Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Happenstance/Imagfriend

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. The statement in this userbox appears to be more about atheism itself than about religion. (See the opinion of User:Happenstance below.) Ruslik_ Zero  18:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Happenstance/Imagfriend
Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Template555/Lies where a similar userbox was deleted a few days ago then I feel that this should go as well because it is inflammitory to people's personal views by linking the word "imaginary friends" to Religion. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend


 * Delete: As nom The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Userboxes are just that. I personally find nothing offensive about that userbox. Should we also delete User atheist, User LGBT and User Bi because they could offend certain religious beliefs? Or how about every userbox that promotes any other religion than what you personally believe?  Or maybe delete because it is a bit too patriotic and religious and therefore offensive to somebody who uses the User atheist userbox? There are also music userboxes like User Metal that could be targetted as offensive because any user who has it is promoting Satan (not to mention the more obvious  userbox) and  for offending christian musicians.  An Editor may not like rap and find a lot of it offensive so, in turn, use the  userbox, but I would hope that same editor did not attempt to delete User Rap Hip hop or User Rap because of it. (And vice versa) My main point is that there is not really a policy on userboxes, what there is, is a guideline, and even though the  content restrictions section implies that a userbox is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising it also points out that If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes. In layman's terms if state that I hate Ukulele music, hate Harry Potter, hate Satanism and smell bad, I can do that. But if someone else comes to my page and says I love Ukulele music, love Harry Potter, love Satanism and smell really really good, it can be seen as a Personal attack. By nature userboxes are placed on a user page by the user, if they are placed by another user they too can been seen as a Personal attack. When it comes to deletions of userboxs, unless they are blatant in their offensiveness. (i.e - a user box stating the user was a proud member of the Aryan Brotherhood, Ku Klux Klan or that the user believes in the Final Solution), the ongoing consensus has been fairly liberal about their use and what they say in regards to personal beliefs. (P.S- before someone mention it isn't the userbox in question but the hyperlink used - no, it does not link to Imaginary friend, but it does link to the Atheism article as well as to the Religion article. (And I suppose it could have linked directly to Atheism controversy) I think it would be more offensive if it only linked to the Religion article with no comparison as to "why" Imaginary friends was invoked. One can compare both beliefs and come to their own conclusion as to why this, or any, editor is an Atheist and uses the "imaginary friend" concept.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete-The comparison to Template:User atheist is not a good one. That says something about one's self. Fine. Nothing wrong with that. This one, on the other hand, says something about someone else, namely that religious persons believe in "imaginary" figures. See the difference? Comment on yourself, fine. Negatively comment on someone else, not fine.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: The last part of what you said I said as well. The first part of what you said is missing most of my point. There is an article on Imaginary friend, part of that article is about the Atheism controversy. An aside from that is most reasonable people would be able to follow links contained in that userbox to Atheism and Religion and understand the concept of why some, who do not believe, use the term "imaginary friend". The concept for this deletion is the same concept that allowed some people to remove silent prayer from schools and the use of "one nation under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance as well as coming to a conclusion that saying the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. And if you want to dig deep into it we can - Making a statement that you find organized religion full of "imaginary friends" in some peoples eyes says something about someone else true, but I am one of those "someone else" this userbox is supposedly offending - I believe in God but have I seen him/her/it in real life? No. Have I talked to him/her/it? Sure. Do I consider him/her/it to be my "friend"? Not in the same way I feel my "real" friends are - and by definition that means I talk to an imaginary friend. But I can also look at people who claim they want Anarchy and support Anarchism, via use of one the various usserboxes proclaiming it (,, , and so on), as making real comments about real people, not imaginary. Such as any editor who works in the government, law enforcement, a lawyer, or even organized religion. But if you want more direct examples -  implies that followers of the 9/11 Truth movement are to be "rejected",  implies that Fox news is not fair or balanced,  implies that if a politician sends their child to a private school they are not to be trusted,  implies that country music (and presumably fans of it) are preventing mankind from progressing so it should be eliminated, and  suggests that userboxes aren't hurting Wikipedia but administrators who use out of process deletions are. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You said that one of those userboxes "implies that if a politician sends their child to a private school they are not to be trusted." Read it again - it only refers to "politicians who praise public schools while sending their own children to private schools." It's not the fact that the politicians send their children to private schools that the userbox is criticizing - it's criticizing the hypocrisy of politicians who say one thing in public but then act differently in their own private lives. Concert Interruptus (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Questioning leaders' credentials sounds like a statement which is "arousing to action or rebellion" to me. And wouldn't you know it, that's the dictionary definition of 'inflammatory'. But it's politics, so we at least know it's not divisive. Phew. — what a crazy random happenstance 05:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the difference between those userboxes and this one is that this one attacks someone's religion, which is something that people generally care deeply about and may find seriously offensive if criticised. I don't think, for example, that even the most diehard fans of country music could say it holds similar importance for them. Robofish (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I really don;t like the fact that it compares religion to having "imaginary friends." I'm not religious at all, and I still think that it is ridiculous to keep this.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — what a crazy random happenstance 05:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: In honor of this discussion I have created my own userbox: . Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You declaring yourself Irish makes me feel excluded, as I have no Irish roots. You declaring yourself a proud Christian American is obviously an attack on religious and ethnic minorities. Divisive and inflammatory, I say! Bloody murder, I scream! Seriously though, I like it. — what a crazy random happenstance 05:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an extremely cool userbox. Trigaranus (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Userboxes represent the opinions of the users who choose to use them. Anyone who disagrees with the opinion expressed in a userbox can simply avoid placing that userbox on their own page. Concert Interruptus (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If that was the case, then why was the similar one that I linked to deleted for being inflammitory? This is the same thing but insulting religious people rather than atheists. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, inflammatory and divisive in the textbook sense. Kimchi.sg (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "A response of body tissues to injury or irritation; characterised by pain and swelling and redness and heat"? :) Seriously though, inflammatory means "arousing to action or rebellion". Unless you're unhinged and attempting to read between the lines of a seven-word sentence, I honestly can't see how this userbox is inflammatory. — what a crazy random happenstance 05:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not nearly as offensive as the userboxes that are typically deleted. The standard for deletion in WP:UBX is something "divisive" or "inflammatory." This doesn't come close to meeting that requirement.  EdEColbert  Let me know 11:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then why was the userbox discussed here deleted for being inflammitory or divisive? (to give you the gist of it, that one was the exact same as this one but it had "lies" linked to Atheism instead of "Imaginary Friends" linked to Religion.) I think that even if it's not as offensive as some others it's still rather offensive to religious people even if you personally don't find it offensive. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember that one. I stated that it was a "close call" but this one I think is much less inflammatory (and I'm trying to be objective). Calling someone a liar is much worse than implying God is imaginary. One can be religious and reject the notion of a god or goddess as a personal friend to pray to. Point is, a very small number of people get all uptight and hotheaded if someone criticizes their belief structure, and just because one or two or fifty (out of thousands) of users might be offended (Heckler's veto in a sense) doesn't mean we should go around on a rampage deleting relatively benign personal opinion userboxes. The objective standard is "inflammatory" and "divisive" and if a userbox does not meet the standard, frankly it does not matter how many people are offended. I think that it doesn't meet the standard, you may think it does. But I am concerned that one day someone is going MfD a box that says "I believe in God" because it truly offends them, and they're going to get away with it if we are complacent.  EdEColbert  Let me know 12:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if not inflammitory (in a way that as you say will cause someone to get hotheaded) It's certainly divisive as it looks to me like it's just asking to cause a conflict between religious people and atheists which is not really in the colaborative spirit of Wikipedia. You say that calling someone a liar is worse than this, well that does really boil down to what the person finds worse because I don't think you can say that out of hand without some comparison, that accusing someone of lieing is worse than claiming that God doesn't exist as it really does depend on the context in which it is claimed. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate to break it to you, but claiming god doesn't exist is the basis of atheism. When someone places an atheist userbox on their page, they are denying the existence of god. Not acknowledging the Christian god is the philosophical basis for the lives of approximately 4.8 billion people on Earth. 99.988% of the world's population do not believe in the Anglican god (that's not a hyperbole, I did the numbers). If you wish to declare religious pluralism divisive and delete every religious statement from every userpage on Wiki (something which I would warmly welcome), feel free to propose it. — what a crazy random happenstance 06:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact that god is fictitious is a fundamental tenet of the atheist philosophy. Passing judgement on the statement that religion is imaginary is a comment on atheism, not on this user box. I personally find it rather difficult to believe anyone could be offended by this; it is no more 'divisive' than declaring yourself religious. This is patently obviously a nomination just for the sake of precedent (which, needless to say, is a violation of Other stuff exists). If you're looking for genuinely questionable user-boxes I suggest you start with this one (which I note the nominator has on his or her userpage, and which I have now nom'd for MfD), followed perhaps by the ones here, or here, or here, or perhaps even here. — what a crazy random happenstance 05:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but have you read what transpired here at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Template555/Lies where a similar userbox to this was deleted for being inflammitory towards atheists, what's the difference with this as it's the exact same wording except it is inflammitory towards religious people instead. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Other stuff exists - each nomination is to be judged on its own merit. This userbox is not inflammatory nor divisive. I cannot comment on the other, since I have not seen it, but judging by the fact it is called "/lies" would seem to suggest it was mar more provocative than this one. — what a crazy random happenstance 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Harmless. Will only offend those who take offence far too easily; if they don't take offence at this, they'll find something else to offend them. (Incidentally, the conventional spelling is "inflammatory".) -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If that was the case, then why was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Template555/Lies deleted? It's the same thing with each insulting the separate groups. It's not nessecarily the wording but the link that does it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the participants in that debate either were easily offended or imagined that others would be. -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know that? It seems a bit presuptuos to assume that all those who voted delete were easily offended. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * C of E, I hope you did not overlook the fact that I also voted Keep during the Atheism "Lies" userbox debate that you have cited numerous times here. I think calling atheism a lie is just as acceptable as calling God imaginary. I want to remind you that even though that unfortunately closed as Delete, in no way does that make it binding precedent and that simply different people commented on a different userbox. I'm just pointing out that people who are voting Keep here maybe would have voted Keep for the "Lies" userbox. In sum, deleting the "Lies" userbox was a grave error (not necessarily by the closing admin; there was an onslaught of Deletes before any other opinions were introduced to argue the other side). This grave error should not be repeated here. Two wrongs do not make it right. Fighting censorship with more censorship is not a proper solution. If you think the "Lies" userbox should not have been censored, then you should vote Keep here as well. It has nothing to do with whether the userbox is for or against atheism/theism - we should be consistently and unequivocally in favor of allowing expression of ALL opinions, no matter how much we disagree.  EdEColbert  Let me know 12:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - I'm not sure where to address this, but I'll start here" The MFD notice on this userbox was removed yesterday by User:Mapar007 per [ this diff]. However, the user has not edited since March 2010, except for this edit yesterday, along with 7 edits to his/her own userpage. This seems very odd to me. I have restored the MFD notice, and given the user a Template:uw-idt1 warning. - BilCat (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The user staes that he thought the note on the descussion on the templates talk page that the MFD was Keet was for this page. He didn't realize it was for the 2008 MFD. I accept that explanation in good faith. - BilCat (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a thin line, but I don't think this is divisive. Calling a god an 'imaginary friend' is not the same as calling atheism a 'lie'. Lies are knowing obfuscations or omissions, whereas calling a god an imaginary friend is simply an opinion. Whilst I sympathise with the nominator, unfortunately I can't bring myself to support deletion of what I believe to be a grey area userbox. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Of interest? As this discussion is about what is considered offensive I got a chuckle out of a bit of news today: Xbox Live gamer suspended for saying he lives in Fort Gay. Great quote from the article: Someone took the phrase 'fort gay WV' and believed that the individual who had that was trying to offend, or trying to use it in a pejorative manner... Who knew the town someone lived in would be ban-worthy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: As usual for me, I think it's better that editors express their opinions on their user page than edit an article like religion with an undeclared bias. This particular editor may hold an opinion that is offensive to some (equating God with a childhood imaginary friend), but it's not appropriate to prevent such an opinion from being expressed. Buddy431 (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm all for users declaring their POV and expressing their own views, including religion; this userbox, however, takes it a bit too far in my opinion when there are alternative options that work just the same. Instead of directly striking against religion by calling it imaginary, a user could easily express the same view by just stating that he or she is an atheist by using the simple "this user is an atheist" userbox. No need for unecessary "harshness" (for the lack of a better wording) when the same thing can be conveyed in a much softer manner. Soundvisions1 brings up some good points, and yes, no matter which way an atheist states that they are an atheist, they are still an atheist all the same, and they all believe that religion is basically imaginary; I believe, however, that there's no need, once again, for unnecessary "harshness" against others' religions when it isn't required, sort of like how I would rather be fired from a job for poor workmanship through the term of "dismissal", rather than "sacking"; both convey that I suck at working and that I was fired, but one is softer than the other when used. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 03:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - userboxes likely to offend other users, or provoke division among them, and which serve no useful purpose towards building the encyclopaedia, should be deleted. And for the record, I'm an atheist myself - but I express it simply by categorising my user page in Category:Atheist Wikipedians, not with a provocative userbox like this one that seems designed to cause conflict. I wish others would do likewise. Robofish (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cavalry. Acather96 (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is a considerable difference between "imaginary friends" and "lies". One challenges the proponents of a view to prove the contrary (i.e. "non-imaginariness") in an admittedly snarky way, while the other entails an accusation of evil intent. Trigaranus (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So I'm guessing something like this you'd have no problem with as it goes along the same lines as this? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My first problem with that one is that the person who made the UBX (didn't check who) (just checked -- sorry, no offence meant) seems unable to spell "Atheism". The second problem is the wit that is completely lost in this version, as imaginary friends are a fond staple of childhood clichées, whereas "imaginary theories" does not allure to any cultural notion. And the third problem is that a theory is per definition an abstract, and therefore a matter of imagination by its very nature, which makes this "pun" a bit of a sorry attempt at one. So that userbox may stay the way it is, but it is staggeringly inaccomplished. Trigaranus (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per all other Keep comments MrMarmite (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GRBerry/DRVGuide#Timeframe states that "If the review is a repeat review (of the same deletion/close) and no new information is offered, it is likely to be closed in less than 24 hours, because deletion review serves as a forum for gaining cloture, and repeat reviews are contrary to that purpose." and "Most full reviews are closed some time on the 6th or 7th day after nomination. If not enough people opined, it may be relisted for more input." Time for this to be wrapped up. No new information was supplied and there is certainly no consensus to delete.MrMarmite (talk) 19:28, 12 September 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.