Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Weaponbb7

 __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. Some of those who !voted delete declared themselves offended by this userbox, some were not themselves offended but feared that others would be; the general argument, eloquently expressed, was that it was unnecessarily divisive. Against this a strong majority, including some who disagreed with the sentiments of the userbox, were for keep on the grounds that there is no "right not to be offended" and that to try to enforce one by censoring userboxes would be to start down a slippery slope leading to curtailment of the latitude traditionally given to users to manage their own user space. JohnCD (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Weaponbb7
 Per this discussion, as suggested by admin User:Xeno - I do not call for the deletion of the whole page, but only of the insulting userbox it features. While MfD seems odd to me too, it seems it is the right venue, so... Cycl o pia talk  00:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: The same userbox also features on User_talk:Shii, and it should be discussed in this MfD as well. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Userbox copied over on the right, for the sake of discussion. – xeno talk 13:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * delete userbox I'm personally offended by the statement. — raeky ( talk 00:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a good reason by itself; if it were, virtually all opinion userboxes should go, and I'd be nominating boxes such as User:Xaosflux/UBX/User flying spaghetti monster in a heartbeat. Our current system of hosting potentially personally offensive userboxes is based on the German userbox solution — we commonly host these in userspace.  Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lame Might I suggest that people spend slightly less time wandering around user space, searching for things to be offended by? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. I didn't find it "wandering around user space". I was in a discussion with the user and it stroke me as inappropriate. We have a civility policy, after all. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw but it WP:AGF jk Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What has WP:AGF to do with this? -- Cycl o pia talk  01:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we assume that your not blanketing calling everyone who believes in separation of church and state atheists and that they're extremely ignorant? — raeky ( talk 01:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Weaponbb7 features an ubx where he supports separation of church and state. But that's not the point, Weaponbb7 is absolutely free to be inconsistent. The point is that depicting "atheists who demand the elimination of religion from public affairs" as "extremly ignorant" is downright disruptive. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As an Anthropologist I believe that Separation of Church within the united states and in much of the western world is essential to keeping cultural diversity. But i also recognize that some "cultures" (not states) Religion is inseparable from daily life. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you reword your ubx this way? This way it doesn't look insulting. You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but you should avoid to express them disruptively. What about "This user recognizes that for some cultures religion is inseparable from daily life, and atheists who demand the elimination of religion from public affairs should be aware of that and respect these cultures", or something similar? -- Cycl o pia talk  01:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No the ANI thread has several Adins say "meh" as well as another user here. but i'll Compromise as well change "Wikipedia is not censored" on your userbox to "Wikipedia is not censored, except when WP:ITBOTHERSME"
 * You are confusing WP:NOTCENSORED, which is policy on article content, with WP:CIVIL, which is a policy on editor's behaviour. We are discussing of the second here, not the first. You are free to express your opinions, but please here do it in a way that isn't downright insulting to people. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Freind you are incorrect this is about content and only content at MFD. You need to take to ANI if it is behavior or start an RFC on me if you want to review Behavior. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh hem. You seem to be confusing WP:MFD, which is about content with WP:ANI and any number of other forums which are about editor behavior.  Either this discussion is about content that should be deleted or its about editor behavior.  You can't have it both ways, but in attempting to do so you're making this seem a whole lot like pure disruption more than anything else.Griswaldo (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is WP:ANI that led us here. We're here to debate about content on an user page that violates WP:CIVIL. Did you click the link in the nom? -- Cycl o pia talk  11:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I am annoyed by this "The concept of "religion" as a "belief system" rather than as a "system of observances" is largely Christian (more particularly Protestant) in origin," and "And atheists who demand the elimination of religion from public affairs are disregarding cultures which do not have a notion of a secular state" per ANI from 3 months. Which both users are more than aware exists Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording is, "This user understands that the category of religion is an invention by European Christians which they falsely and inaccurately apply to the rest of the world, and that atheists who demand the elimination of religion from public affairs are acting out of extreme ignorance, if not outright disregard for other cultures." Emphases added to the parts that I find offensive. — raeky ( talk 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * yes i Assume good faith that those "who religion from public affairs are acting" and are acting out of "extreme ignorance, if not outright disregard for other cultures." I assume good faith are acting out of "ignorance."


 * Weaponbb7 simply copied some text on my page, which I wrote. I'm not sure what you people are asking to be deleted here. If this text were part of a talk page discussion I don't think you would start an MfD to excise parts of the discussion you don't like. For that reason I consider this MfD invalid and will ignore any further discussion on this page. As for why the userbox was made, I was just looking through the religion userboxes and none of them matched my views so I wrote what I believe and put it on the page. Shii (tock) 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As above, admin User:Xeno pointed us to MfD. We're not asking to delete a page, only the userbox (or better, to reword it). -- Cycl o pia talk  02:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Asking for deletion of this is just silly and disruptive.Griswaldo (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this MFD was started in response to this reply by Weapon to Cyclopedia the MFD is clearly a violation of WP:POINT more specifically.Griswaldo (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So now doing what an admin has suggested at an ANI thread to solve an issue is a WP:POINT violation? -- Cycl o pia talk  11:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes ... gasp ... doing what a admin has suggested may be a violation of WP:POINT. The admin suggested this some time ago.  Weaponbb linked to the discussion when you confronted him on his talk page.  You read it and immediately nominated the page hiding behind the authority of the admin.  For shame.Griswaldo (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, what point I am trying to prove? Because I see none. I only wanted to see an incivil userbox redacted, and the user provided me the link that explained what the correct venue was. Can you explain me what do you not understand? -- Cycl o pia talk  13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's not a personal attack per WP:NPA. Rather it's a diffuse (therefore not personal) userbox comment about belief systems, writ large. All religions (such as: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Paganism, any  Eastern religions or Folk religions) as well as all non-religions or beliefs (such as: Atheism, Agnosticism, Irreligion, Secular Humanism, Ethical Culture, Freethought) are belief systems. All belief systems are equally valid as belief systems. More specifically, we have always understood that editors have considerable leeway on their own user page to indicate individuality and for expressive content, especially in userboxen. Seems to be a mountain made out of molehill to me, and I don't find any of it offensive or disruptive, as we all are free to choose to read them, or not. I suggest we move on. — Becksguy (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Being called an "extreme ignorant" is not offensive or disruptive? -- Cycl o pia talk  11:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing's wrong with one saying that they are athiest, Christian, or Muslim, but when one starts to explicitly criticize other specific and sensitive viewpoints, something should be done. Wikipedia is not the place for users to criticize sensitive viewpoints unrelated to Wikipedia, as it has the potential to be offensive, disruptive, and divisive, and all in all, it is ultimately unrelated to Wikipedia anyway. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's an expression of a political opinion, which is protected by law in the United States where the Foundation's servers are hosted, and in any other country that matters. It is not an attack directed at any given person. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was any other website, I would not care. Here however we have a civility policy, and if we want to be fair, rules apply to everyone. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are not actually offended (or else you'd care if it was on another website too) but once again you're trying to prove a point. How nice.Griswaldo (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again: which point? I care because here we have a civility policy, and I don't like to see double standards applied. This userbox by Cush, for example, has been deleted via WP:CSD (and in the MfD a delete !vote from our very Weaponbb7 shows up, by the way). And rightly so. And so this one should go too. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Other precedent: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_dislikes_semitic_one_god_religions.  -- Cycl o pia  talk  13:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot view Cush's userbox so it is pretty hard to compare the content of this one to that one. Instead of continuing discussion with Weapon about his user-box you immediately went ahead and engaged the MFD process and appealed to admin authority in your nomination. You're trying to prove the point that his user box is offensive and you're doing a piss poor job of it (considering that other comments suggest that you are not actually offended by it) and wasting people's time to boot.  This is precisely the type of behavior that WP:POINT is meant to prevent.   By the way you are now implying that this might also have been done as some form of retribution because Weapon had a hand in deleting Cush's user box.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF much? I went to Weapon talk page. He pointed me to the ANI. The ANI indicated the correct venue to discuss this. I followed the instructions to bring the discussion in the proper venue. I am not appealing to "admin authority": I have been simply following the procedure that people more experienced than me indicated as correct. The userbox is offensive and disruptive, this is not a point that I want to prove, this is factual as far as I am concerned. I am offended by it (I don't like being called an "extreme ignorant", at least not without explanation), but this is irrelevant, what is relevant is that WP, as far as I knew, had a strict policy against attacking people for their opinions. What I would like is for it to be reworded or removed, like other similarly disruptive userboxes of which I provided examples above. It's not matter of "retribution", it is simply a matter of fairness and NPOV. If offesinve anti-religious ubx are removed, so should offensive anti-atheist ones, and viceversa. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The text of the Cush userbox is included with the closing rationale. – xeno talk 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I'm actually going to strike most of my recent comment because I've noticed that Weapon also said "take it up elsewhere" on his talk page.  This is still a disruptive nomination, but I guess Weapon baited the nomination himself so I actually consider that part of the disruption and therefore should not single out only the one party.Griswaldo (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, I appreciate the support I think this total thing is a Farce, But the Three users have a right to put The userbox up for MFD as much as I do to have the it on the my page. i stand by the statement as I perceive it to be accurate. I trust in the multiple Admins at ANI thread who agreed explaining "The concept of "religion" as a "belief system" rather than as a "system of observances" is largely Christian (more particularly Protestant) in origin," and "And atheists who demand the elimination of religion from public affairs are disregarding cultures which do not have a notion of a secular state." I consider the ANI to have solved the issue but the Individuals here but felt the need to push ahead despite an Admin Saying "It reads like a pretty inclusionist userbox to me." I feel that it would have been wiser for them to consult with a Neutral party on this who was not in a content dispute with me to look over before bring it to MFD. maybe then I may have been more interested in Dialogue and compromise rather than feeling as if i was being agresively attacked but hey thats me. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep not a personal attack. The English would appear to need some help however... Hobit (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the right venue to discuss the disputed content. Typically, a userbox would be subpaged, and one would MFD the subpage; however, since this userbox is hard-coded onto the page(s), the entire page gets nominated with the discussion focused on the material asserted to be problematic. – xeno talk 12:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems harmless to me. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - My sentiments about userboxes in general can be seen on my own page. This really has no place on the Wikipedia; it crosses the line from expressing an opinion and into attacking other editors. It would thus would be quite eligible for a WP:CSD. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am still confused by why this MfD exists... what exactly is eligble for CSD? Is there a CSD that allows us to remove comments from a page? There is no Wikipedia page being discussed here that could be deleted. It's a line of text on a page. Shii (tock) 17:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The miscellany being discussed is the five lines of code making up the userbox in question (reproduced above for ease-of-reference). If the MFD is closed as "delete", the the code will be deleted from the pages hosting it. – xeno talk 17:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, this isn't the place for discussing the removal of code from a page; this is the place for the deletion of pages, not for editing them. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh? What venue would be more suitable? Is your "keep" opinion because you find the content unproblematic or the venue problematic? – xeno talk 21:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The appropriate venue for discussing parts of pages would be WP:ANI. If I believed this to be the right venue, I wouldn't have voted, because I'm unsure whether it should be kept or deleted.  Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See the ANI discussion that already occurred without any tangible result [perhaps due to my shutting it down and referring it here? May have to stop this depending on the result of the general discussion at WT:MFD]. If you are simply objecting to the venue, please consider changing your opinion to "Wrong venue", rather than "Keep", which may give the impression you feel the content under discussion is appropriate. – xeno talk 22:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right; Wrong venue is what I should have said. Thanks for making a good point, since "keep" does convey a sense of "I disagree with deletion entirely".  By the way, have you considered filing an RFC about it?  Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to a number of users above expressing disagreement as to whether this is an appropriate venue for this discussion, I've initiated a general thread that links to this MFD as an example: Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 21:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate venue. There is nothing about this discussion which requires the use of the deletion tools, and therefore no need for the red tape involved. That said, userpages are not the place for polemical commentary and the box needs to go. --erachima talk 22:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:erachima: There has already been an ANI Thread for this UserBox and the consensus was that it was harmless and that MFD was preferable venue Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Now this is the Appropriate Venue: Problem solved Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (these early comments are still true but not as relevant)To my ear, this userbox doesnt parse. first point doesnt necessarily lead to the second. I would PREFER that the language be "this user believes", but "understands" is not really that bad. I believe i am sensitive to userboxes and comments that are malicious and constitute attacks against individual editors, protected classes and other unworthy targets. this doesnt feel like that to me. its just not fully logical.HOWEVER, and this is an addition to what i previously wrote here, i agree with superhamster below, and now feel that userboxes should not be divisive like this one is trying to be. A userbox expressing this idea to a certain degree may be possible if drastically rewritten, but it is intrinsically divisive, though i personally dont feel it. However, considering my religious beliefs, that doesnt surprise me, so i will not allow my personal view to overly influence my decision.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep I don't like the content of the userbox, but I'm very troubled by setting a precedent whereby an editor's personal offense to another user's opinion should be grounds for content removal in their own userspace. The first part of the userbox is just as much 'offense worthy' to the religious as the latter part is to atheists. That being said, should we force all editors to remove comments from their userspace which state that religion is false or harmful? I understand this is a heated subject, but the implications are too far reaching. No individual user is being attacked - the editor is simply expressing an opinion (albeit poorly), and within those confines he should have every right to pollute his own userspace with ignorant opinions as he wishes. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:3px 5px;float:left">Jess</b><p style="margin:3px 0 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps">talk edits 04:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "The first part of the userbox is just as much 'offense worthy' to the religious as the latter part is to atheists."
 * In what possible world is this an argument for its inclusion rather than its removal? The issue here is that user pages are to be non-polemical. --erachima talk 04:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You missed my point. Everyone is fretting over the atheist section, but the religious section could be construed as offensive to someone just as easily. Yet, the religious section is only a statement of opinion. Are we to remove all content on all userspaces which states opinion about religion? <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:3px 5px;float:left">Jess</b><p style="margin:3px 5px 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps">talk edits 04:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we shouldn't remove all content in userspaces that state opinions on religion; only ones that explicitly criticize specific religions or even widely disputed viewpoints (such as abortion or political views), which can and are very sensitive subjects for many. People purely saying that they are athiest, Christian, or Muslim is perfectly fine by me. If one, however, says something like "This user is Christian, and understands that Muslims follow a false religion", there' is a problem: the user has expressed their personal view, which is fine, but now they have moved on to criticize another religion, which is, like I said before, a very sensitive matter for many people. Likewise, for this userbox, the user is effectively saying that they know that European Christians falsely and inaccurately apply religion to the rest of the world and that atheists are extremely ignorant; Wikipedia, in my view, is simply not the place for users to criticize viewpoints that many people take to heart and that are unrelated to Wikipedia. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A user who states that they are Christian implicitly (and necessarily) states that they believe Islam is a false religion. Also necessarily implicit in that statement is that all Muslims are horrendous, sinful deviants who deserve to burn in hell for all eternity. Personally, I find this belief terribly offensive, and it's clearly far beyond anything present in this userbox. Also clear is that it's also perfectly acceptable. What makes this worse? That he spells it out instead of attaching it to a label? <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:3px 5px;float:left">Jess</b><p style="margin:3px 5px 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps">talk edits 03:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, yes. If a I recall correctly, someone else stated the same thing as you earlier, and I see the point (it's a good one), but yes, it is worse that one spells it out instead of attaching it to a label in my opinion. It's also something to note that just because one is Christian doesn't mean that they automatically think that all Muslims are horrendous, sinful deviants who deserve to burn in hell for all eternity; yes, some may think that, but not all people who label themselves as Christians think that way, and that goes for all religions. It's similar in style with politics; one may say that they are a Democrat, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they support abortion just because many others think so. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 12:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - It's a point of view. It's not grossly offensive or baiting, and if people take offence at it, they should either not look at it or widen they world-view a little. I think it's edging on polemical, but there's not enough substantive comment to delete it on that grounds. If you're religious (like myself) or an atheist, you should know that there are millions of people who disagree with you. Claritas §  19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As so many have observed, the userbox doesn't really make logical sense, but is hardly an outrageous or extreme personal attack. We traditionally allow some latitude for voicing ones views on their user page. --GRuban (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - It's a point of view. It's not grossly offensive or baiting, and if people take offence at it, they should either not look at it or widen they world-view a little. I think it's edging on polemical, but there's not enough substantive comment to delete it on that grounds. If you're religious (like myself) or an atheist, you should know that there are millions of people who disagree with you. Claritas §  19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC) ———— Striking out unintentional !vote duplication. Becksguy (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, and those of you who are getting offended, please calm down before someone has to untie your shorts for you. In all seriousness, though, this really isn't that horribly offensive, and doesn't violate any actual policy.  Perhaps it's just because I'm a strong agnostic who left my religion of origin (Roman Catholicism) a few years ago, but I fail to see any convincing argument that this crosses the line for civility, NPA, or any other guideline.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just so everyone knows, I've requested that this MfD be moved back to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Weaponbb7 and locked to prevent moving again, except by an admin. It's a distraction while a discussion is ongoing. — Becksguy (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- People should stop looking for reasons to get offended. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  00:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say? It's not that people are trying to "look" for reasons to get offended; it's that it is something that can be offensive. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's pretty clear that people are just looking for an excuse to bet riled up. Nowadays it is far too easy to get in a big huff and go "I'm offended!" or "You're insensitive!" to win arguments in lieu of, you know, an actual argument. Weaponbb has an issue with the behaviour of some Christians and some atheists, and is free to express that disapproval. He is not to be silenced just because some people don't agree or approve. They should suck it up and stop being so damn precious. If he starts saying things like "Christians are shitheads" or "Atheists are smug and abrasive", then we'd have a problem.  Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  01:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he says that atheists who demand the elimination of religion from public affairs are acting out of extreme ignorance. Even if more verbose, it is not much different from "atheists are morons". I absolutely agree that he is free to express that disapproval, but he could at least reword the thing so to avoid implying that whoever disagrees with him is an "extreme ignorant". That's all I am asking. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why anyone on Wikipedia should be expressing their disapproval on certain views in which they call people ignorant based solely on that person's views and ideology. Sure, everyone can express their views, but Wikipedia should not be a place for users to criticize others with negative descriptions based on religion and other views. I don't mind it happening anywhere else; there are plenty of places meant for that. But when we're here to build an encyclopedia, things like this userbox are highly irrelevant to Wikipedia. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. They give a perspective on a user's positions, so you have a better idea of who you're talking to.  If we didn't have views on certain issues, we wouldn't edit the topics.  What's so horribly toxic about this?  If someone had a userbox saying, "This user is a born-again Christian who thinks everyone should believe in the word of the Lord", would the same shitstorm be kicked up?  I don't agree with the latter one myself, but it's not my problem.  Besides, it tells me a bit about the types of articles the person edits, and it helps me collaborate because I can figure out their perspective without having to ask, which makes discussion quicker and easier.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't have a problem with the example you gave at all, and I agree with everything you said about why saying one's views is a good thing for the exact reasons you gave. But in my view, there is a limit to what a user should post on Wikipedia regarding their views, and that limit is when it is putting down other peoples' viewpoints in a harsher-than-necessary manner. The userbox in question is quite different than the example you give. First, it doesn't use the term "thinks", it uses the term "understands", which really changes the meaning of the userbox, and if not that, its tone. It's the same as saying "This user thinks that Elvis Presley was a moron" as compared to "This user understands that Elvis Presley was a moron." The latter implies more of a fact, while the first one is more cut-and-clear that the user is expressing their personal view. Secondly, the userbox states that European Christians are false in the way they apply religion and that atheists who demand the elimination of religion from public affairs are acting out of extreme ignorance, which is effectively calling athiests who disagree with the mixing of religion and public affairs extremely ignorant people. I would think that to be much different than the example you just gave, which doesn't directly criticize, or what some may call attack, another specific group, nor does it say whatever it wants to say in as much of a "harsh" manner, if that is the right wording to use. The user could express the same exact view using a far-less harsh manner by simply stating that they believe in mixing religion and public affairs. Simple as that. No reason to call atheists who disagree with that ignorant; both bring the belief we are interested in across, yet one does it in a much more clean way. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 04:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from; I personally don't see it as calling people ignorant, just expressing a personal view about said people. I guess it's all in the eyes of the beholder.  This sort of stuff doesn't bother me at all, not the least because I constantly hear all the hysteria about not wanting to teach the fact of evolution in certain southern/western states here in the US (fortunately I'm far away from it up in the northeast), so it may just be that I'm so used to hearing things like this that they have no effect on me, no matter what they advocate (I know I can be incredibly abrasive towards religions and atheism- strong agnosticism doesn't cater to either).  If there was a policy-based issue here, I'd say delete, but although the tone may not be very nice, I just can't find a policy against this.  I do get where you're saying, though, and it does make sense- for something more inflammatory, I'd use your logic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it doesn't really bother myself either on a personal level, even though I'm an atheist. I could care less about what another user thinks of it (and honestly, there's a lot more offensive things to be called than ignorant). Even if it doesn't bother me, though, I think that it could bother others, and overall, it just doesn't belong on Wikipedia when we're here to build an encyclopedia, not talk about our unrelated viewpoints. But yeah, in this case I guess it all depends on what each of us thinks the threshold for inappropriate content on userpages is, especially since the outline for what is restricted is not very specific. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Userpages serve as one of the few places on Wikipedia where users can express themselves about things unrelated to the project. Users can talk about how they play tennis or baseball. Users can talk about how the love listening to AC/DC or Lil' Wayne. Users can talk about how they are a Democrat or a Republican. Users can talk about how they do or do not support abortion. And that's great; Wikipedia is a community, and userpages describing a user's personal interest and taste contribute to a user's identity at a website where collaboration and a strong community are the top things that it thrives on. However, there is a line that can be crossed. When a user starts to say that they play tennis and anyone who plays baseball is a loser, we have a problem. When a user starts to say that they listen to AC/DC and anyone who listens to Lil' Wayne might as well go deaf for the better, we have a problem. When a user starts to say that they are a Democrat and that Republicans don't know a thing about politics, we have a problem. When a user starts to say that they don't support abortion and that people who do are murderers, we have a problem. Likewise, when a user says that European Christians falsely and inaccurately apply religion to the rest of the world and that atheists who demand the elimination of religion from public affairs are extremely ignorant, we have a problem. Wikipedia is a great place to become part of a community, and the userspace is a great place for one to tell others about themselves. However, when users start to go critical of views and beliefs that other people may and do take sensitively, we have a problem. Wikipedia is not the place to say things that form a divide between users through rather harsh and possibly insulting material for something that so many people hold as a sensitive subject. As stated at Userboxes, a Wikipedia guideline, "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." Wikipedia, which is a site where people of all beliefs share the common goal to create an encyclopedia, is not the place for users to advocate certain views that are likely to cause conflict for those who take those views to heart. The Wikipedia community should have the goal of making Wikipedia as welcoming as it can be to people of all views, and userboxes like this do not help reach that goal. Now, things that people find offensive will always exist on Wikipedia (look at your everyday discussion regarding user conduct, or look at discussions regarding what should go into certain articles). These situations are practically unavoidable. However, this userbox is something that is avoidable, and on top of that, it doesn't have much to contribute to Wikipedia anyway; we only have something to lose, not gain, with its existence. In addition, this userbox can advocate the same view in a far-less offensive manner. Heck, it wouldn't even be as much of a problem if only a simple word was changed: "understands". The word "understands" basically denotes that the user is knowledgeable of something which they consider a fact, while in reality, it is really just a viewpoint in which others have contrasting views in. If it said "believes" rather than "understands", that by itself makes all the difference, as now the userbox is at least stating that the given is a viewpoint of a single person. All in all, divisive view points like this that touch and are critical of sensitive subjects are not appropriate for Wikipedia, a site where the ultimate goal is to build an encyclopedia through the collaboration of users who share many different viewpoints. There are plenty of other devoted communities where one can share their views with others with similar viewpoints, but Wikipedia is not the place. As a matter of fact, I am part of a site whose community analyzes and criticizes certain religious viewpoints. But you will not find a single thing regarding my religious views on my userpage, except for a category that gives it away. That's how it should be: short, sweet, and simple. Users should state what they believe in in a non-conflicting manner without going in-depth and saying how certain viewpoints are wrong, which, all in all, is completely unrelated to Wikipedia in the first place. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: If he changed it to "it is this user's opinion that..." would we even be having this argument. If he changed 'religion' to 'politics' and 'atheist' to some political party, it would be clear that its an opinion statement - This user understands that the category of politics is an invention by European democracies which they falsely and inaccurately apply to the rest of the world, and that oligarchists who demand the elimination of politics from public affairs are acting out of extreme ignorance, if not outright disregard for other cultures. Doesn't make any more sense than the original, and it isn't any more offensive.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - essentially, per SuperHamster above. Personally, I don't find this userbox offensive or consider it a personal attack; however, I do think it is divisive and inflammatory, and entirely unhelpful to the task of building an encyclopaedia. Personally, I think all userboxes expressing a political or religious opinion should be deleted - they only encourage editors to identify with factions and provoke arguments, and don't really serve any useful purpose connected with the aims of Wikipedia. Robofish (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 

I personally Find these just as devicive but really, i feel its a double standard that users can be inflamitory torward religoin but the moment some one questions the wisdom of Atheism it stirs stuff up.Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view, most, if not all of those are less divisive than the one we are discussing here. Most of them say what a user believes in without labeling anyone; at least they use the term "believes" rather than "understands". The first one calls God a myth/superstition, which I don't like; a user did bring up an alternative on the talk page, however, which I do find to be much more appropriate. The one that I actually find the most divisive is this one (which happens to be pro-atheism), and note that it did go through a deletion discussion, or a "stir up", located here. There is no double standard going on here as I see it. I wouldn't like your userbox just as much if it said "religious people who demand the integration of religion in public affairs are acting out of extreme ignorance" rather than atheists. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 19:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nothing insulting here. Loaded? yes. Unacceptable? no. And I say this as an extremely ignorant supporter of eliminating so-called religion from so-called public affairs. Removal of just one statement out of many (just as divisive, inflammatory, immature, nonsensical...) doesn't change anything. East of Borschov 17:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Which should not be viewed as an endorsement of the wording - I don't like it, but that's not a valid MfD rationale. To the extent that there are civility concerns, they should be handled through different channels. -- SPhilbrick  T  12:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I consistently have stated that userboxes should be deleted exceedingly rarely. The misquote of Voltaire applies. Collect (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Targets people from a whole continent(!) that they (notice third person plural) "falsely and inaccurately apply to the rest of the world" and that they "demand the elimination of" and "are acting out of extreme ignorance, if not outright disregard for other cultures". I rest my case. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 10:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm of the opinion that we should be quite lenient towards userboxes (and other userpage statements of opinion), and this is easily acceptable in my book. As always, I'd rather know that this user believes that atheists are ignorant from a statement on his userpage than have him edit the atheist article (or other related articles) with undeclared beliefs that probably affect his POV. Buddy431 (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry but you don't have the right not to be offended. I can name quite a few userboxes that offend me but that's the price you pay for taking part in a global effort to write an encyclopedia where not everyone will share your views and cultural background. Suck it up and move on. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is the exact reasoning that I'm for deletion: considering that it is a global effort where not everyone will share the same views and cultural background, people should take an extra effort to respect that fact by respecting the people they work with to build this encyclopedia. Of course, it is impossible to have a completely non-offensive community, and it is sometimes unfortunate yet unavoidable for one to offend another when building an encyclopedia (one can always be offending or offended in a discussion about articles, user conduct, etc.), but this userbox is one of the things that isn't necessary or even related to the encyclopedia. Perhaps it is at most, as Buddy431 states, related in the sense that one's POV is placed upfront while editing, but other than that, it is unrelated and is an unnecessary source of controversy that doesn't help the encyclopedia; one could state the same point of view that this userbox has in a far less offensive and less divisive way. Why should people have to suck it up when they don't have to? There are plenty of things that aren't allowed here, yet can be just as easily sucked up and forgotten. What do userboxes like this have to add to Wikipedia in which the potentially offensive and divisive language and views expressed in it are worth it? ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 23:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How is this userbox related to an encyclopedia? Or, for that matter, 95% of all userboxes? Staying on-topic is not a requirement of an editor's own userspace, nor should it be, and if that's a concern of yours, it really belongs in a separate (broader) discussion. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:3px 5px;float:left">Jess</b><p style="margin:3px 5px 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps">talk edits 03:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct, and I wouldn't want to delete anything just because it is unrelated to Wikipedia. The point I wanted to make is that a userbox (e.g. the userbox we're discussing) doesn't have anything to add positively to Wikipedia as compared to what it could potentially add to Wikipedia negatively; in other words, userboxes can only hurt, not help. In my last comment, I was comparing userboxes to discussions about articles and user conduct, which are things that are unavoidable and necessary, as they are related to improving Wikipedia; userboxes, however, are the opposite, and when they are potentially troublesome like this one, nothing is really lost if they are deleted, since they are unrelated to improving Wikipedia. Looking at the example you gave, what would happen if someone deleted it? Nothing (all right, fine, there'd be a redlink or two, but that's irrelevant to the point). Why would nothing happen if it were deleted? Because it is unrelated, so there is nothing for Wikipedia to lose from its deletion (at the same time, there's nothing to gain from its existence). By itself, being unrelated to Wikipedia isn't a reason for deletion. However, when combined that with the fact that this userbox we're discussion is divisive, its unrelatedness is a factor in my leaning towards deleted, since now the only thing the userbox has to offer is conflict, with barely anything to lose in terms of the encyclopedia if it is deleted, because it is unrelated. Hopefully that made sense :) ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 04:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The point I wanted to make is that a userbox (e.g. the userbox we're discussing) doesn't have anything to add positively to Wikipedia as compared to what it could potentially add to Wikipedia negatively; in other words, userboxes can only hurt, not help 2006 just called. It wants its userbox war back. Move on Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to discuss this userbox, that's fine by me, go right ahead. But I'm not going to "move on" when I feel that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 12:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * DeleteThis belongs on Uncyclopedia and has no place on Wikipedia. Access Denied(t&#124;c&#124;g&#124;d&#124;s) 04:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:CENSOR - if someone wants to say something on their userpage, however stupid or crazy it is, we should let them so long as it doesn't directly attack anyone else. 56Kb discussing this?! We could have written a lot of content in that time. Smartse (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a quick calculation - my posts take up almost 33% of those 56 kilobytes . Though my excuse is that I probably would've otherwise spent that time playing video games instead of building content. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 23:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It would be a shame if userboxes were deleted because others disagreed with them. It's his userbox, leave him alone.  EdEColbert  Let me know 19:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies in advance if I'm beginning to sound like I'm bludgeoning the discussion - I'm not trying to overwhelm it or anything, even if I'm being rather reply-happy. I understand if one thinks that users should be able to have the right to express whatever views they want on their userpage, but this userbox wasn't really put on the ground for deletion because other users disagree with the views expressed by the userbox; the issue is, rather, the manner in which the view of the userbox is conveyed, which some think is divisive and inappropriate for WP (others, of course, think it's fine for Wikipedia). Just wanted to mention that those are the grounds for deletion, and not that users disagree with the userbox's views. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Well below the level I would consider offensive; forbidding something like this would set a bad precedent. -- JN 466  21:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I think that I have to agree with SuperHamster. Not much else to say, he said it all... :)  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If we were to delete everything that could offend some people, we'd have little left. The idea expressed by this userbox is fine, but I agree it could be reworded if the user agrees. Netalarm talk 14:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Jess. This is a classic slippery slope scenario.  I don't like the idea of userboxes being XfDed left and right once word gets out about this being deleted. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 15:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- why is this still open? It's been nearly eight days, and consensus is now clear. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  03:56, 24 July 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.