Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Userbox content: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:06, 2 March 2023

Latest revision as of 21:33, 20 January 2025

Line 115:

:::And there's it's even more tenuous - I might join some wikiproject because I have access to some kind of difficult to get resource on the subject, or relevant expertise, rather than any passion'd feelings. Having a university subscription to the subscription only journal "American Journal of Medieval Orthography" would be an excellent reason to join Wikiproject Medieval Orthography, even if you can't give two shits about the subject. It's relevant to collaboration. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|<span style="color:#FF8800;">D</span>]] 20:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:Life an WP isn't about everything being positive, there is negative in this world and user's should be allowed to say that. If positive user opinion/belief is allowed then so should negative (within common-sense constraints). There's too much political correctness as it is. At this rate the WP logo should have a rose-coloured tint. So long as there is a human element to WP then good/bad, positive/negative, light/dark will always come to the surface. One cannot hope to stop it, all we can do is give a framework that utilises realism based common-sense rather than idealism. It is human nature to express opinion and belief systems. You won't ever stop it. To attempt to do so is a recipe for either frustration, disaster or futility. There are going to be editors who disagree, there are going to be editors that are inflamed. You cannot serve all the people all the time. Life isn't like that and neither should Wikipedia. People have to learn to deal with offensiveness in the real world, let them deal with it here too. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

::It's not about positive versus negative per se, although steering clear of negativity is one of the things Wikipedia does try to do in terms of communication between its editors. It's more about beneficial vs. non-beneficial, to the end-goal. To Kendrick, I don't see any thin line between declaring support for a country or a wikiproject. One lets people know what you're thinking and the other is just letting people know what you're doing on the encyclopedia. Same goes for "this user supports this" or "this user is a [something]-ist" -- these publicize your thoughts but have nothing to do with your role in the encyclopedia. Declaring your religion is iffy, but is something that can be dealt with separately -- they could be considered political and may warrant deletion as well. Anyway, this isn't about how "politically-correct" the encyclopedia "should be" or about rosey tints etc. Those are just personal perceptions. We should focus on what's the most beneficial in the creation of a reliable source of encyclopedic information, and on policy -- not on how agreeable or attractive the resulting forum would be to us individually. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000;">Equazcion</span>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''18:48, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

Line 157:

Be aware that my suggestion for change may go in either direction. If this receives reasonable amount of support and consensus, then users should draft suggestions on which way the guideline should be directed. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] ^{<small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]])</small>}</span> 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

*The guidelines need to be changed with regard to the wording used, i.e. inflammatory and divisive. By their very nature any UBX giving an opinion or stating the user's belief could be inflammatory to someone and will always be divisive. Divisive is a particularly bad choice as it has multiple definitions. It's basic definition is to divide opinion. This will always be the case. Some will agree and some won't QED divisive. It doesn't matter whether it's politics, computer platform or choice of food, even something as inherently benign as the serial comma. Basically the criteria for allowance of UBXs needs better defining using specific terms that are not open to interpretation (or minimal interpretation), e.g. hate, overt violence, bigotry (racial, social, sexual). On the other hand this is an encyclopaedia of human knowledge, it is written by humans and should therefore allow UBXs that demonstrate a full range of human ideas, thoughts and beliefs. Additionally negatives should also be allowed but within the constrains of decency and legality. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 15:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

==Comment by Mtmelendez (2nd)==

Line 191:

===Discussion 6===

Userspace is part of Wikipedia, it has its use and purpose. Policies and guidelines exist so we can all use these and other tools jointly for the common good of improving the project. This RFC was started as a response to the debates and incidents regarding userbox content wars, which have caused serious damage to the project. It is an attempt to [[Wikipedia:Consensus|find common ground]], whatever that may be, including defining guidance to reduce disputes within the project. Clarifying policies and guidelines on uses of tools and userspace are ways to reduce disputes, but leaving things in ambiguity for any and all interpretations and actions, when this has proved to worsen disputes, hurts the project. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] ^{<small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]])</small>}</span> 19:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:*And what exactly is this "serious damage" you speak of? Is it quantifiable or just a surreptitious use of hyperbole? --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

::What I mean by "serious damage" is the amount of nasty cases this has brought on. We are seeing XFD discussions boil down to personal attacks between established editors, and using XFD discussions to push a POV. We've already had some very good users leave the project over this, whether by others actions or their own mistakes. But it's still over this dispute over userbox content. I hope this explains my concern. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] ^{<small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]])</small>}</span> 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:Agreed - soapboxing outside of userboxen should also be a no-no. [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|<span style="color:#FF8800;">D</span>]] 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Line 248:

===Discussion 9===

If all we were doing is writing an encyclopaedia then there would be no user space. There's far more going on behind the scenes these days than the extinct philosophy of "we're just here to write an encyclopaedia". It hasn't been that way for a long time and the community aspect will only get bigger in the future. People are here for power trips, people are here for sedition, people are here for advertisement (for self and profit), people are here for a sense of community more adult than MySpace or Facebook. People are here for far more than just writing an encyclopaedia. Unless editors come to terms with that then blow ups like the one at the MfD will become the norm unless something is done to change the old way of thinking. Sort it now or pay the price later. Some things evolve with a life of their own, WP is doing just that and thinking "nostalgia isn't what is used to be" is not the way to deal with it. The WP culture and community reflects the world it is using to distil the knowledge from. There was a time when the web was text onlu black Times Roman on a grey background, there was a time when the internet was text only discussion on Usenet. Everything on the 'net evolves based on human desire and need. Wikipedia is not immune to that. Evolve or go extinct. Ask the Tyrannosaurus or the Cello web browser, they'll tell you. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:I agree. We need to evolve, that's the whole point of this process. Discussion = Progression. The userspace only exists as a section for self-characterisation, and yet still some users use it as a soapbox for advertisements, therefore going ''against'' policy. If we rewrite the policy as you suggest, how do we know (and can ensure for that reason) that the userbox templates will be compliant? [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#171788;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Rudget|.]] 21:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::The easiest way is fine tuning along the path we're already on. Common-sense goes a long way to achieving it. Part of the problem with the current guidelines is the vague subjective terms used. "Inflammatory", "divisive" specifically. They are too all encompassing. These are human beings we're talking about and each of us has our own criteria for what is inflammatory. Divisive is always going to be a problem due to the fact that any opinion will have those who agree and those who don't therefore every userbox expressing a belief no matter how benign has to have the potential to be both inflammatory and divisive and therefore disallowable. Interpretation has that problem, therefore remove it and a lot of the problem goes away too.

::Any rule/law wording has to be thought about carefully and needs to be used to reduce any subjectivism to the minimum. The trick is to use objective and specific terms that can be added to as problems occur. Again common-sense will do the job, e.g. ''overt'' fomentation to violence, bigotry, racism, obviously illegal acts (illegal to international law), ''overt'' hatred (as opposed to mere dislike). Obvious advertising of products/companies etc. This isn't rocket science, all that's need is a guideline that makes specific disbarments that can be added to as things progress. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

==Comment by Wnt==

Line 262:

It's a question of potential for controversy, which are POV's. Stating you're a fan of Hulk Hogan isn't a POV. Stating you're pro-choice is. Someone stating they like to watch [[The Flintstones]] has never sparked controversy, while someone stating they're against gay marriage certainly has. Comparing political userboxes to TV shows or comic book heroes, and saying we must treat both the same way, is pushing the concept of equal treatment further than is practically useful. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000;">Equazcion</span>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''07:29, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

*This only shows that you don't understand what POV actually means. Of course stating you're a fan of Hulk Hogan is a POV, stated you like jam on toast is a POV. It's stating your own particular viewpoint on one personal taste over another, and by stating it aloud one is alluding to the fact that your choice is better than the alternative, e.g. a fan of jam on toast is implicitly saying it's better than marmalade on toast. This is a POV. In userspace with user boxes it is impossible to have NPOV, this is why POV should never be a criteria for disallowing a userbox. It's irrational and makes no sense, plus it is impossible to police correctly and impartially. It's too open to interpretation (from marmalade fans) --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 09:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting point, Wnt. I'm reminded of [[Philip K. Dick]]'s complaint about the translator who created the German version of his novel ''[[Ubik]]''. The person, apparently completely unfamiliar with the opening lines of the [[Gospel of John]], translated Dick's borrowing of "In the beginning there was the [[logos|Word]]" as "In the beginning there was the [[brand name]]." -- [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]]^{[[User talk:Kendrick7|talk]]} 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

: Saying you like jam on toast isn't saying you like it better than marmalade on toast; It's just saying you like jam on toast. You would've been technically correct had you said that stating you like jam on toast conflicts with those who ''don't'' like jam (instead of those who like marmalade). A point-of-view can be almost any opinion, true, but neverthelss, when we talk about avoiding POV on Wikipedia we are referring to avoiding bias in controversial subjects. Jam and marmalade aren't controversial, which again brings me back to my first point. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000;">Equazcion</span>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''19:30, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

::Firstly I said it alluded to the fact otherwise one would have a box that said I like marmalade. We tend to wax lyrical about our favourite choice, not our second favourite. It's basic logic. Secondly WP's guidelines on POV refer to article space and not userspace, and in this case the "we" you talk about is actually "you". There is no obligation for a user page or a userbox to be NPOV. The more controversial a subject is then the less likely it is to achieve NPOV. You bandy these terms about and you seem to either not understand what it is you are saying or you are just using them in the context that suits you best regardless of how appropriate they are. Userboxes are a statement by the editor therefore they are a POV, every single one of them without exception. Every single one of them will NOT be NPOV, they can't be. It makes no difference if the subject is bland or whether it is controversial. Once you get that fact lodged away you will understand that your line of argument is specious, nonsensical and totally absurd. Once you get past that you can then start to put your energies into figuring out the best way to police it whilst avioding bias. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::: I'm aware that NPOV doesn't apply to userspace, and none of my points about POV userboxes were based on Wikipedia's NPOV policy. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000;">Equazcion</span>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''22:48, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

::::Then perhaps you should make that clear "''when we talk about avoiding POV on Wikipedia we are referring to avoiding bias in controversial subjects''" says to me that you are using the WP view on POV as an argument against ubx in user space. You keep bringing up the term "POV" so often that it's a natural assumption. So let's get it straight. All userboxes are POV, all userboxes do not meet NPOV. POV and NPOV have no place in a discussion about ubx, and especially ubx in user space. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: I'm not really that concerned with what it says to ''you'', per se. I'm using the term POV to describe the type of userboxes that are the subject of this discussion ("POV userboxes"), as has been the practice for many participating here. So let's get it straight: When anyone here says POV userboxes, they're not implying that any userbox violates WP:NPOV. The term POV was far from my point. Please try to focus on the spirit of the comment rather than on nitpicking the terminology used. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000;">Equazcion</span>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''00:22, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

::::::The terminology used is important to the point being made otherwise it wouldn't be used. I'm not nitpicking the terminology. I'm presenting a rebuttal of your points based on the fact they are flawed. Using "POV userbox" is a deceptive misnomer" as ALL userboxes are POV. If you mean controversial ones then say so. Like I said, you don't appear to fully understand the terms you are using because the way you are using them is erroneous. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the whole speech I mentioned earlier seems relevant somehow, now that I've read it again.[http://deoxy.org/pkd_how2build.htm] -- [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]]^{[[User_talk:Kendrick7|talk]]} 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Line 304:

If we were to hold a vote on political userboxes, the result would be to keep all. However there's a reason Wikipedia isn't a democracy: Just because people like something doesn't mean it's best for Wikipedia. What would happen if we held a vote on trivia sections? Or spoiler warnings? Or any of the [[WP:PERENNIAL|perennial proposals]]? There are lots of things that most websites would welcome, and that internet users have come to expect a right to engage in, from nearly any web forum in which they participate. That doesn't mean we give it to them. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000;">Equazcion</span>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''23:13, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

:So what's the difference between consensus and democracy then? To paraphrase someone else's words, Wikipedia is for the people by the people. It gets as close to being a democracy as any other place on the planet. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

:: See [[WP:CONSENSUS]] <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000;">Equazcion</span>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''00:45, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

:::That wasn't what I asked, I also asked you what the ''difference'' is as you don't appear to know. It seems that once again you are just quoting WP jargon without actually knowing/realising the true meaning. I'm not sure if you realise this but the meanings of most word tend to be pretty much permanent. I only mention this as you seem to warp the definitions willy-nilly to suit your argument. As you can't seem to do anything other than quote more WP essays perhaps I should point out that for all intents and purposes. Consensus and democracy (in this context) mean the same, i.e. majority decision. These majority decisions trump everything on WP with the exception of policy. Now to address the point you raised above. Again you appear to be using erroneous criteria to make your point. "''There are lots of things that most websites would welcome, and that internet users have come to expect a right to engage in, from nearly any web forum in which they participate. That doesn't mean we give it to them.''". Ubx are not discussions, they aren't something that is being "engaged in", they aren't even remotely like a web forum. They are one-off indicators of a particular user's belief system. It's comparing oranges and apples. This sort of point-making looks like a standard ''modus operandi'' for you in these sort of discussions. I'm not sure if you realise this but we are currently having a discussion on a controversial topic. Are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed it based on the above premise? Now I don't know about anyone else but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You maintain we shouldn't be allowed discussion on controversy but here we are having one, yet you maintain userboxes are something that is "engaged in" (which of course it isn't... you do understand "unilateral" don't you?) and is something we shouldn't be allowed. So which is it? --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

==Comment by Dalbury==

Line 327:

:I understand those comments as essentially reflecting [[Six phases of a big project|phase six thinking]] about the userbox wars, which are partially dated anyway by the end of that war via the [[WP:German userbox solution]]. My experience tells me editors being honest about their POV -- [[Transparency (humanities)|transparency]] -- is actually good for the project. Mind you, I would never want the pendulum to swing the other way and have a rule mandating that, [[Spanish Inquisition]]-style. But editors sharing honest information about themselves in a free exchange is never bad in my opinion, and if Jimbo still believes that I must respectfully disagree. -- [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]]^{[[User talk:Kendrick7|talk]]} 23:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:I do wish people would stop quoting Jimbo. If it goes on any longer we're going to start being accused of being idolaters. Jimbo has no greater insight into this sort of thing than anyone else. Programming ability does not confer a preternatural understanding to all things WP related. You'd be best using your own arguments instead of recycling someone else's. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you, WebHamster. I've been away from this discussion for a couple of days, so when I came back to all of this [[WP:AAJ|Argumentum ad Jimbonum]], I was going to say something to this effect if someone else hadn't already. [[User:LaMenta3|LaMenta3]] ([[User talk:LaMenta3|talk]]) 04:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Line 341:

::::::: The things you're claiming you've never seen are not anything I've suggested would occur (POV pushing crusades??). I also never said it would solve any "ills". This isn't something you would notice ("influx"), it's something that would happen gradually, and perhaps already has. This also isn't like an AfD for an article. This is about a general practice among users that affects the way our community runs. I haven't "alleged" anything. This is a general feeling about the direction Wikipedia is headed. You think this will affect it in a good way and I think this will affect it in a bad way. Neither of us have any evidence to prove our points, because this isn't something that would produce an acute, measurable effect; Unless you have any evidence that this transparency of biases you speak of has had a positive effect. I would also appreciate you not referring to my arguments as "spouting unfounded rhetoric"; As I've just shown, if I'm doing it, then so are you. We're both stating our abstract views here without any evidence, so let's at least try and keep it civil. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000;">Equazcion</span>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''20:52, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

::::::::There you go again with the "keep it civil" bollocks. You appear to think that "being civil" equates to "agree with me" or "accept I'm right". You also appear to think that it's a shield you can hide behind whenever the argument goes against you. FFS grow up. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Isn't the point of Jimbo's comments that we should encourage an atmosphere of not using these POV pushing boxes (in large part by not using them ourselves) and try to avoid telling others they can't have them through polices and mass deletions. Don't we do this by the very way we react to editors with such boxes. Sometimes when I see someone behaving in what I take as an irrational manner about a particular topic, I check their Userpage. If I see boxes it may clue me in that they are just plain nuts when it comes to that particular topic (or maybe just nuts in general), so I tend to give their arguments less weight, in some cases no weight at all. I can see that I can't argue with them, so I address them the only way possible, by ignoring them. Userpages and the boxes on them, tell you a lot about other editors and what their philosophies about Wikipedia are. Lead by example and take notice of those who don't follow. I know this is largely discussed above in other forms, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion of Jimbo's comments.--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]^{([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])} 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Line 397:

****I disagree on that last part. People who are overly focused on their userpages are about as detrimental to the project as people who aren’t involved at all. In other words, they’re harmless. &mdash;&nbsp;<em>[[User:NRen2k5|NRen2k5]]</em> 04:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

***(Bumper stickers ''are'' badges of honor.)<small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000;">Equazcion</span>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''16:38, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

:::*Rubbish. Prove it or give it a rest. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<span style="color:#000000;">Web</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">H</span><span style="color:#000000;">amster</span>]]''']] 00:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:*I think the comment above is correct that says we should not object over the ''format'' of the text in userboxes ''per se''. However, there is also a namespace issue here, and commentary that should by normal guidelines be limited to userspace should be limited there whether marked up or not. That said, I think that a very relaxed attitude toward commentary on userpages is in order. Heck, I've been editing [[Omar Osama bin Laden]] recently and I'd love to have a list of people with a suicide bomber userbox to ask how well Omar is playing in Peoria, and to get some contributions citing the "specialized" Arabic literature. (I think some other people in the U.S. would have even better uses for a list like that...) That said, I understand we don't want to start any holy wars here, and also that some userboxes are more likely to be slapped pejoratively on the userpages of people who are away for a few months than to be displayed honestly by believers. But making a rule that the editors shouldn't talk about killing each other is at least a little more restrained than some of the ideas here. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 19:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

*User boxes that don't help the project should be removed; and if we are against censorship consider whether you would feel comfortable having userboxes to the contrary of the politically correct ones. In response to vegitarian ones: "If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat"; In response to the separate church & state one: "Washington should serve the Vatican". And numerous others. They - and their opposites - add no value to the project only to divide users or unite them in wholly POV ways that is fundamentally at odds with the supposed NPOV mission of the encyclopedia. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] ([[User talk:Carlossuarez46|talk]]) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)