![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Deleted the offensive "muslim" box. -- D SCH 02:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
YOU DON'T HAVE ONE FOR AGNOSTIC PEOPLE! How would one make one? Carbunkel 01:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I put the generalities up at the top, followed by the religions sorted from oldest to newest. I don't know whether there should be a distinction of "Beliefs about origins" and "Beliefs about religions," but for now it's okay. If you don't like it, merge the two. — James S. 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I added in my Jainism template next to hinduism (because they are directly related (see my talk page for an explanation) -- Shell 15:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Aren't the religions supposed to be by longest time of practice?! Hinduism has been practiced for MUCH longer than buddhism and christianity! -- Shell 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Why doesn't someone make a box that says, "This user acknowledges biological evolution," instead of "This user understands biological evolution." 'Acknowledges' is less vague, as there are, believe it or not, people who understand (the concept of) evolution but do not acknowledge it. It could use the same image. Thanks. Maprov 05:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is that grey box listed instead of this swanky one?-- Kross Talk 07:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.
-- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We should have jedi and sith under funny religions Batzarro 04:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I added my chinmaya mission template because there are many hindus that are a member of/believe in/follow the mission and its teachings. -- Shell 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't claim im distracting from the wikipedia cus I made 200 encyclopedia edits today. Heres the jokey question: What would happen to God if God edited on wikipedia? :)-- Urthogie 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure either the bright or materialist boxes should be included under religion - both these worldviews say far more than just 'god doesn't exist' or anything similar. Although it is (seemingly) impossible to be both a bright and religious, it is very possible to be non-religious but not a bright (e.g. atheistic dualism). That is, both boxes make reveal information about the user's religious views, but they say FAR more than just that. Any suggestion for dealing with this? Mikkerpikker ... 14:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
can anyone tell me waht religions are associated with some of Template:User religious pluralism these symbolson the religious pluralist userbox? specifically the center, bottom center, and bottom right? Gatherton 00:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The Cross pattée (centre) is rather oddly placed - referring possibly to the Knights templar - which no longer exists, so maybe represents gnostic Christians - most of which do not exist. Ayyavazhi (bottom centre) is a small (on the world stage) syncretic Hindu sect, and also seems rather out of place. Lastly, I am guessing that the triple crescent of Diane de Poitiers is supposed to represent wicca or mother goddess type neopaganism which unfortunately bears a strong resemblance to the Biological hazard Symbol. Notably missing is any symbol for Buddhism - normally recognised as a major world religion. In light of your question, I feel that it is correct to edit the picture somewhat. If we were to represent nine religions, it seems to make sense to use the top nine organized religions found on World religion - namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Bahá'í, Jainism, Shinto. Notable absences would be those excluded by the 'organized religion' requirement - Chinese traditional, Primal Indigenous, African traditional, and Secular/Atheists.. (20040302 10:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC))
I have amended the picture for uses where it is meant to be representative of different religions. This should better reflect what I mention above. There is no ordering used in the image - I merely replaced some symbols with symbols from more popular reliigions. Moreover, I have thickened the lines used in order to make it more visible for Template:User religious pluralism. See Major world religions for the choice - I restricted the set to organised religions.
I changed the location of some recently-moved boxes to avoid confusion from a less informed user. Science adopts methodological materialism/naturalism. On the other hand, the boxes about dualism, bright-ism and materialism are treating the subject on ontological grounds. --
Leinad ¬
pois não?
21:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Is the picture of hammer and sickel in user_orgatheism-0 really necessary? It conjures certain associations to communism and adverse effects of the same up. -- belthil 19:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I am a Taoist, not someone interested in Taoism, but a Taoist. I notice that there is a box for Chinese Traditional which I assume is a mix of Confuscism and Taoism, a box for interested in Taoism, but no box for those of us outside of China that consider themselves either Confusist or Taoist, but not both.
Has anyone else noticed some rather odd, and seemingly random, speedy-deletions to assorted templates on this page, without a word of explanation? I fully agree with the recent speedy-deletion of the "Christianity?!" one, which is clearly antagonistic towards Christians, but the deletion of the ignosticism template seems rather odd indeed. Are Wikipedians not allowed to express the fact that they are ignostic? How is this different from the other beliefs on this page, is all I'm curious about—and even if it merits deletion, what's wrong with TfD? Last I checked, TfD was working just fine. I'm confused. :/ - Silence 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, wtf? Is there ANY explanation for this? They are beliefs, plain and simple, just as much as being a Lutheran is. Cornell Rockey 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much all of these religious userboxes have been or are in the process of being deleted. This is just a heads up ... it's not an accident, or a rogue admin. It's a shift in policy. If you want to have your say, I guess you can do so here. -- Cyde Weys 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
"having your say on Wikipedia means about as much as having your say in China." . . . Sad, but true. --
Leinad ¬
pois não?
21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a nuke religious user box on religion. And no blanking the political use boxes. Its odd that expression of one's religious bliefs are blanked, but not poltical. Okay... I protest, I will place I am a Communist user box. Power to the people, we have nothing to lose our userboxes eh? " Kreb Dragonrider 12:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with you ppl??? I have a right to express my religous beliefs and you ppl are prohibiting me!!! go to hell you facist pigs user:SaintDante
i will start wikipedians agianst censorship of religion
I would like to appologise for over reacting. This is a privately owned server and i was ...wrong.... but i still think it is wrong. I will try to get them back. But i understand their rights.
My Formal Apoligies SaintDante 00:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
it is largely bollocks though. This user is not "interested in Zen". This user is a Zen Buddhist. It is a fact, like "this user had cornflakes for breakfast" rather than "This user is interested in people who have cornflakes for breakfast". Private server it may be, but that doesn't stop it from being a a bloody stupid policy. Lostsocks 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So basically if you want to find a Jewish user to help clarify something about their religion you can't. If you want to find a Muslim user to ask whether or not something is permissible in their religion you can't. If you want to find an Atheist to help bring some nuetrality to pointlessly heated issue you can't. I see a point in such things- perhaps I am a fool, but better a simple fool than a sophisticated ignoramus...يلعنكم Meanwhile political and sexual orientation userboxes are sticking around. These are taking up just as much space and are just as susceptible to vote stacking issues. I'm not sure I like this kind of wikihypocrisy. In light of the fact that I cannot express my religon via userbox I have removed the other userbox reffering to my stance on gender issues. Perhaps this is what was intended, but I still don't quite like the idea. Angrynight 03:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
My My. What statement is Wikipedia making when the only choices are "catholic, jewish, muslim, or athiest". Why not be more blunt and have "monotheistic or not". I am in total disbelief that this is an issue with the Wikipedia admins. I would rather see the site get rid of the religious boxes than have what appears to be either a self censorship because of pressure from the Big 3 (christian, jewish, muslim) or a very inappropriate sponsorship of monotheisim by its owners.
I think every one just cares to much. people who get angry at this stuff have no life. And also Vidkun is a Self righteous dick. MegaloManiac 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
i feel we have a right to express our religion as long as we arent forcing them down other peoples throats. people dont have to go here and accept the religion i believe in. i mean as long as it isnt defaming religions i think everything here is good JMW814 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that the userboxes have been undeleted, I was wondering if there would be any support or opposition for making the style more consistent and easy-to-remember by not requiring that people memorize which userbox names are or aren't capitalized, which is rather random right now. The best way to do this without a flood of unnecessary userboxes is to simply uncapitalize every template on this page (thus requiring the minimum amount of caps-lock-shiftin' possible). So, based on that, combined with using an organized numbered system rather than the "spelling variants" system that's cropped up lately and combined with consistently naming the userbox after the follower, not the religion ("user muslim" instead of "user islam", etc.: and perhaps using the religion's name for the "interest"-based, rather than "pov"-based, box!), I'd like to recommend the following moves:
etc. - Silence 16:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ooooooooooooo! Me like!
Angrynight
19:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Where's the antireligion template? and the proreligion one?-- Manwe 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"Userboxes of a polemic nature are bad for the project."-Jimbo Wales Angrynight 06:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
roger that...-- Manwe 22:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why the widely used anti-religion (or however you call it) userbox
File:FirstCrusade.jpg | This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion. |
is MORE "of a polemic nature" than the religious doctrines advertised here! þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
...has just been made. You could add it to the list. -- HolyRomanEmperor 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This user is a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church. |
I am a dark servant of The Great An Immortal High Lord Of Darkness. (A.K.A. High Lord Xenu)) I Demand you make a This User worships Highlord Xenu. Or I will send the earth into a plane of eternal pain!!! MegaloManiac 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hail Lord Xenu! MegaloManiac 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Down with scientology! Theropy for every one! MegaloManiac 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
{{User Catholic3}}
I added a new template for liberal Roman Cathoilics.
ISD
12:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This user believes in Christianity. |
I added a new template for Christians who do not want to show their church affiliation or do not have any. It is a temporary (?) replacement for the User Christian template, taken over and destroyed by vandals. Friendly Neighbour 13:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete Creationism? jerks. MegaloManiac 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a " This user is willing to die for his/her religion. or martyr somthing. MegaloManiac 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that the speedy-deletion criterion for userboxes has been changed (see WP:CSD#Templates), I strongly recommend that we move all belief-expressing userboxes here to interest-related ones, where there is clearly a significant interest related to it. For example, I propose moving {{ User:UBX/muslim}} to {{ user islam}} and changing the text from "This user is a muslim." to "This user is interested in Islam." as soon as possible. I'll do it myself, in fact, if no one objects; anyone who the new template text doesn't apply to can then pretty easily remove the revised version from their userpage (in fact, it'd be nice if we could get a bot to send userpage messages to each user with such a 'box telling them that they can either subst the original userbox or simply remove the template altogether if they were a membre of hte religion, but not "interested" in it per se, for example). This will ensure that most of the concerns that led to the new T1 criterion being expanded are allayed (at least in the long term), and will also keep the hard work people put into making these 'boxes and putting them on their pages isn't wasted, so I think it's a very effective compromise and effort-saver, and will also cause much less conflict than something absurd like a mass-deletion. What do you guys think? - Silence 13:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it was pointless. I want them back MegaloManiac 17:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
?-- Dangerous-Boy 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's the current course of action I recommend for all userboxes on this page (in progress): User:Silence/RUBX. If anyone disagrees with any, feel free to say so (or edit the page yourself). I'd simply make the changes myself, but I can't deduce whether people think it's a good idea to move the belief templates to interest ones (per CSD:T2) or not, and I like an easy way to mass-subst any of them. - Silence 16:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why did the "Jew" or "Jewish" template get deleted? What is this whole 'interested' nonsense? I am a practicing Jew, but I'm interested in tons of things! Eliyyahu 14:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I protest at the alteration of the pilgrim-related userboxes. I am not "interested in pilgrimages", so I don't want the new "user pilgrim" box, but I do not want to identify explicitly with Christianity, so I don't want the "user pilgrim Christian" box either. The simple "pilgrim" userbox was a useful label for those of us who are on a spiritual journey but do not wish to identify explicitly with Christianity. Myopic Bookworm 11:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have been boycotting Wikipedia for some time now as a result of this matter. I came back to give it one last chance, but now I see the censorship of beliefs is still fully in place, so I'm afraid its still a permanent boycott from me. — gorgan_almighty 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Good for you- thats one Wikipedia user gone and 1.8 million staying! Ronan.evans 08:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not a satanist but why did you delete them. It is a religion just like every other one MegaloManiac 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I AM a Satanist and I'd quite like to know the same thing. Also, what about Luciferian? I think we should have a box for that as well. Moose 11:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Why did the ignosticism userbox get deleted? It was replaced on my userpage with a box saying that "I am interested in agnosticism". This is not the same thing. I realize that a box which says "This user is an ignostic, and finds the question of whether or not God exists nonsensical." is now not appropriate, so I suggest that it be replaced with the following text instead of replacing it with the agnosticism userbox: "This user is interested in ignosticism, which finds the question of whether or not God exists nonsensical."
Is this a reasonable thing to ask? Esn 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Code | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|
{{subst:userbox |border-c=#797979 |info-c=#eeeebd |info-fc=#000000 |id-c=#eeeebd |id=[[Image:ignostic.jpg|42px]] |info=This user is an '''[[ignosticism|ignostic]]''', and finds the question of [[existence of God|whether or not God exists]] '''nonsensical'''. }} |
|
I understand the criteria for speedy deletion on the "beliefs and views" section, but there are two userboxes there (4th & 5th) that only state that the user respects other peoples' beliefs. Both are just messages of tolerance and I have a hard time understanding why they shouldn't have their own template. Could anyone make it clear for me? Rosa 06:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was offensive. It may be offensive to idiots, but noone cares about them. (Note: Acording to recent warnings I am forced to tell you that this is not a perosnel attack on anyone.) MegaloManiac 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
There are several boxes that say 'this is user is a christian somethingorother', but there are no boxes for judaism, islam or other religions that say the same. They're all victim of the belief that NPOV policy applies to user pages.. So why isn't that the same for Christianity? Joffeloff 22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
How about one that says: "This user is interested in Humans" I had considered "This user is Human" but clearly that would be offensive and absurd . . . Lostsocks 09:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
here are all my user box ideas and I know every one is going to hate them
MegaloManiac 06:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
... what if I am interested in stirring up trouble just for the hell of it... MegaloManiac 00:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I may be anti-Christ and Anti-muslim but I say leave religious userboxes. I think a "This User Is A Satanist" userbox needs to be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouijalover ( talk • contribs) 20:44 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So how come the "This user is a Buddhist" template doesn't work? I tried the Christian one out and that works fine! There do seem to be an incredible amount of Christian-related boxes, at the expense of all the other faiths/ideologies. Joziboy 10:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I am a Shintoist, and i am wondering if a Shintoist userbox will be made (there is 1, but it reflects interest not beleif in Shinto). -Thanks User:Merlin Storm 02:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a solution: don't use userboxes! Then these fascists can create and delete userboxes till their hearts are content! If you seriously desperately need them then create them in your own userspace (so you won't wake up one morning and find that your user page looks different, again...). Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks :) I had no idea what userspace was! Joziboy 20:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That's unbelievable, Alistair!!! One way to make sure that you don't have to play by their rules is to stop playing. Who needs userboxes? And why the hell am I getting myself involved in this "debate"!? Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 22:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but apathy achieves nothing Tebello :) Joziboy 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, LSD, but what's the point of userboxes, again? All those little squares on your user page look queer perculiar ;) The isiZulu box still has incorrect grammar, btw...
Zyxoas (
talk to me - I'll listen)
21:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
How are we suppose to find where certain userboxes are and how will we be placed in a category now? For exapmle if one was a Muslim and placed a Muslim userbox on his/her userpage, he or she would be placed in the Muslim Wikipedians category. How is that going to happen now? Will this page tell us where the original userboxes were? Zulfikkur 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Why have religious userboxes been deleted? I'd like a clear explanation. I sense some hostility towards religious people by the Wikipedia staff. -- Rambone (Talk) 03:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
What happened to User:Hell That was my favorite, I want to make sure people know I'm going to hell. H2P ( Yell at me for what I've done) 10:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Deleted the offensive "muslim" box. -- D SCH 02:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
YOU DON'T HAVE ONE FOR AGNOSTIC PEOPLE! How would one make one? Carbunkel 01:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I put the generalities up at the top, followed by the religions sorted from oldest to newest. I don't know whether there should be a distinction of "Beliefs about origins" and "Beliefs about religions," but for now it's okay. If you don't like it, merge the two. — James S. 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I added in my Jainism template next to hinduism (because they are directly related (see my talk page for an explanation) -- Shell 15:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Aren't the religions supposed to be by longest time of practice?! Hinduism has been practiced for MUCH longer than buddhism and christianity! -- Shell 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Why doesn't someone make a box that says, "This user acknowledges biological evolution," instead of "This user understands biological evolution." 'Acknowledges' is less vague, as there are, believe it or not, people who understand (the concept of) evolution but do not acknowledge it. It could use the same image. Thanks. Maprov 05:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is that grey box listed instead of this swanky one?-- Kross Talk 07:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.
-- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We should have jedi and sith under funny religions Batzarro 04:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I added my chinmaya mission template because there are many hindus that are a member of/believe in/follow the mission and its teachings. -- Shell 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't claim im distracting from the wikipedia cus I made 200 encyclopedia edits today. Heres the jokey question: What would happen to God if God edited on wikipedia? :)-- Urthogie 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure either the bright or materialist boxes should be included under religion - both these worldviews say far more than just 'god doesn't exist' or anything similar. Although it is (seemingly) impossible to be both a bright and religious, it is very possible to be non-religious but not a bright (e.g. atheistic dualism). That is, both boxes make reveal information about the user's religious views, but they say FAR more than just that. Any suggestion for dealing with this? Mikkerpikker ... 14:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
can anyone tell me waht religions are associated with some of Template:User religious pluralism these symbolson the religious pluralist userbox? specifically the center, bottom center, and bottom right? Gatherton 00:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The Cross pattée (centre) is rather oddly placed - referring possibly to the Knights templar - which no longer exists, so maybe represents gnostic Christians - most of which do not exist. Ayyavazhi (bottom centre) is a small (on the world stage) syncretic Hindu sect, and also seems rather out of place. Lastly, I am guessing that the triple crescent of Diane de Poitiers is supposed to represent wicca or mother goddess type neopaganism which unfortunately bears a strong resemblance to the Biological hazard Symbol. Notably missing is any symbol for Buddhism - normally recognised as a major world religion. In light of your question, I feel that it is correct to edit the picture somewhat. If we were to represent nine religions, it seems to make sense to use the top nine organized religions found on World religion - namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Bahá'í, Jainism, Shinto. Notable absences would be those excluded by the 'organized religion' requirement - Chinese traditional, Primal Indigenous, African traditional, and Secular/Atheists.. (20040302 10:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC))
I have amended the picture for uses where it is meant to be representative of different religions. This should better reflect what I mention above. There is no ordering used in the image - I merely replaced some symbols with symbols from more popular reliigions. Moreover, I have thickened the lines used in order to make it more visible for Template:User religious pluralism. See Major world religions for the choice - I restricted the set to organised religions.
I changed the location of some recently-moved boxes to avoid confusion from a less informed user. Science adopts methodological materialism/naturalism. On the other hand, the boxes about dualism, bright-ism and materialism are treating the subject on ontological grounds. --
Leinad ¬
pois não?
21:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Is the picture of hammer and sickel in user_orgatheism-0 really necessary? It conjures certain associations to communism and adverse effects of the same up. -- belthil 19:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I am a Taoist, not someone interested in Taoism, but a Taoist. I notice that there is a box for Chinese Traditional which I assume is a mix of Confuscism and Taoism, a box for interested in Taoism, but no box for those of us outside of China that consider themselves either Confusist or Taoist, but not both.
Has anyone else noticed some rather odd, and seemingly random, speedy-deletions to assorted templates on this page, without a word of explanation? I fully agree with the recent speedy-deletion of the "Christianity?!" one, which is clearly antagonistic towards Christians, but the deletion of the ignosticism template seems rather odd indeed. Are Wikipedians not allowed to express the fact that they are ignostic? How is this different from the other beliefs on this page, is all I'm curious about—and even if it merits deletion, what's wrong with TfD? Last I checked, TfD was working just fine. I'm confused. :/ - Silence 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, wtf? Is there ANY explanation for this? They are beliefs, plain and simple, just as much as being a Lutheran is. Cornell Rockey 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much all of these religious userboxes have been or are in the process of being deleted. This is just a heads up ... it's not an accident, or a rogue admin. It's a shift in policy. If you want to have your say, I guess you can do so here. -- Cyde Weys 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
"having your say on Wikipedia means about as much as having your say in China." . . . Sad, but true. --
Leinad ¬
pois não?
21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a nuke religious user box on religion. And no blanking the political use boxes. Its odd that expression of one's religious bliefs are blanked, but not poltical. Okay... I protest, I will place I am a Communist user box. Power to the people, we have nothing to lose our userboxes eh? " Kreb Dragonrider 12:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with you ppl??? I have a right to express my religous beliefs and you ppl are prohibiting me!!! go to hell you facist pigs user:SaintDante
i will start wikipedians agianst censorship of religion
I would like to appologise for over reacting. This is a privately owned server and i was ...wrong.... but i still think it is wrong. I will try to get them back. But i understand their rights.
My Formal Apoligies SaintDante 00:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
it is largely bollocks though. This user is not "interested in Zen". This user is a Zen Buddhist. It is a fact, like "this user had cornflakes for breakfast" rather than "This user is interested in people who have cornflakes for breakfast". Private server it may be, but that doesn't stop it from being a a bloody stupid policy. Lostsocks 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So basically if you want to find a Jewish user to help clarify something about their religion you can't. If you want to find a Muslim user to ask whether or not something is permissible in their religion you can't. If you want to find an Atheist to help bring some nuetrality to pointlessly heated issue you can't. I see a point in such things- perhaps I am a fool, but better a simple fool than a sophisticated ignoramus...يلعنكم Meanwhile political and sexual orientation userboxes are sticking around. These are taking up just as much space and are just as susceptible to vote stacking issues. I'm not sure I like this kind of wikihypocrisy. In light of the fact that I cannot express my religon via userbox I have removed the other userbox reffering to my stance on gender issues. Perhaps this is what was intended, but I still don't quite like the idea. Angrynight 03:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
My My. What statement is Wikipedia making when the only choices are "catholic, jewish, muslim, or athiest". Why not be more blunt and have "monotheistic or not". I am in total disbelief that this is an issue with the Wikipedia admins. I would rather see the site get rid of the religious boxes than have what appears to be either a self censorship because of pressure from the Big 3 (christian, jewish, muslim) or a very inappropriate sponsorship of monotheisim by its owners.
I think every one just cares to much. people who get angry at this stuff have no life. And also Vidkun is a Self righteous dick. MegaloManiac 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
i feel we have a right to express our religion as long as we arent forcing them down other peoples throats. people dont have to go here and accept the religion i believe in. i mean as long as it isnt defaming religions i think everything here is good JMW814 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that the userboxes have been undeleted, I was wondering if there would be any support or opposition for making the style more consistent and easy-to-remember by not requiring that people memorize which userbox names are or aren't capitalized, which is rather random right now. The best way to do this without a flood of unnecessary userboxes is to simply uncapitalize every template on this page (thus requiring the minimum amount of caps-lock-shiftin' possible). So, based on that, combined with using an organized numbered system rather than the "spelling variants" system that's cropped up lately and combined with consistently naming the userbox after the follower, not the religion ("user muslim" instead of "user islam", etc.: and perhaps using the religion's name for the "interest"-based, rather than "pov"-based, box!), I'd like to recommend the following moves:
etc. - Silence 16:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ooooooooooooo! Me like!
Angrynight
19:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Where's the antireligion template? and the proreligion one?-- Manwe 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"Userboxes of a polemic nature are bad for the project."-Jimbo Wales Angrynight 06:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
roger that...-- Manwe 22:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why the widely used anti-religion (or however you call it) userbox
File:FirstCrusade.jpg | This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion. |
is MORE "of a polemic nature" than the religious doctrines advertised here! þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
...has just been made. You could add it to the list. -- HolyRomanEmperor 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This user is a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church. |
I am a dark servant of The Great An Immortal High Lord Of Darkness. (A.K.A. High Lord Xenu)) I Demand you make a This User worships Highlord Xenu. Or I will send the earth into a plane of eternal pain!!! MegaloManiac 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hail Lord Xenu! MegaloManiac 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Down with scientology! Theropy for every one! MegaloManiac 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
{{User Catholic3}}
I added a new template for liberal Roman Cathoilics.
ISD
12:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This user believes in Christianity. |
I added a new template for Christians who do not want to show their church affiliation or do not have any. It is a temporary (?) replacement for the User Christian template, taken over and destroyed by vandals. Friendly Neighbour 13:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete Creationism? jerks. MegaloManiac 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a " This user is willing to die for his/her religion. or martyr somthing. MegaloManiac 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that the speedy-deletion criterion for userboxes has been changed (see WP:CSD#Templates), I strongly recommend that we move all belief-expressing userboxes here to interest-related ones, where there is clearly a significant interest related to it. For example, I propose moving {{ User:UBX/muslim}} to {{ user islam}} and changing the text from "This user is a muslim." to "This user is interested in Islam." as soon as possible. I'll do it myself, in fact, if no one objects; anyone who the new template text doesn't apply to can then pretty easily remove the revised version from their userpage (in fact, it'd be nice if we could get a bot to send userpage messages to each user with such a 'box telling them that they can either subst the original userbox or simply remove the template altogether if they were a membre of hte religion, but not "interested" in it per se, for example). This will ensure that most of the concerns that led to the new T1 criterion being expanded are allayed (at least in the long term), and will also keep the hard work people put into making these 'boxes and putting them on their pages isn't wasted, so I think it's a very effective compromise and effort-saver, and will also cause much less conflict than something absurd like a mass-deletion. What do you guys think? - Silence 13:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it was pointless. I want them back MegaloManiac 17:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
?-- Dangerous-Boy 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's the current course of action I recommend for all userboxes on this page (in progress): User:Silence/RUBX. If anyone disagrees with any, feel free to say so (or edit the page yourself). I'd simply make the changes myself, but I can't deduce whether people think it's a good idea to move the belief templates to interest ones (per CSD:T2) or not, and I like an easy way to mass-subst any of them. - Silence 16:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why did the "Jew" or "Jewish" template get deleted? What is this whole 'interested' nonsense? I am a practicing Jew, but I'm interested in tons of things! Eliyyahu 14:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I protest at the alteration of the pilgrim-related userboxes. I am not "interested in pilgrimages", so I don't want the new "user pilgrim" box, but I do not want to identify explicitly with Christianity, so I don't want the "user pilgrim Christian" box either. The simple "pilgrim" userbox was a useful label for those of us who are on a spiritual journey but do not wish to identify explicitly with Christianity. Myopic Bookworm 11:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have been boycotting Wikipedia for some time now as a result of this matter. I came back to give it one last chance, but now I see the censorship of beliefs is still fully in place, so I'm afraid its still a permanent boycott from me. — gorgan_almighty 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Good for you- thats one Wikipedia user gone and 1.8 million staying! Ronan.evans 08:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not a satanist but why did you delete them. It is a religion just like every other one MegaloManiac 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I AM a Satanist and I'd quite like to know the same thing. Also, what about Luciferian? I think we should have a box for that as well. Moose 11:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Why did the ignosticism userbox get deleted? It was replaced on my userpage with a box saying that "I am interested in agnosticism". This is not the same thing. I realize that a box which says "This user is an ignostic, and finds the question of whether or not God exists nonsensical." is now not appropriate, so I suggest that it be replaced with the following text instead of replacing it with the agnosticism userbox: "This user is interested in ignosticism, which finds the question of whether or not God exists nonsensical."
Is this a reasonable thing to ask? Esn 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Code | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|
{{subst:userbox |border-c=#797979 |info-c=#eeeebd |info-fc=#000000 |id-c=#eeeebd |id=[[Image:ignostic.jpg|42px]] |info=This user is an '''[[ignosticism|ignostic]]''', and finds the question of [[existence of God|whether or not God exists]] '''nonsensical'''. }} |
|
I understand the criteria for speedy deletion on the "beliefs and views" section, but there are two userboxes there (4th & 5th) that only state that the user respects other peoples' beliefs. Both are just messages of tolerance and I have a hard time understanding why they shouldn't have their own template. Could anyone make it clear for me? Rosa 06:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was offensive. It may be offensive to idiots, but noone cares about them. (Note: Acording to recent warnings I am forced to tell you that this is not a perosnel attack on anyone.) MegaloManiac 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
There are several boxes that say 'this is user is a christian somethingorother', but there are no boxes for judaism, islam or other religions that say the same. They're all victim of the belief that NPOV policy applies to user pages.. So why isn't that the same for Christianity? Joffeloff 22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
How about one that says: "This user is interested in Humans" I had considered "This user is Human" but clearly that would be offensive and absurd . . . Lostsocks 09:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
here are all my user box ideas and I know every one is going to hate them
MegaloManiac 06:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
... what if I am interested in stirring up trouble just for the hell of it... MegaloManiac 00:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I may be anti-Christ and Anti-muslim but I say leave religious userboxes. I think a "This User Is A Satanist" userbox needs to be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouijalover ( talk • contribs) 20:44 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So how come the "This user is a Buddhist" template doesn't work? I tried the Christian one out and that works fine! There do seem to be an incredible amount of Christian-related boxes, at the expense of all the other faiths/ideologies. Joziboy 10:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I am a Shintoist, and i am wondering if a Shintoist userbox will be made (there is 1, but it reflects interest not beleif in Shinto). -Thanks User:Merlin Storm 02:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a solution: don't use userboxes! Then these fascists can create and delete userboxes till their hearts are content! If you seriously desperately need them then create them in your own userspace (so you won't wake up one morning and find that your user page looks different, again...). Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks :) I had no idea what userspace was! Joziboy 20:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That's unbelievable, Alistair!!! One way to make sure that you don't have to play by their rules is to stop playing. Who needs userboxes? And why the hell am I getting myself involved in this "debate"!? Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 22:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but apathy achieves nothing Tebello :) Joziboy 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, LSD, but what's the point of userboxes, again? All those little squares on your user page look queer perculiar ;) The isiZulu box still has incorrect grammar, btw...
Zyxoas (
talk to me - I'll listen)
21:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
How are we suppose to find where certain userboxes are and how will we be placed in a category now? For exapmle if one was a Muslim and placed a Muslim userbox on his/her userpage, he or she would be placed in the Muslim Wikipedians category. How is that going to happen now? Will this page tell us where the original userboxes were? Zulfikkur 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Why have religious userboxes been deleted? I'd like a clear explanation. I sense some hostility towards religious people by the Wikipedia staff. -- Rambone (Talk) 03:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
What happened to User:Hell That was my favorite, I want to make sure people know I'm going to hell. H2P ( Yell at me for what I've done) 10:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |