User talk:UBX/Userboxes/Regional Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see how this is incredibly divisive. How many people have truly been upset by this? The Ungovernable Force 17:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Where have they all gone? Liam Plested 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ever since Jimbo asked that Userboxes that have political views to be deleted for the time being, a lot of userboxes have been getting speedy deleted regardless of what the vote was at TfD (obviously, that's how the decision always was at TfD, the decision was made by an admin). Douglasr007 03:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Some, I can see, may have been found offensive, such as the UnAmerican one. But I can't see how the Pro/Anti ones are offensive, particularly for the fact that the pro-Israel userbox is still present, but the pro-Palestine one has been removed, and the anti-Euro one still present, but pro-Euro removed. Who decides what is offensive? And, furthermore, why should offensive material be removed? We should really all be mature enough to accept that people have different views. Anyway, mild rant over Liam Plested 11:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Political Parties 2 US Military and 9/11 Userboxes 3 US Metrification 4 Disappearance of some userboxes (regional policy) 5 Wow!

[edit] Political Parties

Could someone restore the "Political Parties" page, and the userboxes contained within that page? Thanks. (Ibaranoff24 21:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] US Military and 9/11 Userboxes

If the three military and 9/11 userboxes are the only Regional Politics userboxes that are not going to be deleted, wouldn't it make more sense to move the three remaining userboxes to another category and delete this one? The Military userboxes could be placed in Life, for example, or all three could be moved to Beliefs. Strictly speaking, they don't really concern "Regional Politics" -- if they did they probably would have been deleted. - Nellis 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• All of the deleted userboxes can be placed a subst code on the page. Per my understanding, that is still okay so long as they can't be transcluded.--God of War 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But is that going to happen? Also, it seems to me that if the userboxes themselves are not considered appropriate for the Template namespace (or only appropriate for the user namespace), they wouldn't be appropriate for the project namespace either, though that's just a suspicion. - Nellis 22:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Metrification

I'd love a userbox for "I support the introduction of SI units in the US."

[edit] Disappearance of some userboxes (regional policy)

Recently a few boxes referring to regional policy disappeared. This includes (among others): independent Chechnya, independent Kurdistan, independent Kosova, independent Montenegro, reunification of Romania and Moldova, but also support for the European Union. Is it just accidentantal weirdness or an kind of censorship on Wiki? Please, restore the boxes. Jasra 21:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Could be because Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has said these boxes are eventually going away, or that a draft policy says they are divisive, or because they are really against established policy (WP:NOT) that indicates that Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox and NOT a battleground. Battling over the Boxes' tempates, and creating advocacy campaigns of like-minded people to save this or that Box is just what that policy is meant to avoid. But that's what's happening here. Nhprman ^UserLists 03:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have understood if all the politics-related user boxes were reomoved (or all the regional-policy boxes). But I do not understand the situation when box supporting the independence of Kosovo and Metochia is removed, while the one opposing the independence is left. Why the box supporting independence of Chechnya is removed, while the one supporting independence of Basque Country or Quebec or Republika Srpska is left? So I still would ask the administrator to either restore all the boxes or remove all the regional policy boxes. Jasra 09:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I totally agree. It's ridiculous which ones get saved and which are deleted. It's turned into either a popularity contest or a game to see which administrators have the most "pull" by deleting boxes they personally disagree with. It's time for this to end, but only Jimbo Wales can step in and stop it, and I don't know why he hasn't taken action yet, after months of this nonsense. Nhprman ^UserLists 23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Still, I cannot understand why virtually all boxes related to the EU were removed. What makes this issue more divisive than for example the re-unification of Yugoslavia? TSO1D 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

two more down (R.I.P.): Statehood for Puerto Rico and Two State Solution (for Israel and Palestine)... --(Mingus ah um 03:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

More than that. I count 39 userboxen removed from this page in the last few days. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently, for various reasons, it really is the end of the world as you knew it for political Userboxes. My previous gloom has turned to joy. Good riddance. Nhprman 04:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm... If I hadn't read your profile, I'd say that your new source of joy is actually schadenfreude... --(Mingus ah um 04:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

Templated boxes have been a huge, controversial issue for months now, for reasons noted above. I really am happy that they are going away - as templates. If people want to put the raw text of the boxes on their pages in some way, great. But the day when categories of "Wikipedians who believe ____" roam like gangs across Wikipedia, group-editing articles, seeking out like-minded people and creating more and more divisive political social and religious Userboxes (and deleting and defacing opponents' boxes) is finally ending. After all, none of that is why we're here. Nhprman 04:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In the end, you're right, but I'm certain that said groups will only form anew in similar areas (e.g., Yahoo or Gmail groups advertised in user pages)... Once this issue has been laid to rest, I hope the anti-userbox community will direct its energy to systematic bias within articles (a terror that is going to present itself regardless of the internal politics and associations of the wiki community) and not move toward censoring the user pages themselves. Anyway... One of these days, I'm going to try out your userbox alternate, and see how it works for me. --(Mingus ah um 04:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

I think everything mentioning Palestine is gone. And someone ought to say somewhere that the problem with moving stuff to userspace is that the point of userboxes seems to be trends and ease of pretty for newbies. I'm going to fix my Basque Country box so it won't go away if when deleted, but I'll be sort of floundering around in regard to Palestine and Tibet. (WTF about Tibet, by the way? Tibetan independence is practically uncontroversial outside China . . .) UnDeadGoat 23:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Asia, the Middle East, and Africa have been delted wholesale, as well as lots of European and American individual boxes. UnDeadGoat 23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm missing the boxes: "support Turkish EU membership", "Support Taiwan and Support Tibet amongst others. Interestingly the "Support Fair Trade" is still there.

I'm sad to see them gone, but I understand the reasons (if the above is correct). I just wish there'd been a note somewhere saying what'd happened rathter than doing it on the quiet. Witty lama 09:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Jimbo Wales is the owner of this website, yes? As editors though, we also own this website. But Jimbo Wales has not enforced any strict policy on deleting userboxes from the site, nor has any consensus been reached regarding the use of userboxes. Correct? Until such time therefore, the userboxes should remain in place and no admin should have the right to delete them - especially with no discussion or warning.

One editor here has suggested that "If people want to put the raw text of the boxes on their pages in some way, great." However, with no notification of deletion, at least to the creators of the userboxes, a non-admin has no way of retrieving those userboxes he had created.

There is another argument that the same editor makes: "But the day when categories of "Wikipedians who believe ____" roam like gangs across Wikipedia, group-editing articles, seeking out like-minded people".

However, it is not always a Bad Thing that this happens. After all - that is what Projects, collaborations and Wikipedians' notice boards are all about. If people are going to be editing the Wikipedia out of bias, then deleting userboxes is not going to stop them. People merely have to investigate users' contributions list to see what (if any) bias a particular user has.

Oddly, I pointed out on the Admin notice board how one particular user had particularly offensive nonsense on his userpage which incited violence to people. Yet not one admin took a blind bit of notice. No action was taken. I find it ironic that this was the case, when quite obviously so many admins are bent on getting rid of userboxes which do not necessarily incite violence, but merely categorise Wikipedians as having certain beliefs. There were (and possibly still are) some userboxes that existed to which I was ideologically diametrically opposed. But I didn't take offence at them. All kinds of people exist in the world. Some people are more vocal about their beliefs than others. We all exist in the Real World™ - why do some feel any need to wrap us up in cotton wool? The energy and time devoted by some admins in a campaign against userboxes could be more usefully directed into monitoring actual articles - the vandalism thereof, and abuse from users directed against others.

An opinion that people should not be allowed to express their collective ideologies is a belief itself, and not one I, as an editor, strongly support. Yet I am powerless to prevent the abuse of userboxes because I am not an administrator, and because there is no discussion on the topic. --Mal 06:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

This Wikipedia list's really messy. Someone outta take a look at it. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)