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).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per G7.
(non-admin closure)jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
This is an existing user warning series that no one uses and is also not integrated into Twinkle's warning feature. Users instead use the Uw-disruptive series to warn others about changes made against consensus.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk) 00:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not opposed to the deletion; the intent a long time ago was to get it into
TW but that appears to have never happened. If nobody uses it I'm fine with the cleanup. As I'm its creator, that may put this into speedy deletion territory, but I'll let someone else make that call because there have been other edits too. --
Shirik (
Questions or Comments?) 00:45, 13 September 2017 (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).
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).
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).
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).
This template is used 34 times and probably doesn't merit a separate template. (I have no objection to merging with
Template:S-hou if consensus goes that way.)
Izno (
talk) 14:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia.
AlfaRocket (
talk) 11:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Elements of doubt are better avoided!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:44, 12 September 2017 (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).
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).
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).
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).
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).