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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend[edit]

Userboxes like this are just silly, the user is being inconsiderate of other editors beliefs, and it's not exactly helping to build a strong sense of community. I'd even go as far as to say this is incivil. Something like "This user is an atheist", "This user does not beleive in God" etc. would be fine, but this is a little too far. Phoenix -wiki 15:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Phoenix-wiki. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems mostly harmless and not in wide use. I haven't looked, but has anyone addressed the possibility of refactoring the caption with Hexagon1? Not too long ago, we had ten or twenty pages of argument over whether a userbox supporting Hezbollah should be kept or deleted - and Hezbollah is an internationally recognized violent terrorist organization (in addition to a political party in Lebanon, yes I know). We shouldn't take these userbox deletion wars into the arena of censoring unpopular opinion, that is where the debate starts to get enormously contentious and frankly it just isn't worth the time. Avruch^T * ^ER 15:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Avruch's well-written comments. We have userboxes on iraqi resistance, opposition to homosexual marriage.. lots of things people could find offensive. There's no need to cross the "good taste" line into "censoring". Ironho lds 16:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "good taste line", it's inconsiderate, and I'm sure the creator knows full well. It's not exactly doing the sense of community any good either. Also, it doesn't matter that there are other userboxes, I MFD bad ones when I see them, so by that argument none of them could ever be deleted somply because the otherd existed see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Phoenix -wiki 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy on userboxes: "Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.". This doesn't seem to violate that. Ironho lds 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This is highly inappropriate for userpages, it's divisive etc.--Phoenix -wiki 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it divisive? do we have any editors posting big essays about how a user saying he doesnt believe in god in a certain way is wrong? it's not going "god does not exist and all you people who think he/she/it does are douches" it's simply adding a bit of cynicism and dry wit. Ironho lds 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's saying "God does not exist and all of you who think he does are imagining it"-Phoenix -wiki 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as "I do not believe god exists and would appreciate people who do believes god exists keeping it to themselves". The userbox owner (and user) is saying that they believe god is imaginary. By this logic all atheistic userboxes would be banned; To many religions people saying that god doesn't exist regardless of phrasing is considered offensive Ironho lds 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Offensive to no wikipedia policy. We don't delete experiments or works in progress, especially in userspace, where this is appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as 'owner'. This is no more offensive than User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist (a WP:SNOW keep) or User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah (even with the new wording), and that are just two examples I found. A wide latitude is given in regards to userboxes, and I completely fail to see why a rational editor would be offended by this, it was not created to offend. I accept it may be a little edgy to a small minority, but then again so are a vast majority of articles and images that we proudly display in the mainspace (including graphic depictions of sexual organs/activity). Sorry if I'm incoherent, I have extremely limited internet time atm, and I may not be able to reply promptly either. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a religious person, I think atheism is silly, and yet I can't find anything offensive in this userbox. It's quite funny really, and I'd love to see a "reply" one stating something like "Sorry, but no, I won't." ;-) -- alexgieg (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see one too, I would even create it, but I can't think of an entertaining response. And if it got nominated for deletion, I would support it at all costs. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was also present during the discussion of the aforementioned Jeff Dean userbox, and I'm seeing pretty much the same result here. I personally think as long as nobody is advocating violence or egregious personal insult then userboxes should not be censored. Yes, this is a community but we are not a commune, we don't all have to think alike or pretend like we do. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think it's too offensive. And per above reasons. Jack?! 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to me that the offensiveness of this userbox is not severe enough to warrant deletion. This is not specifically directed, the form "keep ... for yourself" may sound a bit rough, but I don't see significant protests over this, and stating that religions come from people's imagination is common and not an "actionable" offense. It's the responsibility of the user to display this kind of userboxes, deletion should be used for more serious cases. Cenarium (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Stong Delete because It is regligously offensive, provocative, provides no meaningful content and most likly going to start a massive flamewar. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been mentioned repeatedly that it's humourous in nature. It's not like it's a fred phelps userbox or anything (although some religious people would find that perfectly acceptable). For something that "is probably going to start a massive flamewar" it only has two votes so far that oppose keeping it. Ironho lds 04:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that may be true, however you can't deny that a lot of your opposes in your RFA are due at least partly to this userbox, so some people must be offended. I'm of the opinion that this userbox has likely caused irreperable damage to your reputation, this will follow you to your next RFA no doubt. someone will bring it up no doubt. Is there any harm changing the link? «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing my personal feelings is pointless (i've spellchecked your comment, btw, hope you dont mind). People weren't offended at my RfA so much as worried people might be in the future, you're the only one who went "ooh, it offends me", and i'm sure if anyone brings this up it will be you. I'm not going to swivel around and decide i'd like this removed just because WP:AGF went out the window. Ironho lds 05:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is one person who has irreparably damaged their reputation here, it is you. By not removing the userbox when things got heated Ironholds has proven himself as an reliable and honest user, and together with his editing record he would make a brilliant administrator. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just be careful not to stab your allies, You have my word that i wont bring it up at the next RFA and if you want further proof dont forget i went in neck high to bat for you before i saw that userbox (check the revision history). Impling that my religeon is imaginery might be humorous to those who arnt religous, but its not ammusing to me. Ill keep my "imaginery friends" to myself if you kept your ramarks to yourself «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But thats exactly what I mean. you were all for me based on edits, contributions, answers.. and then you saw a user box and oh, there it goes. It isnt that important, it's a personal opinion. Ignoring my RfA (this is about the userbox, not its users), It is an amusing opinion. If you dont find it particularly nice, fair enough, but it's not like its being tattooed across the inside of your eyelids. It's in use on maybe 5 userpages, so if you dont want to see it it's easy to avoid. Ironho lds 11:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Ill respect your POV (and that of the other editors who thinks its funny) As for your RFA I do apologise, I feel that in a perfect world that user box shoudn't have made a difference at all, well, now we know how in-perfect the word really is :-) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, it was you that made this world "in-perfect" with your vote suggesting that userboxes DO matter. Also, interesting how you consider yourself an 'ally' when you've become the userbox's most vocal opponent, even attempting a unilateral speedy to override this debate. PS: Please consider using Firefox, it comes with spell-checking capability. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't find this to be offensive at all (but then again, I'm not easily offended). There is currently a lack of policy to delete these types of userboxes and I see no harm in keeping it around. — _Maggot^Syn 05:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Avruch's cogent keep rationale as well as many others. I find no offensiveness, incivility, or lack of consideration. Rather: (1) it is amusing, and the reference to imaginary friends is clever (2) other similar userboxes have set precedents (3) those that don't believe in religion could find religious userboxes inconsiderate using the same rationale, and why should we take sides (4) we are not censored (5) userboxes and other user page comments and stuff are the only ways to proclaim one's individuality in a very limited venue (6) despite the often proclaimed "this isn't MySpace", this is a volunteer effort and we are highly social animals, so some of this actually does increase participation, I believe. All in all, that is: A good thing ™ — Becksguy (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to procli=aim your individuality, and even if it was, you could do it without saying those who beleive something are imagining things. Precedents do not matter, though the consensus has generally been delete. Censoring, this isn't censoring, this is removing overly-divisive userboxes, I support the deletion of userboxes taht say those who don't beleive are imagining things or worse.-Phoenix -wiki 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not an atheist. I have a sense of humour. I think the userbox design is imaginative and its message is clever. — Athaenara ✉ 05:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what it's message is, it's over provocative.--Phoenix -wiki 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone seems to be worrying that it could cause harm, consternation, or offense to large groups of wiki-editors. As this has shown, the majority of editors seem fine with keeping it, and "wikipedia is not a crystal ball" should not be limited to article content. We cant withdraw something on the basis that somebody might find it offensive in the future; this is the here and now. I'll accept that for userboxes where it's blindingly obvious that they'll cause offense/disturbance (see the MfD on a box that advocated killing members of the KKK; killing is wrong regardless of the scumbags involved) this doesnt necessarily hold true. Ironho lds 03:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just spoken to Prom3th3an; he's withdrawn his strong delete opinion. I'm not sure exactly why (he was making a cogent argument, albeit one I disagreed with) just that he has. Ironho lds 03:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing offensive about this at all. Hasn't it been more than 5 days? Can an admin please close this as there is ample evidence of a consensus here?PelleSmith (talk) 17:41, 14 June 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.