asked him for his reasoning? Was this discussed in some other channel? [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**[[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Template:User_allow_fairuse]]. While Jimbo restored it because of the TFD, he said that "I think it should be deleted, and I think it's silly for users to think that they can vote on copyright policy. That's a matter for our legal team. --Jimbo Wales 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)" [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]] [[WP:FU|Fair use policy]] 02:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*Once again I see that people are voting on the userbox and not the process under which it was deleted. There was '''no-consensus''' there - it does not matter how many people don't like the userbox here, that is not what we are supposed to discussing.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
** Fuck the process. Crap gets deleted because the question we are tasked with answering her by the undeletion policy is ''is Wikipedia a better place with this page?'' The question has been answered and the template has been deleted. Let's continue to make the internet not suck. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - Process is here to help us write the encyclopedia. When process does not help us write the encyclopedia, it may be discarded. How many times does that have to be explained? [[WP:NOT]] a bureaucracy. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per FCYTravis and others. [[User:Jtkiefer|Jtkiefer]][[User talk:Jtkiefer|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|C]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|@]] ---- 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Per FCYTravis and others. Also, consensus is not based on raw vote counts. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Still think this is a very strange thing for a userbox template. It's slightly like saying "This user would vote to give Wikipedia the right to sentence users to death" - all very well, but it would still be illegal. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - sockpuppeteering aside, the userbox was a non-starter for the reasons Jimbo and others mentioned. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' Closing admin should have at least given a better explanation for their decision, given the size and activity of the discussion. Saying "rather weak thou" is ambiguous to me -- do they mean it was a close call on a simple vote count? If so, I'd certainly remind people that *fD is more than a simple vote count, and that even when it is a vote count, the rule is not generally a simply majority. Closers have a responsibility to explain their decision: since I do not think this was done here, overturn and relist. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Yes, the viewpoint it expresses is retarded and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia metapolicy and civil law. No, it doesn't matter what those expressing that viewpoint think. Undelete it anyway. [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Weishampel exchange]]====
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weishampel_exchange&action=history speedied] by [[User:Linuxbeak]]
The page on "Weishampel Exchange" was unfairly deleted due to an erroneus link to a college humor website and a Google result of a professor in some unknown college. My research has documentation of this term from Germany, the U.K., and both coasts of the United States. This was deleted with haste, and possibly bias towards the gay/homosexual community! {{unsigned|Outer-nationalist}}
*'''Keep deleted''' certainly a neologism, likely also an attack/hoax. '''0 Google hits'''. If nominator's research includes evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it with us. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - Starblind 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Starblind. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* Certainly a neologism and very likely a hoax but ''nothing'' in the versions I reviewed could be considered at "attack". I would definitely vote to delete this in a regular AFD but I can not endorse its speedy-deletion. '''Restore and immediately list on AFD''' for regular deletion. Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but we have to stop this inappropriate stretching of the speedy "attack" criterion. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**The talk page seemed to indicate that it was an attack on a college professor named Weishampel. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - Starblind 03:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Don't use that as a criterion. That was wild speculation on my part. I mean, it's obvious the article was crap, especially given the number of times the year of creation was changed, but I've zero evidence it was a prank or an attack. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] 03:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Restore and immediately list on AFD''' as per Rossami. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] 04:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*Ick. '''KD''' per Andrew, unless somebody is able to cite a source on this. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_>|<]] 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Pussy_City_Pimps]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pussy_City_Pimps]]
OK, I just closed this with a delete result (which I think is correct), but it has been challenged by Kappa, with the message
:"That was 2-1 at best, and almost all the delete votes were plain "delete" without any reasoning, and should have been given less weight."
Kappa is threatening to stop contributing, plus I've kind of always wondered what it would be like to be on the receiving end of the stick here, so I guess this is the best place to go (as a side note after doing 100 or so WP:RM it is always good to get a reality check every now and then). '''No vote''' since I am the closing admin, of course :). [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 09:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' valid AFD. The numbers add up, and whether to discount votes without stated reasons is a decision up to the closing admin (and, IMHO, should only be done in cases of suspected ballot-stuffing/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry). Threatening to stop contributing because an article about a ''hacked video game ROM'' got deleted? That's one for the "WTF?" file. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - Starblind 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**I happen to think that wikipedia users should have a chance to read about at least some of these things, not everyone is as lucky as us. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 18:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', and call Kappa's bluff. We just went through this here. 2-1 is a perfectly valid delete, and I don't see Kappa complaining when people just vote "Keep" with no other comments. Plenty of reasons for deletion were given; users often do not feel like reiterating what's already been said. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. The consensus is pretty clear, and almost every vote on either side of the debate has IMO a satisfactory explaination attached. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and merge'''. Note that there were a few merge votes. Kappa should heed the advice and incorporate the content into [[River City Ransom]] and maybe we can restore [[Pussy City Pimps]] and convert it to a redirect for GFDL purposes. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 19:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. And lets leave this dead horse alone.'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|Voice of All]]'''[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|T]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|ESP]] 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. While a close decision, this meets the generally accepted threshold for a "rough consensus" to delete. The argument to merge was made during the discussion and failed to sway the community. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 19:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' I counted 15 delete, 4 keep and 3 merge. 3 of the delete votes gave no reasoning, not "almost all", other than the simple desire to have the article deleted. [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 20:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-12]]===
====Unknown article====
I recently wrote an article which was somewhat of a biography of an MC/Street perfomer named Ninjah Pendragon and the article was deleted because it was a biography of an non widely known individual. To an extent, this is true, as Ninjah is not widely known outside of Cardiff. He is not known globally. However I feel that, he is widely known to people of Cardiff due to the fact that he is there every day, the BBC have also written a biography about his album, as have several newspapers. I would be able to site references if you would like. Thankyou very much.
* This unsigned comment was left by [[user:Cockers]]. I believe he/she is referring to [[Ninjah pendragon]] which was moved to [[Ninjah Pendragon]] where it was speedy-deleted as a "non-notable bio". [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Believe it or not, wikipedia still has some standards about who gets an article. Your basic street performer don't cut it. Oh, and I deleted the redirect. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 04:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
** The redirect at [[Ninjah]] has now also been speedy-deleted. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*Please point to the BBC and newspaper coverage. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 10:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*Hi. I appreciate the standards that Wikipedia like to keep and I understand that it would be reasonable to keep a general street performer off an encyclopedia. However I feel that Ninjah is more than just a street perfomer as he has appeared in a film, a television program and has had an album released. The link to the BBC's minisite of Ninjah is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/sites/ninjah/]. This website [http://livecardiff.com/?p=18] mentions how Ninjah appeared in [[NME]]'s student guide to Cardiff and in two films. Here is a forum post discussing Ninjah's newpaper appearence [http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-124376.html]. I would also like to point out that my inspiration for writing the article was due to discovering another article about a street performer [[Toy Mic Trevor]] which has been on Wikipedia for 6 months. This is my final appeal for the entertainer and street poet to gain recognition in Wikipedia. I promise not to keep pestering and I will provide better references in future articles. (This was my first one). [[User:Cockers]] 17:49, 13 Janurary 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' Unfortunately, the BBC minisite is akin to a wiki, where anyone can submit his/her own band. See [http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/] and look in the "Profiles and Minisites" section: "Want to be featured on this site? Submit your details here." As far as I'm concerned, even though it has the air of authority of the Beeb, it's not a reliable source. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 18:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' street performer(!) and thus definitely a nn-bio/speedy candidate. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - Starblind 23:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Template:User against Saud]] and [[Template:User Nepal Maoists]] speedies====
I have speedy deleted a template with the following words:
: ''This user thinks the House of Saud should be overthrown''
I bring this action here for review. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: The same user had created [[Template:User Nepal Maoists]] containing the words: ''This user thinks the Monarchy of Nepal should be overthrown and supports the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in their armed and political struggle'' and I have deleted it as an attack template. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*I'm not interested in the whole userbox theatrics thing, but I am wondering you delete first and ''then'' ask questions, rather than the other way around. It should be safe enough to presume that asking first will produce the same result. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
** This is how speedy deletions are done. It is my opinion that attacks of this nature have no place on Wikipedia. You're welcome to object to this as policy, as we don't yet have any policy on this and I'm just taking action that I believe is necessary to safeguard the encyclopedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***No, if we are sure a speedy is right, we don't have to ask questions afterwards. I've never listed my own speedies after deleting them, because if I knew I was going to do that, I'd have ''x''fD'd them instead. Deletion review is not the forum for establishing a policy - the discussion running elsewhere is. If you believe the action is necessary, you don't need to come here (a forum you consider irrelevant, anyway) to make sure. Someone else need bring it here if (and only if) they would disagree with it. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***Not by a long shot is this "how speedy deletions are done". Normally they're just done and in the vast majority of cases there is no discussion on them here, certainly not inititated by the sysop performing the deletions. As I noted on your talk page, however, I do appreciate that bringing the issue up here gives it another audience than it would have on TfD. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
****I disagree (though as a non-admin, take it for what it's worth): Speedy deletions of 'attacks' are warranted, just as a review of them may be warranted. Tony's bringing his own deletions here for review is unorthodox, but if he didn't bring them here, you can bet there'd be screams of bloody murder from his opponents. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and don't speedy any more of these pending a clear policy on user boxes or a new CSD (which is under discusson). [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and nominate for deletion where I will happily vote to delete them. And continue work on expanding CSD to include stuff like this, which I also support. And continue work on deletion reform in general :) And try to have a dialogue with the users creating these templates and convince them that they should voluntarily refrain from creating them - stop pulling the rug from under their feet, there are enough bad feelings about this already. There is no emergency here which warrants taking action out of process. Nor is out-of-process action required to draw more attention to this issue - it has enough attention already and then some. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
** Would it be okay if someone created a template advocating the overthrow of the government of your country? It may be that you think that is an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources; I do not. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***It is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources and I support deleting templates like that. I just don't think this is an emergency which warrants out-of-process action. And I try to overthrow the government of my country every four years. No luck so far. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 17:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**** I guess this means that in two or three years time I'll be doing a lot of speedying of US election-based nonsense from template space. So be it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*As others, '''Keep Undeleted''', send to TFD, and quit trying to create new policy by fiat. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 18:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* I disagree with Dragons flight's suggestion that making policy through action is unacceptable (see Tuesday's discussions for a good counter-example). I have undeleted these templates and edited one to remove the attack on the Nepal government, and sent the User against Saud one to tfd. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and list on TfD''' - I don't think that this is a good userbox, but it is not an attack directed at other editors, so I do not see the case for urgent action. I think that Tony's approach to userboxes is responsible, and is helping us find a middle ground. Pace Dragon's flight, making policy through action is the wiki spirit. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' all templates which disparage or criticize their subject. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' all attack templates. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and list on TfD''' if it hadn't been done already. This is ''not'' how things are done. Clearly there are reasonable differences of opinion, and thus speedy deletion is not applicable. Speedy deletion is for clear and unambigious deletions only. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 23:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' since the ''User against Saud'' entry has been moved to TfD and the other undeleted, shouldn't this debate be edited/closed? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-11]]===
====[[LUEshi]]====
I believe that the process was not followed correctly in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUEshi]]. The count was 3 Keep votes, 3 Delete, and 5 Merge. For the first Keep, the rationale was that Miyamoto has signed it; this does not establish notability. The second one is from a GameFAQer who personally felt that LUEshi was important, but did not state its importance in relation to Wikipedia policy. The third had no reason at all. I believe that the article should have been merged or deleted, not kept. - [[User:Hbdragon88|Hbdragon88]] 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*Holy cow! '''There are VfD pages all over the place for this one!''' Anyway, I think the chronology is:
#[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUEshi]] - MAYBE the first one, unanimous delete
#[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LUEshi]] - No idea, a mix of a merge, keep and a couple deletes..?
#[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lueshi]] - Speedy delete, but with some keeps
#[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lueshi_(2nd_nomination)]] - THIS is the one referenced here.
<s>I'm not making a descision yet but</s> I feel sorry for the people who have to sort through those. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' at any rate, as the closest to consensus is merge at 5m/3k/1d or 5/4 which does not meet the afd minimums. As the arguments go though, while they sort of go to process we can't usually discount "votes" of established editors because they give no opinion etc., although I sometimes wish we could. Whether or not Miyamoto signing it establishes notability is not really our descision, unfortunately. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 05:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', but this should be merged, redirected, and protected to prevent recreation of the article. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 07:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' since there was clearly no consensus to delete on the last AFD, just be bold and merge it if you want to. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 08:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Pedelec]]====
As per [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion]]: deletion was "out of process" as discussed within the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedelec]]. Motion of non-suite. POV Fork was never properly defined by nominator or supporters. No substantial proof was given to indicate this is/was a POV FORK. 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~
Unsigned nomination by {{user|72.57.8.215}} (static IP used by {{user|CyclePat}})</a>
*The basis of the nomination resting on out-of-process is very clearly wrong. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 03:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*A nasty RfD, but it looks like 5D/1k to me, and I see no process violations on the part of thaoe arguing for deletion. '''Endorse close''' (keep deleted). [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*What does "motion of non-suite" mean? When did this become a courtroom? The closing of the previous discussion was proper. '''Keep deleted'''. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**definition of [[Non-suit]]. (see the canadian law section). 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Sorry, but "POV fork" was indeed properly defined by the nominator and the article clearly meets the definition of one. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' and keep deleted, for what it's worth (as nominator but non-voter, as usual for me). Evidence was provided of why this is a POV fork (see also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric bicycle]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_bicycle&action=history] and the various archives of [[Talk:Motorized bicycle]]), and I believe both [[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] and [[User:Katefan0|Katefan0]] can speak to the history here. This is not a "spinout" as no attempt was made to incorporate this into the existing section at [[motorized bicycle]] (where pedelec was mentioned by name and which article was and still is linked to [[:de:pedelec]]). Even bearding [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] did not gain any support for Pat's assertion of process irregularities. Pat, if you think this is a vendetta I suggest you raise an RfC, as I have said before. - [[User:JzG|Just zis  Guy, you know?]] [[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]/[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Review''' and send to '''Arbitration''': The example you give for electric bicycles only substantiates that there is a lack of process. Anyone that actually looks into that will realize that, that article failed to be deleted for lack of process. It was put through the redirected for deletions and remains redirected to motorized bicycle. The lack of definition of the issue of POV Fork is not a major issue, the lack of proof is what is being questioned. If the question of lack of proof was raised regarding a POV fork, then an independant review should be done to determine whether there is enough proof to substantiate the POV Fork. If there was not enought proof, there obviously would be no reason for a POV FORK. Hence the reason for the out of process. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 16:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
:*No need to vote twice, Pat. Your view is already in the nomination. - [[User:JzG|Just zis  Guy, you know?]] [[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]/[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
:**Those are serious allegations and I don't appreciate them. There is a fine line between voting, requesting undeletion, an leaving a comment, and to my knowledge I haven't voted. This is yet another example of your generalizations leading into what I believe is a ill faithed assumptions. (or putting words into other peoples mouths) Not only is this insulting but this is what has plagued this issue from the start. Seemingly, it's what, according to me, plagues wikipedia. Secondly I don't know who put my IP and name at the top of this nomination but that goes against [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#To request that a page (or image) be restored]] (A.K.A.: undeletion policy). It is clearly stated to sign with <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>, and this just re-enforces my idea that wikipedia is corrupt. (Even my local news paper the "Ottawa Citizen" has indicated in an article that wikipedia is no longer NPOV). Finally as for RFC's I couldn't agree better then with [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RFCs do not work because nobody seems to care: edit wars are better|this comment]]. All this supporting my assumption that wikipedia is just as corrupt as our Canadian [[Liberal]] [[government]]/ Thanks even more to these enlightening facts, I think this entire process should be stayed, re-nominated and independently reviewed by an arbitration comity. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' Some day, in a perfect world, Pat will learn our policies and procedures. Instead, I'm still seeing bad faith afd nominations and deletion reviews for every deletion of Pat's material and forking and everything else. And now we have "send this to arbitration". You can't. Have you read [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] Pat? Knowing you, you haven't. You can't send this to arbitration. It doesn't work that way. And of course this is a POV fork Pat. [[Gallery of motorized bicycles]] is a fork...Pedelec is a fork...[[Gallery of motorized trikes]] is a fork. They are all forks from [[motorized bicycle]] because *3 months ago* the decision was made to move [[electric bicycle]] to motorized bicycle. Even though you had a chance to speak up, you didn't. Since then, you've made numerous attempts to get it back by doing things like this. Community vote was to delete gallery of motorized bicycles so you created trikes, immediately put it up for deletion and then hoped it would be kept so that you could bring back gallery of motorized bikes. This is the same thing. You hope that Pedelec is restored so then you can restore electric bicycles even though that went through a rfd vote already. And I'm not making this up. You've made your intentions clear. Just stop. Please. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']][[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]] 01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
**Well actually Woohookitty I have read [[WP:DR]]. I remember seeing a section [[WP:AP]] that would be more specific to the issue. And we can infer from section "Scope", #2, which states: ''Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help.'' that there are issues that are heard without mediation. (I also believe the previous steps have been attempted). Now everyone knows Wikipedia is a learning process. If what you are saying is we can't use past precedences to develop on making wikipedia a better place, then I think that is plain wrong and perhaps you should start looking elsewhere. I really didn't want to go into this discussion here but since you brought it up, here we go: first off, your inherent interest in the article is obvious. You created [[motorized bicycle]]. It's your baby. In Oregon a [[Motorized bicycle]] is like a [[moped]]. In other parts of the US it also a [[moped]] but includes smaller sub-class, similar vehicles such as the [[electric bicycle]] (that of which you merged to motorized bicycle). Here in Canada we have something similar called a [[motor assisted bicycle]] or a [[moped]]. But we also have the [[power-assisted bicycle]] another class of vehicle. All that to say, it is my belief that just like [[truck]] is an [[automobile]] and [[SUV]], [[Car]], etc... they, electric bicycle, pedelec, power assisted bicycle should have their own articles. Not only that, but so closely related is the [[moped]] and it even has it's own article. Previously, you have indicated your disagreement to merge moped with motorized bicycle. JzG, also indicated a vote against the merger of this article with moped. One of his reasons being was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motorized_bicycle&diff=prev&oldid=29274760 because the two strands of development are entirely separate]. What are the major differences between these two strands of development? And if so, could this not be inferable for the use with the "entirely" different strand of development between electric pedelecs (or electric motor assisted bicycles) vs our most commonly know (fossil fuel guzzlers) IC motor assisted bicycles? (hint the answer is right in the question there!). --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
::I took your advice and have filled for mediation regarding this case (well, technically speaking, similar cases that we never really resolved): [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]] --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 06:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Gallery of motorized bicycles]]====
As per [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion]]: Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article, either to use its content elsewhere, or alternatively, because they cannot tell if it was wrongly deleted without seeing what exactly was deleted. ('''temporary undeletion''')
To permit a deleted article to be transwikified or properly moved to a sister wiki-site. 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~
*To which "sister site" do you plan to move it? You wrote it, so you know very well what's in it. Having failed to persuade anyone that this was not a fork, it will be speediable if you simply reinstate the text elsewhere on Wikipedia under some other title. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 03:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**Please move a copy to [[user:CyclePat/gallery of motorized bicycles|Gallery of motorized bicycles]] so I may begin trans-wiki. Thank you. 04:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***See [[User:CyclePat/Gallery of motorized bicycles]], and note the message on your talk page. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 19:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Game Central Network]]====
The article [[Game Central Network]] was deleted due to the mere fact that it did not hold up to [[WP:WEB]]. No one in my community, nor myself were informed that there was even speculation of deletion.

No, game central network is not a "notable" as stated in wp:web, but I cannot agree to it's deletion based on the guidelines placed before us.

Game Central Network's began as a small fan website, hl2central.net, based on the rumor of the second [[Half-Life]] game. It was and is a key resource for many websites including [[IGN]] (http://www.planethalflife.com/news/search.asp?function=search&search=hl2central), FileFront, among other "notable" websites. On top of this, we have interviews with major players in the game development industry, most notably, [[Gabe Newell]] of Valve software (http://www.hl2central.net/?id=1480). Notable enough, in-fact, that it still remains listed upon an IGN website, http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/press/.

Our content is even of such value that it has been translated by people we do not even know so that their users can read it. (http://www.hl2.ru/interviews/hl2central/)

You can also find our website listed on many websites just due to the fact that they like our site...
http://www.bloodthirst.org/links.php
http://halflife2.filefront.com/ (right column)
http://www.planethalflife.com/community/links.shtm
http://reinstatement-mod.co.uk/hl2_news.shtml
http://www.ultimate-gamer.com/halflife2/hl2links.htm
http://www.halflife2.net/page.php?p=comm_links
http://www.hlfallout.net/view.php/hl2info/sitelinks.php

WP:WEB is a proposal, for those who dont know already. Our article was to outline the history of the website, it's effects, and it's future. It was written as neutrally as possible and i encouraged my community to edit it to be even more so. So umm i dont know but it's deletion was wrong.

[[User:Thepcnerd|Thepcnerd]] 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Central Network|here]]. This page is for discussion of process, not notability (unless things have changed since I was gone). --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
** That is factually incorrect. Good articles are undeleted on the basis of content. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse decision''' (keep deleted). I see no process problems with the AFD discussion. The arguments above do not seem to be new evidence enough to reopen the debate. Indeed, the nominator's very comment that he wants to "encourage my community to edit it ..." highlights his/her misunderstanding of the key problems with the article. Contributions must be [[Wikipedia:verifiable|verifiable]] by an average reader/editor. Contributions by community members would in general violate our prohibition against [[Wikipedia:original research|original research]]. I would encourage you to document your website's history, effects and future, but on your own site or blog. That kind of content is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 22:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' valid Afd discussion. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 11:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD discussion. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' no evidence of failure of process, no new evidence in the above. - [[User:JzG|JzG]] 11:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Pms clan]]====
The article PMS Clan was deleted for vanity / hoax.

PMS Clan are not a hoax. They are geniune world famous female gaming team, specialisng on the FPS genre. That compete at all major championships around the world, and attend all major video gaming events.

They are well known in the video gaming world, and have been sponsored by both Nintendo and Microsoft to attend events and promotions.

Admittedly the text my have been accused of 'vanity', however this is becase they are a very successful team. The text could be toned down (to reduce the vanity element)if necessary, however, the entry is valid - with potential for editing, not deleteing.

Please rethink the deltion of this page.

Many thanks.

[[C Johnson]]16:12, 11 January 2006 (GMT)
*'''Overturn deletion and AfD'''. The speedy deletion under criteria A7 (Unremarkable people or groups) has been questioned. A Google search turns up news reports from the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4254259.stm BBC] and [http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,1885,00.html Wired news], so the clan appears to meet [[WP:V|verifiability criteria]] even thought the deleted article failed to [[WP:CITE|cite]] any sources. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn deletion and list on AfD'''. This speedy is questionable enough to warrant an AfD. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 20:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn deletion and list on AfD''' - It is routine to overturn CSD A7s in these kind of circumstances, and hoaxes are not speediable. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 22:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn speedy deletion and list on AFD''' per above. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 22:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and list on AfD''' I agree with charles. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 22:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and list on AfD, as it appears to not be speediable, and I'm curious if it will survive an AfD. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 02:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* As there seems to be unanimity that this was not suitable for speedy deletion, I've undeleted it. If anybody wants to delete, if can go to AfD. Speaking purely for myself, it looks like more of a cleanup job than a deletion candidate. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*It was respeedied as "nn". I have re-undeleted and listed it at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pms clan]]. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**Sources have been added, now looking like a keep on AfD. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 01:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Ludvig Strigeus]]====
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludvig Strigeus]]

All the delete votes were made when the article was a one-liner. I expanded on the article and voted keep. I think the subject is notable and request an undelete, please.  -- [[User:WP| W  P ]][[User talk:WP|Talk]] 10:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* The nomination was made on 6 Jan. The delete votes were made on 6 and 7 Jan. The article was expanded on 8 Jan. The person who did the expansion was the only keep voter. The discussion was closed on 12 Jan. While many people had the opportunity to revisit the article and the discussion, apparently none chose to do so. Looking at the expanded article itself, I don't think that this person yet meets the recommended [[Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies|criteria for inclusion of biographies]]. I am inclined to '''endorse the closure''' (keep deleted) even though the nominator may be right that the original discussion paricipants may not have re-evaluated their decisions after the expansion. Note: This decision is without prejudice against re-creation if the subject of the article goes on to do more notable work and ''does'' eventually become eligible under our inclusion criteria. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 17:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. This may be a case where the nominator should simply recreate the *expanded* article, per policy, and be ready to defend it better when/if it gets renominated. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete'''. The closer did not take into account the fact that the article was substantially improved and that no delete votes followed the expansion. The subject is the original developer of three reasonably famous pieces of software that have their own Wikipedia articles: [[MTorrent]], [[ScummVM]] and [[OpenTTD]]. Thus the close was wrong on process and (most important) made the wrong decision for Wikipedia by deleting good content. I agree with Turnstep's proposal and if [[User:WP]] or anyone else makes a good faith request for a temporary undelete for that purpose I will grant it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Is every person who votes delete in the early stages of a discussion to be disenfranchised, or must they keep checking back on every article they've already reviewed on a daily basis to go back to the discussion and say, "Nope, despite the edits made since the last time, my vote stands."? The fact that there were no further delete votes after the expansion may well be due to the fact that everyone who came to the discussion saw sufficient delete votes and didn't feel like adding any more. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist'''. It appears the article was judged on its initial stubby content. I believe that being an important contributor to 4 software projects makes one notable. I think there's enough new information added to warrant a reevaluation of the deletion debate. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 09:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist'''. Zoe's point is well-taken, but it's an assumption. It could just as easily have been the case where others, seeing the delete votes, did not bother to investigate the article after its expansion. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*As a comprimise what about just doing a normal relisting with the other comments intact? [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[The Ditherals]]====
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ditherals]]

I believe this page was speedily deleted by [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] without reference to due process. Just requesting a '''relist'''. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 11:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* I'm torn on this one. If I'd seen the AFD discussion, I would have argued for the article's deletion on the basis of the inherent unverifiability of this neologism. Based on the evidence available, I see no possibility that this article would have survived the full AFD debate. On the other hand, this article did not meet any of the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria. Being an ''obvious'' delete is not the same as being a ''speedy'' delete. I have to reluctantly recommend '''overturning''' the speedy-deletion and '''reopening''' the AFD discussion. Speedy-deletions should continue to be narrowly interpreted to the specific cases. The encyclopedia will not suffer too badly from allowing the article to stay for the 5 day discussion period. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 16:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*As far as I'm concerned, as an inherently and irreparably POV article on a politically motivated ''nickname'' for a political party coming right in the middle of an election campaign, this essentially constituted an '''attack page''' (which ''is'' a speedy deletion criterion), no less than if somebody wrote up an article legitimizing a POV nickname for one of their opponents, such as "The Blocheads", "The New Dumbocrats" or "The Fasco-Cons", which are all just as verifiable as to their existence, and yet completely inappropriate as Wikipedia content. While I admittedly can't stop recreation if that happens to be the consensus here, I'm not going to apologize for my own judgment in the matter. (And I won't apologize for being of the belief that only a [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]] supporter could possibly even ''imagine'' that this term somehow deserved its own Wikipedia article in the first place, either.) I won't officially cast a vote since it's my action that's being challenged here, but these are my bottom line points:
*# Attack pages are speedyable.
*# I won't apologize for viewing it as an attack page and acting in accordance with that view. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 19:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
** When this speedy criterion was first approved, it was strictly limited to ''personal'' attack pages. There were reasonable arguments made on [[WT:CSD]] that the criterion should be expanded to small groups. [[Wikipedia:Attack page]] was reworded to allow a bit more flexibility and may have gone too far into ambiguity. No discussion that I've found authorized the expansion of this criterion to large groups like entire political parties. That seems to me to be an overly broad interpretation of the criterion. Furthermore, a case could be made that the wording on the article was relatively neutral - it was an attempt to define an objectionable term in as neutral language as was possible. I still believe that it was deletable as a dicdef and as a neologism but can not endorse the assessment of it as an "attack page". No change of vote, I'm afraid. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Well, that's fine. You're free to believe I was wrong in my assessment; my only point was that I won't ''apologize'' for assessing it as I did. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

*This is in no way an ''attack page.'' It is a neutral definition of an unflattering nickname. Are all unflattering nicknames banned from wikipedia? By the way, [[Mr. Dithers]] is in Wikipedia, just so you know. The definition does indeed come in the middle of the election campaign.. this is because the word is being use more and more often in Canadian political blogs. I have once again been accused by Bearcat of being a Conservative party supporter. Again, I request a retraction. According to Bearcat's logic, Clyde Sanger of [[The Economist]] must be a Conservative party supporter since he coined the term [[Mr. Dithers]] [http://economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3669408] Ditherals is simply play on words of Mr. Sanger's nickname. As for the "The Blocheads", "The New Dumbocrats" or "The Fasco-Cons", these names are not widely used in political commentary like Ditherals or [[Mr. Dithers]] and certainly never made it to [[The Economist]]. At the next [[google dance]] we will likely see the pages for Ditherals increase several fold. As for Rossami's clain of ''inherent unverifiability'' pretty much every entry in Google for Ditheral refers to the [[Liberal Party of Canada]] unless it is a spelling mistake on an unrelated page. -Palmerston
**[[Mr. Dithers]] doesn't deserve its own article either — the only reason it's had one as long as it has is that nobody knew it was here. Unless they're caught instantly by RC patrol, there's virtually no way ''to'' know these things exist if they're not filed in a category. And besides, the [[Paul Martin]] reference is an entirely secondary meaning of the term; any article on it has to, at minimum, mention that the ''original'' (and vastly more widely known) use of the name refers to [[Dagwood Bumstead|Dagwood]]'s boss in the comic strip ''[[Blondie (comic strip)|Blondie]]''. Paul Martin can be a side note in an article about ''that'' meaning; he can't be the ''main'' article at that title. As for my "accusation", well, let's see here. Does it actually in any significant way impair your personal reputation or your ability to function in life? No, it does neither; and those are the basic criteria under which any court of law would require a statement to be retracted. It requires a ''wild'' leap of logic to turn "this person is assuming that I'm a supporter of a perfectly legal political party with a fairly solid level of popular support" into some kind of ''libel'', especially when logic ''compels'' the conclusion that a Liberal Party supporter would never think that an unflattering nickname for their ''own'' party deserved any more attention than it was already getting, and it would never even occur to a New Democrat to even ''consider'' an unflattering nickname for ''any'' political party to be encyclopedia material (we're ''way'' too earnest and goody-two-shoes for that.) So unless you can somehow provide evidence that you've been materially ''damaged'' in some way by the assertion, there'll be no retractions from me. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Relist''' I voted [[NDP]] this morning and, yes, I consider it a [[libel]] to be called a [[Conservative]]. Please retract the Conservative accusation as well as the accusation that I am "too earnest and goody-two-shoes". Seriously, what's with the [[Pigeonhole]]ing and name-calling? Regarding [[Mr. Dithers]]... you state that the [[Paul Martin]] reference is secondary; in fact Google has the Paul Martin reference first and foremost amoung the natural search results. Anyway, that's not the issue. The issue is [[Ditherals]] and your lack of respect for [[due process]]. Please '''relist''' [[Ditherals]] and next time don't be so eager to jump to conclustions about editors. Perhaps your Wiki-authorities should be reconsidered-Palmerston
***I do not have a "lack of respect for [[due process]]". I assessed the article in a specific way, and acted in accordance with my assessment. You're free to disagree with that assessment. You're free to nominate the item for reconsideration as you have done here. That does not mean I'm ignoring due process; this ''is'' the due process in such a situation. (And you still have to prove that you've suffered actual material damage to have a legitimate libel claim. Never mind that my assertion about the earnestness of NDPers involved the word "'''we'''"; I'm making fun of ''myself'' as much as anyone else.) [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist'''. IMHO this does not qualify as an attack page. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 19:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*According to Bearcat, "this ''is'' the due process in such a situation." No it isn't. There was no [[due process]] for Ditherals and there is no [[due process]] for Ditherals because Ditherals ''has already been deleted''. ''[[Due process]] cannot come [[ex post facto]].'' I therefore ask you to agree to a '''relisting''' of Ditherals so that [[due process]] in the deletion process can begin with a proper appliction of Wiki's rules. -Palmerston
** Comment: You are incorrect. Due process in this case includes ''all'' aspects of Wikipedia's deletion process - specifically including the [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] process. I disagree with his application of the process in this specific situation but there definitely is a process and he followed it. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-11]]===
====Valhalla Legends====
Being a fairly inexperienced Wikipedian, I will defer to experience if appropriate, however:

The article on Valhalla Legends has been deleted following a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valhalla_legends vote]]. The reasons given by many of the delete voters expose the fact that many/most of them really are not at all familiar with the subject matter at hand.

* Valhalla Legends is not a gaming clan ("Yet another frag-fest clan"/"gamercruft" is deeply inaccurate)
* The clan is most certainly notable for the achievements of its members over the years
* Said achievements are verifiable.

Admittedly, the clan exists within a rather small niche, but I don't see that as being a reason not to have a page on the subject. I accept that the page may have suffered from some vanity in the past, however, the changes I made last week were more than enough to address that. Considering that most of the voters were not familiar with subject, and that most of the keep votes were dismissed as 'sock-puppeting' by the deleting administrator, I'd like this deletion to be reconsidered.

[[User:Harrym|Harrym]] 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

*It is within the right of a AFD closer to discount votes by new people (reason being that they wouldn't be sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia to know what belongs here and that new accounts can be made simply to try and sway the vote. That said, if this not a gaming clan, then what kind of clan is it and can you provide sources that talk about those verifiable achievements you mention? We can't just take your word for it. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 12:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

* Ok - that seems fair.

The clan is primarily a programming clan, although its membership requirements focus more on proficiency in a technical area:

<blockquote>
... most of Valhalla Legends' members have been highly technical. Over half of the members have some solid programming skills while the rest are knowledgeable and/or experienced in networking, hacking, cracking, or were simply legendary in some way on Battle.net during its history.
</blockquote>

The clan has not, and has never been, a gaming clan. [http://www.valhallalegends.com/aboutvL.asp More here].

[[BNLS]] is a little hard to verify, however, it seems that it has its own wikipedia page. Perhaps that counts in its favour. The only reliable information about the use of the service would come from the operators of the service - ie, clan members - and so might not be considered reliable. The following [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=BNLS+Battle.net&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Google search] has some useful information, most notably the [http://www.valhallalegends.com/yoni/BNLSProtocolSpec.txt protocol spec]. The system is used by many people, as [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=BNLS+bot+%28help+%7C+tutorial+%7C+faq%29&btnG=Search&meta= evidenced] by the number of bots that use it, and the number of people asking for help!

[http://bnetdocs.valhallalegends.com/content.php BnetDocs] is the community's primary source of technical information about [[Battle.net]] and its related protocols. The huge majority of the information on the site has been reverse-engineered by clan members. The site regularly has 40-60 unique visitors per day, and has over a 1000 registered users. It is maintained by a group of volunteers (not all of whom are members). I run the site, and am able to provide usage logs if that's useful. Hundreds of protocol messages for 4 different proprietary protocols are documented. This is a considerable volume of work which mostly originates from the activities of clan members. It is, in other words, a notable accomplishment.

On a historical note, one of the earliest third-party clients (perhaps the first) for Battle.net was written by a clan member, although, this is largely unverifiable considering the lack of reliable documentation.

I do not consider the clan to be of any great historical importance, however, it is most certainly notable within its niche. I feel that [[WP:NOT]] a paper encyclopedia applies. I recognise that things such as these can be hard to verify, and I'm happy to do my best to address any specific questions or concerns.

Primarily, I just object to the article being deleted on the basis of such an uninformed vote.

[[User:Harrym|Harrym]] 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - I found the AfD flawed: clearly this page and [[BNLS]] are closely related, since BNLS is only used on vH, but the question of how the information then contained in the two articles should best be covered was thought out by few of the participants. I'm leaning towards ''undelete and list together with BNLS''. I'd also say that I think that developer communities are pretty much inherently more noteworthy participant than fancruftish gamer communities, certainly the two sorts of community should not be confused. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. If this is more than just a gaming clan, then most of the delete votes should be given less weight. Combined with the overlooked "keep" vote of user [[User:Oscarthecat|Oscarthecat]], this is probably a no-consensus. Undelete and give it a chance to get cleaned up, with some information on how it is not merely a gaming clan, before tossing it back to AfD. I'm not convinced it will survive an AfD even then, but I think the new information warrants giving it another shot without the "gamecruft" voters. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**That is the problem, because as far as I can see it is a gaming clan - at least from the linked site -
*:"Valhalla Legends is a Battle.Net clan that wears the tag [vL]. The purpose of the clan is to provide for its members a single place to gather and talk"
*Not only that but the basically same argument given here is the same one that ''replaced the nomination halfway through'' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valhalla_legends&diff=prev&oldid=34290456]), so I think the users had more than enough time to look at. I'll give JIP a message though and endorse whatever (s)he says. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - There is a gaming clan aspect to the site, but according to the posting distribution it is principally a developer's forum [http://forum.valhallalegends.com/index.php/]. It appears to be much more than a gaming clan. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**I don't know... it still appears to me like a gaming clan that does occasional development, which was highlighted during the debate. I'll admit that I can understand how it could be taken differently, I just don't know if this is a somewhat clever attempt to make it appear as something different then it really is. If we do undelete this I think (re)listing both of them as you say is the best way to go. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
***These kinds of content issues are best sorted out on AfD anyway: all that is needed to go back to AfD is to think that there is a high probablity that it will result in a different outcome to the one that resulted in the appeal here. I think we are likely to keep vL and delete BNLS. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**Alright, '''Undelete and (re)list both''' [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete, relist and list [[BNLS]] on AfD''' - My, I convinced RN before I convinced myself! --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''comment''' Thanks. I think this is a good decision. I'll clarify the above poster's concern over tags: Battle.net was, and still is to some extent, the place where most of the clan members congregate and talk. Of course, many members do play games. That, however, is not the primary purpose of the clan. [[User:Harrym|Harrym]] 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-10]]===
====[[Online Gaming League]]====
Please undelete the "Online Gaming League" (online electronic sports). I'm unsure why the article was deleted however, other gaming leagues such as CAL and CPL are listed as Online Games and Leagues that cover these games. OGL was the first of it's kind and certainly should not be deleted if other gaming leagues are allowed to remain (such as CAL and CEVO and CPL). Please review this and undelete OGL (Online Gaming League). January 11, 2006 1:27 PM EST.
*I've put a header on this request. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 11:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Gaming League|here]]. Also, the original page certainly read like spam. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per above. AfD was perfectly valid - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 20:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. No problems seen with AfD, no new information supplied. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 03:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' OGL is very notable in the gaming world, someone ought to write a useful article about them. I agree that the deleted article was not ideal. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 06:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[TRANGO_real-time_embedded_hypervisor]]====
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRANGO_real-time_embedded_hypervisor] The article has been deleted because noted as an advertisement and not-notable technology. As proposed by Andrew pmk, I propose to consider keeping the page without the diagram. --[[User:Pcoulombeau|Pcoulombeau]] 17:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*Moved from content review since this appears to be a full review. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 01:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I can't make sense of this case without seeing the page, since it turns on whether [[User:Andrew pmk]] is right to say that the page is reparable. Can we have a DRV-duration undelete? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Done. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' on AfD. I think the original vote would qualify for a ''no consensus'', though in its current state, it certainly could use some cleanup. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist on AfD''' - While I think the article was full of puffery, I think the article is reparable per Andrew pmk, and furthermore the technology appears notable (it is one of only two software based hypervisor VMs per the [[Hypervisor]] article). A 2nd AfD would go the other way, I think. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Template:User noie]]====
Was speedily deleted as a [[WP:CSD#R1|R1]] (target does not exist), even though according to the summary it apparently redirected to a target that does exist. In addition, there seems to still be references to it. This template should, therefore, be restored as an invalid speedy (which may have been a mistake -- but of course, we are not perfect!). --'''[[User:Wcquidditch|WC''Quidditch'']]''' <big>[[User talk:Wcquidditch|☎]] [[Special:Contributions/Wcquidditch|✎]]</big> 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:I've restored it. At the time the target ''didn't'' exist (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Template:User_browser:Other its log]). —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 04:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Interflop]]====
* 2:37 EST, 10 January 2006. [[Interflop]] is marked for deletion. Requesting undelete as it is a large internet forum, and belongs in that category. 4chan, Something Awful, etc have their own. The argument of Google hits is void, as Interflop once had over 100,000 Google hits, but the site went down once and lost the hits.
*This is now open for discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interflop (2nd nom)]], plese take your comments there. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[EUROFUTURES]]====
Please undelete the above page. It is a bona fide page on an NGO-in-creation prepared by a German futures professor. When we returned here in order to improve it and link it to more pages, we find it was simply deleted - without any substantial reasons! It was not a stub but a rather long article, so it is hard to re-create from scratch. --[[User:Tjfulopp|Tjfulopp]] 10:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': AfD located at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EUROFUTURES]]. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure (keep deleted)'''. Valid AfD that points out the article had problems with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball]]. Recreation of the article should be delayed until after EUROFUTURES is actually created and they are able to provide independent sources to reference the material in the article. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Allen3. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted) per Allen3. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 15:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' valid afd. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

====More attack templates====

Doc glasgow found these and I speedied them.

# 11:22, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User War on drugs]]" (Sole purpose attack on US government policy)
#* This is an attack on the US policy on illegal drugs.
#**As the author of this template, I would like to say that my sole purpose was '''not''' to attack US govt policy. My main purpose (and perhaps there were others) was to create a community of Wikipedians interested in writing articles on the decriminalization of drugs. --[[User:Tiger_Marc|Tiger Marc]][[User talk:Tiger_Marc|ROAR!]] 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#*** How would the template be useful for that purpose? Of those opposed to the war on drugs, wouldn't you expect a disproportionate number of them to be in favor of decriminalization? If you're interested in writing an article, according to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view, you need to find people with relevant expertise and a reasonably diverse range of opinions, or at least some detachment from the subject, but how could this single-opinion template help you to find them? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#**** NPOV requires presenting all sides of an issue and sourcing the information. This template would help find people who are likely to know sources of information about decriminalization. There is nothing about NPOV that says ''editors'' have to have to be detached from a subject. In fact, I would argue that editors who are more passionate about a subject write better articles. --[[User:Tiger_Marc|Tiger Marc]][[User talk:Tiger_Marc|ROAR!]] 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#* Are users here not allowed to disagree with US policy? There after all are for '''personal user pages'''. Userboxes are for expressing personal opinion and I don't see how you can find a valid reason for the censorship of them. -[[User:James Anatidae|james_anatidae]] 04:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
# 11:22, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User No EU]]" (Sole purpose attack on EU)
#* This is an attack on the EU.
#**How is it an "attack" on the EU ??? and who gives you the right to judge that ? It's simply saying one is against the EU which is a perfectly legitimate political stance. MANY people are in strong opposition of the EU ! No wonder no one takes Wikipedia seriously. [[User:Epf|Epf]] 20:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#***Why should we care what a user's view of the EU is? I could understand a template saying a user was ''interested'' in the EU, or otherwise more knowledgeable than usual about it, but when it comes to creating an NPOV encyclopedia I don't see the use in keeping track of views like this. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 01:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#****People should be able to say what opinion they have on the EU. If people feel so upset if someone like me says they dislike the EU then they're completely over-reacting...or they're French - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 11:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
# 11:21, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User Fear Bush]]" (Sole purpose link Bush admistration with neo-fascism)
#* This attacks George W. Bush and his administration by associating US foreign policy with fascism.
# 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User GWB]]" (Sole purpose attack on George W. Bush)
#* This is a personal attack on George W. Bush
#** '''''Note:''''' I have speedy undeleted this as the [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_GWB|associated TFD]] is running >70% in favor of '''keeping''' with more than 70 voters. I believe in that circumstance it is simply inappropriate to have deleted this. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 14:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#***That's okay, soon as this is over, I'll renominate it for deletion, and or speedy it at my descretion. This is a place to write encyclopedic articles, not plaster ones userpage with bumbersticker nonsense.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#**** The implied bad faith in this statement is unbecoming an admin and is directly in violation of [[WP:Consensus]] — [[User:Falerin|Falerin]]<[[User talk:Falerin|talk]]>,<[[Special:Contributions/Falerin|contrib]]> 01:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#***** Note however that I am not endorsing the undeletion of the template either. I frankly do not think any of these templates have a place here. It is the way that this was presented that I oppose. — [[User:Falerin|Falerin]]<[[User talk:Falerin|talk]]>,<[[Special:Contributions/Falerin|contrib]]> 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
# 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User Anti-ACLU]]" (Sole purpose attack on ACLU)
#* This is an attack on the American Civil Liberties Union.
# 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User Anti-UN]]" (sole purpose attack on UN)
#* This is an attack on the United Nations Organisation.

* As with the earlier speedies on User apple sucks, User ms sucks and User Bad EU, the criterion I adopted was that: ''a person, persons, a corporation, government or other organisation was being attacked.

* Of those listed by Doc, I did not delete some for the following reasons:

* [[Template:user illegal-immigration-0]]
** Opposition to an process or activity not associated exclusively with any particular group.
*** I'm not advocating this, but for the sake of consistency.... Since the "attack" policy is to delete the "war on drugs" template (above), which opposed a process or activity of the US govt, you should delete this as well because it opposes an activity or process of the US govt -- namely the patriation of illegal immigrants. Note that this template links to -- sacre bleu! -- an entry on illegal immigration ''in the U.S.'' --[[User:Tiger_Marc|Tiger Marc]][[User talk:Tiger_Marc|ROAR!]] 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** No, it does not mention the government of any country, nor does it represent any policy of any government as "illegal immigration". The War on Drugs template, on the other hand, specifically references a well known US government policy by name, and links to an article that says: ''The War on Drugs is an initiative undertaken in the United States to carry out an "all-out offensive" (as President Nixon described it) against the prohibited use of certain legally controlled drugs.'' --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* [[Template:User No Marxism]]
** Opposition to a political ideology
* [[Template:User Antipope]]
** Jokey expression of the primacy of one's claim to be pope.

* It may be that for other reasons we might want to discuss limiting, regulating or even deleting some of those articles, but they're not what I consider attack templates. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' - and wish I'd been bolder myself. Although, I'm not sure I'm following the subtleties of Tony's differentiations. If we are get rough consensus on this, we may need to work out a more simple form of words. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 11:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*: To clarify, I'll take the war on drugs policy. This is a specific policy adopted by a specific government, and an attack on the policy ''in those terms'' is an attack on the government. A user who says he's opposed to the criminalization of drugs is making a more general statement and, although we may want to regulate, limit, or even forbid the use of that latter kind of template, it wouldn't be an attack. On this occasion I'm performing test speedies of articles that I believe all fall under a particular criterion that I think could command consensus as attack speedies, so I'm only deleting what I think qualifies as an attack on person, persons or a group of people. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' of them all. Opposition to illegal immigration is political movement in U.S., aligns one on a side of an issue of intense debate in the U.S. No Marxism, also aligns a person in a political category, and the use of category is less in your face than the userbox. Antipope could easily be construed to mean anti-Catholic and needs to go.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*I think you may not have been paying attention for the last week or so. There is an ongoing policy discussion, and deleting these templates out of process is a sure way to upset folks. Just because you are no longer running for ArbCom does not mean you should act unilaterally. Speedy deletion is not a toy. Opposition to the war on drugs is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the EU is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to George W Bush is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the ACLU is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the UN is an opinion, not an attack. Your criterion would be acceptable if you were capable of applying it. Please revert the deletions and place these templates on TfD if you truly feel that they need to be removed from wikipedia. '''Speedy deletion is not a toy.''' --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 11:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*:Hm, 'not a toy' is a good catchphrase. I move we add it to [[WP:NOT]] - and remember [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia|Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia]]. But I don't think it is Tony that is guilty of using its resources as a toy! If your opinions leave you wanting to attack and disparage, fine (indeed I abhor some of these subjects myself). But use you 'own' userspace, not the wiki-wide-template space as a playpark. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 12:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*::I am fine with adding 'not a toy' to [[WP:NOT]]. The use of templates for userboxes may not be your favorite use of resources, but I think speedy deletion of these templates should at least be supported by policy - and in this case there is no support. These templates should be placed on TfD where they can be properly discussed. None of them are attacks, they are simply opinions. If they were being placed in the article space, I would see your point, but these are for use in user space, and they ought not be deleted in this manner. '''Speedy deletion is not a toy.''' --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 12:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*:::Wikipedia is also not a toy. '''Endorse Speedy Deletion''' - attack templates step considerably beyond the scope of the project, divide the community, etc. Wikipedia is not Myspace. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*::::'''Wikipedia resources''' - Actually, it takes less drive space to have one template user box that is included in many user pages than to have each of those Wikipedians copy the user box to their individual pages. This resource argument seems specious. I think it cuts both ways. --[[User:Tiger_Marc|Tiger Marc]][[User talk:Tiger_Marc|ROAR!]] 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete All except "Fear Bush"'''. Tony, as it turns out I think we have a different conception of what constitutes an attack. I generally believe that Wikipedians should have the right to express their opposition to any politically important out-of-wiki government, organization, policy or person. In my opinion, if conveyed by an infobox, such opposition should be conveyed in a civil manner. I will agree with you that several of these could be made more civil, but that is a matter of small edits to their content and does not call for deletion. By speedying these, you give the impression that you are opposed to ''any'' expression of opposition when directed against a specific organization, policy or person. If that is your intention, then I certainly do not agree with you. I would also like to voice my opinion that it is disrespectful to the voters in TFD to speedy User GWB while it was being discussed there. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Note: I have speedy undeleted {{tl|User GWB}} on the grounds that the [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_GWB|associated and ongoing TFD]] shows a strong consensus favoring it's existence. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 14:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**What you're actually seeing is a majority in a straw poll on a particular template. The opinion expressed by the majority is in favor of abusing Wikipedia resources in the name of free speech. This doesn't mean there is a consensus on Wikipedia to keep that template. I've redeleted as it's obviously an attack template, and expresses support for some of our most serious vandalism into the bargain. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***Agreed. I've re-deleted the template. An attack is not permissible simply because it's contained in a template. In addition, deletion review isn't a venue for voting to ignore [[WP:NPA]] or to support vandalism on a particular page. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 16:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
****'''Comment''' Attacking politicans is considered protected political speech. There may be reasons for not keeping it, but NPA is irrelevant. Even for you Yanks, I believe. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*****If this was a trial in the US, the concept of "protected political speech" may be valid. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. [[WP:NPA]] is perfectly valid and relevant to this issue. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 01:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
******Attacking Bush, like attacking any national leader, doesn't fit into personal attacks; it is a valid and recognised vehicle for the expression of political dissent and to characterise it as a personal attack is willfully jejune and supine. As to whether it belongs in an encyclopedia is another matter. Personally I don't care one way or the other, but NPA is not the argument to make here. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 03:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
******* The term "protected speech" gives the game away, really. Wikipedia policy does not protect free speech. The only speech you're guaranteed to be able to make here is that which serves the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and I honestly don't see how expressing your personal opinion on political matters is helping that. When it comes to denigration, we do have a policy in place against attacks, so why do we allow them here? User pages aren't homepages, if you want a webhost of those there is a list somewhere. Go on, get yourself a homepage and make all the political statements you want. If you want to do that in a community, go to myspace or something. Let's use this space to build and encyclopedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation. There's a big difference between these userboxes and those that state how well you speak [[pig latin]]. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep speedies deleted''', and delete ALL opposition/support templates infavor of "interest templates". The goal of NPOV is not to fork articles or encyclopaedias, foster ill-will, change someone's beliefs, or show how much you want to screw some actor/actress. Userboxes should be used to foster a dialogue between opposing viewpoints, o that some sort of consensus view can be brought into articles on the subject. If all pro- and anti- folks had to use the same userbox/usercat system, then they would all get informed equally, and neither side could claim bias or vote-stuffing. Userboxes which violate [[WP:NPA]] need not wait on the userbox policy to be formulated, Dschor. Check your userbox POV at the door and look at the good of the encyclopaedia. I can't even edit these days because the servers are crashing from all the vitriol flying. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 14:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' pending on-going policy discussion, which is in its infancy. Policy is good. I shall say no more for fear of stomping [[WP:CIVIL]] into little pieces in an angry, profane tirade. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 15:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', these have no place on Wikipedia.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]] 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong undelete all''' of these. "Attack on US policy"! That is simply foolish, IMO. If that is an "attack page" then any page that expresses in opnion of any govenment policy is an attack page. Since articels are supposed to include such opnions (properly sourced and attributed) this might lead to the deletion of valid articels. In any case the [[WP:NPOV]] policy page says that it applies to '''articles''' -- expression of opnion on user pages is perfectly legitimate under current policy, and disagreeing with current government policy is not in any rational sense an "attack" on anyone. This is WAY out-of-process. I am going to restore several of these. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. We already have policies against attacks. Putting an attack in template form does not in any way exempt it from policy. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 16:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' [[WP:CSD]] A6 says "Attack pages. '''Articles''' which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject" (Emphasis mine). There is currently no policy againt attacks on user pages or in tempaltes except [[WP:NPA]], and several of the above are by no reasoanble streach '''Personal''' attacks. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:THat;s just plain wikilawyering. Can I thus create templates saying 'user x is an asshole' and expect them not to be speedied as they are not artilces? --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::No becuase that is clearly '''personal''' and so violates [[WP:NPA]]. But templates that "attack" US policy on an issue, or the US as a whole, or the EU, or a particular wikipedia policy are in no rational sense attacks. IMO such templates should not be speedied, and i would probably oppose their deletion at TfD. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', disruptive attack templates. Here's to Tony. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 18:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' [[User:BlankVerse|''Blank'']][[User talk:BlankVerse|''Verse'']] 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Undelete''' The only difference between writing out an opinion and using a template is ease of use, both for the proprietor of the personal page and for the readers. Deleting these templates opens the box of user page censorship. That is one box an open project cannot afford to open. --[[User:Pandora Rodriguez|۩ Pandora ۩]] 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)</s> ''Strike comment from sockpuppet of banned [[User:Zephram Stark]] (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser&curid=3677740&diff=34671167&oldid=34671130 evidence])'' [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 22:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***The only difference between writing out an opinion and using a template is ease of use, both for the proprietor of the personal page and for the readers. Deleting these templates opens the box of user page censorship. If we are to adopt the priciple of user page censorship (which perhaps we should) let's do so openly and after a considered discsion on amending [[WP:UP]], not by deleting individual templates. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**I think to some degree it's one that we can't affod ''not'' to open. The Wikimedia Foundation is under no obligation to host irrelevant opinions, especially those that may hurt the encyclopedia by being divisive. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Ahh, bush's favorite argument. These protestors are dividing the country and therefore we have are right to stop them. These templates are not divisive, what's divisive are all the admins ignoring process and attacking people's personal opinion boxes. Censorship is divisive.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Wikipedia's not a country, nor a message board system; it's an [[encyclopedia]]. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***Why would ''your'' "personal opinions" need to be in the template namespace? [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Because these were speedy deleted, I cannot see what these User boxes said. Based on a presumption of innocence, I would like them reverted and sent to deletion page for further discussion. --[[User:Tiger_Marc|Tiger Marc]][[User talk:Tiger_Marc|ROAR!]] 21:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''; not attack pages. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - [[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]) 22:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion, except for war on drugs template'''. This attacks a policy, not the government itself, or a person, or whoever. The US are not the only country that fights a war on drugs. Nearly all of Asia does so as well. If this has to stay deleted then the illegal immigration template should be judged equally to this one. -- [[user:Sneltrekker|Sneltrekker]]'''†'''[[User_talk:Sneltrekker|My Talk]] 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore and take to TfD.''' This is taking a good thing too far. Like any other deletion, if there is reasonable disagreement than it is ''no longer'' a speedy. It doesn't matter if we agree with the argument that critisicm of the EU is not an attack. All that matters is that this is not the venue in which to have that discussion. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore and take to TfD''' While I think all of these should have been deleted I have to agree that the ammount of disagreement presented makes speedy a questionable descision. — [[User:Falerin|Falerin]]<[[User talk:Falerin|talk]]>,<[[Special:Contributions/Falerin|contrib]]> 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' as has been said, these go well beyond the scope here, are disruptive and are nothing more than bumperstickers that set a poor precedent. If you want to say that you are against something or hate something write it in your userpage and you'll probably get away with it. These are in general Wikipedia template space and don't belong. There's no free speech/protected speech there. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete All'''. Political userboxes in general have already passed a vote for deletion. [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strongest Possible Undelete''', or you might as well delete [[WP:CSD]]. [[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 06:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete all''' so I can go to TfD and vote for deleting them there. The way to keep stuff like that deleted is to ''convince people why it should be''. This SD/DRV method of short-circuiting the usual deletion procedure is annoying the people involved and hurting our chances of reaching a consensus. Please, please stop. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 07:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*:And note that by deleting first and discussing second ''you're taking non-admins out of the loop'' since only admins can view deleted material and thus make an informed comment on whether it should be kept deleted. Cross-posted to Tony's talk page :) - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' Is there a good reason to keep these templates? How does "I think Bush is a Neo-Nazi pigdog" and "Bush is my hero" (I know, neither of those phrases excist in userboxes.) help further our goal of writing an encylopedia? I'm not against userboxes, some of them make me laugh out loud (a good thing :)) but these really strong, and controversial pov ones just divide people. Dont let wikipedia become like many other places on the web, where "libs" and "cons" spend their time slugging it out, hurling abuse at one another. P.S. I do agree fully with the above comment though. '''''[[User:Banes|Ban]]''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]''[[User_talk:Banes|s]]''''' 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* I've produced a gallery of the templates as they appeared when I speedied them. Only a few categories have been removed; the templates are as you would have seen them on a user page.
** [[User:Tony Sidaway/Attack speedies, 2006-01-10]] --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*:Thank you, I applaud you for that. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 10:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete all''' and discuss them at TFD. Calling a template where the user says he is against the war on drugs as an "attack template" is over the top. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 09:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete All''' As a person with an [[MBA]], even though wiki is not-for-profit, let me tell you the same principles apply here as in business. Userboxes help users (employees) write an encyclopedia the same way [[Wikipedia:Barnstars|Barnstars]] do: They make users (employees) feel good (through self-expression) and make them more likely to contribute. Also, neophytes, like me, learn about technical things (programming syntax, how to upload images, fair use, etc.) in the course of making userboxes. It's an enlightened management decision to keep them. Regardless, please take note that, per my request, {{tl|User Anti-UN}} and {{tl|User Anti-ACLU}} have been temporarily undeleted and modified so as to not "attack". I request that they be removed from the list of "attack" templates up for deletion.
*'''Keep Deleted''' and re-delete re-created ones. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse speedy''' - listing controversial speedies on WP:DRV is the right thing to do, endorse per reasons given by nominator. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* The original appearance and current status of all the templates is here:
*: [[User:Tony Sidaway/Attack speedies, 2006-01-10]]
* The upshot is that nearly all speedied articles were resurrected in a form without the attacks, two of the most extreme remain deleted, and one or two milder ones were recreated. I'm happy with that and so it seems, by and large, is the community. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''keep deleted''' -- ( [[User:Drini|drini's page]] [[User talk:Drini|<big>☎</big>]] ) 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', there's no point in keeping track of a user's POV unless it's causing problems with his or her editing (in which case I doubt these boxes will be much use). [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' on TFD, users are entitled to an opinion. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 15:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*The deletion process seems to have been inverted. Now, userboxes are being speedily deleted and then people are left to argue about it afterwards without being able to see the actual template. Speedy deletion is only for cases where it is obvious that the userbox would be soundly defeated at the tfd page. With the level of the debate here I think it is obvious that were these listed at tfd, there would not be an overwhelming majority to delete. Please follow the tfd process from now on. Speedy deletion causes nothing but strife within the wikipedia community. With a transparent tfd process, even the inclusionist will see that process has been followed and will not have as much reason to be upset. Divisive userboxes have a possiblity to be harmful - the userbox wars are destroying the wikipedia community. Please use tfd from now on.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*: The templates as they originally were when speedied were placed into a gallery by me: [[User:Tony Sidaway/Attack speedies, 2006-01-10]]. I think it's been established that attack userboxes can be speedied, although for now they should probably be brought here. Attacks aren't permitted on Wikipedia, and I see no reason to start permitting them now. When you chose your username, perhaps you might have chosen a less obvious one. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
::*That is factually incorrect. Of all the templates that you speedied only one is still deleted. Attack or no attack, everyone will be happier if you use the tfd.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 07:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====Various attack templates====
As we're still making policy on this, I'll discuss these recent speedy deletions in detail, with the hope that we can decide what kind of attack can acceptably be speedied. Reverse chronological order because that's how the deletion log lists them.

# 08:13, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User ms sucks]]" (sole purpose attack on microsoft and its customers)
#* Companion to apple sucks. Expresses contempt for Microsoft and its customers, "drones".
# 08:09, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User jerk]]" (sole purpose personal attack)
#* Appears to have been used by people to describe themselves, but has obvious applications as an attack and no redeeming encyclopedic use.
# 08:08, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User jacko wacko]]" (sole purpose personal attack)
#* Attack on [[Michael Jackson]]
# 08:03, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User does not trust Jimbo]]" (sole purpose personal attack)
#* Attack on [[Jimbo Wales]]
# 08:03, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User delete deletionists]]" (sole purpose is attack on group (albeit jokey))
#* Partly jokey, but ventures deep into partisan advocacy and attacking a subgroup of Wikipedians.
# 08:00, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User browser:Other]]" (Sole purpose is attack on Microsoft's IE browser (yes I know it sucks))
#* I have doubts about this deletion. Is it an attack, or just a particularly vague expression of browser preference? "This user contributes using any browser other than Internet Explorer" I think I'll go with the intent--which seems to be to denigrate a software product for the purpose of advocacy.
# 07:58, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User apple sucks]]" (Sole purpose is an attack on Apple Computer.)
#* As ms sucks, almost identical wording.
# 07:54, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User bad eu]]" (redirect to deleted userbox that denigrated the EU)
#* See below
# 07:52, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "[[Template:User bad EU]]" (Sole purpose is denigration of the EU)
#* This is a very harsh condemnation of the EU.

* Overall I think that userbox templates of this kind have no place on Wikipedia because they abuse Wikipedia facilities in the service of attacking a person, a group of people, a company, or the works uniquely associated with a person, persons or a company. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse''' I'm actually glad to see those gone - although the "user does not trust Jimbo" one is hilarious :). [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 09:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**The I.E./browser one is a close call though - personally I think it promotes factionalism etc. but it isn't as egregious as the others. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 09:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' of all templates which criticize or disparage their subject. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 09:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse, weak in some cases'''. I feel like the EU and major corporations are too large for "attacking" them to be a big deal; attacking their users is another matter. It's also worth noting that [[Template:User does not trust Jimbo]] was created as a humorous counterpoint to my own userbox {{[[Template:User trusts Jimbo|User trusts Jimbo]]}}; one could argue that if a userbox supporting Mr. Wales is ok, then the counterpoint should also (albeit probably not in this form). -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 09:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**One could argue that, although I would argue that it is not necessarily so. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 09:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
** (To SCZenz): On the EU one, how about a template that said something similar about the USA? Although the EU is not a nation state like the EU, it does have a social apparatus, and its membership is open only to members of the Council of Europe, who are bound by one overriding constitution governing human rights, its citizens vote in Europe-wide democratic elections to its Parliament, and most of its executive decisions are taken by senior elected cabinet ministers of the member countries in session. The box describes the EU as "an over-powerful, non-democratic bureaucracy" as a matter of fact rather than opinion, which seems to be use of template space to get around the neutrality policy
** On your argument for symmetry, I think I can imagine a very mild, jokey template as a counterpart to yours, but I must admit I have to screw my eyes tight shut to do so. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Anything that's unacceptable regarding the EU would be unacceptable regarding the US, and vice versa. There's should be a similar equivalence for any country or international organization. The question is, whether attacks that are so massively ''im''personal, because the targets are so huge, really a problem? -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 09:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*I'm making a conscious effort to avoid further userbox dramatics... but several of these had associated categories, which someone may want to zap as well. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 09:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If there is indeed consensus that the deletions above are basically sensible, I suggest we add it to [[WP:CSD]]. See [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Attack_templates]]. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 09:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. However, framing a 'policy' could be difficult. What about 'user against apartheid'? I'd suggest: 1) ''any'' userboxes are generally allowed (subject to [[WP:NPA]]). Howerer, as for ''templates''. 2) No commenting whatsoever, even implicitly, on individual wikipedians. 2) No disparraging of groups of wikipedians. 3) No campaigning or wiki-politicing 3) No disparaging of any individual figure (remember Seigenthaler). Any of the above should be speediable - anything debatable then TfD. As I say, you can still do most of the above in your userspace, just not using wiki-wide-templates. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|ask?]] 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
** User against apartheid, etc, are probably not attacks because they're expression of (albeit often extreme) shades of political opinion, on which I think I'd want to see a separate policy. Here I'm concentrating on attacks on ''a person, a group of people, a goverment, corporation or other organisation, or works '''uniquely associated''' with a person, persons, or a government, corporation or other organisation''. So attacking Microsoft by going after their browser is covered, but saying you don't use non-tabbing browsers with undisclosed security bugs isn't. Saying you hate communists is covered, saying you hate communism isn't. Saying you are vehemently opposed to scientology is covered, saying you support the longstanding antiscientology project "Operation Clambake isn't (at least, notunder the proposed extension of A6). --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::*I agree with this opinion completely. I love userboxes, and use a ton myself, but if all they contain is hatespeech they only ruin the community, instead of improving it, which as far as I can see is their main goal. -- [[user:Sneltrekker|Sneltrekker]]'''†'''[[User_talk:Sneltrekker|My Talk]] 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* One template that I chose not to speedy is one that expresses implacable opposition to illegal immigration, "without forgiveness". While the wording there is a little odd (''forgiveness''?) and such templates may still be deletable if they damage wikipedia, they're not attacks. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' speedy deletion is not a toy. None of these are, properly speaking, attack templates. All of the express an opinion, but not one is an attack. These are not intended for use in the article space, and NPOV is not required in user space. Please list these templates properly. '''Speedy deletion is not a toy.''' --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 11:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Tentative support deletion''', but '''temporarily undelete''' and substub where humorous use was appropriate. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
** I like that idea. There were half-a-dozen humorous uses of the jerk template, so I substed them. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' except for the jerk template if it was self-applied (as noted above), I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*Really wishing these were not a block item:
*#'''Undelete and reword [[Template:User bad EU|User bad EU]]''': As per my comments above ([[Wikipedia:Deletion_review#More_attack_templates]]), legitimiate expressions of political opposition should be rewritten to be made civil, but should not be uniformly deleted.
*#'''Undelete [[Template:User browser:Other|User browser:Other]]''': I simply see no problem with this.
*#'''Undelete and TFD [[Template:User does not trust Jimbo|User does not trust Jimbo]] and [[Template:User delete deletionists|User delete deletionists]]''': While I am not a fan of these and might well vote for their deletion, they are both apparently intended as humourous and I do not think they rise to the level of something that should be speedied. Had it been any other Wikipedian than Jimbo, I would have endorsed deletion of that one, but he is in fact a very visible public person and I think there is room for legitimate discussion of to what extent we should be able to poke fun at our Godking.
*#'''Keep deleted [[Template:User jerk|User jerk]] and [[Template:User jacko wacko|User jacko wacko]]''': Jerk may have legitimate uses, but is likely to also be used as an attack. The Jackson template is clearly inappropriate.
*#'''Mixed feelings on [[Template:User apple sucks|User apple sucks]] and [[Template:User ms sucks|User ms sucks]]''': I might support anti-ms/anti-apple templates if someone was prepared to give them a better name and far more civil content, but as presented these are rather far over the top and it might be better to start over than to use these as a foundation for anything. Even with a rewrite, I'm not sure I'd support these, but I would have to see it first.
**[[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* Somebody undeleted [[Template:GWB]], but I think it's obvious that its intention is to denigrate George W. Bush. There's also the problem of advocating vandalism. I'm unwilling to let a template of this type stand, so I've deleted it again. I've also deleted [[Template:GWB2]], which is another attack on Bush. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::GWB2 is actually nicer than the fist GWB. GWB2 said Bush's edits to the constitution should be reverted. This is following NPA as cricising the action, not the person. The link in GWB2 was to legislation of the patriot act, not bush. If you were to read the tfd for GWB, people were suggesting switching to GWB2 as it was nicer than GWB. Please '''undelete''' this and list it properly if you must.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 21:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep speedies deleted''', and delete ALL opposition/support templates in favor of "interest templates". The goal of NPOV is not to fork articles or encyclopaedias, foster ill-will, change someone's beliefs, or show how much you want to screw some actor/actress. Userboxes should be used to foster a dialogue between opposing viewpoints, o that some sort of consensus view can be brought into articles on the subject. If all pro- and anti- folks had to use the same userbox/usercat system, then they would all get informed equally, and neither side could claim bias or vote-stuffing. Userboxes which violate WP:NPA need not wait on the userbox policy to be formulated; now can we get back to making an encyclopaedia?? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and TfD [[Template:User jerk|User jerk]] and [[Template:User browser:Other|User browser:Other]]''', but do as you like with the others. —[[User:Andux|Andux]] 16:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete all''' Tfd ones that are '''personal''' attacks, leave all others pending agreement on userbox policy. i have undelteded all of these that were not clear personal attacks (and I do not regard the EU as a "person") as obviously out-of-process spedies. Take them to TfD if you must. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' deleted. These are all personal attacks in violation of Wikipedia policies.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', these templates were primarily used as personal attacks. Endorse the proviso noted by Mgm. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletions'''. [[User:BlankVerse|''Blank'']][[User talk:BlankVerse|''Verse'']] 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Respectfully Disagree''' The Michael Jackson template was meant in [[humor]]. Also consider it was pretty widely used, and does anyone seriously think Michael Jackson cares what we think about him? --[[User:D-Day|D-Day]] 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**You'd be surprised. Someone claiming to be Jackson's publicist recently commented at [[Talk:Michael Jackson]]. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* Someone keeps resuscitating [[Template: User GWB]]. As it's both an attack and an incitement to vandalism and there is substantial consensus that (a) vandalism must not be encouraged, (b) personal attacks are not allowed and (c) this applies in template space too, I'd appreciate it if someone else would help us to pull the plug on this especially toxic template. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore and TfD,''' mostly per Dragons flight. Once there is rational opposition, it's not a speedy anymore. None of these appear to rise to the level of acrimony that an attack speedy requires. Unless we're ''trying'' to create a divide between admins and regular users, these discussions should take place where everyone can judge the contents. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
** I'm just not seeing a policy reason to restore here. There was a bit of a kerfuffle over User GWB but that seems to have resolved itself by a bit of inspired editing that managed to remove the attack and the incitement while still adhering to the original author's stated intention (and I believe him) of expressing abhorrence of vandalism to the George W. Bush article. There ''is'' a policy divide between administrators and users. Administrators don't slavishly follow what other users want them to do. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* Okay, why did nothing show up in the deletion logs when I checked? I thought there was some sort of error. Anywho, '''oppose deletion''' on most of them. I'll have to review some, but the idea that userboxes should be uniformly banned from disagreement with the subject is simply wrong. [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep Deleted''' For the same reasons as the other group. Comments are on the next section up if you'd care to look. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' Per above. Except the "jerk" one, that is self depracatory. '''''[[User:Banes|Ban]]''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]''[[User_talk:Banes|s]]''''' 09:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' and re-delete re-created ones. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 14:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I have undeleted {{tl|User GWB2}} as it is celarly an expression of opnion on specificv policy actions, not an "attack on Bush". Unless all political PoV statements are to be banned from user space, this clearly is not over the line. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore and Use Process''' if you want them deleted, not speedy stuff. I think they aren't attacks so much as expressions of aversion. Some of them are perhaps over the top. They shouldn't be a block. ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 20:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete all'''. If templates like 'user jerk' are used as a personal attack treat the attack as such (warn user and remove) but don't delete the template. The others are mostly expressions of opinions or just meant to be funny. '''Except: keep deleted 'attack' on Jimbo if he sees it as such'''.--[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 07:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure]]====
Was deleted with notices that it was a betting pool (it was not) or attacked deeceevoice (it did not). It was created after deeceevoice's suggestion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deeceevoice&diff=34561412&oldid=34561131]. [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* Is ''that'' a suggestion? It was, more than anything else, deeceevoice showing she was annoyed over the betting pool. '''Endorse speedy, keep deleted'''. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 06:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::There was no betting pool, as there were no bets suggested.
::If "take it elsewhere" means something other than "take it elsewhere", then I'm just lost from the beginning. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::: If she had told you, "you can put it somewhere else", it might. But she just removed it from her talk page, which is a "Stop bugging me" from any angle you see it. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::: The edit summary is "you can put it somewhere else". [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 07:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::: deecee also said that she does not care about the speculation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deeceevoice&diff=34563934&oldid=34563623]. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 07:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::If you said "I don't care what people say about me", that would not be an invitation for me to call you names, nor would it grant me an exception to [[WP:NPA]]. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 07:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::There was not one personal attack on the page in question. I'm not asking for an exception to NPA, since I don't intend to make any PAs. [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 07:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted'''. [[m:Don't be a dick]]. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 06:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::Please be don't call me any names. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::He's not, that's an actual page on meta, SCZenz wants you to read. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 12:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Just because something is an actual page doesn't mean it's not actually calling someone a name. It would be rude to point to [[Mental retardation]] or [[reading comprehension]]. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::I mean in general in a dispute. I'm not calling anyone here slow. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 14:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' And its creator should read the essay that [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] cited. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 07:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore, not a valid speedy.''' Just kidding. Would have been better had Jim Apple understood why it was wanted deleted, but maybe with a smerge of us not panicking quite so much. I'm just glad it's gone. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Attack page. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 07:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::What was the attack? There were no insults; the page specifically said that I want dcv to stay, so I don't know how it could be considered hostile. [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::It ''is'' an insulting page, making fun of a user in good standing by speculating how long it takes to get fed up with Wikipedia and leave. Deeceevoice is under quite a lot of stress now, due to an ArbCom case against her, and that makes such a page all the worse. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 07:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::There is no "making fun". See [[User talk talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure]]. The question is quite serious - what happens when someone who has thousands of contributions gets fed up? Just because my page was in chart form, rather than in anecdote form as on [[user talk:deeceevoice]], doesn't make it a joke. [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:: You're trolling. Stop it. Wikipedia userspace is for work in furtherance of the project, not for making personal attacks, slights, speculation, etc, on the people associated with the project. If you must engage in such speculation, do it elsewhere and do not link there from Wikipedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::: It's a nice idea that userspace furthers the project, but often userspace is random musings, political affiliations, wikistress meters or photos of the editor in question. -- [[User:Jim Apple|Jim Apple]] 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' nasty, nasty attack page - the kind that is guaranteed to drive people away. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 10:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' without argument.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I think this is a particularly nasty idea. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 12:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Such speculations may just be enough to cause someone to leave. It doesn't help the project in any way and only causes grief to deeceevoice. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 12:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as a clear attack page. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Unpleasant. [[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt Crypto]] 13:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', and sanction user. [[User:El C|El_C]] 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted'''. Sanction editor if he continues to troll Wikipedia. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Can't see it, but if the above comments about it are true, it seems useless vitriol. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Extreme keep deleted''', in very poor taste. User sould be cautioned about repetition. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 17:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per the above. [[User:Jtkiefer|Jtkiefer]][[User talk:Jtkiefer|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|C]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|@]] ---- 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' It's just throwing salt...[[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 03:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep deleted''' [[User:CanadianCaesar|CanadianCaesar]] [[User_talk:CanadianCaesar|The Republic Restored]] 05:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-09]]===
====[[Template:User against scientology]]====
*Out of Process - There is a debate still on-going at [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_against_scientology]]. [[User:Tony Sidaway]] has deleted this template in the middle of the debate without any notice in the tfd. Regardless of whether or not the template has any merit, it should be undeleted for the course of tfd as cleary no consensus has yet been reached there.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Keep deleted'''. Templates that exist only to attack groups of people ('''any''' people) have absolutley no place on Wikipedia.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]] 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***That is your opinion, but wouldn't things be better if you were saying these words at the on-going tfd?--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
****Honestly, no. I speedied {{tl|user against jews}}, and no one overturned me- I'm sorry, but these things simply can't exist. [[WP:CIV]]--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]] 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*****Including the creators of that template, who had by their own admission made it as a [[WP:POINT|POINT]], and who made it a very improper analogue to the template they were trying to get deleted (if they had named it correctly, it would have been "User against Judaism" and it wouldn't have been the knee-jerk case that they and you are arguing the template ''actually'' under discussion is.) -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
******Actually if you'd read the template it only referred to Judaism. Granted it was named wrong but the message on it was correctly pointing to [[Judaism]] not [[Jew]]. The name of the template was irrelevant, similar to if I had a template named {{user:people who eat worms}} that had the message "This user supports rainbows".[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*******Ah, I see, so if I want to delete {{tl|user cpp}}, all I have to do is create a new template called {{tl|user wants to kill all Visual Basic programmers}}, and have the text of that template be "This user is a C++ programmer". That way, people will judge the template based on the title rather than the contents, and then once it's deleted I can tell people that they ''have to'' delete {{tl|user cpp}}, as its contents are ''exactly the same as'' a template we've already deleted. I see! ... You "grant" that the template was named wrong as if that misleading name had ''no effect at all'' on whether it was deleted, something that I for one am not at all inclined to take on faith.-- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
********Hey it was named appropriately since [[Jew]] does refer to somone of the Jewish faith or Judaism. Jew is not an exclusive term for someone of Hebrew decent. It could easily have been moved, but of course everyone for the Scientolgy one looked for the easy out to support their case. In either case they're both gone now and should remain so since they are nothing but divisive hate speech that do NOTHING to further the project and are not in the spirit Jimbo has put forth for the project. Many of the disputed userboxes that are considered "silly" are, but this one is not.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Undelete/Overturn''' I wouldn't mind any of these gone, but we really should let the community decide, and the speedy was not valid. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 05:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)</s> Actually, I noticed that the scientology linked to an anti-scientology site, which very well could make this fall under an A6-type speedy - so I'll withdraw from this one. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I have no problem with this being speedied. While speedy-deletion criterion A6 technically applies only to pages in the main space, extending it to pages in the Template: space seems quite reasonable to me. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 06:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' for obvious reasons.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Should have been speedied as fast as {{[[Template:user against jews|user against jews]]}}, and I'm frankly embarrased that I didn't do it myself. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. No reason to treat this differently than "user against jews". [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Well, except that "Scientology" is a belief system, where as "Jews" may designate a belief system ''or'' a racial classification. Are we going to have a general policy stating that a user cannot declare themselves against ''any'' belief system? -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***I don't see this as a slippery slope. If you're going to declare yourself "against" a religion, you should spend the 2 seconds and express your bias in your own words. Also: Since "Muslim" only refers to a belief system, would you support a "user against muslims" userbox? In your view, is there a moral difference between being bigoted against a religion and being bigoted against a race? [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
****To answer your first question, then point out how it's a poorly constructed question: No, I wouldn't support a "user against Muslims" template. However, I would give the same vote to "user against Islam", "user against Judaism" and "user against Roman Catholicism" (my religion, BTW) the same vote I gave to "user against Scientology", namely "Keep until such time as we have a policy worked out that covers userboxes like this in general." If you don't believe that my money is where my mouth is, just let me know and I'll be the first to create {{tl|user against Roman Catholicism}}. You see, when you subtract the prejudicial terminology from your second question, and make it into an ''actual'' question, it becomes "Is there a moral difference between being opposed to a belief system and being opposed to a race?" And the answer is quite obviously yes. No one has any control over what race they belong to. However, people clearly have control over what belief system they choose to adopt; to suggest that it is automatically "bigoted" to oppose any such belief system is to support the premise that ''no'' belief system should ever be opposed -- which is clearly ludicrous. Is it wrong to oppose the belief system of Nazism? Would it suddenly ''become'' wrong if Nazism suddenly became a "religion"; would the racial hatred of Nazism get a free pass then? Do the prejudices embedded in Scientology, that "anyone who criticizes Scientology is a criminal" who in a perfect Scientology world would be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow", that ''every single psychiatrist'' practicing is a sociopathic murderer -- do these hatreds suddenly become ''acceptable'' once the belief system that contains them is classified as a "religion"? Did you notice that we now have this template, {{tl|user scientology}}? What about it? Is it okay to express support for a belief system that contains bigotries, but "bigoted" to express opposition to that same belief system? '''This''' is why my vote was to keep '''until''' a policy fair to ''everyone'' was worked out. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' We shouldn't be handcuffed from exercising commonsense in such an obvious case as this. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''', was speedily deleted without consensus while TfD discussion is still ongoing at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion]]... --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] '''('''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|Α⇔Ω]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|⇒✉]]''')''''' 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Sorry, this is ''way'' beyond the line. This is an attack template, deletable on sight. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 06:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' and speedy any similar hatemongering. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Look at that. I checked and each and every person here voting for deletion is an administrator. So much for community consensus.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 06:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Look at that. We've been here long enough to realize we're here to write an encyclopedia, not attack people. If you do a bit more research, you'll see this is the first time I've ever supported one of Tony's "out-of-process" speedies; maybe there's a reason for that, eh? -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***Okay, that does it. I was going to abstain, but I'd say this has tipped my opinion just enough to one side. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]]) 07:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I voted ''keep'' at TfD on procedural grounds, but I see no problem extending [[WP:CSD#A6|CSD A6]] to templates per Knowledge Seeker. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]]) 07:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*I'm the person who speedied this. While there has been strong opposition to deletion of belief-based userboxes in general, this seems to fit into a small category of userboxes that exist solely for denigration and disparagement of a group of people. I notice that a few people, for instance [[User:Rogue 9]], have substed the template onto their user pages, and that may be acceptable (I won't make a judgement either way at the moment) because it then falls solely within userspace. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
** Unfortunately, substing has become the only way to protect yourself from waking-up to find your userpage desecrated with red-links with your only chance of review at a board like this one full of like minded people to the admin that deleted all of your boxes without warning anyone.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Most of the people who hang around here would probably be quite insulted to be considered like-minded with Tony. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 08:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
***:I wouldn't be, so I guess I don't fit into the "most" category. Userboxes have gotten out of control. I'm thinking a policy change needs implementation--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
****That's why this deletion out of process is an insult to those of us whose vote was "Keep, until a '''general''' policy is in place."
*** Well ''often'' the editors in this most bureaucratic of discussion pages do endorse non-bureaucratic deletions of unsuitable material. So on this issue I think that, despite our differences on form, there is substantial agreement. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation, no matter how much I agree with the userbox (and I agree with the sentiments in this one). --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', and I'm not an admin, God of War. Guess that breaks your conspiracy theory, eh? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 14:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore'''. If this was going to be speedied on a single admin's decision that it was unsuitable, it should have been done at the beginning of the discussion. The fact that for six days the discussion went on without a single admin who looked at it saying "This is clearly speedy-delete material" means that it was ''not'' a case clear enough that one admin should step in at the end and say "I don't care that there is a wide variety of opinions being expressed here, '''I''' only choose to see it one way and because I'm an admin, I will force that on everyone else." -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', does nothing to further the project, is divisive, violates [[WP:CIV]], and is a personal attack on a group of people. Also Tony waited 7 days and then deleted as is his right as an admin, remember WP isn't a democracy.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 18:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**You have got to be ''kidding'' me! "His right as an admin"?! I think you are ''slightly'' confused, because you seem to be mistaken between what Tony did and what a responsible admin might have done. A responsible admin might have checked the date that the discussion started, seen that enough time had elapsed for points and counter-points to be well-discussed, and decided to close the discussion. A responsible admin would then have counted the various votes to assess what the will of the community was, and either announce the results of consensus if the consensus was clear, or use their discretion between the options supported by the community if there was no clear consensus, and then announce at the ongoing discussion what the result was and why. ''This is '''not''' what Tony did.'' What Tony did was to delete the template immediately, unilaterally, and ''not even announce that he'd done so.'' This wasn't an admin legitimately closing the debate; this was a rogue admin using his powers illegitimately to enforce the result ''he'' wanted, and showing his contempt for the process. That is the whole reason this is at [[Wikipedia:deletion review|deletion review]]; people have been casting "Keep deleted" votes as if this was just an extension of the debate about whether or not the template should be deleted. It's not. It's about whether Tony should be looking at a TfD debate and saying "Well, there's a spectrum of opinion here: some people think it should be speedy-deleted, some think it should be regularly deleted, some think it should be kept, some think it should be kept and then reviewed once we have a general policy in place that covers all userboxes of this kind. However, screw them all; not only do their opinions not matter a bit in the face of the fact that ''I'' think it should be speedy-deleted, they don't even deserve to know ''why'' the template suddenly disappeared with no explanation. Why should I bother to explain myself to lowly non-admin users?" -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*** '''Comment''' We have [[WP:NPA]] for a reason. An admin acting regarding this acts correctly and frankly the tenor of this response against said admin smacks of violating [[WP:NPA]] too... — [[User:Falerin|Falerin]]<[[User talk:Falerin|talk]]>,<[[Special:Contributions/Falerin|contrib]]> 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''UNDELETE''' and relist at TfD. The problem here is that this is not the first out of process deletion Tony has done, and he has said (in so many words) that it won't be the last. In this case the template discussion was only a '''few hours''' away from being over. This should be brought back and the discussion allowed to run its course, and then properly closed with proper notices. There seem to be a few admins that think that process is unimportant, that their view of the "good of wikipedia" trumps everything else and they can speedy anything they want... I think that's incorrect. [[WP:IAR]] is not an excuse to trample anyone or anything that is "in your way". I am not the only person that thinks that either, given that there seems to be a number of RfCs and RfArs lately addressing this very topic. We have [[WP:NPA]] for very good reasons, but we have [[WP:BITE]] for a reason too. Process is the way to ensure the perception of fairness is maintained. As WP grows, there will be more need for process, or it won't scale. Admins who think the process is flawed should be working to change it, not trample it. (there is an ongoing and robust discussion of Userbox policy as we speak) ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted'''. For all the reasons listed above. [[User:BlankVerse|''Blank'']][[User talk:BlankVerse|''Verse'']] 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted'''. [[WP:NPA]]. A notice on [[WP:TfD]] would have been nice though. -- [[user:Sneltrekker|Sneltrekker]]'''†'''[[User_talk:Sneltrekker|My Talk]] 22:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted'''. "Wikipedia is not a place to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs or their orientation, neither is it the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view." --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' as per [[WP:NPA]] and the many things above. — [[User:Falerin|Falerin]]<[[User talk:Falerin|talk]]>,<[[Special:Contributions/Falerin|contrib]]> 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' Forever, per all of the above. '''''[[User:Banes|Ban]]''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]''[[User_talk:Banes|s]]''''' 09:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Virago]]====
:''See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virago 2]]''
Deleted against the policy; the debate ended in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virago|"no consensus"]], which means that the article stays. Since there was almost no participation in this VfD, it is a fair game for AfD-relisting, but definitelyt not deletion. [[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*The afd debate is actually at [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virago_2]] and is a delete - '''Endorse''' [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure'''. The second discussion was decisive. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' per Rossami. The article was an OR expansion of a dictdef. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 03:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*Sorry, again. My link to the wrong AfD in the deletion log is probably the cause of this. I've restored and redeleted it with the correct link, to the second of the two debates. Apologies again. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' per Rossami. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD the second time 'round. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[LUElinks]]====
I feel that, after [[Ebaumsworld#YTMND|the "raid"]] yesterday, LUElinks merits an article. They did pass the [[WP:WEB]] before it was changed recently, having over 5,000 members, and it's made an impact out of its community many a time (as the [[GameFAQs]] counterpart LUE). It was actually deleted last month for failing WP:WEB, as it is a closed community, of which I am a member. Please see [[Talk:LUElinks]] for discussion '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptr]][[WP:EA|e]]''' ([[User_talk:Sceptre|Talk]]) 21:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Articles about LUElinks have already been deleted several times; The website is inaccessible to outsiders making an article inherently unverifiable; and I still don't see how this meets [[WP:WEB]] guidelines. Site is not notable. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Rhobite. Neither verifiable or notable in any encyclopedic sense. Fails [[WP:WEB]]. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - Starblind 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' This valid title should redirect to [[GameFAQs message boards]], where it is of some notability. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] [[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]] 01:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Um, that wouldn't really be overturning - but I agree. '''Keep deleted''' and '''Protect and Redirect''' to [[GameFAQs message boards]]. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 01:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rewrite'''. LUELinks is significant in the events that it has created/taken part in, such as the (unsuccesful) U.S.-wide UFO Hoax and the recent participation in the Ebuams raid. While I understand that it is difficult to write about a site closed to outsiders, there is enough known information to write into an article, and there are other wikipedia articles written that are also unverifiable. Keeping it deleted seems to suggest that it is not significant to the rest of the internet in any way whatsoever. I also disagree that it should redirect to [[GameFAQs message boards]] because LUELinks is only related to GameFAQS from its conception and userbase. LUELinks is not a GameFAQs board. Making LUELinks a section under the GameFAQs boards would be akin to placing [[4chan]] under the [[Something_Awful_forums]], as 4chan was created in a similar manner (albeit without the privatization of the site to outsiders). [[User:Kyre Elsion|Kyre Elsion]] 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**Writing about it is easy. However fact-checking what is written is something that is impossible to most of Wikipedia. Also, the difference between 4-chan and SA and LL and GFAQs is that 4-chan is not closed off to anyone that does not have an SA account. You needed a GFAQs account at some point to get into LL.--[[User:Toffile|Toffile]] 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I enjoy the site, but the verifiability for outsiders and teh fact that outside of the e-Baum's invasion is almost nil in terms of it having an effect on the outside world. Yes, there was the UFO hoax, but that failed. The only other one I can think of was the boxing, but even then....the site in the grand scheme of things is non-notable. As for a redirect to [[GameFAQs]] or [[GameFAQs Message Boards]], I don't support either. I respect that LUELinks has some autonomy from GFAQs, but even then it's really just a spinoff.--[[User:Toffile|Toffile]] 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Tiny Rewrite''': LUELinks has played a part in the YTMND-Day demonstrations, and that should be noted on the page, especially since it is linked directly from [[eBaum's World]]. By all means, keep it limited to that, and keep it protected, but it does deserve a sentence or two noting what it is and how it was involved. And yes, I am a member of LUELinks, although I try to keep as NPOV as possible. [[User:Gtdp|gtdp]] ([[User_talk:Gtdp|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Gtdp|contribs]]) 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
**As an extension to my above comment, I would be happy to provide a screenshot of LL's involvement in the riots as a source if the article is re-written (feel free to leave a comment on my talk page if you want to). [[User:Gtdp|gtdp]] ([[User_talk:Gtdp|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Gtdp|contribs]]) 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' and '''redirect and protect'''. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - until someone outside of Ebaumsworld and YTMND cares about "the raid." [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 03:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': It's quite possible to just take screenshots to ensure verificability. The [http://www.luelinks.net LL front page] has a list of recent news articles (visible when not signed in) that were posted and upvoted by LL users; where else would these articles come from if there was not a userbase at the site? In any case, I and probably several other people would be willing to provide screenshots or mirrors to any LL content requird for "verificability." —[[User:Shoecream|shoecream]] 05:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Not only is there no way to know that the screenshots weren't created in Photoshop, but even if they weren't, they'd be primary sources. Wikipedia requires ''secondary'' sources so that we don't run afoul of [[WP:NOR]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*** I can think of a few secondary sources off the top of my head; I believe some blogs and perhaps a news site reported the UFO hoax, so there's at least a few secondary sources to ''prove'' that it exists and has actually done something notable. [[User:Shoecream|shoecream]] 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**** Blogs are not generally considered [[WP:CITE|reliable sources]] for the purposes of [[WP:V|verification]]. News sites get closer but it depends on the site, their reputation and the longevity of their information. A single news site is almost always considered inadequate since it requires multiple independent coverages in order to have any reasonable expectation of a balanced perspective on the issue. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''': The GameFAQs community as a whole does not regard LL as a part of GameFAQs, they played a major organizing role in the eBaums schism, and the inaccessability to outsiders hasn't stopped WP from having articles about groups such as [[Freemasonry]]. [[User:Stevemcl|Steve McLinden]] 00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted and protected'''. Constant vandalism target; inherently unverifiable subject prone to original research when a "real" article. Badly fails [[WP:WEB]]. More original research after the afd is not a convincing reason to overturn. As for the redirect, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the deletion process at [[WP:RFD]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-07]]===

====[[:Category:List of Christian Entertainers]]====
All that is left is subcategories for people of specific faiths.If a person doesn't fit into those categories, there is no longer a place for them.Some people such as Tom Hanks for example don't fit neatly into any sub-category.This list included all Christians both Protestant and Catholic.[[User:California 12|California 12]] 02:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:I am unable to find any evidence that the category for which you are requesting undeletion ever existed. Are you perhaps looking for [[:Category:Christian actors]], [[:Category:Christian writers]], or some other subcategory of [[:Category:Christian people]]? --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Christian Entertainers did exist.You can find it on google search.I had contributed quite a bit to it and was suprised to find it gone.However I did not realize the lists that you mentioned above existed.In light of this I will add some of the names that were lost on the other list which was much longer.And will withdraw my request for the deletion review as I did not realize there was a list that was similar.Although it is a shame that the info off the other list was not merged with these.Thanks
.[[User:California 12|California 12]] 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

*Do you mean [[List of Christian entertainers]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian entertainers|afd]])? [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's it.Maybe it could be brought back with a different title.Perhaps it could be called List of Entertainers who are Christians? Would that be allowed?
[[User:California 12|California 12]] 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

*The closure of that debate was pretty questionable: strictly on the numbers, it was only 60% for deletion, and it appears that some effort ''was'' made to resolve the concerns of those who voted delete as the nomination progressed. You could take it up with the closing admin, [[User:Enochlau]], on his talk page, or ask here for the article to be undeleted, in which case it quite possibly would be. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 08:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I hate to keep going back and forth , but with the information you've just given me I would like to request the page be undeleted.I don't care that much about the name, it's the content that matters.I've never requested an article be undeleted before.If I'm not going about it correctly then I apologize and please don't hesitate to admonish me if I am doing this incorrectly.The thing that bothers me is if there is a list of famous people who just happened to be atheist, so why not a list of famous people who happen to be Christians? Is this not the fair and neutral thing? As a Christian I have no urge to delete the atheist list.[[User:California 12|California 12]]01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''comment''': IMHO this list should stay deleted, and be replaced with a Category. Lists such as this are inherently hard to maintain, whereas Cats are self-updating. I would also, as a parenthetical remark, vote Delete if a List of Atheist Entertainers showed on Afd. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]] 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please pardon my ignorance but could you direct me to a page explaining the list versus category ? Also with regards to the atheist list I do strongly believe it sends a very biased message to allow some lists with regards to a certain situation while omitting the other side of the coin.[[User:California12|California 12]]10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:User:Zigger has a partially written FAQ: [[User:Zigger/Categorisation_FAQ#What_is_the_difference_between_a_list_and_a_category.3F]], there is a talk page at [[Wikipedia talk:Merge some redundant lists to categories]] which may help explain a bit, and if you have any further questions please bring to my talk page - there are major advantages to having this as a Category, and lists have a lot of inherent problems. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]] 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok after reading this it occurs to me that it might be better to bring back Christian Entertainers as a category, rather than a list? Because the Christian actors category listed above leaves no place for other types of entertainers.So perhaps it could be renamed? If something on this order is allowed, then perhaps it would not be needed to bring back the list.I would like to thank those who took the time to explain the categories vs. list to me as I have used the category link on several pages and not even realized it wasn't the same as a list.I don't want to clutter this page with my ramblings so will bring the discussion to Killer Chihuahua's page or mine at least temporarily.
.[[User:California12|California 12]]01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Lists and categories, although rather similar in intent and display are implemented differeently, and considered different things on wikipedia. The previous deletion of a list in no way prevents anyoen from simply creating a category, and marking appropriate articles as members of that category. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[:Category:German-American mobsters]]====
As creator of this category I was neither notified of its nomination or of its deletion. However, the main arguments for deletion seem to be over categorization by way of (at least in my opinion) the debatable categorization of "ethnic group of Americans by profession" and underpopulated.

First, I believe there are at least some instances where categorization by ethnicity is appropriate and within organized crime essential for the classification of American organized crime figures as, in the US alone, diffrent organized crime groups are identified specifically by ethnicity (with the exception of syndicate organizations). From a historical perpectictive, it has remained a source of conflict between rival organizations for well over a century.

As for the category's unperpopulation, had this been brought to my attention I would have at least entered it into [[:Category:Underpopulated categories]], particularly for a category which has been around for only a few months, if not compiled a few more articles. This does raise a concern however as I have many categories which are more or less underpopulated (such as [[:Category:Asian-American mobsters]] and [[:Category:Polish-American mobsters]]) which, as set by the recent vote for deletion, despite the fact there are quite a few notible mobsters to be able to fill those appropriate categories.

However, compiling each one myself is quite time consuming (my early work on the Irish mobsters has now around 60+ articles) and thus many categories appear underpopulated. This issue has been brought up several times are far back as the recreation of [[:Category:Italian-American mobsters]] and yet categories continue to be deleted or nominated for deletion fairly quickly. I hope someone can look into this and hopefully settle this issue. [[User:MadMax|MadMax]] 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - Two things. Firstly, reading the CfD, it appears the concern with overcatergorisation stands in as concern with underpopulation: I'd say underpopulatioon is the main concern cited in that CfD discussion. Second, why can't [[:Category:American mobsters]] be populated first, and only when enough entries appear create subcategories? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 01:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:*As of a year ago it was fully populated before it was cleared out to make the present subcategories by myself, [[User:Stefanomione|Stefanomione]], and a few others. The articles themselves can easily be added back to the [[:Category:American mobsters]] however given the large numbers of article which exist I'd think it might seem a bit redundant to have them listed in that category as well. Unfortunatly, as there are only a few which I'm aware of, organized crime contributions are slow in coming and, as a result, categories are often underpopulated (not to mention the uncategorized article I come across now and again). If this category were empty for at least a year or more I could see the concern, however, deleting the category without even listing it on underpopulated categories, I fail to see the chance for Users to work on it (as I personally can only work on one category at a time). [[User:MadMax|MadMax]] 04:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:::So how many articles are there that would go in this category? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Presently there were only two existing articles, however more then twenty articles could be added in Chicago alone (including the Chicago crime syndicate). I suppose notibility would be a factor, however I would estimate around 100 depending on how far back one would include as organized crime such as Micheal Cassius MacDonalds organization or California's Barabary Coast. [[User:MadMax|MadMax]] 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''Endorse decision, keep deleted''' - It's a natural enough category, but until it has more currently existing entries, the articles should go in [[:Category:American mobsters]]. Starting a ''List of German-American mobsters'' might be helpful. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''Undelete'''. I'm going to go with the category creator on this one. Organized crime in the United States has often organized itself on an ethnic basis. This hinders infiltration by law enforcement and enhances the criminals' power over their respective communities. It is misleading to categorize such people generically. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 18:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[List of anti-heroes]]====
:''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anti-heroes]]''

:''Note: I have never made an edit to this article, so my following arguments are not slighted in that regard. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]]''

When it was deleted earlier today, this article was nearly three years old and had over 700 edits. [[User:Howcheng]] deleted it despite a 20+% ''keep'' sentiment. The article that has been worked on by '''''over 100''''' regiestered users and dozens of anonymous (nearly 30 of which made three or more edits) and not one saw it fit to nominate it for deletion. Moreover, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Talk:List_of_anti-heroes TALK page] of the article was used civilly, apporpriately and successfully to make the article better. Certainly, VfD nominator [[User:CaveatLector]] could have used the TALK page to work with the contributors in improving the article. Certainly some of the compliants voiced in the VfD could have been addressed in the TALK page.

I think it is a diservice to these contributors to leave them out of the VfD process. Yes, yes, you'll say, they had their chance - but I don't think you realize that VfD tags often go unnoticed. Tags can get buried in or vanish from watchlists; users can be away. Contributors should be not punished for this. Indeed, I considered notifying eighteen of the registered contributors who had made 3+ edits to tell them to tell them of the VfD - NOT to campaign, but to let them know - as a service to them and the community. Before I did, I asked in two places ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#etiquette_and_VfD] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#etiquette_and_VfD]) to get an idea of how and if such notification should be done. By the time I started getting answers, though, it was too late.

Therefore, I propose the article be re-instated because:
#20+% voted to keep
#issues with defining anti-hero and with renaming the article can be cleared up in TALK
#over 100 people have worked on the article and successfully used TALK to resolve matters

Sincerely, [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 21:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse/keep deleted'''. I see absolutely nothing wrong with process. An argument based on the number of edits and contributors is faulty, and has nothing to do with deletion process. In fact, too often with lists like this too many contributors are the problem; people add anything/anyone that comes into their mind with no discussion, and these lists quickly become unmaintainable, POV, and meaningless. I believe [[List of heroes]] was deleted under similar circumstances. I'm starting to think it's about time to nominate [[List of unusual personal names]] for similar reasons. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**i think contributors have a right to know that their work is being considered for deletion. tagging an article is not sufficient. ideally i think all significant contributors (who are registered) should be personally notified. since that is not practical, then at least the originator of the article should be personally notified (if that person is registered). this is about courtesy and kindness. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
***And ''I'' think a vast majority of the crap on AfD should be deleted on sight. I also think zucchini is an overrated vegetable. Anyway, if people really care about an article and their contributions to it they'll keep it on their watchlist. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**R fiend, VfD tags don't make it to watchlists. if a VfD tag is added at 8 PM and another edit on the article happens at 9 PM and someone looks at their watchlist at 9:15pm, that VfD tag is missed. a kinder, gentler way is for the VfD nominator to personally alert the creator of the article. it should be part of the VfD process - if not formally, than customarily. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
***If someone adds an AfD template to an article, it certainly does appear on the watchlist. If another change is made afterwards, that doesn't make the earlier change disappear; anyone clicking the "diff" on the newest edit will also see the entire article appear below the highlighted change, and a big old AfD template is hard to miss. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
**you're expecting someone on a more than weekly basis to click on "diff" on each of their 1800 watchlist articles? it just doesn't work that way. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
***Well, no one has to have 1800 articles on their watchlist, and, yes, I would expect people to pretty carefully check the articles that are most important to them. If all you're doing is looking at the summary of the last edit to any article you aren't really watching it, and maybe your watchlist should be brought down to a more managable number. A potential solution I can think of is to try to introduce a system in which tags are posted on talk pages as well, since they generally get fewer edits the "AFD" summary won't be pre-empted as frequently by more recent edits. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
**plenty of people have 1000s in their watchlists. it helps broaden the scope against vandalism. nevertheless, things still get past watchlists. a potential system i can think of is for the VfD nominator to courteously inform the author of the article that said article has been nominated. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted). The AFD discussion was fair and balanced and considered the case for and against the article. I see no process problems with this decision. Please remember that no user can review every article or even every deletion discussion. The nature of a wiki is that we trust that enough interested users ''are'' watching that the right thing gets done. Kingturtle is correct that some users who worked on versions of this article may not have had the chance to participate in the debate. It is equally true that other users did not get to participate who may have opposed the article but weren't motivated enough to nominate it themselves. In a perfect world, we'd all have unlimited time and interest. The real processes are messier but they do seem to work. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**I do not think it is fair. simply tagging an article for deletion does not announce the nomination properly. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Arguments given on VfD were convincing. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**many of those arguments could have been hashed out in the TALK page. that is what TALK pages are for. if there are concerns about the title of the article or the how to define words, discuss it in TALK. that article had a very lengthy and well-used TALK page. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. I believe that what those who want to keep the list deleted are voicing here amounts to a misguided attempt at democracy (no one is excluded from voting, it's your job to stay informed) which shows a striking likeness to a [[Point_of_no_return#False_Rubicons|False Rubicon]]. Kingturtle has pointed out very well how hard it is to keep up to date about such things. If one single user had been in a different mood and had not put up this article for deletion it would have gone unnoticed for a long time to come. Please do not delude yourselves into thinking that everything is okay if collaborative work of more than three years is destroyed on the whim of a handful of deletionists. [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**Although I don't really care about the article one way or another, saying that the article might have gone unnoticed for a long time is not a reason to keep it. The reason to keep the article should be that it's NPOV and properly referenced. Collaborative work on a non-encyclopedic article should not stay regardless of how much work is put into it. That's a [[sunk cost]]. We judge the article based on its contents, not on how much effort went into it. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***What you write about is not what I'm saying, and anyway this is not the place for a discussion—that would have been the article's talk page (or [[Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Deleting_lists.2C_and_a_proposal|this discussion page]]). Does the "we" in "We judge the article ..." exclude me? Who is "we"? [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
****"We" = people who are experienced in AfD discussions. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 07:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*****Oh. [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 09:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. If the most convincing argument available for restoration is "awww, shucks, it had some edits" then I'm really not persuaded. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**some edits? this was an article worked on for years by dozens of users. it should be common courtesy to alert contributors that their work is under consideration for deletion. it is common courtesy. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close'''. 9D/3K looks like a fairly clear consensus to me, and I see no process problems. The arguments against the article were spelled out in the AfD in some detail, and look reasonable and fairly convincing. No process problems, no issues raised but ignored, no new info provided here, no policy violations. Sorry. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 22:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**er...75% is not a consensus. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' I feel the deletion is unfortunate, but to be perfectly honest it wasn't an article, or a subject, in which I had much emotional or intellectual investment. [[User:Lee M|Lee M]] 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close''' and keep deleted. This is a prime example of listcruft; the Afd process was followed. The argument given for undeletion is not germane, per DESiegal. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]] 23:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**keep your mind open to topics that others find interesting. just because it isn't up your alley doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone else. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' as per DESiegel. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' per DESiegel. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' 20% is not exactly a close result, its not like 40% voted keep. Also, basing the overturning of a deletion on the number of edits and editors does not act as a sufficient reason - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**No? Who says so? Before this is repeated over and over and over again, let me point out for a second time that I've tried to describe the problem I see at [[Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Deleting_lists.2C_and_a_proposal|this discussion page]]. [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
***80% is not a consensus. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
****I will normally close 10K / 21D as a delete, and so will many other admins. This is far stronger than that. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 17:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
****Not that much stronger. 9/3 means a 25% keep. If '''one single person''' had decided that the page was worth a keep instead of a delete, the vote would be 8/4, or a 33% keep. Or a less than 70% consensus for deletion, and it is very likely that the closing admin might have changed their evaluation. Seems a shame that a three-year old article's fate can swing on a single voter like that. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' The delete votes in the AfD makes a set of very good points about the innate problems with the article; the fact that many people have laboured on a bad article is unfortunate, but not sufficient to redeem the subject. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the closure was flawed. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**Having fun, aren't you? As I can see, the same "argument" is being repeated over and over and over again. Please point me to the guideline/policy/whatever where it says that "the fact that many people have laboured on a bad article is unfortunate, but not sufficient to redeem the subject". What were all those people thinking when they contributed? That they were taking part in a futile effort that would eventually be deleted by a small set of other people? Meanwhile, for the third time, these are my reasons for wanting to have this list undeleted (from [[Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Deleting_lists.2C_and_a_proposal]]):
**:While I agree that "lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations", recent deletions of what at least some consider useful lists have alerted me. True, the above [[List of anti-heroes]] ("a prime example of listcruft", according to one deletionist) should have been called [[List of fictional anti-heroes]] to make it absolutely clear that no politicians or other real people must be added.
**:"The usefulness of lists in Wikipedia is very clear as it often provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject." Search printed encyclopaedias or other reference material, search the Internet—some of the lists here at Wikipedia are unique, or were until they were deleted (just think of [[List of song titles phrased as questions]]). (Fortunately, Wikipedia mirror sites still have those lists.) As for literature lists, students of literature browsing such a list may find valuable advice on what books to choose and read.
**:There is hardly any problem with [[WP:NOR|original research]] as, by definition, a list of titles is, if anything, the basis for research rather than research itself. [[WP:V|Verifiability]] depends on the individual list—song titles phrased as questions are no problem. The same holds true for the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy.
**:My point is that [[fiction]] needs to be treated as a special case as far as verifiability and NPOV are concerned (see [[:Category:Literature lists]] for examples). The [[List of fictional war heroes]], which has also been put up for deletion, is a case in point. I claim that the vast majority of people who use the Internet to consult an encyclopaedia are mature enough not to believe every word they read. Additionally, a special template (to be created) might point them to the fact not that the list is incomplete and they should add something to it but that it is deliberately so and will always contain contentious items because it is in the nature of fiction to be debatable. Thus, to me such a ''[[sapere aude]]'' hint would be most welcome. Each and everyone can make up their own mind: This, I believe, is part of [[human nature]]. The alternative, which is currently being practised, is wholesale deletion, which is radical and to all intents and purposes counterproductive but nothing else.
**:Problems inherent in the collaborative nature of this project must be considered and dealt with, not deleted. How long will it take until someone calls the [[List of film remakes]] (which already has that stupid <nowiki>{{listdev}}</nowiki> tag) POV, unmaintainable, ambiguous, incomplete, too short, too long, unmanagable, unreferenced, unencyclopaedic, unbalanced? In the long run, what will happen with the [[List of years in literature]] pages if people keep adding births, deaths, "events", and book titles? Will they all have to be deleted?
**:"9D/3K looks like a fairly clear consensus to me, and I see no process problems", writes one deletionist at [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_anti-heroes]], and subsequent contributors mutely endorse him. However, in [[democracy|democratic thought]], [[voting]] is an '''alternative''' to, not a synonym for, [[consensus decision-making]]. But this is quite a different problem, which I'll have to address at some other place. [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**:*As soon as someone starts namecalling, I start filtering out everything they say. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**:**Excuse me, what are you referring to? [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 05:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**:***Your use of "deletionist" in an obviously pejorative sense. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''comment'''. i have had this complaint about VfD for a long time. we are going down a slippery slope if 80% is considered a consensus. we are also going down a slippery slope if we don't have the common courtesy to alert contributors that their work is under review for deletion. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**It's [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], not [[wikt:consensus|consensus]]. If Wikipedia decisionmaking required actual consensus, nothing would ever happen. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
***i know that there is a difference, and wikipedia's notion of consensus is absurd. we should use the term super-majority, because consensus is the wrong word. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
****You're right about that, but the word is ingrained into Wikipedia culture. That's a change that just won't happen. Whenever you read "consensus", just think "rough consensus" or "supermajority". [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 06:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
**I'm pleased that Kingturtle is volunteering to go through today's AfD log and drop each contributor to each article a note on their talk pages regarding their article's AfD. -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
***That's neat - someday I'd like this to be a software feature... oh, and '''Keep Deleted'''. I would have voted delete myself too and remember this afd - along with KingTurtle's commentary which seemed to [[appeal to emotion]] rather than addressing the actual problems with the article. Anyway, that's really a side note as the AfD was quite valid in nearly every way. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 22:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
****If any, what are the "actual problems with the article"? A reference to an (almost) "quite valid AfD" is immaterial here: If the deletion of the list had violated Wikipedia's deletion policy we would not be having a discussion here and the article would immediately have been restored. I believe it is '''new''' arguments which, for some reason or other, were not mentioned during the AfD process that count here. However, new arguments seem to be generously ignored or sidetracked here ("As soon as someone starts namecalling, I start filtering out everything they say"). Also, I don't think Kingturtle's mention of the many contributors to this article is an appeal to emotion: If dozens of people over a period of more than three years collaboratively create an article they do so in good faith and because they want to improve Wikipedia—we might consider their contributions to the deleted article keep votes [[eo ipso]]. ([[Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia/Alternative_version#Literature_lists|more]]) [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist on AfD''' - There's a serious problem with the article that was deleted, namely that it is a magnet for POV and unverifiable claims, and CaveatLector put together a good AfD. I am nonethless unhappy with it: I think that, despite its flaws, the list brought together at that page had value (was it an anti-list? Nevermind...) and given the long history and much work put into the page, the main question asked at the AfD should not have been: does this list meet our standards, but can this list be repaired? I think that, given the definition at [[anti-hero]], the list could be and deserves a second hearing. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I dislike the new fashion for deleting talk pages when executing delete decisions. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. That's not a new trend. Deciding whether or not to delete the orphaned Talk Page is a long-standing rule - a required step of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|Deletion process]] since the first version of that page and, before that, a required step in the [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators|Deletion guidelines for administrators]]. For those not familiar with it, deletion of the associated Talk page is not an absolute rule (though the vast majority of such Talk pages are deleted). The deleting admin is required to make a decision about whether or not the Talk page should be preserved. By long tradition, that decision is left to the admin's discretion. We do not require a second deletion discussion to make the decision. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
***Sorry I missed this. On policy, I stand corrected, but I have quite often seen marooned talk pages, and have frequently found them useful. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. First, I have problems with some of the math used. By my count, there were 9 delete votes, and 3 keep votes. That leads to a 25% keep faction, and a 75% delete faction. I think that the age and amount of work on the article should also be a factor: certainly the fact that it has been around and hevily edited for three years at least discounts the "unmaintainable" arguments. The AfD process is entirely too random and arbitrary. I think if this had been nominated some other week, the votes could have easily been 10d/2k, or 8/4, or even 6/7, depending on who happened to be reading AfD that week. Therefore, especially in the case of established articles with a long history, the bar for deletion should be set higher than 75%. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Undelete'''. While I think that the ''process'' was proper, this is one of those instances where deletion review should look at the big picture. We are supposed to work on consensus. Can we really say that there is a "consensus to delete" an article that over '''100 registered editors''' worked on simply because '''nine''' people in a particular five day period expressed a desire to delete, particluarly when the nominee (as most nominees do, including me) only pointed out the reasons to delete. Note that no one during the voting pointed out the facts that Kingturtle does. Lets put it back on AfD with both the pros and the cons and see how it fares. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] [[User_talk:DS1953|talk]] 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure.''' There is no bar for ratio of participants in AfD to editors of the article, no quota for how long or short an article's history must be before we can delete it, and certainly no requirement that we notify anyone. You edit an article, and if you care about it you watch over it. Part of the beauty of the self-selection excercise is impartiality of participants. Lists in particular attract large numbers of editors, and I despair at the thought of the sorting out the mess if we involved every one. The process works well enough, and these are all bad ways we're talking about changing it. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:*Aaron, at least on my part, I don't think I am arguing to change anything. I made two points. First, the statement at the top of this page says that undoing a deletion is proper if you "have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate". I am saying that the information posted by Kingturtle was relevant to the discussion and should be aired. Second, there have been discussions in the past about how many delete "votes" is "enough" or whether, for example, debate should be extended. Nine votes is far more than necessary for most articles. On the other hand, if a former Featured Article made it through an AfD vote with a 4-0 delete vote, I would be very disappointed if the closer did not question whether 4 votes to delete an article that probably had a hundred hours invested in it really represented a consensus to delete. I hope that is not a change, because if everyone is so rigidly evaluating "consensus" that they would allow 4 people to delete a Featured Article then we ought to automate the counting and eliminate the personal judgment instead of pretending to determine consensus. I am not arguing for this article to be kept, just that 9 delete votes on the facts before us is not a consensus to delete. Relist, post the relevant facts - pro and con - and let the people decide. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] [[User_talk:DS1953|talk]] 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
::*What is this based on? A supposition that a relisting will magically have the effect of 50 participants, when getting 12 (not 9) in the first place is highly unusual? It might, and statistically probably would, get fewer participants; will we relist the relisting because the relisting of the relisting didn't get enough? Are the original 12's opinion somehow not good enough? Kingturtle's 'information' relies on looking at the history of the article — this was available to all at the time of the AfD and is hardly new information. Posting the relevant facts, pro and con, was doing already, and I don't see how "aww, shucks, it's got some edits" makes an article either good, encyclopedic, or keepable. And, incidentally, you imply that the people were excluded from things the first time around; I wonder how you have reached such a conclusion? -[[User:Splash|Splash]][[User talk:Splash|talk]] 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*Splash, I'll take your points in the reverse order since the last two are the easiest to answer. I don't know what I said that you think implies that people were excluded from the AfD but no such implication was intended. I also don't think that a large number of edits make "an article either good, encyclopedic, or keepable" and again, no such implication was intended. I don't suggest that anyone should vote "keep" on any basis other than whether the article is one which should be kept under the applicable standards. My only concern is that AfD is not infallable and that nine editors voting to delete may express the consensus of the voters during that five day period but seems to hardly represent a consensus of Wikipedians when so many editors have contributed to the article over a three year period. This is an uncommon situation. And you are absolutely correct that Kingturtle's information was available to anyone who wanted to delve into the page's history and talk page. However, I think that as the number of pages on AfD has continued to grow, it is unrealistic to assume that ''potential'' voters will do any more than read what is on the AfD page. Hopefully, those that are attracted to stop and record their opinion will look at the history and talk pages but from all appearances many simply parrot the previous opinions and don't even look at the page itself, let alone the talk page and history. Finally, I don't know if relisting on AfD will get more attention, but if the pros and cons are both set out succinctly, that is about all that we can ask of the process. If the result is still 9-3 in favor of deletion, we can't guess the opinion of those who chose not to express their choice (or more likely, were unaware of AfD). What all this boils down to is simply that in those relatively rare instances that we think that the AfD ''process'' hasn't worked well as a process, we should try to fix it. We can't fix all the problems at once, but this one seems easy to do. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] [[User_talk:DS1953|talk]] 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This is absurd, on multiple counts. First of all, assuming that the 100+ edits actually wanted to keep the article is downright silly - some people are nuetral and others might have just worked on the article because they couldn't take it any more (the reason why I work on some schools...). Second, the argument that the opening statement biases it is wrong - I've heard that argument a million times on [[WP:RM]], people asking me to do it over etc., but it just doesn't pan out and you get the same result anyway. This was a valid AfD if I ever saw one - as the burden of proof was on the nominator to give a good reason to delete the article and he/she did so, and the following keeps simply didn't have much of a reason at all to keep the article. "It's been here a long time and had lots of editors" is an [[appeal to emotion]] and ultimately has little to do with the validity of the article. "I want to make the same argument again because this article had lots of editors" is ''not'' a reason for relisting, in fact it is probably offensive to those who took the time on the first one, especially since they already heard that argument. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - Kingturtle's (possibly) facetious arguments about the definition of [[wikt:consensus|consensus]] notwithstanding, this seems to have followed process. Old lists can be better served by categorization in many cases. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse closure'''. FWIW, I'm one of those 100+ who edited the list, and also one of the nine who voted to delete for the reasons given in the AfD. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Actually, you did not give a reason, you merely suggested possibly a redirect to [[anti-hero]] or [[List of heroes]] (the latter of which was not redlinked because it was deleted and given the salt-the-earth treatment). [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete''' and re-list. I am particularly worried about the closing admin's comment "Yikes, this article was almost three years old!": are we to take it that all the old articles should be cleared out to make room? Also note that the "discussion" took place over the New Year holiday, which makes it less likely that people were available to notice that it was taking place. The comment "anything that classes [[Rincewind]] and [[Thomas Covenant]] as the same sort of person is too vague" implies that the editor has failed to appreciate the point of what an [[anti-hero]] is. Lastly, the discussion raises the worry that the old nastiness of "list-cruft, die, die, die!" is rearing its ugly head again: there are many precedents for having lists on Wikipedia, we even have [[Wikipedia:featured lists|featured lists]] for crying out loud. HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 10:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Mostly excellent points, but I understood the closing admins intent was to say: now we see that the article isn't worthy of inclusion - look how long it's been messing up WP. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 11:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**For the record, if this had not happened around the New Year, I would have more than likely seen it and voted keep. (Of course, other deletionists may have also voted, but at least I've be a little happier with a larger number of people participating). [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' Having watched the article in question degenerate into a list of people who aren't perfectly virtuous, I voted to have it deleted because I felt it was a lost cause. Any attempt at a [[List of fictional anti-heroes]] would be better off starting from scratch. -[[User:Rjo|Rjo]] 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Godcasting]]====
'''This by howcheng, on [[Godcasting]]'''

Please note that this article has been deleted yet again and the page is now protected from re-creation. You wrote on the article page, "To not have an entry for Godcasting shows an anti-religion censorship by Wikipedia and I think this might be best brought to the media's attention." This is not censorship; the article was deleted appropriately in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy, primarily because the term is a neologism and no verification up to the standards that we require has been provided. If in fact the term has made it into the mainstream, you should cite reliable sources on Talk:Godcasting and I and other administrators will re-evaluate and restore the page. If you feel the deletion has been out of process, please visit Wikipedia:Deletion review and make your case there. Regards, howcheng {chat} 07:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

'''This by CentrOS'''

This may have been true many months ago when this was first created, but it certainly is not true today. You said: "If in fact the term has made it into the mainstream, you should cite reliable sources". A simple Google search of "godcast" returns 103,000 results. This is mainstream. On that Google search you'll find that '''Business Week''' http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2005/tc20050525_0375_tc_211.htm has an article entitled '''Need a Lift? Try a Godcast'''. Again, showing not only is the term in the '''mainstream''', but is used by exceedingly '''reliable sources'''. This meets both the requirements you asked for, and a simple Google search could have saved both of us a lot of trouble. I don't believe I need to present any further evidence due to the weight of what i have already presented. Please reinstate the article and I will build a deeper history and provide more information over the next few days. And BTW, the term "godcasting" has 149,000 entries on Google and as you scan the entries you will see MANY are from mainstream AND reliable sources.
[[User:CentrOS|CentrOS]] 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn/Undelete''' Term has entered mainstream and has been used by many reliable sources [[User:CentrOS|CentrOS]] 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''', seems notable, but I'd still like to let the community decide. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|(talk)]] 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''', let the community decide as above. FWIW, I get 149,000 Google hits. It might also help to see the article circa Dec 24, 2005-- [http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:dt1EByD_OoIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godcasting+godcasting&hl=en] —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 12:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' on AfD. Now that this term has hit the mainstream, it deserves to be examined again. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', 232 unique Google hits is not mainstream. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 16:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**Just curious, how are you coming up with 232? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***Type in Godcast in Google and Search for it. I get "Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for Godcast". But if you go to the last page of the returned search, which is Page 24, it says "231 - 232 of about 101,000". That means all of those hits are multiple occurrences on a page. Not on ''the same'' page, of course, but only 232 pages have this word on them. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
****Zoe, you are making a common technical error. Google's process is to select the first 1000 results and then eliminate redunancies without replacement. So the best that can be said is that of the top 1000 results on Google for Godcast, ~77% are viewed as being redundant. This says nothing at all about the remaining 100,000 results as google will never in any case give more than 1000 results even when insructed to show duplicates. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. No substantial change in usage from last AfD vote and I would have classed this as a dicdef. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*The article was hardly more than a dicdef, so I don't see a point to restoring. The term is already mentioned in [[Podcasting]], so I've made this into a redirect. If it's still too much of a neologism, I wouldn't really object to the redirect going away, but it seems fairly harmless to me. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
* ''[[WP:NPA|personal attack deleted]]'' [[User:Xerves|Xerves]] 18:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*The point in restoring it is quite simple. Religious podcasts, godcasts, are dominating the podcast landscape. It is by far and away the largest single genre and has been legitimately coined by many as podcasting's killer app, and for good reason. In the history of anything, the driving force, or a significant force behind the success of such, is something that should be recorded. The argument that it was a stub and had little content is not valid as I have already agreed to expand it once restored, and I can get others to do so as well. Religion, whether you like it or not, has and always will play an enormous part of our lives. How religion is influencing new technology, in this case podcasting, is important enough to have its own entry and not just a redirect from [[podcasting]]. Should we should remove Princess Diana and just put a redirect to the Royal Family? This is akin to what we have here. Please do not censor religion on the Wikipedia. The history of godcasting needs to be documented and preserved. Thank you.
*Err, the article is "alive" again. It's been made into a redirect, unredirected and made into an article again, and subsequently re-redirected. Unless there are lingering concerns over the deletion, I think we're done here. If people have opinions on whether to redirect, thats a matter for [[Talk:Godcasting]]. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*Let's not argue over semantics. A redirect is NOT a restoration of the entry. There are effectively 4 votes to restore the article and only one to delete it, so we have a clear consensus. Zoe's vote does not count because it is based on in an incorrect assertion. Please remove the redirect and allow the entry to stand on its own so I may edit it. [[User:CentrOS|CentrOS]] 07:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**I restored the article with the ''BusinessWeek'' reference you supplied. As [[User:Friday|Friday]] says, it's really now a discussion for [[Talk:Godcasting]] and beyond the purview of DRV. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 07:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''''Excuse me!!!!!''''' MY VOTE DOESN'T COUNT? Who the '''''hell''''' made '''''you''''' God? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
***You seem...tense. [[User:Extreme Unction|Ξxtreme Unction]]|[[User talk:Extreme Unction|yakkity yak]]<;/sub> 22:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
****You might say that. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 02:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*Re-List and un-delete. -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 04:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* I cannot see why this is being debated. There is what looks like a perfectly good article there now. I willl now restore the earlier (deleted) revisions in case they may be useful to people wanting to write some other article (there seems to be no suggestion of overriding legal issues which would have contraindicated this). --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[Saugeen Stripper]]====

Why was this article deleted? AfD result was non consensus, with the decision that the article would be kept. But now it is gone? Can someone please undelete? This was cleary done in error.? [[User:Tokyojoe2002|Tokyojoe2002]] 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*According to the deletion log: "[[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] deleted "Saugeen Stripper" (undoing failure of AFD)". '''overturn out-of-process deletion.''' If someon thinks than an AfD "failed" that person should either re-nominate or bring the matter here. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**Thanks for the help DES. We had a pretty lively week long discussion on this page that got a lot of feedback. if was a reasonably even split, slight edge to delete but no consensus and admin decided to keep it. Frustrating that a week of good debate disregarded like that, and glad it was undeleted. Thanks again. [[User:Tokyojoe2002|Tokyojoe2002]] 18:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***Technically, a ''no consensus'' is an automatic keep. I didn't really decide anything, and still believe the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mind]][[User_talk:Mindmatrix|matrix]] 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
****No, I understand, I just meant that whoever closed the AfD declared that it was a non consensus/auto keep. I value your opinion, and appreciated that you stuck to process. I think this is truly a divided issue. I do believe, however, that there was sufficient discussion in the AfD to have all viewpoints heard, and to make it clear that while there is an arguement not to keep, as you share, there certainly are valid arguments to keep, and hopefully we can all just ''''agree to disagree''' and the issue can be laid to rest. [User:Tokyojoe2002|Tokyojoe2002]] 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*You people have absolutely no idea what the term "encyclopedic" means, I guess. On the other hand I am not surprised that it's already undeleted. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 19:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**I have a very good idea what the term "'''out-of-process'''" means. If you felt this was unencyclopedic (although coverage in multiple major newspapers makes at least an argument for encyclopedic inclusion) you could have 1) brought the matter here -- this page reveiws allegedly improper keeps as well as allegedly improper deletions, or 2) started a new AfD nomination in which you made your views clearer. IMO simply ignoring the lack of expressd consensus to delete and deleting unilaterally was wrong in this case, and is almost always wrong. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***And it does not help, Adam, when you do this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saugeen_Stripper&diff=34143882&oldid=34127158] [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
****adam now has tried to redirect again for a second time. Clearly, he has no desire to obey or follow established processes. [[User:Tokyojoe2002|Tokyojoe2002]] 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**Adam, I can sympathize with the fact that you want the article deleted - I think it should go too, and expressed that sentiment on the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper|AfD]]. However, we have to take into account the AfD process (which I think is ineffective in some cases, but that's a different matter). I don't think any administrator should have the privilege to delete an article without some broader justification, which is the very reason AfD and CSD exist. In this instance, undeletion is appropriate from the perspective of "process", and most likely a follow-up AfD will ensue. [[User:Mindmatrix|Mind]][[User_talk:Mindmatrix|matrix]] 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**Adam's comments on [[Talk:Saugeen Stripper]] even indicate he knew he was working out-of-process and that it was likely to be reversed. I've had at least one article that I felt had no place in Wikipedia, but the community didn't agree with me. Learn to live with it. [[User:Wrathchild-K|Wrathchild]] 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***And he's a sore loser. See: [[Template:Frown]]
*'''Relist'''. There is obviously some unresolved controversy here, and the result could have gone either way, depending on the closer. There was, at least, a solid majority for deletion, which could have been considered a consensus by some. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. Tokyojoe2002's listed this at [[WP:RFP]]. Not touching that one with a 10-foot pole. · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']][[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]/[[User:Katefan0/Poll|mrp]] 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***I would support a '''relist'''. Stripping in dorms? Hardly a first...and very unencyclopedic. To Adam: please follow the standard processes. — [[User:TheKMan|'''TheKMan''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|talk]] 09:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*I would also support a '''Relist''' although I doubt that enough consensus will emerge to delete this. Unfortunately, too many contributors conflate news with encyclopedic notability. Obviously, some random coed stripping incident is not encyclopedic and it is discouraging that people express interest in retaining material like this. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 21:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**It's now looking like the residence hall where this took place has a long-standing reputation for being a "wild" place. I am now thinking that this article should be merged to the article about the residence hall where it took place, along with any other verifiable information that can be gleaned. [[User:Wrathchild-K|Wrathchild]] 23:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
***And I would likely argue that an article on the residence hall should be included in an article on the college. Maybe this could be smerged there, but I suppose that's more of an issue for AfD than for DRV. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete (and perhaps relist)''', deleting against the concensus of AFD is a bad thing. Adam should have followed procedure or ask Mindmatrix to review his own decision. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 11:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*AFAIK this has already been '''undelete'''d, but I'd prefer it was merged into the article about the residence hall (which has notability, see [[Talk:Saugeen-Maitland_Hall|talk page]]). -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Note:''' currently changed to a redirect to [[Saugeen-Maitland Hall]] (which has a short blurb on the ''Saugeen Stripper''). — [[User:TheKMan|'''TheKMan''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|talk]] 03:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-06]]===

====[[The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler]]====
See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler]]

The article about this well-known blog was deleted as a result of GNAA members teaming up and voting. Skrewler, Femmina, Timecop, supers, Eusebeus have voted in concert to delete many blog articles, listed [[User:Timecop/The war on blogs|here]]. Many of these users contribute nothing to Wikipedia other than delete votes on blog-related articles. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 03:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler|Looking]] at this poor excuse for a discussion, the "keep" crowd failed to provide anything to counter the argument put forward by the nominator. A puacity of meaningful exchange does not an invalid closure make. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
**So in the world of Aaron Brenneman, "keep" voters are required to cite external sources but "delete" voters can vote "nn" if they want? Very hypocritical. Please don't arbitrarily "refactor" deletion discussions by striking through votes you disagree with. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
***I'd encourage Rhobite to pay a bit more attention. Any one of several things might have alerted him to the fact that I wasn't refactoring the deletion discussions: The lack of the coloured background, my caveat at the top of the page, or the word "talk" in the page's title.
***As to my "hypocritical" actions with regards to how I interpret votes: When making a claim, the burden is clearly on the ''claiment'' to provide evidence. A single link to, for example, a review in major media would counteract any number of "not notable" opinions. No such evidence was provided here. [[WP:CITE|Testimony by wikipedia editors]] is not sufficient. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Consensus, clearly, was to delete it. — '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/|FREAK OF NURxTURE]]'' ([{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} TALK])''' 05:58, Jan. 6, 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD, though the discussion was on the border. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist on AfD''' - Properly closed AfD, which missed easily discovered information: the weblog has won two web awards, namely two of the <s>Weblogger</s> Warblogger awards organised by the ''Right Wing News'' weblog for ''Most Bloodthirsty Blog'' in 2002 [http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/warblogger.php], and ''Most annoying right-of-center blogger'' for 2003 [http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/warblogger2003.php] which technically qualify it for keeping under [[WP:WEB]]. Passing notoriety among right-wing US webloggers falls somewhat under my notability threshold, but I think it's worth throwing open to discussion. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (fix [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
**Following the post of Tony Sidaway below, I had noticed but took no account of Rhobite's claim of manipulation, in the above. If there is evidence of substantive manipulation, the AfD should be reopened regardless of this DRV's verdict. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Discussion clearly shows that the majority wanted to delete the article - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Closure''' and '''KD'''. The GNAA may be a childish group, but i agree with their efforts to eliminate blogcruft. To [User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] I would note that before you make such claims about my activity here, you check out any of the various articles I have created and maintain. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' The majority argument found that this blog is uninfluential outside of the blogosphere. If it scoops a major story then feel free to recreate the article. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] [[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]] 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Tons of google hits. This blog is especially notable for the intemperate tone of its posts and has often been cited and discussed for this reason. If this isn't undeleted, I may write a new article on it myself. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] ([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</TT> 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. AfD was fair. It's a blog, and the bar is properly set high for that by the community. We should be glad to have this gone. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
* I agree partly with Charles Stewart on this. Like him I found the awards, and although the rightwing weblogger awards are trash (allowing multiple votes) the warblogger awards are much more selective. A shortlist is selected and only recognised right wing bloggers are invited to vote. This ensures some quality control (obviously as a leftie I'm going to disagree with some aspects of this but I don't come to Wikipedia to discuss politics). I've honestly no idea why this was ever nominated for deletion, and if the trolls were involved then it bloody well should be undeleted without ceremony. On that I'm completely in agreement with Rhobite. I'll be investigating the allegations he has made and will of course undelete any articles that have been deleted as a result of collusion by trolls, if this has indeed occurred. [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn, relist on AFD'''Majority is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a series of "nn" vote does not a consensus make. If lefty readers think it's valuable as a benchmark, that I think is a good sign of notability from both sides of the aisle. --[[User:Mmx1|Mmx1]] 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', evidence here suggests it was removed in error. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Unfortunately discusionless debate, but there's nothing new to present and there was nothing inheritly wrong with the debate and the close was valid. [[User:RN|WhiteNight]] [[User talk:RN|T]] | [[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]] | [[Special:Contributions/RN|C]] 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The key words to note in the box at the top of the page are ''"'''significant''' new information."'' (Emphasis mine.) The "awards" cited are, um, tenous indications of notability at best. As to "rightwingnews" itself - [http://www.google.com.au/search?q=rightwingnews+blog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nw lots of google], but the only substantial one was [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7288400/ a single unannotated line on MSN] out of about 250 other blogs, starting with "Chimps in the news". Ironically, [http://news.google.com.au/news?q=rightwingnews%20blog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn rightwingnews gets 0 hits for news.] And as to the awards it presents: "most bloodthirsty" - [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22The+Most+Bloodthirsty+Blog%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= 16 google hits], [http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&q=%22The%20Most%20Bloodthirsty%20Blog%22&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn no news], and "most annoying" - [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22Most+annoying+right-of-center+blogger%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= 117 google], [http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&q=%22Most%20annoying%20right-of-center%20blogger%22&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn no news]. If we are seriously thinking of restoring an article based upon this paucity of notability, than the world has gone mad. And I'd urge Tony Sidaway to "of course" present any new information he may discover about collusion here rather than engaging in further unilateral action leading, in all likelyhood, to yet another wheel war. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 07:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:*I don't think notability has been established, but there are two reasons i think we should go back to AfD anyway: (i) to repeat myself, it satisfies the letter of [[WP:WEB]] since it has won an award, (ii) The RWN warblogger award actually has some credibility: it's a pretty good measure of what the warblogger community think, and whether ''that'' matters is really an AfD decision, not a policywonkish DRV decision --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 10:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:**Well, WEB's quote on awards is "''well known and independent award"'', which I think we've established this isn't.
:**I'm unclear on how trying to use some common sense is "policy-wonking" while insisting that this go through ''another'' round of hoops is not. I will, however, at this point yield the floor. [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:***Re award: if it's not well known, it's not obscure either. What I meant by policy-wonking (been reading too many ArbCom platforms, sorry about that) is that DRV is about something like judicial oversight, whose remit to review content is fairly limited. Thorny questions about notability really should go to back to AfD, and I think this qualifies. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 10:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. If my understanding of the process is correct, we should overturn AfD that were improperly closed or in cases where Wikipedia would clearly be better off including them. It is also the responsibility of the author of the article to provide references proving that the article meets the threshold of notability, in this case [[WP:WEB]]. Looking at the AfD discussion, I see no arguement that asserts the article is in compliance with [[WP:WEB]] and see no valid reason why the AfD should be relisted. That is not to say that the article should not be recreated, but the AfD was closed correctly in my opinion. If someone wanted to recreate the article with bonafide evidence of compliance with [[WP:WEB]], I would vote for ''temporary undeletion'' in accordance with the [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy|undeletion policy]]. [[User:Movementarian|Movementarian]] 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' per Tony's comments on the awards. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]]
*'''Undelete'''. Enough questions have been raised about notability of subject and legitimacy of process that I think this deserves another look. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 06:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Wikipedia is not an advertisement for every category of blogs out there. --[[User:Timecop|Timecop]] 07:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', '''keep deleted''' per Timecop. --[[User:Hosterweis|Hosterweis]] 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure and keep deleted''' per Brenneman and timecop. There was no failur of due process, the site fails [[WP:WEB]], and the AfD went through correctly. [[User:Proto|Proto]] [[User_talk:Proto|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Proto|c]] 12:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', voting was skewed by self-proclaimed [[Gay Nigger Association of America|GNAA]] members [[User:Timecop]] and [[User:Femmina]] (and [[User:supers]]' contribution history is mostly GNAA-related or pro-blog-deletion Afd voting, likely as part of [[User:Timecop/The war on blogs|Timecop's "war on blogs" campaign]], which Timecop and Femmina and other GNAA members have largely participate in). -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 21:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**I don't understand this argument. Are we saying that these recomendations shouldn't count because these editors contribute to AfD a lot? Because if that's your argument, I've got a few "keep" voters who never miss and AfD that I'd like to ignore while we're at it. It's got to cut both ways. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 06:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*** GNAA is a self-identified group of trolls. That people proclaiming themselves to be trolls are permitted to edit Wikiepdia ''at all'' is an act of grace and favor that may be revoked. Giving credence to their campaigns to delete articles, if that it what is happening, would be folly. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-05]]===

==== [[Zoner, Inc.]] ====
See [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zoner%2C_Inc.]] 
I believe that the Zoner, Inc. meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Zoner is not a small "garage" company. See google hits: [http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22Zoner%2C+Inc.%22&btnG=Search 13,600 hits for "Zoner, Inc."] [http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22Zoner+software%22&btnG=Search 559,000 hists for "Zoner software"], [http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=Zoner&btnG=Search 1,670,000 for Zoner] and [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine]], part Advertising. I would like to translate article to Czech Wikipedia. Thanks. --[[User:Michal Jurosz|Michal Jurosz]] 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' to AfD. The votes in the AfD were too few to properly gauge consensus. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
* Unless there is better evidence that can be presented that this company meets the recommended criteria at [[WP:CORP]], I have to '''endorse closure''' (keep deleted). The vast majority of the google hits cited above (and during the AFD discussion) are irrelevant. They include the software company's own site (reasonable but not relevant for the purposes of [[WP:V|verification]]), download sites, advertising sites and lots of irrelevant use of "zoner" by a variety of people as a username. The google statistics failed to convince the participants of the previous decision. Note: In circumstances like this, a Google Groups search can be more informative. That returns 10,800 hits just for "zoner" but, again, many are irrelevant. I would agree to a relisting if ''new'' evidence is presented. Mere google hits are not, in my opinion, meeting that threshold. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
** [[WP:CORP]] is a proposed Wikipedia policy. I used official policy [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|WP:NOT]], part Advertising: ''Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. ...'' --[[User:Michal Jurosz|Michal Jurosz]] 16:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*** That doesn't automatically mean that ''all'' articles about companies or products are appropriate. The "garage" company is a clear example at the extreme end of the spectrum. Companies in the middle are judgment calls. They are generally kept or deleted based on the evidence presented. [[WP:CORP]], while still tagged as a proposal, is a widely respected attempt to provide more specific guidance based on the community's history of decisions. By the way, I'd overlooked your request above to translate the article for the Czech Wikipedia. If you participate on both projects and are familiar with their general inclusion criteria, I have no objection to a temporary undelete either to [[m:transwiki]] or to your userspace for translation and cross-posting. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 05:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*Michal, my counting skills seem to differ from yours. Where you report 13,600, when I click on the link ''you'' provided, I get 998, of which 232 are unique. Where you report 559,000, I get 438,000, of which 326 are unique. However, of 1,670,000 you report, ''I'' get 2,900,000, of which 760 are unique. But that is for every single possible use of the word Zoner, most of which have nothing to do with this software. Not notable, '''keep deleted'''. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 16:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:: Zoe, the unique hits are per the thousand sample, and not across the entire returned hit count - you have to multiply the unique count by the overall total divided by a thousand. As you say, though, google is irrelevant due to the multiple uses of the word. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::It is bit confusing for me, because when I click on these links, I get the exactly the same count of hits as Michal Juros. --[[User:Petr.adamek|Petr.adamek]] 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. I see no fault in the Afd and no content-related reason to overturn it. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' Zoner is wel known in Czech Republic; it is big software development company and domain registrator. I dont agree, that google hits are completely irrelevant. --[[User:Petr.adamek|Petr.adamek]] 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Relist''', it is important and well known IT company in Czech Republic, local leader in software development and internet services, the third biggest in webhosting. Examples of third party references: about company: [http://www.zive.cz/h/Info/Ar.asp?ARI=127131&CAI=2133] [http://www.linuxexpres.cz/zoner-vyrabi-vlastni-antivirovy-system-pro-linux], products recensions [http://www.fotografovani.cz/art/forec_soft/recenze-zoner-photo-studio-7-dil-4.html] [http://technet.idnes.cz/software.asp?r=software&c=A021010_5171455_software], interviews [http://www.zive.cz/h/Byznys/AR.asp?ARI=127240&CAI=2035] --[[User:RuM|RuM]] 17:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
* Comment: [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+benny&num=100&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Zoner+software+&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images Czech virus writer joins Zoner software], [http://www.doingbusiness.cz/r/article.asp?id=322], [http://www.topshareware.com/Zoner-Draw-download-957.htm], [http://www.wdvl.com/Reviews/Graphics/Zoner/], [http://printer.konicaminoltaeurope.com/eu/en/software.php?id=1], [http://node1.bvv.cz/i2000/Akce/b-inv.nsf/WWWAllPDocsID/VJEK-6HHAA4?OpenDocument&NAV=1]. Seems like I can use [http://www.answers.com/topic/zoner-inc] for cs.wikipedia article about Zoner. --[[User:Michal Jurosz|Michal Jurosz]] 18:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Nothing out of process here. '''[[User:Howcheng|howch]][[WP:EA|''e'']][[User:Howcheng|ng]]''' {[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]} 23:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Closure''' and '''KD''' per Howcheng. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist'''. -[[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 01:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[2006-01-03]]===

====[[Seth Ravin]]====
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin]] 
Slightly hazy. A couple of clear delete opinions (one mine, please note), a couple of clear keep opinions (JJay and Kurt Weber). The rest are pretty clear that they consider him less notable than [[Rimini Street]]. We don't expect AfDs to be consistant, but the real issue are the pseudo-merges. I think that everyone who took part would be suprised at this outcome. My prefered option would be to ping the participants, un-close/extend this, and run it for a few more days. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*Eek... a pretty difficult AFD to close, further complicated by the fact that the suggested merge target, [[Rimini Street]] was deleted. I think that we should '''relist''' this one for a new AFD debate now that the staus of Rimini Street has clarified. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 07:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*It seems there was a consensus that this topic doesn't deserve it's own article. Votes to merge to a non-existant target should be discounted. Thus, it should have been '''deleted'''. Re-list if necessary. — '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/|FREAK OF NURxTURE]]'' ([{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} TALK])''' 07:51, Jan. 4, 2006
*'''Delete'''. It should have been merged with Rimini Street and deleted along with it. Let's face it, it's vanity. Kurt Weber's opinion basically boils down to "he exists so he should have an article", a view he's expressed about anything that could theoretically exist, and has been universally rejected. Relist if need be, but deletion is preferable. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' and '''delete''', Any argument that rests on "it exists, so keep" should be rejected out of hand (at least Kmweber has laid off the "deletionist vandal" schtick), and votes that are later rendered impossible should be discounted, IMO, though JIP's handling of it as a no consensus also makes sense. [[User:Android79|android]][[User talk:Android79|79]] 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Overturn and delete'''</s> - From here, the three merge votes count as delete votes given that the AfD said delete Rimini Street (two of them including Howcheng explicitly said they were delete in this case, the last said per Howcheng), and the four keep votes were all weak keeps. Note that Aaron voted delete in a roundabout manner (he said same as the Rimini AfD). That makes 7 delete against 4 weak keeps: given no real defence of the article was mounted, I count that as a consensus to delete. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
**I actually ''did'' say delete explicitly, I just didn't bold it. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
***Indeed, my error. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Endorse no consensus closure''' following the WSJ article Tony found. I still think delete is the outcome that most fairly represents the AfD, but clear evidence that a decent article can be made from the juice of the article we have has emerged. Leave it to the talk page how best to figure out what that article should be (on Ravin, on TomorrowNow or on something else). --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''', per above, altho the original "no consensus" call was not unreasonable. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Despite the fact that ''merges'' often count as keeps, these merge votes all seemed to depend on the outcome of Rimini Street, and since Rimini Street was deleted, so should this. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*Funny one. '''Overturn and delete''', as good arguments have been made, or failing that, just reopen and extend for 2 days, asking the merge voters to reconsider their opinions. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]]) 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
* No need to delete. In 2004, Ravin persuaded H. David Anderson IV, director of information technology for the state of Georgia's employee retirement system, to switch contracts from Peoplesoft to Mr Ravin's company, TomorrowNow Inc ['Rebel' Customers May Cut Into Profits At Big Software Firms By DAVID BANK Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, September 30, 2004; Page B1]. Undercutting the big boys, verifiably in a non-fluff piece in a reputable newspaper, seems noteworthy to me. Not one if the big boys, but not a blue sky dreamer either. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:Good call. How much of the article discussed Ravin and his company? Did you get this via LexisNexis? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 10:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:: Sorry, I forgot to link it. It's on the WSJ site but you need a subscription for that. There are quite a few copies, such as: [http://classwork.busadm.mu.edu/Economics%20Newspaper%20Articles/Microeconomics/Price%20Searching%20Markets/2004/2004%2009%2030%20'Rebel'%20customers%20may%20cut%20into%20profits%20at%20big%20software%20firms.PDF here] (PDF), [http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ozfAVdlmKKEJ:classwork.busadm.mu.edu/Economics%2520Newspaper%2520Articles/Microeconomics/Price%2520Searching%2520Markets/2004/2004%252009%252030%2520%27Rebel%27%2520customers%2520may%2520cut%2520into%2520profits%2520at%2520big%2520software%2520firms.PDF+David+Anderson+IV++ravin++peoplesoft&hl=en Here] is a html cache copy. The article is about a customer revolt in response to poor and costly service from Peoplesoft/Oracle, and focused primarily on the growth of FutureNow's business at the expense of the giant. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - There hasn't been much reaction to the article Tony cited, which quotes Ravin at length and mentions him by name 3 times. Given that this was a very borderline delete outcome, and the article is clearly cogent to the claim of notability that was at the heart of the AfD, I find this strange. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**I find this discussion inadequate: the endorse voters, who have the majority, have taken no account of Tony's evidence. I don't want to DRV this DRV once it is closed... --- Charles Stewart[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]] 18:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
***Well, I'm taking it into account and not changing my vote. I don't think Wikipedia needs to include everyone ever mentioned in a single newspaper article. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 18:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
* Well obviously there's no point in deleting an article that is verifiable and passed an AfD. It would just be restored. I don't see why we should be bloody minded about this and I suggest that we just close the DRV without prejudice so that anyone who really thinks it should be deleted can list it on AfD. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**One should eschew the passive voice. Why not just say "I will undelete it"? -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 18:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**Or it will be undeleted by someone else. With all these Cabals flying around, there just has to be more than one member. :) Seriously though if someone wants to delete this they're perfectly welcome to list it again and get a real, bona fide delete close. All we've found on this review is that the guy in question verifiably persuaded at least one sizeable US state to switch its employee pension policy from Oracle/Peoplesoft to his company. Not a deletion candidate. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

==Recently concluded==


#[[Template:Test7]]: Redirected to [[Template:Vandalblock]]. 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Margolinian Satanism]]: No such article ever existed; another article may have been intended, but no argument or support put forward for its undeletion. [[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 18:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Pussy City Pimps]]: Undeleted, sent to AfD, deleted, relisted at DRV above. 18:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[:Image:Fem isa 2.gif]]: Images cannot be undeleted. This was re-uploaded, evidently without protest. 18:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking]]: Kept deleted. 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Template:User userbox purge]]: Kept deleted (protected). 18:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[:Category:Moneyball]]: Repopulation of category allowed, but will probably be sent to CFD if/when that hapens. 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[:Category:Contemporary philosophers]]: Undeleted. Currently relisted at [[WP:CFD]]. 18:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Bloody Shot]]: Kept deleted. 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[That Guy]]: Speedily undeleted. Deletion was in error. 17:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Template:Album infobox 2]]: Kept redirected to [[Template:Album infobox]]. 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Oven rack guard]]: Kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[List of real names of professional wrestlers]]: Closure of keep endorsed. 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Mootstormfront]]: Closure of Keep endorsed. It has since been turned into a redirect (not an issue for DRV). 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[List of wiki farms]]: Speedy undeleted, listed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wiki farms]] . 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Back Door Sluts 9]]: Unprotected, now a redirect. 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Full Bodying]]: Kept deleted (already at BJAODN). 19:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Chris Jenny Harrison]]: Kept deleted. 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[WP:RFC/KM]]: Undeleted; sent to [[WP:RFD]], where it was kept. 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[:Template:User Seigenthaler]]: Kept deleted (protected). 19:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[:Template:Help Wikiboxes]]: Kept deleted (protected). 19:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Timeline for missing persons following the September 11, 2001 Attacks]]: kept deleted. May be temporarily undeletd for transwiki, if it hasn't been done so already. 19:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Blumpkin]]: completely rewritten 10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[List of Netflix distribution centers]]: withdrawn by nominator 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bonestown]]: history of discussion page restored. 14:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[John Noble Goodwin]]: restored 14:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
#User boxes deleted by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]: speedily undeleted. 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 11

2006-01-15T11:40:31Z

Bourbons3: /* Template:User allboxes */ keep

David Seaman

2006-01-15T11:25:54Z

Bourbons3: added image

{{for|the DJ|Dave Seaman}}
[[Image:David Seaman.jpg|thumb|David Seaman]]
'''David Andrew Seaman''' [[Order of the British Empire|MBE]] (born [[September 19]], [[1963]] in [[Rotherham]], [[South Yorkshire]]) is an [[England|English]] [[football (soccer)|football]] [[goalkeeper]] who played for several clubs, most notably [[Arsenal F.C.|Arsenal]] and most recently with [[Manchester City F.C.|Manchester City]]. He retired from the game on [[January 13]], [[2004]], following a recurring [[shoulder]] injury. He was awarded the [[Order of the British Empire|MBE]] in 1997 for services to the sport.

He is generally regarded as one of the best goalkeepers of all time, and his peak was during his period as Arsenal and [[England national football team|England]] goalkeeper. During his time at Arsenal he won many medals including three league championships ([[1991]], [[1998]], [[2002]]), four [[FA Cup]]s ([[1993]], 1998, 2002, [[2003]]), the [[League Cup]] in 1993 and the [[Cup Winners' Cup|European Cup Winners Cup]] in [[1994]]. During this time he also played in the [[Football World Cup 1998|1998]] and [[Football World Cup 2002|2002]] World Cups, and [[1996 European Football Championship|Euro 96]] and [[2000 European Football Championship|Euro 2000]].

===Early Career===
He began his career at '''[[Leeds United F.C.|Leeds United]]''', the club he supported as a boy. But much to his disappointment he was not wanted by then-manager [[Eddie Gray]], who had been his favourite player. He went to Division 4 club '''[[Peterborough United F.C.|Peterborough United]]''' for a £4,000 fee in August 1982, and he began to make a name for himself.

Just over two years later, in October 1984, Second Division '''[[Birmingham City F.C.|Birmingham City]]''' paid £100,000 for Seaman's services. They ended up winning promotion at the end of that season, but were relegated from the top flight after one season.

Seaman was not to follow them back to Division 2. In August 1986 he moved to London club '''[[Queen's Park Rangers F.C.|Q.P.R.]]''' for a fee of £225,000. Playing at a higher profile club, and on a plastic pitch, he was to earn his first England cap. This came under [[Bobby Robson]] in a friendly against [[Saudi Arabia national football team|Saudi Arabia]] in November 1988. Whilst at Q.P.R., Seaman was coached by Arsenal double-winner (of 1971) [[Bob Wilson]], who was to work with him for more than a decade.

===Arsenal under Graham===
In 1990, long before the current transfer window system had come to English football, there was still a transfer deadline, a few weeks before the end of the season. '''[[Arsenal F.C.|Arsenal]]''', who had won the league in 1989, wanted to sign Seaman, but the deal involved Arsenal's keeper [[John Lukic]] (who, incidentally, was Leeds' first choice goalkeeper back in 1982) heading the opposite way on loan. Lukic did not want to do this, and the deal broke down, but as soon as the season ended, Arsenal manager [[George Graham]] came back for Seaman, with £1.3 million, at the time a British record for a goalkeeper, being the agreed fee. Lukic, who was highly popular amongst Arsenal fans, left to rejoin Leeds. Seaman was England's second-choice goalkeeper behing [[Peter Shilton]] at the {{Wc|1990}} but after arriving in Italy, he had to pull out of the squad due to injury.

Bob Wilson had donated Seaman the vest that he wore for each match of Arsenal's 1970-71 double season, and Seaman wore the 20-year-old Arsenal vest beneath his Arsenal shirt for the whole of his Arsenal career. Seaman and Arsenal then enjoyed one of the most succesful periods in the club's illustrious history. The first season saw Seaman concede only 18 goals (playing every match of the 38-game season) as Arsenal regained the league title.

In 1992, Seaman was rejected by [[Graham Taylor]] for the {{Ec|92}} England squad, in favour of [[Chris Woods]] and [[Nigel Martyn]].

In 1993 Arsenal won both the FA Cup and the League Cup and supplemented this a year later with the European Cup Winners' Cup. In 1995, George Graham was sacked, and Arsenal came close to becoming the first club to retain the Cup Winners' Cup, but the club lost in extra-time to a spectacular late goal which caught Seaman off-guard (see below). In 1996, however, Seaman became a household name in England for positive reasons, due to his heroics as part of [[Terry Venables]]'s {{Ec|96}} semi-final-reaching England team.

===Arsenal under Wenger===
In 1996, Seaman had a new manager at club level, in [[Arsène Wenger]]. Wenger rated Seaman highly and in 1998, Seaman won league, cup and a place in [[Glenn Hoddle]]'s England team for the {{Wc|1998}} in [[France]]. England went out on penalties.

In 1998-99, Seaman played every match (38) and conceded only 17 league goals, a club record to this day. But 1999-2000 brought what was arguably Seaman's worst year at Arsenal. Injuries brought a loss of form and Seaman looked a shadow of his former self. Still, he managed to reach the 2000 [[UEFA Cup]] final, which Arsenal drew 0-0 with [[Galatasaray]], but lost on penalties. He was part of [[Kevin Keegan]]'s [[Euro 2000]] squad, but sustained an injury in his warm-up excercises for the third game (against [[Romania national football team|Romania]]). Nigel Martyn stepped in and performed badly, and [[Phil Neville]]'s clumsy foul late in the game gave Romania a penalty which Martyn could not stop. England lost the match and went out in the first round.

In 2002, Seaman won league and cup again, although Arsenal's other goalkeepers [[Stuart Taylor]] and [[Richard Wright]] also won championship medals, due mainly to Seaman's absence through injuries. Seaman was part of [[Sven-Göran Eriksson]]'s {{Wc|2002}} squad, and played every game as England reached the quarter-finals. Shortly afterwards though, Eriksson called time on Seaman's England career as British tabloid newspapers began to heavily criticise Seaman for his errors and lack of mobility. As he got older, Seaman began missing an ever-increasing number of matches due to injuries, and whilst 2003 brought FA Cup success to Seaman, it also brought his Arsenal career to an end, with Wenger opting to bring in the younger and less injury-prone [[Jens Lehmann]]. Wenger had previously kept his faith in Seaman, always restoring him to the starting lineup after an injury. Seaman played in goal for Arsenal more times than anyone else, and also holds the Arsenal Premier League appearances record, with 344.

Leaving on a free transfer, Seaman joined up with Kevin Keegan at [[Manchester City F.C.|Manchester City]]. Seaman's career in Manchester did not last long, and whilst out of action due to injury, he announced his immediate retirement, at the age of 40, in January 2004. Seaman's last act at City was to helped Keegan select his successor in goal, [[David James]] — the man who had ousted him as England's first choice goalkeeper a little over a year earlier.

===Acclaim===
Seaman is not generally known for particularly athletic saves: his great skill was the usage of angles to deny opposing strikers any part of the goal to shoot at, making spectacular diving saves largely unnecessary. However, near the end of his career, in Arsenal's 2003 [[FA Cup]] semi-final against [[Sheffield United F.C.|Sheffield United]], in his 1,000th professional match, Seaman pulled off what many regard as the greatest save of recent times, and some even call it the greatest ever. Arsenal were defending a 1-0 lead, when with less than ten minutes to go, [[Paul Peschisolido]] had a header towards an apparently open goal from six yards out with Seaman seemingly stranded at the near post. However, Peschisolido headed the ball slightly too close to Seaman and the goalkeeper leaped sideways and backwards, somehow managing to stretch his right arm behind him and scoop the ball back and away from both his goal and the opposing players ready to pounce on a rebound.

Seaman was also noted for his ability to save [[penalty kick (football)|penalty kick]]s - for example, saving [[Attilio Lombardo]]'s shot in a [[penalty shootout (football)|penalty shootout]] against [[U.C. Sampdoria|Sampdoria]] to take Arsenal to the final of the 1995 Cup Winners' Cup. For England, during [[Euro 96]], Seaman first saved a penalty in normal play from [[Scotland national football team|Scotland]]'s [[Gary McAllister]] in a group match, while England were 1-0 up ([[Paul Gascoigne]] scored soon after to make it 2-0). Then, after England's quarter-final against [[Spain national football team|Spain]] ended scoreless, Seaman saved [[Miguel Nadal]]'s kick in the shootout to knock Spain out of the tournament. England eventually were eliminated in the semi-finals of the competition; Seaman was named alongside Golden Boot winner [[Alan Shearer]] and winger [[Steve McManaman]] in the [[UEFA]] "Team of the Tournament". Euro 96 sponsor [[Philips]] named him "Player of the Tournament".

===Blame===
Ironically, Seaman is well known for a few high profile errors, such as letting in a goal from an arcing 40 yard free kick by [[Ronaldinho]] during the 2002 [[Football World Cup 2002|World Cup]] and [[Nayim]]'s astonishing lob from the right-hand touchline, some 45 yards, in the final minutes of the [[1995]] [[Cup Winners' Cup|European Cup Winners Cup final]].

Seaman was in goal for England when, in 1993, they conceded (to [[David Gualtieri]], of [[San Marino national football team|San Marino]]) the fastest goal in World Cup qualifiers history – 8 seconds, after an errant backpass by [[Stuart Pearce]]. England went on to win 7-1, and ultimately the goal had no standing on England's failure to qualify for the {{Wc|1994}}.

As his mobility decreased with age, Seaman was blamed for letting in a goal directly from a corner kick in a 2-2 draw with [[Republic of Macedonia national football team|Macedonia]], despite the fact that he had positioned a defender on the goal-line for such eventuality. Seen as an error, this became Seaman's last appearance for the England national team, a [[2004 European Football Championship|Euro 2004]] qualifier in October 2002.

===Non-footballing Career===
Seaman's on-screen presence made him a popular choice for chat-shows and televised appearances during his sporting career, and he can occasionally be spotted on British television. He briefly replaced [[Gary Lineker]] as team captain on the television quiz [[They Think It's All Over]] before producers decided to drop him in favour of former Arsenal team-mate [[Ian Wright]].

Seaman acted in a cameo role in a [[BBC]] [[film]] based around the events of his successful Euro 96 tournament, starring [[Rachel Weisz]], it was entitled ''[[My Summer with Des]]''.

In December 2004, following his retirement from professional football, he became one of the celebrities to take part in ''Strictly Ice Dancing'', a one-off ice dance version of ''[[Strictly Come Dancing]]'', in which celebrities are paired with professional dancers. He joined the show at late notice, replacing [[Paul Gascoigne]]. With just eight days to prepare for the show, broadcast on [[BBC One]] on December 26, Seaman and his professional partner Zoia Birmingham managed to win the competition. The other competitors spent a month in training for the show.

In late 2005 he had the ponytail (which had become his trademark in the previous 5 years) cut off on live television for charity.

Seaman returned to the ice for another ice-dancing series, [[Dancing on Ice]], broadcast on [[ITV]]. The series started on January 14, 2006.

Seaman also hosts a "Safe Hands" charity golf event annually.

===Club Statistics===
{| class="wikitable"
|- style="background:#ccffcc;"
!rowspan="1"|Club
!rowspan="1"|[[English football league system|League]] appearances
!rowspan="1"|[[FA Cup]] appearances
!colspan="1"|[[League Cup]] appearances
!colspan="1"|[[UEFA|European]] appearances
!colspan="1"|[[FA Community Shield|C. Shield]] appearances
!colspan="1"|Other appearances
!colspan="1"|Total appearances
|-
|[[Leeds United F.C.]] September 1981 - August 1982
|align=center width="50" |-
|align=center width="50" |-
|align=center width="50" |-
|align=center width="50" |-
|align=center width="50" |-
|align=center width="50" |-
|align=center width="50" |'''0'''
|-
|-
|[[Peterborough United F.C.]] August 1982 - October 1984
|align=center |91
|align=center |5
|align=center |10
|align=center |-
|align=center |-
|align=center |-
|align=center |'''106'''
|-
|-
|[[Birmingham City F.C.]] October 1984 - August 1986
|align=center |75
|align=center |5
|align=center |4
|align=center |-
|align=center |-
|align=center |-
|align=center |'''84'''
|-
|-
|[[Queens Park Rangers F.C.]] August 1986 - June 1990
|align=center |141
|align=center |17
|align=center |13
|align=center |-
|align=center |-
|align=center |4
|align=center |'''175'''
|-
|-
|[[Arsenal F.C.]] June 1990 - June 2003
|align=center |405
|align=center |54
|align=center |32
|align=center |68
|align=center |4
|align=center |2
|align=center |'''565'''
|-
|-
|[[Manchester City F.C.]] June 2003 - January 2004
|align=center |19
|align=center |1
|align=center |1
|align=center |5
|align=center |-
|align=center |-
|align=center |'''26'''
|-
|- style="background:#ccffcc;"
|'''Total'''
|align=center |'''731'''
|align=center |'''82'''
|align=center |'''60'''
|align=center |'''68'''
|align=center |'''4'''
|align=center |'''11'''
|align=center |'''957'''
|-
|}

[[Image:England crest.png|12px]] '''[[England national football team|ENGLAND]]'''
* 75 full caps
** Debut against [[Saudi Arabia national football team|Saudi Arabia]] (a - [[Riyadh]]) November 16, 1988 - 1-1
** Final appearance against [[Republic of Macedonia national football team|Macedonia]] (h - [[Southampton]]) October 16, 2002 - 2-2
* 6 caps for England B
* 10 caps for England Under-21

===Honours===
*[[FIFA]] [[Football World Cup|World Cup]]
**Appearances: [[Football World Cup 1998|1998]], [[Football World Cup 2002|2002]]
**Unused Squad member: [[Football World Cup 1990|1990]] (Withdrew injured)
*[[UEFA]] [[European Football Championship|European Championship]]
**Appearances: [[1996 European Football Championship|1996]], [[2000 European Football Championship|2000]]
*[[Football League First Division|First Division Championship*]]/[[FA Premier League]]: 3
**1991, 1998, 2002
*[[FA Cup]]: 4
**1993, 1998, 2002, 2003
*[[League Cup]]: 1993
*[[Cup Winners' Cup]]: 1994

( * As top tier of English football )

[[Category:1963 births|Seaman, David]]
[[Category:English footballers|Seaman, David]]
[[Category:Football (soccer) goalkeepers|Seaman, David]]
[[Category:English Premiership players|Seaman, David]]
[[Category:Leeds United F.C. players|Seaman, David]]
[[Category:Peterborough United F.C. players|Seaman, David]]
[[Category:Birmingham City F.C. players|Seaman, David]]
[[Category:Queens Park Rangers F.C. players|Seaman, David]]
[[Category:Arsenal F.C. players|Seaman, David]]
[[Category:Manchester City F.C. players|Seaman, David]]
[[Category:Members of the British Empire|Seaman, David]]
[[Category:Natives of South Yorkshire|Seaman, David]]

[[de:David Seaman]]
[[fr:David Seaman]]
[[fi:David Seaman]]
[[sv:David Seaman]]

Torvill and Dean

2006-01-15T11:19:58Z

Bourbons3: /* Life after the Olympics */ punctuation, spelling, wikilinks

[[Image:Torvill and Dean.jpg|thumb|Torvill and Dean winning their Gold medals in 1984]]
'''Torvill and Dean''' are a famous British [[ice dancing]] team, consisting of [[Jayne Torvill]] and [[Christopher Dean]].

==The beginnings==
Around [[1975]], Jayne Torvill was a former British Senior Pairs champion trying to skate singles, and Christopher Dean and his partner had won a British Junior Ice Dance competition. [[Nottingham]] coach [[Janet Sawbridge]] put them together, and the rest is figure skating history. They took their first trophy in [[1976]]. They changed coaches to Betty Callaway in 1978. After a 5th place at their first [[Olympics]], in [[Lake Placid, New York|Lake Placid]] in [[1980]], and 4th in Worlds that year, they never took less than first place in any competition they entered, except in [[1994]].

==Use of narrative and thematic music==
After winning the [[1981]] [[World Figure Skating Championships|World Championships]] (which brought the distinction of [[Member of the Order of the British Empire|MBEs]]), and with three more years before the Olympics, they began to plan routines which used a single piece of music and had some narrative or thematic element. At that time, Ice Dance "long" routines typically used several pieces of music, often with different rhythms to show off the command of different steps (thus their Free Dance in [[1981]] used "[[Fame (Irene Cara song)|Fame]]", "[[Caravan (jazz standard)|Caravan]]", "[[Red Sails in the Sunset (song)|Red Sails in the Sunset]]", and "[[Swing, Swing, Swing]]"); the short program used only one piece of music, but the entire routine had to be performed three times in sequence, exactly the same way. In [[1982]], they presented a long program to excerpts from the musical ''[[Mack and Mabel]]'', which evoked the emotions of a sweet but stormy romance; in 1983, they enacted a visit to the circus with music from ''[[Barnum]]'', with help from the stage show's star, [[Michael Crawford]]; in [[1984]], at the Olympics, they stunned the world with ''[[Bolero (Ravel)|Bolero]]'', and also with their dramatic [[Paso Doble]] short routine, in which Jayne "was" the bullfighter's cape. They had learned to choose and edit music carefully and design routines that were appealing both technically and imaginatively, and their completeness of presentation included marvelous, thematically appropriate costumes. Moreover, their combination of showmanship and sheer niceness made them famous beyond the usual scope of ice dancers.

==Going Professional==
Although Jayne and Chris had been able to leave their jobs as insurance secretary and policeman, thanks to grants from the city of Nottingham, they were not allowed to earn any money at all from skating as long as they wished to remain eligible for the Olympics. Turning pro in 1984, they took advantage not only of the financial but of the artistic possibilities of their new status. They worked with Australian dance choreographer [[Graeme Murphy]] at first, and were able to create not only routines for themselves but entire ice shows with a thematic coherence, which toured Australia, the U.S., and Europe. Their projects included a filmed fairy tale "Fire and Ice." In general, it seems, Chris Dean would imagine the sequence he wanted to perform, and Jayne would work with him to refine it technically. They choreographed as a team for other ice dancers and skaters, particularly the Canadian brother-sister team Isabelle and Paul Duchesnay, who skated for France at the [[Albertville]] Olympics in [[1992]], taking the silver medal with their ''[[West Side Story]]'' routine.

==Return to the Olympics==
After ten years as professionals, Torvill and Dean decided to return to the amateur arena in person for the 1994 Olympics in [[Lillehammer]] (along with other great skaters of the [[1980s]], such as [[Brian Boitano]] and [[Katarina Witt]], thanks to a change in eligibility rules). Their long dance was designed to re-establish some of the ideas about Ice Dance which they themselves had been instrumental in dismantling; "Let's face the music and dance" had no swooning lovers, theatrical accessories, or violent ideological "message"--just fast, delightful dance in the best [[Fred Astaire|Astaire]] and [[Ginger Rogers|Rogers]] tradition. The routine did have one move, an assisted lift, which pushed the envelope of the rules and gave the judges an opportunity to award the couple a third place, giving the second to perennial silver medalists Usova and Zhulin and the gold to Grishuk and Platov, who continued to win gold through the next four years.

==Life after the Olympics==
After the disappointing finish at Lillehammer, Torvill and Dean "picked themselves up and dusted themselves off" and continued with their planned and very successful "Face the Music" tour, to be followed by numerous other projects: a suite of dances to the songs of [[Paul Simon]], professional competitions, touring with Stars on Ice, and collaborating with cellist [[Yo-Yo Ma]] and director Patricia Rozema on the video ''Inspired by Bach: Six Gestures''. In late 1998, they produced an ice show at Wembley Stadium in London, "Ice Adventures," which included a "flying" ice ballet and other wonders. In the meantime, they were still choreographing, notably for the dynamic French Ice Dance team, Anissina and Peizerat, who won first place in the World Championships in 2000.

In 1999, the pair officially retired, each continuing to coach and choreograph separately. The duo, as of [[14th January]] [[2006]], are taking part as coaches in [[ITV]]'s [[Dancing on Ice]] show.

[[Category:British figure skaters]]

Sheila Kelley (American actress)

2006-01-14T22:43:45Z

Bourbons3: added trivia section

'''Sheila Kelley''' (b. [[October 9]], [[1964]] in [[Pittsburgh]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[USA]]) is an [[United States of America|American]] actress. One of her most famous roles is that of Gwen Taylor in [[LA Law]] from 1990 - 1993. However Kelley, unlike many of the LA Law cast, did not return in 2002 for [[L.A. Law: The Movie]]

== Trivia ==

*Formed ''The Elephant Company'', a [[theatre]] group, in the [[1980s]].

== External links ==

*{{imdb name|id=0445992 |name=Sheila Kelley}}

[[Category:1964 births]]
[[Category:Film actors|Kelley, Sheila]]
[[Category:Television actors|Kelley, Sheila]]
[[Category:People from Pennsylvania|Kelley,Sheila]]

{{US-actor-stub}}

Sheila Kelley (American actress)

2006-01-14T22:38:24Z

Bourbons3: created

'''Sheila Kelley''' (b. [[October 9]], [[1964]] in [[Pittsburgh]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[USA]]) is an [[United States of America|American]] actress. One of her most famous roles is that of Gwen Taylor in [[LA Law]] from 1990 - 1993. However Kelley, unlike many of the LA Law cast, did not return in 2002 for [[L.A. Law: The Movie]]

== External links ==

*{{imdb name|id=0445992 |name=Sheila Kelley}}

[[Category:1964 births]]
[[Category:Film actors|Kelley, Sheila]]
[[Category:Television actors|Kelley, Sheila]]
[[Category:People from Pennsylvania|Kelley,Sheila]]

{{US-actor-stub}}

Template:User Great Britain

2006-01-14T22:32:30Z

Bourbons3: changed flag, userbox is about Great Britain not United Kingdom

<div style="float: left; border:solid blue 2px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 236px; background: lightskyblue;"
| style="width: 75px; height: 45px; background: lightskyblue; text-align: center" | [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|50px]]
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; text-align: left" | <center>This user comes from '''[[Great Britain]]'''
|} </div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>

Susan Ruttan

2006-01-14T22:31:17Z

Bourbons3: changed IMDB link to template

'''Susan Ruttan''' (b. [[September 16]], [[1950]] in [[Oregon City]], [[Oregon]], [[USA]]) is an [[United States of America|American]] actress. One of her most famous roles is that of Roxanne Melman in [[LA Law]] from 1986 - 1993. She also returned to the role in 2002 for the TV "reunion" movie [[L.A. Law: The Movie]]

== External links ==

*{{imdb name|id=0711880 |name=Susan Ruttan}}

[[Category:1950 births]]
[[Category:Film actors|Ruttan, Susan]]
[[Category:Television actors|Ruttan, Susan]]
[[Category:People from Oregon|Ruttan,Susan]]

{{US-actor-stub}}

Jeremy Clarkson

2006-01-14T21:25:05Z

Bourbons3: /* Biography */ changed link to general WDYTYA page, as previous link goes to Julian Clarey

[[Image:Jeremyclarkson3.jpg|thumb|300px|Jeremy Clarkson]]

'''Jeremy Charles Robert Clarkson''' (born [[April 11]], [[1960]] in [[Doncaster]]) is an [[England|English]] writer and broadcaster who specializes in motoring issues. He writes weekly columns for ''[[The Sunday Times]]'' and ''[[The Sun]]'', but is most associated with the [[BBC]] motoring programme ''[[Top Gear]]'', which he presented from 1989 until 1999, and then again from 2002 onwards. The show has 250 million viewers and won an International [[Emmy]] in 2005.

"Not a man given to considered opinion," according to the BBC, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/wdytya_celeb_gallery_04.shtml] Clarkson is known to be forthright in his views.

==Biography==
Clarkson was educated at [[Repton School]]. His first job was as a travelling salesman for his parents' business selling [[Paddington Bear]] toys, after which he trained as a journalist with the ''Rotherham Advertiser''. [http://www.bbcworld.com/content/template_clickpage.asp?pageid=2231]

In 1984, he combined his writing skills with his love of cars, and together with a business partner, Jonathan Gill, formed the Motoring Press Agency, conducting road tests on behalf of local newspapers, and writing for specialist car magazines such as ''Performance Car'' from 1986 until 1993.

He married his agent Frances Catherine Cain on [[May 8]], [[1993]], and they have three children, Emily, Finlo, and Katya. The family lives in the [[Cotswolds]] near [[Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire|Chipping Norton]], [[Oxfordshire]], and also has a home on the [[Isle of Man]] — where his wife comes from — described by Clarkson in 2004 as "a thorn in the side of [[Tony Blair]]'s nanny state," because of its lack of an upper speed limit.

His wife's father, Major [[Robert Henry Cain]], was awarded the [[Victoria Cross]] for gallantry during [[Operation Market Garden]] in September 1944. When Clarkson presented a documentary about the Victoria Cross, he highlighted the story of Major Cain, only revealing at the end that he had married Cain's daughter, and that she didn't know her father had won a VC until after his death.

During a 2004 episode of the BBC's ''[[Who Do You Think You Are?]]'', Clarkson was invited to investigate his family history, including the story of his great-great-great grandfather, John Kilner (1792–1857), who invented the Kilner jar, a receptacle for preserved fruit. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/index_gs.shtml]

==Television career==
[[Image:Topgear.jpg|thumb|left|180px|[[Top Gear]] DVD cover]]
Clarkson is most associated with the motoring programme ''[[Top Gear]]'', which he presented from 1989-99, and then again from 2002, when it was relaunched in a new format after a brief period off the air. It is now consistently the most watched show on [[BBC Two]], with 350 million viewers around the world, winning an International Emmy in 2005 for best non-scripted entertainment show not in the U.S. To which Jeremy proclaimed "I didnt attend the awards ceremony because I didnt know we had won and only found out after a 4a.m text message, and I was busy writing the script for the next show...."

Jeremy continues to release annual motoring based videos, his first being 'Clarkson - Unleashed on cars' in 1996. Over the years, his videos have seen him driving many exotic cars, including a Ford GT40 which had been specially adapted to accomodate taller drivers (Clarkson is 6'5"). He is also known for destroying his most hated cars in various ways including catapulting a [[Nissan Sunny]] using a medieval throwing arm, dropping a [[Porsche 911]] onto a caravan and shooting a [[Chevrolet Corvette]] with a gatling gun - armed helicopter.

He has also presented other motoring-related series such as ''Star Cars'', ''Jeremy Clarkson's Motorworld'', and ''Jeremy Clarkson's Car Years''. For a short while, Jeremy had his own chat show; 'Clarkson', where he is most notable for offending the Welsh by placing a 3D plastic map of Wales into a microwave oven and switching it on. He later defended this by saying "I put Wales in there because Scotland wouldn't fit". Similarly, he offended American's by removing the map of the USA and renaming the resultant space the 'South Canada Sea'.

==Engineering interests==
Clarkson is interested in [[engineering]], especially pioneering work, as his television programmes about [[Isambard Kingdom Brunel|Brunel]] and the [[Colossus computer]] have shown. Clarkson was awarded an [[honorary degree]] from [[Brunel University]] on [[September 12]], [[2003]], partly because of his work in popularising engineering, and partly because of his advocacy of [[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]] in the [[100 Greatest Britons]] programme.

In April 2004, he appeared on the talk show ''[[Michael Parkinson|Parkinson]]'' and mentioned that he was writing a book about the [[soul]] he believes many machines have. He cited [[Concorde]] as his primary example: when people heard it had [[Air France Flight 4590|crashed]], quite aside from the sadness they felt for the loss of human life, there was almost a sadness for the machine. The book, titled ''[[I Know You Got Soul]]'', was published in [[October 2004]].

Clarkson owns various cars including Ford's latest supercar, the [[Ford GT]], a Mercedes SL 55 AMG and a Ford Focus. He threatened to ask Ford for a refund on his GT after experiencing problems with it's tracking/alarm system. He reported that it would tell him the car had been stolen even when he was driving it. He also owned a Ferrari 355 for a short while.

==Controversy==
[[Image:Clarksonpie1.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Clarkson being pied at [[Oxford Brookes University]] [http://www.arbib.org/clarkpie] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4235742.stm] ]]

Clarkson has often been the focus of controversy. In October 1998, [[Hyundai]] cars complained to the BBC about what they described as "bigoted and racist" comments he made at the Motor Show in [[Birmingham]], when he was reported as saying that the people working on the Hyundai stand had eaten a dog, and that the designer of the [[Hyundai XG]] had probably had a [[spaniel]] for his lunch.One of the most infamous comments however occured during the filming of a top gear episode featuring the Vauxhall Vectra. It is alleged even to this day that Clarkson single-handedly destroyed both the Vectra and the Vauxhall reputation. Ironically GM officials( Vauxhall is owned by GM) invited Clarkson to the launch of the much improved Vectra although it is not known whether he attended. Another incident occured when he tried to prove that a Vauxhall could be driven from the back seat and eventually crashed. When asked where he was when the car crashed, he replied,"in the back seat." Vauxhall has consistently been on Clarksons hitlist. In one episode he went so far as to dump nearly half a ton of manure on a Vauxhall van during the annual Top Gear Car Of The Year awards. Clarkson however has openly admitted to be wrong about the Peugeot 406 which he is also alleged to have destroyed.He also allegedly referred to those working on the BMW stand as "[[Nazis]]". [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/201675.stm]

In the ''Sunday Times'' on [[June 2]], [[2002]] he said he had spent the day hunting [[rat]]s using tennis rackets and croquet mallets. The [[RSPCA]] issued a warning to him as a result of this comment.

Clarkson's views on cyclists and promotion of motoring have caused concern among cycling and road-safety organisations. [[Transport 2000]] have called for ''Top Gear'' to be replaced by a more safety and environmentally aware motoring programme. In February 2004, Clarkson rammed a 30-year-old [[horse chestnut]] tree with a [[Toyota Hilux]] pick-up truck to demonstrate how rugged the vehicle was. This led to the BBC having to compensate the local parish council who, until they saw the ''Top Gear'' broadcast, thought that the damage had been caused by local vandals.

He has had a long-running public feud with [[Piers Morgan]], former editor of the ''[[Daily Mirror]]''. In October 2003, on the last Concorde flight, he threw a glass of water over Morgan while the two were exchanging insults. In March 2004, at the [[British Press Awards]], he cursed at Morgan and punched him, apparently angry that the newspaper had published photographs of Clarkson with a woman who was not his wife. [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1644624,00.html] [[Image:ClarksonKatrinaCommentary.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Scan of Clarkson editorial criticising Americans after [[Hurricane Katrina]].]]

In 2005, the School of Technology at [[Oxford Brookes University]] awarded him an honorary engineering doctorate, leading to protests from green organizations who objected to his statements on the environment and his advocacy of car use. He has said: "I do have a disregard for the environment. I think the world can look after itself and we should enjoy it as best we can." After the ceremony, he was hit in the face with a banana meringue pie by a protester. [http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1568215,00.html] Clarkson took the pie on the chin and commented that it had too much sugar.

In September 2005, Clarkson wrote an editorial for ''[[The Sun]]'' criticising Americans after the [[Hurricane Katrina]] rescue response, and included the comment: "most Americans barely have the brains to walk on their back legs."

In an edition of [[BBC2]]'s [[Top Gear]] programme broadcast in November 2005, Clarkson raised his arm, Nazi-style as he spoke about the German company BMW's Mini and its direction indicators. Then, mocking the [[1939]] invasion that triggered the [[Second World War]], he said it would have a satellite navigation system "that only goes to [[Poland]]". This has caused offense in [[Germany]]. [http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=2408932005]

==Trivia==
*Clarkson was one of the passengers on the last [[British Airways|BA]] [[Concorde]] flight on [[October 24]], [[2003]]. He appropriated [[Neil Armstrong]] to describe the retiring of Concorde: "This is one small step for a man, but one huge leap backwards for mankind". 
*His book ''The World According to Clarkson'' was at number one in the charts for eight weeks.
*He has been blamed for poor [[denim]] sales. ''Draper's Record'', trade magazine to the [[fashion]] industry, ran an article on Clarkson's poor fashion image: "For a period in the late Nineties denim became unfashionable. "501s — [[Levi's]] flagship brand — in particular suffered from the so-called 'Jeremy Clarkson effect', the association with men in middle youth." He was also featured on ''[[What Not to Wear]]'', where he was named as one of "the world's worst-dressed celebrities".
*During a guest appearance on [[QI]], screened on the [[November 11]], [[2005]], he said that [[seal]] flipper tastes "exactly like licking a hot Turkish [[urinal]]". He also ate [[whale]], which he said tastes like [[steak]] but with an [[iron]] tang, covered in grated [[puffin]]. He said, "The waiter asked if I wanted some grated puffin on my whale and how do you say no to something like that?"
*In his book ''[[The World According To Clarkson]]'', he wrote: "I've eaten [[snakes]], [[dog]]s, small whole [[birds]] in [[France]] and [[crocodiles]], but Tommy Turtle is my line in the [[sand]]. I don't care if [[turtles]] turn out to be the antidote for [[cancer]], I'm not eating even a small part of one and that's that."

==Works==
'''Non-motoring shows'''

* ''Clarkson'' (1998): A [[chat show]] that ran for three series.
* ''Jeremy Clarkson's Extreme Machines'' (1998): where he rode all manner of machines, including a plane, and an airboat.
* ''[[Robot Wars]]'' (1997): Clarkson presented the first series of the UK version.
* ''Jeremy Clarkson Meets The Neighbours'': A notorious Europhobe, Clarkson travelled around Europe, confronting (and in some cases reinforcing) his prejudices.
* ''[[Have I Got News For You]]'': hosted three episodes, the first in [[2002]] and two in [[2005]].
* ''Inventions That Changed the World'': five episodes featuring the invention of the gun/computer/jet engine/telephone/television from a British point of view.
* ''[[Top of the Pops]]'': co-hosted one episode on [[July 24]], [[2005]] with [[Fearne Cotton]].
* ''[[QI]]'': appeared as a guest on four occasions.
* ''[[Room 101 (TV series)|Room 101]]'': appeared on this in [[1995]] when [[Nick Hancock]] was host. Clarkson's choices were [[caravan]]s; [[fly|flies]]; ''[[Last of the Summer Wine|Last Of The Summer Wine]]''; the mentality within [[country club|golf club]]s; and [[vegetarianism|vegetarian]]s.
* ''Jeremy Clarkson: Who Do You Think You Are?''
* ''[[Great Britons]]'' : In a poll to find the greatest historical Briton, Clarkson was the chief supporter for [[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]], who came second.
* ''The History Of The Victoria Cross''

'''Videos'''

Clarkson has produced the following:
* ''Jeremy Clarkson's Motorsport Mayhem'' (1995)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson - Unleashed On Cars'' (1996)
* ''The Best Of Jeremy Clarkson's Motorworld'' (1996)
* ''More Motorsport Mayhem Featuring Jeremy Clarkson And Steve Rider'' (1996)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson's Unlimited Extreme Machines'' (1997)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson - Apocalypse Clarkson'' (1997)
* ''The Most Outrageous Jeremy Clarkson Video In The World...Ever'' (1998)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson Head To Head'' (1999)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson - At Full Throttle'' (2000)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson - Top 100 Cars'' (2001)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson - Speed'' (2001)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson - No Limits'' (2002)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson's Shootout'' (2003)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson - Hot Metal'' (2004)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson - Heaven And Hell'' (2005)

'''Books'''

* ''Jeremy Clarkson's Motorworld'' (1996)
* ''Clarkson on Cars: Writings and Rantings of the BBC's Top Motoring Correspondent'' (1996)
* ''Clarkson's Hot 100'' (1997)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson's Planet Dagenham: Drivestyles of the Rich and Famous'' (1998)
* ''Born to Be Riled: The Collected Writings of Jeremy Clarkson'' (1999)
* ''Jeremy Clarkson's Ultimate Ferrari'' (2001)
* ''The World According to Clarkson'' (2004)
* ''Clarkson on Cars'' (2004)
* ''I Know You Got Soul'' (2004)
* ''Motorworld'' (2004)

{{wikiquote}}

==References==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/wdytya_celeb_gallery_04.shtml "Celebrity Gallery"] by Dan Waddell, BBC, undated, retrieved December 9, 2005
*[http://www.bbcworld.com/content/template_clickpage.asp?pageid=2231 "Jeremy Clarkson, Presenter, Top Gear"] no byline, BBC World, undated, retrieved December 9, 2005
*[http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1568215,00.html "Clarkson hit by pie at degree ceremony"] by Polly Curtis, ''The Guardian'', September 12, 2005
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/201675.stm "Clarkson in the doghouse"], no byline, BBC News, October 28, 1998
*[http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1644624,00.html "I should have been fired years ago, to be honest"] by Lynn Barber, ''The Observer'', November 20, 2005

==Further reading==
*{{imdb name|id=0165087|name=Jeremy Clarkson}}
*[http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,12529,00.html Archive of Clarkson's ''Sunday Times'' columns]
*[http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/760722683?ltl=1116610416/ Petition opposing Clarkson's receiving an honorary degree]
*[http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005420342,00.html Banana meringue news story from ''The Sun'']
*[http://cars.msn.co.uk/carnews/ttclarksondec05/ Some best bit of Clarkson ]

[[Category:1960 births|Clarkson, Jeremy]]
[[Category:British journalists|Clarkson, Jeremy]]
[[Category:British television presenters|Clarkson, Jeremy]]
[[Category:Top Gear|Clarkson, Jeremy]]

[[nl:Jeremy Clarkson]]
[[pl:Jeremy Clarkson]]

Talk:Jeremy Clarkson

2006-01-14T21:19:04Z

Bourbons3: /* Clarkson Edits */ We'll never know

[[/Archive1]]

== NPOV tag ==

In my opinion the NPOV tag is not needed. I cannot see a NPOV problem. Myself, I agree more with Jeremy Clarkson than Transport 2K and so-on[[User:Duke toaster|Duke toaster]] 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:Yes he is clearly an intelligent commentator who is often spot on, and even when you diasagree with him he remains amusing, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 21:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:Then you should read the preceding debate on this matter. The issue is not whether you agree with Clarkson; but whether everyone agrees with the claimed neutrality of this article; they do not. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 12:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:: You should read [[WP:NPOV]] on this matter. The issue is not whether "everyone" agrees with the claimed neutrality of this article, but whether the article conforms with the WP:NPOV policy. It does. Also, you should read and respond to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing]]. Kindest possible regards, [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 12:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:::<sigh> The issue is not whether you agree with Clarkson; but whether everyone agrees with the claimed adherance of this article with [[WP:NPOV]]. They do not. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 12:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:::: If you are claiming that [[WP:NPOV]] claims that everyone in the world who might read an article needs to agree with it, you are incredibly misguided, as even a cursory read of that guideline reveals. Since you are apparently incapable of explaining ''what in the article is POV'', or to suggest any ways to fix it, your claim that the article is POV is not credible. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 13:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::Hi Andy, if you want to put the NPOV tag up, you have to make concrete suggestions that are actionable within our policies that would make the article NPOV. What changes exactly would you like to see, bearing in mind that they must be actionable ''within our policies''? Cheers, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::There is no such requirement; if you cannot find an asnwer to your questions in the preceding discussion, then ask the user who disputed the neutarlity in the first place. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 15:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I don't understand your comment. I asked what changes you want to see, so please tell me. In the meantime, I'm removing the tag because you're misusing it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 15:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not misusing it; so please don't remove it again. I understood whet you asked, and I said that it's not me you need to ask, but the person who originally disputed the article (and specifically the section's) neutrality. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 16:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::No, Andy, if you put the tag on it, whether you're the first to do so or the 100th, you have to justify its use by explaining exactly what your objections are. Stop being disruptive. This is a terrible article, one of the worst I've read on Wikipedia. Please help to clean it up. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 16:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[resetting indents for ease of readability]
''you have to justify its use'': I dispute that assertion, but, in any case, I justify its use by pointing out that I added the tag after I noticed that an anon user, presumably a novice, had disputed the netrality, but neglected to add the tag. Furthermore, I note that the reasons for which that user disputed the neutrality have not yet been addressed. Your alelgations of disruption are unfounded. Since you currently have the articel tagegd as "in use", kindly restore the tag. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 16:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:Here from the RfC. It looks to me like the poster's initial complaint of NPOV (controversy section removed) has been wholly addressed. The controversy section is back, but doesn't dominate the article. I personally know nothing about the subject except what I've read here, and from my perspective the article is in excellent shape currently; especially considering it's obviously about a controversial subject. I think the NPOV tag should stay off. [[User:Joshf|Joshf]] 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

::The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremy_Clarkson&diff=27331193&oldid=27330891 initial complaint] was made on 4 November. Compare the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Clarkson&diff=31447159&oldid=27335941 minor differnece between the controversy section as it was then, and now] with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Clarkson&diff=27335941&oldid=26824615 vast difference between how it was originally, and at the time of the complaint]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 14:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

== Clarkson Edits ==

Apparently Jeremy Clarkson himself has recently edited the article. I recently heard he's doing another technology series for the BBC, so perhaps it could be assumed the internet could appear.....or it could be possible that it isn't him of course. Either way I think some kind of confirmation is the way to go. [[User:172.216.9.164|172.216.9.164]] 16:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

hilarious, i've been logged out again. :/

Maybe he could weigh in on his "controversy" section. [[User:Cantthinkofausername|Cantthinkofausername]]

Can you tell us which edits you think are his? [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything? Cantthinkofausername 07:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

'''[[Special:Contributions/Jeremy Clarkson]]. ([[User_talk:Jeremy Clarkson|Clarkson talk]])''' --[[User:Chaosfeary|Chaosfeary]] 07:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

His edits are exclusive to this article, so maybe it is him? We'll probably never know unless we see JC himself saying something about this on TV - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

==Tidying==
This is a terrible article. I'm trying to tidy it, but it's full of trivial, unverified details, fancruft, like how he sometimes spends his free time in his house on the Isle of Man. How do we know this, and anyway, so what?

How much of this stuff do others want to retain? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 16:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:The supposedly PD image seems to be owned by the BBC so I've removed it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 16:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

::Chaosfeary is reverting in the middle of my copy edit even though I put the in-use tag on it, which means I can't get anything done. What is the point of this, please? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 16:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I wondered if the pic was a copy-vio. Best to give Slim a chance as I agree with her comments aboput this article though she should have sen it a month ago, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:::They're not all *his* works, they are just shows he happened to appear in. He did not produce (nearly all of) them. Also you keep adding in the bad formatting that I previously fixed. Changed the picture back tho, since it's apparently a copyvio (even though Clarkson put it there himself...) --[[User:Chaosfeary|Chaosfeary]] 16:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes well Jeremy almost certainly doesn't know about wikipedia policies concerning copy-vio. Perhaps someone would care to explain to him? [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:I think you'll find the replacement image is also a BBC picture from [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/wdytya_celeb_gallery_04.shtml].
Saying that they are both probably copyvio and I'll be sticking copyvio templates on them shortly. ''' ''Agent'' '''[[User:Blightsoot|Blightsoot]] 16:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:: The latter picture has a fair use tag on it. Fair use images are allowed on articles. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 16:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

::: Hilarious....just as I found the correct template.. I'll revert it. :( ''' ''Agent'' '''[[User:Blightsoot|Blightsoot]] 16:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:::: Isn't that frustrating? I always have to look up the templates; I just can't seem to remember them. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 17:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::Both images can be claimed fair use. The reason I removed the first one is that it was a bad, small image, the only benefit of which was that it was PD. But if it's not PD, we may as well use a better one.

:::::One thing that confuses me: why is there so much fuss over this article? I mean, why do people care so much about Jeremy Clarkson (no disrespect)? ;-) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 17:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

He is clearly very controversial. He kind of prides himself on being obnoxious while at the same time making lots of digs against political correctness. But I guess to some extent you have to be British or live there to really understand. There must be similar controversial US media personalities? Having said that the ferocity of the loathing surprises me. I always thought I was everything he hates and disdains (beardy, sandal wearing cyclist) but I find him primarily funny and when he does talk seriously he is one of the brightest commentators around. Clearly not everyone would agree, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:I think I've finished the copy edit. I've kept most of the trivial stuff but it's now in a Trivia section. The rest I've just tidied and got rid of repetition, overwikifying, and I tried to tidy the writing a bit. I've removed the NPOV tag because POTW/Andy won't say what his objections are, meaning we have no way of fixing them, which is a misuse of the tag. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 15:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::Question: does he still have anything to do with Top Gear? If so, it would be good to put that it has so many viewers/won an Emmy in the intro. If not, we probably shouldn't mention those things at all if the show is no longer connected to him. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 15:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Squeakbox, we're not supposed to wikify dates unless they're written in full: see the MoS. Wikifying April 2004, or April, or 2004 is pointless, whereas wikifying [[April 23]], [[2004]] makes the date responsive to date preferences. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 15:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your efforts look great. The only change I have made is to restore [[British spelling]] which is necessary in an international encyclopedia for as Brit and is how this article has always been (remeber we British don't know how to write in American (that's 11-16 years education for you) so it needs top be in the Engl;ish we the majority of contributors know how to use. He still presents Top Gear, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 15:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Aah it was Hajor who had got me into wikifying [[December 2005]] etc, revert me if you want on that one, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 15:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:Okay will do; thanks Squeak. Just a small point: "organization" is British spelling too. ;-) If he still presents Top Gear, why do we say he presented it until 1999? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 15:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::I think he presented it until 1999, then he left, the show was taken off the air in 2001, but it returned in 2002, and Clarkson came back with it, I think it's a new-look format, so it depends how to classify it, can't really say he presented it solidly from 1989 due to the gap {[[User:Sadisticality|Sadisticality]] 15:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)}

(edit conflict)There certainly are disputes about UK spelling but most English people use organisation if you judge by the papers etc. English people tended in the pre internet era to get much more confused than Americans as American printing houses demanded authors (Jeffrey Archer etc) write in American (presumably with editorial help) whereas English publ;ishing houses publish UAS authors in the original American so a lot of people make mistakes and use the 2 written form of the 2 languages interchangeably. We sometimnes get a couple of minutes of Top Gear after Newsnight online so I know he is still the presenter, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 15:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

He certainly has presented it since 89, and the text doesn't say every year or anything contradictory of the truth, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 15:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:But saying 'which he has presented since 1989' implies continuity in him presenting it, which is untrue, would think some mention of the fact that there was about a three year gap where he didn't present it should be made somewhere in the article? {[[User:Sadisticality|Sadisticality]] 15:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)}

Absolutely, ideally somewhere lower down, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:I've clarified that in the text but left it as "since 1989" in the intro, because if it was taken off air while he was not presenting it, then he has in fact presented it since 1989, insofar as there was an "it". We don't need the same level of detail for the intro. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 16:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::It wasn't taken off air in 1999, he left it then, the programme carried on with two or three other presenters until the BBC took it off air in 2001 [[User:Sadisticality|Sadisticality]] 16:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:::LOL!! Okay, I'll clarify, thanks. 15th time lucky. ;-) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 18:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I am sure people do care! but maybe the readers care more than the editors (wiki fatigue?). He is certainly notable, shame we don't get to have an idea of how often individual pages are visited, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:No, it's just Clarkson fatigue. :-D [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 18:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::Shame we had to revert the latest vandalism — [[:Image:Clarkson2.gif]]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 20:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:::LMFAO.... Amazing piece of work. Wonder if it was made specially for this article or found elsewhere... --[[User:Chaosfeary|Chaosfeary]] 20:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::::It was made by someone on the site www.b3ta.com , I can't remember who though.

It clearly can't go in the article, which is a shame but we are a serious encyclopedia, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
: We could put it on [[BJAODN]]. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
:: I nominated it for [[Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars_ever#Nomination:_Jeremy_Clarkson|Lamest edit wars ever.]]--Cantthinkofausername 21:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Barking, London

2006-01-14T21:14:44Z

Bourbons3: /* Schools */ comment

==Schools==

A lot of the schools listed here aren't exactly in Barking, All Saints RC school for one. I suggest that this list gets moved the the 'London Bourgh of Barking and Dagenham page'.

Maybe list the ones that are specifically in Barking here, and the ones in Dagenham on the Dagenham article, and also list all of them in the page you suggest? - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

==Disambig==

Should disambiguate dog language and seal language; the former particularly deserves an article. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 20:15, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

== Restoration ==

I have restored the fishing section to how it was before all the vandalism, as someone, for some stupid reason, deleted the ''whole'' fishing section instead of just the vandalism
The current sections should remain pretty much as they are.

Bourbons3 15:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:This text is still a bit dodgy:

:''but ben who is a golf legend he has substained and made his own golf course called adam loves lee he is now a millionair in barking but independent at least from the Tudor period.''

:[[User:Mrsteviec|Mrsteviec]] 15:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ill edit the grammer and spelling, and look into the subject to see if it has any truth in it

Bourbons3 17:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:RuneScape/Archive 15

2006-01-14T21:12:22Z

Bourbons3: /* Member Quests */ comment

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive01|Archive 1]] ([[October 28]] [[2004]] to [[May 1]] [[2005]]):
*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive02|Archive 2]] ([[May 1]] [[2005]] to [[October 30]] [[2005]]):
*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive03|Archive 3]] (next to start):
----

__TOC__

== Swifswitch? ==

Um, Swiftswitch is debated over wether it's actually legal or not.
--[[User:OSborn|OSborn]]

:Jagex have confirmed it's illegal. [[User:Vimescarrot|Vimescarrot]] 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Swiftswitch is actually legal, despite some disagreements among Jagex ranks. Proof from Jagex can be found here:
*"http://img23.exs.cx/img23/1587/Image534.jpg"
*"http://img113.exs.cx/img113/5968/14dec041117043ep.jpg"
If there's any evidence stating the contrary, then it should be given here. [[User:The Adventurer|The Adventurer]] 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:I vote we remove it, if there's a controversy over if it's legal. It *could* be considered breaking rule number 7. --[[User:OSborn|OSborn]] 11:54, 24 December 2005 (CDT)

Swiftswitch was once deemed illegal because it blocked the adverts. Since then this has been changed and Jagex has stated that it is legal, but they do not recommend the use of any 3rd party programs.

== Previous Talk Page was massive ==

So i archived it so like anything new we wanna talk about do it here.
--[[User:Super Quinn|Super Quinn]] 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

== Dragon Hatchet. ==

I thinks it really cool that Runescape finally introduced a Dragon Hatchet to the game, but I was very dissapointed that they didn't create a quest in order to get this hatchet. Having a monster drop it is a pretty lame and lazy way to introduce it. I think RS should pay more attention to what the players are suggesting. There is a lot of fantastic ideas for quests, weapons and what not in the RS forums.

I agree just this page is not for talking about the game,it's for talking about the article an questions/disputes you have. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 19:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

-- 1. the players suggested the hatchet NOT have a quest to get it
2. who wants to do a quest for a stupid drag hatchet, go get a life and do desert treasure instead. they listen to the players so good its not even funny, they get so many thousands of ideas a day though that they cant possibly put them all on the game at once, but they do it peice by peice, and its just a hatchet, pretty soon it wont be that special anymore itll just be a part of the game, do you think its lame that drag sq's chains, legs, meds, and abby whips are ALL dropped by monsters to?---

A hatchet is not armour such as drag sq's chains, legs, meds you lamer. The way to get a drag hatchet should have to do with the players wood cutting skills.

Response from a player:
Many people posted threads in the forums that talked about this situation. The problem with rare items is you have to be patient to get one. If Jagex put them in quests or make them part of a shop it would not be rare anymore. (ANYBODY could get one then, sort of obivious)

Are you retarded? there are several quests where players can get dragon equipment, such as dargon hally, scimitar, dagger and dragon battle axe.

P.S.(Post-Script) Anyway my runescape username is Doomedrusher and if anyone asks me nicely I can tell them almost anything. For example: where do we get free gems??? How to get rich (and I mean REAL rich, not noob rich) real fast??? Where is Onyx??? And many other hard questions that many old RS p2p players don't even know.

Anyone that has been to a Runescape fan site can answer those questions you noob.

Er... Dragon Weapons aren't rare which whereas Dragon Chain, legs, skirt and helm are. The differences if you didn't notice is the armour is through monster drops as opposed to the weapons being accessed through quests. That's how Jagex regulates rarity anyway. Secondly the hatchet is widely regarded as the most pointless update ever made when Jagex confirmed that it is on-par with a standard Rune hatchet when it comes to woodcutting speed and quality. This is precisely why the monetary value of the Dragon Hatchet bombed within days and although you could consider it "rare" hardly anyone cares enough about it with the exception of "hardcore" pkers who are seeking the hatchet's rather amusing "special attack". Now that I've cleared things up, could everyone stop reverting to calling each other "lamers"? sheesh. --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

== Edits for 14:27, 14 November 2005 Someone42 ==

*"Java script (uses applet)" to just "Java applet": using "Java script" is ambiguous because it can refer to [[Javascript]], which is not the same as [[Java]].
*"written" to "implemented": Java isn't fully "interpreted" (as in, source is compiled to bytecode prior to execution), and since programmers don't write in bytecode I think it's wrong to refer to a Java applet as being "written in Java".
*removal of "without having to download and install any programs to their computer": technically, you still have to download the applet, which is a program.

I also removed the "In game banner advertisements" section, as it advocates the potential interference with one of Jagex' revenue streams. The ethics of it has nothing to do with the removal, however Wikipedia doesn't have articles describing how to build a Macrovision killer, or how to rip DVDs, so it shouldn't have instructions on "how to block banners". Those who want to, can look somewhere else. If whoever is adding it really wants to add instructions, make a site and link to it in external links.
[[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 14:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

==Any relation to [[Runescape]] the [[tabletop role-playing game]]?==
They seem very similar with the use of runes instead of "regular" magic etc. Unfortunately I only own the "bad" edition, set in pseudo-Europe and not any of the good books with its own world. Information about the ttrpg is hard to come by on the net, it's all about the java-version. So, is there a connection or have the mmorpg nicked the trademarks of/been inspired by a tabletop game I used to play in the early nineties? Anyway, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on the [[RuneScape]]-pages so a little disambig-note somewhere would be fine. --[[User:Kaleissin|Kaleissin]] 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

:Isn't the game called Heroscape? [[User:Link9er|Link9er]] 14:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

------- there are tons of games that use "runes" instead of regular magic, diablo has runes, gauntlet has runes, theyre everywhere, its just something based on the beginning of rpg's----------

-thanks

== Things to change after the Protected status expires ==

In the introduction, the sentence "''Being a free player on Runescape is one of the worst things possible.''" should probably be removed, or be changed to a NPOV version. Also, the opening sentence claims RuneScape has over ''100,000'' players - I assume this should be over 1,000,000 players, since under [[RuneScape#Overview|Overview]] it claims over 160,000 can be online at peak hours. --[[User:Peruvianllama|PeruvianLlama]]([[User talk:Peruvianllama|spit]]) 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*There are 2,8 Million players in RuneScape, according to the [http://www.jagex.com/corporate/index.ws Jagex Corporate Site]. Also, this should be fixed: "Membership for RuneSCape is US $5.00". But that's just a minor notice. --[[User:Aliensvortex|Aliensvortex]]

Im just removing some of the edits made by somebody who obviously does not like the game such as 'fagex' and 'Low IQ, Non-Existant Frontal Lobe Functions, Fused Cerebellam ,' from the information box. Somebody must have had a bad experiance with the game.

----- i'll take this chance to say that there wouldn't BE 2.8 million players if there wasn't free world, if i never played free i would have never become a member, its like a big sample to get people into the game, nobody's going to pay for a game if they dont even know what it is-------- if they really like the game they can become members, thats where all the cool stuff is anywayz-----

-holocaust (5 year runescape veteran)

==Copyright Picture?==

Is this pictue copyrighted? (''image deleted'') The tip.it website says that nothing on it can be repoduced without consent.
:Yah, looks like it is a copyright vio. I'll go ping the uploader. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a screenshot i took, its not a copyfight vio, becasue the subject isnt a picture, its something you enter text in! Bourbons3 11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

== "High traffic" sites ==

if the site even fails to provide the latest quest guide within a certain period, it just seems that the traffic isn't really high [[User:Gspbeetle|Gspbeetle]] 04:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

== [[King Black Dragon]] ==

The above article was nominated for deletion (the result was to merge it here). I did so, creating a new section called "Monsters", which contains text from the KBD article, as well as from other monsters who have articles. Feel free to edit it at will, or fix any mistakes I may have made (I don't play RuneScape, so...) [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL you wrote an article about a game you dont even play, i would refrain from doing that.... -gravity -5year RS veteran

== NPOV Status Related to Tip.IT ==

I am going to modify the www.tip.it comment as itsn't NPOV in nature.

Philip

== Is it me, or are the fansites blowing up again? ==

I think we are starting to push the bounds of the [[WP:EL|external links]] guidelines. I know [[User:Someone42]] and I had discussed privately before the establishment of an OpenDirectory portal...and I see there is a link to one in that section. Not knowing whats involved to be able to edit there, can I get a consensus reading on whether the list should stay or be pared down significantly. It just seems that we are on a slippery slope, and allowing even one dynamic signature or runescape quest info site leads to a huge list in just a week or two. Thoughts? --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

* Some of them have to go. Maybe some of the not so good signature makers, world switchers,clans and very low-active websites should go. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 22:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
* And who are you to decide which sites are worthly of inclusion and which are not? As long as they are relevent to RuneScape and aren't cheating/scam websites, who cares?[[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 22:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
:: I care. [[Wikipedia:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] an online portal. Wikipedia is not a place to shove anything and everything relevant to a topic in an article. But instead of falling back onto rules and policy, let's look at some examples of other MMORPG pages:
::*[[World of Warcraft]] - 10 non-official sites
::*[[Everquest]] - 25 non-official sites (a lot of them are actually humour sites)
::*[[Final Fantasy XI]] - 4 non-official sites
::*[[Anarchy Online]] - 6 non-official sites
:: At time of writing, RuneScape has 41 non-official links. In my opinion, that's a little excessive. What makes a fansite "recommended" or "other" or "high traffic"? If there are seperate sub-headings for fansites, suddenly the burden of being a "portal editor" falls on the editors of Wikipedia (which is everyone). The number of links has steadily been increasing, so when will it be too many for you? By the examples above, in my opinion 25 is enough.
:: A while ago, I scrapped the entire list of fansites. This was the only way to shorten the list in a non-biased way. That didn't go down very well. So, how about we discuss a method of determining which sites are worthy of inclusion or not. How about we start with: No sub-domain links. No "http://www.example.com/~username" links. The justification here, is that priority should be given to those who have enough commitment to rent a domain name. What do others think?
:: (Note: I am not a RuneScape player, and I certainly do not maintain a RuneScape fansite.)
:: [[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 08:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
**Totally agree with someone42.Way too many,but to choose on website name is sooooo bias. What basically we need to do is consider which websites are useful to a standard player.Useful: very fast on publishing high-quality guides eg.Tip.it
Useful: high traffic sites eg.runehq
Useless: World Changer programs
Useless: Websites which are clans
Useless: Websites which have copied guides
What do you think of that suggestion?[[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 11:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

**Why not get rid of all un-official links alltogether? to simply say that un-official links have the potential to be dangerous to runescape players as they are run by a thrid-party that can pretty much do anything with their site's pages that they please.--[[User:203.55.231.107|203.55.231.107]] 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

** if you say potential, even the offical sites are ''potentially'' dangerous.
note that some fansite (ie:high traffic) provide reference information with greater details, which some are limited by the wiki formating... [[User:Gspbeetle|Gspbeetle]] 09:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

**You can tell which fansites are high traffic by looking at a traffic monitoring site like alexa - here: http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=789099 - if you ignore the forum in australia which isn't rs specific that fairly accurately seems to give the top 6 fansites in terms of traffic. It gives all 5 I already had bookmarked and 1 I didn't, so pretty good way of determining the bigs one fairly. I personally would be in favour of not listing them at all, but if they were to be listed that's a possible criteria to use. [[User:84.12.135.209|84.12.135.209]]

== Members quests ==

Created a members quests page, so its no longer red on the links box at the start of the article. [[Members RuneScape quests|check it out]] - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

where has it gone?? - Bourbons3 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Apparently too large to put in an encyclopedia, not needed. I personally disagree. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

I think we'd better place the infobox 1 step higher, and the first image more below. I feel kind a like annoyed when i see the top of this article.

[[User:SidewinderXP2|SidewinderXP2]] [[User talk:SidewinderXP2|Talk to Me!]] 14 dec 2005 4:41 PM (CEST)

==Member Quests ==

I think they should be added to the free quests page. I was looking up info on them and they werent there anymore =(
 
Note: i added this page useing the code i saw above it, so if its a little messed up sry i hope to fix it soon

[[User:Stoutn|Stoutn]] 16 Dec 2005 2:55 PM (Central Time Zone)

*'''Agree''', a page called Runescape Quests should be created, with a list of both free and members quests.

Disagree: Any idea how large that would be? [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

*Take a look, i created it [[RuneScape Quests|here]] - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 19:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday i edited a part of the text, it currently says there are 105 servers, but i changed it to 106. I play runescape everyday, i know there are 106 worlds, but someone changed it back to 105.

Just thought i would point it out.

[[User:Paul Janaway|maddog]] 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

*There is a missing world, and what has this got to do with Members Quests? - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

== RuneScape Quests ==

I have created a [[RuneScape Quests]] article which purely lists the quests for both free and p2p players, describes what a quest is and how difficulty is decided. It '''is not''' a game guide. The [[Free RuneScape quests]] page is also up for deletion, becasue it acts as a game guide (which Wikipedia is not) and is being replaced with the RuneScape Quests page. '''''Becasue of this, the ''These articles are part of the RuneScape series'' box needs to have the Free RuneScape quests page changed to RuneScape Quests''''' - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:'''Be Bold''' and change the template [[Template:RuneScapeVertical]] yourself (just make sure you move runescape quests to the right alphabetical order). :) --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 17:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

::i tried to edit it but i couldn't figure out where it is ΨΨΨ --[[User:Cattrain|cattrain]] 19:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

== Categories? ==

Where did the categories all go?... [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

== jagex ==

should jagex be under the runescape series box?

== sms safe? ==

that make it sound like it is %100 safe... nothing online is that safe... inface nothing is that safe at all... i dont see any reason that the word safe shouldn't be changed to "safer than" under the pricing section...
--[[User:Cattrain|cattrain]] 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

== Frequently Vandalised ==

I would like to nominate this article be on the Counter Vandalism Unit's "watch" page - this article suffers from several vandalism attacks per day it seems.
Opinions? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*No. The CVU thing is a joke, and tagging it as "watched by the CVU" will just encourage more vandalism. [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 04:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*Can a Wikipedia admin weigh in on this? Preferably one who doesn't think the CVU is a joke... [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*You may want to create a more generic one for non WikipediA:/User: pages that just says "watched moreso then others" or words to that effect. [[User:68.39.174.238|68.39.174.238]] 05:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Seconded''' The page's been vandalised twice since I've checked last night... --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
** What do you mean a "more generic one"? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
* This page should be marked. So we can keep a watch on it and limit the vandals and change it back so nothing is disturbed. --[[User:Actown|Ac]]'''''[[User talk:Actown|t]][[User:Actown|o]][[Wikipedia:Welcoming_Committee|w]]'''''[[User:Actown|n]] [[WP:EA|e]] 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, a proper summary (other than "CVU is a joke"). Vandalism to this article is reverted reasonably quickly (when it's noticed), and unleashing the combined — and no doubt well-meaning — forces of the CVU is unlikely to cause any improvement over current RC patrolling. So, the only real difference would be a dirty great "WATCHED BY THE CVU" [[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/Watched|tag]] on the article ... and that would do nothing to scare off vandals, but could quite plausibly attract more ("hello! We're getting a reaction!"). There is ''no way in Hell'' that tag gets put on any real articles on Wikipedia.

:The best solution here would be semi-protection, where new users and people without an account cannot edit the article. It's doing wonders for [[George W. Bush]]. Unfortunately, this also means that people who just happen to want to read/write about RuneScape are unable to edit at all, and (unlike George W. Bush) new users and people without accounts add a great deal of the non-vandalistic edits to this article. We're faced with a simple choice: semi-protection, and the benefits (and drawbacks) it brings, or open slather, and the benefits (and drawbacks) there. [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

::Tagging this will be a violation of [[WP:BEANS]] and will attract more vandals. In short, it hurts more than it helps. Also, recognise that the [[WP:CVU]] has no official status within Wikipedia and does not have permission to slap tags all over the place. Any such will likely be removed in mere moments. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] ''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:I agree that semi-protection would be best for this article but I already requested this and was pretty much flat-out denied since the vandalism isn't severe enough. I think we'll just have to keep reverting the vandalism ourselves to be honest. [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

== Discuss links here ==
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam|You can help!]]'')

* Call me biased, but I'd like my own fansite to remain in the "Other Fansites" section.
Just because The Black Hole Experience is not huge doesn't mean it's worthless, and for that matter I don't think any of the other fansite should be "cleaned out" just because they're not mammoth either. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

* But I think non-mammoth web sites should be cleaned out. Otherwise many "rubbish" websites could appear. Only have the top 5 websites on the high-traffic list. Otherwise too many links will appear. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 12:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**Concur. If you put too many websites in the list will become meaningless - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

== This Article = Vandalism Magnet ==

This article cannot seem to go 2 hours without being vandalised by someone.

I hereby propose that it be protected from vandalism, or protected from anonymous edits.

Comments, please. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I already nominated it for semi-protection. It seems that isn't necessary for this article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=33673503#RuneScape_.28talk_.C2.B7_history_.C2.B7_watch.29| Check the submission out.] [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
* Apparently the people who commented don't monitor this article too closely. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::Feel free to resubmit. I'll back you up on it if you like. [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

'''I agree.''' It is frequently vandalized, and as a very popular wikipedia article, the rs article needs all the help it can get to remain good.
: If they didn't listen to you, why would they listen to me? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::If you resubmitted and other people backed you up your petition would carry more weight. But then, Wikipedia is not a democracy so I don't know... [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Agree''' As I said before, the page is being trashed enough. Signing here so that it'll count for this section --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 03:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

: I think the concern for administrators is that since this article is the target of ''constant'' vandalism, semi-protection will either have to be indefinite or else it would just be a superficial temporary break (which won't really stop vandalism, as it will just continue after protection expires).
: However, you could argue that, since school has ended for the vast majority of people who do go to school, the increased vandalism is just a result of immature kids having more idle time. Certainly, the rate of vandalism reverts has increased sharply over November and December. The only problem is, school doesn't start until about 2 months, and you will probably not have much luck asking for 2 month protection. So I'm really not sure how we can deal with the barrage of vandals. Maybe we should start a "Project RuneScape" to get [[RuneScape]] onto more watchlists? (As a side note, such a project would have the benefits of cleaning up the RuneScape articles.) [[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 07:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:Hm... If there was a filtering of edits by a team of dedicated members of this section I'm sure it would eliminate or minimise vandalisation, of course it would be player controlled but I get the feeling that would pratically turn it into a fanpage/site if in the wrong hands? --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 10:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

*I semi-protected this article. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] . o º O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]]) 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Agree''' with protection. This article gets an unusually high amount of regular vandalism, and something needs to be done then just reverting the vandals' edits. - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==Conflicting RS2 Release Date==

In the main RS article, it says that RS2 (RS3D) was released on March 29th. Later in the article, in the ''History and Development'' section, it says that it was released on March 17th. Which one is correct, if either?
* March 29, 2004 is when RS2 exited Beta and launched fully live.[[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 04:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

-[[User:russoc4|Russoc4]]

==It should be noted somewhere in the article that some fan sites will deliberatly give you a virus or keylogger to steal your account and anyhting else they can steal. Anyone that uses fan sites will eventually get hacked.==

You are obviously a fool, since a) your second sentence is untrue and b) you wrote that whole thing as a title. [[User:Vimescarrot|Vimescarrot]] 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

'''False''' Seriously, legitimate fansites (i.e: Rsbandb, tip.it, Runehq) do not contain viruses or keyloggers nor do they steal or hack your account. Illegitimate fansites are blatantly obvious as they ask for your username/password. That being said if you're asked for your account name don't give it, if in doubt... etc. --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Untrue''' real fansites do not contain keyloggers. You can only get hacked if you download something, or provide your username and password. And '''please do not write your message as a title''', stupid. I cant even write an edit summary because the title is so long - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

==violation of wiki rules==
Not allowing people to change the main article is a violation of wiki rules. Why not just lock all the Wikipedia articles? because it would no longer be a wiki thats why.

*But vandalism is also a violation of wiki rules. This articlle uently vandalized by people that either don't like RS or people who play the game and think that they are better than the article or people that have nothing better to do. The RS article was put under protection so only registered, active members can edit it. This protection might have been removed. It should not have been.

- [[User:Russoc4|Russoc4]]
**If people keep vandalising a page, it should be protected for a limited amount of time to help prevent future vandalism - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:RuneScape/Archive 15

2006-01-14T21:10:47Z

Bourbons3: /* Discuss links here */ concur

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive01|Archive 1]] ([[October 28]] [[2004]] to [[May 1]] [[2005]]):
*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive02|Archive 2]] ([[May 1]] [[2005]] to [[October 30]] [[2005]]):
*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive03|Archive 3]] (next to start):
----

__TOC__

== Swifswitch? ==

Um, Swiftswitch is debated over wether it's actually legal or not.
--[[User:OSborn|OSborn]]

:Jagex have confirmed it's illegal. [[User:Vimescarrot|Vimescarrot]] 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Swiftswitch is actually legal, despite some disagreements among Jagex ranks. Proof from Jagex can be found here:
*"http://img23.exs.cx/img23/1587/Image534.jpg"
*"http://img113.exs.cx/img113/5968/14dec041117043ep.jpg"
If there's any evidence stating the contrary, then it should be given here. [[User:The Adventurer|The Adventurer]] 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:I vote we remove it, if there's a controversy over if it's legal. It *could* be considered breaking rule number 7. --[[User:OSborn|OSborn]] 11:54, 24 December 2005 (CDT)

Swiftswitch was once deemed illegal because it blocked the adverts. Since then this has been changed and Jagex has stated that it is legal, but they do not recommend the use of any 3rd party programs.

== Previous Talk Page was massive ==

So i archived it so like anything new we wanna talk about do it here.
--[[User:Super Quinn|Super Quinn]] 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

== Dragon Hatchet. ==

I thinks it really cool that Runescape finally introduced a Dragon Hatchet to the game, but I was very dissapointed that they didn't create a quest in order to get this hatchet. Having a monster drop it is a pretty lame and lazy way to introduce it. I think RS should pay more attention to what the players are suggesting. There is a lot of fantastic ideas for quests, weapons and what not in the RS forums.

I agree just this page is not for talking about the game,it's for talking about the article an questions/disputes you have. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 19:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

-- 1. the players suggested the hatchet NOT have a quest to get it
2. who wants to do a quest for a stupid drag hatchet, go get a life and do desert treasure instead. they listen to the players so good its not even funny, they get so many thousands of ideas a day though that they cant possibly put them all on the game at once, but they do it peice by peice, and its just a hatchet, pretty soon it wont be that special anymore itll just be a part of the game, do you think its lame that drag sq's chains, legs, meds, and abby whips are ALL dropped by monsters to?---

A hatchet is not armour such as drag sq's chains, legs, meds you lamer. The way to get a drag hatchet should have to do with the players wood cutting skills.

Response from a player:
Many people posted threads in the forums that talked about this situation. The problem with rare items is you have to be patient to get one. If Jagex put them in quests or make them part of a shop it would not be rare anymore. (ANYBODY could get one then, sort of obivious)

Are you retarded? there are several quests where players can get dragon equipment, such as dargon hally, scimitar, dagger and dragon battle axe.

P.S.(Post-Script) Anyway my runescape username is Doomedrusher and if anyone asks me nicely I can tell them almost anything. For example: where do we get free gems??? How to get rich (and I mean REAL rich, not noob rich) real fast??? Where is Onyx??? And many other hard questions that many old RS p2p players don't even know.

Anyone that has been to a Runescape fan site can answer those questions you noob.

Er... Dragon Weapons aren't rare which whereas Dragon Chain, legs, skirt and helm are. The differences if you didn't notice is the armour is through monster drops as opposed to the weapons being accessed through quests. That's how Jagex regulates rarity anyway. Secondly the hatchet is widely regarded as the most pointless update ever made when Jagex confirmed that it is on-par with a standard Rune hatchet when it comes to woodcutting speed and quality. This is precisely why the monetary value of the Dragon Hatchet bombed within days and although you could consider it "rare" hardly anyone cares enough about it with the exception of "hardcore" pkers who are seeking the hatchet's rather amusing "special attack". Now that I've cleared things up, could everyone stop reverting to calling each other "lamers"? sheesh. --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

== Edits for 14:27, 14 November 2005 Someone42 ==

*"Java script (uses applet)" to just "Java applet": using "Java script" is ambiguous because it can refer to [[Javascript]], which is not the same as [[Java]].
*"written" to "implemented": Java isn't fully "interpreted" (as in, source is compiled to bytecode prior to execution), and since programmers don't write in bytecode I think it's wrong to refer to a Java applet as being "written in Java".
*removal of "without having to download and install any programs to their computer": technically, you still have to download the applet, which is a program.

I also removed the "In game banner advertisements" section, as it advocates the potential interference with one of Jagex' revenue streams. The ethics of it has nothing to do with the removal, however Wikipedia doesn't have articles describing how to build a Macrovision killer, or how to rip DVDs, so it shouldn't have instructions on "how to block banners". Those who want to, can look somewhere else. If whoever is adding it really wants to add instructions, make a site and link to it in external links.
[[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 14:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

==Any relation to [[Runescape]] the [[tabletop role-playing game]]?==
They seem very similar with the use of runes instead of "regular" magic etc. Unfortunately I only own the "bad" edition, set in pseudo-Europe and not any of the good books with its own world. Information about the ttrpg is hard to come by on the net, it's all about the java-version. So, is there a connection or have the mmorpg nicked the trademarks of/been inspired by a tabletop game I used to play in the early nineties? Anyway, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on the [[RuneScape]]-pages so a little disambig-note somewhere would be fine. --[[User:Kaleissin|Kaleissin]] 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

:Isn't the game called Heroscape? [[User:Link9er|Link9er]] 14:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

------- there are tons of games that use "runes" instead of regular magic, diablo has runes, gauntlet has runes, theyre everywhere, its just something based on the beginning of rpg's----------

-thanks

== Things to change after the Protected status expires ==

In the introduction, the sentence "''Being a free player on Runescape is one of the worst things possible.''" should probably be removed, or be changed to a NPOV version. Also, the opening sentence claims RuneScape has over ''100,000'' players - I assume this should be over 1,000,000 players, since under [[RuneScape#Overview|Overview]] it claims over 160,000 can be online at peak hours. --[[User:Peruvianllama|PeruvianLlama]]([[User talk:Peruvianllama|spit]]) 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*There are 2,8 Million players in RuneScape, according to the [http://www.jagex.com/corporate/index.ws Jagex Corporate Site]. Also, this should be fixed: "Membership for RuneSCape is US $5.00". But that's just a minor notice. --[[User:Aliensvortex|Aliensvortex]]

Im just removing some of the edits made by somebody who obviously does not like the game such as 'fagex' and 'Low IQ, Non-Existant Frontal Lobe Functions, Fused Cerebellam ,' from the information box. Somebody must have had a bad experiance with the game.

----- i'll take this chance to say that there wouldn't BE 2.8 million players if there wasn't free world, if i never played free i would have never become a member, its like a big sample to get people into the game, nobody's going to pay for a game if they dont even know what it is-------- if they really like the game they can become members, thats where all the cool stuff is anywayz-----

-holocaust (5 year runescape veteran)

==Copyright Picture?==

Is this pictue copyrighted? (''image deleted'') The tip.it website says that nothing on it can be repoduced without consent.
:Yah, looks like it is a copyright vio. I'll go ping the uploader. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a screenshot i took, its not a copyfight vio, becasue the subject isnt a picture, its something you enter text in! Bourbons3 11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

== "High traffic" sites ==

if the site even fails to provide the latest quest guide within a certain period, it just seems that the traffic isn't really high [[User:Gspbeetle|Gspbeetle]] 04:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

== [[King Black Dragon]] ==

The above article was nominated for deletion (the result was to merge it here). I did so, creating a new section called "Monsters", which contains text from the KBD article, as well as from other monsters who have articles. Feel free to edit it at will, or fix any mistakes I may have made (I don't play RuneScape, so...) [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL you wrote an article about a game you dont even play, i would refrain from doing that.... -gravity -5year RS veteran

== NPOV Status Related to Tip.IT ==

I am going to modify the www.tip.it comment as itsn't NPOV in nature.

Philip

== Is it me, or are the fansites blowing up again? ==

I think we are starting to push the bounds of the [[WP:EL|external links]] guidelines. I know [[User:Someone42]] and I had discussed privately before the establishment of an OpenDirectory portal...and I see there is a link to one in that section. Not knowing whats involved to be able to edit there, can I get a consensus reading on whether the list should stay or be pared down significantly. It just seems that we are on a slippery slope, and allowing even one dynamic signature or runescape quest info site leads to a huge list in just a week or two. Thoughts? --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

* Some of them have to go. Maybe some of the not so good signature makers, world switchers,clans and very low-active websites should go. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 22:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
* And who are you to decide which sites are worthly of inclusion and which are not? As long as they are relevent to RuneScape and aren't cheating/scam websites, who cares?[[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 22:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
:: I care. [[Wikipedia:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] an online portal. Wikipedia is not a place to shove anything and everything relevant to a topic in an article. But instead of falling back onto rules and policy, let's look at some examples of other MMORPG pages:
::*[[World of Warcraft]] - 10 non-official sites
::*[[Everquest]] - 25 non-official sites (a lot of them are actually humour sites)
::*[[Final Fantasy XI]] - 4 non-official sites
::*[[Anarchy Online]] - 6 non-official sites
:: At time of writing, RuneScape has 41 non-official links. In my opinion, that's a little excessive. What makes a fansite "recommended" or "other" or "high traffic"? If there are seperate sub-headings for fansites, suddenly the burden of being a "portal editor" falls on the editors of Wikipedia (which is everyone). The number of links has steadily been increasing, so when will it be too many for you? By the examples above, in my opinion 25 is enough.
:: A while ago, I scrapped the entire list of fansites. This was the only way to shorten the list in a non-biased way. That didn't go down very well. So, how about we discuss a method of determining which sites are worthy of inclusion or not. How about we start with: No sub-domain links. No "http://www.example.com/~username" links. The justification here, is that priority should be given to those who have enough commitment to rent a domain name. What do others think?
:: (Note: I am not a RuneScape player, and I certainly do not maintain a RuneScape fansite.)
:: [[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 08:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
**Totally agree with someone42.Way too many,but to choose on website name is sooooo bias. What basically we need to do is consider which websites are useful to a standard player.Useful: very fast on publishing high-quality guides eg.Tip.it
Useful: high traffic sites eg.runehq
Useless: World Changer programs
Useless: Websites which are clans
Useless: Websites which have copied guides
What do you think of that suggestion?[[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 11:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

**Why not get rid of all un-official links alltogether? to simply say that un-official links have the potential to be dangerous to runescape players as they are run by a thrid-party that can pretty much do anything with their site's pages that they please.--[[User:203.55.231.107|203.55.231.107]] 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

** if you say potential, even the offical sites are ''potentially'' dangerous.
note that some fansite (ie:high traffic) provide reference information with greater details, which some are limited by the wiki formating... [[User:Gspbeetle|Gspbeetle]] 09:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

**You can tell which fansites are high traffic by looking at a traffic monitoring site like alexa - here: http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=789099 - if you ignore the forum in australia which isn't rs specific that fairly accurately seems to give the top 6 fansites in terms of traffic. It gives all 5 I already had bookmarked and 1 I didn't, so pretty good way of determining the bigs one fairly. I personally would be in favour of not listing them at all, but if they were to be listed that's a possible criteria to use. [[User:84.12.135.209|84.12.135.209]]

== Members quests ==

Created a members quests page, so its no longer red on the links box at the start of the article. [[Members RuneScape quests|check it out]] - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

where has it gone?? - Bourbons3 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Apparently too large to put in an encyclopedia, not needed. I personally disagree. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

I think we'd better place the infobox 1 step higher, and the first image more below. I feel kind a like annoyed when i see the top of this article.

[[User:SidewinderXP2|SidewinderXP2]] [[User talk:SidewinderXP2|Talk to Me!]] 14 dec 2005 4:41 PM (CEST)

==Member Quests ==

I think they should be added to the free quests page. I was looking up info on them and they werent there anymore =(
 
Note: i added this page useing the code i saw above it, so if its a little messed up sry i hope to fix it soon

[[User:Stoutn|Stoutn]] 16 Dec 2005 2:55 PM (Central Time Zone)

*'''Agree''', a page called Runescape Quests should be created, with a list of both free and members quests.

Disagree: Any idea how large that would be? [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

*Take a look, i created it [[RuneScape Quests|here]] - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 19:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday i edited a part of the text, it currently says there are 105 servers, but i changed it to 106. I play runescape everyday, i know there are 106 worlds, but someone changed it back to 105.

Just thought i would point it out.

[[User:Paul Janaway|maddog]] 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

== RuneScape Quests ==

I have created a [[RuneScape Quests]] article which purely lists the quests for both free and p2p players, describes what a quest is and how difficulty is decided. It '''is not''' a game guide. The [[Free RuneScape quests]] page is also up for deletion, becasue it acts as a game guide (which Wikipedia is not) and is being replaced with the RuneScape Quests page. '''''Becasue of this, the ''These articles are part of the RuneScape series'' box needs to have the Free RuneScape quests page changed to RuneScape Quests''''' - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:'''Be Bold''' and change the template [[Template:RuneScapeVertical]] yourself (just make sure you move runescape quests to the right alphabetical order). :) --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 17:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

::i tried to edit it but i couldn't figure out where it is ΨΨΨ --[[User:Cattrain|cattrain]] 19:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

== Categories? ==

Where did the categories all go?... [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

== jagex ==

should jagex be under the runescape series box?

== sms safe? ==

that make it sound like it is %100 safe... nothing online is that safe... inface nothing is that safe at all... i dont see any reason that the word safe shouldn't be changed to "safer than" under the pricing section...
--[[User:Cattrain|cattrain]] 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

== Frequently Vandalised ==

I would like to nominate this article be on the Counter Vandalism Unit's "watch" page - this article suffers from several vandalism attacks per day it seems.
Opinions? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*No. The CVU thing is a joke, and tagging it as "watched by the CVU" will just encourage more vandalism. [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 04:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*Can a Wikipedia admin weigh in on this? Preferably one who doesn't think the CVU is a joke... [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*You may want to create a more generic one for non WikipediA:/User: pages that just says "watched moreso then others" or words to that effect. [[User:68.39.174.238|68.39.174.238]] 05:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Seconded''' The page's been vandalised twice since I've checked last night... --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
** What do you mean a "more generic one"? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
* This page should be marked. So we can keep a watch on it and limit the vandals and change it back so nothing is disturbed. --[[User:Actown|Ac]]'''''[[User talk:Actown|t]][[User:Actown|o]][[Wikipedia:Welcoming_Committee|w]]'''''[[User:Actown|n]] [[WP:EA|e]] 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, a proper summary (other than "CVU is a joke"). Vandalism to this article is reverted reasonably quickly (when it's noticed), and unleashing the combined — and no doubt well-meaning — forces of the CVU is unlikely to cause any improvement over current RC patrolling. So, the only real difference would be a dirty great "WATCHED BY THE CVU" [[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/Watched|tag]] on the article ... and that would do nothing to scare off vandals, but could quite plausibly attract more ("hello! We're getting a reaction!"). There is ''no way in Hell'' that tag gets put on any real articles on Wikipedia.

:The best solution here would be semi-protection, where new users and people without an account cannot edit the article. It's doing wonders for [[George W. Bush]]. Unfortunately, this also means that people who just happen to want to read/write about RuneScape are unable to edit at all, and (unlike George W. Bush) new users and people without accounts add a great deal of the non-vandalistic edits to this article. We're faced with a simple choice: semi-protection, and the benefits (and drawbacks) it brings, or open slather, and the benefits (and drawbacks) there. [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

::Tagging this will be a violation of [[WP:BEANS]] and will attract more vandals. In short, it hurts more than it helps. Also, recognise that the [[WP:CVU]] has no official status within Wikipedia and does not have permission to slap tags all over the place. Any such will likely be removed in mere moments. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] ''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:I agree that semi-protection would be best for this article but I already requested this and was pretty much flat-out denied since the vandalism isn't severe enough. I think we'll just have to keep reverting the vandalism ourselves to be honest. [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

== Discuss links here ==
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam|You can help!]]'')

* Call me biased, but I'd like my own fansite to remain in the "Other Fansites" section.
Just because The Black Hole Experience is not huge doesn't mean it's worthless, and for that matter I don't think any of the other fansite should be "cleaned out" just because they're not mammoth either. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

* But I think non-mammoth web sites should be cleaned out. Otherwise many "rubbish" websites could appear. Only have the top 5 websites on the high-traffic list. Otherwise too many links will appear. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 12:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**Concur. If you put too many websites in the list will become meaningless - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

== This Article = Vandalism Magnet ==

This article cannot seem to go 2 hours without being vandalised by someone.

I hereby propose that it be protected from vandalism, or protected from anonymous edits.

Comments, please. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I already nominated it for semi-protection. It seems that isn't necessary for this article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=33673503#RuneScape_.28talk_.C2.B7_history_.C2.B7_watch.29| Check the submission out.] [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
* Apparently the people who commented don't monitor this article too closely. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::Feel free to resubmit. I'll back you up on it if you like. [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

'''I agree.''' It is frequently vandalized, and as a very popular wikipedia article, the rs article needs all the help it can get to remain good.
: If they didn't listen to you, why would they listen to me? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::If you resubmitted and other people backed you up your petition would carry more weight. But then, Wikipedia is not a democracy so I don't know... [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Agree''' As I said before, the page is being trashed enough. Signing here so that it'll count for this section --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 03:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

: I think the concern for administrators is that since this article is the target of ''constant'' vandalism, semi-protection will either have to be indefinite or else it would just be a superficial temporary break (which won't really stop vandalism, as it will just continue after protection expires).
: However, you could argue that, since school has ended for the vast majority of people who do go to school, the increased vandalism is just a result of immature kids having more idle time. Certainly, the rate of vandalism reverts has increased sharply over November and December. The only problem is, school doesn't start until about 2 months, and you will probably not have much luck asking for 2 month protection. So I'm really not sure how we can deal with the barrage of vandals. Maybe we should start a "Project RuneScape" to get [[RuneScape]] onto more watchlists? (As a side note, such a project would have the benefits of cleaning up the RuneScape articles.) [[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 07:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:Hm... If there was a filtering of edits by a team of dedicated members of this section I'm sure it would eliminate or minimise vandalisation, of course it would be player controlled but I get the feeling that would pratically turn it into a fanpage/site if in the wrong hands? --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 10:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

*I semi-protected this article. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] . o º O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]]) 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Agree''' with protection. This article gets an unusually high amount of regular vandalism, and something needs to be done then just reverting the vandals' edits. - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==Conflicting RS2 Release Date==

In the main RS article, it says that RS2 (RS3D) was released on March 29th. Later in the article, in the ''History and Development'' section, it says that it was released on March 17th. Which one is correct, if either?
* March 29, 2004 is when RS2 exited Beta and launched fully live.[[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 04:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

-[[User:russoc4|Russoc4]]

==It should be noted somewhere in the article that some fan sites will deliberatly give you a virus or keylogger to steal your account and anyhting else they can steal. Anyone that uses fan sites will eventually get hacked.==

You are obviously a fool, since a) your second sentence is untrue and b) you wrote that whole thing as a title. [[User:Vimescarrot|Vimescarrot]] 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

'''False''' Seriously, legitimate fansites (i.e: Rsbandb, tip.it, Runehq) do not contain viruses or keyloggers nor do they steal or hack your account. Illegitimate fansites are blatantly obvious as they ask for your username/password. That being said if you're asked for your account name don't give it, if in doubt... etc. --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Untrue''' real fansites do not contain keyloggers. You can only get hacked if you download something, or provide your username and password. And '''please do not write your message as a title''', stupid. I cant even write an edit summary because the title is so long - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

==violation of wiki rules==
Not allowing people to change the main article is a violation of wiki rules. Why not just lock all the Wikipedia articles? because it would no longer be a wiki thats why.

*But vandalism is also a violation of wiki rules. This articlle uently vandalized by people that either don't like RS or people who play the game and think that they are better than the article or people that have nothing better to do. The RS article was put under protection so only registered, active members can edit it. This protection might have been removed. It should not have been.

- [[User:Russoc4|Russoc4]]
**If people keep vandalising a page, it should be protected for a limited amount of time to help prevent future vandalism - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:RuneScape/Archive 15

2006-01-14T21:09:16Z

Bourbons3: /* It should be noted somewhere in the article that some fan sites will deliberatly give you a virus or keylogger to steal your account and anyhting else they can steal. Anyone that uses fan sites will eventually get hacked.*/

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive01|Archive 1]] ([[October 28]] [[2004]] to [[May 1]] [[2005]]):
*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive02|Archive 2]] ([[May 1]] [[2005]] to [[October 30]] [[2005]]):
*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive03|Archive 3]] (next to start):
----

__TOC__

== Swifswitch? ==

Um, Swiftswitch is debated over wether it's actually legal or not.
--[[User:OSborn|OSborn]]

:Jagex have confirmed it's illegal. [[User:Vimescarrot|Vimescarrot]] 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Swiftswitch is actually legal, despite some disagreements among Jagex ranks. Proof from Jagex can be found here:
*"http://img23.exs.cx/img23/1587/Image534.jpg"
*"http://img113.exs.cx/img113/5968/14dec041117043ep.jpg"
If there's any evidence stating the contrary, then it should be given here. [[User:The Adventurer|The Adventurer]] 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:I vote we remove it, if there's a controversy over if it's legal. It *could* be considered breaking rule number 7. --[[User:OSborn|OSborn]] 11:54, 24 December 2005 (CDT)

Swiftswitch was once deemed illegal because it blocked the adverts. Since then this has been changed and Jagex has stated that it is legal, but they do not recommend the use of any 3rd party programs.

== Previous Talk Page was massive ==

So i archived it so like anything new we wanna talk about do it here.
--[[User:Super Quinn|Super Quinn]] 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

== Dragon Hatchet. ==

I thinks it really cool that Runescape finally introduced a Dragon Hatchet to the game, but I was very dissapointed that they didn't create a quest in order to get this hatchet. Having a monster drop it is a pretty lame and lazy way to introduce it. I think RS should pay more attention to what the players are suggesting. There is a lot of fantastic ideas for quests, weapons and what not in the RS forums.

I agree just this page is not for talking about the game,it's for talking about the article an questions/disputes you have. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 19:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

-- 1. the players suggested the hatchet NOT have a quest to get it
2. who wants to do a quest for a stupid drag hatchet, go get a life and do desert treasure instead. they listen to the players so good its not even funny, they get so many thousands of ideas a day though that they cant possibly put them all on the game at once, but they do it peice by peice, and its just a hatchet, pretty soon it wont be that special anymore itll just be a part of the game, do you think its lame that drag sq's chains, legs, meds, and abby whips are ALL dropped by monsters to?---

A hatchet is not armour such as drag sq's chains, legs, meds you lamer. The way to get a drag hatchet should have to do with the players wood cutting skills.

Response from a player:
Many people posted threads in the forums that talked about this situation. The problem with rare items is you have to be patient to get one. If Jagex put them in quests or make them part of a shop it would not be rare anymore. (ANYBODY could get one then, sort of obivious)

Are you retarded? there are several quests where players can get dragon equipment, such as dargon hally, scimitar, dagger and dragon battle axe.

P.S.(Post-Script) Anyway my runescape username is Doomedrusher and if anyone asks me nicely I can tell them almost anything. For example: where do we get free gems??? How to get rich (and I mean REAL rich, not noob rich) real fast??? Where is Onyx??? And many other hard questions that many old RS p2p players don't even know.

Anyone that has been to a Runescape fan site can answer those questions you noob.

Er... Dragon Weapons aren't rare which whereas Dragon Chain, legs, skirt and helm are. The differences if you didn't notice is the armour is through monster drops as opposed to the weapons being accessed through quests. That's how Jagex regulates rarity anyway. Secondly the hatchet is widely regarded as the most pointless update ever made when Jagex confirmed that it is on-par with a standard Rune hatchet when it comes to woodcutting speed and quality. This is precisely why the monetary value of the Dragon Hatchet bombed within days and although you could consider it "rare" hardly anyone cares enough about it with the exception of "hardcore" pkers who are seeking the hatchet's rather amusing "special attack". Now that I've cleared things up, could everyone stop reverting to calling each other "lamers"? sheesh. --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

== Edits for 14:27, 14 November 2005 Someone42 ==

*"Java script (uses applet)" to just "Java applet": using "Java script" is ambiguous because it can refer to [[Javascript]], which is not the same as [[Java]].
*"written" to "implemented": Java isn't fully "interpreted" (as in, source is compiled to bytecode prior to execution), and since programmers don't write in bytecode I think it's wrong to refer to a Java applet as being "written in Java".
*removal of "without having to download and install any programs to their computer": technically, you still have to download the applet, which is a program.

I also removed the "In game banner advertisements" section, as it advocates the potential interference with one of Jagex' revenue streams. The ethics of it has nothing to do with the removal, however Wikipedia doesn't have articles describing how to build a Macrovision killer, or how to rip DVDs, so it shouldn't have instructions on "how to block banners". Those who want to, can look somewhere else. If whoever is adding it really wants to add instructions, make a site and link to it in external links.
[[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 14:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

==Any relation to [[Runescape]] the [[tabletop role-playing game]]?==
They seem very similar with the use of runes instead of "regular" magic etc. Unfortunately I only own the "bad" edition, set in pseudo-Europe and not any of the good books with its own world. Information about the ttrpg is hard to come by on the net, it's all about the java-version. So, is there a connection or have the mmorpg nicked the trademarks of/been inspired by a tabletop game I used to play in the early nineties? Anyway, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on the [[RuneScape]]-pages so a little disambig-note somewhere would be fine. --[[User:Kaleissin|Kaleissin]] 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

:Isn't the game called Heroscape? [[User:Link9er|Link9er]] 14:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

------- there are tons of games that use "runes" instead of regular magic, diablo has runes, gauntlet has runes, theyre everywhere, its just something based on the beginning of rpg's----------

-thanks

== Things to change after the Protected status expires ==

In the introduction, the sentence "''Being a free player on Runescape is one of the worst things possible.''" should probably be removed, or be changed to a NPOV version. Also, the opening sentence claims RuneScape has over ''100,000'' players - I assume this should be over 1,000,000 players, since under [[RuneScape#Overview|Overview]] it claims over 160,000 can be online at peak hours. --[[User:Peruvianllama|PeruvianLlama]]([[User talk:Peruvianllama|spit]]) 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*There are 2,8 Million players in RuneScape, according to the [http://www.jagex.com/corporate/index.ws Jagex Corporate Site]. Also, this should be fixed: "Membership for RuneSCape is US $5.00". But that's just a minor notice. --[[User:Aliensvortex|Aliensvortex]]

Im just removing some of the edits made by somebody who obviously does not like the game such as 'fagex' and 'Low IQ, Non-Existant Frontal Lobe Functions, Fused Cerebellam ,' from the information box. Somebody must have had a bad experiance with the game.

----- i'll take this chance to say that there wouldn't BE 2.8 million players if there wasn't free world, if i never played free i would have never become a member, its like a big sample to get people into the game, nobody's going to pay for a game if they dont even know what it is-------- if they really like the game they can become members, thats where all the cool stuff is anywayz-----

-holocaust (5 year runescape veteran)

==Copyright Picture?==

Is this pictue copyrighted? (''image deleted'') The tip.it website says that nothing on it can be repoduced without consent.
:Yah, looks like it is a copyright vio. I'll go ping the uploader. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a screenshot i took, its not a copyfight vio, becasue the subject isnt a picture, its something you enter text in! Bourbons3 11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

== "High traffic" sites ==

if the site even fails to provide the latest quest guide within a certain period, it just seems that the traffic isn't really high [[User:Gspbeetle|Gspbeetle]] 04:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

== [[King Black Dragon]] ==

The above article was nominated for deletion (the result was to merge it here). I did so, creating a new section called "Monsters", which contains text from the KBD article, as well as from other monsters who have articles. Feel free to edit it at will, or fix any mistakes I may have made (I don't play RuneScape, so...) [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL you wrote an article about a game you dont even play, i would refrain from doing that.... -gravity -5year RS veteran

== NPOV Status Related to Tip.IT ==

I am going to modify the www.tip.it comment as itsn't NPOV in nature.

Philip

== Is it me, or are the fansites blowing up again? ==

I think we are starting to push the bounds of the [[WP:EL|external links]] guidelines. I know [[User:Someone42]] and I had discussed privately before the establishment of an OpenDirectory portal...and I see there is a link to one in that section. Not knowing whats involved to be able to edit there, can I get a consensus reading on whether the list should stay or be pared down significantly. It just seems that we are on a slippery slope, and allowing even one dynamic signature or runescape quest info site leads to a huge list in just a week or two. Thoughts? --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

* Some of them have to go. Maybe some of the not so good signature makers, world switchers,clans and very low-active websites should go. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 22:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
* And who are you to decide which sites are worthly of inclusion and which are not? As long as they are relevent to RuneScape and aren't cheating/scam websites, who cares?[[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 22:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
:: I care. [[Wikipedia:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] an online portal. Wikipedia is not a place to shove anything and everything relevant to a topic in an article. But instead of falling back onto rules and policy, let's look at some examples of other MMORPG pages:
::*[[World of Warcraft]] - 10 non-official sites
::*[[Everquest]] - 25 non-official sites (a lot of them are actually humour sites)
::*[[Final Fantasy XI]] - 4 non-official sites
::*[[Anarchy Online]] - 6 non-official sites
:: At time of writing, RuneScape has 41 non-official links. In my opinion, that's a little excessive. What makes a fansite "recommended" or "other" or "high traffic"? If there are seperate sub-headings for fansites, suddenly the burden of being a "portal editor" falls on the editors of Wikipedia (which is everyone). The number of links has steadily been increasing, so when will it be too many for you? By the examples above, in my opinion 25 is enough.
:: A while ago, I scrapped the entire list of fansites. This was the only way to shorten the list in a non-biased way. That didn't go down very well. So, how about we discuss a method of determining which sites are worthy of inclusion or not. How about we start with: No sub-domain links. No "http://www.example.com/~username" links. The justification here, is that priority should be given to those who have enough commitment to rent a domain name. What do others think?
:: (Note: I am not a RuneScape player, and I certainly do not maintain a RuneScape fansite.)
:: [[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 08:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
**Totally agree with someone42.Way too many,but to choose on website name is sooooo bias. What basically we need to do is consider which websites are useful to a standard player.Useful: very fast on publishing high-quality guides eg.Tip.it
Useful: high traffic sites eg.runehq
Useless: World Changer programs
Useless: Websites which are clans
Useless: Websites which have copied guides
What do you think of that suggestion?[[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 11:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

**Why not get rid of all un-official links alltogether? to simply say that un-official links have the potential to be dangerous to runescape players as they are run by a thrid-party that can pretty much do anything with their site's pages that they please.--[[User:203.55.231.107|203.55.231.107]] 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

** if you say potential, even the offical sites are ''potentially'' dangerous.
note that some fansite (ie:high traffic) provide reference information with greater details, which some are limited by the wiki formating... [[User:Gspbeetle|Gspbeetle]] 09:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

**You can tell which fansites are high traffic by looking at a traffic monitoring site like alexa - here: http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=789099 - if you ignore the forum in australia which isn't rs specific that fairly accurately seems to give the top 6 fansites in terms of traffic. It gives all 5 I already had bookmarked and 1 I didn't, so pretty good way of determining the bigs one fairly. I personally would be in favour of not listing them at all, but if they were to be listed that's a possible criteria to use. [[User:84.12.135.209|84.12.135.209]]

== Members quests ==

Created a members quests page, so its no longer red on the links box at the start of the article. [[Members RuneScape quests|check it out]] - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

where has it gone?? - Bourbons3 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Apparently too large to put in an encyclopedia, not needed. I personally disagree. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

I think we'd better place the infobox 1 step higher, and the first image more below. I feel kind a like annoyed when i see the top of this article.

[[User:SidewinderXP2|SidewinderXP2]] [[User talk:SidewinderXP2|Talk to Me!]] 14 dec 2005 4:41 PM (CEST)

==Member Quests ==

I think they should be added to the free quests page. I was looking up info on them and they werent there anymore =(
 
Note: i added this page useing the code i saw above it, so if its a little messed up sry i hope to fix it soon

[[User:Stoutn|Stoutn]] 16 Dec 2005 2:55 PM (Central Time Zone)

*'''Agree''', a page called Runescape Quests should be created, with a list of both free and members quests.

Disagree: Any idea how large that would be? [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

*Take a look, i created it [[RuneScape Quests|here]] - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 19:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday i edited a part of the text, it currently says there are 105 servers, but i changed it to 106. I play runescape everyday, i know there are 106 worlds, but someone changed it back to 105.

Just thought i would point it out.

[[User:Paul Janaway|maddog]] 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

== RuneScape Quests ==

I have created a [[RuneScape Quests]] article which purely lists the quests for both free and p2p players, describes what a quest is and how difficulty is decided. It '''is not''' a game guide. The [[Free RuneScape quests]] page is also up for deletion, becasue it acts as a game guide (which Wikipedia is not) and is being replaced with the RuneScape Quests page. '''''Becasue of this, the ''These articles are part of the RuneScape series'' box needs to have the Free RuneScape quests page changed to RuneScape Quests''''' - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:'''Be Bold''' and change the template [[Template:RuneScapeVertical]] yourself (just make sure you move runescape quests to the right alphabetical order). :) --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 17:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

::i tried to edit it but i couldn't figure out where it is ΨΨΨ --[[User:Cattrain|cattrain]] 19:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

== Categories? ==

Where did the categories all go?... [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

== jagex ==

should jagex be under the runescape series box?

== sms safe? ==

that make it sound like it is %100 safe... nothing online is that safe... inface nothing is that safe at all... i dont see any reason that the word safe shouldn't be changed to "safer than" under the pricing section...
--[[User:Cattrain|cattrain]] 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

== Frequently Vandalised ==

I would like to nominate this article be on the Counter Vandalism Unit's "watch" page - this article suffers from several vandalism attacks per day it seems.
Opinions? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*No. The CVU thing is a joke, and tagging it as "watched by the CVU" will just encourage more vandalism. [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 04:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*Can a Wikipedia admin weigh in on this? Preferably one who doesn't think the CVU is a joke... [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*You may want to create a more generic one for non WikipediA:/User: pages that just says "watched moreso then others" or words to that effect. [[User:68.39.174.238|68.39.174.238]] 05:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Seconded''' The page's been vandalised twice since I've checked last night... --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
** What do you mean a "more generic one"? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
* This page should be marked. So we can keep a watch on it and limit the vandals and change it back so nothing is disturbed. --[[User:Actown|Ac]]'''''[[User talk:Actown|t]][[User:Actown|o]][[Wikipedia:Welcoming_Committee|w]]'''''[[User:Actown|n]] [[WP:EA|e]] 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, a proper summary (other than "CVU is a joke"). Vandalism to this article is reverted reasonably quickly (when it's noticed), and unleashing the combined — and no doubt well-meaning — forces of the CVU is unlikely to cause any improvement over current RC patrolling. So, the only real difference would be a dirty great "WATCHED BY THE CVU" [[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/Watched|tag]] on the article ... and that would do nothing to scare off vandals, but could quite plausibly attract more ("hello! We're getting a reaction!"). There is ''no way in Hell'' that tag gets put on any real articles on Wikipedia.

:The best solution here would be semi-protection, where new users and people without an account cannot edit the article. It's doing wonders for [[George W. Bush]]. Unfortunately, this also means that people who just happen to want to read/write about RuneScape are unable to edit at all, and (unlike George W. Bush) new users and people without accounts add a great deal of the non-vandalistic edits to this article. We're faced with a simple choice: semi-protection, and the benefits (and drawbacks) it brings, or open slather, and the benefits (and drawbacks) there. [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

::Tagging this will be a violation of [[WP:BEANS]] and will attract more vandals. In short, it hurts more than it helps. Also, recognise that the [[WP:CVU]] has no official status within Wikipedia and does not have permission to slap tags all over the place. Any such will likely be removed in mere moments. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] ''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:I agree that semi-protection would be best for this article but I already requested this and was pretty much flat-out denied since the vandalism isn't severe enough. I think we'll just have to keep reverting the vandalism ourselves to be honest. [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

== Discuss links here ==
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam|You can help!]]'')

* Call me biased, but I'd like my own fansite to remain in the "Other Fansites" section.
Just because The Black Hole Experience is not huge doesn't mean it's worthless, and for that matter I don't think any of the other fansite should be "cleaned out" just because they're not mammoth either. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

* But I think non-mammoth web sites should be cleaned out. Otherwise many "rubbish" websites could appear. Only have the top 5 websites on the high-traffic list. Otherwise too many links will appear. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 12:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

== This Article = Vandalism Magnet ==

This article cannot seem to go 2 hours without being vandalised by someone.

I hereby propose that it be protected from vandalism, or protected from anonymous edits.

Comments, please. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I already nominated it for semi-protection. It seems that isn't necessary for this article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=33673503#RuneScape_.28talk_.C2.B7_history_.C2.B7_watch.29| Check the submission out.] [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
* Apparently the people who commented don't monitor this article too closely. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::Feel free to resubmit. I'll back you up on it if you like. [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

'''I agree.''' It is frequently vandalized, and as a very popular wikipedia article, the rs article needs all the help it can get to remain good.
: If they didn't listen to you, why would they listen to me? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::If you resubmitted and other people backed you up your petition would carry more weight. But then, Wikipedia is not a democracy so I don't know... [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Agree''' As I said before, the page is being trashed enough. Signing here so that it'll count for this section --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 03:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

: I think the concern for administrators is that since this article is the target of ''constant'' vandalism, semi-protection will either have to be indefinite or else it would just be a superficial temporary break (which won't really stop vandalism, as it will just continue after protection expires).
: However, you could argue that, since school has ended for the vast majority of people who do go to school, the increased vandalism is just a result of immature kids having more idle time. Certainly, the rate of vandalism reverts has increased sharply over November and December. The only problem is, school doesn't start until about 2 months, and you will probably not have much luck asking for 2 month protection. So I'm really not sure how we can deal with the barrage of vandals. Maybe we should start a "Project RuneScape" to get [[RuneScape]] onto more watchlists? (As a side note, such a project would have the benefits of cleaning up the RuneScape articles.) [[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 07:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:Hm... If there was a filtering of edits by a team of dedicated members of this section I'm sure it would eliminate or minimise vandalisation, of course it would be player controlled but I get the feeling that would pratically turn it into a fanpage/site if in the wrong hands? --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 10:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

*I semi-protected this article. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] . o º O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]]) 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Agree''' with protection. This article gets an unusually high amount of regular vandalism, and something needs to be done then just reverting the vandals' edits. - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==Conflicting RS2 Release Date==

In the main RS article, it says that RS2 (RS3D) was released on March 29th. Later in the article, in the ''History and Development'' section, it says that it was released on March 17th. Which one is correct, if either?
* March 29, 2004 is when RS2 exited Beta and launched fully live.[[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 04:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

-[[User:russoc4|Russoc4]]

==It should be noted somewhere in the article that some fan sites will deliberatly give you a virus or keylogger to steal your account and anyhting else they can steal. Anyone that uses fan sites will eventually get hacked.==

You are obviously a fool, since a) your second sentence is untrue and b) you wrote that whole thing as a title. [[User:Vimescarrot|Vimescarrot]] 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

'''False''' Seriously, legitimate fansites (i.e: Rsbandb, tip.it, Runehq) do not contain viruses or keyloggers nor do they steal or hack your account. Illegitimate fansites are blatantly obvious as they ask for your username/password. That being said if you're asked for your account name don't give it, if in doubt... etc. --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Untrue''' real fansites do not contain keyloggers. You can only get hacked if you download something, or provide your username and password. And '''please do not write your message as a title''', stupid. I cant even write an edit summary because the title is so long - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

==violation of wiki rules==
Not allowing people to change the main article is a violation of wiki rules. Why not just lock all the Wikipedia articles? because it would no longer be a wiki thats why.

*But vandalism is also a violation of wiki rules. This articlle uently vandalized by people that either don't like RS or people who play the game and think that they are better than the article or people that have nothing better to do. The RS article was put under protection so only registered, active members can edit it. This protection might have been removed. It should not have been.

- [[User:Russoc4|Russoc4]]
**If people keep vandalising a page, it should be protected for a limited amount of time to help prevent future vandalism - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:RuneScape/Archive 15

2006-01-14T21:05:28Z

Bourbons3: /* violation of wiki rules */ Pages should be protected to prevent vandalism

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive01|Archive 1]] ([[October 28]] [[2004]] to [[May 1]] [[2005]]):
*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive02|Archive 2]] ([[May 1]] [[2005]] to [[October 30]] [[2005]]):
*[[Talk:RuneScape/Archive03|Archive 3]] (next to start):
----

__TOC__

== Swifswitch? ==

Um, Swiftswitch is debated over wether it's actually legal or not.
--[[User:OSborn|OSborn]]

:Jagex have confirmed it's illegal. [[User:Vimescarrot|Vimescarrot]] 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Swiftswitch is actually legal, despite some disagreements among Jagex ranks. Proof from Jagex can be found here:
*"http://img23.exs.cx/img23/1587/Image534.jpg"
*"http://img113.exs.cx/img113/5968/14dec041117043ep.jpg"
If there's any evidence stating the contrary, then it should be given here. [[User:The Adventurer|The Adventurer]] 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:I vote we remove it, if there's a controversy over if it's legal. It *could* be considered breaking rule number 7. --[[User:OSborn|OSborn]] 11:54, 24 December 2005 (CDT)

Swiftswitch was once deemed illegal because it blocked the adverts. Since then this has been changed and Jagex has stated that it is legal, but they do not recommend the use of any 3rd party programs.

== Previous Talk Page was massive ==

So i archived it so like anything new we wanna talk about do it here.
--[[User:Super Quinn|Super Quinn]] 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

== Dragon Hatchet. ==

I thinks it really cool that Runescape finally introduced a Dragon Hatchet to the game, but I was very dissapointed that they didn't create a quest in order to get this hatchet. Having a monster drop it is a pretty lame and lazy way to introduce it. I think RS should pay more attention to what the players are suggesting. There is a lot of fantastic ideas for quests, weapons and what not in the RS forums.

I agree just this page is not for talking about the game,it's for talking about the article an questions/disputes you have. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 19:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

-- 1. the players suggested the hatchet NOT have a quest to get it
2. who wants to do a quest for a stupid drag hatchet, go get a life and do desert treasure instead. they listen to the players so good its not even funny, they get so many thousands of ideas a day though that they cant possibly put them all on the game at once, but they do it peice by peice, and its just a hatchet, pretty soon it wont be that special anymore itll just be a part of the game, do you think its lame that drag sq's chains, legs, meds, and abby whips are ALL dropped by monsters to?---

A hatchet is not armour such as drag sq's chains, legs, meds you lamer. The way to get a drag hatchet should have to do with the players wood cutting skills.

Response from a player:
Many people posted threads in the forums that talked about this situation. The problem with rare items is you have to be patient to get one. If Jagex put them in quests or make them part of a shop it would not be rare anymore. (ANYBODY could get one then, sort of obivious)

Are you retarded? there are several quests where players can get dragon equipment, such as dargon hally, scimitar, dagger and dragon battle axe.

P.S.(Post-Script) Anyway my runescape username is Doomedrusher and if anyone asks me nicely I can tell them almost anything. For example: where do we get free gems??? How to get rich (and I mean REAL rich, not noob rich) real fast??? Where is Onyx??? And many other hard questions that many old RS p2p players don't even know.

Anyone that has been to a Runescape fan site can answer those questions you noob.

Er... Dragon Weapons aren't rare which whereas Dragon Chain, legs, skirt and helm are. The differences if you didn't notice is the armour is through monster drops as opposed to the weapons being accessed through quests. That's how Jagex regulates rarity anyway. Secondly the hatchet is widely regarded as the most pointless update ever made when Jagex confirmed that it is on-par with a standard Rune hatchet when it comes to woodcutting speed and quality. This is precisely why the monetary value of the Dragon Hatchet bombed within days and although you could consider it "rare" hardly anyone cares enough about it with the exception of "hardcore" pkers who are seeking the hatchet's rather amusing "special attack". Now that I've cleared things up, could everyone stop reverting to calling each other "lamers"? sheesh. --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

== Edits for 14:27, 14 November 2005 Someone42 ==

*"Java script (uses applet)" to just "Java applet": using "Java script" is ambiguous because it can refer to [[Javascript]], which is not the same as [[Java]].
*"written" to "implemented": Java isn't fully "interpreted" (as in, source is compiled to bytecode prior to execution), and since programmers don't write in bytecode I think it's wrong to refer to a Java applet as being "written in Java".
*removal of "without having to download and install any programs to their computer": technically, you still have to download the applet, which is a program.

I also removed the "In game banner advertisements" section, as it advocates the potential interference with one of Jagex' revenue streams. The ethics of it has nothing to do with the removal, however Wikipedia doesn't have articles describing how to build a Macrovision killer, or how to rip DVDs, so it shouldn't have instructions on "how to block banners". Those who want to, can look somewhere else. If whoever is adding it really wants to add instructions, make a site and link to it in external links.
[[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 14:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

==Any relation to [[Runescape]] the [[tabletop role-playing game]]?==
They seem very similar with the use of runes instead of "regular" magic etc. Unfortunately I only own the "bad" edition, set in pseudo-Europe and not any of the good books with its own world. Information about the ttrpg is hard to come by on the net, it's all about the java-version. So, is there a connection or have the mmorpg nicked the trademarks of/been inspired by a tabletop game I used to play in the early nineties? Anyway, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on the [[RuneScape]]-pages so a little disambig-note somewhere would be fine. --[[User:Kaleissin|Kaleissin]] 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

:Isn't the game called Heroscape? [[User:Link9er|Link9er]] 14:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

------- there are tons of games that use "runes" instead of regular magic, diablo has runes, gauntlet has runes, theyre everywhere, its just something based on the beginning of rpg's----------

-thanks

== Things to change after the Protected status expires ==

In the introduction, the sentence "''Being a free player on Runescape is one of the worst things possible.''" should probably be removed, or be changed to a NPOV version. Also, the opening sentence claims RuneScape has over ''100,000'' players - I assume this should be over 1,000,000 players, since under [[RuneScape#Overview|Overview]] it claims over 160,000 can be online at peak hours. --[[User:Peruvianllama|PeruvianLlama]]([[User talk:Peruvianllama|spit]]) 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*There are 2,8 Million players in RuneScape, according to the [http://www.jagex.com/corporate/index.ws Jagex Corporate Site]. Also, this should be fixed: "Membership for RuneSCape is US $5.00". But that's just a minor notice. --[[User:Aliensvortex|Aliensvortex]]

Im just removing some of the edits made by somebody who obviously does not like the game such as 'fagex' and 'Low IQ, Non-Existant Frontal Lobe Functions, Fused Cerebellam ,' from the information box. Somebody must have had a bad experiance with the game.

----- i'll take this chance to say that there wouldn't BE 2.8 million players if there wasn't free world, if i never played free i would have never become a member, its like a big sample to get people into the game, nobody's going to pay for a game if they dont even know what it is-------- if they really like the game they can become members, thats where all the cool stuff is anywayz-----

-holocaust (5 year runescape veteran)

==Copyright Picture?==

Is this pictue copyrighted? (''image deleted'') The tip.it website says that nothing on it can be repoduced without consent.
:Yah, looks like it is a copyright vio. I'll go ping the uploader. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a screenshot i took, its not a copyfight vio, becasue the subject isnt a picture, its something you enter text in! Bourbons3 11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

== "High traffic" sites ==

if the site even fails to provide the latest quest guide within a certain period, it just seems that the traffic isn't really high [[User:Gspbeetle|Gspbeetle]] 04:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

== [[King Black Dragon]] ==

The above article was nominated for deletion (the result was to merge it here). I did so, creating a new section called "Monsters", which contains text from the KBD article, as well as from other monsters who have articles. Feel free to edit it at will, or fix any mistakes I may have made (I don't play RuneScape, so...) [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL you wrote an article about a game you dont even play, i would refrain from doing that.... -gravity -5year RS veteran

== NPOV Status Related to Tip.IT ==

I am going to modify the www.tip.it comment as itsn't NPOV in nature.

Philip

== Is it me, or are the fansites blowing up again? ==

I think we are starting to push the bounds of the [[WP:EL|external links]] guidelines. I know [[User:Someone42]] and I had discussed privately before the establishment of an OpenDirectory portal...and I see there is a link to one in that section. Not knowing whats involved to be able to edit there, can I get a consensus reading on whether the list should stay or be pared down significantly. It just seems that we are on a slippery slope, and allowing even one dynamic signature or runescape quest info site leads to a huge list in just a week or two. Thoughts? --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

* Some of them have to go. Maybe some of the not so good signature makers, world switchers,clans and very low-active websites should go. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 22:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
* And who are you to decide which sites are worthly of inclusion and which are not? As long as they are relevent to RuneScape and aren't cheating/scam websites, who cares?[[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 22:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
:: I care. [[Wikipedia:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] an online portal. Wikipedia is not a place to shove anything and everything relevant to a topic in an article. But instead of falling back onto rules and policy, let's look at some examples of other MMORPG pages:
::*[[World of Warcraft]] - 10 non-official sites
::*[[Everquest]] - 25 non-official sites (a lot of them are actually humour sites)
::*[[Final Fantasy XI]] - 4 non-official sites
::*[[Anarchy Online]] - 6 non-official sites
:: At time of writing, RuneScape has 41 non-official links. In my opinion, that's a little excessive. What makes a fansite "recommended" or "other" or "high traffic"? If there are seperate sub-headings for fansites, suddenly the burden of being a "portal editor" falls on the editors of Wikipedia (which is everyone). The number of links has steadily been increasing, so when will it be too many for you? By the examples above, in my opinion 25 is enough.
:: A while ago, I scrapped the entire list of fansites. This was the only way to shorten the list in a non-biased way. That didn't go down very well. So, how about we discuss a method of determining which sites are worthy of inclusion or not. How about we start with: No sub-domain links. No "http://www.example.com/~username" links. The justification here, is that priority should be given to those who have enough commitment to rent a domain name. What do others think?
:: (Note: I am not a RuneScape player, and I certainly do not maintain a RuneScape fansite.)
:: [[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 08:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
**Totally agree with someone42.Way too many,but to choose on website name is sooooo bias. What basically we need to do is consider which websites are useful to a standard player.Useful: very fast on publishing high-quality guides eg.Tip.it
Useful: high traffic sites eg.runehq
Useless: World Changer programs
Useless: Websites which are clans
Useless: Websites which have copied guides
What do you think of that suggestion?[[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 11:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

**Why not get rid of all un-official links alltogether? to simply say that un-official links have the potential to be dangerous to runescape players as they are run by a thrid-party that can pretty much do anything with their site's pages that they please.--[[User:203.55.231.107|203.55.231.107]] 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

** if you say potential, even the offical sites are ''potentially'' dangerous.
note that some fansite (ie:high traffic) provide reference information with greater details, which some are limited by the wiki formating... [[User:Gspbeetle|Gspbeetle]] 09:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

**You can tell which fansites are high traffic by looking at a traffic monitoring site like alexa - here: http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=789099 - if you ignore the forum in australia which isn't rs specific that fairly accurately seems to give the top 6 fansites in terms of traffic. It gives all 5 I already had bookmarked and 1 I didn't, so pretty good way of determining the bigs one fairly. I personally would be in favour of not listing them at all, but if they were to be listed that's a possible criteria to use. [[User:84.12.135.209|84.12.135.209]]

== Members quests ==

Created a members quests page, so its no longer red on the links box at the start of the article. [[Members RuneScape quests|check it out]] - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

where has it gone?? - Bourbons3 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Apparently too large to put in an encyclopedia, not needed. I personally disagree. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

I think we'd better place the infobox 1 step higher, and the first image more below. I feel kind a like annoyed when i see the top of this article.

[[User:SidewinderXP2|SidewinderXP2]] [[User talk:SidewinderXP2|Talk to Me!]] 14 dec 2005 4:41 PM (CEST)

==Member Quests ==

I think they should be added to the free quests page. I was looking up info on them and they werent there anymore =(
 
Note: i added this page useing the code i saw above it, so if its a little messed up sry i hope to fix it soon

[[User:Stoutn|Stoutn]] 16 Dec 2005 2:55 PM (Central Time Zone)

*'''Agree''', a page called Runescape Quests should be created, with a list of both free and members quests.

Disagree: Any idea how large that would be? [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

*Take a look, i created it [[RuneScape Quests|here]] - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 19:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday i edited a part of the text, it currently says there are 105 servers, but i changed it to 106. I play runescape everyday, i know there are 106 worlds, but someone changed it back to 105.

Just thought i would point it out.

[[User:Paul Janaway|maddog]] 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

== RuneScape Quests ==

I have created a [[RuneScape Quests]] article which purely lists the quests for both free and p2p players, describes what a quest is and how difficulty is decided. It '''is not''' a game guide. The [[Free RuneScape quests]] page is also up for deletion, becasue it acts as a game guide (which Wikipedia is not) and is being replaced with the RuneScape Quests page. '''''Becasue of this, the ''These articles are part of the RuneScape series'' box needs to have the Free RuneScape quests page changed to RuneScape Quests''''' - [[User:Bourbons3|Bourbons3]] 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:'''Be Bold''' and change the template [[Template:RuneScapeVertical]] yourself (just make sure you move runescape quests to the right alphabetical order). :) --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 17:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

::i tried to edit it but i couldn't figure out where it is ΨΨΨ --[[User:Cattrain|cattrain]] 19:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

== Categories? ==

Where did the categories all go?... [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

== jagex ==

should jagex be under the runescape series box?

== sms safe? ==

that make it sound like it is %100 safe... nothing online is that safe... inface nothing is that safe at all... i dont see any reason that the word safe shouldn't be changed to "safer than" under the pricing section...
--[[User:Cattrain|cattrain]] 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

== Frequently Vandalised ==

I would like to nominate this article be on the Counter Vandalism Unit's "watch" page - this article suffers from several vandalism attacks per day it seems.
Opinions? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*No. The CVU thing is a joke, and tagging it as "watched by the CVU" will just encourage more vandalism. [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 04:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*Can a Wikipedia admin weigh in on this? Preferably one who doesn't think the CVU is a joke... [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*You may want to create a more generic one for non WikipediA:/User: pages that just says "watched moreso then others" or words to that effect. [[User:68.39.174.238|68.39.174.238]] 05:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Seconded''' The page's been vandalised twice since I've checked last night... --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
** What do you mean a "more generic one"? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
* This page should be marked. So we can keep a watch on it and limit the vandals and change it back so nothing is disturbed. --[[User:Actown|Ac]]'''''[[User talk:Actown|t]][[User:Actown|o]][[Wikipedia:Welcoming_Committee|w]]'''''[[User:Actown|n]] [[WP:EA|e]] 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, a proper summary (other than "CVU is a joke"). Vandalism to this article is reverted reasonably quickly (when it's noticed), and unleashing the combined — and no doubt well-meaning — forces of the CVU is unlikely to cause any improvement over current RC patrolling. So, the only real difference would be a dirty great "WATCHED BY THE CVU" [[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/Watched|tag]] on the article ... and that would do nothing to scare off vandals, but could quite plausibly attract more ("hello! We're getting a reaction!"). There is ''no way in Hell'' that tag gets put on any real articles on Wikipedia.

:The best solution here would be semi-protection, where new users and people without an account cannot edit the article. It's doing wonders for [[George W. Bush]]. Unfortunately, this also means that people who just happen to want to read/write about RuneScape are unable to edit at all, and (unlike George W. Bush) new users and people without accounts add a great deal of the non-vandalistic edits to this article. We're faced with a simple choice: semi-protection, and the benefits (and drawbacks) it brings, or open slather, and the benefits (and drawbacks) there. [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

::Tagging this will be a violation of [[WP:BEANS]] and will attract more vandals. In short, it hurts more than it helps. Also, recognise that the [[WP:CVU]] has no official status within Wikipedia and does not have permission to slap tags all over the place. Any such will likely be removed in mere moments. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] ''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:I agree that semi-protection would be best for this article but I already requested this and was pretty much flat-out denied since the vandalism isn't severe enough. I think we'll just have to keep reverting the vandalism ourselves to be honest. [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

== Discuss links here ==
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam|You can help!]]'')

* Call me biased, but I'd like my own fansite to remain in the "Other Fansites" section.
Just because The Black Hole Experience is not huge doesn't mean it's worthless, and for that matter I don't think any of the other fansite should be "cleaned out" just because they're not mammoth either. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

* But I think non-mammoth web sites should be cleaned out. Otherwise many "rubbish" websites could appear. Only have the top 5 websites on the high-traffic list. Otherwise too many links will appear. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 12:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

== This Article = Vandalism Magnet ==

This article cannot seem to go 2 hours without being vandalised by someone.

I hereby propose that it be protected from vandalism, or protected from anonymous edits.

Comments, please. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I already nominated it for semi-protection. It seems that isn't necessary for this article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=33673503#RuneScape_.28talk_.C2.B7_history_.C2.B7_watch.29| Check the submission out.] [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
* Apparently the people who commented don't monitor this article too closely. [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::Feel free to resubmit. I'll back you up on it if you like. [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

'''I agree.''' It is frequently vandalized, and as a very popular wikipedia article, the rs article needs all the help it can get to remain good.
: If they didn't listen to you, why would they listen to me? [[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::If you resubmitted and other people backed you up your petition would carry more weight. But then, Wikipedia is not a democracy so I don't know... [[User:Kevin Mulligan|Kevin]] 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Agree''' As I said before, the page is being trashed enough. Signing here so that it'll count for this section --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 03:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

: I think the concern for administrators is that since this article is the target of ''constant'' vandalism, semi-protection will either have to be indefinite or else it would just be a superficial temporary break (which won't really stop vandalism, as it will just continue after protection expires).
: However, you could argue that, since school has ended for the vast majority of people who do go to school, the increased vandalism is just a result of immature kids having more idle time. Certainly, the rate of vandalism reverts has increased sharply over November and December. The only problem is, school doesn't start until about 2 months, and you will probably not have much luck asking for 2 month protection. So I'm really not sure how we can deal with the barrage of vandals. Maybe we should start a "Project RuneScape" to get [[RuneScape]] onto more watchlists? (As a side note, such a project would have the benefits of cleaning up the RuneScape articles.) [[User:Someone42|Someone42]] 07:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:Hm... If there was a filtering of edits by a team of dedicated members of this section I'm sure it would eliminate or minimise vandalisation, of course it would be player controlled but I get the feeling that would pratically turn it into a fanpage/site if in the wrong hands? --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 10:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

*I semi-protected this article. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] . o º O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]]) 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Agree''' with protection. This article gets an unusually high amount of regular vandalism, and something needs to be done then just reverting the vandals' edits. - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==Conflicting RS2 Release Date==

In the main RS article, it says that RS2 (RS3D) was released on March 29th. Later in the article, in the ''History and Development'' section, it says that it was released on March 17th. Which one is correct, if either?
* March 29, 2004 is when RS2 exited Beta and launched fully live.[[User:Shadowdancer|Mike]] 04:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

-[[User:russoc4|Russoc4]]

==It should be noted somewhere in the article that some fan sites will deliberatly give you a virus or keylogger to steal your account and anyhting else they can steal. Anyone that uses fan sites will eventually get hacked.==

You are obviously a fool, since a) your second sentence is untrue and b) you wrote that whole thing as a title. [[User:Vimescarrot|Vimescarrot]] 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

'''False''' Seriously, legitimate fansites (i.e: Rsbandb, tip.it, Runehq) do not contain viruses or keyloggers nor do they steal or hack your account. Illegitimate fansites are blatantly obvious as they ask for your username/password. That being said if you're asked for your account name don't give it, if in doubt... etc. --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

==violation of wiki rules==
Not allowing people to change the main article is a violation of wiki rules. Why not just lock all the Wikipedia articles? because it would no longer be a wiki thats why.

*But vandalism is also a violation of wiki rules. This articlle uently vandalized by people that either don't like RS or people who play the game and think that they are better than the article or people that have nothing better to do. The RS article was put under protection so only registered, active members can edit it. This protection might have been removed. It should not have been.

- [[User:Russoc4|Russoc4]]
**If people keep vandalising a page, it should be protected for a limited amount of time to help prevent future vandalism - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Millionth topic pool

2006-01-14T20:58:17Z

Bourbons3: /* Film */ Jaws 24

This is a non-serious pool for predicting the title of the millionth article (as defined by the official article count presented on the [[Special:statistics]], and determined by the powers that be) in the [[Wikipedia|English Wikipedia]]. The person who comes closest to the actual topic is the winner (bonus points for guessing the exact title). The current number of articles in the English Wikipedia: '''{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}'''. This poll will close when the 975,000th article is created.

Other milestone pools that are still open include the following: [[Wikipedia:Two-million pool]], [[Wikipedia:Five-million pool]], [[Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool]], and '''[[Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool]]'''.

Add subheadings below as necessary, but try to keep them nonspecific and in line with current Wikipedia subcategories, and in '''''alphabetical order''''' at every level.

An example guess would be: [[Anatomy of David Hasselhoff's right shoulder]], which might go under the subheadings: Science/Biology/Anatomy.

Please do not create useless ([[as of 2006]]) articles just because they are listed on this page.

<center>''' You may make up to 3 guesses. '''</center>

=Culture=
==Art==
* [[List of artists named after a Boohbah]] (I like [[Boohbah]]!) [[User:Scott Gall|Scott Gall]] 07:58, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
** And so does my son, who is in bed while I'm still up editing Wikipedia. [[User:NazismIsntCool|[[User:NazismIsntCool|Nazism isn't cool]]]] 08:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[Michél the Mechanic]] (an recently uncovered Beano comic strip that lasted three issues in 1942, or something) [[User:BillyH|Billy]][[User talk:BillyH|H]] 13:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Culture of Isle of Wight]]--[[User:Wonderfool|Wonderfool]] [[User talk:Wonderfool|t]][[Special:Contributions/Wonderfool|(c)]][[Special:Emailuser/Wonderfool|e)]] 08:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[Harm Kamerlingh Onnes]]

==Arts==

*[[List of lower case characters of the Latin alphabet between 'r' and 't']] [[User:Scott Burley|<nowiki></nowiki>]]-- [[User:Scott Burley|Scott]] [[User talk:Scott Burley|''eiπ + 1 = 0'']] 07:29, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

===Comics===

*[[List of Marvel Comics characters to have been resurrected]] [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
** Pretty much covered at [[comic book death]], no? --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] July 7, 2005 17:14 (UTC)
*[[List of Marvel Comics characters who have been busted in drugs raids]] -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new Talk] [[Image:Uk flag large.png|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 12:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Phil Sandifer]] [[User:Jacqui M Schedler|Jacqui]] [[User_talk:Jacqui M Schedler|★]] 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
* [[Jerk City]] [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] ([[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]) 18:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

==Entertainment==
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion]] --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 14:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[The Gay Nigger Association of America eating apple pie and performing autofellatio]] [[User:Scott Burley|<nowiki></nowiki>]]-- [[User:Scott Burley|Scott]] [[User talk:Scott Burley|''eiπ + 1 = 0'']] 07:55, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
*[[SPUI violates the three guess rule]] --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 05:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[RfC of User:Project2501a vs User:SPUI for violating the threee guesses rule]] -- [[User:Project2501a|Project2501a]] 14:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Gay Nigger Association of America]] after being deleted and recreated [[User:BrokenSegue|'''B'''roken]][[User talk:BrokenSegue|'''S'''egue]] 03:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: ...for the tenth time. --[[User:Barista|Barista]] | a/k/a マイケル | [[User_talk:Barista|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Barista|C]] 12:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[Jimmy Wales ON WHEELS!]] [[User:Hedley|Hedley]] 03:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:* Excuse me, what does phrase ''... on wheels'' mean? I can't find a wikipedia article about it...
::* It's a parody of "Willy on Wheels", a notorious Wikipedia troll. [[User:JIP|— JIP]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 12:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of crimes Michael Jackson has been found guilty of]] [[User:Kinitawowi|Kinitawowi]] 15:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of celebrities known to harbour gnomes in their ear cavities]] [[User:Eixo|Eixo]] 10:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of celebrities known to harbor Michael Jackson songs in their ear cavities]] --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] 30 June 2005 07:33 (UTC)
* [[List of children in the world that Michael Jackson has not slept with]] [[User:Midster|Midster]] 09:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[2008 child molestation trial of Michael Jackson]] [[User:Columbia|Columbia]] 12:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
*[[People who may have been Michael Jackson's parents]] --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez]] [[User_talk:Nintendorulez|(talk)]] 23:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Revelations that Schapelle Corby is male]] [[User:203.167.171.115|203.167.171.115]] 5 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)
*[[List of plausibly illiterate celebrities]] --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] July 7, 2005 17:19 (UTC)
*[[List of celebrities without breast implants]] --[[User:Fallout boy|Fallout boy]] 11:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of people or things known as the 800-pound gorilla of something]] --anonymous
*[[Gay Nigger Association of America ON WHEELS]] --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 20:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
===Attractions===
* [[World's largest ball of Anna Nicole Smith's navel lint]] --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 01:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** [[World's second-largest ball of Anna Nicole Smith's navel lint]] (ha!) [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]][[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]] 05:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Festval of AAAAARGBLBLBLBLBLBLBL!]] --{{User:No Toppings}}

===Film===
* [[The Land Before Time 249]] [[User:BillyH|Billy]][[User talk:BillyH|H]] 13:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Final Destination III: The Final Final Final Destination]] [[User:AngryParsley|AngryParsley]] 05:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** [[Final Destination IV: No, We Really Mean it This Time, Honest]] [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]][[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]] 05:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***[[Final Destination V: The Rube Goldberg Death Machine Strikes for the Eighty Fifth Time]] [[User:Jasongetsdown|Jasongetsdown]] 21:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
* [[Half-Life: Revenge of Gordon Freeman]] [[User:Jasongetsdown|Jasongetsdown]] 21:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
* [[Red Dwarf: The Movie]] [[User:Kinitawowi|Kinitawowi]] 15:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Star Wars Episode XI: Attack of the Wookiees]] [[User:Android79|android]]↔[[User talk:Android79|talk]] 23:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Star Wars Episode XI 1/2]]: [[Chewbacca Defense|Defense of the Chewbaccas]] -- [[User:Brhaspati|Brhaspati]]\[[User talk:Brhaspati|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Brhaspati|contribs]] 22:52, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
* [[Star Wars Episode XII: Destruction of Froode]]
*[[Rambo XXXVII: Death to the Sequels!]] - [[User:Pax|Pax]] 05:40, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Jennifer Lopez' Oscar sweep]], wherein she takes home the [[Academy Award]] for Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, Best Song, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay for her autobiopic ''[[Painful Celebration of Mediocrity: The J-Ho Story]]''.
*[[Star Wars XXI: Skywalker Performs Autofellatio]] [[User:203.167.171.115|203.167.171.115]] 5 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)
*[[The Adventures of Several People - The Movie]]
*[[Jaws XLVII: It's A Big Fish, You See, That Eats Everybody]] [[User:Dralwik|Dralwik]] 02:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[Jaws XLVIII: It's Getting Annoying]] [[User:Dralwik|Dralwik]] 02:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[Jaws XLIX: Shoot Me Please]] [[User:Dralwik|Dralwik]] 02:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[Jaws LI: Call the Shedd Aquarium]]
*[[American Mummies (film)]] -- [[User:Snargle|Snargle]] 00:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[The Zimbabwean Connection]] -- [[User:Snargle|Snargle]] 00:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[E.T. vs. Predator]] --[[User:Fallout boy|Fallout boy]] 11:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[Star Trek XI: The Trouble with Boohbahs]] -- [[User:Enzo Aquarius|Enzo Aquarius]] 14:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[Ender's Game-The Motion Picture]] ----[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 12:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
*:That would be [[Ender's Game (film)]]. [[User:Thue|Thue]] | [[User talk:Thue|talk]] 16:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417148 Snakes On A Plane] --- [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 06:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
*:We've had [[Snakes on a Plane]] since [[4 October]] [[2005]].-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 08:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Samurai Champloo movie]] --[[User:Cyde|Cyde]] 20:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

*[[Crazy Frog (movie)]] --[[User:Abe Lincoln|Abe Lincoln]] 18:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[King Kong II: The Empire State Strikes Back]] -- [[User:BL Lacertae|BL]] [[User talk:BL Lacertae|kiss the lizard]] 10:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[Spiderman 537: We've Run Out of Villains for Him to Fight, So We'll Just Have Him Punch Julia Roberts. That Always Gets Lots of Laughs.]]
*[[Jaws 24: Jaws in the year 3000]] - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 20:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

===Literature===
* [[Carendor]] (fictional place from a book by fantasy author [[Ian Irvine]]) -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 07:49, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Great Hall (Central building of the city of Portent on the layer of Mungoth in the plane of Gehenna in the Planescape campaign setting for the Dungeons and Dragons role-playing game)]] [[User:64.12.117.10|64.12.117.10]] 12:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[Harry Potter and the Hairy Doom Apples from the 22nd Dimension of Some Crazy Shag Carpet His Mom Forgot to Throw Away Last Summer]] [[User:Pax|Pax]] 05:42, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Tangler]] (science fiction weapon) --[[User:Targi|Targi]] 03:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[Fassin Taak]] (character from an [[Iain M. Banks]] novel) --[[User:OpenToppedBus|OpenToppedBus]] - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|My Talk]] 16:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Harry Potter and the Unspeakably Awful Death]] --[[User:Rspeer|RSpeer]] 15:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Harry Potter and the Deus Ex Machina]] --[[User:Rspeer|RSpeer]] 15:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
* [[The Last Dangerous Visions]] (ed. [[Harlan Ellison]]) --[[User:Dell Adams|Dell Adams]] 07:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of Literature Banned by the UN Cultural Affinity Program of 2012]] [[User:Djgranados|Djgranados]] 01:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[The Thickheaded Idiot's Guide to Stupid Unintelligence for Brainless Dummies, Part III]] --[[User:Berney|Berney]] 21:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

===Poetry===
* [[Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning]] by [[Master Grunthos the Flatulent]] [[User:Project2501a|Project2501a]] 14:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[Ode to an Offline BitTorrent Tracker, or How I Miss Thee Mine Warezing Peers--oh Hello Officer...]] [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]][[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]] 05:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Music===
* [[Ashlee Simpson's right shoulder]] [[User:Grue|Grue]] 12:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Mariah Carey's second lymph node]] [[User:Jacqui M Schedler|Jacqui]] [[User_talk:Jacqui M Schedler|★]] 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of celebrities with right shoulders smaller than Ashlee Simpson's]] [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]][[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]] 05:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[2006 Ashlee Simpson Pokemon Cerulean Promotion]], subsequently moved to [[2006 Ashlee Simpson Pokemon Cerulean Promotion ON WHEELS!!]] --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] 30 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)
* [[Backstreet Boys Revival]] [[User:Rentastrawberry|Rentastrawberry]] 03:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
* [[Chris Cornell's Tiny penis falls off]] --[[User:Jobe6|Jobe]][[User talk:Jobe6|6]] 05:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Ella Fitzgerald sings the Ramstein Songbook]] [[User:Gareth E Kegg|Gareth E Kegg]] 01:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of pop songs in Esperanto]] --[[User:NeilTarrant|Neo]] 19:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of songs that are 30 seconds or less]] --[[User:GVOLTT|G VOLTT]] 15:46, Apr 25, 2005(UTC)
*[[List of heavy metal songs recorded by accordion bands]] [[User:Denni|Denni]][[User_talk:Denni|☯]] 2005 July 5 02:19 (UTC)
* [[Maxeen]] --[[User:GVOLTT|GVOLTT]] 15:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
* [[No Warning]] --[[User:GVOLTT|GVOLTT]] 15:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)-- am I the only one taking this seriously?
**Yes. See the fourth and fifth words in this article... ;) [[User:Kinitawowi|Kinitawowi]] 22:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Spice Girls Reunion Tour 2010]] [[User:ParkingStones|ParkingStones]] 22:54, 22 Mar 2005
* [[Teenage girls get a clue-the death of Pop music]] - [[User:Pax|Pax]] 05:45, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Teenage girls get a clue - the death of pop music ON WHEELS!!]] [[User:203.167.171.115|203.167.171.115]] 5 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)
*[[List of people who have played guitar sitting on a WC while defecating]] (I am one of these) --[[User:Army1987|Army1987]] 14:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[Silent Night (Mariah Carey song)]]. [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] 18:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

===Sports===
* [[2007 World Baseball Championship]] [[User:Android79|android]]↔[[User talk:Android79|talk]] 23:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of professional baseball teams in the Bronx with multibillion-dollar payrolls]] --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] 30 June 2005 07:33 (UTC)
* [[Barry Bonds homicide trial]] -- [[User:Android79|android]]↔[[User talk:Android79|talk]] 06:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Boohbah Throwing at the 2028 Olympic Games]] [[User:NazismIsntCool|NazismIsntCool]] 10:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Stefanova-Kramnik World Chess Championship match]] (See [[Antoaneta Stefanova]] and [[Vladimir Kramnik]]).-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 23:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[TaylorMade r12 Driver]] --[[User:Edsmilde|EDsmilde]]
*[[Downhill skating]] (the fastest non-motor sport on the planet) [[User:Denni|Denni]][[User_talk:Denni|☯]] 2005 July 5 02:20 (UTC)
*[[Rollerfucking]] (couldn't resist a [[George Carlin]] quote, heh!) -- [[User:Cjmarsicano|Cjmarsicano]] 05:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

===Television===
*''[[Fast Animals, Slow Children]]''. [[User:Evil Monkey|Evil Monkey]]∴[[User talk:Evil Monkey|Hello]] 05:40, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
*''[[Law & Order: Small Claims]] --[[User:Tydaj|Tydaj]] 03:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*''[[CSI:Random Location]]'' [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 04:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*''[[Star Trek: Series VI]]'' - [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 01:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*''[[World's Deadliest Live Executions III]]'' -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 18:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[Battlestar Galactica Redux Redux]] [[User:Maximusnukeage|MaximusNukeage]] 22:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
*''[[Who Wants to be a Milllionaire hosts perform autofellatio while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance]]'' (not that it will ever happen) [[User:Scott Gall|Scott Gall]] 08:03, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
*''[[Who Wants to be a Millionaire hosts perform autofellatio while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and wiping their butt with the Chinese flag]]'' [[User:Barely There|Barely There]] 11:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*''[[Who Wants to be a Millionaire hosts perform autofellatio while reciting the pledge of allegiance and wiping the dog's butt with the Chinese flag]]'' [[User:HellRaiser|HellRaiser]] 04:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*''[[When Ex-presidents Attack!]]'' [[User:Proto|Proto]] 10:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*''[[CSI : Scunthorpe]]'' --[[User:Simoncursitor|Simon Cursitor]] 12:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*''[[When Soccer Moms Attack!]]'' [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]][[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]] 05:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of characters killed off in Coronation Street 3-Hour Finale before the BBC changed their minds and filmed one last series]] [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]][[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]] 05:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of characters killed off in Coronation Street 3-Hour Finale before the ITV changed their minds and filmed one last series]] [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 1 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
* 2006 Emmy Awards Ceremony --[[User:Barista|barista]] 4 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
*[[Survivor: Winnipeg]] [[User:Denni|Denni]][[User_talk:Denni|☯]] 2005 July 5 02:23 (UTC)
* [[Survivor: Marriott]] "Oh god! We're out of foie gras!" [[User:Jasongetsdown|Jasongetsdown]] 21:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
*''[[CSI: My Bowel]]'' [[User:Getcrunk|getcrunk]] 6 October 2005 22:35 (UTC)
*''[[When Rejected Contestants of Survivor and The Apprentice Attack!]]''- [[User:JustPhil|JustPhil]] 21:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
*''[[CSI: Gary]]'' <-- Man, that show could run for, like, 27 seasons. --[[User:OneofThem|OneofThem]] 01:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of Star Trek actresses who appeared in Playboy]] [[User:80.126.130.198|80.126.130.198]] 23:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of recycled Star Trek redshirts]] [[User:80.126.130.198|80.126.130.198]] 23:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Guys, its over, give up (South Park episode)]], an episode of [[South Park]] where the kids confront Terrance and Phillip for turning their beloved show into a sounding board for whatever topic is pissing them off this week, thereby resulting in episodes that are no longer funny or charming and become hopelessly dated in less than a month. [[User:Youngamerican|Youngamerican]] 14:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Ghost in the Shell SAC 3rd Gig]] --[[User:Cyde|Cyde]] 20:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[ITV3668989780787868565324367899765432]]- the newest channel from [[ITV]]
*[[24, season 24]] --[[User:Berney|Berney]] 21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of Digimon-related coupling flamewars]] -- [[User:Birdboy2000|birdboy2000]] 9:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of seasons of The Amazing Race that haven't visited Antarctica]] --[[User:CrazyLegsKC|CrazyLegsKC]] 18:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[Law and Order: Salem, Massachusetts]] SHE'S A WITCH!!! [[User:Staxringold|Staxringold]] 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[The final ever episode of The Simpsons]] (it'll be part of season 20- or 30-something, I believe) - [[User:Andrewh|Andrew]] 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[Some Kind of Show on Public Broadcating Hosted by That British Guy]]

===Theatre===
*[[Osama Bin Laden: The Musical]] -- [[User:BL Lacertae|BL]] [[User talk:BL Lacertae|kiss the lizard]] 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

===Video games===
* [[Albert Gore Emulation Software]] -- [[User:One Salient Oversight|One Salient Oversight]] 13:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Dwarf Fortress]] by Bay 12 Games - will be out by then. [[User:Grue|Grue]] 12:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Image Flight]] ([[NES]] game put out by [[Irem (company)|Irem]] in [[1988]].) --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 13:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Confirmed release date of Duke Nukem Forever]] - it'll be here soooon... [[User:Alphax|Alphax]] [[User talk:Alphax|τ]][[Special:Emailuser/Alphax|ε]][[Special:Contributions/Alphax|χ]] 08:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Final Fantasy XXIX]] - That's what it'll be up to by the 1,000,000th article... 29... ;) --[[User:WikiFan04|WikiFan04]] [[User_talk:WikiFan04|Talk to me.]] 13:20, 2 Apr 2005 (CST)
* [[Pokémon Light Magenta]] [[User:Hedley|Hedley]] 02:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[Pokémon Dark Brown]] [[User:Greyhead|Greyhead]] 17:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Pokémon Taupe]] [[User:EamonnPKeane|EamonnPKeane]] 18:40, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Pokémon Periwinkle]] [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]][[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]] 05:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[Blizzard Entertainment announces release date of StarCraft 2]] - This one will happen after #999,999: [[Confirmed release date of Duke Nukem Forever]] - [[User:Arathon|Arathon]] 15:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[Pokemon Romanian Tricolor]] (of course) [[User:Barely There|Barely There]] 11:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[Grand Theft Auto: Santa Ana]] --[[User:Evanwohrman|Evanwohrman]] June 28, 2005 03:58 (UTC)
* [[Red Vs. Blue episode guide: Season 5]] --[[User:Antilived|antilived]] 09:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

* [[List of black comedians named Whoppi]]

==Religion==
* [[Microsoft (church)]]. [[User:Demi|Demi]] [[User_talk:Demi|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]] 01:35, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
* [[List of failed Christian Raptures]] [[User:Dangerous Angel|Dangerous Angel]] 23:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of people believed to be Sauron]] (from [[Talk:Javier Solana]]) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] [[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]] 13:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of people confirmed to be Sauron]] --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 23:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of people killed by Sauron]] [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]][[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]] 05:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[The Holy Church of Atheism]] {{User:Mathx314/sig}} 23:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[What I got for Christmas 2006]] [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] 13:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of acts not considered sinful by any faith]] [[User:EamonnPKeane|EamonnPKeane]] 18:48, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
* [[The Holy Romanian Church of McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, and Pizza Hut]] [[User:Jesus Lover|Jesus Lover]] 05:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of Jewish Popes]] [[User:Rentastrawberry|Rentastrawberry]] 17:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Media coverage of Christ's Second Coming]] --[[User:209.6.213.17|209.6.213.17]] 4 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
*[[Saint Dwayne]] (I was going to suggest [[Saint Kevin]] but discovered he's real) --[[User:OpenToppedBus|OpenToppedBus]] - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|My Talk]] 16:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Alleged Satanic influence in Wikipedia]] --[[User:BrainInAVat|BrainInAVat]] 00:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC), [[User:Kinneyboy90|Эйрон Кинни]]
*[[First Church of Oprah]] [[User:PMC|&spades;P]][[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|M]][[Special:Contributions/Premeditated Chaos|C&spades;]] 19:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC), [[User:Kinneyboy90|Эйрон Кинни]]
*[[Saint Andre Bessette]]--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 12:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of idiots claiming to be of the Jedi faith in the census]]--[[User:Mkns|Mkns]] 20:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of Jewish chronic masturbators]] [[User:Youngamerican|Youngamerican]] 21:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Church of the Pope, est. 2010]], [[User:Kinneyboy90|Эйрон Кинни]] 00:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

==Philosophy==

* [[Classical definition of lesbianism]] [[User:Demi|Demi]] [[User_talk:Demi|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]] 01:54, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
* [[Intro to Philosophy Student Drowns Derrida]] [[User:Jasongetsdown|Jasongetsdown]] 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

=Geography=
*[[List of Disneyworlds in Andorra]] (see [[WP:BJAODN]] ) --[[User:NeilTarrant|Neo]] 17:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[Walmart (country)]] --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 14:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of Indian cowboys]] (pertains to boys in India who herd cows). -- [[User:Brhaspati|Brhaspati]]\[[User talk:Brhaspati|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Brhaspati|contribs]] 01:12, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
*[[Every country except Romania is a lie!]] --[[User:Amanaplanacanalpanama|Amanaplanacanalpanama]] 08:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**How do you know? (But because I live in Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan isn't a lie either) [[User:HellRaiser|HellRaiser]] 04:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of countries with autofellatio somewhere in their name]] [[User:HellRaiser|HellRaiser]] 04:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[History of Robonia]] [[User:The wub|the wub ]] [[User_talk:The wub|(talk)]] 15:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Every country except Romania is the truth!]] [[User:218.101.117.164|218.101.117.164]] 28 June 2005 04:50 (UTC)
*[[Every country except Moldova is a lie!]] [[User:Communism is Stupid|Communism is Stupid]] 00:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*[[Campoloniano]] (The part of [[Rieti]] where I live, [[Orders_of_approximation#Zeroth_order_approximation|roughly]] 104 inhabitants) --[[User:Army1987|Army1987]] 13:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikivania]] more properly called The Distributed Republic of Wikivania --[[User:Barista|Barista]] | a/k/a マイケル | [[User_talk:Barista|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Barista|C]] 12:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

=History=
* [[New England War of Independence]] -- [[User:Birdboy2000|birdboy2000]] 21:51, 17 December 2005(UTC)
* [[Korean War II]] --[[User:Shultz|Shultz]] 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
:...Electric Boogaloo --[[User:Barista|Barista]] | a/k/a マイケル | [[User_talk:Barista|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Barista|C]] 12:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
* [[The 2008 Dollar Collapse]] [[User:Preisler|Preisler]] 00:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[2007 Breakup of Russia]] [[User:24.247.85.157|24.247.85.157]] 22:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[February 2006 Scotland War of Independence]] --[[User:Mark J|Mark J]] 13:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[Breakup of the United States]] -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 04:16, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
* [[Famous Estonian soldiers in the Winter War]]. [[User:JIP|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — JIP | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 14:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[Global real estate crash of 2006]] [[User:Dave6|Dave6]] 06:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[2006 Breton Revolution]] (causes Brittany to gain Independence from France) [[User:24.247.85.157|24.247.85.157]] 22:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**It won't happen that easily. [[User:HellRaiser|HellRaiser]] 04:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[U.S. plan to invade Iran]] -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 02:36, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
* [[December 21, 2005 - Assassination of George H. W. Bush]] --[[User:Mark J|Mark J]] 13:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
*[[Destruction of the Earth]] [[User:Nickptar|Nickptar]] 20:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[Human colonization of Mars]] — [[User:Pladask|Pladask]] 06:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
**See [[Colonization of Mars]]; did you really think we wouldn't have that? :).--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 03:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
*[[Martian colonization of Earth]] [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]][[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]] 05:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Texan invasion of Estonia]] (a.k.a. "The spammer's War") [[User:Mikez|\Mikez]] 08:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[Military history of Antarctica]]--[[User:Wonderfool|Wonderfool]] [[User talk:Wonderfool|t]][[Special:Contributions/Wonderfool|(c)]][[Special:Emailuser/Wonderfool|e)]] 08:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[Rise of the machines]] written by [[User:Skynet]] --[[User:BjarteSorensen|BjarteSorensen]] 02:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[Resignation of President Rivers]] [[User:Dmn|Dmn]] '''/''' [[User talk:Dmn|Դմն]] 10:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[Life before google]] --[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 04:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[English court intrigues(1221)]] --[[User:Fornadan|Fornadan]] 00:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[2005 U.S. invasion of Vermont]] cuz bush is too stupid to realize it's part of the U.S. [[User:Stancel|Stancel]] 02:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
*[[Lindsay Lohan Memorial Nuclear Power Plant Disaster]] [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanGerbil10]] 18:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
*[[Partial Nematode Incident]] {{User:Eequor/Signature/Syllabic}} 03:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of gaffes committed by George H. W. Bush during his 2006 Trip to Japan]] He throws up on the Primes Minister. Like father, like son. [[User:24.14.99.196|24.14.99.196]] 04:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Operation: Let Freedom Rise]] [[User:Gerritholl|Gerrit]] [[Special:Contributions/Gerritholl|C]][[User:Gerritholl|U]][[User_talk:Gerritholl|T]][[Special:Emailuser/Gerritholl|E]][[Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Gerritholl|D]][http://topjaklont.student.utwente.nl/ H] 13:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[2007 Google purchase of New Hampshire]] [[User:Proto|Proto]] 10:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Greek-Bolivian War of 2007]] [[User:EamonnPKeane|EamonnPKeane]] 18:47, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Military history of Oceania]], [[Military history of Eastasia]] or [[Military history of Eurasia]] [[User:Wikiacc|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikiacc|a]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikiacc&action=edit&section=new c][[Special:Contributions/Wikiacc|c]] 22:20, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
*[[2006 Alien invasion of Earth]] (Country music turns out to be an alien weakness) [[User:Midster|Midster]] 06:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[2006 Wikimedia takeover of Britannica]] [[User:HellRaiser|HellRaiser]] 04:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[2007 Secession of New York City]] --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl build]][[User_talk:Ctrl_build|talk]] [[Image:Columbia_SEAS.GIF|15px|]] 21:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
** Article apparently already exists. Sorry [[New York City secession]] --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl build]][[User_talk:Ctrl_build|talk]] [[Image:Columbia_SEAS.GIF|15px|]] 21:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***I'll be sure to update it too!--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 03:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
*[[The Detroit Uprisings (2007)]] against the establishment of [[The Secure Homeland of these United States]] [[User:68.236.56.59|68.236.56.59]] 20:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) (aka [[user:autopilots]])
*[[Taiwan War]] --[[User:BrainInAVat|BrainInAVat]] 3 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
*[[Californian Revolution]] [[User:CrazyLegsKC|CrazyLegsKC]] 03:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*[[Aztlan movement reclaims U.S. Southwest for Mexico]] yeah, right... like it's ever going to happen! --[[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[User_talk:Titoxd|xd]] 06:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[Tongan Coup D'etat]]--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 12:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
*[[Queen Camilla Civil War]]- Camilla is crowned Queen, sparking civil war in the UK
* [[South Jersey Sells North Jersey to New York]] [[User:American Patriot 1776|American Patriot 1776]] 19:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[2006 devolution of Cornwall]] smurrayinchester([[User:Smurrayinchester|User]]), ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|Talk]]) 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[2006 invasion of Cornwall]] smurrayinchester([[User:Smurrayinchester|User]]), ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|Talk]]) 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[2006 global conquest by Cornwall]] smurrayinchester([[User:Smurrayinchester|User]]), ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|Talk]]) 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[U.S. Invasion of Canada]] [[User:Pogoman|Pogoman]] 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

=Life=
*[[Wikipedia achieves sentience]], as the amount of information reaches critical mass, an [[emergent]] [[artificial intelligence]] will form. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_>|<]] 12:37, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
:*Bloody hell, and we won't have even hit 1.0 by then... ～[[User:Jiminy Krikkitt|'''J''']].'''[[User talk:Jiminy Krikkitt|K]]'''. 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

==Death==
* [[Death-related humor]] --anonymous 6:41 4 June 2005 (UTC)
==Education==
* [[Wikipedia]] --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 14:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of rumors about that fat kid in my 9th period class]]. {{User:Mathx314/sig}} 23:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[Martin Luther King Jr. Grammar School]] – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User talk:ClockworkSoul|'''Soul''']] 17:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[St. Mary's School]] I'm putting ''all'' my bets on education: this entry gets 2,710,000 google hits. Of course the real article will have (Lodi, NJ) or something as part of the title-- do I still win? -- [[User:Mwanner|Mwanner]] 17:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Sacred Heart School]] This one's good for 4,420,000 goggle hits. -- [[User:Mwanner|Mwanner]] 17:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Not if you use double quotes around your search, as you should do. "Sacred heart school" gets 86500 hits... [[User:Fram|Fram]] 10:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
* [[John Smith (Asst. Prof.)]] ''John Smith Asst. Prof.'' only gets 94,000 google hits, but I figure average professors are likely to get past the deletionists in higher proportions than elementary and secondary schools -- [[User:Mwanner|Mwanner]] 17:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
*Wikipedia's Millionth Article [[User:Werdna648|Werdna648]] 02:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[Saint John Paul II Parish Pre-School and Day Care Center]] --[[User:RussBlau|Russ Blau]] [[User_talk:RussBlau|(talk)]] 19:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia purchase of Encyclopædia Britannica]] ～[[User:Jiminy Krikkitt|'''J''']].'''[[User talk:Jiminy Krikkitt|K]]'''. 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

==Family==
*[[Your mom]] --[[User:83.240.1.254|83.240.1.254]] 16:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Food and drink==
* [[Imitation Soylent Green]] --[[User:Demi|Demi]] [[User_talk:Demi|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]] 01:47, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
**It's mannequins! Imitation Soylent Green is mannequins! [[User:Flatluigi|Flatluigi]] 01:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Uncle Joe's Mint Balls]] --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of people who like pie]] -- [[User:Brhaspati|Brhaspati]]\[[User talk:Brhaspati|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Brhaspati|contribs]] 01:02, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
* [[List of people who brought pie]] -- [[User:PeepP|PeepP]] 18:47, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
* [[:category:People who like Pie]] --[[user:Celestianpower|Celestianpower]] [[user talk:Celestianpower|hab]] 23:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
* [[Schweddy Weiners]] --[[User:Barista|barista]] 4 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
* [[Beijing-Cola]] --[[User:Brecht|Brecht]]
* [[Venezuelan Beaver Cheese]] [[User:Klassobanieras|Klassobanieras]] 18:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
* [[The difference between pi and pie]] --[[User:Berney|Berney]] 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

==Freedom==

*[[The return of Nicolae Ceaucescu and the death of all languages except English]] [[User:NazismIsntCool|NazismIsntCool]] 11:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of people who know how to spell correctly Nicolae Ceausescu]] [[User:Bogdangiusca|Bogdan]] | [[User talk:Bogdangiusca|Talk]] 22:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of people who can't spell Nicolae Ceausescu]] [[User:Stancel|Stancel]] 02:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
*[[Human rights abuse of persons named Nicolae Ceausescu]] [[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]{{unicode|↔}}[[User_talk:Sasquatch|{{unicode|讲}}]]{{unicode|↔}}[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|{{unicode|看}}]] 16:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Human rights abuse of persons who can't spell Nicolae Ceausescu]] [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] ([[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]) 18:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Human Rights abuse in Jan Mayen]] [[User:Mixcoatl|Mixcoatl]] 00:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
*[[Human Rights abuses in Timisoara by Traian Basescu]] [[User:Jesus Lover|Jesus Lover]] 05:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Human rights abuse in Chisinau]] [[User:Communism is Stupid|Communism is Stupid]] 00:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*[[Human rights abuse in Cincinnati]] [[User:Proto|Proto]] [[User_talk:Proto|t]] 
*[[List of users executed for breaking the three revert rule]] [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 21:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

==Health==
*[[Circumcision isn't cool]] [[User:Scott Gall|Scott Gall]] 08:14, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
*[[The role of lavender in contraception]] [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] 13:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Impact of the 2007 bird flu pandemic in Finland]] [[User:OpenToppedBus|OpenToppedBus]] - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|My Talk]] 11:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

==Hobbies==
* [[Autofellatio in the Vatican]] --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 14:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of autofellatio related topics]] - [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] 07:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Ass to mouth sales and chart positions]] -- [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 05:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Causing psychological trauma by making people listen to late 90's bubblegum pop]] --[[User:Thephotoman|Thephotoman]] 19:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

==Home==
* [[Health risks of positron-powered household appliances]] -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]]

==Interpersonal relationships==
* [[Jennifer Anistons' marriage to Angelina Jolie]] [[User:Preisler|Preisler]] 00:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[People whose marriages have lasted less than one week]]. [[User:JIP|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — JIP | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 05:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of celebrities by number of divorces]] [[User:Alphax|Alphax]] [[User talk:Alphax|τ]][[Special:Emailuser/Alphax|ε]][[Special:Contributions/Alphax|χ]] 08:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[:Category:People Rush Limbaugh has divorced]]. [[User:Steinsky|Joe D]] [[User talk:Steinsky|(t)]] 05:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

==Pets==

*[[First animal to become Wikipedia administrator]] [[User:NazismIsntCool|NazismIsntCool]] 11:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**Aren't humans animals? [[User:BrokenSegue|'''B'''roken]][[User talk:BrokenSegue|'''S'''egue]]
***In a way, yes. [[User:Barely There|Barely There]] 12:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[First Human Banned by a chicken]] [[User:Stancel|Stancel]] 02:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
*[[Leet Academy for Cats and Dogs]] [[User:Barely There|Barely There]] 12:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[First Cow to become the autofellatio redirect vandal]] [[User:Jesus Lover|Jesus Lover]] 05:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[First Penguin to become Willy on Wheels]] [[User:218.101.117.164|218.101.117.164]] 28 June 2005 04:45 (UTC)
*[[First monkey to cast a VFD vote]] [[User:Communism is Stupid|Communism is Stupid]] 00:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

==Time==
* [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}]] {{User:Oven Fresh/sig}} 23:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=Mathematics=

* [[List of all lists which are not lists of themselves]] [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus]] 03:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Interesting, but [[Wikipedia:Father_of_the_bride_of_bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense#Impossible_list|already been done]]. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) July 3, 2005 09:57 (UTC)
* [[Recursive topic disease|Recursive topic disorders]] [[User:DurtyWilly|Durty Willy]] 08:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of all non-self swallowing lists]] (shortly thereafter the server blew up) [[User:BrokenSegue|'''B'''roken]][[User talk:BrokenSegue|'''S'''egue]] 22:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**Alas, this one's already been done, with a name like "List of all lists which do not refer to themselves"; the server stubbornly refused to blow up -- well, no more than usual, anyway. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 07:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
***Maybe better done as categories: [[:Category:all self referential Categories]] and [[:Category: all non self referential Categories]] to make the server blow these both need to be automatically generated. --[[User:Pfafrich|Pfafrich]] 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[1+1=3]] --[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 05:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** this has already been prooven for sufficiently large amounts of 1. [[User:Project2501a|Project2501a]] 13:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Proof of Hilbert's 16:th problem (Kindergarten level)]] [[User:Mikez|\Mike(z)]] 08:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[Proof that P = NP]] — [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 01:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** Only if N=0. [[User:NazismIsntCool|{{Template:NazismIsntCool/sig}}]] 07:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*** If you take it as a normal polynomic equation, as you seem to have done, that should be "only if N=1". "P=NP" is false if N is 0 and P is not 0. But what "P=NP" usually refers to is more complex, see [[Complexity classes P and NP]]. [[User:JIP|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — JIP | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 11:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[1=0]] [[User:Wikiacc|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikiacc|a]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikiacc&action=edit&section=new c][[Special:Contributions/Wikiacc|c]] 22:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of ways mathematics has destroyed human brains]] [[User:Purplefeltangel|Purplefeltangel]] 30 June 2005 03:44 (UTC)
*[[-4^2=-16]] - [[User:Acetic Acid|Ryan]] 07:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Whatchamacallit (mathematics)]] [[User:PeepP|PeepP]] 19:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
*[[0=1]] - [[User:RPharazon|RPharazon]] 23:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Proof of Riemann Hypothesis]] --[[User:Army1987|Army1987]] 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
* [[Approximately greater than or equal to]] - A symbol that I reckon I coined --[[User:Dangherous|Dangherous]] 23:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
** I've seem something like this used in a statistics paper once. --[[User:Pfafrich|Pfafrich]] 00:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

=Science=
==Astronomy==
*[[T and J's time travel debate.]]
*[[Painful Astronomical Objects]] --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl build]][[User_talk:Ctrl_build|talk]] [[Image:Columbia_SEAS.GIF|15px|]] 07:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[The one hundred most advanced civilizations in the Local Group]] [[User:Smartech|Smartech]] 00:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Biology==
* [[Anatomy of Ashlee Simpson's nose]] [[User:Szyslak|/sɪzlæk]][[User talk:Szyslak|˺/]] 23:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
** Shouldn't that be [[Design and construction of Ashlee Simpson's nose]]? [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 03:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
*** I think that would qualify as an engineering topic --[[User:Barista|Barista]] | a/k/a マイケル | [[User_talk:Barista|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Barista|C]] 12:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
* [[Evolutionary phylogeny]] --[[User:Cyde|Cyde]] 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of suspected cancer causing agents]] -- [[User:Kinitawowi|Kinitawowi]] 15:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of substances suspected not to cause cancer]] - [[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 01:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[DD Boobs]] [[User:Maximusnukeage|MaximusNukeage]] 22:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[Janet Jackson's 23rd Piercing]] - This [[Janet Jackson]] [[Clitoris piercing|piercing]] will be televised live on [[MTV]] and will finally settle debate over what photographic image to include in [[clitoris|this article]]. --[[User:Memenen|Memenen]] 04:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

==[[Computer Science]]==
* [[Donald Knuth]] produces [[The Art of Computer Programming, 4th Volume]] [[User:Project2501a|Project2501a]] 13:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[Information darwinism]] the same way as [[social darwinism]] but with computers!
* [[Information darwinism ON WHEELS!!!!!]] actually. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 01:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

==Linguistics==
* [[List of all possible palindromes in every language, including made up languages like Klingon, and JJARBOGGOBRAJJ, the language where every word, phrase, and paragraph must be a palindrome]] It starts, of course, with --[[User:Amanaplanacanalpanama|Amanaplanacanalpanama]] 08:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* [[List of languages by number of words for "corpse"]] -- anonymous 17:32 28 June 2005 (UTC)

* [[Old Welsh]] --[[User:Dangherous|Dangherous]] 23:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

==Sexuality==
* [[List of Republican celebrities in the closet]] --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[MIKE SMITH IS REALLY GAY]] [[User:Yelyos|Yelyos]] 00:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
* [[MIKE SMITH IS NOT GAY]] --[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 05:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of naked Natalie Portman statues covered in Hot Grits]] --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 23:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
:: I AM PETRIFIED, YOU INCESTITIVE CLOD! [[User:Project2501a|Project2501a]] 13:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Category:[[Girls with Phat Booties]] [[User:Maximusnukeage|MaximusNukeage]] 22:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of men who Vin Diesel has slept with]] [[User:Stancel|Stancel]] 02:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[Robot sexuality]] -- anonymous 15:08 11 June 2005 (UTC)
:Man! The Millionth article isn't so far ahead! [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 20:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Economic Benefit of the Impregnation of Schoolgirls]] -- [[User:Jack Cain|Jack Cain]] 23:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[The Puritan Joy of Sex]] -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new Talk] [[Image:Uk flag large.png|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 12:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[The Jimbo Wales Orgy]] - [[User:Acetic Acid|Ryan]] 07:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Redwolf24, one sexy beast]] - [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]] 04:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of the first countries to ban heterosexual marriage]] --[[User:Fallout boy|Fallout boy]] 11:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[Trisexuality]] ([[User:A.K.A.47|Ahkayah cuarenta y siete]] 20:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC))
*[[List of dates when members of Morning Musume lost their virginity]] [[User:Cjmarsicano|Cjmarsicano]] 18:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[LGBTQIABBQWTF]] [[User:Jacqui M Schedler|Jacqui]] [[User_talk:Jacqui M Schedler|★]] 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of people who have enjoyed having sex with Al Gore]] [[User:D-Rock|D-Rock]] 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

==Chemistry==

*[[List of drugs known to cause paranoia]] --[[User:Jimius|Jimius]] 01:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of paranoia disorders known to produce drugs in bloodstream]] (note: please keep article separated from [[List of drugs know to cause paranoia|List of drugs]] article to avoid [[recursive topic disease]])--[[User:DurtyWilly|Durty Willy]] 07:53, 30 Mar 205 (UTC)
*[[Untriquadium]]. [[User:Grue|Grue]] 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of Countries that still use oil]] [[User:Rentastrawberry|Rentastrawberry]] 01:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Element 151]] --[[User:Astrowob|Astrowob]] 20:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[Element 150.5]]: [[User:Saga City|Saga City]] 16:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[Omega (molecule)]] [[User:Mikez|\Mike(z)]] 08:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Medicine==
*[[Common cold vaccine.]]
*[[2006 shortage of common cold vaccine in the United States]] --[[User:TantalumTelluride|TantalumTelluride]] 23:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

==Physics==
* [[List of U.S cold fusion plants]] [[User:Preisler|Preisler]] 00:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* The [[Small bang theory]] --[[User:NeilTarrant|Neo]] 19:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* ''[[Quantum Mechanics For Dummies]]'' --[[User:BrainInAVat|BrainInAVat]] 17:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

==Meteorology==
*[[Hurricane ♫]] --[[User:TantalumTelluride|TantalumTelluride]] 04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Effects of Hurricane Omega on Los Angeles]] [[User:Szyslak|{{IPA|sɪzlæk}}]] [ [[User talk:Szyslak|+t]], [[Special:Contributions/Szyslak|+c]], [[Special:Emailuser/Szyslak|+m]], [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|+e]] ] 06:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

=Society=
==Awards==
* [[First Winner of the World Autofellatio Championships]] {{User:Mathx314/sig}}
** Me.
***Does the non-existent autocunnilingus count? [[User:NazismIsntCool|{{Template:NazismIsntCool/sig}}]] 12:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of Winners of the World Autofellatio Mixed Doubles Championship]] --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 23:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
* [[The "Liquor at the Front - Poker at the Rear" Award for Signage]]: [[User:Saga City|Saga City]] 16:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC) (with apologies to [[Rich Hall]]

==Business==
*[[McDonald's bankruptcy and liquidation]] [[User:Szyslak|/sɪzlæk]][[User talk:Szyslak|˺/]] 22:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wallmart's bankruptcy and liquidation]] [[User:BrokenSegue|'''B'''roken]][[User talk:BrokenSegue|'''S'''egue]] 22:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[The rise and fall of Google]][[User:Sir George Athelstone II|Sir George Athelstone II]] 23:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
*[[Apple buys out Microsoft]]--[[User:OneofThem|OneofThem]] 00:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of companies that have not yet been taken over by Microsoft]]. Should be a fairly short article.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''[[User:SoothingR|Soothing]][[User talk:SoothingR|''R'']]''' 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

==Politics==
* [[The Decline of Neoconservatism]] [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 04:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
* [[Clone of once upon a time US-President runs his 2 terms (again?)]] [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 08:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of Massachusetts-based constitutions]]. [[User:Birdboy200|birdboy2000]] 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
* [[Communist influences in nation constitutions]]. [[User:JIP|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — JIP | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 14:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Fall of Neoliberalism]] --[[User:Mark Lewis|Mark Lewis]] 17:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Involuntary settlements in Sealand]] [[User:Nickptar|Nickptar]] 20:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Jesse Ventura presidential campaign, 2008]] - [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 01:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of 21st century leaders of the United Kingdom Conservative Party]]: [[User:Saga City|Saga City]] 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
* [[North Korean naval blockade of Sealand]] -- [[User:One Salient Oversight|One Salient Oversight]] 13:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[People's Republic of America]] — [[User:Evil Monkey|Evil Monkey]]∴[[User talk:Evil Monkey|Hello]] 03:18, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
* [[People's Republic of America nuclear assault on Sealand]] (sorry, couldn't resist the combination) -- [[User:Nickptar|Nickptar]] 01:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[Social Security reinstatement]] --[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 01:53, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Socialist Democratic Party of North Korea]] — [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 01:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[North Korean Republic of Mexican People's Republic of America]] [[User:Stancel|Stancel]] 02:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
*[[2007 communist takeover of Jupiter]] [[User:218.101.117.164|218.101.117.164]] 28 June 2005 04:48 (UTC)
* [[2006 Elections of Niger]] [[User:Scott Ritchie|Scott Ritchie]] 08:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
* [[Pink state vs. purple state divide]] --[[User:Taejo|Taejo]] | [[User talk:Taejo|Talk]] 09:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
* [[African Nazi Party]] [[User:Ud terrorist|Ud terrorist]] 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of people enslaved by Grand Emperor Jimbo]] --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
**See [[Special:Listusers]].-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
***As soon as I saw your edit summary, I immediately thought you'd provide a link to Wikipedia or something. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of indicted Republican majority leaders in 2006]] [[User:Phl|Phl]] 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
* [[German reseparation]] --[[User:Abe Lincoln|Abe Lincoln]] 18:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
* [[The great anti-ringtone riots]] --[[User:Abe Lincoln|Abe Lincoln]] 18:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

===Politicians===
* [[George W. Bush's third term as President of the United States]] --[[User:Tydaj|Tydaj]] 03:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[Jimmy D. Wales presidential campaign, 2008]] [[User:Scott Burley|<nowiki></nowiki>]]-- [[User:Scott Burley|Scott]] [[User talk:Scott Burley|''eiπ + 1 = 0'']] 07:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of assassination attempts against Hillary Clinton]] - [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] 07:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of assassination attempts by George W. Bush]] [[User:Hedley|Hedley]] 02:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of trepanations performed on George W. Bush by date]] - [[User:One Salient Oversight|One Salient Oversight]] 05:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of lies George W Bush has said]] this list spans 1000s of pages [[User:Stancel|Stancel]] 03:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of Wars George W. Bush Has Started]][[User:Toonmon2005|Toonmon2005]] 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
* [[Michael Crutchfield]] [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 14:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)#
* [[Michael Easley, Jr.]], son of presidential candidate [[Mike Easley]] - [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 01:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, two-spirited, intersex, queer, questioning, and straight allied members of the U.S. Republican party]], with [[LO-LGBTTTIQQA-MotUSRP]] as a redirect. [[User:Func|<tt>func</tt>]][[User_talk:Func|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 05:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of people suspected to be George W. Bush]] [[User:Scott Burley|<nowiki></nowiki>]]-- [[User:Scott Burley|Scott]] [[User talk:Scott Burley|''eiπ'']] 07:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of transexual, black, bisexual and Communist former Presidents of the United States]] [[User:Midster|Midster]] 09:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* [[Communist takeover of America in 2006]] - [[User:RPharazon|RPharazon]] 23:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Al Gore reveals he is indeed a robot]]. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[User_talk:Titoxd|xd]] 22:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
* [[The great downfall of George Bush and Tony Blair]] [[User:Andrewh|Andrew]] 12:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
* [[Ariel Sharon runs America]] [[User: MG|MG]] 09:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

* [[List of African American presidents of the United States]] — [[User:Haeleth|Haeleth]] [[User_talk:Haeleth|Talk]] 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
* [[Jeb Bush's first term as President of the United States]] - [[User:BL Lacertae|BL]] [[User talk:BL Lacertae|kiss the lizard]] 10:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

=Sport=
==[[Baseball]]==
*[[Rafael Palmeiro's admission of steroid use]]. --[[User:Pkirlin|PKirlin]] 04:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Rafael Palmeiro is cleared of accusations of using steroids]]. --[[User:Pkirlin|PKirlin]] 04:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Julio Franco's Baseball Records (age 84)]] --[[User:Pkirlin|PKirlin]]

==[[Cricket]]==
*[[Origin of that black spot on the back of Andrew Flintoff's head]]. Seriously, what is that? ([[User:A.K.A.47|Ahkayah cuarenta y siete]] 20:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC))
*[[The New South Wales conspiracy theory]] [[User:Rogerthat|Rogerthat]] 08:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

==[[Olympic Games]]==
*[[List of events at 2012 Olympics not won by Jay Leno]] ([[User:A.K.A.47|Ahkayah cuarenta y siete]] 20:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC))
* [[Butter Churning at the 2008 Olympics]] -[[User:Drdisque|Drdisque]] 18:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* [[Lasertag at the 2008 Olympics]] -[[User:Drdisque|Drdisque]] 18:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* [[Paris Hilton at the 2008 Olympics]] -[[User:Drdisque|Drdisque]] 18:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

==[[Football]]==
*[[Australian 2006 World Cup victory]] [[User:Col tom|Colonel Tom]] 11:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[The Day when the Rest of the World Realized how stupid, slow and boring the game of Soccer was and started playing sports that Americans Play]]--[[User:Gamingboy|Gamingboy]] 22:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of Houston Texans in the Football Hall of Fame]] [[User:Mikemoto|Mikemoto]] 12:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[Malcolm Glazer takeover of Manchester City]] [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 00:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[49ers Win the SuperBowl]]. [[User:Sebastiankessel|Sebastian Kessel]] ''[[User_talk:Sebastiankessel|Talk]]'' 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata wins the Argentine First Division title]]. [[User:Sebastiankessel|Sebastian Kessel]] ''[[User_talk:Sebastiankessel|Talk]]'' 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[Houston Texans perfect season]] – [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

=Technology=
* [[Cellphones cause cancer]]  [[User:Alkivar|'''ALKIVAR''']]™[[Image:Radioactive.png|18px|]] 01:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[The Great Five Minute Wikipedia Downtime of 2006]] [[User:BillyH|Billy]][[User talk:BillyH|H]] 13:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of polders in Florida]] [[User:24.247.85.157|24.247.85.157]] 22:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[Microsoft Firefox]]. [[User:Evil Monkey|Evil Monkey]]∴[[User talk:Evil Monkey|Hello]] 05:41, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Mozilla Internet Explorer]] --[[User:Logixoul|logixoul]] 09:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
* [[Sock Puppet Wiki Revolution of April 1, 2005]] --[[User:JimCollaborator|JimCollaborator]] 17:47, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
* the [[New Orleans pressure dome]] (to keep the water out) -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 16:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[IPod nanoprobe]]--Due to software limitations, the name of this article is incorrect. The actual name should be '''iPod nanoprobe'''. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl build]][[User_talk:Ctrl_build|talk]] [[Image:Columbia_SEAS.GIF|15px|]] 15:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of Mediawiki software limitations]] --[[User:Samohyl Jan|Samohyl Jan]] 09:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of English Wikipedias using UTF-8]] —[[User:Jleedev|Josh Lee]] 20:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
* [[10nm microprocessor technology]] -- [[User:microtony|microtony]] 12:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of tasks that can't be performed on a mobile phone]] ''(an ever-shrinking list)'' --[[User:Phlip|Phlip]] 01:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[mobile phones get voting rights]] (after being granted citizen-status (or is this politics?or sociology?)); votings rights not granted to mobile-phone-users anymore! [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 14:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of document formats that Evince cannot render]] (an ever-shrinking list) —[[User:Jleedev|Josh Lee]] 22:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
* [[IPod Porn]] - [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 16:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
**As of right now, we have this -- sort of. [[Porncasting]] [[User:Jacqui M Schedler|Jacqui]] [[User_talk:Jacqui M Schedler|★]] 08:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
* [[Ford Trinity (Spacecraft)]] [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid]] 13:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of orbiting hotels]] [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid]] 13:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
* [[Google OS]] - [[User:RPharazon|RPharazon]] 23:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of mobile phones longer than half an inch]] (and in a time where our kids won't even know that people in the 1980s and early 1990s used mobiles like housebricks, and when the size of microchips are not measured in [[nanometre]]s but rather in [[attometre]]s, this list will be tiny). [[User:Andrewh|Andrew]] 13:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
* [[IPod Pico]] - The new iPod Pico that is half the size of nano and intergrated cell phone on it!! =) --[[User: Antilived|antilived]] [[User_talk:Antilived|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Antilived|C]] 04:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
* [[IPlay]] - The Revolutionery next-gen portable gaming console that also is an iPod by Apple --[[User: Antilived|antilived]] [[User_talk:Antilived|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Antilived|C]] 04:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
* [[Cyberfood]] --[[User:Dangherous|Dangherous]] 23:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
* [[Teletubbies do Dallas]] --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 14:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
* [[Meta-template invasion of 2006]] ～[[User:Jiminy Krikkitt|'''J''']].'''[[User talk:Jiminy Krikkitt|K]]'''. 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

=Me=

*[[Matt Yeager]], right after I cure cancer (or win three consecutive lotteries, or assasinate someone, or otherwise become notable). [[User:Matt Yeager|Matt Yeager]] 05:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
* [[The God of War fanclub]]--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

=Self-referential=
These articles are not valid in the article namespace under current policies. They will be moved to the wikipedia namespace shortly after creation.

*[[Growth of Wikipedia]]
*[[Milion and first topic pool]] [[User:Tommylommykins|tommylommykins]] 19:21, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Eleventy-billionth topic pool]] [[User:Nickptar|Nickptar]] 02:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of Wikipedia Lists]] – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User talk:ClockworkSoul|'''Soul''']] 17:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**Take a look at [[Wikipedia:List of lists]]. About 8480 in number (and ever-growing). [[User:BjarteSorensen|BjarteSorensen]] 13:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of Wikipedia lists that do not contain themselves]] [[User:Bfinn|Ben Finn]] 17:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**I allready wrote that, see above. [[User:BrokenSegue|This link is]] [[User talk:BrokenSegue|'''B'''roken]] 21:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**ROFL! See [[Russell's_paradox]] for explanations. --[[User:Targi|Targi]] 18:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of Nobel Prize winners actively contributing to Wikipedia]]-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 00:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[RickK's administrator resignation]] --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 12:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio 11]] – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User talk:ClockworkSoul|'''Soul''']] 17:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jimbo Wales]] -- [[User:Alphax|Alphax]] [[User talk:Alphax|τ]][[Special:Emailuser/Alphax|ε]][[Special:Contributions/Alphax|χ]] 09:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of encyclopedias with over one million articles]] —[[User:EatMyShortz|EatMyShortz]] 11:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia trolling phenomena]] [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|T@lk]] 21:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of encyclopedias with exactly one million articles]]--[[User:Wonderfool|Wonderfool]] [[User talk:Wonderfool|t]][[Special:Contributions/Wonderfool|(c)]][[Special:Emailuser/Wonderfool|e)]] 08:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[Military History of Wikipedia]] -- [[WP:COTW|COTWmeister]] 12:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of self-referring lists]] [[User:Mixcoatl|Mixcoatl]] 14:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of Wikipedias with over eleventy-billion articles]] [[User:Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ]]) 15:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[Earl Andrew Washburn]] -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 23:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of lists listing less lists than any list listing this list]] — [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 01:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of lists that list lists that list lists of lists]] [[User:Stancel|Stancel]] 03:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of lists that list lists that aren't lists of self-referential lists]] --[[User:Mark J|Mark J]] 13:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of articles that this list does not list]] —[[User:Jleedev|Josh Lee]] 05:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
* [[Unusual lists of usual pages]] [[User:Mixcoatl|Mixcoatl]] 00:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[List of people who have made more than 3 guesses in the Millionth topic pool]] [[User:Mixcoatl|Mixcoatl]] 00:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia:Only logged in users can edit]], because of ongoing vandalism. [[User:Gerritholl|Gerrit]] [[Special:Contributions/Gerritholl|C]][[User:Gerritholl|U]][[User_talk:Gerritholl|T]][[Special:Emailuser/Gerritholl|E]][[Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Gerritholl|D]][http://topjaklont.student.utwente.nl/ H] 13:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Wikipedia statistics]]
* [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Why we gave up]] [[User:Phlip|Phlip]] 01:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[BrokenSegue violated the 3 guess rule]] [[User:BrokenSegue|This link is]] [[User talk:BrokenSegue|'''B'''roken]] 04:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is#Wikipedia is a democracy]]. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_>|<]] 12:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia scrapped at article # 999,999]]--[[User:Amanaplanacanalpanama|Amanaplanacanalpanama]] 08:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia in Klingon]] -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new Talk] [[Image:Uk flag large.png|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 12:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**Actually, there '''is''' a Klingon version of Wikipedia. - [[User:Sikon|Sikon]] 17:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Wikipedia in [[Leet]] -- [[User:Glome83|Glome83]] 21:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] - [[User:Sikon|Sikon]] 17:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
** That one already exists, but [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] does not. [[User:Sietse Snel|Sietse]] 10:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
*[[Meta-Meta-Wikipedia]] - [[User:Sikon|Sikon]] 17:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of deleted Wikipedias]] - Because some are already on the way to being deleted, and someone will get the bright idea to cut costs by deleting 'not notable' languages from Wikipedia's purview. [[User:Almafeta|Almafeta]]
*[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America 11]] - I swear, they will never stop trying to get rid of that page. And they will never succeed.
--[[User:TexasDex|TexasDex]] July 1, 2005 06:28 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Gay nigger associations for deletion]] [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] ([[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]) 18:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
** a/k/a GNAD (huhuhuh...he said gnads) --[[User:Barista|Barista]] | a/k/a マイケル | [[User_talk:Barista|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Barista|C]] 13:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[This is the millionth topic]] - [[User:microtony|microtony]] 14:33, 1 July 2005 (UTC)
*[[Millionth Post]]!!! --TexasDex
*[[Zachary Harden]] - [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 08:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
*Some junk article that is going to end up [[WP:AFD|AFD]]'d or [[WP:CSD]]'d. You'll see!!!! [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[User_talk:Titoxd|xd]] 23:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
*The millionth article will be a type of vandalism, it will be deleted, but literally, that will be the millionth article. I guess something that would go for Speedy deletion, like a stupid n-n bio. [[User:Encyclopedist|Encyclop]]'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]'''[[User:Encyclopedist|dist]][[User_talk:Encyclopedist| (talk)]] 16:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm ''so'' going to be on Wikipedia as it reaches 999,999 articles, then reload the page. The [[Main Page]] will then say that they have 2,574,953 articles because so many people will be trying to make the millionth topic. [[User:OneofThem|OneofThem]] 00:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Public apology to users]] for all those out there who are addicted. --[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]]) 21:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Y1000K Bug]] --[[User:68.255.163.63|68.255.163.63]] 03:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[List of people who have tried to sue Wikipedia]] --[[User:joshurtree|josh]] ([[User talk:joshurtree|talk]]) 03:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
*I have my bet on it being a redirect page. --[[User:Barista|Barista]] | a/k/a マイケル | [[User_talk:Barista|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Barista|C]] 13:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[Willy on Wheels (CEO of Wikipedia)]] [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool rulebook]]. [[User:Steinsky|Joe D]] [[User talk:Steinsky|(t)]] 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[2006 Wikipedia userbox controversy]] [[User:Quaque|Quaque]] ([[User talk:Quaque|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Quaque|contribs]]) 11:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[[Category: Wikipedia humor]]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 14

2006-01-14T20:41:08Z

Bourbons3: /* Template:Linkimage */ Keep

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 14

2006-01-14T20:39:31Z

Bourbons3: /* Template:Sprotected-small */ Delete

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 14

2006-01-14T20:36:39Z

Bourbons3: /* Template:User Google */ Speedy keep

List of assassination attempts

2006-01-14T17:44:35Z

Bourbons3: added Queen Victoria attempts

This is a list of assassinations that have failed. They are arranged in order of the targets. The names of failed assassins then follow.

{{listdev}}

* [[Charles de Gaulle]], President of France - [[Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry]]
* Prince Regent [[Hirohito]] of Japan - [[Namba Daisuke]] (27 December 1923)
* [[Adolf Hitler]] - [[Claus von Stauffenberg]] (through a time [[bomb]] at the [[Wolfsschanze]] on [[July 20]] [[1944]])
* [[Pope John Paul II|John Paul II]] - [[Mehmet Ali Ağca]] ([[1981]])
* [[Alexandre Millerand]], President of France - [[Gustave Bouvet]]
* [[Napoleon III]], Emperor of the French - [[Felice Orsini]]
* [[Richard Nixon]], U.S. President - [[Samuel Byck]]
* [[Qin Shi Huang]], first Chinese emperor - [[Jing Ke]]
* [[Ronald Reagan]], U.S. President - [[John Hinckley Jr.]] (1981)
* [[Joseph Sieff]] - [[Ilich Ramírez Sánchez|Carlos (the Jackal)]] ([[1973]])
* [[George Wallace]], [[governor]] of [[Alabama]] - [[Arthur Herman Bremer]] ([[1972]])
* [[Victor Yushchenko]], [[President of Ukraine|President]] of [[Ukraine]] - unknown ([[dioxin]] poisoning [[Viktor_Yushchenko#Dioxin_poisoning|attempt]] while he was opposition candidate prior to his presidency in [[2004]])
*[[Gerald Ford]], U.S. President - [[Sarah Jane Moore]]
*President [[Roosevelt]] by Italian [[Giuseppe Zangara]] [[1933]] killed [[Chicago]] mayor [[Anton Cermak]] but failed to kill FDR
*[[Harry Truman]] by [[Puerto Rican]] immigrient [[Oscar Collazo]] and [[Griselio Torresola]]. Torresola was shot and killed.
* [[Hasina Wajed]], Former Prime Minister of [[Bangladesh]] and Leader of the Awami League opposition party. (2005)
*[[Queen Victoria]] - [[John Francis]], [[John William Bean]] (both 1841, seperate attempts)

Torvill and Dean

2006-01-14T15:12:45Z

Bourbons3: added image

User:UBX/User SAAB

2006-01-14T13:17:33Z

Bourbons3: made SAAB bold

<div style="float: left; border: solid #A39990 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #000066;" |[[Image:Saab.png|43px]]
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user drives a '''[[Saab Automobile|SAAB]]'''.
|}
</div>

User:UBX/IOC

2006-01-14T13:16:47Z

Bourbons3: made International Olympic Committee bold

<div style="float: left; border:solid lightred 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: white;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #ff8888; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | IOC
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user is a member of the '''[[International Olympic Committee]]'''.
|}</div>

User:UBX/BBC Radio 1

2006-01-14T13:16:43Z

Bourbons3: made BBC Radio 1 bold

{{Userbox
|border-c = #000
|border-s = 1
|id-s = 24
|id-c = #000000
|id-fc = #ffffff
|info-s = 10
|info-c = #ffffff
|info-fc = #000000
|id = 1
|info = This user thinks '''[[BBC Radio 1]]''' is worth the licence fee alone.}}
[[Category:User BBC Radio 1]]

User:Holek/Userboxes/skateboarding

2006-01-14T13:15:12Z

Bourbons3: subst

<div style="float: left; border:solid #333333 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #999293;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #333333d; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | '''[[Image:Horizontal Skateboard.jpg|50px]]'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | <center>This user enjoys '''[[skateboarding]]'''.
|}</div>

User:UBX/Cycling

2006-01-14T13:12:04Z

Bourbons3: made "cycle" bold

<div style="float: left; border:solid {{{1|#F9F}}} 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: {{{2|#e6e6fa}}};"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: {{{1|#CCF}}}; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|12}}}pt; color: #000;" | '''{{{3|[[Image:Zeichen 237.png|40px]]}}}'''
| style="font-size: 9pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #4b0082;" | {{{4|This user just LOVES to '''[[cycling|cycle]]'''!}}}
|}</div>

<includeonly>
[[Category:Wikipedians who love to cycle|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</includeonly>

[[Category:Wikipedians who love to cycle]]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas

2006-01-14T13:11:14Z

Bourbons3: /* Userboxes Ideas */ moved scuba diver idea to Done

{{WP:UBX}}

Got an idea for a [[WP:UBX|'''userbox''']]? Post it here! Remember to '''sign off your name''' using four tildes ('''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''').

:''Moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Userboxes]]:''

==Userboxes Ideas==

===To do===
* Type of workout program (<del>weight lifting, track</del> [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports#Sports Users Participate In|here]], Pilates, etc)
* Specific skill sets that are constructively helpful in contributing to the Wiki encyclopaedia. [[User:AlMac]]|[[User talk:AlMac|(talk)]] 09:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*:Such as? -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*Levels of (non)-notability of wikipedians (babel-style), including wikipedians who do not wish to be notable, those who are indifferent, those who'd like to be notable, those who are almost notable, and those who are notable. [[User:Andjam|Andjam]] 02:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
'''''Please add new ideas to the bottom of this list'''''

===Done===
* <del>ITV Franchises</del> --- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests|here]]
* <s>Wikipedians that do or don't believe in santa </s> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Type of school (e.g. Primary, Secondary, University)</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Beyond this, sports in which you participate</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <s>British Political Parties </s> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Age Groups</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <s>Dog Owners - </s>'''DONE''' [[Template:User Dog Owner|here]]
* <del>What emotions that Wikipedians are in</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/User Emotions|here]]
* <del>Favourite Colour</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Users that drink lots of water to stay hydrated due to the fact that they exercise</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Water Drinker|here]]
* <s>Users that do not own any pet </s>-- '''DONE [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets|here]]'''
* <del>More sport in which users participate (e.g. cross-country, track, baseball, table tennis, recreational running, tennis<, trap, skeet, volleyball, cheerleading, swimming, soccer (for Americans), archery, wrestling, basketball, etc.)</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports|here]]
*<del>Wikimood in Userbox</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/User Emotions|here]]
*<s>This user is interested in [[family history]]</s>-- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Family History|here]]
*<s>[[ColdFusion]] developers. [[User:Aeverett|Wrathchild]] 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User cf|here]]
* <s>Card games you play or just that you play cards --[[User:Think Fast|Think Fast]] 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)</s> '''DONE'''
*<s>This user is [[Visual impairment|short sighted]]</s> '''DONE''' [[Template:User Short Sighted|here]]</s>
*<s>Internet Service Providers Userbox -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet Service Providers|here]]</s>
*<s>This user has a [[hearing impairment]] or This user is [[deaf]]<s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Hearing Impairment|here]] and [[Template:User Deaf|here]]
*<s>"This user uses Wikipedia at work" and a Wikiproject:Texas box :)</s> -- -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Wikipedia at work|here]] and [[Template:User Wikiproject Texas|here]]
*<s>This user has a [[heart condition]]</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Heart Condition|here]]
*Seasonal userboxes:
**<s>New Years Day</s> -- '''Already exists''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Seasonal#January|here]]
**<s>Burns Night (Scotland)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Burns Supper|here]]
**<s>Easter</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Non-Religious Easter|here]] and [[Template:User Religious Easter]]
**<s>April Fools Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User april fools day|here]]
**<s>Mothers Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User mothers day|here]]
**<s>Europe Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Europe day|here]]
**<s>Father's Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User fathers day|here]]
**<s>World's Aids Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User World AIDS Day|here]]
*<s>Internet Service Providers (BT Broadband, NTL, Telewest, AOL, Homechoice, Rogers & more)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet Service Providers|here]]
*<s>User Website -- This user has a website and the link is <nowiki>[[The user website is here]]</nowiki></s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User website here|here]]
*<s>Big Brother Userbox (This user is [[Big_Brother_%28UK_TV_series%29|Big Brother]] Fan and the Image should be Human Eye or BB Text) --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Big Brother|here]]
*<s>User box for [[m:Association of Apathetic Wikipedians]], not that I care or anything :)[[User:Searchme|Joe I]] 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User AoAW|here]]
*<s>Expand on [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food]] [[User:Morgan695|Morgan695]] 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE'''
*<s>TV Service Providers (Freeview, Sky Digital, NTL, Telewest, Homechoice & more)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media#TV Provider|here]]
*<s>What type of newspaper they read (Broadsheet, Tabloid, Berniler, Compact & more) --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media#Newspapers|here]]
*<s>What major newspapers they read --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media#Newspapers|here]]
*<s>Hi. I'm not much of an artist, so I wonder if someone could create a scuba diver userbox for me? It should go into the Sports section and I'd like a tag line something like "This user is a certified scuba diver". Would be much appreciated! --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 10:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Scuba Diver|here]]
'''''Please paste completed template ideas to the bottom of this list'''''

==Comments on Userbox Ideas==

----

User:UBX/Cricketer

2006-01-14T13:10:15Z

Bourbons3: made "Cricket" bold

<div style="float: left; border:green 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: lightgreen;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: darkgreen; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | '''[[Image:Cricket_ball_G&M.jpg|40px]]'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user plays '''[[Cricket]]'''.
|}</div>

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports

2006-01-14T13:09:40Z

Bourbons3: /* Sports Users Participate In */ added User Scuba Diver template

===US Sports===
See '''''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/US Sports]]'''''.

===Football (soccer)===
See '''''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Football]]'''''.

===Rugby Union===
See '''''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Rugby Union]]'''''.

===Rugby League===
See '''''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Rugby League]]'''''.

===Australian Rules Football===
See '''''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Aussie Rules]]'''''.

===Cricket===
{| class="wikitable"
!Code
!Result
|-
|{{tl|user Australian Cricket Team}}||{{user Australian Cricket Team}}
|-
|{{tl|user Bangladesh Cricket Team}}||{{user Bangladesh Cricket Team}}
|-
|{{tl|Black Caps}}||{{Black Caps}}
|-
|{{tl|user India cricket}}||{{user India cricket}}
|-
|{{tl|user Superseries}}||{{user Superseries}}
|}

==Sports Users Participate In==
{| class="wikitable"
!Code
!Result
|-
|{{tl|user Footballer}}||{{user Footballer}}
|-
|{{tl|user American Footballer}}||{{user American Footballer}}
|-
|{{tl|User Cricketer}}||{{User Cricketer}}
|-
|{{tl|User Baseball Player}}||{{User Baseball Player}}
|-
|{{tl|user Basketball}}||{{user Basketball}}
|-
|{{tl|user Bowling}}||{{user Bowling}}
|-
|{{tl|User Cheerleader}}||{{User Cheerleader}}
|-
|{{tl|User Cross Country}}||{{User Cross Country}}
|-
|{{tl|user curler}}||{{user curler}}
|-
|{{tl|user Cycling}}||{{user Cycling}}
|-
|{{tl|user dancing}}||{{user dancing}}
|-
|{{tl|user Golfer}}||{{user Golfer}}
|-
|{{tl|user Hockey}}||{{user Hockey}}
|-
|{{tl|User Recreational Runner}}||{{User Recreational Runner}}
|-
|{{tl|user riding}}||{{user riding}}
|-
|{{tl|user Rugby League Player}}||{{user Rugby League Player}}
|-
|{{tl|user Rugby Union Player}}||{{user Rugby Union Player}}
|-
|{{tl|User Scuba Diver}}||{{User Scuba Diver}}
|-
|{{t1|User Skateboard}}||{{User Skateboard}}
|-
|{{tl|User Skeet Shooter}}||{{User Skeet Shooter}}
|-
|{{tl|user snowboard}}||{{user snowboard}}
|-
|{{tl|User Soccer}}||{{User Soccer}}
|-
|{{tl|User Sumo Wrestler}}||{{User Sumo Wrestler}}
|-
|{{tl|User Swimmer}}||{{User Swimmer}}
|-
|{{tl|user Tennis}}||{{user Tennis}}
|-
|{{tl|User Track Runner}}||{{User Track Runner}}
|-
|{{tl|User Triathlete}}||{{User Triathlete}}
|-
|{{tl|User Orienteer}}||{{User Orienteer}}
|-
|{{tl|User Volleyball Player}}||{{User Volleyball Player}}
|-
|{{tl|User Weight Training}}||{{User Weight Training}}
|-
|{{tl|User Wrestler}}||{{User Wrestler}}
|-
|}

==Cars and others sports==
{| class="wikitable"
!Code
!Result
|-
|{{tl|user IOC}}||{{user IOC}}
|-
|{{tl|user Llama}}||{{user Llama}}
|-
|{{tl|user F1}}||{{user F1}}
|-
|{{tl|user Ferrari}}||{{user Ferrari}}
|-
|{{tl|User Land Rover}}||{{User Land Rover}}
|-
|{{tl|user Porsche}}||{{user Porsche}}
|-
|{{tl|user SAAB}}||{{user SAAB}}
|-
|{{tl|user Pokerlegend}}||{{user Pokerlegend}}
|-
|{{tl|user Water Drinker}}
|{{user Water Drinker}}
|}
{{WP:UBS}}

User:UBX/Scuba Diver

2006-01-14T13:07:41Z

Bourbons3: created

<div style="float: left; border:solid blue 2px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: dodgerblue;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: blue; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | '''[[Image:Scuba diver crop.JPG|50px]]'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user This user is a certified '''[[Scuba diving|scuba diver]]'''
|}</div>

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 7

2006-01-13T22:27:26Z

Bourbons3: /* Template:Succession incumbent */ delete

===January 7===

==== Template:Infobox County/* ====

'''Delete''' — Please consider deleting the following templates:

{{tln|Infobox County/No flag}} 
{{tln|Infobox County/Map only}}

Both were created for use with places that were incompatable with [[:Template:Infobox County]], i.e. some places didn't have a flag or seal. Now that certain rows can be hidden, every U.S. County can use [[:Template:Infobox County]]. Thus, the above templetes are now obsolete. I have replaced every instance of them I knew of. Note that the nominations do '''''not''''' include [[:Template:Infobox County]]. See also my nomination for [[:Template:Infobox Community]] below. — [[User:Seven Days|Seven Days]] » [[User talk:Seven Days|talk]] 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

* As far as I'm concerned, anytime a sub-template is deprecated, it's a '''speedy deletion'''. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''' I fundamentally agree with this. I wonder if this should instead be rolled into recent [[Template:Infobox Country]] efforts, for which some systemic updates/changes will be made shortly ... i.e., not to the actual template, but to ensure that countries use the same one? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:User Friendly]] ====

A noncommercial image tag. I've replaced it with a fair use tag for all the images at [[User Friendly characters]]. The only remaining image using this tag is on [[WP:IFD]]. If this template is deleted, please delete [[:Category:User friendly Images]], too. [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Ok, rather than tweaking the template to work for all the images under a fairuse protocole, you just decide to delete it. How about you edit it, so that each image can have a uniform description. --[[User:ZeWrestler|ZeWrestler]] [[user talk:ZeWrestler|Talk]] 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. We don't make image-tagging templates that will only ever be used on a dozen images. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Cryptic --[[User:Wikiacc|Wikiacc]] [[User talk:Wikiacc|¶]] 20:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Cryptic. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 21:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' non-free license tags. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]]) 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Cryptic. [[User:Kenj0418|kenj0418]] 04:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:Qif]] ====
{{tln|Qif}} 

As some people might know I am a fan of that template, but I do not need that template I need its functionality. We have been told by developer Jamesday on [[WP:AUM]] that qif harms the servers and thus we should work to reduce the harm. It has thus been identified as violating [[WP:AUM]]. I had some hope that qif could be implemented in code and that we could wait a bit before tearing down its use, but that seems not to be the case as the developers do not answer requests in that direction, which is something I do not want to complain about because this is their right. As we know Netoholic is working his way through templates to remove qif and he is backed by [[WP:AUM]] which is in turn backed by Jamesday. Netoholic tries to keep functionality as far as possible but if he does not see a way to keep it he requests to downgrade requirements, again backed by [[WP:AUM]]. I know that by nominating qif I will be accused for trying to create a [[MeatBall:ForestFire]] as some prefer to tear down qif behind the scenes by doing [[divide et impera]], something which I think is not ok (others have qualified me for "stonewalling"). Moving qif to the holding cell until its uses have been removed would better reflect the actual situation. Please express below how we should proceed. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 10:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': Inclined to vote delete, but I would really appreciate it if someone showed me a vital usage of this template - it's nearly impossible to look through this (often very complex) pages that include this to find just how it is necessary. However, given that the template is effectively being orphaned at the moment, it makes sense to put it in the holding cell. [[User:Terrafire|Terrafire]] 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
:*For example [[template:book reference]], [[template:web reference]], [[template:journal reference]], [[template:language]]. Those will loose more or less function, at least they are hard to convert to something else. Netoholic already worked on [[Template:Conference reference]]. - [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
:*[[Template:Note label]] also uses (though doesn't have many whatlinkshere and I don't know whether it's ''vital''...). - [[User:Marsian|Marsian]] / [[User talk:Marsian|talk]] 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
::*Ouch. Looking at just how integrated this is into our content model, I'm going to have to vote '''keep''' until a better solution is implemented. Some sort of a notice encouraging people not to use it unless completely necessary would be good though. [[User:Terrafire|Terrafire]] 23:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy holding cell''' [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 16:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''', of course. If you want this template deleted, why don't you submit a patch to MediaWiki implementing a more efficient solution. Until then, this template really is needed. [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that the developers owe it to you to give you the functionality you want before they're allowed to fix the database load? [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 18:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Is [[User:Adrian Buehlmann]] a developer? I'm just saying that there plenty of contributors to Wikipedia who know how to code, and it should be easy enough to implement a more efficient replacement before destroying lots of work by deleting this template. [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
****Have a look at [[WP:AUM]] - the developers have specifically asked us to reduce usage of this template. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
***** "Reduce" is not the same as "eliminate". Would you destroy [[Template:Book reference]]? As far as I can see, that template ''really does'' need the functionality of Qif, or some equivalent MediaWiki functionality. [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 19:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
******How about more than one template? Perhaps a tool for creating citations would be a good idea. That shouldn't be too difficult to program. Even I could probably do it. [[User:Sam Korn|<nowiki>[[Sam Korn]]</nowiki>]] 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*******Yes, please create that tool. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
********Right, I have created a tool that generates plain wikitext. I will post it for testing as soon as I get a Toolserver account, as I don't want to use my own server. Private information could be garnered from it. It'll be up soon, hopefully. [[User:Sam Korn|<nowiki>[[Sam Korn]]</nowiki>]] 21:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
********Thanks to [[User:Robchurch|Robchurch]], I have the citation tool available. [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~robchurch/bookref/bookref.php]. Feedback welcomed. [[User:Sam Korn|<nowiki>[[Sam Korn]]</nowiki>]] 22:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*********[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam_Korn&oldid=34525856#Bug_1 bug1] [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
**********Fixed at [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~samkorn/citation/bookref.php]. [[User:Sam Korn|<nowiki>[[Sam Korn]]</nowiki>]] 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete (blank, remove uses, delete)''' - I have found ''no'' template that Qif can't be completely eliminated from by using other methods. I'd have eliminated it long ago if the templates using it weren't all/mostly protected. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**<s>Ok. '''Blank and then remove uses'''. As Netoholic proposes. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 20:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)</s> struck out per CBD [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' For two reasons. 1) AUM 2) Code that is excessively difficult to understand should be removed or simplified. [[User:Sam Korn|<nowiki>[[Sam Korn]]</nowiki>]] 18:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**Then I would propose that you switch off your computer immediately. I'm shure there is some code inside it you do not understand :-). I also suppose you know how IC design works. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
***I'm not supposed to write my computer code. I am supposed to write Wikipedia code. Making the code more difficult than is ''absolutely necessary'' should not happen. I don't know what IC design ''is''. [[User:Sam Korn|<nowiki>[[Sam Korn]]</nowiki>]] 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
****If you do not understand [[template:book reference]] then leave it. That's what I wanted to say. There are enough people that understand how it works. The point is that you request that the requirements be lowered to make the code simpler. That's not the same. By the way nobody here objects anyone to make any code simpler if that can be done without breaking existing articles. Or do you really believe we stuff in code just for the sake of making it nedlessly complex? [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]]
***** I pretty strongly think people tend to overthink templates over time. Maybe I'm getting to me a wiki-fogey, but templates really should be simple constructs to help mirror text for consistency, not do complex processing. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 09:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
****** There is something in your statement. It's a slow creeping process. Somebody comes onto the talk page and asks: "I have an idea, couldn't we do feature XYZ. I need that in article OPXYVKLM". First reaction is usually "Oh, no. Not another request." Then someone comes up with an idea and demonstrates: "look, we can do it by doing trick QSW". Then the "group" around that templates sees that it works and that the "world is not tumbling down by doing it", and it gets implemented. It is damned hard to refuse such request to modify a template. And it is very hard for outstanders to understand why that template group went that way. Problem is also that everybody can finger around with templates, there is no "board" that controls it. For wiki articles, this model is fine, but on heavy use templates that wiki model just does not work. Reverting heavy use templates back and forth is the wrong way. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 09:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*******Indeed - revert wars are the wrong way. That does not mean, however, that there is not a right side and a wrong side in a given revert war. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 19:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' almost orphaned; other methods can be used to get the same functionality. --[[User:Wikiacc|Wikiacc]] [[User talk:Wikiacc|¶]] 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' after orphaning is completed. Whatlinkshere shows at least 10,000 uses, so "almost orphaned" may be a little optimistic. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|s]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 20:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**Many of those pages simply include a template using qif (as mentioned above, primarily the reference templates and {{[[Template:language|language]]}}). --[[User:Wikiacc|Wikiacc]] [[User talk:Wikiacc|¶]] 17:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep''' until we have a replacement. I just talked with brion on IRC and he expressed some support for simple replacement syntax like <code><nowiki>{{ifdef:param|Whatever}}</nowiki></code>. There's also an existing [http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2615 feature request] on Bugzilla. We just need someone to do the coding. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]]) 21:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**That would be a good first step. The best thing would be if someone could look at book reference and help us implement that without using qif. I believe there are some more functions needed. For example there should also be something like <s><code><nowiki>{{ifnotdef:param|text to display if param is not defined}}</nowiki></code></s><code><nowiki>{{ifempty:param|text to display if param is empty}}</nowiki></code>. This could also be done while qif resides in the holding cell. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 21:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' once orphaned as per developers. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 23:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' until we have a replacement that does not rely on CSS hacks. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - [[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]) 01:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
** If you don't like hacks, there is an alternative... use multiple alternative templates and run bots to convert articles to the appropriate ones. Can we have your delete vote now? -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 07:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
***Nope - that's not what I mean. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - [[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]) 07:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per SPUI, or until my proposed renaming (see talk page at [[WP:AUM]]) occurs. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' (for now). Jamesday has requested that we "reduce" this template's use, and I applaud Netoholic's efforts. Jamesday has '''''not''''', however, requested that we eliminate the template entirely. I won't support its deletion until I'm confident that all of its current uses can be replaced with code that generates functionally equivalent (or reasonably similar) results. And no, Phil, this doesn't mean that I advocate "ignoring the devs." —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 22:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:*Uses can also be removed while qif is in the holding cell (provided it is not blanked during that). It can even reside there for as long as we want (of course not forever). I see no point in using qif. It is designed to be used in templates, which is banned by [[WP:AUM]]. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
::*This template's use should be avoided whenever possible, but it has '''''not''''' been "banned." Placing it in the holding cell would imply that we definitely intend to delete it (and would mandate removal from all pages). As I said, I'm not comfortable supporting such a measure until '''after''' all instances have been replaced with code that generates functionally equivalent (or reasonably similar) results. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*Do you intend for "reasonable similar" to replace book reference calls by plain old non-template media wiki source? If not, how far do you intend to go cutting off features from template book reference? The actual version of book reference cannot be implemented without using qif. BTW you can remove every template call if needed. Jamesday requested to work reduce the harm of qif. So where does qif not harm? [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
::::*I'm familiar with neither the book reference template nor the intricacies of such coding, and I'm not certain that the removal of {{tl|qif}} is feasible. That's why I've voted to keep it for the time being. Jamesday requested that we reduce the extent to which meta-templates are used, thereby reducing the amount of strain placed on Wikipedia's servers. He did '''''not''''' order us to eliminate meta-templates entirely. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::*You cannot have "a little bit of qif". Technically it would work, but you will never reach consensus where it shall be allowed and where not. And those that remove qif can always cite [[WP:AUM]]. So in the end, qif is removed anyway from every template due to [[WP:AUM]]. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 17:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::*I disagree. Just as templates themselves should be used in moderation, there's no reason why we can't do the same with meta-templates (when no suitable alternatives exist). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::*[[template:book reference]] is used in 2'000 articles. It ''was'' intended for mass use. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. This is widely used. A better testing method would be helpful, but this is working for now. [[User:Xaosflux|<big>xaosflux</big>]] [[User_talk:Xaosflux|Talk]]/[[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit|CVU]] 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' until an alternative which actually cuts the mustard can be found. The functionality in the reference templates '''cannot''' be duplicated by using ugly CSS hacks, which in any case break on certain browsers (not that that seems to deter some people). Reverting to the previous situation where there were umpteen forks for different cases is simply not acceptable. There seems to be an anti-template mentality growing—often expressed in intemperate attacks on those who dare to use templates for performing "simple tasks"—which I find distasteful and unhelpful: I am not particularly interested in having to run to someone else, cap in hand, asking if their bot can do something I am perfectly capable of doing myself. HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 08:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' until orphaned by ''acceptable'' replacement templates. I have not seen a single instance where functionality provided by QIF '''cannot''' be replicated without using meta-templates. Only instances where those doing the conversion don't know how to do so, or ''do'' know how but for some reason refuse. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:*If you make such a statement then the duty of prove is on your side. Show me how to implement the actual version of book reference without using qif and I will believe you. I bet you can't. I will test your implementation and bring up negative test cases. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
::*Ok. Take a look at [[User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4]]. May not be 100% (I threw it together in an hour), but it exactly matches multiple test samples and I think it is certainly a 'proof of concept'. It ''would'' require '|if=' to be added to every existing book reference call. Let me know if you are interested in using it and I will iron out any bugs. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 19:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adrian_Buehlmann/work/b-refCBD/1 bug1] [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
::::*As noted elsewhere, the 'Date' parameter wasn't listed as an option on the talk page for this template. That and various small spacing/punctuation details which I uncovered myself have now been corrected. There are also now two different non-meta versions of 'Book reference' at [[User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4]] and a discussion about which should be used on my talk page. Based on this and other templates I believe that '''everything''' which uses Qif can be converted to a non-meta version... and would like to take the time to do that ''before'' removing Qif. Breaking them all by removing Qif ''first'' and '''then''' cleaning up the mess seems needlessly disruptive. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 11:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::*Conrad, I appreciate your tireless work. It's a good idea to do two implementations on an existing template so that we can compare. Nevertheless I still have the strong feeling that some functions of qif cannot be mapped to weeble or CSS. I agree with you that first killing qif and then cleaning up the mess is not good for the articles (have thus changed my vote above). I will test your new implementations.
:::::*CBD has successfully converted [[template:book reference]] to the CSS hiddenStructure trick. All [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/work/b-refCBD/CSS/1|test cases]] passed. Thanks and congratulations! Prove adduced for CSS. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::*Same for weeble variant! See [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/work/b-refCBD/weeble/2|test cases]]. All tests are based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4&oldid=34634466 CBD's original implementations]. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::*Just a clarification - the 'side by side comparison' and initial CSS version were added to that page by Netoholic [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACBDunkerson%2FSandbox4&diff=34545921&oldid=34544711 here]. I'd suggested CSS as an alternate possibility, but hadn't written it up. Since Netoholic built the majority of the CSS version I've just adjusted it to have the URL and Title 'merged', rather than as two separate items, adjusted the minutiae of spacing and punctuation which are so convoluted on this template, and made a few other small additions. Also, there were a couple of things which I wasn't sure how to do with CSS (I don't use it as much) so I implemented them in the CSS version with a variant of 'Weeble' which doesn't require the '|if=' parameter (but is 'uglier' and more limited in scope). Netoholic or someone else might want to convert those sections to CSS if there are ways to do so. And just for the record... after working on this template I am now convinced that nested curly braces were invented for the sole purpose of driving dyslexics insane. ;} --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::*So then! Thanks to both of you for your joint effort in proving me wrong. [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete (blank, remove uses, delete)'''. Unnecessary complication and a resource hog. There really shouldn't need to be any debate on this. It should be a speedy delete. [[User:BlankVerse|''Blank'']][[User talk:BlankVerse|''Verse'']] 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' because no replacement exists right now. I don't want to go back to the days when there were several different versions of a template that took different arguments. [[User:Rspeer|'''rspeer''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|ɹəədsɹ ]] 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' once all uses have been cleaned up, although I don't imagine that's going to be anytime soon. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' until replacement functionality is implemented (per CBD), then '''delete'''. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] [[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]] 16:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Once orphaned - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' until fully replaced with functionally equilivant code, as per [[User:David Levy]]. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', pending suitable replacement or update to Mediawiki. [[User:Avriette|Avriette]] 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:Succession incumbent]] ====
{{tln|Succession incumbent}} 

'''Delete''' — This template is sparsely used as it is almost identical to [[:Template:Incumbent succession box]]. [[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 10:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Delete''' as per [[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]]. No articles in the article namespace use the template, many use [[:Template:Incumbent succession box]], so the decision has virtually been made already. [[User:Terrafire|Terrafire]] 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' [[User:Dustimagic|Dustimagic]] 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:See2]] ====
{{tln|see2}} 
*'''Speedy delete''' — was deleted 2005 May, reappeared, deprecated tag since 2005 Dec 16; orphaned as of today. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''': The fact that it's been recreated suggests that there's a demand for it; perhaps some people avoid automagical syntax. Why insist that everyone do things the One True Way. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 06:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:See3]] ====
{{tln|see3}} 
*'''Speedy delete''' — deprecated tag since 2005 Dec 16; orphaned as of yesterday. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' This tag is ''not'' orphaned. It is used on [[Canadian federal election, 2004]] and possibly elsewhere. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 04:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:See4]] ====
{{tln|see4}} 
*'''Speedy delete''' — deprecated tag since 2005 Dec 16; orphan. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:See5]] ====
{{tln|see5}} 
*'''Speedy delete''' — deprecated tag since 2005 Dec 16; orphan. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:See6]] ====
{{tln|see6}} 
*'''Speedy delete''' — created '''with''' deprecated tag on 2005 Dec 28; orphan. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:Bigspace]] ====
All this template does is create a big space, as in '''&nbsp; &nbsp;'''. Silliness. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 08:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 09:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Should be in the creator's user namespace if needed. Also, it takes more characters to use that template than it does to type "&nbsp;" twice. — [[User:TheKMan|'''TheKMan''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|talk]] 10:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' - needless. --[[User:Cactus.man|Cactus.man]] [[User talk:Cactus.man|✍]] 11:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Userfy''' not needed. [[User:Xaosflux|<big>xaosflux</big>]] [[User_talk:Xaosflux|Talk]]/[[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit|CVU]] 17:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''', completely and utterly useless. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]]) 05:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. [[User:Preaky|Preaky]] 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete''' No use - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Useless, even in the user's namespace. Why not to use ''&nbps;&nbsp;''? [[User:Matveims|fragmer]] 05:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:Big Brother USA season 6 background]] ====
{{tln|Big Brother USA season 6 background}} 
'''Delete''' — A template that consists solely of two other templates and a bunch of text is not partially useful. Also, people can't easily edit the text of the article without having to go through the template. [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 07:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - A number of bio articles for Big Brother contestants failed to give the most basic of explanation of what the show is. They talked of things like "HoH" and "secret partner" without explaining their meaning. This template simply repeats standard text, to give context to an article, for those less familiar with Big Brother, or who haven't watched it in a long time (or never watched regularly). The nominator has not explained any problem with it. If it needs to be improved, please do so. The inclusion of two templates is not critical, and if that's a problem, they can be taken out. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 07:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', per Rob, provides valuable context to readers. [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|Can't sleep, clown will eat me]] 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - this content should be written into articles, not templates. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 09:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**It should be written in all ten (more later)? I don't understand how this is different then {{tl|United States}} which avoids retyping stuff 50 times, and eases maintenance? For an "in body" example, look at [[Hamilton Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey]] which has {{tl|NJ Congress 02}}, {{tl|NJ Senate}}, {{tl|NJ Legislative 02}}, etc... This seems like a common and efficient approach, that will help us keep information in articles up-to-date, while also providing proper context for individual sub-topic/detail articles. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 11:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
***Apples and oranges. One is a paragraph of text, the others are tabular information. Based on that, you think that if this template doesn't exist, ''no'' template should. There are very, very few templates that only insert text. Most are either infoboxes, navigation aids (like the example footers you gave) or procedural ones, not text. Straw man: Crumpled. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]]
****What do you mean "''...the others are tabular information...''". Only one of the templates I used as an example uses a table. The others were in sentence form, to be blended into various article bodies. I'm not sure how many of these there are, but {{tl|NJ Legislative 40}} makes me think there must be at least 40. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 22:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*****Yeah, sorry, as you can see I switched midway through my comment from "tabular" to "navigational", and didn't go back to change it. And I'm guilty of my own crime, I didn't look at the NJ templates. However, the United States template has nothing to do with this. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 21:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
***These are all terrible ideas, and should all be deleted. Article text should ALWAYS be in the article namespace. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 16:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
****Did you.. actually look at them, Snowspinner? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 17:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
****If these are *all* terrible ideas, as you say, shouldn't there be some sort of central place where we tell people of a convention against them, rather than randomly deleting selected ones. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*****[[WP:BEANS]] - until someone was stupid enough to create them, there was no reason to ban them. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 17:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
******Please read [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]]. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*******Were you the template creator? I hadn't checked. Regardless, my point stands - these templates are stupid, and stupid in a way that had not previously been thought of. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
********It appears the entire extent of your reasoning is the word "stupid". You haven't given one reason for your opinion, other than to make a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]], which you have now repeated (knowing full well how it's being taken). Please consider explaining your position, and let's try to raise the standard for discussion around here. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Rob. --[[User:Thorri|Thorri]] 11:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- what a badly written template, with grammar and spelling errors! I've moved the text into the article (and done some work on the badly written article as well). The correct template is {{tl|background}}. Now orphaned. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**When did bad spelling and grammar become deletion criteria? --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 17:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nomination - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|Contrib's]] 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom et al, meta templates are evil and this one is not sensible - content in article is appropriate. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]] 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Why do we even have articles on seasons of a television show? --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_%28USA_TV_series%29&oldid=34026363 this] article was getting way to big, and needed to be broke up. I suppose it's a similiar concept to why we have articles for each sequel to a serial movie series that follows a standard format, but has variations worth noting. It's also better than the numerous cases, of individual articles for 30-minute episodes of certain shows. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 17:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''as per nom. [[User:Dustimagic|Dustimagic]] 18:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*Comment: Prior to today I hadn't read [[Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates]], which says we shouldn't include templates in templates. So, I used "subst", to avoid this. Perhaps another option is to put the included templates {{tl|background}} and {{tl|spoiler}} in the individual bios (regardless of whether {{tl|Big Brother USA season 6 background}} is kept). I think the issue here is only if we want to give standard background/context information, or if we want to compell all/most readers to read a separate article. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 18:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. If this information is necessary in multiple articles, make a [[Big Brother USA season 6 background]] article and link to it. Or, better yet, implant this information into each article, as necessary. This is really an abuse of template system. [[User:Matveims|fragmer]] 00:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete'''. Article text should always be in the article, not hidden in a template. --[[User:Bky1701|Bky1701]] 01:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. So just copy-paste the info into each article. What's so difficult about that? Then at least the info can be customized or edited as appropriate for each individual article, allowing for much better flow and more diverse wording.
*'''Delete''' per above (which is, incidentally, one of the best arguments I've heard in ages for merging all of these <s>anonymous nobodies</s> "reality" TV contestants into a single article per series. And not starting any article on a TV series until at least twelve months after it's aired, this being an encyclopaedia and not a tabloid newspaper and all.- [[User:JzG|Just zis  Guy, you know?]] [[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]/[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG|RfA!]]'' 14:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - abuse. Templates do not serve this purpose. [[User:Renata3|Renata]] 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Infobox biography}}
*'''Strong Keep''' - this is just getting silly - I don't like your template so I'll recommend it for deletion. We need creativity to add to the blandness of text, we need templates to give a common look and feel to articles of similar subject matter. Ok if this is not a good style or content improv it provide or something better. Oh let's not do that when we can get the current one deleted for no good reason and we'll just get on each other nerves. :: [[User:Kevinalewis|Kevinalewis]] : please contact me on my [[User talk:Kevinalewis|Talk Page]] : 17:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' Arguments to remove entirely subjective. [[User:CaptainCarrot|CaptainCarrot]] 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Conditional Keep''' The Template has some potential, but if only applied in few areas it makes the website look mistmatched and unorganized. If this template is kept it should be applied to a majority of articles, and simular templates should be made for articles not about people [[User:PlasticMan|PlasticMan]] 22:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''' the foul infobox that clatters the articles' space per reasons stated by Giano. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 07:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''' generally useless, distracting and adds nothing. [[User:JackO'Lantern|JackO'Lantern]] 08:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' useless --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 12:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

==== Template:Infobox Community ====
'''Delete''' — Please consider deleting the following templates:

{{tln|Infobox Community}} 
{{tln|Infobox Community/No seal}} 
{{tln|Infobox Community/Unincorporated}} 

All were created for use with places that were incompatable with [[:Template:Infobox City]], i.e. some places didn't have a nickname or flag. Now that certain rows can be hidden, every place defined by the [[U.S. Census]] can use [[:Template:Infobox City]]. Thus, the above templetes are now obsolete. I have replaced every instance of them I knew of. — [[User:Seven Days|Seven Days]] » [[User talk:Seven Days|talk]] 02:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' I'm with you. Only 4 total left using it (go to the template and hit "what links here" [[User:Jwy|John (Jwy)]] 02:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:Bahamas TV]] ====
{{tln|Bahamas TV}} 
'''Delete''' — Only linked by {{tl|Miami TV}} as a see also, and whatlinkshere therefore shows several other "usages" of the template (really the Miami TV link) (it is also linked to by an article that I don't know how), and only serves to navigate between one redlink -- which practically eliminates the need for such templates!. '''[[User:Wcquidditch|WC''Quidditch'']]''' <big>[[User talk:Wcquidditch|☎]] [[Special:Contributions/Wcquidditch|✎]]</big> 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --'''[[User:Wcquidditch|WC''Quidditch'']]''' <big>[[User talk:Wcquidditch|☎]] [[Special:Contributions/Wcquidditch|✎]]</big> 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per WCQuidditch --[[User:Qirex|Qirex]] 04:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete unless improved''' — For the moment, it has no real purpose. However, if other links are added, this could become useful. — [[User:Seven Days|Seven Days]] » [[User talk:Seven Days|talk]] 05:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep and improve on it''': Apparently, every template i edit reverts. Every template i CREATE is nominated for deletion, or is simply deleted without notice. It's nice to see wikipedia follows its own rules. Or not.

I think i'm moving on to greener pastures from this desolate wasteland. Wikipedia is supposed to be a site where you can share information and not have to worry about cliques and abuse by senior members and Administration. I guess it's gone that way already. What a pity. Wikipedia had so much potential...

[[User:Raccoon Fox|Raccoon Fox]] 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas

2006-01-13T21:59:47Z

Bourbons3: /* Userboxes Ideas */ moved all newspaper-related ideas to Done

{{WP:UBX}}

Got an idea for a [[WP:UBX|'''userbox''']]? Post it here! Remember to '''sign off your name''' using four tildes ('''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''').

:''Moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Userboxes]]:''

==Userboxes Ideas==

===To do===
* Type of workout program (<del>weight lifting, track</del> [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports#Sports Users Participate In|here]], Pilates, etc)
* Specific skill sets that are constructively helpful in contributing to the Wiki encyclopaedia. [[User:AlMac]]|[[User talk:AlMac|(talk)]] 09:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*:Such as? -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
'''''Please add new ideas to the bottom of this list'''''

===Done===
* <del>ITV Franchises</del> --- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests|here]]
* <s>Wikipedians that do or don't believe in santa </s> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Type of school (e.g. Primary, Secondary, University)</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Beyond this, sports in which you participate</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <s>British Political Parties </s> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Age Groups</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <s>Dog Owners - </s>'''DONE''' [[Template:User Dog Owner|here]]
* <del>What emotions that Wikipedians are in</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/User Emotions|here]]
* <del>Favourite Colour</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Users that drink lots of water to stay hydrated due to the fact that they exercise</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Water Drinker|here]]
* <s>Users that do not own any pet </s>-- '''DONE [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets|here]]'''
* <del>More sport in which users participate (e.g. cross-country, track, baseball, table tennis, recreational running, tennis<, trap, skeet, volleyball, cheerleading, swimming, soccer (for Americans), archery, wrestling, basketball, etc.)</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports|here]]
*<del>Wikimood in Userbox</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/User Emotions|here]]
*<s>This user is interested in [[family history]]</s>-- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Family History|here]]
*<s>[[ColdFusion]] developers. [[User:Aeverett|Wrathchild]] 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User cf|here]]
* <s>Card games you play or just that you play cards --[[User:Think Fast|Think Fast]] 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)</s> '''DONE'''
*<s>This user is [[Visual impairment|short sighted]]</s> '''DONE''' [[Template:User Short Sighted|here]]</s>
*<s>Internet Service Providers Userbox -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet Service Providers|here]]</s>
*<s>This user has a [[hearing impairment]] or This user is [[deaf]]<s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Hearing Impairment|here]] and [[Template:User Deaf|here]]
*<s>"This user uses Wikipedia at work" and a Wikiproject:Texas box :)</s> -- -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Wikipedia at work|here]] and [[Template:User Wikiproject Texas|here]]
*<s>This user has a [[heart condition]]</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Heart Condition|here]]
*Seasonal userboxes:
**<s>New Years Day</s> -- '''Already exists''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Seasonal#January|here]]
**"Have a happy new year", not necessarily referring to the holidays nor New Years Day itself
**<s>Burns Night (Scotland)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Burns Supper|here]]
**<s>Easter</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Non-Religious Easter|here]] and [[Template:User Religious Easter]]
**<s>April Fools Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User april fools day|here]]
**<s>Mothers Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User mothers day|here]]
**<s>Europe Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Europe day|here]]
**<s>Father's Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User fathers day|here]]
**<s>World's Aids Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User World AIDS Day|here]]
*<s>Internet Service Providers (BT Broadband, NTL, Telewest, AOL, Homechoice, Rogers & more)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet Service Providers|here]]
*<s>User Website -- This user has a website and the link is <nowiki>[[The user website is here]]</nowiki></s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User website here|here]]
*<s>Big Brother Userbox (This user is [[Big_Brother_%28UK_TV_series%29|Big Brother]] Fan and the Image should be Human Eye or BB Text) --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Big Brother|here]]
*<s>User box for [[m:Association of Apathetic Wikipedians]], not that I care or anything :)[[User:Searchme|Joe I]] 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User AoAW|here]]
*<s>Expand on [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food]] [[User:Morgan695|Morgan695]] 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE'''
*<s>TV Service Providers (Freeview, Sky Digital, NTL, Telewest, Homechoice & more)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media#TV Provider|here]]
*<s>What type of newspaper they read (Broadsheet, Tabloid, Berniler, Compact & more) --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media#Newspapers|here]]
*What major newspapers they read --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media#Newspapers|here]]
'''''Please paste completed template ideas to the bottom of this list'''''

==Comments on Userbox Ideas==

----

Wikipedia:Userboxes

2006-01-13T21:18:43Z

Bourbons3: /* Interests */ added "and newspapers" to media

<div style="float:right">
{|
|{{userbox|orange|yellow|[[Image:Crystal kthememgr.png|40px]]|A userbox is a small box that looks like this.}}
|-
|{{userbox-r|green|lightgreen|[[Image:Crystal package.png|40px]]|Userboxes can come in many different styles.}}
|-
|{{userbox-2|#0000CD|#ADD8E6|[[Image:Crystal package favourite.png|40px]]|Boxes can have one or two sideboxes.|[[Image:Crystal ark.png|40px]]}}
|}
</div>

A userbox is a small coloured box which allow users to add small messages on their user page. It is an extension of the [[wikipedia:babel|babel]] boxes used for users' language abilities. The Wikimedia Commons has a [[:commons:Category:Icons|large range of icons]] for use within boxes.

Common uses for boxes include user interests, user skills, technical information, Wikipedia activities, or just for fun. There are four types of userbox templates. A gallery of example boxes is shown below.

You can either create your own userbox using the four templates below, or use the existing userboxes templates.

'''If you want to create a new template, you should first read ''[[#How to make a Userbox|How to make a Userbox]]'', below.'''

{{shortcut|[[WP:UBX]]}}

== Existing Userboxes ==
{{seealso|:Category:Wikipedia userboxes}}

=== Languages ===
*''[[Wikipedia:Babel]], for real-world languages.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO Languages]], for constructed and non-ISO languages.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Programming]], for programming languages.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Grammar]], for stances on grammatical controversies.''

=== Places ===
*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location]], for countries, states, and regional geographic disputes.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political Parties]], for membership political parties, by region.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education]], for educational qualifications, schools, colleges and universities.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Timezones]], for time zone userboxes.''

=== Interests ===
*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests]], for universal human interests and hobbies.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Books]], for favorite books and graphic novels.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing]], for computing, such as browsers and hardware.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food]], for favorite foods, beverages, and eating habits.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games]], for favorite board, card, and video games.

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media]], for favorite radio, television, movies and newspapers.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Music]], for musical taste and interests.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets]], for pets.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports]], for favorite sports.''

=== Beliefs, Orientations and Preferences ===

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs]], for beliefs in terms of ethics, political ideologies, and liberty.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Colours]], for your favorite colour(s).''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Health]], for your physical and mental health.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion]], for religious beliefs and religions.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality]], for sexual orientation, gender and status.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Zodiac]], for [[zodiac]] symbol userboxes.''

=== Wikipedia Users ===
*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia]], for user category, association, editing philosophy and preferences.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects]], for userboxes related to WikiProjects.''

=== Other userboxes ===
*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Emoticons]], to view userboxes about your current mood.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny]], to view userboxes that are considered humorous.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life]], for userboxes about age, ancestry and profession.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Personality]], to view userboxes about your personality.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Seasonal]], for userboxes about holidays.''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes]], for userboxes about userboxes and userbox policy''

*''[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Other]], for userboxes that don't seem to fit in any of the above categories/uncategorised.''

=== Note to Editors ===
*If a userbox does not belong in a category, please note its removal in your edit summary, and re-add the box to its appropiate category.
*Issues concerning point of view and political correctness in userboxes have yet been resolved, so do not use this as criteria for deletion.
*If there is a userbox that does not belong here, please list it on [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion]]. Do not orphan or speedy delete these boxes until a consensus has been reached. To do so will only cause more controversy.

== How to make a Userbox ==
=== Before making a userbox===
* Check to make sure the userbox you want to make does not already exist by going through the categories listed above.
* If you wish to put your userbox in a template (and list it here), evaluate whether there is a need for your userbox.

=== Naming the userbox ===
*'''All userbox templates should be named using the prefix ''User'''''.
*When naming a template, strive not to make the name too ambiguous. Names such as '''{{tl|User code}}''' could mean anything. '''{{tl|User Lost(TV Series)}}''' would be more fitting.

=== A note on substitution ===
*'''The ''subst:'' prefix must be used to transform template code to [[Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Wiki_markup|wiki markup]] if you are saving the userbox to a template''', i.e. <tt><nowiki>{{subst:userbox|...}}</nowiki></tt>. See [[Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates|avoid using meta templates]].
*This can also be done on your userpage at your discretion.

=== Content ===
*Userboxes are distributed user page content, and as such, are to follow Wikipedia's [[User page|guidelines concerning user pages]].
*If you choose to put an image in a userbox, make sure the image license is free. Wikipedia policy does not allow templates or user pages to have copyrighted works on them. The use of copyrighted work as fair use is not allowed on templates. See [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Fair_use_criteria|Wikipedia's Fair use policy guidlines]] for more details.
* All items in template space are governed by the [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] policy.

=== Designing the userbox ===
There are a number of box types to select from when deciding to make a userbox. The most commonly used design is the "'''Standard box'''". It has one square shaped area on the left ("''id''") and a rectangular area on the right ("''info''").

For ease of use, userboxes are made using maker-templates that have a number of parameters. Once the maker-template is saved, it is automatically transformed to [[HTML]]. See [[#A note on substitution]] above.
{| class="wikitable"
!Template Parameters
!Meaning
!Value type
|-
|border-c
|The '''border color''' of the userbox
|[[Web colors|CSS color value]] ([[hexadecimal|#hex]] or color name)
|-
|border-s
|The '''border size''' of the userbox
|Width in pixels
|-
|id-c
|The '''background color''' of the id box
|CSS color value
|-
|id-s
|The font '''size''' of the id box
|Size in [[Point (typography)|PostScript points]]
|-
|id-fc
|The font '''color''' of the id box text
|CSS color value
|-
|info-c
|The background color of info box
|CSS color value
|-
|info-s
|The font '''size''' of info box
|Size in PostScript points
|-
|info-fc
|The font '''color''' of info box
|CSS color value
|-
|id
|This is the '''content''' of the id box
|Text
|-
|info
|This is the '''content''' of info box
|Text
|}

=== Userbox types ===

{| class="wikitable"
!Code
!Appearance
|-
!colspan="2" style="text-align:left;padding:0 1em;"|Standard box
|-
|<pre>{{Userbox
|border-c = #000
|border-s = 1
|id-c = #fff
|id-s = 12
|id-fc = #000
|info-c = #039
|info-s = 8
|info-fc = #fff
|id = ID
|info = info box content
}}</pre></tt>
''or'' <tt><nowiki>{{Userbox|side-box colour|main box colour|side-box content|main box content}}</nowiki></tt>
|{{Userbox|border-c=#000|border-s=1|id-c=#fff|id-s=12|id-fc=#000|info-c=#039|info-s=8|info-fc=#fff|id=ID|info=info box content}}
|-
!colspan="2" style="text-align:left;padding:0 1em;"|Reverse box
|-
|<pre>{{Userbox-r
|border-c = #000
|border-s = 1
|id-c = #fff
|id-s = 12
|id-fc = #000
|info-c = #039
|info-s = 8
|info-fc = #fff
|id = ID
|info = info box content
}}</pre>
''or'' <tt><nowiki>{{Userbox-r|side-box colour|main box colour|side-box content|main box content}}</nowiki></tt>
|{{Userbox-r|border-c=#000|border-s=1|id-c=#fff|id-s=12|id-fc=#000|info-c=#039|info-s=8|info-fc=#fff|id=ID|info=info box content}}
|-
!colspan="2" style="text-align:left;padding:0 1em;"|Double box
|-
|<pre>{{Userbox-2
|border-c = #000
|border-s = 1
|id1-c = #fff
|id1-s = 12
|id1-fc = #000
|id2-c = #000
|id2-s = 12
|id2-fc = #fff
|info-c = #039
|info-s = 8
|info-fc = #fff
|id1 = ID 1
|id2 = ID 2
|info = info box content
}}</pre>
''or'' <tt><nowiki>{{Userbox-2|side-box 1 color|main box color|side-box 1 content|message|side-box 2 content|border color|side-box 2 color|main box font-color|box border thickness}}</nowiki></tt>
 '''''Note''': If omitted, border color and side-box 2 color default to the same color as side-box 1, and font color is black. Default border thickness is 1.''
|{{Userbox-2|border-c=#000|border-s=1|id1-c=#fff|id1-s=12|id1-fc=#000|id2-c=#000|id2-s=12|id2-fc=#fff|info-c=#039|info-s=8|info-fc=#fff|id1=ID 1|id2=ID 2|info=info box content}}
|-
!colspan="2" style="text-align:left;padding:0 1em;"|Mini box
|-
|<pre>{{Userbox-m
|border-c = #000
|border-s = 1
|id-c = #fff
|id-s = 12
|id-fc = #000
|id = ID
}}</pre>
''or'' <tt><nowiki>{{Userbox-m|box color|box content}}</nowiki></tt>
|{{Userbox-m|border-c=#000|border-s=1|id-c=#fff|id-s=12|id-fc=#000|id=ID}}
|}

== Grouping userboxes ==
{{Boxboxtop|Example 1}}
{{User wikipedia|administrator}}
{{User wikipedia|welcoming committee}}
{{User browser}}
{{User Rome}}
{{User friendly}}
{{Boxboxbottom}}
As with the Babel box, there is a box to group userboxes together. Just make a list of userboxes with <nowiki>{{Boxboxtop|box-name}} at the top and {{Boxboxbottom}} </nowiki> at the bottom. For example, the box to the right is created using the following list:
<nowiki>{{Boxboxtop|Example 1}}</nowiki>
<nowiki>{{User wikipedia|administrator}}</nowiki>
<nowiki>{{User wikipedia|welcoming committee}}</nowiki>
<nowiki>{{User browser}}</nowiki>
<nowiki>{{User Rome}}</nowiki>
<nowiki>{{User friendly}}</nowiki>
<nowiki>{{Boxboxbottom}}</nowiki>

You may also change the alignment by using 'right' or 'left' as the 2nd parameter, or explicitly using parameter align. Thus, it is possible to create the same boxbox on the right, but positioned on the left side of the page, by changing the the first line from <nowiki>{{Boxboxtop|Example 1}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{Boxboxtop|Example 1|left}}</nowiki>.

The actual Babel grouping system can also be used, e.g. <nowiki>{{Babel-4|sv|no-4|browser|rome}}</nowiki>. However, it only works for user boxes with a "User "-prefix, which must then be dropped for the arguments. Also, boxes that need arguments of their own can not be used with Babel, e.g. <nowiki>{{User wikipedia|administrator}}</nowiki>.)

==See also==
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes]]
*[[Wikipedia:List of userboxes]]
*[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~avar/cgi-bin/userbox_feed RSS feed of user pages on the English Wikipedia ordered by the number of userbox templates on them]

{{WP:UBS}}

[[Category:Wikipedia userboxes| ]]
[[Category:WikiProject Userboxes]]

[[de:Wikipedia:Babel/andere Vorlagen]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Modèles/Espace Utilisateur/Boîte Utilisateur]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Gebruikersboxen]]
[[sl:Uporabnik:Klemen Kocjancic/Uporabniške škatle]]
[[sr:Википедија:Шаблони/Кориснички простор/КорисничкаКутија]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:WikiProjekti Käyttäjälaatikot]]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas

2006-01-13T21:04:59Z

Bourbons3: /* Userboxes Ideas */ moved TV provider idea to done

{{WP:UBX}}

Got an idea for a [[WP:UBX|'''userbox''']]? Post it here! Remember to '''sign off your name''' using four tildes ('''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''').

:''Moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Userboxes]]:''

==Userboxes Ideas==

===To do===
* Type of workout program (<del>weight lifting, track</del> [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports#Sports Users Participate In|here]], Pilates, etc)
* Specific skill sets that are constructively helpful in contributing to the Wiki encyclopaedia. [[User:AlMac]]|[[User talk:AlMac|(talk)]] 09:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*:Such as? -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*What type of newspaper they read (Broadsheet, Tabloid, Berniler, Compact & more) --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*What major newspapers they read --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

'''''Please add new ideas to the bottom of this list'''''

===Done===
* <del>ITV Franchises</del> --- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests|here]]
* <s>Wikipedians that do or don't believe in santa </s> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Type of school (e.g. Primary, Secondary, University)</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Beyond this, sports in which you participate</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <s>British Political Parties </s> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Age Groups</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <s>Dog Owners - </s>'''DONE''' [[Template:User Dog Owner|here]]
* <del>What emotions that Wikipedians are in</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/User Emotions|here]]
* <del>Favourite Colour</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Users that drink lots of water to stay hydrated due to the fact that they exercise</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Water Drinker|here]]
* <s>Users that do not own any pet </s>-- '''DONE [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets|here]]'''
* <del>More sport in which users participate (e.g. cross-country, track, baseball, table tennis, recreational running, tennis<, trap, skeet, volleyball, cheerleading, swimming, soccer (for Americans), archery, wrestling, basketball, etc.)</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports|here]]
*<del>Wikimood in Userbox</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/User Emotions|here]]
*<s>This user is interested in [[family history]]</s>-- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Family History|here]]
*<s>[[ColdFusion]] developers. [[User:Aeverett|Wrathchild]] 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User cf|here]]
* <s>Card games you play or just that you play cards --[[User:Think Fast|Think Fast]] 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)</s> '''DONE'''
*<s>This user is [[Visual impairment|short sighted]]</s> '''DONE''' [[Template:User Short Sighted|here]]</s>
*<s>Internet Service Providers Userbox -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet Service Providers|here]]</s>
*<s>This user has a [[hearing impairment]] or This user is [[deaf]]<s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Hearing Impairment|here]] and [[Template:User Deaf|here]]
*<s>"This user uses Wikipedia at work" and a Wikiproject:Texas box :)</s> -- -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Wikipedia at work|here]] and [[Template:User Wikiproject Texas|here]]
*<s>This user has a [[heart condition]]</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Heart Condition|here]]
*Seasonal userboxes:
**<s>New Years Day</s> -- '''Already exists''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Seasonal#January|here]]
**"Have a happy new year", not necessarily referring to the holidays nor New Years Day itself
**<s>Burns Night (Scotland)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Burns Supper|here]]
**<s>Easter</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Non-Religious Easter|here]] and [[Template:User Religious Easter]]
**<s>April Fools Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User april fools day|here]]
**<s>Mothers Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User mothers day|here]]
**<s>Europe Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Europe day|here]]
**<s>Father's Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User fathers day|here]]
**<s>World's Aids Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User World AIDS Day|here]]
*<s>Internet Service Providers (BT Broadband, NTL, Telewest, AOL, Homechoice, Rogers & more)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet Service Providers|here]]
*<s>User Website -- This user has a website and the link is <nowiki>[[The user website is here]]</nowiki></s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User website here|here]]
*<s>Big Brother Userbox (This user is [[Big_Brother_%28UK_TV_series%29|Big Brother]] Fan and the Image should be Human Eye or BB Text) --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Big Brother|here]]
*<s>User box for [[m:Association of Apathetic Wikipedians]], not that I care or anything :)[[User:Searchme|Joe I]] 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User AoAW|here]]
*<s>Expand on [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food]] [[User:Morgan695|Morgan695]] 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE'''
*<s>TV Service Providers (Freeview, Sky Digital, NTL, Telewest, Homechoice & more)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media#TV Provider|here]]
'''''Please paste completed template ideas to the bottom of this list'''''

==Comments on Userbox Ideas==

----

User:UBX/Freeview

2006-01-13T20:56:19Z

Bourbons3: created

<div style="float: left; border:solid #960018 2px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: red;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #960018; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|white}}};" | <center>'''Free'''<center>
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | <center>This user's TV service provider is '''[[Freeview]]'''.
|}</div>

User:UBX/Sky

2006-01-13T20:39:24Z

Bourbons3:

<div style="float: left; border:solid #1560BD 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: white;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #1560BD; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|white}}};" | <center>'''Sky'''<center>
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | <center>This user's TV provider is '''[[Sky Digital (UK)|Sky Digital]]'''.
|}</div>

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes

2006-01-13T19:50:17Z

Bourbons3: /* UfD */ comment

{| style="text-align:center; border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#f8eaba; width:100%"
|[[Image:Diamond-caution.png|30px|Important!]]
|style="font-size: 90%; align:center; vertical-align: middle;"|For information on votes for deletion related to this project, see the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts|alerts subpage]]'''.
|}
{| style="text-align:center; border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#f8eaba; width:100%"
|style="font-size: 90%; align:center"|[[Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes]] has been created to foster consensus on what the right approach to userboxes is. Your input is appreciated.
|[[Image:Blue question mark.png|40px|?]]
|}
{| style="text-align:center; border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#f8eaba; width:100%"
|style="font-size: 90%; align:center"|
Requests for comment have been filed regarding the deletion of a number of userbox templates and blocks of some users involved in WikiProject Userboxes:
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3]]
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin]]
|}

===Archives===
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Archive 1|'''Archive 1''']]
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Archive 2|'''Archive 2''']]

{{WikiProject Userboxes}}
__TOC__

== Discussion to note userboxes out of the usual prefixes ==

Whilst working through the adjustment of prefixes from Userbox to User, I noticed some userboxes that have no prefix ''at all'' I will just list them here for future reference as they are hard to find. --[[User:Grand Edgemaster|Grand Edgemaster]] [[User_talk:Grand Edgemaster|Talk]] 23:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
*{{tl|Windows XP}}
*{{tl|Vegetarian}}
*{{tl|tonofedits}}
*{{tl|metric}}
*{{tl|Vegan}}
*{{tl|noads-alt}}
*{{tl|Proud Americans}}
*{{tl|Proud Australians}}
*{{tl|adminnobox}}
*{{tl|WelCom}}
*{{tl|Social Democrat}}
The below appear to belong to WikiProjects:
*{{tl|WPBuffy}}
*{{tl|WPStarTrek}}
*{{tl|WPDoctorWho}}
*{{tl|WPStargate}}

Would you like me to move these userboxes to the <nowiki>{{User_????}}</nowiki> prefix? --[[User:Richard0612|Richard0612]] 08:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

'''Please would everyone tuck into the above list, and move and get ready to delete origional per guide on main page''' [[User:Ian13|Ian]][[User_talk:Ian13|13]]ID:540053 15:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems that it's all done, some already had USER prefix copies, so I set up temporary redirects. Any that didn't, I created copies of them with the USER prefix and set up a redirect from the original. Eventually the non-USER templates can be deleted [I'm not an admin, so I can't delete them] --[[User:Richard0612|Richard0612]] 09:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

== tl vs. nowiki ==

Hi, I've been maintaining the Userboxes pages for a while now but just joined the project. I couldn't find this anywhere, so forgive me if it's already written somewhere: on the Userboxes pages, is there a standard for using <nowiki>{{tl}}</nowiki> instead of <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> on the Code side of the table? Obviously nowiki is requred for userboxes that aren't a template, but I see the standard has been set to avoid this. Should we set a standard? I personally prefer <nowiki>{{tl}}</nowiki> as it makes it easier to view the template page (especially useful to see who else is using a particular userbox). Cheers! -- [[User:Tetraminoe|Tetraminoe]] 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

----

== Two similar templates ==

How do we deal with [[Template:User browser:Mozilla Firefox]] and [[Template:User fox]]. Both have the same text but a different image. Should the latter be moved to [[Template:User browser:Mozilla Firefox2]]?--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 12:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

== standardisation ==

On [[Wikipedia:Userboxes]] we see that there are two ways of creating a userbox : <pre>{{Userbox
|border-c = border color
|id-c = side-box colour
|id-s = font size
|id-fc = font color
|info-c = main box colour
|info-s = font size
|info-fc = font color
|id = side-box content
|info = main box content
}}</pre>''or'' <pre> <nowiki>{{Userbox|side-box colour|main box colour|side-box content|main box content}}</nowiki></pre>

the second has been standardised , so only the prefix ''user'' is required, are there any simalar plans for the first method?

--[[User:DTR|DTR]] 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:There was a dicussion somewhere over the renaming of the Userbox template to User, a discussion was/is being held at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Userboxes/Creation_templates]] --[[User:Grand Edgemaster|Grand Edgemaster]] [[User_talk:Grand Edgemaster|Talk]] 13:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

----

==Created template==
I created [[Template:User folkdancer]], but it looks rather awkward because, 1)I couldn't figure out how to abbreviate "International folk dancer", and 2)I couldn't find an appropratiate mini-photo. Any comments or help would be appreciated. I'm pretty sure there aren't many wikipedian folk dancers, but I can hope. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 01:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

==RFC on [[User:Cryptic]]==

I [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cryptic|opened a RFC]] on [[User:Cryptic]] due to his blocks against people protesting the mass deletions. [[User:Firebug|Firebug]] 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

:My lord, this whole thing is becoming a circus. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] ([[User_talk:BorgHunter|talk]]) 01:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

==Userbox display suppression==
I've been bold and modified a number of templates that group userboxes together (such as {{tl|Boxboxtop}}) with a name/ID that can be used to suppress display of userboxes on userpages (for those who absolutely hate userboxes (not me)). If you know of any templates used to group together userboxes (or, if you don't use a template but instead use HTML directly on your page), please use the ID "userboxes". You can add it <code><nowiki><div></nowiki></code> tags by simply inserting <code>id="userboxes" name="userboxes"</code> (so you end up with <code><nowiki><div id="userboxes" name="userboxes"></nowiki></code>). Then, if you don't want userboxes to be displayed, simply modify your monobook.css (or whichever skin you use) by adding this line–

<code>userboxes { display:none; }</code>

I ''strongly suggest'' standardizing on this, and leaving a section on the WikiProject Userboxes page indicating how users may "disable" userboxes while browsing. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 03:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

----

== page [[Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes]] has been created ==

based on a suggestion at [[WP:VP]]. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
=== need propose policy on improving conflict resolution ===
:I posted on [[User talk:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo's Talk page]] a suggestion that if his time permits, he read [[The Mythical Man-Month]] because I believe there are [[project management]] insights there that apply to the inter-communication challenges of Wiki [[dispute resolution]]. The size of his admin staff seems to me to be larger than the [[IBM]] staff described in the book, and even more in need of scientifically designed inter-personal infrastructures. I also suggest that the book [[The Mythical Man-Month]] is worth reading by anyone who wants to help [[WP]] resolve the internal conflicts between volunteers who have quite different [[WP:POV]] on policy issues. The book is a classic on how to do things, and how not to do things, that should be required reading pre-requisite for a lot of people around here that some day I would hope I could call my peers. [[User:AlMac]]|[[User talk:AlMac|(talk)]] 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

== Proposal to create Userboxes for Deletion (UfD) ==

I know it seems initially trivial, but, considering the recent influx of Userbox deletion submissions of [[WP:TFD]], plus the recent [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin|request for comment]] against [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]], a [[Wikipedia:Userboxes for Deletion]] page must be created, especially since all userboxes come with their own Wikipedian category as well (which would also need to be removed). Any comments? (Please feel free to move this to a Proposal page if you see fit.) --[[User:Jb-adder|JB Adder]] | [[User talk:Jb-adder|Talk]] 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Userboxes don't always come with a category do they? Many do but a few don't, I thought. Why would this be better than using TfD and CfD? ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 16:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

:Great idea! UfD would ensure that templates and categories are deleted (or kept) together. Also, it would reinforce the fact that userboxes are '''not''' limited by most Wikipedia policies because they are intended for use in the ''user'' namespace. Should UfD include only userboxes or should it expand to include other userspace templates such as those at [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace]]? --[[User:TantalumTelluride|Tantalum]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|T]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|lluride]] 16:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

::I would support this, but since the "screw process" comment... I've been wondering about the effectiveness of group work -- '''Миборовский''' [[User:Miborovsky|U]]|[[User talk:Miborovsky|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Miborovsky|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Miborovsky|E]]|[[User:Miborovsky#Wiki-not-so-fun|Chugoku Banzai]]! 19:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Good answer. Let's give up / out / in. [[User:69.49.99.19|69.49.99.19]] 21:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*This is a great Idea - It would give us a chance to spell out official policy on the top of the UFD page so people would know when deletion is acceptable and when it is not.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 09:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:::As per the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes|Proposed policy on userboxes]] (see ''How do we define userbox?''), I think this a good idea but needs a slight tweak: Call it [[Wikipedia:Userspace Content for Deletion]] or something like that, so it encompasses not just userboxes (a contentious issue now, but maybe not in 3 months) but other templates, categories, or images designed solely for use in the User: namespace. --[[User:Tetraminoe|Tetraminoe]] 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

== subst'ing piped links ==

I've recently gone through and subst'ed a number of userboxes that were against [[WP:AMT]]. I had some problems, though, with subst'ing the userboxes that still used piped links (e.g., <nowiki>{{User religion|atheist}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{User degree|BS}}</nowiki>, etc.) Placing 'subst:' before 'Userbox' in those templates didn't provide satisfactory results. If someone who has a better understanding of the 'switch' system could subst those, that would be appreciated. The userboxes I came across (and skipped) that still use piped links are:
* {{tl|user religion}}
* <s>{{tl|user Chinese zodiac}}</s> split by [[User:Commander Keane]]
* {{tl|user wikipedia}}
* <s>{{tl|user poker}} </s> Pipe Removed, I was creator and no one was using the pipe anyway [[User:1001001|1001001]] 04:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
* <s>{{tl|user zodiac}}</s> (although the {{tl|user zodiac:Capricorn}}, etc. were easily subst'ed)
* <s>{{tl|user Dune}}</s>
* {{tl|user degree}}
* {{tl|user split infinitive}}
* {{tl|user past sneak}}
* {{tl|user singular they}}
* {{tl|user serial comma}}
In case anyone's interested, I've subst'ed most (if not all) of the userboxes breaking [[WP:AMT]] that were linked from the categories in {{tl|WP:UBS}}. The exceptions were the aforementioned piped-link userboxes, and some of the userboxes in [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Programming]] (which I don't have time to check right now). — [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 12:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

:Great! Consider yourself Tireless-Contributor-barnstarred. ;) —[[User:Nightstallion|Nightstallion]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 13:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::(Just saw this). Wow, thanks! And thanks to everyone on the project that's been going through removing the fair use images and subst'ing the meta-templates (I think there was maybe one userbox that hadn't been subst'ed in the entire [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location]] hierarchy by the time I'd gotten to it, so we definitely have some very thorough contributors.) I think it's really beneficial that this WikiProject has been so quickly bringing the userboxes (or userboxen, if you prefer) into compliance with policy—especially now, when userboxes need to have their best foot forward. — [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 11:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I took care of almost all of the <nowiki>subst:</nowiki> and [[WP:FU]] issues at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes/List_of_meta_templates]] All that is left is some especially twitchy ones regarding the switch template. [[User:1001001|1001001]] 06:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:It looks like {{tl|switch}} is having trouble with the [[m:Help:Table|WikiTable syntax]] that's used after Userbox has been subst'ed. These can be re-done using HTML table syntax, which switch doesn't seem to mind, though that's a rather inelegant solution. (e.g., see [[User:Jeffrey Smith/Sandbox|my sandbox]] for the HTML-table version of {{tl|user past sneak}}.) Anyone have any other ideas, or should we just HTML-ify the tables in those userboxes that use switch? — [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 10:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

::I thought that since {{tl|switch}} is a template, any use of it in a userbox is a violation of [[WP:AMT]]. So, you can wait until after the useage of switch is removed (=lots of individual userboxen), then subst.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 16:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==A plea for the Germanic plural==
Will members of the Userbox project please agree that the plural of "userbox" should be "userboxen"? This is a wonderful application of the Germanic plural, and makes for great mirth. And it just fits. So userboxen, please. Even changing the name of the project to reflect this would be a good idea. Thank you. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 09:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:This isn't the german wikipeida, although i'm agreeing with you. Userboxen kicks ass, as we argued about for two hours in IRC. - [[User:IGod|iGod]] 11:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

::[[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]], it has a nice ring to it. If I start using "''userboxen''", can I direct any queries about it to you?--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes, CommanderKeane, I will happily receive all queries on the use of "userboxen". [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

::::I realise no one is asking me, mut I'll give my two pennies anyway. It doesn't sound that great, and would look pretty silly... so I'd personally say ''not in a million years''. And I got an A* at German [[GCSE]]! [[Image:Anglo-Indian Indentity.svg|20px]] [[User:Djr xi|Deano]] ([[User talk:Djr_xi|Talk]]) 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think switching to a kewl 1337 suffix is just the wrong thing to do if one wants this topic taken seriously, so I think going with regular English usage is the way to go. IMHO. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 05:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Although since first reading this I have found myself using Userboxen a number of times, I don't think the name of the project should be changed. [[User:Keithgreer|Keith Greer]] [[Image:Flag of Northern Ireland2.svg|30px]] 14:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

== Smart Babel ==

I created {{template|Babel-N}} to replace the profusion of existing Babel-1, Babel-2, Babel-3, et cetera templates. This Babel-N template can be used with any number of userboxes up to 100. Any unused boxes will be hidden. If you currently have a Babel template call like this;

<nowiki>{{Babel-5 |en-N|de-1|ru-1|la-1|ot-2}}</nowiki>

You can convert it to the smart babel template by replacing '5' with 'N' and adding '|if=' as below;

<nowiki>{{Babel-N |if=|en-N|de-1|ru-1|la-1|ot-2}}</nowiki>

Then you can just add or remove new userboxes without having to update the template you are calling... or continually creating new templates as the number of userboxes increases. The extra '''|if=''' parameter is what allows this template to hide unused babel-boxes. Enjoy. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:Is this a violation of [[WP:AUM]]?--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::No. It's a single template. No meta-templating involved. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 22:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:::My mistake. I thought it used {{tl|if}}. Infact it uses <nowiki>{{{if}}}</nowiki>. What do you call <nowiki>{{{if}}}</nowiki>? {{unsigned|Commander Keane}}
::::I call it a parameter. :] 
::::In the construction, '{{Babel-N |if=', 'Babel-N' is a template and '|if=' is a parameter passed to that template. Data. Text. Not a template. Very different from <nowiki>{{if}}</nowiki>, which has in fact been deleted. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above method relies on a quirk of MediaWiki's current code, and no guaranteed to work long-term. Rather than be clever and rely on a "|if=" requirement, I've fixed up the template to just use one parameter. A user can then create a list of userboxes as that parameter. See the [[Template talk:Babel-N]] for an example. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 00:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:To be clear, the way Netoholic has changed Babel-N the same example given above would now need to be called like so;

<nowiki>{{Babel-N |{{{User en-N}}}{{{User de-1}}}{{{User ru-1}}}{{{User la-1}}}{{{User ot-2}}}}}</nowiki>

:I won't revert (since he has already changed this on the one page where it was being called), but I'm curious to hear opinions on the two formats. Netoholic's allows potentially infinite userboxes without needing to increase the size of the template. Also, now that I think of it my original format technically ''is'' a meta-template, but only in the same sense as all of the other 'Babel-#' templates... they are all templates which call various user templates. Netoholic's version has the individual call all of the user templates first and then pass those as a parameter to the Babel template (which then basically just provides some formatting and header/footer). The question is, would everyone use Netoholic's version instead of the Babel-10 sort? If so I think we can leave it. If not then maybe we should have both my version and Netoholic's and phase out the others. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 00:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

==Leaving this project==
I have taken my name off of the members list. I currently, and never want to be, active on a WikiProject with so much controversy involved. I don't think I'll ever rejoin this project after these past few days.

All I have seen are '''2''' RFAr's surrounded by the topic of user boxes/templates from here:

*[[WP:RFAR#Kelly_Martin.2C_Snowspinner_and_Tony_Sidaway]]
*[[WP:RFAR#Wheel_warring]]

And '''2''' RFC's filed surrounding the user boxes.

*[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3]]
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin]]

I don't see how filing RFC's and RFAr's are supposed to settle problems around here. All this could ''potentially'' do is drive away these users. Snowspinner already went on ''wikibreak''. I think everyone involved, voting and otherwised involved should grow up, none of this taken personally though. All I'm saying is instead of pointing fingers, we should have tried to work things out amongst the wikipedians instead of blaming one another for actions that could drive them away and make them pursue further action. I don't see how removing someone's admin powers is going to resolve the conflict at hand. Everyone make mistakes once in a while and I don't think we should remove admin powers every time someone makes a mistake. What should have been done was to conduct a metting somewhere, preferably here, about the matter and come up with a solution like the suggestion above (Userboxes for Deletion or UfD's). If this could have been talked out, maybe we could have avoided this little incident here and maybe no one would have been called up for RFC/RFAr. I not saying what they did wasn't wrong but I don't think we should try and burn people at the stake for every little conflict. [[User:SWD316|SWD316]] [[User talk:SWD316|talk to m]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]] 04:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

== Another new toy ==

I created {{template|User Infobox}} for people who want to present information about themselves in a standardized way, but don't want a ton of userboxes. Basically it's one big configurable userbox which can be used to present the same info as 30 (or whatever) individual boxes. An example can be viewed on the template page itself and a slightly less whimsical usage can be seen at [[User:CBDunkerson]]. The template is very much in a 'draft' format at this point, so feel free to add/change sections. Since it hides any information not set there is no reason this couldn't include 'contact information' for every conceivable means of contacting a person (main email, secondary email, google email, IRC, ICQ, live journal, telephone, postal address, et cetera), every conceivable religion and sub-group (|religion=invisible pink unicorn, |christian=1|catholic=1|lapsed=1, et cetera), every wikiproject, et cetera. I set this up to default to the same width as a standard 'babelbox', so it can be used in conjunction with babel and other userboxes. Also, before anyone asks... no this is not a meta-template. It is a single call to 'User Infobox' which doesn't call any other templates. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</big> [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]] 14:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

== Chinese zodiac userboxen ready to be subst'ed ==

The Chinese zodiac userboxen (found [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Zodiac#Chinese_Zodiac|here]]) have been split and are ready for subst'ing. I would do it myself, but cleaning up the mess after substitution boggles me (wasn't there a subpage for this, I couldn't seem to find it).--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:Done. — [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 11:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

== UfD ==

The proposal for 'Userboxes for Deletion' has been put forth; I would like to conduct a discussion to discover whether it would be supported. Please also consder making it 'Userpage templates for deletion' (can still be UfD), to cover a more broader base but still be able to consider specific userpage policy. All comments are welcomed. [[User:Ian13|Ian]][[User_talk:Ian13|13]]ID:540053 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:Could you provide a link to the proposal pages? Thanks! (yes it's searchable but the poor server doesn't need the extra load, it seems) ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
::I'd support this proposal, if i had a link to it... - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] [[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]] 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

== IRC Channel ==

There is now a Wikiproject Userboxes IRC channel where real-time discussions can be held. Need advice or just a chat, just drop in. [irc://chat.freenode.net/wikipedia-en-userboxes #wikipedia-en-userboxes]. --[[User:Grand Edgemaster|Grand Edgemaster]] and [[User:Ian13|Ian13]] 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:Technically unauthorised at the moment, awaiting authorisation from [[User:Fennec]]. --[[User:Grand Edgemaster|Grand Edgemaster]] [[User_talk:Grand Edgemaster|Talk]] 22:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::This was denied, so it is at [irc://chat.freenode.net/##wikipedia-en-userboxes ##wikipedia-en-userboxes], where permission is not required (freenode call it an about channel). [[User:Ian13|Ian]][[User_talk:Ian13|13]]ID:540053 17:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

== Fair Use policy change ==

How can we change the Wikipedia policy to allow logos onto userboxes? A lot of userboxes are having to be modified to comply with the existing policy at the moment, and with such a strong support for userboxes, wouldn't it be sensible for a policy change? I've looked around and can't find any extensive discussions on this matter. [[User:Mdmanser|mdmanser]] 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
:Because that would make policy violate the law. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::CAVEAT EMPTOR: That's only her opinion, and it's a minority one. Image use in user boxes, technically, would fit fair use guidelines. There are indeed discussions going on, you just have to find them. --[[User:Cjmarsicano|CJ Marsicano]] 16:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

== Cleanup template ==

I have created a template, {{tl|Userbox-cleanup}}, to assist in userbox cleanup where an immediate descision cannot be made. This template should be included as follows:
<nowiki><noinclude>{{Userbox-cleanup}}</noinclude></nowiki>
A reason for why the template was included ''must'' be placed on the talk page.
Once an item has been tagged, it will be placed into the [[:Category:Userboxes_in_need_of_cleanup|userboxes in need of cleanup category]]. --[[User:Grand Edgemaster|Grand Edgemaster]] [[User_talk:Grand Edgemaster|Talk]] 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
== [[Recursive]] Category ==
* I noticed that [[:Category:WikiProject Userboxes]] is inside [[:Category:WikiProject Userboxes]].
* You can say that again, an infinite number of times. [[User:AlMac]]|[[User talk:AlMac|(talk)]] 09:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

== Maximum number of userboxes? ==

I'm just wondering, I had an admin revert my user page and delete the additions because I had "too many" userboxes. Is there a precedent for such a thing? Is there actually an established maximum number of userboxes? Should this be on a policy page somewhere? Thanks. --'''[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]''' [[Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool|vote]][[User talk:Cyde|talk]] 04:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:No such regulations currently exist. Probably just a vengeful/pissed off admin. -- '''Миборовский''' [[User:Miborovsky|U]]|[[User talk:Miborovsky|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Miborovsky|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Miborovsky|M]]|[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|E]]|[[User:Miborovsky#Wiki-not-so-fun|Chugoku Banzai]]! (forgot to sign)

::Please keep in mind that every userbox you have requires an extra call to the server. So, 25 userboxes is 25 times as many calls => 25x the load. This slows down Wikipedia for everyone. The solution is the ''subst:'' your userboxen.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 06:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:::That is not necessarily true. Many userboxes are text only, in which case the server load is not increased (any more than adding text). Also, I'm not a computer geek, but I find it hard to believe that tiny 40x40 pixel pictures are that much of a strain on the servers. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 15:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, the thing is all it does is call a reference to another lot of data in the database, but despite increasing the number of calls, it does not increase the data requested anymore than subst'ing it would, and not subst'ing requires less entries, and hence makes it easier for the server to collect the relevent data. So positives and negitives balance pretty much. [[User:Ian13|Ian]][[User_talk:Ian13|13]]ID:540053 17:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:When did this happen, Cyde? I looked in your history a ways back (like to the 4th?) and couldn't see more than one box, and a statement that userboxes were too much trouble. Thanks! ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

== Comment from Jimbo ==

Jimbo wrote the following on wikien-l:
:I'm not going to be heavy handed about this, but I would recommend that as a general social rule, we try to refrain from self-identifying as advocates within the context of Wikipedia. Given that we're trying to work together collaboratively on a _neutral_ encyclopedia project, it seems to me to be not relevant and perhaps leaning towards the unhealthy to do so.
[[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 16:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

::May I comment that Jimbo is not God. I would also like to question why he didn't post this somewhere himself, and that <s>IRC</s> logs are not acceptable on wikipedia (could have been anyone, not wikipedia servers, and the last person who posted logs was banned). I also question if he was refering specifically to userboxes, and that fact is, if you support something its not going to change anything by posting a note saying so on your userpage, is not going to change anything. I would be more prepared to see a consider a Wikipedia from him atleast. [[User:Ian13|Ian]][[User_talk:Ian13|13]]ID:540053 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

::I respectfully disagree with Jimbo here. There is a conflict of policy/guidelines here. The userpage is where a user can briefly describe his/her self and interests. Virtually all self-descriptions could be constrewed as bias, and it is inevitable that a user's "leanings" will be expressed one way or the other. However, as Wikipedians, we all strive towards NPOV. Perhaps by declaring our interests and possible biases, we become more self-aware of our own POV. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

== user wikipedia cleanup ==

made a cleanup of user wikipedia, but a bunch of boxes does not fit there or I don't know what to do:
{{userbox
|border-c=#CCCCFF
|id-c=#CCCCFF
|info-c=#F8F8FF
|id=[[Image:CVU2.PNG|40px]]
|info=This user is a member of the '''[[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit|Counter Vandalism Unit]]'''.<includeonly>[[Category:Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikipedia/en|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>
}}
{{userbox
|border-c=gold
|id-c=FFFFFF
|info-c=#0094DA
|id=<big>'''[[Censorship]]'''<big>
|info=This user is an [[artist]]
}}
{{userbox
|border-c=#808080
|id-c=#BDBDAD
|info-c=#DBDBDB
|id=[[Image:Admin mop.PNG|40px]]
|info=This user is Addicted to '''Wikipedia'''.<includeonly> [[Category:User Wikipedia/Addict|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>
}}
{{userbox
|border-c=#CCCCFF
|id-c=#CCCCFF
|info-c=#F8F8FF
|id=[[Image:Star of life.gif|42px]]
|info=This user scored a '''{{{score}}}''' on the '''[[Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test|Are You a Wikipediholic Test]]'''.<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipediholic Wikipedians|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>
}}
CVU already have a box, no need fow two of them, →[[User:AzaToth|Aza]][[User_talk:AzaToth|Toth]] 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 
== Babel boxen proposed level for students '''xx-S''' ==

''The babel level description list with the proposed level included:''

* '''xx-0''' if you don't understand the language at all. Don't use it for ''every'' language you don't know; only when there is some reason why you might be expected to know it.
* '''xx-S''' if you are a student of the language who is actively making effort to reach a basic understanding of the language.
* '''xx-1''' for basic ability - enough to understand written material or simple questions in this language.
* '''xx-2''' for intermediate ability - enough for editing or discussions.
* '''xx-3''' for advanced level - though you can write in this language with no problem, some small errors might occur.
* '''xx-4''' for 'near-native' level - although it's not your first language from birth, your ability is something like that of a native speaker.
* '''xx''' (no dash or number) is to indicate that you are a "native speaker" who has grown up speaking this language.

'''''Why a new level?''''' Because there is a '''significant gap''' between ''no knowledge at all'' (and presumably not even a desire to know) and a ''basic level of knowledge'' such that someone can read and possibly even communicate in the language. For example, I love Icelandic and am making a free-time effort to learn it, but I can't claim "basic knowledge" of it, but neither do I know "nothing at all" and don't wish to claim absolutely no knowledge. Hence the need for a level between the two. I propose "xx-S" (referring to student) so that the existing boxes don't have to be changed to accomodate the new level. -- [[User:Guðsþegn|Guðsþegn]] 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
:Sounds good. [[User:Ian13|Ian]][[User_talk:Ian13|13]]ID:540053 19:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
:Cool. Good idea. I like it. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas

2006-01-13T18:00:59Z

Bourbons3: /* Userboxes Ideas */ move userboxes/food to done, plenty of new userboxes

{{WP:UBX}}

Got an idea for a [[WP:UBX|'''userbox''']]? Post it here! Remember to '''sign off your name''' using four tildes ('''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''').

:''Moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Userboxes]]:''

==Userboxes Ideas==

===To do===
* Type of workout program (<del>weight lifting, track</del> [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports#Sports Users Participate In|here]], Pilates, etc)
* Specific skill sets that are constructively helpful in contributing to the Wiki encyclopaedia. [[User:AlMac]]|[[User talk:AlMac|(talk)]] 09:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*:Such as? -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*Service Provider Userbox --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
** TV Service Providers (Freeview, Sky Digital, NTL, Telewest, Homechoice & more)
*What type of newspaper they read (Broadsheet, Tabloid, Berniler, Compact & more) --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*What major newspapers they read --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

'''''Please add new ideas to the bottom of this list'''''

===Done===
* <del>ITV Franchises</del> --- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests|here]]
* <s>Wikipedians that do or don't believe in santa </s> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Type of school (e.g. Primary, Secondary, University)</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Beyond this, sports in which you participate</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <s>British Political Parties </s> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Age Groups</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <s>Dog Owners - </s>'''DONE''' [[Template:User Dog Owner|here]]
* <del>What emotions that Wikipedians are in</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/User Emotions|here]]
* <del>Favourite Colour</del> -- '''DONE'''
* <del>Users that drink lots of water to stay hydrated due to the fact that they exercise</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Water Drinker|here]]
* <s>Users that do not own any pet </s>-- '''DONE [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets|here]]'''
* <del>More sport in which users participate (e.g. cross-country, track, baseball, table tennis, recreational running, tennis<, trap, skeet, volleyball, cheerleading, swimming, soccer (for Americans), archery, wrestling, basketball, etc.)</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports|here]]
*<del>Wikimood in Userbox</del> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/User Emotions|here]]
*<s>This user is interested in [[family history]]</s>-- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Family History|here]]
*<s>[[ColdFusion]] developers. [[User:Aeverett|Wrathchild]] 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User cf|here]]
* <s>Card games you play or just that you play cards --[[User:Think Fast|Think Fast]] 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)</s> '''DONE'''
*<s>This user is [[Visual impairment|short sighted]]</s> '''DONE''' [[Template:User Short Sighted|here]]</s>
*<s>Internet Service Providers Userbox -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet Service Providers|here]]</s>
*<s>This user has a [[hearing impairment]] or This user is [[deaf]]<s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Hearing Impairment|here]] and [[Template:User Deaf|here]]
*<s>"This user uses Wikipedia at work" and a Wikiproject:Texas box :)</s> -- -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Wikipedia at work|here]] and [[Template:User Wikiproject Texas|here]]
*<s>This user has a [[heart condition]]</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Heart Condition|here]]
*Seasonal userboxes:
**<s>New Years Day</s> -- '''Already exists''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Seasonal#January|here]]
**"Have a happy new year", not necessarily referring to the holidays nor New Years Day itself
**<s>Burns Night (Scotland)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Burns Supper|here]]
**<s>Easter</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Non-Religious Easter|here]] and [[Template:User Religious Easter]]
**<s>April Fools Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User april fools day|here]]
**<s>Mothers Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User mothers day|here]]
**<s>Europe Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Europe day|here]]
**<s>Father's Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User fathers day|here]]
**<s>World's Aids Day</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User World AIDS Day|here]]
*<s>Internet Service Providers (BT Broadband, NTL, Telewest, AOL, Homechoice, Rogers & more)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet Service Providers|here]]
*<s>User Website -- This user has a website and the link is <nowiki>[[The user website is here]]</nowiki></s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User website here|here]]
*<s>Big Brother Userbox (This user is [[Big_Brother_%28UK_TV_series%29|Big Brother]] Fan and the Image should be Human Eye or BB Text) --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User Big Brother|here]]
*<s>User box for [[m:Association of Apathetic Wikipedians]], not that I care or anything :)[[User:Searchme|Joe I]] 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE''' [[Template:User AoAW|here]]
*<s>Expand on [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food]] [[User:Morgan695|Morgan695]] 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)</s> -- '''DONE'''
'''''Please paste completed template ideas to the bottom of this list'''''

==Comments on Userbox Ideas==

----