Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Archive 4

message: Could we see a bit more self regulation in this area?Geni 12:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use

message: I've found in many instances a 45px image does not center the image properly. (Usually they have a smaller right margin) These are two examples:
I reduce it to 43px just to have it reverted at some point. I propose changing them all enmassed to 43px and then lock them down and throw away the key. Am I the only one that notices? At least I'd like to establish that 43px is an acceptable size if it improves the userbox. - RoyBoy 800 18:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images size, 45px vs 43px 

message: I guess I'd like this one to be made into a real one (wear you don't have to put the big code, just the little code that the official ones have):
Tucker	Bow Chicka Bow Wow
HasBeenCorrected 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New RvB Userbox 

message: I brought this up awhile ago, but I feel like this project has come to a point where I can bring it up again. I want to start a Userbox of the Day Page featuring some of wikipedia's finest userboxes. It would work somewhat like WP:FPC except without all the messy sub-pages. Some examples for userboxes of the day. Please comment.--God of War 05:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Userbox 

message: Should we create a new help talk page, where wikipedians ask question and another answer it? --RaptorX 18:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperate Help Desk Talk Page

message: Hmmm! A complaint about pushing a POV on the Userbox page. In any case, how is mentioning that Jimbo has asked us to consider removing polemical userboxes from user pages so outrageous that it is not allowed on the page that pushes using userboxes? -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, once again the notice of Jimbo's request is removed from the page, supposedly for pushing a POV, but I haven't seen anyone say what that POV is. This was a referral to Jimbo asking individual Wikipedians to consider removing polemical userboxes from their user pages. And no one has bothered to answer my question above. I think that users who come looking for userboxes should be aware of Jimbo's request. I won't insert it again, but I am still puzzled as to why what I thought was a carefully neutral statement is seen as too POV for this page. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam Korn's compromise wording works for me, and I won't contest it. --Aaron 00:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I won't try to insert my version again, and I'm also comfortable with Sam Korn's wording. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo's request 

message: :
:At the current point in time, this box would be itself polemical. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemical userboxes 

message: Please excuse, does anyone know why the anti-UN and anti-EU userboxes are not working anymore?  Thanks,Salva 19:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both were speedy-deleted. — Jeff | (talk) | 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU and UN 

message: Can someone tell me what, if any, point these userboxes serve? Morgan695 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet service providers 

message: Please consider my proposal, Wikipedia:Unacceptable userspace material, which is intended as a means to minimally quantify "bad" materials in userspace which the practice of including on userpages has a detrimental effect on Wikipedia, as opposed to making overbroad blanket restrictions. The goal is to maintain the liberal use of userspace while addressing concerns of divisiveness and objectionableness, avoiding template deletionism, and providing a defined standard on which compulsory userpage amendments can be based. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've replied elsewhere, I see that leading to constant fighting over where the limits are, and hairsplitting to decide what goes and what stays. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Specifics not blankets 

message: I mentioned in my piece elsewhere on this page that we (the community) needed to work toward some sort of solution before Jimbo imposed a severe one by fiat.  The latest two statements from Jimbo indicate that he's still not to the point of pushing harsh action, but I think it's fair to characterize his remarks as showing continuing discomfort about the current situation:
#In an IRC chat, Jimbo was informed by User:Tony Sidaway that, over the past six weeks, the number of userboxes has increased from 3500 to 6000 and that the number of politics-oriented userboxes has increased from 45 to 150.  His response was, "My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable."
#In a posting on the mailing list, Jimbo further responded to this serious increase in userboxes with this:
::Having said that, I heard today that the number of userboxes, and in particular the number of very problematic userboxes, has exploded.  I think this is seriously Not Good For Our Loving Little Community.
::I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.
::As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun.
So, there's still time to come to a solution on our own, but with as much polemicism around, I'm admittedly not as hopeful as I was earlier.
— Jeff | (talk) | 10:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that'll bridge that divide, all right. Good work, Jimbo. —Andux␅ 11:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Assume good faith" doesn't mean ignore plain evidence of deliberate provcation. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I hardly think any of the userbox argument has been 'fun' for anyone. I am also interested in what evidence of deliberate provcation exists and if it really is arguing for the fun of it. Ian13/talk 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Userboxes containing personal attacks on other Wikipedians and some of the userboxes created after User:Pedophile was speedy deleted were obviously (IMHO) intended to provoke a response (i.e., they were trolls) and clearly displayed a lack of good faith in their creation. Some of the responses to Jimbo's request that Wikipedians consider removing polemical userboxes not only failed to assume good faith on Jimbo's part, but were also clearly intended to provoke a response by heaping all kinds of abuse on Jimbo. And, if people really are arguing just for the fun of it, they are doing a poor job of it and need to go find some place else to have that kind of 'fun'. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While your hurt feelings are regrettable, they do not meaningfully alter the force of Jimbo's comment. Phil Sandifer 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry. Some guy sat infront of a metal box and glass screen, whacking little plastic squares won't annoy me. The moving electrons might though - should enough of them pass through my heart. Ian13/talk 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, I would say, based on his comments on the wikien mailing list, that Jimbo is quite appreciative of the individual differences of Wikipedians. His concern, as I understand him, is the way in which userboxes are being used to express, not individual differences, but group solidarity for POV positions. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And he is, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong.  Voluntary disclosure of the POVs of as many editors as possible helps the encyclopedia maintain NPOV by keeping biases in the open and therefore easily countered.  Rogue 9 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree the value of opinion boxes is that the editors are being honest about where they are coming from. When research papers are published it is vital to know any potential bias that contributers might have. Openly declaring POV means we have to be more careful to create Wiki content that is NPOV. Having said this, we don't need boxes that directly attack other people. --Hontogaichiban 00:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest from Jimbo 

message: In tackling the helpful statistics provided by Tony Sidaway (mentioned in the above section), I wonder if there's anything to be done that would help encourage people to use non-template userboxes on their own pages instead of creating new templates.  Now, I'm not saying this as just another plug of WP:UUB—I've already stated my case for that.  My reason for raising this issue is that, it seems to me, that a number of those 6000 userboxes might have limited appeal and usage.  (I'm going to go checking the Whatlinkshere for some userboxes, so I'll have a better idea if I'm right on this.)
We ought to consider that a userbox that's only going to be used by a few people might not need its own template; instead, the userbox could be used inline using the  formatting template.  It's interesting to note that Wikipedia:Userboxes doesn't describe a userbox as a template in its introductory paragraph (though userboxes are obviously most commonly found in templates).  Instead, it describes a userbox as simply, "a small coloured box that allows users to add small messages on their user pages."  To our credit, it also says under the "Before making a userbox" subheader that, "If you wish to put your userbox in a template (and list it here), evaluate whether there is a need for your userbox."  However, if there are indeed userbox templates out there that are barely used, those creating the userboxes might not be following this advice.  It's probably true as well that there are cases where users have had good faith assumptions that someone might have some need for such a template, but the userbox ultimately remains unused.
I'm not necessarily advocating any kind of formal criteria that must be met before a userbox can be created. If it's expressed that userbox template creation should be used only where's there's a need and that userboxes of more limited appeal are best placed directly on a user's page, I would think that people could be trusted to use their common sense in deciding whether or not to make a new template.  Then again, we have expressed something similar on the page, and that's not stopped us from creating an average of nearly 60 new userbox templates per day.  Maybe, more prominent placement of the statement discouraging needless template creation might help the problem.  Alternately, we could give a prominent placement to a statement encouraging people to use their own personalized userboxes directly on their own pages instead of using templates.  I'm sure there's other solutions as well.  I'm not bold enough to make the change right now, but I'm throwing this out to the community in hopes of ideas.  Underused (or nonused) userbox templates are hardly the most pressing or important of concerns on the site right now, but slowing and/or reversing the growth of unneeded userbox templates might help to take a little pressure off the volatile "cultural battle" over userboxes.  — Jeff | (talk) | 10:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are correct. If people did consider a little more the need for a template, then I think there would be a few less. The problem is - how do we reduce the number of userboxes at present. Ian13/talk 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could run a bot to subst them all onto userpages and then delete all userboxes, allowing people to manually code them as they want. Phil Sandifer 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that although it would be good to remove quite a lot of these boxes, some are useful too and I personally would propose keeping them due to their high usage. Maybe keep all boxes with 100+ users and any babelboxes as templates? Ian13/talk 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you from experience that getting people to agree on what boxes should or should not stay in template-space is like herding cats. —Andux␅ 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encouraging non-template userboxes 

message: The userboxes Template:user NRA, Template:user NRA Life, and Template:User NRA Instructor seem to be improperly categorized under Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. This is a non-profit, nonpartisan, multifaceted organization of approximately 4.3 million members engaged in broad activities such as law enforcement training, education, supporting wildlife conservation, and multimedia publishing. It seems more appropriate to list these in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests under “Affiliations”. Accurizer 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move NRA user boxes?

message: Ok I just had a realization; if someone has an absurd amount of userboxes, he does himself a disservice because people will usually automatically not look at any of them, or maybe just one or two.  This is opposed to someone having say 4 userboxes, in that case someone will usually look at them all in one glance.
The reason for this IMO is that the human concious mind can usually juggle up to only 7 things in its short term memory, and people can usually only count up to 6 or 7 just by glancing say 6 stones.  Any more than 6 or 7 and the mind seems to just ignore it all because it is beyond that threshold.  Thus, the optimum number of userboxes for someone to have is 6 or 7.  Beyond that, people will probably just pass them all over and read none of them at all.
The point of my theory is that maybe people should just be limited to 6 or 7 userboxes.  This would cause less strain on wikipedia (people wouldnt be in like 50 catagories), also this would have a side effect of limiting so-called "polemical" userboxes, because people would think long and hard what userboxes to have since they are limited, thus eliminating pointless or uninformative userboxes.  
Anywayz, just a theory.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 19:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, you can always just break your userboxes up into categories of 6 or 7. :p --AySz88^-^ 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My theory on userbox limiting

message: Who deleted some of the belief userboxes? --Shanedidona 20:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as a lot of politics userboxes. CG 20:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, not me. I'm just pointing out to the fact that a lot of userboxes were deleted by User:Grenavitar by CSD T1. Unfortunatly a small part has been reverted which led to a lot of POV. example:  was undeleted while  wasn't. I hope the Userbox policy will be finished soon. CG 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoda thunked that admins and deletionists couldn't be trusted to make unbiased decisions in the absence of a clear policy? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: T1 is a new speedy deletion criterion that includes divisive/polemical/inflammatory content.  --Cyde Weys 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: T1 means that the admins can delete whatever the hell they please because anybody can stretch a subjective criterion.  Rogue 9 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox Deletion

message: *Many templates primarily for use in the user: namespace may not be approriate to be housed in Template: namespace
** User: and/or Wikipedia: namespace may be a more approriate place for these items
*Templates that meet the community standards for Inflammatory or Personal Attacks are not approriate anywhere.
*Templates designed to express a point of view are generally inapproriate to be categorized.
*Templates expressing a skill-set may warrant categorization.
Endorsements:
#xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I think that might be a bit too heavy-handed.  I feel userboxes have an incredible potential for good if it becomes impossible for people to interpret them as advocacy / POV userboxes stop being advocates of POV (depending on your POV on userboxes :p ). (See above) --AySz88^-^ 18:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So you would irrevocably harm the project by making it more difficult for users to have userboxes displaying what POVs other editors should watch out for and neutralize?  Rogue 9 14:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The project has been damaged by use of userbox template "what links here" lists and/or category entries created by userboxes, and continues to be so, including an incident just yesterday. On the other hand, I have asked for someone to cite any case where an article was improved by referals to POV userboxes, and no one has offered any case yet. I think it's clear that the greater danger is in allowing POV userbox templates. Using  is fine, but no templates or categories for anything POV and/or not contributing directly to building a quality encyclopedia. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 17:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I maintain that informing the userbase of xfD polls in progress, which we all are entitled to participate in, does not harm the encyclopedia.  Rogue 9 14:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every page nominated for deletion gets a notice template. If you have the page on your watchlist, you'll know. If you review the xfD pages regularly, you'll know. The problem is when a select group of editors is informed of an xfD, as that is usually an attempt to have a particular viewpoint prevail in the discussion. You have a right to participate in xfD discussion. I maintain that you don't have a right to be recruited as part of a select group. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  As far as I know, those who attempted to abuse the userboxes have been found out (User:Jason Gastrich for example) and any potential harmful contributions from them carefully watched by others, which probably isn't the type of benefit you're talking about, but a benefit nonetheless.  It's difficult to mention any specific improvements since, to me, the main positive effect of userboxes is the make the user aware of their own biases, which is probably hard for other people to notice.  Abuses, on the other hand, are a lot more visible. --AySz88^-^ 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, we only know about the ones who have been caught. We don't know how many have gotten away with it. And I strongly suspect that in most cases the POV userboxes reinforce biases, rather than leading the users of them to work to eliminate them from their editing. We have ample evidence of the dangers of POV userboxes as templates. The benefits claimed all seem to be theoretical. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But then, "those who have gotten away with it" is theoretical too, no? :p  As seen in the Jason Gastrich case, it looks like very few people can be notified (on the order of a couple) before someone he tried to notify cries foul, and that's not even a POV userbox, where more people are watching closer.  I don't really think it's possible to do something like that without having someone getting suspicious of why a silent majority suddenly sprang up.  In their current form, yes, POV userboxes tend reinforce bias in peoples' minds, but I think they can (again, see above) be reworded to make a positive intent clear and promote NPOV in encyclopedia matters. --AySz88^-^ 20:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick recap on things that someone might agree on (?) : 

message: *FOUL! Does that mean we can't create a userbox for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hello! Project then? This is ridiculous. You might as well say no more articles. --CJ Marsicano 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOUL!?

message: A lot of userbox templates have been eliminated, under the hungry deletionism opened by WP:CSD#T1. In many cases these boxes have been subst'ed. In order to prevent rampant forking of common boxes, we should set up example code pages where the most up-to-date form of a manually generated userbox can be maintained. Those who want to use that userbox code can then put those pages on their watchlist so they can stay up to date with modifications. We could store those pages under appropriate subpages and sub-sub-pages of WP:UB. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarc>Wouldn't it be a lot easier for others to just transclude them </sarc> -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yar, and it would even save space. Of course, WP:WINP, though not that that precept has affected the argument against UB templating. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see why userboxes need to "updated".  Presumably if a user puts userbox code (no more transclusions assumed) on their userpage they are happy with it, and if they aren't happy with it, they should modify it upon placement.  Userboxes are about "free expression", right?  Isn't it a good thing if everyone's userbox is slightly different?  Why should they all have to be kept uniform and conform to whatever "updates" were coming down the line?  A lot of revert wars were triggered by userboxes linked to by dozens, even hundreds of userpages, because one user would change its look to what they considered "best", which would change it on every other userpage it was used on, this upset other people, etc.  It's pretty ugly.  There's absolutely no reason userboxes should be standardized.  Indeed, they should be as individualized as someone writing freeform prose on their page describing their beliefs.  --Cyde Weys 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm assuming you meant banned-from-Template-space advocate/POV userboxes, not stuff like the Babel boxes or Wikiproject boxes? --AySz88^-^ 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping manual userboxes up to date 

message: What is WP:UB doing in regards to deleted userbox templates? Are they being removed from the WP:UB lists? It would seem better overall in the spirit of this project to maintain deleted UBs on the appropriate pages, available as copyable source. We shouldn't let the arguments over what belongs in templatespace affect the ability to organize boilerplate userspace material. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retaining deleted UB templates 

message: User:MarkSweep has just done a mass removal of category tags from Userbox templates . Basically rending most of this user categorisation empty. What is the current view on this? --Salix alba (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That it should all be reverted, but would be too much work to do. POV-based userboxes will probably be replaced by interest-based userboxes, and the same for usercategories ("this user is interested in Christianity", not "this user is a Christian"—just like WikiProjects exist by field of knowledge, not by bias), or a similarly drastic change, so whenever a coherent userbox/usercategory policy exists, such vigilante action will no longer be necessary and all the problems being caused right now by such wide-scale actions can be reversed with the help of bots, etc. All of the changes can be fixed and reverted at any point in the future, so if MarkSweep likes wasting his time to push an agenda, I see no point in denying a fellow human being his chance at brief happiness. That's how I see it, anyway. :F Plus I'd rather the discussion on a userbox policy continue than have it be sidetracked by yet another rogue-admin-beatdown. There are more important things to do. Like, oh yeah, encyclopedia. :o -Silence 11:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding ("this user is interested in Christianity", not "this user is a Christian"—just like WikiProjects exist by field of knowledge, not by bias): Are you saying that stating one "is a Christian" is being biased? - dcljr (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just my $.02, but I think that userbox categories should stay, for two reasons. 1. Wikipedians with similar interests may be interested in meeting eachother, so having UB Categories isn't too terrible. 2. For collaborations. For example, I have  (That's: Adult fan of Lego) on my userpage. I might sometime in the future want to build on an article such as Lugnet, so having a category Wikipedian AFOLs would be pretty helpful if I was looking for others to help with editing such an article. I feel strongly that Categories in Userboxes can really help the project. Reuvenk[T][C] 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MarkSweep deleted all these great userboxes. MarkSweep is also a vandal. He vandalized my userpage and insulted me on my talk page. He needs to get banned. The Republican 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He has just deleted the Pimp userbox (which I made) because he said it was orphaned. I recreated it and can be found on my userpage. The Republican 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think Marksweep is wrong, find two other users that agree with you, I suggest arbitration, if that fails, please file a report with Arbcom.  Masssiveego 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm! -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll let others decide for themselves. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 10:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to have your priorities out of whack. Please read Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 23:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:MarkSweep's mass removal of categories from templates 

message: And what of the userboxes on the other wikipedias?--ikiroid | (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other languages 

message: Some respect would be nice. I think it is quite obvious that something like "This user thinks that niggers stink" should be speedy deletable. The question is where are the boundaries. In my opinion anything that attacks others rather than endorses something or represents legitimate criticism should be speedy deleted. That in my eyes includes "This user does not tolerate Marxism" or even "fascism" as long as we allow to have political party user boxes given that there are marxist and fascist parties around and we cannot set up double standards for them. 
? 30px? ?	ROGNNTUDJUU! thinks that users who cross out flags show a lack of respect for those represented by them and therefore created this template.
 02:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Respect

message: :A heated debate is going on, which I am actively involved. It's about the Userbox redirect page. Some people want it deleted, because it is a "soft" redirect (whatever the hell that is). Some people, like me, want it kept for convinience, the benifit of new users, its part in userboxes in general, and its part of a vendetta to delete most userboxes, which users like MarkSweep are invovled in. Feel free to put a comment on the disscusion page or its entry on the RFD (under March 2nd). I'd also  appreciate your comment on my talk page. Thanks. The Republican 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a cross-namespace link, which is deprecated because it breaks when Wikipedia is mirrored by other sites. This should be deleted as a technical problem, not because it has anything to do with userboxes. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 11:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate

message: userboxes?
Pece Kocovski 11:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly hope not. Your userpage is provided to help you contribute to Wikipedia. It is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 12:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you try to rephrase that, it does unfortunatly sound a little uncivil. Thanks! Ian13/talk 14:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Warhammer 40,000 is a valid and noteworthy Wikipedia topic. As long as you are using the userboxes to help explain your interests in editing Wikipedia articles and get in contact with people who could help work on them, I don't see how anyone could conceivably object to that. See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games for the page where such a userbox would be, if anywhere. And don't mind the somewhat-less-than-polite initial reception; userboxes are a touchy subject for many Wikipedians these days. Although it's orphaned and has only existed for four days, a little clever, in-depth searching (i.e. guessing) allowed me to find the userbox you seek:  is a Warhammer 40k userbox. Enjoy! -Silence 14:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  are there any warhammer 40000 

message: Is there a page for that?
Pece Kocovski 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you make userboxes? 

message: All the userbox policy proposals I'm aware of (with commentary):
;WP:UPP → Userbox policy poll
:Would have effectively banned transclusion (without substitution) of any templates except those which "declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping."
;WP:UBP → Proposed policy on userboxes
:Same as WP:UPP, but would also ban images in userboxes.
;WP:UUB → Userfying userboxes (formerly Use of userboxes)
:Similar in effect to WP:UPP, but without the draconian limits on transclusion, so 'cluding templates from user subpages is fine as long as they don't violate policy.
;WP:UUSM → Unacceptable userspace material
:Largely restates existing policy and common-sense expectations of user conduct, with a few curveballs thrown in at the end.
;WP:TCU → Proposed template and category usage policy
:Cyde's proposal. Similar in effect to WP:UUB, but also covers categories. The present wording has one or two loopholes/ambiguities I'd like filled in, but it seems like it could turn out to be a fair compromise proposal.
—Andux␅ 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For reference

message: From WP:UP:
What can I have on my user page?
Anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. Instead, think of it as a way of organising the work that you will be doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand who they're working with. (emphasis mine) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The missing principle of the anti-UB crusade 

message: I created a series of "This user is glad to help in" userboxes here. I think that that's what userboxes need to do: offer easier way to collaboration and interaction between users. What are your thoughts before I templify them? CG 12:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be best to delay creating new userbox templates until userbox policy is settled. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like these, finally some userboxes which might help build an encyclopedia. Could possibly be more specific in specifying what fields you could help in. --Salix alba (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be free to create and modify them. CG 09:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New series of userboxes 

message: First off, I hope I'm asking this in the right place (I was directed here by someone in the Help area). I noticed that there currently is not a category for Wikipedian Insurance Agents. I created a userbox for this, and display it on my page, but am unable to find out how to both create this new category as well as how to link my userbox to it. Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. --Mtgkooks 18:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with a userbox 

message: Where can I promote my own custom userboxes (see User:Sarazyn/Userboxes)? --Sarazyn 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My own userboxes 

message: Here they are.
SU	This user is a Syracuse Orange fan. Go Orange!
DQ	This user eats at Dairy Queen.
ASU	This user is an Arizona State fan.
McDonald's	This user works at McDonald's.
DET	This user is a Detroit Pistons fan.
UT	This user is a Tennessee Volunteers fan.
* They are of course just a bunch of code, and not properly organized into proper templates either in the userspace or the template space. —    natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support these userboxes... but-- on the first one, the inside should be a different color than blue, so you can see the link.  And on the 4th one (McDonald's) you should make the heading MD instead of the word McDonald's.. Just a suggestion, you can leave it if you want. --User:Domthedude001 18:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need to promote me new ones too. 

message: Do all userboxes have to be 45px? I just made a userbox (my first one) and if it is 45px. While it is 45px, you can't see the image very well.
App	This user is a huge fan of The Apprentice.
If it is 90px it can be seen fine.
App	This user is a huge fan of The Apprentice.
Thanks.
Mr. Turcotte 01:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  45px? 

message: There is no moratorium, official or unofficial, on the construction of new UBX, either in template or user namespace. Claims will be made from time to time but the plain truth is that all debate on the topic has resulted in no consensus. John Reid 15:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No moratorium 

message: Im looking for this solution for my own wiki project on my own server so please nobody give me the policies here, but I figured I would ask those who have made user boxes.  I want to create a box that will allow a person to put in 7-8 variables and have them filled in.  For an example look at tearstar.sytes.net/Observer/Wiki/index.php?title=Template:User_boxes for the template. The one I am having trouble on is the second one with all the variable, any help on this please direct to my talk page.  Thanks   P.s. I'd also like to make the image a variable for them to input if that is possible . . .Tearstar 01:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on userboxe templates 

message: OK, let's have a discussion. Things have been relatively calm in the Great Userbox War for a while, and I think we should keep it that way. Much as I want to get rid of polemical userboxses, I don't think it is fruitful at this time to try to remove those sections from the project page. I think it would also be politic to not create or promote any political, religious or other 'polemical' userboxes for the time being. Let's see if we can maintain a truce for a while, and try to calmly work on a policy that will be acceptable to most Wikipedians. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political and Religious Userboxes 

message: I belive it would be a smart thing to do if Userbox and Userboxes would both redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes.  Oppose or support?
:This would be a bad idea, because it would open up a can of worms and almost certainly be reverted in a very short time. The Great Userbox War has quieted down for now, and I personally would like to see it stay quiet. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects

message: I am familiar with the Babel language template (I may be using the wrong words) where it's feasible to section-off the languages one speaks...  Is there, by any chance, a similar template for one's ancestry?  I have ancestors from several different countries and was hoping to make a neat section on my userpage.--Brian1979 11:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Babel-like template

message: There is no way I could get a Facist user box is there? MegaloManiac 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: How about reducing the verbiage to e.g.: "I want to be your friend.", "I'm interested in ancient Rome", and "My time zone is GMT+2."? -- Jeandré, 2006-05-01t21:13z
:Nah. -Silence 21:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "This user" vs "I".

message: :Please see the ongoing changes to WP:CSD that may make most userboxes speedy deletion candidates. — xaosflux Talk 03:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this newly-expanded criterion is accepted and implemented, do I have users' permissions to move most of the userboxes on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion to more appropriate names and functions? For example,  "This user is a Muslim" moved to  "This user is interested in Islam", with notices sent to the users' pages letting them know about the change so they can remove the box if it no longer applies. I suggested a change like this a while back, but didn't get any replies at the time, and now it looks like it'll help save a lot of time and effort on both sides, and will avoid any unnecessary religion-related conflicts. -Silence 13:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a constructive approach to me. Ian13/talk 17:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was going to go for it today, but now that it seems that the entire page is on TfD (and leaning towards "keep"), I suppose I'll have to wait until the debate's over to make such major changes... Unfortunate. -Silence 00:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CSD]] 

message: If it's such a big deal to have userboxes in Template space, why not simply establish a user account called "Template" and place userboxes on its subpages?  An example of the comparable syntax is shown below.
Template space syntax   	User space syntax
Template:User fish owner	User:Template/Fish owner
                        	
Considering the heated debate about userboxes, this would take one objection to them (inappropriate use of Template space) out of the mix. Rfrisbietalk 17:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, such technically void solutions really defeat the purpose of why people object to the template thing. Userbox spacer accounts are, in my opinion, one of the worst possible solutions. Approving a new namespace would be better than that... Ian13/talk 17:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll bite, exactly what is the purpose of why people object to the template thing? (please ignore any fish metaphors ;-) Rfrisbietalk 18:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I personally think the whole template thing is abit stupid too. Ian13/talk 07:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, creating a new namespace works for me too. Rfrisbietalk 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It also allows collaboration.  Why is this not a greater good? Rfrisbietalk 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Votestacking is a trivial nuisance considering that Wikipedia is run by consensus, not vote, and considering that such crude mechanisms as gathering votes based on users with similar userboxes are always incredibly easy to identify, and are rare enough not to outweigh the potential benefits of userboxes for fostering community, openness, tolerance, and informative self-expression in userspace. I also think moving all userboxes to userspace would be a good idea, including Babelboxes, which are not fundamentally different from various other 'boxes as they, too, are intended solely for userspace. However, I don't see this as essential for the same reason that we don't need extra userspaces or anything for usercategories like :Category:Wikipedians and Wikipedia-categories like :Category:WikiProjects and so on: if a category or template is only used on such pages, then for all practical purposes, they are in that namespace (in that they are bound by its rules, not the rules of article-space and templates that appear there), since that's the only place they'll be seen. Whether or not they're in this or that namespace is more a technicality than anything, and a very weak justification for doing anything dramatic about them. There's no danger whatsoever of userbox tendencies spilling into article-space templates. -Silence 00:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All good points, which I support.  My only interest in making this suggestion was to help clarify the core issues about userboxes, at least for myself.  My current working hypothesis is that a basic operational intent of the "deletion" advocates is to eliminate any form of automated groupings of wikipedians by "topic" as a means to frustrate automated votestacking tactics. Those who would support this intent would most likely oppose any efforts at enabling a "What links here" mechanism, regardless of the resident namespace. They also would oppose any mechanisms, automated or otherwise, to categorize wikipedians by the related topics.  I also agree that simply defining any template that starts with the word, "User" to be subject to the policies and guidelines of userspace is sufficient, if automated groupings of wikipedians by topic is acceptable. To me, that's the rub (over using templates for userboxes) in a nutshell. The deeper issue seems to be over disputes about what constitutes expressing "legitimate points of view" vs. "biased points of view."  But that's another discussion. :-)   Rfrisbietalk 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think that moving to a 'ghost' user template space is really pointless and stupid, I can't see what would be wrong with a seperate namespace though - but then some just want to go the whole hog and delete them all, holding back any constructive action. Ian13/talk 07:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree creating a "ghost" space is goofy.  I just wanted to see if it would help resolve any issues.  My preference is to keep userbox templates where they are and adopt a userbox policy that allows it.  The last time I looked at the draft Userbox policy, that was the case. Rfrisbietalk 13:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving userboxes from Template space to User space 

message: I think it would be a good idea to have userboxes announce the display resolution of the user's monitor. This is actually a helpful information related to contributing to Wikipedia, at least in the same manner as announcing the browser and operating system. I myself have my monitor set to 1600x1200 and I often come up to pages where the image layout gets all messed up. However the page looks fine on lower resolutions as then the text fills more space between the images and they are not in danger of overlapping. The layout problem is especially related to the otherwise perfect :template:chess diagram. So, I propose something like this:
1600x1200	This user has their display resolution set to 1600x1200.
--ZeroOne 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screen resolution userboxes? 

message: I've created a proposal for ending the disagreements over userboxes. Comments are welcomed. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of four proposals that have been cross-referenced. Are there any others? Rfrisbietalk 03:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know whether you can call it "active", but my own idea hasn't really been defeated, I think. --AySz88^-^ 04:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The failed proposal probably should be removed from the list. You always could add yours to the project page and the current proposals. :-) Rfrisbietalk 04:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: It would be useful to add the following optional parameters to the templates Userbox, Userbox-r and Userbox-2, and then update Wikipedia:Userboxes to document this.
info-lcu	The colour used for unvisited links in the info box
info-lcv	The colour used for visited links in the info box
That way, people could more easily include links to relevant articles on their userbox designs without having to worry about whether the default link colours show up against their chosen background colour. Zerrakhi 10:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifying the Userbox template 

message: I've proposed some a bunch of changes on Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Beliefs and Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Religion, in the hopes of preventing a big, wasteful battle over CSD T2. I've asked on a bunch of pages about this, but have gotten very little response, so I'll ask again here: is this a good idea, or no? And if the former, would anyone be willing to help in at least the mass-substing part, since that's the only part of the moves I won't be able to do myself? -Silence 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and belief userboxes

message: What really concerns me is that while the userbox war rages, the actual maintenence of userboxes as a dynamic resource is being neglected. Part of the problem is the absence of a coherent, documented process for submitting new userboxes. It is not necessary for the war to come to a resolution before documentation can be improved.
Here's a fundamental question. Are users welcome to modify the userbox gallery by inserting new userboxes and corresponding generation code, or not? (Note: some people occasionally use the term "userbox" when they actually mean "userbox template", but the terms should be used correctly and distinctly.) One symptom of a wider problem is that there exists almost no documentation whatsoever about Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/New_Userboxes, the processes governing it, or how it is of benefit to users. I'm not opposed to some sort of review process before userboxes are added to the gallery, but it's got to be documented.
It is, in my opinion, very important that such matters be clarified on Wikipedia:Userboxes. Failure to do so is a disservice to users, particularly new users. The quality of documentation advising users what to do with new userboxes they want to share is, frankly, pitiful, and the only reason why Wikipedia:Userboxes contains a section on "submitting your designs" at all is because I added it myself.
Zerrakhi 05:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Matters of real concern

message: The TFD rules have been time and time again inappropriately applied to userboxes ("unencyclopedic" and "advertising" keep coming up despite having traditionally been fine in userpages). I think there should be a separate namespace for templates intended to be used on userpages. Maybe even allow user subpages to be treated as templates (so that the "owner" of a userbox can have it in their own userpage space) --Random832T 12:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Migration of usercruft into new namespaces. —Ashley Y 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal - userbox namespace 

message: I did this change :
"This page is an organized directory of userboxes. These are only intended to be used on userpages. Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can."
To:
"This page is an organized directory of userboxes. These are only intended to be used on userpages. Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia. Please consider working on encyclopedia articles rather than userboxes."
The reason is this edit  in which an editor says:
"The introduction to Wikipedia:Userboxes states, "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." When I initially read this statement, I felt confident userboxes were a reasonable tool to support collaboration and community building within the online community dedicated to building this encyclopedia. In that spirit, I added a few userboxes to my page (just as Jimbo has) and joined the related WikiProject."
In fact, Jimbo has never added userboxes to his user page, and when he has found them he has removed them .  
It's pretty bad that we have new editors who think that being a Wikipedian is about getting some templates and sticking them to their user pages. I have accordingly updated the wording of this page. --Tony Sidaway 06:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the change, as I don't believe the rejection of userboxes has the consensus of the community. —Ashley Y 06:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop moving the goalposts.  We're not talking about rejection, we're talking about acceptance.  Userboxes really haven't been accepted by the higher-ups here, and that old intro text was misleading.  --Cyde↔Weys 06:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus either way, and the box should reflect that. So now it has neither the original implicit endorsement nor the implicit rejection. —Ashley Y 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also object the changes. Tony, I know you act in best faith, but please stop making unilateral changes to controversial issues. You said repeatedly consensus is important and that there currently is no consensus regarding userboxes. Blocking pro-userbox motions with this argument, while ignoring it in anti-userbox issues makes it a double standard. CharonX 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely we shouldn't be aiming to dictate what Wikipedians do with their time. It is quite clear on the UBX page that they are unofficial and not endorced, why do we need to do more? "This page requires cleanup, but please consider doing something in real life first." Ian13/talk 09:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I wanted to point out that the sentence in question was added by User:WAS 4.250 to , and from there it was apparently copied here at some point.  I'm thinking that WAS 4.250 wasn't intending it as a misleading claim that userboxes enjoy widespread acceptance, but as a statement that the purpose of userbox use ought to be to serve in creating the best encyclopedia we can.  Obviously there's a large number of userboxes right now that don't serve that purpose (such as humor boxes and political/belief boxes—at least in template form).  I do happen to think that there's a reasonable middle ground of userboxes that come closer to serving that purpose of improving the encyclopedia—something like what was proposed in the (lamentably under-supported) Userbox Policy Poll from a few months ago.  In any case, if the sentence is being (mis)interpreted to suggest wide community acceptance of all uses of userboxes, then perhaps it ought to be removed or rephrased.  I do think there is some value, though, in prominently emphasizing that userboxes ought to be used to help us create the best encyclopedia we can. — Jeff | (talk) | 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway]]'s change to the userbox page, 28 May

message: Following long periods of reflection and hesitation, I went ahead today with a plan to do something about the shadow that seems to be looming eternally over userboxes and their future. For the good of the community, I have implemented a means for people to design and publicise userboxes without guilt, and without even having to wait for any new policies to be decided.
My scheme for userbox publicisation keeps the userboxes entirely within the designer's userspace, and makes them available to the community through a new category I have created, namely :Category:User pages displaying original userboxes and corresponding code. I have documented this on Wikipedia:Userboxes, and I did it all to meet a need which I perceive to exist. I hope for this category to complement the central gallery on Wikipedia:Userboxes, but to be gentler on the conscience of userbox designers, who can know that they are placing their designs where new users can find them while not in the process troubling anyone, cluttering template space, or imposing their own aesthetic tastes upon public resources.
In my opinion the wiki process is not well adapted to pages on which people share the produce of their own creativity (such as userboxes). Even if there were no userbox war, I would not be entirely comfortable about contributing directly to the gallery, because who am I to impose my aesthetic tastes on others by submitting my creative effort to a gallery that belongs to everyone? I am not, philosophically, at ease with that. Disputes about article content can be settled by more or less objective criteria such as verifiability, but I believe creative works are best shared either on a space that the creator has control over, or on a space governed by a centralised process of nomination and review.
My solution offers people an alternative that they can take advantage of right now without having to wait for other people to make a decision. It offers a means of sidestepping the userbox war, without sidestepping userboxes. It offers a mechanism by which people can design and share new userboxes, and simultaneously keep the peace. That is the contribution I have made, following long periods of reflection and hesitation. I offer it; and potentially, others will endorse it and it will grow. Zerrakhi 19:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, you don't know what sort of userboxes are available there until you click on a userspace and browse. Ian13/talk 19:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the way is open for people to create subcategories to handle that to at least some extent. Zerrakhi 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The category I created: a new way to share userboxes

message: I have resurrected User:Userboxes, as it seems using this for userboxes this abides by existing policy, even as the policy endorsing this as a solution to the userbox controversy was rejected. —Ashley Y 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Boxes is a better place.--God Ω  War 05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Boxes has been blocked, and the block notice complicates things. —Ashley Y 06:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it a good idea to have a mass archive such as this regardless of where it resides?  My fear is that people will be tempted to factory mass create userboxes they have no intention of using themselves.  This will leave the archive full of boxes which nobody has any intention of ever transcluding.  At that point it really does become pollution.  When people have actually bothered to go through TfD on userboxes I tend to check the number of inclusions.  If a box has no inclusions I'll vote to delete it.  If a box has only one inclusion I'll vote to subst and delete.  If a user has to take ownership of the box they create (as in making it a sub-page of their own account and including them themselves) then they are less likely to take time creating a bunch of boxes they won't bother using.  --StuffOfInterest 11:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If this gains momentum, it sounds like a good idea.  If the account ownder wants to reliquish WP:OWNership of their pages.  I'll indef block it,but not put a banner.  Let me know if you want something like that on my talk page. — xaosflux Talk 05:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Userboxes]] 

message: It seems a lot of people don't know about Wikipedia:Deletion review. Many userboxes have been deleted ostensibly under T1, and then that deletion brought up for review, and this process continues. If you feel strongly (either way) about this, go make your opinion heard. —Ashley Y 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This assumes that ordinary, non-admin voices are listened to there. I flatly believe they are not. Jay Maynard 01:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel they are. People do generaly pay attention to non admins. PArticularly those with a well reasoned case.Geni 01:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed they are. Everyone is listened to, a consensus is formed, and then the consensus is promptly ignored. Angr (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]] 

message: Having all userspace archives of userboxes lumped together into one category really isn't satisfactory. I have therefore changed things, while it's still feasible to do so, to create seperate categories for pages displaying ORIGINAL userboxes (that is, invented by the owner of the userspace) versus pages displaying an archive of existing userboxes in accordance with the German solution. The category structure is now:
*:Category:User pages displaying userboxes and corresponding code
**:Category:User pages displaying original userboxes and corresponding code
**:Category:User pages displaying a themed archive of userboxes and corresponding code
Could we please see a migration of userpages into appropriate subcategories? Of course, a page can belong to more than one subcategory if applicable. Zerrakhi 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: umm, saying the "structure is now" is a little presumptuous.  Where was the concensus established? --StuffOfInterest 21:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dividing things up works for me.  Even though they're a tad wordy, I picked the third option for User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets. Rfrisbietalk 22:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with StuffOfInterest. I fail to see what was "unsatisfactory" with the category. —Mira 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you know that panicky feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when you get superglue on your fingers or spill coffee on an encyclopedia, when all you can do is run to the kitchen to get a damp cloth to wipe it up? I felt precisely that emotion upon seeing how the category had evolved to make the word "original" in the title a misnomer, and I felt responsible for that, on account of having started the spill by creating the category. This action cost me considerably, incidentally, because I effectively lost an entire night's sleep wiping up what I regard as spilt coffee before it irretrievably damaged the paper. So by the time I'd finished and wrote the above, I was really, really, really tired!! (I still feel a bit queezy.) Zerrakhi 09:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring of userspace archives 

message: I remember the days, long gone now, when seeing "this user" notices on userpages (styled after "this article" templates, implying that the Wikipedian is a product of Wikipedia just like Wikipedia articles, I suppose) gave me a chuckle here or there. I really find them just jarring by now, whatever happened to using the first person? But then, whatever happened to using your own words and your own imagination when describing yourself? If you even must describe yourself down to the last detail just to edit encyclopedia articles? Well, never mind me, I'm just an old Wikipedian stumbling in here muttering to himself before wandering back to where he came from, viz.  article namespace (that's the articles with no "User:" in their titles, you can find it e.g. by browsing :Category:Fundamental). dab (ᛏ) 17:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user thinks that everyone should be allowed to refer to themselves in whatever person the choose to. This user also wishes you happy editing! ;-) Misza13 T C 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: this user

message: Please read what is stated in the following talk page (it's short and I will paraphrase afterwards): Template talk:User Loves Azerbaijan.  Nagorno-Karabakh is a highly contentious area that's been fought over between Armenia and Azerbaijan (home of some very nationalistic users, I am neither one).  Here is the relevant summary adapted from the pretty well written article: 
:The region has been a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan since the final years of the Soviet Union, it is currently under Armenian military control, as a result of the subsequent war the took place between both countries in the aftermath of the dissolution Soviet Union, the NKR is a de facto state because its sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group, where, among other issues, the future status of the region is being discussed.
Thus the problem, there are clearly two sides to this debate: Armenia believes the area they conquered should be allowed to be independent (the rest of the world is holding on this), the Azeris say they want the area back/reunified --the whole story is a bit of a political mess engineered by Soviet rule (it's earlier history is also brought up in the Armenian SSR article).  There are two sides and, unsurprisingly, an attempt for two userboxes.  I don't think political userboxes should be permitted on Wikipedia, but at the same time I would like to see an even-handed either/or campaign.  So here's my though: Either "This user dreams of a Liberated Azerbaijan" should be undeleted or "This user supports the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh" should also be deleted.  Am I crazy to think this?  For full disclosure I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Azeri, but my work there has remained neutral (and is listed there and on my userpage). What should I do? --Bobak 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I want to preface my comment by saying that I'm largely ignorant of the underlying political controversy, and that my advice below is based only on what I view to be a good practice for political userboxes in general.)  I think probably the best thing to be done here would be to apply the German userbox solution and move such userboxes into userspace.  If someone wants to recreate the pro-liberated-Azerbaijan userbox, that should be done on a user subpage of one of the userbox's supporters.  (For example, if Baku87 wanted to recreate it, that userbox could be placed at User:Baku87/User Loves Azerbaijan).  I don't know if the pro-independence userbox is still out there or if it has been deleted, as a Google search for the phrase "This user supports the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh" turned up a lot of subst-ed copies, but no userbox template.  If it hasn't been deleted, then I think it too probably ought to be moved to a user subpage of one of its supporters.  That way, both sides can continue to have a userbox (if they so wish) in such a way that makes it clear that such advocacy is entirely by individual users and has no official connection or endorsement by Wikipedia—because it's on a user subpage rather than in the actual template namespace, the userbox has increased distance from the encyclopedia proper and Wikipedia isn't put in this position of needing to ensure that both sides of a conflict are equally represented in userbox templates. — Jeff | (talk) | 08:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to understand discrepancy, I want to solve this in one way or another: 

message: Until now, I haven't aired an opinion on userboxes. So here it is.
I believe most userboxes aren't beneficial to the encyclopedia, though I would class babel, status (Admin, MedCom, ArbCom, and such), as well as membership userboxes should be excepted.
These three exceptions benefit the Wikipedia in various ways. It makes it easier for users to identify who to contact for help, hence improving the Wikipedia.
Going around speedying userboxes is in my opinion disrupting the Wikipedia, perhaps to the exten of breaching WP:POINT. By speedying these userboxes you are creating more disruption than userboxes themselves. The reason for this is the DRVs and controversary which follows.
I oppose any placement of these in special namespaces as they serve no benefit to the Wikipedia whatsoever, which IMO doesn't grant a new namespace. IMO, they should be in the User: space.
To summarise, most userboxes are bad - but as is the way this is handled. Computerjoe's talk 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Opinion on Userboxes 

message: Hello. I created Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. This is a page where new Wikipedians can seek feedback on their edits and articles they write. They can then use the feedback to improve their editing skills as well as the article.
WP:RFF was never meant to be "just another new initiative". I hope to make it an integral part of Wikipedia. I am sure many serious newcomers would like feedback on their edits/articles, and RFF will be the place to go.
To make RFF successful and an integral part of Wikipedia, we will need links to RFF from high-exposure pages, as well as several editors who will regularly patrol RFF to give feedback.
Therefore, I am suggesting we make a userbox for RFF. The image could simply be the letters RFF. The text could be "This user regularly reads and responds to Requests for feedback" or something similar.
Hopefully someone could help me find a better wording, and add the userbox.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a start. Rfrisbietalk 14:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks! Now how do I get it listed on the appropriate official list of Wikipedia userboxes? Appropriate as in, there are userboxes for computers, languages, religion, etc. This would be under Wikipedia, of course. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting [[WP:RFF]] userbox. 

message: Well? Good idea or not? THe article named "Userboxes" has been deleted, so I can't do it my self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizrdwarts (talk • contribs) 12 June 2006 17:17 (UTC)
::Not. Cross-namespace redirects are generally discouraged. The reason you can't edit the Userboxes page is that it has been protected so that it cannot be made into a redirect again. —Mira 23:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reason how come? Wizrdwarts  T|C 21:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm...because cross-namespace redirects are discouraged as self-references. Think of the page "Userboxes" as an encyclopedia article. Should articles take us here? —Mira 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still plenty of other cross-namespace redirects on Wikipedia, though, including Wikipedia is not paper, no personal attacks disambiguation, and npov. -Silence 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If those were brought to WP:RFD, I would "vote" to delete them. I'd imagine the userbox redirect was deleted, and not these other ones, due to the controversial nature of userboxes themselves. —Mira 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect "Userboxes" here 

message: The direction on how to make a userbox are far too complicated.can someone please explain them in an easy way Dermo69.
::What is complicated about them?  Just use the  template and fill in the parameters as illustrated.  Simple as soda.  DJR (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to make a userbox

message: I've been trying to find a native Russian speaker on Wikipedia, and all I'm finding are idiots who flood their user pages with every single user box, including all the babel boxes. For example, User:F 22, and User:Dfrg.msc. Is there a policy against these blatant and misleading uses of babel boxes and other user boxes, and if not, should there be? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 12:17
:No and no. —Mira 04:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that deserves an explanation. The problem is that such a rule would be unenforceable. How would a user prove they speak a language at the level they say they can other than by another user talking to them in the language (and even that might not work). —Mira 04:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it would be virtually impossible to enforce such a policy for obvious reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy against false userboxes?