The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Redirect to {{uw-vandalism4im}}. There is no need for two templates with the same purpose. If the creator thinks it is significantly better I wouldn't have a problem with it being moved to their userspace, however, although I think {{uw-vandalism4im}} is more precise and might be better to use.
Anonymous101 (
talk)
20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep (but maybe rename): useful template (I have just used it) and one I have been looking for but could not find until I noticed it had been nominated for deletion. The difference between the two templates is that {{UE}} is a more useful message for users who have contributed to articles in other languages, whereas {{uw-english}} refers to comments (i.e. content which should be in talk pages, not articles). If it is possible to merge the two (so the content is different depending on what type of page is specified, that would be useful but if that cannot be done, the separate templates are useful. --
Snigbrook(talk)00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Odd template that I don't see reflected in policy, or used in current warning systems, if its true, its probably the most breached policy in existence. MBisanztalk07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Like the nom said, it isn't reflected in current policy; it's your interpretation. Personal headings are not necessarily personal attacks.
Viriditas (
talk)
11:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
NPA doesn't say anything about using headings as attacks, and not all names in headings are attacks. I think I'm repeating myself.
Viriditas (
talk)
09:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep; firstly, there is a policy that this reflects, secondly, if it is the most breached policy we have, then that's all the more reason why we should keep it; people won't stop breaching it if they do not know about it.
GO-PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)20:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep per GO-PCHS-NJROTC and the fact that this template will help remind users of an issue. If its a very breached policy we need it more not less.
Anonymous101 (
talk)
06:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Redirect to {{Userfied2}}. There is no need for two templates with the same purpose. If the creator thinks it is significantly better I wouldn't have a problem with it being moved to their userspace, however, although I think {{Userfied2}} is more precise and colourful and might be better to use. Might as well redirect in case users do use this template.
Anonymous101 (
talk)
20:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Speedy deleteper
WP:SD#G7 - "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author." (request made in above vote) If SD is not possible vote delete as more appropriate templates available.
Anonymous101 (
talk)
20:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Redirect to {{uw-vandalism4im}}. There is no need for two templates with the same purpose. If the creator thinks it is significantly better I wouldn't have a problem with it being moved to their userspace, however, although I think {{uw-vandalism4im}} is more precise and might be better to use.
Anonymous101 (
talk)
20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep (but maybe rename): useful template (I have just used it) and one I have been looking for but could not find until I noticed it had been nominated for deletion. The difference between the two templates is that {{UE}} is a more useful message for users who have contributed to articles in other languages, whereas {{uw-english}} refers to comments (i.e. content which should be in talk pages, not articles). If it is possible to merge the two (so the content is different depending on what type of page is specified, that would be useful but if that cannot be done, the separate templates are useful. --
Snigbrook(talk)00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Odd template that I don't see reflected in policy, or used in current warning systems, if its true, its probably the most breached policy in existence. MBisanztalk07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Like the nom said, it isn't reflected in current policy; it's your interpretation. Personal headings are not necessarily personal attacks.
Viriditas (
talk)
11:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
NPA doesn't say anything about using headings as attacks, and not all names in headings are attacks. I think I'm repeating myself.
Viriditas (
talk)
09:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep; firstly, there is a policy that this reflects, secondly, if it is the most breached policy we have, then that's all the more reason why we should keep it; people won't stop breaching it if they do not know about it.
GO-PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)20:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep per GO-PCHS-NJROTC and the fact that this template will help remind users of an issue. If its a very breached policy we need it more not less.
Anonymous101 (
talk)
06:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Redirect to {{Userfied2}}. There is no need for two templates with the same purpose. If the creator thinks it is significantly better I wouldn't have a problem with it being moved to their userspace, however, although I think {{Userfied2}} is more precise and colourful and might be better to use. Might as well redirect in case users do use this template.
Anonymous101 (
talk)
20:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Speedy deleteper
WP:SD#G7 - "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author." (request made in above vote) If SD is not possible vote delete as more appropriate templates available.
Anonymous101 (
talk)
20:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply