Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User onemanonewoman: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:20, 12 February 2007 editSpringeragh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,119 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 00:35, 12 February 2007 edit undoDoug Bell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,585 edits →[]: Comment: Reasons to keep or delete need to be based on policy, not your agreement/disagreement with the statement.Next edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
I nominated this for speedy deletion, but was told to bring it here. Basically, this userbox promotes discrimination and is divisive. It is also very POV. I request its deletion ] (Have a nice day!) 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC) I nominated this for speedy deletion, but was told to bring it here. Basically, this userbox promotes discrimination and is divisive. It is also very POV. I request its deletion ] (Have a nice day!) 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete''' Not criteria for a speedy deletion but it definitely violates ] and may create the wrong impression of wikipedia to new users and scare them away. ]]<sup>]</font></sup></font> 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong delete''' Not criteria for a speedy deletion but it definitely violates ] and may create the wrong impression of wikipedia to new users and scare them away. ]]<sup>]</font></sup></font> 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
*:NPOV doesn't apply to user pages. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Rather offensive to many people, and no good reason why it's of editorial importance what a specific Wikipedian believes. -] <small>]</small> 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Rather offensive to many people, and no good reason why it's of editorial importance what a specific Wikipedian believes. -] <small>]</small> 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
*:Misplaced Pages is not censored. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Can anyone see userbox wars round the corner? Much as I don't agree, it is an entirely valid point of view to believe that only men and women should be allowed to marry and represents the law in most of the world. The userbox says nothing about other forms of partnerships for same sex couples. If this userbox were deleted then for consistency many others would need to go as well: especially those that support same-sex marriage. Religious views and beliefs about sexual preferences are bound to be controversial, but that does not mean they cannot genuinely be held. Starting another attempt at policing userboxes would be a disaster. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. Can anyone see userbox wars round the corner? Much as I don't agree, it is an entirely valid point of view to believe that only men and women should be allowed to marry and represents the law in most of the world. The userbox says nothing about other forms of partnerships for same sex couples. If this userbox were deleted then for consistency many others would need to go as well: especially those that support same-sex marriage. Religious views and beliefs about sexual preferences are bound to be controversial, but that does not mean they cannot genuinely be held. Starting another attempt at policing userboxes would be a disaster. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I'm not attempting to police them. The userbox specifically excludes SSM and is discrimatory and divisive - as I recall most SSM userboxes say stuff like "equality for all" not "only gays should get married". ] (Have a nice day!) 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' I'm not attempting to police them. The userbox specifically excludes SSM and is discrimatory and divisive - as I recall most SSM userboxes say stuff like "equality for all" not "only gays should get married". ] (Have a nice day!) 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': stereotype, fails ]. ] → (]) 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''': stereotype, fails ]. ] → (]) 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
*:NPOV doesn't apply to user pages. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
**'''Commment'''. Maybe I've missed something but since when does ] apply to ''userboxes''. Surely by definition most of them are an expression of some sort of point of view? <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC) **'''Commment'''. Maybe I've missed something but since when does ] apply to ''userboxes''. Surely by definition most of them are an expression of some sort of point of view? <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
:::And if that point of view is divisive, or discrimatory, then it ought to be deleted. ] (Have a nice day!) 17:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC) :::And if that point of view is divisive, or discrimatory, then it ought to be deleted. ] (Have a nice day!) 17:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Line 16: Line 19:
*'''Strong Keep''' This userbox in in line with ], userfied. Userfied boxes can show any point of view that they feel like. Precedents on userfied boxes include ] and ] and per the overturning of ] being whatever at ]. Userspace need not be NPOV. The deletion of this box would overturn literally months of work and comprimise that resulted in the German Solution/GUS/UBM. It would also be censoring the beliefs of several major religions. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' This userbox in in line with ], userfied. Userfied boxes can show any point of view that they feel like. Precedents on userfied boxes include ] and ] and per the overturning of ] being whatever at ]. Userspace need not be NPOV. The deletion of this box would overturn literally months of work and comprimise that resulted in the German Solution/GUS/UBM. It would also be censoring the beliefs of several major religions. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per WJBscribe. While it is personally offensive to me, it is non the less a valid, individual POV for a person to have. I don't think ] crosses over to Userpages. If it did, then '''everyones''' user page would certainly fail to some degree. I know mine would. ]]/] 18:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' per WJBscribe. While it is personally offensive to me, it is non the less a valid, individual POV for a person to have. I don't think ] crosses over to Userpages. If it did, then '''everyones''' user page would certainly fail to some degree. I know mine would. ]]/] 18:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Modify slightly''' to 'This user supports opposite-sex marriages', for example? ] 18:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Modify slightly''' to 'This user supports opposite-sex marriages', for example? ] 18:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
:That would certainly lessen the offensiveness in it. But I have a feeling that the holders of this userbox would disagree with the removal of the word "only". ]]/] 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC) :That would certainly lessen the offensiveness in it. But I have a feeling that the holders of this userbox would disagree with the removal of the word "only". ]]/] 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Line 29: Line 31:
*'''Keep'''. Free speech works both ways. ] 00:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. Free speech works both ways. ] 00:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' NPOV does not apply to userspace userboxes. &mdash; ] 00:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' NPOV does not apply to userspace userboxes. &mdash; ] 00:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' Reasons to keep or delete need to be based on policy, not your personal agreement/disagreement with the statement. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:35, 12 February 2007

User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User onemanonewoman

I nominated this for speedy deletion, but was told to bring it here. Basically, this userbox promotes discrimination and is divisive. It is also very POV. I request its deletion Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Not criteria for a speedy deletion but it definitely violates WP:NPOV and may create the wrong impression of wikipedia to new users and scare them away. Tellyaddict 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    NPOV doesn't apply to user pages. —Doug Bell  00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rather offensive to many people, and no good reason why it's of editorial importance what a specific Wikipedian believes. -Amarkov moo! 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is not censored. —Doug Bell  00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can anyone see userbox wars round the corner? Much as I don't agree, it is an entirely valid point of view to believe that only men and women should be allowed to marry and represents the law in most of the world. The userbox says nothing about other forms of partnerships for same sex couples. If this userbox were deleted then for consistency many others would need to go as well: especially those that support same-sex marriage. Religious views and beliefs about sexual preferences are bound to be controversial, but that does not mean they cannot genuinely be held. Starting another attempt at policing userboxes would be a disaster. WjBscribe 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not attempting to police them. The userbox specifically excludes SSM and is discrimatory and divisive - as I recall most SSM userboxes say stuff like "equality for all" not "only gays should get married". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: stereotype, fails WP:NPOV. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    NPOV doesn't apply to user pages. —Doug Bell  00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
And if that point of view is divisive, or discrimatory, then it ought to be deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And then our personal POV that same-sex marriage is a good thing will have triumphed over that of those who hold the contrary view. Funny, I didn't think that was how we did things here... WjBscribe 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not, and you're twisting what I'm saying. I'm saying that userboxes are tolerated by the community on the basis that they are not offensive, divisive, inflammatory or discrimatory. This userbox does not meet those requirements and should be deleted. I would just as well delete any userbox that said "This user believes that civil partnerships are between two romantically involved people of the same sex", which is discrimatory towards those people who are agitating for civil partnerships to be made open to heterosexual couples. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
What's divisive about them? Now if there was a userbox that said "This user hates feminists"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Ask a serving soldier whether they think advocating for pacifism is divisive or not. There are millions of people in America who consider feminism to be deeply offensive and divisive. I don't believe either of those things, by the way, but we either allow all legal viewpoints or none. Gwernol 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That would certainly lessen the offensiveness in it. But I have a feeling that the holders of this userbox would disagree with the removal of the word "only". Agne/ 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I see your concern, and understand it. But that doesn't have to happen necessarily. After all, the point is the same, while not being offensive to anybody. :-) I'd rather assume good faith from everyone, and believe no one wants to offend other users knowingly. Cheers Raystorm 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep On a personal level I disagree with the userbox. So what if a woman loves a woman or a man loves a man and wants to marry her/him? Its none of your business. On the level of a Wikipedian I cannot help but defend this box, since it is a valid expression of free speech and is not truely inflammatory (as a box saying "This users hopes that gay couples die horribly slow and painful deaths, so their eternal torment in hell be even more argonizing" might be - mind the hyperbole). If it were in templatespace I would !vote it to be moved into userspace (as it is not NPOV amongst other things). But as it is already in userspace I fail to see where the issue lies. Wikipedians use this userbox as a way to express their opinions, and Userspace is quite lenient in regard of what is accepted or tolerated (non NPOV content for example). For the curious, there have been long, long, long debates and conflicts about what is acceptable when where - escalating in the Userbox Wars, which have, for now come to end in the compromise that non NPOV userbox don't belong in templatespace, but are accepted in userspace (always provided they conform to the big policies like WP:USER and WP:NPA). CharonX/talk 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I disagree with this userbox, but that's not my sole reason of deletion. It goes against this and this. Cheers, — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 20:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to hop on the simplified summary below: "If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes." Is stating that one holds extremely traditionalistic views on marriage permitted on a userpage? If not, then I imagine we are in a hot tub full of trouble. For the same arguments (it being divisive) a traditionalist could demand deletion of userbox advocating same sex marriage. Or a pro-military activist find pro-peace userboxes divisive. CharonX/talk 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Argh, Homophobia. Seriously though, we previously had many debates over similar userboxes, including the pedophilia, nazi, and Ku Klux Klan ones. Although I'm normally in favor of keeping userboxes that provide an uncontroversial point of view, I'm inclined to strongly oppose userboxes which take an anti-X stance. This can eventually lead to unproductive wars and harassment among editors with a different sexuality; note that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. I believe these userboxes have no place on userspace, nor Misplaced Pages in general. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Mentioning nazis, pedophilia and the KKK in the same breath as a box which (in direct, but inoffensive) words advocates the conservative view on marriage is a little strong, ne? Anyway, as I read this box it is not "this user opposes gay marriage" (even if it were, its a valid statement under free speech) It is formulated in a not-anti way - controversly a userbox saying "this user support same-sex marriage" could then be contstructed as "this user opposes the traditional definition of marriage". Which then would, under a objective point of view also be merited for deletion? CharonX/talk 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)