Template talk:User AGF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Userboxes
WikiProject icon Template:User AGF is part of WikiProject Userboxes. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the userboxes system. WikiProject Userboxes itself is an attempt to improve, grow and standardize Wikipedia's articles and templates related to the userbox system, used on many users' pages. We need all your help, so join in today!
 

Which image[edit]

Before we start a minor revert war, I think we should discuss the merits of each image.

  1. Image:Winged logo.gif
  2. Image:Wiki-halo.png
  3. (potential future image)

I created the second image because I thought it represented good faith more aesthetically. It's basically the first image, except with no wings, many less rings, and the Wikipedia logo in place of the circle (which was an intended change on the first image). I didn't mean for it to have any religious meaning, I just thought it was a good way of representing WP:AGF. — TheKMantalk 17:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither image is wonderful; the wiki-halo looks good close-up, but in super-small format for the userbox it's quite mediocre. However, the halo image is much more professional-looking and clean. And any argument that we should use option 1 instead of option 2 because angels have halos is pretty ridiculous; don't angels have big ol' wings too? -Silence 17:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
In any case I hate wikipedia community talks in geenral. I am backing down from this debate since my views are never treated with any respect and are opposed by masses just because I am suggesting them. Anything I suggest has been viewed as automaticaly wrong. So I wont ever argue about anyhting. Anyone opposing me is definately right. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thats not true...we're just trying to find the option that everyone can be happy with. — TheKMantalk 18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
My image has 3 golden halos... :P --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I proposed my image on AGF page and it had opposition, people did not come up with a reason, they just said they wont tolerate it. I suggested the semi protect thing and it had iverwhelming oppose, when soneone else suggested it, people supported it and now its implemented. I dont want to get involved in discussions with users anymore since in the end no one but me comprimises. If I dont comprimise I get threats of blocks and bans. While sockpuppets are given all the dignity and respect. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I will try going back to the halo image temporarily, in an attempt to get people to notice the difference and to generate discussion, if that's fine with everyone here. — TheKMantalk 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives[edit]

If the two images above just don't work for you, feel free to suggest another. What are some good visual embodiments of "good faith", and will they look nice at 45x45px? — TheKMantalk 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?[edit]

Regarding the comment that the userbox should be made NPOV by writing

"This user claims to always tries to assume good faith."

Every detail does not have to be spelled out in a userbox, especially when userboxes are supposed to be personality statements. It is already implicity assumed that when someone writes "I assume good faith" that the person claims to assume good faith. Furthermore, the word "always" should be taken with a grain of salt. Someone can legitimately say "I always look forward to eating strawberries" even though he or she probably won't eat them while sick and vomiting into the toilet.

If you want to write "This user claims to always try to assume good faith" then you should be ready to change every other userbox on Wikipedia to have the same level of detail. For example, you could change all of the education userboxes from "this user attended ______ University" to "this user claims to have attended (but does not claim to have graduated from) ______ University" and so on. 07:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we should leave this be, as-is. Wombdpsw 15:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)