Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/August 4 userboxes

User:UBX/redheads

This and the following were deleted by User:Krimpet on August 4, and restored after a lengthy deletion review. They should have a proper debate, but they are indeed inappropriate and unhelpful to building the encyclopedia, and as the admin who restored them it is my sincere hope that they will not be around for long. The full list:

• User:UBX/redheads (edit | [[Talk:User:UBX/redheads|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Bluedenim/Brunettes (edit | [[Talk:User:Bluedenim/Brunettes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Bluedenim/Blondes (edit | [[Talk:User:Bluedenim/Blondes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Affused with holy water/Loves beautiful women (edit | [[Talk:User:Affused with holy water/Loves beautiful women|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:ISD/BBW (edit | [[Talk:User:ISD/BBW|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction (edit | [[Talk:User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted and protected. Joeblow179350 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• User:UBX/TranswomenSexy (edit | [[Talk:User:UBX/TranswomenSexy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) speedy delete per CSD G7. PC78 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Chick Bowen 16:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Strong Keep for the hair colors, and weak keep for the BBW. These are no more encyclopedic than many other userboxes. If we delete these, then we might as well start deleting userboxes stating where people eat or what they drink. BBW has a possibly improper image, and the use of "sexy" on the bottom three are possibly problematic, but the hair colors are innocent.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all, though I don't think it's necessarily helpful to bundle them all together in a single MfD. I honestly don't see what athe fuss is about. That said, I have no desire to keep the one I created myself, and have tagged it for CSD G7 accordingly. PC78 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep the hair colour ones - they're not divisive or inflammatory, and they're all residing in the appropriate place - userspace. The arguments to endorse at DRV smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Keep per the rationale in these prior MFDs: userfied userboxes are given a wide degree of freedom. Opening this can of worms could lead to most of userspace being deleted. We're here to build an encyclopedia, but having a little fun once in a while won't kill us. –xeno (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Amended slightly to cover the hair colours - I don't see how saying that one likes a particular hair colour is sexist. Neutral on the other ones. –xeno (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unhelpful to helping the project. Food and drink userboxes, I agree may be useless too, but there's a higher probability of pizza-lovers writing about pizzas than redhead-lovers writing about redheads. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not going to touch that line.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I use a bright-line rule to determine the worth of a userbox. Fans of TV shows and music bands often write about them on Wikipedia, so those userboxes might help the project. Religious and political beliefs also influence what is written about. Preference in women? Not so much. (Though I agree to some sexuality userboxes too, because LGBT people tend to write about LGBT subjects). Sceptre ^(talk) 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ahahah. Read what you wrote again. Carefully. naerii 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with the point about higher probabilities. I don't think writing about pizzas would be more common. Intriguing comparison, though. Noroton (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh my God, Sceptre just won biggest contradictive quote of the year.  Asenine  07:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all per User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Brunettes userbox. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the userboxes based on hair color...neutral on the others. I think that userboxes in userspace should be held to the same standards as userpages...and saying "I like blondes" is completely fine to put on a userpage. The others...well, something about them rubs me the wrong way, but not enough to say delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep for the hair color userboxes per Bedford, Xenocidic, and UsaSatsui. Neutral on the others. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete sure a lot of userboxes are not encyclopedic. But let's try to keep sexist connotations out of the userspace. These do not build a community, and alienate our female editors. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some who used them were females.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, and some women refer to other women by nasty sexist epithets. Some women are victims of physical abuse at the hands of other women. What's your point? ~Eliz81^(C) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What's yours? I don't see where abuse of women or sexual harassment fits into this at all. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because some female editors used the userboxes doesn't mean it's not derogatory and sexist. ~Eliz81^(C) 06:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How do these userboxes imply that women are inferior or somehow not as good as men? And how are they insulting in any way, besides maybe the word "chick" (which I would think the majority of women do not find derogatory)? I'll answer for you: they're not. There is nothing wrong with a statement about what kind of person attracts you, and such statements do not demean the women (or men) they're directed at. I think the problem here is you don't like them, so you're claiming there's something inherently flawed with them when there isn't. There's valid arguments against these userboxes, let's not bust out the BS "they're demeaning to women" one. It doesn't hold water. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my original delete comment, as well as the other numerous and perhaps better-worded rationales on this page. The problem here is that a lot of female editors, not just me, and even some male editors think these boxes have no place in userspace. Since you apparently have never been subjected to objectification and being picked apart and rated on your various physical attributes, perhaps you should consider yourself quite lucky. ~Eliz81^(C) 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongy-wongy speedy-weedy delete - sexist, divisive, offensive, not conducive to building a community of editors, utterly inappropriate on a project like Wikipedia and garners a very poor image of the project in the eyes of the public. Would this be acceptable in the workplace to have anybody have this on their desk or on the door of their office?? So why here? - Alison ^❤ 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, how many cubicles have signs on them saying, "this worker has earned 7 awards", or "this cubicle has been trashed 12 times"? --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Some of the former, none of the latter ... that I know - Alison ^❤ 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. At a minimum the BBW, shemale, and sexy chicks have to go. The rest of it isn't appropriate either. Way to make everyone who is not a hetero male uncomfortable.--Thalia42 (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Because Lord forbid men admit they're attracted to women. Honestly, what is wrong with us? And for the record, males also have different colored hair and females do tend to prefer them too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Because men can admit that they're heterosexual, but that doesn't give them the right to view women as objects. Naked pictures? "Sexy chicks"? I'm sure that relates to women as equals. If the preferences didn't include the pictures, I think you'd find fewer objections.--Thalia42 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • You have a point on those particular userboxes, (and note I don't support keeping them), but specifying hair color preference? I don't believe so. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm wondering if these are considered any worse than any of the other stuff at

User:ISD/Userboxes/Sexuality. A reasonable number of these are similar, I think. Things like "This user is a slut" and the 'Bear' series. Maybe not, I dunno. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• relist individually. --Random832 (contribs) 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I believe there are some copyright issues here. The photograph in the brunette USB is of Sharon Shannon and the image page says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed". It is not attributed. the blonde USB is of Ana Hickmann and it is from Flickr. Also are there not privacy issues in using pictures of living people totally out of context? I support deleting those two but Have no view on the others. --Bduke (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The images can be replaced with those of other women (or men). --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• • That is just what I did. The blonde one is now VERY appropro.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to fail to grasp how we handle attribution of images on Wikipedia. The image page is where that occurs. You do not see attribution commentary below pictures anywhere else on wikipedia. No licensing problem to worry about here. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You could be right. I do find our use of images confusing, so generally keep away from them. The image of Sharon Shannon seemed to be different from others. I now see it is not used on any wikipedia article, even on Sharon Shannon. I still think it was a privacy issue to use it on a userbox, particularly one that is sexist. --Bduke (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't really like the idea of spreading this out further, but I do think that there really does seem to be two "classes" of userboxes here: the "hair-color" ones (where there seems to be a general leaning towards keeping) and the other ones (a general trend towards deleting). Maybe they should be split into two MFDs? --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As nominator I have no problem with this, if someone else wants to take the initiative and do it. (I think my two actions thus far in this dispute have been enough for me, though.) On the other hand, folks can just make their positions clear in their individual comments, as they're now doing. Chick Bowen 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Definitely delete the 'sexy chicks', 'transwomen' and 'BBWs' userboxes - to many people, they are tasteless and offensive, and are of no obvious use to the project. Preferably delete the hair colour ones as well, but they seem much less problematic (although they're not serving any useful purpose either). It may be appropriate to relist these userboxes as two separate groups, as UseSatsui suggests above. Terraxos (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep/ Let's stop walking on eggshells and policing user space and get back to building and maintaining an encyclopedia. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not one of these userboxes are conducive to the atmosphere that this project was enabled for. It sets the tone and precedent for more garbage we will eventually allow into userspace. Alison has it right (sexist, divisive, offensive), and its just too sad to see so many editors in favor of them. Also Xeno, I'd like to point out that the MfD's you provide do not establish grounds for retaining. Both of them demenstrate what the user likes, while not describing another person (as these userboxes clearly do). Let me ask the questions that no one has yet: are these userboxes more likely to offend than others? Are they likely to inflame users already in debate? Do they go beyond personal choices and step into an area that is questionable? I say yes. Delete them all, again. Synergy 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone gets steamed up because they see that a particular user likes brunettes then I think that's a problem with that person being too sensitive, not the userbox. I'm not particularly "in favour" of these userboxes - I just think it's ridiculous that we're even considering deleting them in the first place. Of course, if you're mainly focusing on the "sexy chicks" or "big beautiful women" then I suppose that's a horse of a different colour. I agree the MFD should really be split so that we're not arguing at cross-purposes. –xeno (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

True, it could always be that an editor could just be a little too sensitive. But seriously, why do we need to know which hair color on women other editors prefer? This isn't about a philosophic ideal, a religion, or a spiritual choice. If it were just about that, I'd suggest tolerance. We just see it differently I suppose. Synergy 10:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no slippery slope. We do not have to delete this to prevent the heat death of the universe. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as I did before, per my original rationale - this is a freaking encyclopedia, not a dating site. krimpet✽ 04:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that I also took the liberty of re-deleting the "shemales" one which shouldn't have been lumped in with the rest - it's an obvious speedy candidate due to its blatant use of an insulting epithet. krimpet✽ 04:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Your re-deletion is an abuse of admin tools, and that box should be undeleted for this MfD. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • A flagrant abuse of admin powers, I'd say, given that these deletions were all overturned at DRV. PC78 (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all - Wikipedians by attraction? (Even if we ignore the implication of sexual attraction.) My eyes are drawn to all sorts of visual stimuli. If I walk in a room which has a shelf of books, I tend to go "check them out". So while that's an "attraction", it's (obviously) not sexual (depending on the content, I suppose), and I would presume that my inclination of enjoying the company of books would be fairly useless for a userbox. There are those who just must go check out a Camaro if they see one. Or a roller coaster. Or horses, for that matter. But being atttracted to something may or may not have anything to do with being interested in collaborating about it, or in any way would even indirectly help other Wikipedians in collaborating with you. (Compared to those who list - for example - a political or religious bias on their userpage for presumably just such reasons.) - jc37 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sexist, divisive, pointless, and I'm gobsmacked that we're actually having to have this discussion. When did so many people on Wikipedia take leave of their senses? Rebecca (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all The userbox wars are over, people. We have a hand full of users who are way to easily offended at some humor userboxes. There is nothing here that is greatly offensive or disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • • • I'm not sure if we're actually considering the shemale one or not, since it's currently deleted, but consider myself neutral on that one. I strongly disagree with the deletion that was on the heels of a DRV, but the only users currently using it appear to be just trolls or throw-away accounts. I'm already getting burned as it is sticking up for the principles of deletion (for a lack of better words). -- Ned Scott 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • They are sexist, and they are offensive. But hey, I'm just a woman, probably just being easily offended, right? Rebecca (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, YOU think that are offensive and sexist. Thinking does not make it so. I think Korean food is disgusting and inedible. --mboverload@ 06:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all User boxen wars are over people. --mboverload@ 06:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Just an FYI, your comments may be ignored by the closer as not directly commenting on the content under discussion. Talking about the so-called "userbox wars" is meta-reasoning and as such should be avoided in most cases.

  Also note that Wikipedia:Consensus can change. - jc37 06:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasons as Alison and Rebecca have articulated above. These are utterly inappropriate and in no way are they fostering collegiality, let alone helping to build an encyclopædia. The fact that we are here debating is evidence enough. --cj | talk 06:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  The fact that Wikipedia has a debate about something is evidence that the topic of the debate is not helpful? wat? -- Ned Scott 06:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, no, Ned. The fact that Wikipedia has a debate about something is evidence that the issue is divisive. That much should be self-evident, I would have thought - Alison ^❤ 07:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  It's divisive because people like you are being a spaz about it. Stop being a baby and go work on an article. Getting your feelings hurt because someone likes blonds is absurd. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Ned, are you kidding here? Not only is this an egregious personal attack on another editor (being a baby? getting feelings hurt about hair color?) but "spaz" is an incredibly derogatory term for those with cerebral palsy and other disorders (see spastic). Please strike this comment immediately. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  While I'll let Ned speak for himself, my read of the above was that he didn't intend the "sideways" slights that you noted. So please don't take them to heart. Though I will say that claiming that someone is "being a baby" (which I think he did intend) could be considered to be "borderline", at least by me YMMV. - jc37 08:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  I'll strike out the baby bit, but the use of the word spaz was not in reference to cerebral palsy. I can be an asshole from time to time, but I don't make fun of people with disabilities. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, but that's what sp*z means, you m*ng :) (just using that to show an equivalent term that is also nowadays considered politically incorrect.) By using the term as an insult, you're implying there's something wrong with people with the condition as people, to the extent that you use it as a derogatory term towards the conventionally-cerebral. That's so g*y. :)Sticky Parkin 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean women by "people like you", yes? Because you will note that all the female editors here have spoken out for deletion. And maybe THAT should give you a clue about why the user boxes are a problem. If an entire (rather large) group considers them offensive, maybe they're offensive even if you don't see it.--Thalia42 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I did not give a clear opinion earlier (I had just woken up|). I have to agree with Rebecca and Alison. These useboxes would be unacceptable in the workforce these days. They should not be acceptable here. Also the internet is already quite blokey enough, without us trying to make it more so. --Bduke (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete All. As stated previously, these are offensive and utterly devoid of merit. Wikipedia is not a dating service, nor a place to make others uncomfortable by expressing your (irrelevant) preferences. — Werdna • talk 08:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  If people are made uncomfortable by these expressions, then they will likely be made even more uncomfortable by our uncensored article space content. They're only offensive when you lack a sense of humor. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I don't think that you really can make a sincere case that these are intended for humerous purposes.

  That aside, I don't believe that articles, which are intended to be from a NPOV, are comparable to userboxes. - jc37 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  While there is likely truth to the statements about preference, I do believe humor is a factor for making them into userboxes. -- Ned Scott 09:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Avoiding offence trumps "having a sense of humour". Accusing somebody of "not having a sense of humour" when they are offended by something you say or do is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. There is absolutely not a single "sense of humour", which, if not possessed by a person, makes that person a humbug or interfering. Anybody trying to use humour as an excuse for poor taste has obviously not yet broken from their coccoon in which it's okay to make fun at some minority group's expense (because that minority is absent from said coccoon). — Werdna • talk 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all, inappropriate and detrimental to the community we are trying to foster around this encyclopedia. As Wikipedia:User page states, content on user pages "is only permitted with the consent of the community," and it's quite clear that a good slice of the community is offended by this sort of thing. I don't see any arguments presented as to the positive value of these userboxes. --Stormie (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of userboxes people could find inappropriate. I could call up about 10 userboxes that use the F-word for deletion that offend me pretty badly, and I know I'm not alone. Or perhaps someone is offended by gays, or the war in Iraq, or one of the hundreds of other userboxes out there that has something that will piss people off. I don't buy it as a valid deletion reason, expecially in userspace, where people do get a fair amount of license for personal expression (which these boxes are). People could get offended by anything...it's probably about time they reacted by ignoring it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there really one that says in so many words "this user is offended by gays"? I don't think that one would stay up.:) Sticky Parkin 23:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowlegde. I menat that someone could be offended by a userbox stating the user were gay. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been, in the past. User:PatPeter made a bunch of 'antigay' ones which were speedied with ensuing drama - Alison ^❤ 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Plain wrong. MBisanz ^talk 12:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• strong delete discourages female editors- the thing is not the content, so claiming we'd be offended by article space content doesn't apply, but that we want a collaborative atmosphere that encourages women being able to contribute to the project as well as men. Userboxes like this might make women think they're going to be 'pounced' on, or that they're editing alongside desperate teenage boys or something. Theses boxes are immature and for want of a better word 'unprofessional'. Sticky Parkin 12:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What, seriously? I honestly can't imagine any reasonable person cruising userpages, seeing a box that says, "This user likes blondes", and becoming offended...or worry that they're going to be hit on...or worrying that all of a sudden they're going to be stalked by rabid Wikipedians. I can't even see it making anyone mad. At most, it might get an eye roll or a chuckle. Some of you are reacting to these userboxes like they say, "This user believes women are property", or "If you're a woman, get in the kitchen and make me a sammich". --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If I had put something like these userboxes on my door at work, if we worked in the same place, would you say the same thing? Sexism is banned in the work place, at least in my country. It should be totally unacceptable here also. --Bduke (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone put anything like any userboxes on their door, I'd think they were an idiot. However, if someone -told- me this in the workplace, I wouldn't care too much. Not that there's any real comparison between an office building and a volunteer, collaborative online project, of course. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is where we disagree quite profoundly. First, I think that sexist behavior is even more unacceptable in an an office building filled with volunteers rather than paid workers. Secondly I do think wikipedia is similar to an office building filled with volunteers, but online. Third, whether people are idiots is not the point. Idiots do not realy offend people. Sexist behavior does. --Bduke (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not sexist. It does not, in any way, imply women are inferior, nor is it disrespectful. Being attracted to women doesn't demean them. And idiots offend me plenty. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well no, that's not the point at all. Sexism is not simply considering women to be inferior; there's the whole matter of objectification. Even the language in the userboxes shows that, "This user is into redheads." - that's redheaded women, y'know? People? Sounds trite but it's not. And there's noting wrong with being attracted to women but there's no place for going "phwoarr!!" on your talk page - Alison ^❤ 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's fine to be attracted to women but there's no need to be sleazy and overly full-on about it, as these boxes are. Clearly these boxes are raising more than an eyeroll or chuckle, as can be seen here. Sticky Parkin 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - harmless. naerii 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the currently restored userboxes, as they are no more offensive than userboxes such as User:UBX/straight or User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay, which there is a clear consensus to permit. If we're going to allow statements of sexual preferences in userspace at all, there's no basis for the deletion of these userboxes -- mere prejudice and hatred towards particular non-disruptive sexual preferences hardly constitutes a satisfactory argument for deletion. Of course, sexual preference userboxes that would actually cause grave injury to Wikipedia's reputation, such as the infamous template:User paedophile which was speedily deleted by Jimbo Wales himself, would be considered disruptive, and are still subject to speedy deletion in any namespace. (Note that this is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, since the issue is not the mere existence of other sexual preference userboxes, but the current pattern and practice of permitting them, a situation analogous to arguing that an article should be kept because articles of a similar nature are almost always retained at AFD. Indeed, typical AFD outcomes have been employed in the process of codifying our notability guidelines). John254 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: Apples and oranges. Self identification as gay or straight is not the same as objectifying others. That several people in this discussion have used variations of this argument show their conflation of the two is an issue. TAnthony's userbox states he is gay: Not that he plans to attack heterosexuals. How on earth could his userbox "threaten" a straight as it speaks only of himself, and not of others? The Userboxes in question objectify others. They are not self-identification. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  That's a distinction without a difference. A userbox which states "this user is gay" is fundamentally equivalent to a userbox which states "this user is attracted to other men" -- it is only in the most trivial sense that User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay is written in reference only to the transcluder. Of course, neither "this user is gay" nor "this user is attracted to other men" suggest that the userbox holder "plans to attack heterosexuals" -- but it's equally silly to claim that placing User:UBX/redheads on one's userpage should be construed as threatening to women with red hair. In both cases, the claim that attraction implies objectification is completely bogus, as it would condemn all of human sexuality as evil. John254 19:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - censorship is lame, Krimpet. LFOD (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all with extreme prejudice - this is an encyclopaedia we are working on, not (as pointed out above) a dating site! None of these assist the project in any way but they do harm how the world outside WP sees us when they can find editors being so puerile and pointless. You wouldn't plaster this sort of thing all over your front door so keep it off WP too. --AlisonW (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• The outside world doesn't give two excrements about user pages, much less their userboxes. This is simply "IDONTLIKEIT"--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I take many media (press, tv, radio) enquiries daily and people out in the real world do, indeed, follow discussions like these and look at user pages, so please don't try to tell me why I think these reprehensible 'user' boxes should be removed asap. They bring us into disrepute and make it appear that editors are little children who don't know how to behave in decent company. I don't see any reason why other WP editors should endorse publicly-accessible sexist behaviour by a few people who haven't a clue about their responsibilities. --AlisonW (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

lolz @ Bedford taking on Alison Wheeler. What next ... - Alison ^❤ 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider what's actually being suggested by proponents of deletion. Is it seriously asserted that

This user is attracted to red hair.

is "puerile and pointless... publicly-accessible sexist behaviour" but

pornThis user enjoys pornography.

which is not up for deletion, and is a sort of userbox that, by consensus, is permissible in userspace, is perfectly wholesome? It's fairly obvious which userbox would be more offensive to most of our readers. John254 01:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Nuke 'em all, I say. Neither of those are conducive to building an encyclopedia - Alison ^❤ 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not against you Alison, but could we seriously stop lumping all this stuff together? I think judging each by its own merits is a very important concept and we should not abandon it to speed up the process. --mboverload@ 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested, actually, in how far userbox deletionism would be taken. Should we delete the entire contents of User:Allstarecho/SexualityUserboxes with the exception of gender and gender-identity boxes, which are necessary for the correct use of personal pronouns, since, after all, a user's sexual preferences and sexual politics are broadly irrelevant to writing an encyclopedia? John254 02:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See, it turns out that many, if not most of our userboxes serve only to identify personal demographic characteristics which aren't relevant to collaborative encyclopedia writing -- except for the fact that permitting editors a degree of personal expression on their userpages encourages users to contribute valuable content, instead of leaving Wikipedia in disgust. Please see Wikipedia:Editors matter for a more complete explanation of this issue. John254 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with personal expression, per se. Nothing at all, until it encroaches on others' editing experiences or the reputation of the project. It's just a matter of applying common sense to all this - Alison ^❤ 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what exactly "encroaches on others' editing experiences or the reputation of the project" is precisely what we have a disagreement over. The outer limits of userboxes acceptability are clear -- User:UBX/Dog owner is unquestionably acceptable, but template:User paedophile is disruptive and brings the project into disrepute (though we actually had a wheel war over it). The userboxes being discussed here, however, lie in a rather large grey area -- which, I claim, should be elucidated in a reasonably coherent fashion. I see little reasonable basis for the claim that userboxes which broadly assert sexual preferences (such as User:UBX/straight or User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay) are acceptable, but userboxes which expresses desires for certain hair colors aren't. John254 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I now agree with Alison's position. However, I am still disgusted with the process and lack of process surrounding these boxes. If they were kept per DRV no admin has the right to delete them without a proper AfD. Only an executive decision by Jimbo or someone at his level should have that ability. However, this is all said and done now and these should be deleted - if only because I'm sick of the whole thing. --mboverload@ 02:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete 'em all per Sceptre, although I think his comment about redheads needs a little refinement. Some userboxes are a distraction from good, wholesome encyclopedia-building. Noroton (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  I didn't say "high probability", I said "higher". As in, there's a higher probability of Lithuania winning Euro 2012 than San Marino, but it's still very unlikely. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the ones about hair colour. What's the issue? They're not offensive or demeaning. Admittedly they do nothing to build this encyclopedia, but there's no harm in them. And you know what harms this encyclopedia much, much more than people wasting time putting silly, harmless userboxes on their user page? The Fun Police. Because that's what this whole stupid discussion boils down to; a couple of people appointing themselves as Fun Cops over the rest of us. Reyk _YO! 05:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• But that is the issue here. Whilst we can enjoy what we do WP isn't something to create fun for editors - we are writing a scholarly text! "They're not offensive or demeaning" may be accurate in your view but, reading all the above, it is not a view that is agreed upon by all, possibly not even by a majority. You have it exactly right when you state "Admittedly they do nothing to build this encyclopedia" and that is the point of justification - or not - for a userbox. Many are finding these (and, indeed, some others) objectionable and they do nothing useful for the project. Delete them and move on. --AlisonW (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alison, I have to utterly and completely disagree with you. Unrelated to this discussion. There is nothing wrong with fun distractions at Wikipedia. This is not a PhD thesis. Wikipedia SHOULD be fun. Again, unrelated to this discussion. --mboverload@ 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be fun for all, and there are plenty of other ways to keep it fun that don't disturb others. With all the options we have, we can afford to close a few that move us away from encyclopedia building and toward socializing in ways that make a lot of women uncomfortable. If the boxes could be used to help build articles, there would be a better reason for them. It's easier for editors to get along when we don't have them. Noroton (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about intent. The basic purpose of WP is not to create 'fun' for editors; enjoyment/fun are a side-effect only and the sort of behaviour / POV engendered by these userboxes is not conducive to wider participation. --AlisonW (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've seen a lot of people saying these userboxes are offensive, but I've seen no explanation as to how they're offensive. I suppose you could argue they could be seen as reducing people to a single physical characteristic, in this case hair colour. But then, I don't see you or anyone else arguing against the "User identifies as straight" or "User identifies as gay" userboxes which also merely express someone's personal preference without condemning or belittling anyone. As for whether the userboxes are necessary or contribute anything to the encyclopedia, well, that's an argument about userboxes in general and not these ones in particular. My personal view is that if it's on someone's user page and it's not doing any harm, then let it be. I see my own user page as somewhere I can brag, rant, be creative, be childish, and let off steam, and I think my work on the actual encyclopedia is better for it. If some self-appointed arbiter had come along when I was just starting out going "You can't have this! You can't have that!", especially for reasoning as weak as I think this discussion has been, I probably wouldn't have hung around. That's a much better way of alienating people than merely commenting on hair colour. Reyk _YO! 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• How many female editors need to say that they find these sexist, divisive and pointless before you will entertain the possibility that women (and yes, men too) find these sexist, divisive, and pointless? Making claims of oversensitivity and the fun police seems a moot point when this many women (constituting a minority of Wikipedia editors, I might add) have spoken up about this. Isn't it just possible that it is more offensive than some of you were willing to entertain initially? How many women have to outright say it's sexist before you'll believe us? ~Eliz81^(C) 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• The argument that these userboxes are demeaning to women because many of the editors supporting their deletion are female is no more tenable than the argument that the editors supporting deletion should be ignored on account of their gender. Since it's unacceptable to use an editor's gender as an ad hominem argument against their position, it's likewise unacceptable to use one's gender as a inverse ad hominem argument to support an otherwise unjustified claim. Editors who claim that these userboxes are "sexist, divisive, and pointless" have so far utterly failed to meet the burden of proving their claim on any rational basis, since they have have absolutely refused to explain how userboxes expressing sexual preferences are normally good wholesome stuff (we're certainly not going to delete, for example, User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay), but userboxes expressing preferences for women of particular hair colors are absolutely vile misogyny that must be purged from our servers. John254 17:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Furthermore, even if the "female editors' objections" inverse ad hominem argument against these userboxes were deductively valid (which it isn't), the fact that some female editors have placed these userboxes on their own userpages undermines its central premise (see, for example, [1] and [2]). While the fact that female editors have employed these userboxes does not, by itself, establish that the userboxes aren't "sexist, divisive, and pointless", it serious weakens an argument for deletion that is predicated entirely upon the gender of the editors criticizing the userboxes. John254 18:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• What about the compromise versions ("such and such hair colours are beautiful")? –xeno (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• How many female editors need to say that they find these sexist, divisive and pointless before you will entertain the possibility that women (and yes, men too) find these sexist, divisive, and pointless?- when these editors start arguing their position rather than simply asserting it I'll sit up and take notice. Wikipedia discussions are not a head count and I'm not swayed by strength of numbers but by strength of argument. I'll ask again, what exactly is it about these userboxes that is insulting? Reyk _YO! 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Stickty Parkin, others. Sexist, divisive, pointless; create atmosphere hostile to women. I am revolted that despite multiple people stating this, somehow Reyk feels it is the "Fun Police" trying to stop "harmless" fun. If the userboxes created an atmosphere hostile to an ethnic group, would it still be the "fun police"? I know some great Nigger jokes, and some Jew jokes, and some Chink jokes. I guess I should make some "harmless" userboxes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, the claim that these userboxes are "Sexist, divisive, pointless, [and] create atmosphere hostile to women" has been repeated in various forms ad nauseam. What has not been explained, in any satisfactory manner, is why userboxes expressing sexual preferences are acceptable (we don't see users with torches and pitchforks clamoring for the deletion of most of the contents of User:Allstarecho/SexualityUserboxes), except that userboxes expressing preferences for women of certain hair colors are absolutely disgusting, and must be deleted forthwith. Irrational hatred, prejudice, and bigotry are never satisfactory reasons for deletion. If a Wikipedia administrator were to, say, nominate User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay for deletion on the purported grounds that it creates a hostile environment for heterosexual male contributors who would fear sexual advances from editors who displayed the userbox, the nominator would probably be summarily desysopped and blocked immediately. The real question here is not "do we delete these userboxes due to unfounded prejudice?" but rather "what sanctions should be imposed on the users responsible for the hatred expressed here?" John254 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• That would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and in any case it has little to do with my argument. There's a big, big difference between offensive "Nigger" or "Jew" jokes and these userboxes. Those sorts of jokes play on hurtful and insulting stereotypes. But if someone says "I think redheads are beautiful", what's wrong with that? There is no stereotype that says people without red hair are bad or stupid for some reason (and yes, if someone made a "dumb blondes" userbox I'd oppose that). Your comparison is a poor one. Reyk _YO! 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Those sorts of jokes play on hurtful and insulting stereotypes. But if someone says "I think redheads are beautiful", what's wrong with that? Oh, it's definitely less hurtful, but it plays off a larger, more generalized stereotype of women as being treated primarily as sex objects for men. There is no clear equivalent for a woman's userbox treating men in a way that hurtful because the userboxes, even the ones about hair, play off of widespread attitudes in society that insist (not too strong a word) that women go to great lengths to make themselves not just beautiful but sexy for men. There is constant pressure on women in advertisements, movies, videos and elsewhere, to the point that seven-year-olds are getting into sexy clothing, and I'm not referring to seven-year-old boys. There is nothing like this for men in any society I know of. (And the big-beautiful woman box may be playing off of ideas of a fetish or just an attitude that even big women are looked on largely as sex objects.) Wikipedia editors are skewed toward young males, and we should be doing a little bending over backwards to welcome more women. The hair user boxes aren't a huge deal, especially when you don't look at the larger picture, but there is a larger picture. Do people who have or are in favor of the user boxes all want to demean women? I'm sure most don't, but it's less a question of what people mean than the message conveyed. Obviously, the world's not going to end over this, and there are exceptions, but this stuff tends to be more offensive to just the kind of serious people we want to attract to Wikipedia. Also, it's not a very good seduction technique with most women. Trust me on this, you're better off with something more innocent-looking, less physical-oriented, although I admit I've never tried seduction on Wikipedia. ;) Noroton (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• No, the difference is very, very small, Reyk. Objectifying women is widespread and ingrained in large segments of our society. It is also insulting and demeaning to women. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since, as has been exhaustively explained in this discussion, Wikipedia is not a dating service, questions of what sort of userbox would or would not be "a very good seduction technique" are irrelevant here. Furthermore, the idea that any praise for female beauty, however restrained, necessarily "plays off a larger, more generalized stereotype of women as being treated primarily as sex objects for men" essentially condemns all male heterosexuality as harmful to women, to the extent that any male affection for a women not entirely platonic and chaste in character could be seen as treating women as "sex objects for men". This attempt to impugn all male heterosexuality would be entirely correct in the society described in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four; however, it is not compatible with the world in which we live today. John254 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're making way over the top exaggerations. Any praise for female beauty, however restrained?? No. There's just a time and a place for most things, and your Wikipedia user page isn't the time or the place to post a sign on that subject, just as, for the most part, your workplace isn't the place to hang up a similar sign. Save it for your home or car. This attempt to impugn all male heterosexuality [...] Way over the top. Not on this Website where plenty of other stuff exists. Just as we take some care with our clothes at work and don't do some things at work that we'd do at home doesn't impugn all male or female sexuality (or heterosexuality), this doesn't impugn it either. At some point, your asserting what interests and preferences you have should be less about making you happy and more about not offending others. At an online encyclopedia-building website, that's going to be a little more restrictive than MySpace. Orwell's 1984? You really want to make that comparison? Really? Thanks for taking the seduction comment seriously, but really, you didn't have to. What exactly is the reason why these user boxes are so fun, anyway? I don't use any, so I just don't get it. Clue me in, please. Noroton (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's a highly objectionable debating tactic to attempt to counter my response to your argument by claiming that I responded to a different argument than the one you actually made, then criticizing my response as inappropriate in relation to an entirely argument than the one I actually responded to. The argument you offered immediately prior to my comment above was

  if someone says "I think redheads are beautiful", what's wrong with that? Oh, it's definitely less hurtful, but it plays off a larger, more generalized stereotype of women as being treated primarily as sex objects for men...[3]

  Essentially, you were arguing that male praise of female beauty was injurious to women, and did not limit the scope of that argument to Wikipedia user pages. It was in relation to this argument, and not merely the claim that the praise of female beauty was inappropriate for Wikipedia user pages, that I stated that

  This attempt to impugn all male heterosexuality would be entirely correct in the society described in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four; however, it is not compatible with the world in which we live today.

  The claim which you are now apparently asserting, namely, that praise of female beauty is all very wholesome stuff, except on Wikipedia user pages, where even the mildest forms are disruptive and demeaning to women, merits no Orwellian analogy -- however, it is completely unjustified. The bare assertion that some things which are appropriate in other fora are inappropriate on Wikipedia, while true, does not resolve the present question of whether these userboxes are appropriate for Wikipedia userpages. The comparison to the workplace is not directly relevant, since standards of propriety there are not coextensive with the standards here. For instance, any employee who hung 20 or so personal banners on the outside of their cubicle would almost certainly be ordered to take them down. No satisfactory explanation has been offered to support the claim that userboxes espousing preferences for particular hair colors are, either in the context of Wikipedia user pages or generally, offensive, misogynistic, or even merely inappropriate. John254 20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Essentially, you were arguing that male praise of female beauty was injurious to women, and did not limit the scope of that argument to Wikipedia user pages. Wrong on both counts. No satisfactory explanation has been offered to support the claim that userboxes espousing preferences for particular hair colors are [...] in the context of Wikipedia user pages [...] even merely inappropriate Done at 21:45 post. I'm saying userboxes about people's features that sexually attract you are a little inappropriate. You're exaggerating that into some kind of Orwellian dystopia, which doesn't get us anywhere. Noroton (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all. What does any of this have to do with "creating an encyclopedia"? --Kbdank71 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  As described in Wikipedia:Editors matter, permitting self-expression on userpages encourages editors to contribute. This is why we have userboxes, most of which have subject matter not strictly related to Wikipedia. John254 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  Not a criterion for deletion. What do userpages in general have anything to do with "creating an encyclopedia"? --PeaceNT (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - redheads and the other hair colours at any rate. I express no opinion at all on the others - not even a neutral. What harm do they do? How can they be considered offensive? Like it or not people's perceptions of beauty and what is sexually attractive is frequently based on physical charecteristics. It's just a bit of fun for user's homepages. If we were talking about breasts or genitalia then possibly that would be inappropriate but expressing a preference for a hair colour is acceptable even in polite conversation. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (Currently dating a georgeous redhead)
• Keep for now. While these userboxes are of little value and bad taste, so many of the user boxes are of similiar bad taste that I'd think that this has to be dealt with on a policy basis, rather than simply deleting a few. Though I really don't see the value of userboxes at all, apart from the ones that indicate language skills. Surely the rest of them are simply turning Wikipedia into MySpace? Nfitz (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  OtherStuffExists? No, I think NOT. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  This is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, since the issue is not the mere existence of other userboxes, but the current pattern and practice of permitting them, a situation analogous to arguing that an article should be kept because articles of a similar nature are almost always retained at AFD. Indeed, typical AFD outcomes have been employed in the process of codifying our notability guidelines. John254 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  This is precisely OtherStuff - this is an Mfd, in case you hadn't noticed, not a policy discussion page. We're not discussing policy, we're discussing Mfd. Glad I could help clear that up for you - please let me know if you are still confused. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: These are no less useful to the project than many other elements found on user pages, such as barnstar awards, other userboxes, GA/FA lists, photos of the editors, artwork and the like ... all of which appear on many of the user pages of those editors advocating Delete here. The "creates a hostile atmosphere" charge is often flung, if seldom backed up with the slightest shred of evidence. For one thing, given that Wikipedia is not censored, there are many, many articles and photos that hyper-touchy editors could just as legitimately claim as fostering a hostile atmosphere ... drawings of explicit sex, articles on Nazis or other overt hate groups, nude photos, articles on profanity and Satanism, and the like. Never mind looking over some of these user pages ... Does Sceptre's (and Sticky Parkin's, ) own userboxes help build the project? Eliz81's LOLcat parody photo? Alison's (and Stormy's, and KillerChihuahua's, and CJ's, and MBizanz's gallery, ) photos? Synergy's userbox claiming that "This user doesn't give a fuck?" Hell, JC37 has a userbox proclaiming him a member of WP:Userboxes. Indeed, it does look like many of the Delete proponents have no objection to irrelevant photos, userboxes, graphics or the like ... it's just ones with sentiments they dislike. WP:IDONTLIKEIT makes no more sense here than it ever did. Now if people want to ban ALL userboxes and ALL user page photos and graphics, then that's at least a defensible position, and it looks like a handful of the Delete proponents believe just that.  RGTraynor  19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it's possible anyone "dislikes" the sentiment that some people like to see certain hair colors on women. Some things are just inappropriate in certain spots. We all know we've got articles, often elaborately illustrated, on some subjects we dislike. And we all know there are certain limits to what we put on user pages so that we don't offend others (is there a userbox celebrating rape? one favoring genocide or honor killings? We have pics of penises at Penis but is there a collection on user pages? Wouldn't that be "fun", too?). It's a question of degree. Do any of the things you've found on those user pages talk about the physical attributes they prefer in the opposite sex? User boxes related to sex are going to be more provocative than the ones telling us the person is left-handed or likes chardonnay. Noroton (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• And when Wikipedia puts an overt policy in place banning "provocative" elements, that might be a defensible stance. That aside, you're setting up a staggering straw man argument: are you seriously equating "This user believes in honor killings" with "This user likes redheads?" ... never mind coming nowhere near the plain truth that quite as many people, if not more, find certain religions, political positions, nationalities and the like offensive. (Hell, someone explicitly Opposed at RfA a couple weeks back because the candidate had a userbox advocating a political stance the editor didn't care for.) As it happens, though, the only time people navigate to user pages is when they specifically choose to do so; distinctive from a user talk page, you can have quite a career on Wikipedia never going near a userpage.  RGTraynor  20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• are you seriously equating "This user believes in honor killings" [...] No, I'm pointing out the limits to your absolutist statements. Since we all know there are limits to what you can put up and limits to how far Wikipedia should interfere in your choices to put up, it's a question of how far we should limit things. Yet your comment was all about whether we should limit anything at all. Your last sentence in your 19:46 post specifically set it up as an all-or-nothing proposition, but that's not what this is about. I think there's a reasonable argument, based on how these kinds of userboxes reflect widespread attitudes in many societies, that they do a little harm, and especially that they discourage serious editors of a particular sex from participation. I think it would be very difficult to contribute to Wikipedia and work with others for any significant period of time without visiting a user page. But you can work on and use Wikipedia forever without having to click on, for instance, a pornography-related page. So user pages are a bit more intrusive, and the more userboxes we have focusing on womens' physical features, the worse atmosphere we have. I think the counter-argument that it really doesn't much matter is a pretty good one, too, although frankly, it's hard to really prove either way, isn't it? Since women are in such a minority here, I'm inclined to want to be somewhat accommodating when a number of serious, respected editors say they find it offensive, because I want more women who are serious to put in more time here. Whether you agree or disagree, is this a reasonable position? Noroton (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• So long as we're conjecturing as to the possible effects of deleting these userboxes, we should consider the possiblity that the users displaying them, which includes some female editors who have placed the userboxes on their own userpages (see, for example, [4] and [5]), will be offended by the deletions and will leave Wikipedia . This is why, as described in Wikipedia:Editors matter, we should avoid destroying userspace content without a very good reason, which clearly has not been established here. John254 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, no matter what we do, we offend someone. I'd rather keep the place more welcoming to women who tend to be offended by the user boxes than those who'd feel less welcome because they can't have these userboxes. Noroton (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously, not all female editors oppose these userboxes, and not all male editors support them. While we could conjecture that the number of female editors who would begin contributing or continue to contribute to Wikipedia if these userboxes were deleted exceeds the number of female editors who would leave Wikipedia because the userboxes were deleted from their userpages, we really don't know what the actual outcome would be. I think this is less a question of "which gender's interests are privileged", but rather whether we want a tolerant atmosphere here, or an encyclopedia full of easily offended deletionists who genuinely believe that "this user thinks redheads are beautiful" is a statement of horrible misogyny. If we want the former, we should retain these relatively innocuous userboxes; if the latter is preferred, we should not only delete these userboxes, but waste countless hours at MFD trying to delete any other even remotely controversial userboxes. John254 22:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Quite, and the very instant you establish that it's okay to delete userboxes because someone's decided to be offended, you're going to get MfDs from evangelicals who believe that "This user is a Satanist" creates a hostile atmosphere for them, from 9/11 torchholders who believe that Islamic-userboxes create a hostile atmosphere for them, from conservatives who believe that ultra-liberal political user boxes create a hostile atmosphere for them, and from many, many others who find the mere expression of a sentiment utterly repugnant and unacceptable to their sensibilities. Hm. Rather like in this debate.  RGTraynor  22:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, you look at the circumstances, try to put yourself in that person's shoes and see if that person might reasonably be uncomfortable. A slew of these kind of userboxes can create an atmosphere that can do that. But at this point, you either believe it's reasonable for women who want to contribute to an encyclopedia to be uncomfortable by all that or you don't. Noroton (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• others who find the mere expression of a sentiment utterly repugnant and unacceptable to their sensibilities. Hm. Rather like in this debate. Exaggerating again. Way over the top. Noroton (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment No great harm either way will result from keeping or deleting these userboxes. No one's basic freedoms will be abolished if they can't proclaim their admiration for brunettes in a userbox on their user page. No misogynistic atmosphere will descend like a pall on the project if all the boxes are kept. All statements pointing to the apocalypse are exaggerations. There are good arguments on both sides. Can we please keep cool? Noroton (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• This brings to mind an interesting point here. If these userboxen are indeed deleted, and the users then decide to simply write a line on their userpage: "I like brunettes", would we then MFD their userpage? I doubt it. Would we demand they remove the comment? Also similarly unlikely. Someone proclaiming their preference for brown, red, or blond hair (and why doesn't anyone like black hair? my wife would be upset) on their userpage reflects upon them and them alone. Why not let them do it in a userbox, if they so desire? –xeno (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think user boxes proclaim that you're one of many (at least potentially) who think this certain way, and the box seems to help prove it. Individual statements are just typed words that focus on what you announce about yourself with nothing implied about others. So the boxes promote a certain atmosphere much more than typed statements would. Why not let them do it in a userbox, if they so desire? Thought experiment: If there were a longstanding, really, really widespread practice in society of women proclaiming their admiration for and satisfaction with men who had humongous, thick 11-inch-long ... index fingers, and this kind of thing (along with, say, six-pack abs, tight butts and pecs) was constantly drummed into you with advertisements, G.I. Joe dolls for boys, TV sitcoms, movies, videos, and women's pornographic magazines were all constantly around, along with occasional suggestions that you might want to get plastic surgery for certain physical enhancements, and if women were traditionally in positions of authority and concentrated as much on your looks as you know men concentrate on the looks of women, would userboxes celebrating 11-inch-long index fingers seem totally benign to you? Would there be a point at which you'd say "Can we please just avoid this?" (I know, I know, it's not a perfect analogy -- this is more sexual than a hair or big-body userbox, but even with all these societal changes in the thought experiment, men still tend to be less sensitive about the subject of sex than women are [at least a lot of people think so], so I don't think the analogy is totally off base.) I'm serious about this, so please, no dismissive jokes about how much some guys would love this or how big someone's index finger is -- my whole point is that it seems reasonable someone can feel their dignity is being treated a little too roughly. I think just about everybody can agree that at some point, with some userboxes, that would be the case. Noroton (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Our userspace is not responsible for the sins of society. We should not assume that even very mild expressions of appreciation for female beauty in userspace constitute the "objectification" of women merely because women would genuinely be objectified by far more severe content elsewhere. Deletion of userspace content is only justified when the content is itself problematic. John254 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• We're always responsible for how we act within the circumstances we know we have. We're not able to wall off the world. Just about everyone works around the sensitivities of others in some way. Noroton (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• There's a significant difference between conforming to the expectations of society, which is unavoidable, and trying to apologize or compensate for society, taking on their guilt as our own, which we can and should avoid. It's not seriously asserted that these userboxes offend contemporary community standards in their portrayal of women -- its quite the opposite, actually, insofar as the userboxes are decidedly mild in comparison to the manner in which women are depicted in contemporary publications, television, movies, or even our own article space. Rather, proponents of deletion regard the userboxes as offensive because, although innocuous in and of themselves, the userboxes may serve as a reminder of contemporary media depictions of women. According to this theory, because contemporary media objectify women, we now can't have any statements of appreciation for female beauty, no matter how mild, in userspace at all. The argument for the deletion of these userboxes is no more tenable than the claim that we can't have any userboxes noting an editor's service in the armed forces, because such userboxes may awaken the anxieties of editors who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder due to military service. Indeed, if we deleted every userbox which might aggravate concerns relating to some related matter outside of Wikipedia, we wouldn't have any userboxes left -- heck, we would even have to delete User:UBX/Dog owner because it might prove worrisome to editors who had suffered vicious attacks by aggressive dogs. Anxieties raised by matters outside of Wikipedia and only peripherally connected to our content are not our fault, and not our problem. John254 01:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Let's just say you're wildly overthinking this. Have you ever avoided a subject with a friend or family member? Would that necessarily be trying to apologize or compensate for society? Has anyone argued that here? If you think I have, read the second sentence of this post again. Then you say that any possible outside-Wikipedia situation is just like the outside-Wikipedia situation anyone can see. This discussion isn't getting anywhere. Noroton (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would say, by contrast, that you're wildly underthinking this. You've yet to address the question as to what makes a userbox commenting on female appearance uniquely objectionable and uniquely provokes a hostile environment, while userboxes expressing contentious and controversial statements about religion, nationality, political beliefs or ethnicity are not and do not. Heck, I have a userbox proclaiming myself a supporter of same-sex marriage; that assertion no doubt boils the blood of a number of Wikipedians who might see it, but no one would dare file a MfD on it.  RGTraynor  15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is a long tradition in most democracies that beliefs about political issues being debated, so long as those beliefs don't stray into advocating violence outside of war or law enforcement, are to be tolerated, no matter whether someone finds those beliefs intolerable. That's pretty easy for us to follow in nearly all cases. Nationality and ethnicity are also widely considered to be something people need to tolerate. You know this. Loving blonde hair or big women is pretty easy to separate from that. But if Wikipedia wants to ban userboxes in any of these three areas, Wikipedia has the right. Why don't you address the question I've asked before: What's so important about being able to have any of these userboxes? Noroton (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment To be clear, User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction is currently deleted like User:UBX/TranswomenSexy is, so I struck it out at the top of this page. Joeblow179350 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep All of the arguments that these userboxes do not help in building an encyclopedia are true. However, neither do userpages in general (except for sandboxes and the like). In fact, this discussion certainly does not seem to be helping the encyclopedia one bit. A userbox declaring what someone likes and dislikes (even though it involves real people) does not strike me as sexist or demeaning. Those who have such a userbox are declaring that they like something and such as a like would seldom be demeaning. The problematic ones have been deleted already, no need to remove neutral ones. Captain panda 23:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's really, really, really not sexist to have a preference for a certain hair colour on your ho. This is the most po-faced and unwittingly funniest MFD I have ever read. It's also not objectification to say you prefer "beautiful women". Neıl ☄ 09:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - It is stating a preference. I think cheese is tasty (OH MY GOD YOU ARE PREJUDICED AGAINST EVERY OTHER FOOD EXCEPT FOR CHEESE), I kind of like computers (MY NAME IS STEVE JOBS I AM GOING TO SUE), and I am preferential to having a carpet (WE ARE A WOOD FLOOR MANUFACTURER, HERE COMES SOME CLASS ACTION SUIT), blah. Keep, for the love of all that is holy/sacreligious.  Asenine  12:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep — Letting productive contributors have some harmless fun is a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the userboxes based on hair color...neutral on the others. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Everyone has their likes and dislikes. A person cannot like everything. They may like this, dislike that, etc - it is their personal preferences and others are expected to respect it. As long as people don't say "I despise blonds/brunettes", I do not see any offense or disruption. The "pointless" and "having nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia" arguments are unreasonable. As user Captain panda said, userpages and subpages in general do not improve the encyclopedia, either. Doesn't mean they all can be deleted. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete While I personally don't have great feelings either way about the userboxes, it's clear quite a number of users find them offensive. While other users are going to be offended by the deletion, IMHO it's better to remove userboxes which cause excessive offence when they serve no real purpose. Indeed, while sexual preference, gender, political opinions, religion, etc userboxes and information tell us a bit about a user which can sometimes help us to understand where the user is coming from in am argument, I don't really see these userboxes as likely to tell us anything useful about a user except in the rarest of instances. I will of course reverse my decision if other editors are satisfied with the compromise Nil Einne (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If I were involved in talk page discussion with a user, the last thing that I would do would be to visit their userpage with the hope of using the demographic information provided as guidance in formulating a response -- per our verifiability and neutral point of view policies, we are writing articles on the basis of the information reported in reliable sources, and characterizing significant positions in disputes rather than trying articulate our own views on the subject matter and resolving disputes by trying to formulate some agreement as to the ultimate truth. As described in editors matter, userspace content, including userboxes, improve the encyclopedia not by directing talk page discussions, but by permitting editors a degree of self-expression that encourages them to contribute. If we deleted every bit of userspace content that a few editors found to be offensive, we would have little userspace (and few editors) left. John254 01:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, even if there were some great utility in using editors' demographic information to inform our interactions with them, it is absolutely impossible for these userboxes to simultaneously be horrible and offensive expressions of misogyny -- as proponents of deletion allege -- and yet not "tell us anything useful about a user except in the rarest of instances". John254 01:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – Serves no constructive purpose. If an editor really wants to say that he or she likes a certain hair color, typing "I like [insert color here] hair" won't cause serious injuries, as far as I know. —Animum (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Could the same not be said of 100% of the non-user-categorizing userboxes in use presently? –xeno (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• With that logic, User:Animum/Other userboxes can be deleted without any trouble. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep This userbox is no more or less offensive or "unencyclopedic" than any other userbox. It's a userbox on a userpage after all, and no claim of encyclopedic content is being made. Whoever nominated this for deletion is attempting to do nothing more than control people's thoughts and expressions. I absolutely HATE all forms of thought police and think you clowns should mind your own business, express your own thoughts in your own ways and leave others alone to express their thoughts freely. If you prefer blondes, brunnettes, bald headed people of others, then get your own userbox to express that thought! Sf46 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as if we needed another reason to delete userboxes... Prodego ^talk 07:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  Your argument proves too much, since it would justify the elimination of all userboxes, an action which the Wikipedia community clearly does not support, and which would cause a major disruption, encouraging many productive contributors to leave. Please see Wikipedia:Editors matter for a more complete discussion of this issue. John254 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  Indeed, since you have userboxes on your own userpage, should we send that to MFD? John254 13:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise?

Color me stupid but can we come to a compromise? This is a community, after all. --mboverload@ 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we ignore the childish requests for censorship and continue on with our lives? LFOD (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are beyond "MY SIDE" or "MY SIDE" now. If we don't come to a compromise then we will all be left with a bad taste in our mouth. Without a compromise whichever way the closing admin goes will be seen as a betrayal. --mboverload@ 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with preference in hair colo(u)rs or body sizes and/or shapes, but with idiotic political correctness censorship. Should we now label bin Laden a freedom-loving freedom-fighter? Oh wait, we already are... LFOD (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because you consider something just fine doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who is into political correctness. And name calling rarely helps a discussion. Let's just all agree that quite a few women, and a number of men, find these user boxes to be offensive. Now let's see if we can reword/change them to eliminate this problem. That is, after all, the definition of compromise.--Thalia42 (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lovely straw-man you just built there, Thalia. LFOD (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me quote you, "This has absolutely nothing to do with preference... but with idiotic political correctness censorship." That would be YOU accusing those of us who are opposed to these user boxes of idiotic political correctness censorship, yes? Or did you mean to say something else?--Thalia42 (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

|---> Compromise on Hair Color boxes

What if we changed the text of the haircolor boxes to “This user thinks redheads are beautiful”? I personally think that is kind of complimentary. Would this be acceptable to anyone? --mboverload@ 02:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Of course, that only remedies the issues with User:Bluedenim/Brunettes, User:Bluedenim/Blondes, and User:UBX/redheads -- the other userboxes also require the sort of individualized consideration that is difficult in this mass MFD. We have everything from the relatively innocuous User:UBX/redheads to the outright disruptive and disparaging User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction all in the same discussion. John254 02:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• I can live with that. We can also make it scholarly and say "This user studies redheads".--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  I have revised the hair color userboxes in accordance with the proposed wording. John254 03:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was also going to suggest using a two-icon userbox, with one female picture and one male picture. Possibly with a parameter for switching to one or the other? -- Ned Scott 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  That would be a good idea, provided that existing usages aren't broken -- it should default to the current form with the female image. John254 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Alternative compromise suggestion, as made by xeno above: rewrite as "This user considers red hair color to be attractive." Add pictures of both genders, and you should be golden.--Thalia42 (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That works for me, too :) - Alison ^❤ 05:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  That would break existing usages of the userboxes, by suggesting that the editors who placed them on their userpages find the stated hair colors to be attractive in both genders, even if that was not the intended meaning. Users who place User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay on other editors' userpages would be blocked for vandalism/WP:BLP violations -- I would expect a similar response to be implemented against Thalia42's proposed edit. John254 13:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • • question to Thalia/Alison/anyone else voting for delete: are the below compromises acceptable as a default, with the option to switch to male or female only display? –xeno (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Why on earth would we have a default as something other than the current form? We don't edit other people's userpages to substantively change their meaning for political correctness. In the rare case that userpage content is actively disruptive to the project, we remove it -- we don't rewrite to mean something completely different. John254 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Relax John, I'll address that fact by adding the "original" paramater to anyone currently using the userbox. But there's no point in me doing all this work if the switching option won't be accepted by the voters-for-deletion. –xeno (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• I just created the blondes and brunettes userboxes because there was the redheads userbox. You can modify them or delete them, no problem. I've read some suggestions above and seem ok to me. Do what's better. Cheers --Bluedenim ^(talk) 09:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Further compromise versions

This user considers blond hair to be attractive.

This user considers brown hair to be attractive.

This user considers red hair to be attractive.

Good? –xeno (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself above, that would break existing usages of the userboxes, by suggesting that the editors who placed them on their userpages find the stated hair colors to be attractive in both genders, even if that was not the intended meaning. Users who place User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay on other editors' userpages would be blocked for vandalism/WP:BLP violations -- I would expect a similar response to be implemented against Thalia42's proposed edit. We don't make statements about other editors' sexual orientations by editing their userpages -- neither should we do so by means of this sort of modification to userboxes that other editors have previously transcluded. John254 14:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's a little farfetched John. I think the point of these compromise versions is not to objectify women, or, at least, to objectify both genders equally. I think we should accept this middle ground and move onto more pressing matters. People will interpret the display of these userboxes based on any existing gender-preference statement, or in line with societal norms in the absence of such a statement. –xeno (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of other information about the user's sexual orientation, I do believe that the two-picture box is a statement of bisexuality. We can hardly "interpret the display of these userboxes" "in line with societal norms" when there no longer are any norms in some places. The two-picture box is fine as a parameterized option, but we shouldn't be editing hundreds of other people's userpages to display it by default. John254 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any reasonable person would interpret the display of these boxes to mean the user is bisexual. It could be modified to read "...an attractive quality in their chosen gender preference(s)" but I really think we're getting silly here. If you like, I can AWB-spam all the users who are using these userboxes letting them know and suggesting they re-evaluate their decision to display the userbox. –xeno (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's quite unnecessary and counterproductive. Stating that one finds a certain hair color attractive in both genders isn't necessary to avoid objectifying women. As a rule, we don't edit other people's userpages, or userboxes transcluded therein, to change their substance, as is being done here -- we shouldn't perform this editing even on the userpages of people who are too busy to immediately respond to notices. To start placing weasel wording like "...an attractive quality in their chosen gender preference(s)" on other people's userpages is grossly insulting. John254 14:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Then stop building straw men. They're just pictures. The statement is gender neutral. If people are going to draw ridiculous conclusions, that's their problem. And people who transclude userboxen should be aware that they are subject to change. If they wanted to avoid that, subst: is always an option. –xeno (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, transcluded userboxes are subject to change -- but not substantial changes in meaning, since we shouldn't be putting words in people's mouths. Pictures obviously have significant meaning. If the old userboxes are so politically incorrect that we can't have them at all, then we should delete them, and recreate them in your "compromise version" at different page titles, so users who display them know that they're getting. (Though, of course, there's obviously no consensus that a gender-specific hair color userbox is unacceptable in userspace.) John254 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what this whole MFD is about? (well, at least the hair-color focused parts) –xeno (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If there is a consensus to delete the hair color userboxes (which is unlikely), we have the code right in this MFD discussion to recreate them, at new page titles, in your compromise versions. If there's a consensus that gender-specific hair color userboxes are acceptable (which seems most probable), we can parameterize the current userboxes to display pictures of either, or both, genders, leaving the current form as a default, to avoid breaking the existing usages. John254 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John254. There is a difference between tweaking a userbox and changing it to say something different to that when it was transcluded. This is particularly true now with the constant tweaking that is going on - each change can slightly change the meaning and the result changes Chinese whispers style to something quite different to what was intended. Compare the current revision to the version current most of yesterday, for instance. Instead of simply stating a redhead etc is beautiful they are now 'attractive'. This reintroduces an overt sexual element that had been absent. While this will probably hold for most users with these boxes there are invariably going to be those who admire beauty in a fairly platonic non-sexual manner. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'm addressing this concern about the pictures. FYI the original version was that the user was "into (x) hair color" which I doubt will be unacceptable no matter whose picture we display - but "attractive" is actually closer to the original meaning than "beautiful", in my opinion. –xeno (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

'Original' is a difficult concept because the boxes are being added and removed all the time - I only became aware of this debate because I was hunting around either yesterday or Monday for userboxes to add to my page, so what's original for me when I added a box mid-debate? Sure I'm aware of this debate so I can keep an eye on the box - I have one subst'd in and amplified a bit as a safegurd anyway - but it does show the problems of determining what is 'original' when if is being constantly altered, potentially allowing a user to add a box when it has temporaily deviated from it's long-term usual meaning.

As for attractive vs beautiful, yes I agree with you - attractive is closer to the historical meaning but I'd suggest we avoid this constant modification of the live template to avoid introducing potential problems. There's no reason draft versions of it can't be posted here for discussion. If/once consensus has been reached, then we are in a position to make what alterations are necessary to the live box. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Problematic, I suppose - anyhow, I've used the paramater "original" as a switch for the female-only display version because, although "female" also works as a switch, I wouldn't want to put words into people's mouths setting their switch to "female", per the arguments above against this. –xeno (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Further compromise versions part 2 - #switched parameters

Default (no paramater set, or set to "both")

This user considers red hair to be attractive.

This user considers brown hair to be attractive.

This user considers blond hair to be attractive.

Female (current transclusions paramater set to "original", "female" or "females" also works)

This user considers red hair to be attractive.

This user considers brown hair to be attractive.

This user considers blond hair to be attractive.

Male (males also works)

This user considers red hair to be attractive.

This user considers brown hair to be attractive.

This user considers blond hair to be attractive.

Good now? –xeno (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't like the red-head male picture. Otherwise, though, I think this is fine. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly like it either, but I wanted it to be consistent- the red-haired female is an illustration, I didn't want to have a non-illustration next to her. If you can find a better substitute - by all means! –xeno (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

|---> Compromise on Loves sexy girls

What if we changed the text to "This user thinks women are beautiful? Would that be acceptable to anyone? --mboverload@ 02:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. John254 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• I suggest "This user loves beautiful women" to preserve the userbox's meaning. John254 03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• What's wrong with it as is? LFOD (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  What's wrong with the userbox is that it's at MFD, with a substantial disagreement amongst established users as to whether it should be deleted. Resolving disagreements of this nature on Wikipedia necessarily involves compromise, not doctrinaire adherence to "delete everything" or "keep everything as it is" positions. John254 04:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the value of having this user box in the first place? You figure there are large groups of hetero males out there who consider sexy/beautiful women to be unattractive? I think compromising on the hair color ones is fine. But Wikipedia is not a dating site. There is no appropriate rewording that does not objectify women.--Thalia42 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I now understand that it is immoral, sexist, and degrading to have a preference in the colo(u)r of a woman's hair, but it is absolutely fine to concern oneself with the gender of an individual. LFOD (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This compromise, and my comment were not about hair color. Keep it on topic please.--Thalia42 (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't respond to someone that takes a compliment as an insult...? --mboverload@ 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the compliment, and to whom is this supposed compliment made? I do think that classifying women by their sexual attractiveness is not appropriate in a work setting or at an encyclopedia. --Thalia42 (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Thalia, I guess I just have some mental block on understanding your position. Maybe I'm just a horrible, horrible insensitive women hater. To me this is about as exciting as saying "This user thinks Republicans are neato". I also disagree with your "work" analogy. Hell will freeze over when I let Wikipedia become a corporate america cubicle farm with HR watching over our backs all the time. --mboverload@ 06:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with your "classifying" comment. I think you are reading too much into this. Where is the classification? Redheads are beautiful. Does that mean that blonds are not? No - you're filling in meanings where none exists. I already modified the boxes to what I think any reasonable person would find acceptable. Again, people objecting because people are complimenting them is beyond me. --mboverload@ 06:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And I ask you again, what is the compliment, and who are these people being complimented? Personally, I consider references to "sexy girls" to be inappropriate. I'm sure you think that makes me the PC police. But the question was asked about our opinions and feelings about these user boxes. And my statement is that it makes me uncomfortable that hetero men firstly refer to women as "girls," and secondly discuss their sexual attractiveness in such a context. Also, as per above this is about the "sexy girls" user box, NOT about hair color. Please keep your comments on topic.--Thalia42 (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

|---> Compromise on Big beautiful women

What if we changed the text to "This user thanks that women of ALL sizes are beautiful"? Would that be acceptable to anyone? --mboverload@ 02:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That would involve a serious change in the userbox's meaning. We should either retain the substance of this box or delete it, not put words in the mouths of the users transcluding it. John254 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone want to make the new one? --mboverload@ 04:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is using this particular userbox. I'd say let it go, into the cold black yonder where userboxen go to die. –xeno (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)