Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Avazina/EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION

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 discussion was Deleted at users request GB fan 15:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Avazina/EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION[edit]

The content restrictions on userboxes say userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. There are many userboxes that are both, but this one takes it to an extreme by presenting a mainstream scientific view as a 'religion' and 'evil'. It is listed in the userbox gallery in the Religion section, directly linked from WP:UBXG. ~ Kimelea (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Effectively, the userbox announces "I am nuts." When a WP editor is nuts, this is not always immediately obvious; and I for one sometimes find self-outing of this kind informative and convenient. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the word "Evil" is removed. The inclusion of "Evil" makes it too inflammatory. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not help the project one single bit. Also, a user who believes that "EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION" should not be let anywhere near some of the WP articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Joe, who might this inflame -- the thumpers? (I suspect that the reality-based community will join me in chuckling.) Alan, I don't know of any guideline whereby fantasists may be prevented from editing; meanwhile, this silliness helps other editors' understanding of the person's edits. -- Hoary (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, like, editing Wikipedia is the only one true religion. All the rest of the so called religions are parodies. Except for Flying Spaghetti Monster of course. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well said, Sir. -- Hoary (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider any chacterisation as "Evil" of any other editor to be inflammatory. This userbox seems to me to ascribe "Evil" to editors who consider evolution to be science. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder who it might inflame. (I'm not in flames; are you? I'm mildly amused.) Might any sane people be inflamed (in this century)? -- Hoary (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is inflamed yet. However, if this userbox were to lead to a discussion, that discussion could easily become inflammed due to the opening statement being inflmmatory. Evolution versus creationism is a combustible and volatile subject, and the word "Evil" is like a spark. I don't think that including the word "Evil" adds anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. -- Hoary (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete of this (to me) most usefully self-incriminating of daft userboxes, because, as SmokeyJoe says, it might lead to another discussion in which people take the matter seriously and become inflamed. -- Hoary (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what do you think of the idea of getting Avazina to tone down the word "Evil"? I think that is the ideal outcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Avazina (talk · contribs) is rarely active, I have made the edit that I think makes the userbox acceptable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. The result is no longer hilarious, but still usefully labels whoever care to apply it to themselves. (What would Mencken say?) -- Hoary (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, your point is gracefully made (and made me smile), but I note that there are still plenty of ways to self-declare oneself as sane or otherwise. Naming no names. I wonder how you would define inflammatory? Or do you think the guideline requiring userboxes not to be inflammatory should be changed? ~ Kimelea (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd guess that you and I would largely agree on what is and isn't an inflamed situation. The question is rather: What's likely to produce this? "God hates fags", likely; "Fags are evil", likely; God hates secular humanists", I doubt it; "Secular humanists are evil", I doubt it; "Evolution is an evil religion" (or similar), I doubt it very much. I mean, it seems to me to have come straight out of The Onion. (Admittedly, so do a non-trivial number of US politicians....) A tiny number of thumpers here might applaud it but I think the reaction of most other people would be somewhere along the spectrum from mild embarrassment to guffaws. -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a thumper? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...aggressively imposing..." -- Hoary (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep really pretty harmless now that SmokeyJoe has removed the word evil. The most offensive thing now is the use of an all caps word. A few users have it, and it gives a clue about their belief. Perhaps Kimelea should make a userbox that expresses upset by the idea that evolution is a religion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You rang? Not quite what you ordered, but closer to what Kimelea actually gets upset about... ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! I think last year there was some kind of Wikimedia Foundation poll on a technical means to censor certain kinds of images. Whatever became of that? Perhaps it can be extended to userboxes that some find offensive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to use that technical means for images of Muhammad is under discussion over here, so it looks like the technology is alive and well. But I don't think applying it to userboxes could do much good. The issue is not "this offends me, I don't want to be forced to look at it" but "is this the atmosphere we want? Do we want to communicate to newcomers that it's perfectly OK to use the userbox gallery for bigoted ranting in miniature?" ~ Kimelea (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avazina has blanked the userbox and replaced it with a request for speedy deletion. ~ Kimelea (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2012 (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.