- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was keep. Sam Blacketer 10:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Relisting here per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 20. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I agree both with the argument that this is unnecessary potential flaimebait and with the argument that you'd have to be pretty dumb to take it seriously as an apology of nuclear warfare. Pascal.Tesson 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP - I can't understand why this is being listed. Some people are for nuclear bombs, some against. You gonna ban userboxes that say people like to smoke, next? Get a grip, people. Nominations like this take time away from our primary purpose here. Jeffpw 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Now that I see it, I can't see how this can possibly be considered inflammatory. I mean, if it advocated using nukes on a particular group of people, sure. But it doesn't -- UsaSatsui 07:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Although I understand that we should restrict divisive and inflammatory content in userspace in order to avoid unnecessary hostility within the community, the terms "divisive and inflammatory" have never been well-defined. As UsaSatsui says, it would unequivocally be inflammatory if it were directed towards a specific nationality; however, as it stands, it's just an expression of opinion, and opinions in userspace are allowed even on controversial subjects (per extensive precedent). It's no more inflammatory than "this user opposes the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances"; if one goes, the other should go too. My conclusion, therefore, is that (as long as this is kept in userspace) it is a legitimate userbox. Walton One 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This isn't advocating attacking any specific person or group, it's advocating using force "when necessary". There's nothing wrong with that in user space. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Someone (nominator? 8-) should notify the user on their talk page, and this MFD should be held open until their (unrelated) 72 hr sockpuppetry block expires so that they can comment here. Georgewilliamherbert 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Retain This is not overly divisive, pointy, etc. I see nothing wrong with it, it's just a userbox stating an opinion, not advocating it teeth bared. - Jéské ( v^_^v Kacheek!) 08:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, divisive and inflammatory. (I would say speedy T1, but then people will bitch at me for trying to use T1 on userspace) ^
demon
[omg plz]
12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Infmammatory, perhaps, in the sense nuclear bombs burn things. But exactly how is this divisive? --
UsaSatsui
14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because it supports one side of a very contentious debate which can divide opinions. I would say the same about "this user dislikes nuclear weapons" (or any such variant). How does supporting nuclear devices help build the encyclopedia? ^
demon
[omg plz]
15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because the Wikipedia servers are guarded by ICBMs with nuclear warheads aimed right at the
Uncyclopedia servers, to deter agression? Okay, maybe it doesn't help build the encyclopedia, but honestly, do any userboxes? It's not targeting any particular group of people, and it could very well be a joke (kind of like "Nuke the Whales"). --
UsaSatsui
15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Other than the babel-related userboxes, I have never seen a userbox that had the potential to help collaboration. That being said, the ones that are advocacy-based are even less useful and need to be purged. ^
demon
[omg plz]
16:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- ...well, we're just going to have to disagree. So long as they're not overly offensive or targeted at a specific group, I don't believe there's any real problems, so long as it stays in userspace. -- UsaSatsui 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Other than the babel-related userboxes, I have never seen a userbox that had the potential to help collaboration. That being said, the ones that are advocacy-based are even less useful and need to be purged. ^
demon
[omg plz]
16:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because the Wikipedia servers are guarded by ICBMs with nuclear warheads aimed right at the
Uncyclopedia servers, to deter agression? Okay, maybe it doesn't help build the encyclopedia, but honestly, do any userboxes? It's not targeting any particular group of people, and it could very well be a joke (kind of like "Nuke the Whales"). --
UsaSatsui
15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because it supports one side of a very contentious debate which can divide opinions. I would say the same about "this user dislikes nuclear weapons" (or any such variant). How does supporting nuclear devices help build the encyclopedia? ^
demon
[omg plz]
15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is an example of crying wolves. Yet, I see no wolves. It seems rather foolish, then, to delete a particular userpage-indigenous userbox because of something that does not yet exist.-- WaltCip 15:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Infmammatory, perhaps, in the sense nuclear bombs burn things. But exactly how is this divisive? --
UsaSatsui
14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep I would like to retain this as it mealy stating an opinion and nothing else. I initiated this original debate by requesting un-deletion as it was previously speedy deleted after being speedy userfied. These are my opinions as the user.-- Lucy-marie 19:51, 30 September 2007 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was keep. Sam Blacketer 10:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Relisting here per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 20. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I agree both with the argument that this is unnecessary potential flaimebait and with the argument that you'd have to be pretty dumb to take it seriously as an apology of nuclear warfare. Pascal.Tesson 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP - I can't understand why this is being listed. Some people are for nuclear bombs, some against. You gonna ban userboxes that say people like to smoke, next? Get a grip, people. Nominations like this take time away from our primary purpose here. Jeffpw 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Now that I see it, I can't see how this can possibly be considered inflammatory. I mean, if it advocated using nukes on a particular group of people, sure. But it doesn't -- UsaSatsui 07:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Although I understand that we should restrict divisive and inflammatory content in userspace in order to avoid unnecessary hostility within the community, the terms "divisive and inflammatory" have never been well-defined. As UsaSatsui says, it would unequivocally be inflammatory if it were directed towards a specific nationality; however, as it stands, it's just an expression of opinion, and opinions in userspace are allowed even on controversial subjects (per extensive precedent). It's no more inflammatory than "this user opposes the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances"; if one goes, the other should go too. My conclusion, therefore, is that (as long as this is kept in userspace) it is a legitimate userbox. Walton One 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This isn't advocating attacking any specific person or group, it's advocating using force "when necessary". There's nothing wrong with that in user space. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Someone (nominator? 8-) should notify the user on their talk page, and this MFD should be held open until their (unrelated) 72 hr sockpuppetry block expires so that they can comment here. Georgewilliamherbert 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Retain This is not overly divisive, pointy, etc. I see nothing wrong with it, it's just a userbox stating an opinion, not advocating it teeth bared. - Jéské ( v^_^v Kacheek!) 08:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, divisive and inflammatory. (I would say speedy T1, but then people will bitch at me for trying to use T1 on userspace) ^
demon
[omg plz]
12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Infmammatory, perhaps, in the sense nuclear bombs burn things. But exactly how is this divisive? --
UsaSatsui
14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because it supports one side of a very contentious debate which can divide opinions. I would say the same about "this user dislikes nuclear weapons" (or any such variant). How does supporting nuclear devices help build the encyclopedia? ^
demon
[omg plz]
15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because the Wikipedia servers are guarded by ICBMs with nuclear warheads aimed right at the
Uncyclopedia servers, to deter agression? Okay, maybe it doesn't help build the encyclopedia, but honestly, do any userboxes? It's not targeting any particular group of people, and it could very well be a joke (kind of like "Nuke the Whales"). --
UsaSatsui
15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Other than the babel-related userboxes, I have never seen a userbox that had the potential to help collaboration. That being said, the ones that are advocacy-based are even less useful and need to be purged. ^
demon
[omg plz]
16:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- ...well, we're just going to have to disagree. So long as they're not overly offensive or targeted at a specific group, I don't believe there's any real problems, so long as it stays in userspace. -- UsaSatsui 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Other than the babel-related userboxes, I have never seen a userbox that had the potential to help collaboration. That being said, the ones that are advocacy-based are even less useful and need to be purged. ^
demon
[omg plz]
16:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because the Wikipedia servers are guarded by ICBMs with nuclear warheads aimed right at the
Uncyclopedia servers, to deter agression? Okay, maybe it doesn't help build the encyclopedia, but honestly, do any userboxes? It's not targeting any particular group of people, and it could very well be a joke (kind of like "Nuke the Whales"). --
UsaSatsui
15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because it supports one side of a very contentious debate which can divide opinions. I would say the same about "this user dislikes nuclear weapons" (or any such variant). How does supporting nuclear devices help build the encyclopedia? ^
demon
[omg plz]
15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is an example of crying wolves. Yet, I see no wolves. It seems rather foolish, then, to delete a particular userpage-indigenous userbox because of something that does not yet exist.-- WaltCip 15:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Infmammatory, perhaps, in the sense nuclear bombs burn things. But exactly how is this divisive? --
UsaSatsui
14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep I would like to retain this as it mealy stating an opinion and nothing else. I initiated this original debate by requesting un-deletion as it was previously speedy deleted after being speedy userfied. These are my opinions as the user.-- Lucy-marie 19:51, 30 September 2007 (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.