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 Keep something lame from CBW 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a webhost. Although it is acceptable to express one's political views in the user space, it is not acceptable to childishly attack other websites. Please keep discussion based on policy and not on the nominator (myself) or the site that it is attacking (Conservapedia). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 16:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm on the fence with this one. While it is hyperbolical, such is not tantamount to childishness, especially and simply because you (the nominator) may disagree with the opinion in general, or as expressed. That said, there is a bit of support for deletion in the sentiments found at Wikipedia:Jimbo_on_Userboxes. If other users agree with you, then it should go. (Note to nom: You'll best be served not to canvass those you think might agree with you; just let it sit here and earn genuine responses. I'm assuming good faith; just offering a forethought.) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD template fixed & userbox creator notified. — Scientizzle 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's better that editors have an outlet to express their POV on their user page so that others can see this, rather than edit with this POV hidden away. If it isn't obvious, I disagree with many of Jimbo's (and the community's) views on user boxes. While I agree that they can be divisive, I'm of the belief that they do more good than harm. I'd rather have someone say up front that they don't trust Conservapedia than try to edit the article with an undeclared bias. Buddy431 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As said above. --TIAYN (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it was a massive anti-Conservapedia rant, it would be a different story, but as a userbox its a brief statement of personal POV. I don't think having such statements harms Wikipedia, since as Buddy431 notes, its beneficial for the project that editors be open about their own biases and opinions. --SJK (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Jimbo said it himself: userboxes are not to be used for political purposes. In addition, this one also (as said by PCHS-NJROTC, childishly) attacks a website. MMS2013 13:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that this userbox goes above what is an acceptable level of POV for user space. It's format as a userbox would imply an intention for it to be used as such, perhaps across various user's userspace, which I think would be unacceptable, given its attacking tone. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are userboxes promoting one's personal political beliefs. It isn't really an issue of politics, in my opinion. It pokes fun at the site and I think keeps a sense of humour about an opinion without straying too far into being a direct attack on the site. Additional Comment: The UBX guidelines prohibit statements, yet there is a userbox category. Furthermore, at the top of that page, it notes that the UBX guidelines are not rules but recommendations. Nick Heer 01:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with Buddy431. In addition, the userbox is not a rant and it only states that the user does not trust Conservapedia. ShadeofTime09 (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not excessive by any means.Falcon8765 (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete polemic userbox that violates WP:UBX which states that userboxes are not for political advocacy. Borders on argumentum ad Hitlerum. Gigs (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No more excessive than other boxes about political or religious beliefs. C628 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per C628. Tisane (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2010 (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.