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.
Procedural nomination, copied from the MFD talk page verbatim:
Could someone help me out and do a mass deletion for me? I don't know how to do a mass delete. The said requested deletions are these userboxes, which I believe to be inflammatory and offensive:
My own opinion is that these should be kept. There is nothing inflammatory about not being Muslim. I'm not Muslim; I'm Jewish. Does this really bother anyone reasonable?
YechielMan21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I added a heading so this section shows up in the TOC on MfD. I support deletion as a not category. I could put all of them and many other similar ones on my user page. However should not these be moved to
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion? --
Bduke22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Those are in Userspace, as you might notice, and a broad application of T1 is know to cause wikidrama, DRVs and general time wasting. Please elabortate why they are so bad that they must be speedy deleted instead of waiting for the closure of the MfD (unless, of couse, you expect that the boxes would survive this MfD and press for speedy deletion for that reason - but that would be assuming bad faith)
CharonX/
talk01:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Oh *deity* I will never be *member of a religious group*. Not harmful as they are worded right now, I think. (Heck, I am a Christian, if you don't want to be one, none of my buisiness - didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition)
CharonX/
talk01:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It's not inflammatory. I in fact am not Muslim; I am not Jewish; I am not Hindu—etc. etc. and so if someone wishes to share with the world these facts, they should be able to. Keep. —
$PЯINGrαgђ 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - I can see a few instances (rare, but technically possible) where for instance a member of WikiProject (Religion X) wanted to make it clear that s/he him/herself was not in fact a participating member of that religious group without specifiying what beliefs they might actually have. I might acknowledge that they could be useless wastes of space otherwise, but there is an at least limited purpose to them.
John Carter15:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per John Carter. I can also see a few rare instances where someone who is an Arab might want to specify that they are not a Muslim. --
Candy-Panda12:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
delete as 'not' categories. I'm not a christian, I'm not a muslim, I'm not a buddhist, I am also not a communist, socialist, or anarchist, not a vegitarian, not a German and not a pet owner; how does that help us in any way? 'not' categories serve no useful purpose because they are potentially all-inclusive. If you ARE something, say it, and that will include all other possible exclusive nots, if you're an athiest, put up an athiest tag, and we'll KNOW you're not a chrisian, ect.
Wintermut318:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, these are almost as useful as the
Wikipedia:Babel xx-0 levels, and besides, expressing that you are not of a given religion can be just as important of a statement as expressing that you are. —
The Storm Surfer09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Utility or not, they're not in any way derogatory, inflammatory, or disrespectful. I'm in favor of sanitizing articles, but not what other wikipedians display on their userpages. vive et viva /
Blaxthos05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Procedural nomination, copied from the MFD talk page verbatim:
Could someone help me out and do a mass deletion for me? I don't know how to do a mass delete. The said requested deletions are these userboxes, which I believe to be inflammatory and offensive:
My own opinion is that these should be kept. There is nothing inflammatory about not being Muslim. I'm not Muslim; I'm Jewish. Does this really bother anyone reasonable?
YechielMan21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I added a heading so this section shows up in the TOC on MfD. I support deletion as a not category. I could put all of them and many other similar ones on my user page. However should not these be moved to
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion? --
Bduke22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Those are in Userspace, as you might notice, and a broad application of T1 is know to cause wikidrama, DRVs and general time wasting. Please elabortate why they are so bad that they must be speedy deleted instead of waiting for the closure of the MfD (unless, of couse, you expect that the boxes would survive this MfD and press for speedy deletion for that reason - but that would be assuming bad faith)
CharonX/
talk01:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Oh *deity* I will never be *member of a religious group*. Not harmful as they are worded right now, I think. (Heck, I am a Christian, if you don't want to be one, none of my buisiness - didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition)
CharonX/
talk01:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It's not inflammatory. I in fact am not Muslim; I am not Jewish; I am not Hindu—etc. etc. and so if someone wishes to share with the world these facts, they should be able to. Keep. —
$PЯINGrαgђ 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - I can see a few instances (rare, but technically possible) where for instance a member of WikiProject (Religion X) wanted to make it clear that s/he him/herself was not in fact a participating member of that religious group without specifiying what beliefs they might actually have. I might acknowledge that they could be useless wastes of space otherwise, but there is an at least limited purpose to them.
John Carter15:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per John Carter. I can also see a few rare instances where someone who is an Arab might want to specify that they are not a Muslim. --
Candy-Panda12:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
delete as 'not' categories. I'm not a christian, I'm not a muslim, I'm not a buddhist, I am also not a communist, socialist, or anarchist, not a vegitarian, not a German and not a pet owner; how does that help us in any way? 'not' categories serve no useful purpose because they are potentially all-inclusive. If you ARE something, say it, and that will include all other possible exclusive nots, if you're an athiest, put up an athiest tag, and we'll KNOW you're not a chrisian, ect.
Wintermut318:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, these are almost as useful as the
Wikipedia:Babel xx-0 levels, and besides, expressing that you are not of a given religion can be just as important of a statement as expressing that you are. —
The Storm Surfer09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Utility or not, they're not in any way derogatory, inflammatory, or disrespectful. I'm in favor of sanitizing articles, but not what other wikipedians display on their userpages. vive et viva /
Blaxthos05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
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.