Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/FreeTibet

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep unanimously (nominator excepted.) Xoloz (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/FreeTibet

Delete This userbox is supporting secessionist movement. Such userboxes cannot be teolerated. Free Tibet means what? Who occupied Tibet? This userbox is divisive, inflammatory and controversial. This userbox should be deleted. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bad faith nomination. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Issue with userbox: "The purpose of userboxes is to tell the ideology and opinion of users. When users do not directly tell their ideology, they tell it through userbox. It is the purpose of userboxes." --WebHamster 12:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faight? Opposing a secessionist movement is bad faith? And supporting a secessionist movement is what you call WP:AGF? This is your WP:AGF? This is your WP:NPOV? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting nuclear weopon is not similar to supporting secessionist movement. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bad faith comes when you try to create a series of ridiculous userboxes, get shouted down then go on a mission to get userboxes which make statements you don't agree with deleted. I suggest you read up on Tibet before you start with the "successionist" twaddle. --WebHamster 12:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means secessionist. Walton^One 14:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you think right. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, so the Dalai Lama chose to opt out did he? Must have been because he loved special fried rice so much eh? --WebHamster 14:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My opinion is that this userbox (and others that follow the "This user supports free X" scheme) are quite different from User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist as the latter one explicitly supports open armed conflict (that's what insurgency stands for) while the former ones are open to other forms of resistance movement, such as nonviolence. Therefore I have no strong feelings against this userbox (per AGF). Миша 13 14:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination. Fosnez (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I suggest that the community ban Otolemur crassicaudatus from discussing userboxes here or on the administrators' noticeboards. (Not prohibit him from making boxes on his own page, just publically discussing them.) *** Crotalus *** 15:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a topic ban for Otolemur crassicaudatus. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:07, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we agree on something :D --WebHamster 16:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep secessionist how? They are an occupied nation, with their native leadership kicked out. Lawrence Cohen 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to everyone above - It is irrelevant whether this is a bad faith nomination or not. The nominator has advanced a genuine policy-based reason for deleting this userbox (viz. divisive, inflammatory and controversial). I personally have no opinion on whether the userbox should be deleted, but please evaluate this MfD on the strength of the reasons rather than on your opinion of the nominator. Walton^One 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is merely a link to article International Tibet Independence Movement. I also agree with Misza13 that such user box is not inflammatory. But I strongly oppose to any bans or actions with regard to Otolemur crassicaudatus. He has every right to mark articles or userboxes for deletion per WP rules.Biophys (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WebHamster, I agree this is a bad faith nomination. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of template is not allowed to add his or her vote. Sorry, Die. (No pun intended.) --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|24-16-4} 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And where did that little factoid come from? For a start this is not a voting system and secondly any legit editor can make his or her feelings known at an xfD.--WebHamster 00:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree here, the author is prehaps the most important !vote because they were the ones that created it. No policy says you can't comment on articles that you created that are for deletion, and the same applies here. Fosnez (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Before I added that strikethrough, I had just read an arbitration request regarding template deletions where the creator voiced his opinion in keeping them... and got into a sticky mess. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|24-16-4} 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come ON!!! You are ALLOWED to voice opinions in userboxes! (Like this user prefers white chocolate!) They are OUTSIDE of the Wikipedia namespace! Only pages without a prefix must have a neutral point of view. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|24-16-4} 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not exactly true, free speech does not exist on Wikipedia. See WP:USER. I have no opinion on the MFD. --Core desat 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who is this offending? The Chinese? The Chinese cannot edit Wikipedia, sad to say. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merely stating a viewpoint in a userbox like this is not inflammatory. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stating an opinion in a userbox is not inflammatory. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You deleted "Better Dead Than Red" userbox people... Be fair in all cases ! --Krzyzowiec (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not really divisive or propaganda... just a statement of position. - Headwes (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Bad faith nomination to disrupt things. Userboxes are for users' opinions, as far as i know. If this user wants to say they support X or like Y, they should be able to. If not, then convert to DIV tags. as well, Wikipedia should not be afraid of "angering" the Peoples' Republic of China, as per WP:BOLD. I for one support a free and independent Tibet anyway. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to the person that said this won't offend the chinese becuase they can't even access wikipedia (due to the Great Firewall of China), you're right. even more of a reason to keep this little box up. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is completely different than the Right to Resist userbox. The RTR box is advocating violence, while this one isn't. It isn't divisive or inflamatory either, and not particularly controversial. - Koweja (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who says the RtR UBX is promoting violence? It's promoting resistance and that's all. Your comment is inappropriate in this MfD. --WebHamster 16:35, 17 January 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.