User talk:UBX/Userboxes/Beliefs/Archive 1

Science fiction boxes

I think the Star Wars-related boxes should be moved to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny or Wikipedia:Userboxes/Other. -- Tetraminoe 07:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, because although there are some people who say such things express genuine political beliefs, their numbers are dwarfed, even in their SF-fandom circles, by those who are expressing humor with such messages. --James S. 19:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

How about a "Klingon Empire" box? Trekphiler 05:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, at either Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny or Wikipedia:Userboxes/Other. --James S. 19:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

User lennonist

I have moved {{User lennonist}} from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Other. To the extent that Wikipedians use this template to indicate their personal political or ideological beliefs, I believe the template belongs on this page. I think it is intended to be primarily used this way. However, to the extent that Wikipedians use the template merely to indicate that they like John Lennon or "Imagine," I think it would belong on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Other. Comments? -- Tetraminoe 08:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, because it is in line with the expression of the other kinds of beliefs on this page. --James S. 19:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing templates

The {{User capitalist}} template is apparently missing (I didn't do it!) I'm unclear as to how to restore it. I think it represents a genuine belief of the sort collected here, so it should be restored. Since I'm new to templates, I would rather experiment with new templates than those which might already appear on people's user pages. So maybe someone else should bring it back. --James S. 19:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have put {{User:UBX/Capitalist}} up for deletion review - please vote to overturn the original decision here. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 20:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

re-organisation

basically, my POV is that

1) abortion shouldn't be at the top. It's too much of a POV issue.

2) political ideologies should be at the top, as they are general but specific.

3a) the whole regional politics section is a nightmare and needs to be outsourced... but under what name and alongside what remains a question.

3b) the independence movements section is (was) getting far too large, so I broke it up. But I don't like level-4 subheaders, and I don't like that section. But once the whole lot are outsourced, we can clear that up.

4) santa is too flippant for here, so I moved it to the "funny" section.

File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 23:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I was working on that without seeing this. (1) I'll change "Abortion" to "Reproduction". (2) "General but specific?" I don't understand. (3) I merged the independence movements into the other regionals. (4) Fair enough. —James S. 23:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay I like what you've done with the regions. "General but specific" - what I meant was that they are general, i.e. not as divisive as abortion - there's a middle ground; BUT, they have their individual specific meanings and thus political significance for the user. I'm going to bed now anyway so I'll see what's left in the morning. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 23:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Abortion was at the topic because the page was organized alphabetically, and "abortion" came first.

I chose not to organize the issues into "general" headers because that can be POV. In fact, some of the old (and current) header names are POV -- it might be better to say "abortion / reproductive rights" and "independence / separatist movements". Regardless of the question of names, I'm not sure grouping issues into "general categories" serves much purpose, other than possibly to offend people who disagree with the categories, and I'm even less sure that the way they are currently categorized is very valuable.

And yeah, Santa isn't meant to be here. Though I think those boxes might belong under Userboxes/Other under a Holiday heading. -- Tetraminoe 00:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-communism?

I believe here should be template 'anti-communist user' as well. Pic might be hammer and sickle crossed through. Constanz -- User_talk:Constanz 15:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added 'No Marxism' template (see other) Constanz 16:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-consumerism

Why isn't there an anti-consumerist user box? Will someone that knows how to make them make one up, perhaps with the word "Yuppies" crossed through it as the image, and the words "This user is an anti-consumerist." Or whatever image the author thinks is apropriate. Maprov 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Making userboxes is very easy, just read the guidelines on WP:UBX. The fact that one doesn't exist suggests that no one has thought of the need to do it, so if you really think there should be one then here you go! Deano (Talk) 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Put it at Template:user anticonsumerism or something:

Two examples of similar boxes for you to work from (edit this page to see the code)

M$	This user would rather die than become a mindless MicroCorp consumer-drone.

(Template:user ms sucks)

Mac pod

This user would rather die than become a mindless AppleCorp consumer-drone.

(Template:user apple sucks)

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Politics" rather than "beliefs"?

Would "politics" be a clearer name for this page than "beliefs," which could be confusing (e.g. with religion)? -- Tetraminoe 08:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it could be good, but I spose from the viewpoint of policital beliefs, it could encompass more. However with the wide scale cleanup of this page, politics would be a suitable title, so I support it. Ian¹³_ID:540053 15:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Political parties already have their own page; at top. --James S. 20:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I outsourced Political Parties because they had a clear boundary in terms of what is and what isn't. Breaking up the rest of this page is a lot more ambiguous, as some thinks come under "political viewpoint", others are more ethical, others fit neither well but could come under both. I'd suggest leave it alone for now... we'll see how cluttered it gets and then do something then. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not quite; the most accurate word is ideals. If anyone agrees, please say so. MissingBoxes 19:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

NGOs

There should be a sub-section for non government organizations. The Amnesty International, Make Poverty History, etc. boxes look out of place right now. --Madchester 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

CSD

I've delisted this page from CSD, if you want to pursue it's deletion bring it to WP:MFD, this page has a long history and is linked from many pages. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Template deletion

What the heck is going on here? Who is deleting all these templates? In the political parties section,

GOP	This user supports the U.S. Republican Party.

is deleted yet user democrat is not. All this deleting sounds VERY POV. I smell a rat and it's a bad smell. The communism stuff is all deleted. I have yet to see why many of them were deleted. In fact, I think I saw only one or two that deserved it. They also don't seem to have deletion pages on Tfd so we may have a rogue admin (shudder). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This template has been deleted by User:Kelly Martin (see Kelly Martin's admin deletion log]) because she didn't like it. Big brother is watching YOU. Wiki-censorship for all!

I just had the {{User no-wiki-police-state}} userbox I created and put on this page deleted as trolling withing a few minutes. I think that instead of dividing the community into lots of rival factions, these userboxes are dividing it into only 2--free speech vs no speech at all. Heck, I've even been supporting republicans lately, and that is scary for me. That is how bad this anti-userbox thing has gotten. I suggest that everyone who cares about free speech on wiki userpages go to the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates to make sure that our voices are not deleted out of existence. Solidarity. The Ungovernable Force 07:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Animal Rights

What happened with the animal rights templates? Sir Paul 08:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

the sysops censored them out. Just like they are doing with all the userboxes that express an opinion. I suggest that everyone who cares about free speech on wiki userpages go to the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates to make sure that our voices are not deleted out of existence. Solidarity. The Ungovernable Force 08:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's great that someone is recreating the animal rights templates userboxes, but fyi, the "no meat" one was a lot different. I don't want to say how it was different for fear of retribution, but just so you know. The Ungovernable Force 17:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No Rand???

Can someone explain what happened to {{user No Rand}}?? There is NO deletion history, and I think we need an explanation. Nhprman 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no history because it's been deleted; only admins can view pages and histories after deletion. It was nominated for CfD because of using a derogatory term ("Randroid") and being otherwise offensive and provocative. It was subsequently revised entirely, such that it only said that the user opposed objectivist philosophy, and it received a consensus for "keep" on CfD. It was then speedy-deleted by admins on the assumption that it was "clearly divisive" (now "polemical") and "inflammatory", thus qualifying for the new T1 speedy-delete criterion. This deletion is currently under review. -Silence 18:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Since posting that previous note, I've been convinced that all of these political Userboxes need to go. There is no place for political harranguing on Wikipedia. As a side note, I notice that these speedy deletes have been VERY selective. As an example, "User:Anti-Fascism" remains, but "User:Fascist" was cut. "Marxism" and "Anarchism" boxes are left untouched, and some might find them just as "polemical" (Surely "User does not trust electronic voting machines" is politically divisive, and has no place here.) I wonder why these isolated "saves" are occuring? I'm not hinting at conspiracy, but... I'd love to see them ALL gone, other than Babel and location boxes. (I'll make this point at the deletion review, too.) Nhprman 21:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Table glitch

There was a glitch in the table under the section Censorship. The mark-up is all correct; however, the rest of the article after the end of the table was contained within the last cell of that table. This only seemed to affect that table and not any of the other tables, even though they all are marked up properly. I fixed the table by putting a second |} at the end.

I'm using the latest version of Firefox, and I had a friend of mine who uses the latest version of Internet Explorer confirm the glitch. Since it showed up for both of us, I don't think it was a browser issue.

I just thought this should be pointed out. Athelwulf 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Shouldn't the "user enjoys philosphy" be under interests rather than beliefs? I'd hate too see it destroyed if/when all the beliefs are destroyed as it isn't any worse than anything in the interests category and shouldn't offend people. Shadowoftime 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be listed on both pages, just like "This user is interested in politics" is. If some sloppy admin deletes it in a mass-delete, just submit it Deletion Review to and it'll be undeleted. -Silence 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

?

I'd like to know why all of these user boxes are just being trashed. What's the point - if I'm going to display my political orientations on my user page, then it's more fun to do it through the templates rather than typing it out. What the hell is going on? Salva 02:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been a new category added to WP:CSD for speedy deletion of divisive templates. Clearly, some people have interpreted that to mean any userbox that indicates that the user holds a point of view is divisive. I'm not too sure that's the correct interpretation so I've asked for clarification. enochlau (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Salva 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Typing your interests/beliefs manually works fine, and can be done without the endless debates required by userbox templates. See User Interest Lists for an innovative, colorful way of displaying User interests in the Userspace. Nhprman 07:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• To me, that proves the opposite point. What's the difference between me typing "I am a Marxist lesbian feminist vegetarian" into my userspace (which even the 'bold'est admin probably wouldn't change), but I can't have a userbox that says, in a prettier way, I am 'gay,' 'Marxist,' and 'feminist?' To say that I cannot declare that I hold a feminist point of view and that I also, at the same time, cannot divorce myself from that for NPOV purposes is disingenuous, and inherently a violation of the policy about assuming good faith, IMHO. Joey 06:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism [?] vs. Communism

There seems to be a plethora of communist identity templates (including an anti-Ayn-Rand-objectivism badge), yet not a single nationalist or anti-communist template. Perhaps it would be more fair to include at least one?

There is an anti-communist one:

File:No Karl Marx.JPG

This user rejects all forms of Marxist thinking.

. And anyway, just make one (it will probably get deleted though since userboxes are considered so evil nowadays. The Ungovernable Force 05:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the No Marx box has been deleted repeatedly, but whenever the Communist/antifascist box templates are nominated for deletion, some helpful person removes the Tfd tag, or they all gang up to "vote" to keep it - an ironic demonstration of democracy by Communists. Banning one political side of the equation is horribly unfair, but of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy, or a soapbox, or a social networking site.) Nhprman ^UserLists 13:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Keeping with fairness, here's a pro-Ayn-Rand-Objectivism badge.

Rand	This user strongly supports Ayn Rand's Objectivist Philosophy.

--Khat Wordsmith 06:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's Message

REPENT! The end is near! (for POV/'belief' Userboxes.) Thank you, Jimbo, for speaking out on this issue and giving some sense of where on this issue is headed. Nhprman ^UserLists 16:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm tired right now, here is a copy/paste of my comment on Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Religion

Well, this kinda sucks a lot. Can somebody again explain to me why it's logical to do this? I'm sure the editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica aren't forbidden from expressing their views in public; nobody at Britannica headquarters is going to reprimand an editor for attending church (or temple, or an American Atheists meeting). But whatever. For the record, if any of my religiously- or politically-themed userboxes are deleted (liberal, dislikes Bush, going to Hell), I'm just going to replace them on my page with the necessary code. Jeff Silvers 02:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Many people are urging Userbox fans to do just what you suggest: put it on the User pages. While I suppose it just brings the problem to "Userspace," and it technically still would exist on Wikipedia (which, as it is said, "is not a soapbox" "is not a democracy" is not.., etc.) it does solve the "Userbox War." It also would stop many endless, stupid debates. As for Britannica, as with any workplace, there are surely restrictions on expression there. Any business can prevent you from putting up a sign in your cubicle saying "Bush is ..." or "Defeat ..." or "I'm against ...." to prevent endless debates, discussion and controversies in the workplace, which is, after all, a work place. This is a workplace of sorts, too, and I suspect THAT'S the logic Jimbo's using in his latest statements on this problem. Nhprman ^UserLists 04:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica editors aren't forbidden to express their opinions in public (and neither are we) but Britannica probably doesn't feel obliged to permit editors to supply themselves with "I'm a Catholic" bumper stickers in a manner that suggests that this is a matter that is in any way associated with the encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia written in English. Why when a person has spent maybe three hours writing an interesting article about the nuances of pacifism, just war theory, war resistance, peace pledges and whatnot, is he suddenly presumed to have been reduced to a knuckle-dragging cretin who is unable to use the same writing skills in writing about himself and so has to make do with the hieroglyphs: {{pacifist}} ? --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Could Jimbo's message also be addressed on the regional politics page also? There's so many red links on that page and some of the users are wondering where some of their userboxes are going. Douglasr007 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo himself will have to leave the actual message he posted elsewhere, but I posted a link to his recent comments on the page you suggested that has been appearing on template pages, which should be helpful in clarifying what's going on. Nhprman ^UserLists 04:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who writes on wikipedia has various biases in their writing due to their beliefs, religion, interests and so on. i think the userboxes can bring such biases of contributors and their contributions into the open rather than hide it away. Anyway as far as I have seen they are only used on people's personal user pages, i personally have little interest in using them (i don't use any) but have no great desire to stop others doing so. -- Paxomen 13:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While there's an argument to be made against NOT announcing your biases (I'd prefer to have fewer barriers to assuming good faith and "I hate xxxx" tends to put up barriers,) the big problem has become all the arguing over the templates for these silly little boxes. As long as they exist in the same space where articles exist, they will be a problem. Once folks either cut-and-paste the code to these boxes onto their Userpages, or simply LIST their interests/biases/beliefs on their pages, that particular problem will pretty much take care of itself. Nhprman ^UserLists 01:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To assume that because someone is a feminist, they cannot write in an NPOV way about issues that are feminist-related is already a violation of WP:AGF if you ask me. As for moving it to the userpage instead of in userboxes - there is no difference, and that is not a solution. The only thing it will do, is piss off a large number of users. Always a stupid thing to do, especially for absolutely no gain whatsoever. Joey 06:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Most users know how to cut, paste and share the minimal code needed to swap userboxes back and forth, so I don't really see the problem. As for announcing "I am a feminist" I see that a potential problem, as I noted above. Frankly, if there's a "I'm a feminist" box (and it's in the Template space) there's bound to be a "I hate feminists" or "Feminism is bogus" box created to counter it. Hense, we have an instant battle on our hands. It's not worth it, as we can see from the current problems. There's a HUGE difference between posting some code on your own User page - or (for crying out loud!) just SAYING it in text form - and placing a box out there that can and WILL be vandalized, argued about and countered with others. The big gain is avoiding all this foolishness. Also, using the Template format allows for social networking with the Category function, making this into a social networking site, which Jimbo has said he is adamantly opposed to doing. As for pissing users off, the owners own this site, not the users. If they want to give users control of how parts of the site runs, then that's great. But in the end, the owners set the parameters and terms of service, not the users. It's that way with Myspace, Yahoo Groups, etc. and its that way in the Real World. Nhprman ^UserLists 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

While I absolutely fail to see your point, as you apparently fail to see mine, I think that your note about the owners owning the site and not the users to be true, but foolish. The way it is in the Real World is that the owners CATER to their clientele, or they lose them. On a free market, a totalitarian business model (and what you describe is a businss model) is often trumped by one that gives consumers more choice over their own consumption of the product. I fail to see how your endorsement of heavy-handed adminship has a -positive- effect on the encyclopedia and not a negative one. Furthermore, as a feminist I am COMPLETELY FINE if someone puts up userboxes decrying feminism on their own usersite. I will not vandalize or delete it, just like I wouldn't vandalize or delete a block of text. You've stated that you think someone declaring that they are a feminist on their user page in plain text could be problematic. That is outrageous! And if I admit to being gay? Some hate gays, they will be offended. What if I am Jewish? We know the anti-Semites don't like that. And the fact that I announce that I am male, as I have said previously, intrinsically separates me from the other half of my contributing public. To make us divorce our opinions, identifiers, and very essences while still happily prancing around with things like Esperanza and community efforts is not very genuine. In the 'real world' you have to accept people for what they are - you can't censor them and make them not tell you they are gay. If I wear a t-shirt you don't like in public, you look away. You don't call the SS and have me arrested and my t-shirt burned. Be realistic. Joey 20:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to think a bit more about what happens in the "real world." What you call a "totalitarian" business model is not any such thing, nor in my opinion should it be junked in favor of a "direct democracy" model in whch employees suddenly start making ALL the decisions for the bosses, which would be as ineffective as it is Utopian. If I work for a company and have a desk or a cubicle, I may be forbidden to put up a bumper sticker or sign saying "I am a feminist" or "I hate gays" or "Abortion is murder" or "Keep abortion legal." It simply is the employer's RIGHT to say I cannot do this, and it does not make the business model ineffective by any means. In fact, it focuses emplyees back on their key tasks, not arguing about politics, religion or sexuality, which distracts them from their work. Every single discussion board on the 'net has rules, and moderators to enforce those rules. Jimbo Wales has said this is NOT a social networking site - where we are here to become part of "communities," etc. - but it's clear he has allowed Userpages to become just that. His silence has given rise to the illusion (which I think you share) that this is some kind of social site, rather than an encyclopedia. Despite your rather anarchistic view of Website ownership, he has every right to rein in the out-of-control, divisive and inflammatory expressions on this site and re-focus the site on writing an encyclopedia. And please read What Wikipedia is not. WP is not a democracy where we can insist on unregulated free expression. It just isn't. Nhprman 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion and Euthanasia templates

I think that there should be user templates for users who are either pro-choice or pro-life. I think some were made, but they were deleted. ISD 11:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If they were recreated, they would probably be deleted again as inflammatory and divisive.

However a statement of the kind "I am interested in the ethical debate over euthanasia" or "I am interested in the ethical debate over abortion" would probably be acceptable because it expresses an area of interest without advertising an opinion. --Tony Sidaway 12:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A fantastic idea, yes. -Silence 05:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Request

There should be a User box for people who support war. Or like that name i forgot... It means someone who lives for conflict and fighting. MegaloManiac 13:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the word you're looking for is "suicidal imbecile". —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I think the term being sought is probably warmonger. —GrantNeufeld 20:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the word here - for this discussion, and the box - is "divisive," or "inflammatory," and such a box would surely be deleted by administrators. Wikipedia is not a political battleground, not a homepage, not a democracy, and not a free webhosting service. Political rants, both pro- or anti-war, belong on "myspace" or some other free board, not an encyclopedia. Nhprman 21:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship My vote goes against censorship! SirIsaacBrock 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech," (from (WP:NOT, the same article cited above.) In other words, this project has RULES, and is "not an experiment in anarchy," as that same page notes. As I said above, it's not a democracy, so your vote will not be required. You can, however, work to subvert the rules and rally supporters to "save" your favorite Userboxes, all the while trashing and deleting others that are not as popular. This is common practice right now. That is, until the site owners put a stop to it. In the meantime - never mind. Have FUN! Ignore the rules! Yippee! </sarcasm> Nhprman 02:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Some users such as myself are supporting virtually all userboxes, not just the ones we support (and in case you can't tell from my userpage, I'm very opinionated). Please don't generalize about the supporters of the pro-userbox movement. Most people I've seen seem to be supporting userboxes they don't agree with as well as ones they do. Just though I should point this out. See my manifesto for more info on that.--The Ungovernable Force 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, though disgree with parts of it. My view is that either they should all stay, or all go, or some should stay, but with restrictions. The "limbo" we're all in right now is intolerable, however. It's a huge distraction. I disagree with your manifesto's assertion that Jimbo has no right to make decisions on this. He's the site owner and has every right to set rules, boundaries and guidelines for the operation of this site. You or I are not directors of this corporation. We are visitors here, and have paid nothing for the privilege. The problem of course is when he gives out cryptic statements that are considered authoritative, and require much interpretation. That's the T1 problem you mention, even though I agree with the conclusions of the T1 statement. As for the idea of "seeking consensus," it's turned into mob rule, as you (perhaps indirectly, but correctly) note in the manifesto. In the case of articles, consensus works. But you don't decide large issues through consensus, especially when the process of seeking it never seems to end. Nhprman 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchy sounds good to me till someone asks 'who'd fix the sewers?' Every theory has it's holes when real life steps in" ("Where do You Draw the Line?" by the Dead Kennedys). Consensus when done right is the best way to run anything, but it can be done wrong. Consensus requires people who are committed to building it and who have the ability to discuss things in a polite and thoughtful manner. When this doesn't happen, it can become mob rule. The manifesto is designed more to provoke thought and discussion than to actually be implemented (I realize fully that Jimbo and others would never allow it). But honestly as an anarchist, I really could care less if Jimbo "owns" the site in the legal sense--it would be nothing without the labor of the editors (much in the same sense that corporations would be nothing without their workers). We built it, we should decide. The manifesto is more idealistic than anything else, but those are my ideas.--The Ungovernable Force 04:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis of consensus here is "spot on" as they say. I'm just not sure a group of editors like this fits that scenario. I see this more as an experiment in Mob rule, and, to an extent, an experiment in anarchy. As for people who work for corporations, they will likely never be asked their opinion of a merger, buy-out or even what food they want in the cafeteria. Life is unfair, as Pres. Kennedy used to say. I am glad you took the time to think things through and come up with thoughtful ideas about the issue, even though I may disagree on the conclusions. Nhprman 14:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many pacifist user boxes. I think it would be fair. There are is two sides to this. MegaloManiac 13:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC) oh and facist thats another one i want. MegaloManiac 13:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you were being funny or serious here, but the User:fascist box was 'speedy deleted' (more than once) while the "anti-fa" box, and the communist box, remain. I suppose the Mob was more in line with communist thinking than fascist thinking, so the mob was able to rally together and "vote" to save them. This kind of makes a mockery out of claims that WP is NOT a social networking site, not a democracy and that we don't ever "vote" here. Nhprman 14:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was being serious. I find it unfair to discriminate agianst my beliefs. I dont criticize yours.(yet.) But there is a satanist user box to christianity. And a carnivore to the vegitarian. I find it no big deal to have a Facist to the pacifist. and if you disagree you are a hypocrite, because you probaly think you are so open minded exept you arent. (I am not talking to any one in specific.) MegaloManiac 17:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with you and I am open-minded. If one exists, the opposite should, too. However, I think it would be a better option to eliminate ALL boxes than have this stupid "war" over userbox content and the popularity contests that allow "unpopular" boxes to be eliminated. This site's rules indicate that this is not the place for such debates, that it is not an experiment in democracy, and that freedom of expression is not an absolute. The fact that the site owners have allowed these rules to be ignored is a problem. Nhprman 19:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe they should alow all of them are destroy all of them, It is pointless to regulate things designated as "useless" MegaloManiac 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But I would wather have them. I don't think it hurts peple. And if they are hurt by it then they shouldnt be on the Internet. (or alive.) MegaloManiac 17:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I love the idea of userboxes being on the Internet. The trouble is, this site was created to write an online encyclopedia, not debate about war and peace and politics. It doesn't hurt people having them, except they distract people from the main mission of the site, and they are dividing people into opposing camps. Nhprman 21:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. MegaloManiac 17:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I still want a Facist user box MegaloManiac 05:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to stop. I guess I will make one my self. It is only fair and until I am the boss I believe in equality of all beliefs. MegaloManiac 17:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok come on Please? all I want for christmas is a Facist user box! Please please please? Please mommy? MegaloManiac 13:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Judging by your other userboxes, you can make one and put it under the Humour section since it seems you want the fascist userbox for the purpose of hilarity. Other politically unacceptable political opinions like mercenary activity is already represented there. Personally, I find corporatism fascinating. Joffeloff 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Useless Userboxes

User boxes such as these are almost or completely useless to the Wikipedia project, and also could be taken as offensive by some users, especially the boxes referring to drug usage and censoring. I think Jimbo is right, the boxes should be removed. I certainly will not be using them! Wikipeedio 16:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see you have a healthy sense of irony, since your Userpage has a couple dozen Userboxes. Or did you not realize that's what we're talking about? Nhprman 22:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So why don't you like these userboxes exactly? Jonathan ^talk File:Canada flag 300.png 20:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If they were JUST on userpages, and JUST about where one lived or what ones interests are, they would likely be fine. But they are made into Templates and put into "Categories," which allows Users to find other Users who share those interests. This has given rise to "tribes" of those with similar belief systems who rally for or against other Userbox Templates. Jimbo (the founder) says that's not why we're here, and I agree. That said, I do think Userboxes are very neat creations that could be the basis for a great social networking site. I also have no problem with sharing basic social information on User pages, within limits that are being discussed in the WP community (no personal attacks, etc.) Later, Nhprman 22:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The censor boxes are actually relevant to the Wikipedia project, though. Joffeloff 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My fear about user boxes i that ppl are going to care so much about there user page this place will turn int a MySpace thing. MegaloManiac 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Del utilitarianism

Many belief userboxes were deleted. Why hasn't "user-utilitarian"? Is there a discriminating censorship policy in Wikipedia? Velho 13:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Preventing or minimizing a battle over T2

If the T2 speedy deletion criterion is accepted, most or all of the userboxes on this page may be speedy-deleted. Because this may cause more strife and infighting than the userboxes themselves do, and because it will waste a lot of hard work for people to have to start from scratch creating more appropriate version of each, I propose (as I have similarly proposed for the Religion Userboxes) that, where a belief userbox could be changed to a corresponding interest-or-specialty-related userbox, we move the userbox to the more accurate name and change its text accordingly. The userbox will then subdivide users based on the articles they're likely to work on, rather than potentially dividing them into warring factions based on belief. For example, the following userboxes could be easily moved to solve the problem that they express a belief or ideology, rather than explaining what types of articles (in terms of topic) the user is willing or able to contribute to:

• {{User:Blast san/userboxes/User Socialist}} "This user identifies as a socialist." -> {{user socialism}} "This user is interested in socialism."
• {{user democracy}} "This user is an advocate of democracy." -> "This user is interested in democracy."
• {{user Julius Caesar}} "This user admires Julius Caesar." -> {{user julius caesar}} "This user is interested in Julius Caesar."
• {{user AI}} "This user supports Amnesty International." -> {{user ai}} "This user is interested in Amnesty International."
• {{user pacifist}} "This user is a pacifist." -> {{user pacifism}} "This user is interested in pacifism."
• {{user nuclear energy}} "This user supports the use of nuclear power." -> "This user is interested in nuclear power."
• {{user liberal}} "This user is a liberal." -> {{user liberalism}} "This user is interested in liberalism."
• "user Existentialist" "This user is an existentialist." -> "user existentialism" "This user is interested in existentialism."

And so on. (Several of the templates here, like "This user is interested in politics." and "This user is interested in the debate over abortion.", already conform to this principle.) Obviously this wouldn't be possible for all the templates on this page (for example, I don't see a way to remove the bias from {{User:UBX/Meaningoflife}} without changing the content and meaning altogether, such as with "This user is interested in the meaning of life."; and for others even that may not be possible), and I don't know whether we'd want to assume that all socialists are "interested in socialism" (with the simple page-move) or whether it would be better to subst the current templates first before we replace them with their reworded variants, but I think this would be an effective compromise between simply mass-deleting everything and fighting for each template's survival tooth and nail. Plus it would make the templates more clearly relevant to editing Wikipedia. And, as I noted, a simple page-move and reword will consume much less time than a mass-deletion followed by recreating more appropriate ones from scratch, and surely both pro- and anti-userboxers alike can agree that the less time and effort is wasted on this transitional period, the better. -Silence 21:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Those expressions are not equivalent... While I am a moral relativist I am not particularly interested in moral relativism, at least not to the extent that I would want that userbox. Translations like these have changed a number of my userboxes (shortly after adding them) into being wishy-washy and inaccurate. I'd sooner see them turfed than deleted, or moved so that the userbox on my page is not longer accurate. How about a box that says "This userbox has been deleted, { { BLAH } } has been suggested as an alternative." instead of putting words into my mouth? I think I'm going to have to start Watching any userboxes I decide to use. - Mr. Cat 03:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I specifically stated that all the original versions of the userboxes should have been (and should be) substed before the new versions are implemented. Users have been unwilling to assist in this endeavor, so we've been forced to move userboxes to new versions (To avoid their imminent speedy-deletion, which is what otherwise would have happened) without substing the old. Hopefully someone will come along eventually who is able to subst the old versions to the pages of users who had the pre-transfer 'boxes on their pages. -Silence 04:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How come you allwo liberal an pacifist but not conservitave and facist? MegaloManiac 16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Those are examples, as I explicitly stated above. They're completely random. We should certainly have {{user conservatism}} for "This user is interested in conservatism.", and {{user fascism}} for "This user is interested in fascism." -Silence 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"You"'ve deleted many userboxes. Delete utilitarianism too! Velho 13:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)