Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WookieInHeat/Userboxes/Politically Incorrect

User:WookieInHeat/Userboxes/Politically Incorrect

Anonymous editor 24.162.198.130 has requested here that the userbox linked to above be put up for deletion discussion. On his or her behalf, here is their statement: "For better or for worse, it is still not possible for members of a civil society to use swastikas to describe their own irreverence." ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Irreverent, humorous use of a swastika might pass as politically incorrect; non-humorous usage does not. This usage is not humorous, and comes across as bigoted. ← George^talk 06:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- “When you assume, you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'.” - Oscar Wilde. i would kindly request you retract your insinuation that i am a bigot, and may i inquire as to what led you to this conclusion anyway? we may not share the same sense of humor, but that doesn't imply this userbox was not intended to be humorous; just as much as it is a political statement. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a humorous userbox; if it offends you then grow some balls or move out of the USA. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 07:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a worldwide collaborative project designed to accommodate all ethnicities and genders; your comment is inappropriate at a site attempting to correct a deficit of female contributors. Perhaps, rather than celebrating the article at asshole, you should check out Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#The_origins_of_Wikipedia.27s_bias 24.162.198.130 (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. BTW: In reply to your edit I'm over 40 and that user box is completely irrelevant to whether I would or would not work with User:WookieInHeat. WookieInHeat has made positive contributions to this project Kiore (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always interpreted WP:NOTCENSORED to apply to just articles, as other than the first two lines, its scope seems to be confined to the mainspace, but I may be wrong. Meanwhile, we do have Wikipedia:Offensive material, which states that "Words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." Having an offensive (offensive being subjective, of course) image in a userbox is not encyclopedic. It should also be noted that the term "offensive" is to apply to "the cultural beliefs of the majority of the web site readers that are literate in an article's language. Clarifying this viewpoint may require a wide spectrum of input and discussion, as cultural views can differ widely." I think this discussion basically comes down to whether or not the userbox is offensive or not. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 12:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Offensive material and WP:NOTCENSORED both appear to apply to the main space. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Kiore && WP:NOTCENSORED. See User:RolandR, for instance. Though I could see George's point that swastika might pass as politically incorrect and offensive. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:RolandR depicts a man wearing a swastika armband. The man is clearly a Nazi. There is a big line slashed over the man. The sentiment is anti-Nazi. The visual implication of a swastika with a red line slashed over it is anti-Nazi. The visual implication of a swastika without a red line slashed over it is pro-Nazi. 24.162.198.130 (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not censored. It is intereseted in making a balanced uncensored Encyclopedia. User space is not a part of the Encyclopedia. It is one part of the areas where users work together to advance Wikipedia. This user box is potentially inflamitory (and in my understanding illegal in at least one country) so is not conducive to fostering the cooperative atmosphere asked for to facilitate the creation of this Encyclopedia. It serves no purpose that can not be served by a less offensive user box. (Personally, (re edit) I'm not Jewish, Roma, European, or over 40 and this box makes no difference to me with working with anyone.) (And I can understand people being offended and I can't move out of the USA, never been there. And I already have some balls, haven't counted but I'm sure I own in the double figures). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further thought, a change of image to a less inflametory image would solve the real problem and still send the same message. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree generally on the approach, an inflammatory image does not help coloboration generally, thus not really constructive as Wikipedia editing is concerned. However, AfD is not a right tool for this job. Relevant editors should be approached on their talk pages and talked to. This AfD should be closed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not an afd, it is an mfd. Seperate issues. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for clarification, Duffbeerforme. I stand corrected on AfD vs MfD issue. Though, still maintain this procedure is not appropriate and should be closed with no consensus for deletion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Just wondering - why would this not be the proper venue? If it isn't, what is? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess open frank and friendly discussion with relevant Wikipedian, on his/her talk page might be more appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        A change of image, perhaps to a double anal fist fest, would be enough to maintain the idea of a politicaly offensive joke that is intended without the cheap racial/religious connotation of such an infobox. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure if a 70 pixel square space really allows a userbox to capture the joyful "fest" to which you refer, but if you found a relevant image which was not under copyright, it's possible that some people might not understand how much fun the depicted fistee is having. This suggestion seems more practical, and would satisfy my concerns. IMO an erect donkey phallus would also be OK; it's possible to be crude without specifically invoking human suffering. 24.162.198.130 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the outstanding keep comments and precedent set at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Atmoz/third. -Atmoz (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i've thought it over and i can't say i feel much remorse for using the swastika in the userbox. the userbox itself makes no suggestion of support for nazism, fascism, holocaust denial, etc., anyone willing to look past the superficial would quickly realize that i am roundly opposed to such things; not that i am fussed if people form an opinion of me otherwise. the reaction of some to this userbox pretty much exemplifies what the userbox is about; opposing censorship and excercising freedom of speech in a climate of politically correct censorship. for that reason i think that the current image is the most effective option in such a small space. if people are just looking for offensive user page material to censor, there are much better places to start. User:RolandR displays an image on their userpage which associates jews with skinheads and nazism, User:Nableezy displays a userbox which advocates violence. personally, i may disagree with those users POV, but i would defend the right for them voice their opinions regardless. anyway, if the image is so grossly offensive that it cannot be used, the most logical solution would be to nominate the image in question for deletion instead; particularly considering the same image is used on many other user pages. ultimately though, no one is being forced to go to my user page and view userboxes which they find offensive. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make false statements about other editors. The image on Roland's page does not in any way associate Jews with skinheads or Nazism, and the userbox on my page does not "advocate violence". Kindly refrain from making such statements in the future. They are untrue, and further they are in no way relevant to whether or not the userbox in your userspace should be deleted. nableezy - 01:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Nableezy's user page could be argued to "advocate violence" in that it is out of accord with the philosophy of pacifism. Most philosophies advocate violence to some degree; few advocate genocide. I do not understand why you think RolandR's page associates Jews with Nazis; I am flabbergasted that a swastika with a line through it is considered the same image as a swastika without. Above, you accurately point out that WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Offensive material were designed for the mainspace, but then suggest the image should be put up for deletion -- surely you can see how one might object to an image being used for a joke in user space while acknowledging that the image is absolutely necessary in the mainspace. But most importantly, you say anyone willing to look past the superficial would quickly realize that i am roundly opposed to such things. That might be true upon looking through your contributions. It is not evident when looking at your user page. Your user page suggests to me, not that you are a Nazi, but that you consider your right to be an iconoclast more important than the right of Jews, Roma, gays, etc. not to be gassed and/or worked to death. If that's not what you believe, I think you should change it. 24.162.198.130 (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]