Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darth Newdar/UBX




 * 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, per WP:SNOW. NW ( Talk ) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Darth Newdar/UBX
Essentially seems like a conflict of interest with Wikipedia's purpose and implies an editing bias against what is clearly a scientific fact (evolution). I cannot think of any constructive purpose this UB serves (WP:SOAP), as it will immediately send up red flags that an editor is a spammer/POV pusher. I have a feeling that if a member created a userbox saying "I believe the Holocaust is a hoax", that they would be immediately banned for disruption. I don't see why this UB is any different. Delete SuaveArt (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note, as well, that I have been careful not to edit evolution/creation pages, for the very reason stated above. Darth Newdar  talk  09:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep First off, evolution is a scientific theory (not fact), second off, per WP:UP, s/he can have this uerbox in their userspace if they wish. This was a misguided attempt to delte something based off of your own peronal belifes. Furthermore, per WP:NOTCENSORED this user may or may not have "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive".-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No actually, evolution is scientifically proven fact (not a theory) which 99.995% of all scientists accept as proven beyond a doubt (as they have for over 100 years), so you essentially proved my point ;) (you made it appear that you're here just to crusade against science and reality in favor of a fringe religious belief which even the majority of Christians reject). It's not based on my "personal beliefs", it's based on truth, just as if a member of the Flat Earth Society created a UB claiming that the earth is flat and the "round earth theory" is a hoax, I would consider that a conflict of interest with the website as well.--SuaveArt (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, WP:NOTCENSORED answers yor questions. Oh and it's called the theory of Evolution for a reason. Note : you said that it is POV pushing but your statments are pushing POV themselves. This was a very bad faith nomination and should be over by now. Further more, I love how you said that "No actually, evolution is scientifically proven fact (not a theory)" when your link says evolution .-- Coldplay Expért  Let's talk  21:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really related to this MfD, but...Evolution as theory and fact. NW ( Talk ) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It may be an unpopular opinion, but it doesn't attack other participants. It doesn't run afoul of WP:UP #9. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAPBOX - Essentially this UB has no purpose other than to promote a fringe belief with is anti-Wikipedia and anti-science. The fact that the keep voters are lying and claiming that fringe beliefs with no sustaining evidence are on par with universally accepted science is just more proof of this. As long as an editor abides by policy, I believe they should be allowed to edit. But userpages are intended for Wikipedia-related user info, not the promotion of fringe, unscientific beliefs via Wikipedia.--SuaveArt (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "keep voters are lying"? Ahem. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" is a false statement. And what does that have to do with wether or not this userbox should remain on Wikipedia? IMO, that just goes to prove that the UB is disruptive and meant for proselytization, since the 'Keep' voters couldn't even have a debate on a userbox without turning it into an "evolution vs. Intelligent design" debate. Unbelievable!--SuaveArt (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One editor made a comment about evolution (not "keep voters", plural), and said nothing about "Intelligent design", so I hardly see how that constituted a debate on the subject. You are the one who keeps bringing up the truth or falsity of particular ideas. I don't care if someone's userbox says they believe the Cottingley fairies were real; the validity of the theory is beside the point. --RL0919 (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Holding a belief does not imply that the editor is pushing their POV on articles, so this is as acceptable as numerous other belief-oriented userboxes. --RL0919 (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I mean, would this be allowed:

Or this one?

--SuaveArt (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The flat-Earth one would probably be taken as a joke, and even if it were serious, what has that got to do with someone's editing of articles on French impressionist painters or World of Warcraft? Or for that matter, editing on science topics, if their edits are uncontroversial? If someone with the flat-Earth userbox were tendentiously editing the article on Flat Earth, then sure that would be a problem, but the issue would be with the editing, not the userbox. I don't know what would happen with the Holocaust one. Anything related to the Holocaust is likely to stir up an emotional reaction, and provocative cases make bad examples. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the point of mentioning it at all? I know that it doesn't guarantee that the user is a vandal, but if it has no bearing on their edits, why even mention it? The only thing a userbox like that will do is send up red flags that the user is a creationist spammer and cause needless disruption. Wikipedia isn't Myspace. Userboxes related to personal info (such as the topics a user is interested in) are fine. But like Darth said himself, he makes sure not to edit evolution articles because of his POV, so what enyclopedic purpose does this box serve? It's purely disruptive and I almost felt like scanning his edits when I found it.--SuaveArt (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? How is it disruptive to add a disclaimer of a personal belief/POV on one's userpage? If anything it promotes transparency. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Creationist" does not equal "Creationist spammer". I'm definitely not a creationist myself, but if a creationist isn't pushing a POV, it's really not a problem for me, and for Wikipedia. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not a polemical statement, nor is it divisive or inflammatory, nor is it promotion, advocacy, or recruitment. Long story short: It violates neither WP:SOAP nor WP:UBX. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a straightforward statement of a widely held view, and it isn't Nazism. Not a policy violation. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Per Coldplay, jclemens, RL0919 et al. Also suspect nomination was not made in good faith. Seregain (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The userbox is not the problem, those who choose to display it on their userpage may be. The userbox does not make someone a POV pusher, their actions do. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I said. As far as I know, the creator of the userbox isn't a spammer. My point is that it creates red flags and IMO does more harm than good because of that reason (regardless of whether the user is actually a spammer or not). That's just my opinion of course, other people are welcome to theirs. Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um..im pretty sure that if half a dozen people vote keep and the only delte is the nom then the result will be keep.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh okay. lol That's slightly obvious. Do you even read my posts? Because that was entirely random.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was'nt random. I'm saying that this needs to end per WP:SNOW.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with other people not being allowed to voice their opinions (pro or against)? You didn't even read a thing I said.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I've read it. Im just saying that not all the cards will go your way. (As in this MFD) Nothing to get all worked up about Suave. Afterall, this is an all voluntary job :)-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: This should be a quick and easy one. Holding a belief is not the same as putting POV into articles. I'd proudly display a userbox stating my disdain for Apple computer products (the fanboys, too), but that does not by any stretch mean that I am going to go vandalizing Apple articles or adding unbalanced negative POV. Simply stated, the userbox, intended only for use on a user's own userpage to express his or her own beliefs, is not the problem. Unconstructive POV edits to pages regarding the theory of evolution and the debate thereabout, are the problem. Your time would be much better spent paying close attention to such articles to maintain NPOV. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 10:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Attacks no one, and is not "polemical." Userboxes are allowed, and this is not particularly damaging in any way whatsoever. It is, in point of fact, not up to us to consider whether a userbox "opposes facts" at all -- it is only up to us to consider if a userbox damages WP, or runs afoul of specific policy. This one does not. Collect (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and WP:SNOW close, please. Nothing wrong with creationists, or even flat earthers, being contributors to Wikipedia, and saying so. In fact, there wouldn't even be anything wrong with the following userbox The only thing wrong would be actively working to make it so.--GRuban (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for the following reasons: 1. Science and information gathered by the scientific method is not the only focus of Wikipedia, 2. As a result, said user could be a contributor to other articles related to Creationism, and 3. This is no more divisive than a userbox which proclaims "This user believes in the theory of evolution and rejects Creationism." --WaltCip (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a God-denying heathen Darwinist. Allows us to pick out those whom we should shoot ban on sight. @harej 00:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as an active editor to the creation and evolution related pages (on the side of science: evolution, of course). Everyone has a POV despite what the nominator imagines. Auntie E. (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.