Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Archive 3

message: Whilst working through the adjustment of prefixes from Userbox to User, I noticed some userboxes that have no prefix at all I will just list them here for future reference as they are hard to find. --Grand Edgemaster Talk 23:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion to note userboxes out of the usual prefixes 

message: Hi, I've been maintaining the Userboxes pages for a while now but just joined the project. I couldn't find this anywhere, so forgive me if it's already written somewhere: on the Userboxes pages, is there a standard for using  instead of <nowiki> on the Code side of the table? Obviously nowiki is requred for userboxes that aren't a template, but I see the standard has been set to avoid this. Should we set a standard? I personally prefer  as it makes it easier to view the template page (especially useful to see who else is using a particular userbox). Cheers! -- Tetraminoe 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  tl vs. nowiki 

message: How do we deal with Template:User browser:Mozilla Firefox and Template:User fox. Both have the same text but a different image. Should the latter be moved to Template:User browser:Mozilla Firefox2?--Commander Keane 12:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two similar templates 

message: On Wikipedia:Userboxes we see that there are two ways of creating a userbox : or  {{Userbox|side-box colour|main box colour|side-box content|main box content}}
the second has been standardised , so only the prefix user is required, are there any simalar plans for the first method?
--DTR 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a dicussion somewhere over the renaming of the Userbox template to User, a discussion was/is being held at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Userboxes/Creation_templates --Grand Edgemaster Talk 13:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  standardisation 

message: I created Template:User folkdancer, but it looks rather awkward because, 1)I couldn't figure out how to abbreviate "International folk dancer", and 2)I couldn't find an appropratiate mini-photo. Any comments or help would be appreciated. I'm pretty sure there aren't many wikipedian folk dancers, but I can hope. --Fang Aili 01:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Created template

message: I opened a RFC on User:Cryptic due to his blocks against people protesting the mass deletions. Firebug 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My lord, this whole thing is becoming a circus. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC on [[User:Cryptic]]

message: I've been bold and modified a number of templates that group userboxes together (such as ) with a name/ID that can be used to suppress display of userboxes on userpages (for those who absolutely hate userboxes (not me)). If you know of any templates used to group together userboxes (or, if you don't use a template but instead use HTML directly on your page), please use the ID "userboxes". You can add it  tags by simply inserting id="userboxes" name="userboxes" (so you end up with ). Then, if you don't want userboxes to be displayed, simply modify your monobook.css (or whichever skin you use) by adding this line–
userboxes { display:none; }
I strongly suggest standardizing on this, and leaving a section on the WikiProject Userboxes page indicating how users may "disable" userboxes while browsing. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox display suppression

message: based on a suggestion at WP:VP. ++Lar: t/c 05:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted on Jimbo's Talk page a suggestion that if his time permits, he read The Mythical Man-Month because I believe there are project management insights there that apply to the inter-communication challenges of Wiki dispute resolution.  The size of his admin staff seems to me to be larger than the IBM staff described in the book, and even more in need of scientifically designed inter-personal infrastructures.  I also suggest that the book The Mythical Man-Month is worth reading by anyone who wants to help WP resolve the internal conflicts between volunteers who have quite different WP:POV on policy issues.  The book is a classic on how to do things, and how not to do things, that should be required reading pre-requisite for a lot of people around here that some day I would hope I could call my peers. User:AlMac|(talk) 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page [[Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes]] has been created 

message: :I posted on Jimbo's Talk page a suggestion that if his time permits, he read The Mythical Man-Month because I believe there are project management insights there that apply to the inter-communication challenges of Wiki dispute resolution.  The size of his admin staff seems to me to be larger than the IBM staff described in the book, and even more in need of scientifically designed inter-personal infrastructures.  I also suggest that the book The Mythical Man-Month is worth reading by anyone who wants to help WP resolve the internal conflicts between volunteers who have quite different WP:POV on policy issues.  The book is a classic on how to do things, and how not to do things, that should be required reading pre-requisite for a lot of people around here that some day I would hope I could call my peers. User:AlMac|(talk) 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  need propose policy on improving conflict resolution 

message: I know it seems initially trivial, but, considering the recent influx of Userbox deletion submissions of WP:TFD, plus the recent request for comment against Kelly Martin, a Wikipedia:Userboxes for Deletion page must be created, especially since all userboxes come with their own Wikipedian category as well (which would also need to be removed). Any comments? (Please feel free to move this to a Proposal page if you see fit.) --JB Adder | Talk 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Userboxes don't always come with a category do they? Many do but a few don't, I thought. Why would this be better than using TfD and CfD? ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Great idea! UfD would ensure that templates and categories are deleted (or kept) together. Also, it would reinforce the fact that userboxes are not limited by most Wikipedia policies because they are intended for use in the user namespace. Should UfD include only userboxes or should it expand to include other userspace templates such as those at Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace? --TantalumTelluride 16:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this, but since the "screw process" comment... I've been wondering about the effectiveness of group work -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 19:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good answer. Let's give up / out / in. 69.49.99.19 21:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *This is a great Idea - It would give us a chance to spell out official policy on the top of the UFD page so people would know when deletion is acceptable and when it is not.--God of War 09:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As per the discussion at Proposed policy on userboxes (see How do we define userbox?), I think this a good idea but needs a slight tweak: Call it Wikipedia:Userspace Content for Deletion or something like that, so it encompasses not just userboxes (a contentious issue now, but maybe not in 3 months) but other templates, categories, or images designed solely for use in the User: namespace. --Tetraminoe 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to create Userboxes for Deletion (UfD) 

message: I've recently gone through and subst'ed a number of userboxes that were against WP:AMT.  I had some problems, though, with subst'ing the userboxes that still used piped links (e.g., , , etc.)  Placing 'subst:' before 'Userbox' in those templates didn't provide satisfactory results.  If someone who has a better understanding of the 'switch' system could subst those, that would be appreciated.  The userboxes I came across (and skipped) that still use piped links are:
* 
*  split by User:Commander Keane
* 
*   Pipe Removed, I was creator and no one was using the pipe anyway 1001001 04:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Consider yourself Tireless-Contributor-barnstarred. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 13:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Just saw this). Wow, thanks!  And thanks to everyone on the project that's been going through removing the fair use images and subst'ing the meta-templates (I think there was maybe one userbox that hadn't been subst'ed in the entire Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location hierarchy by the time I'd gotten to it, so we definitely have some very thorough contributors.)  I think it's really beneficial that this WikiProject has been so quickly bringing the userboxes (or userboxen, if you prefer) into compliance with policy—especially now, when userboxes need to have their best foot forward.  — Jeff | (talk) | 11:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like  is having trouble with the WikiTable syntax that's used after Userbox has been subst'ed.  These can be re-done using HTML table syntax, which switch doesn't seem to mind, though that's a rather inelegant solution. (e.g., see my sandbox for the HTML-table version of .)  Anyone have any other ideas, or should we just HTML-ify the tables in those userboxes that use switch?  — Jeff | (talk) | 10:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that since  is a template, any use of it in a userbox is a violation of WP:AMT. So, you can wait until after the useage of switch is removed (=lots of individual userboxen), then subst.--Commander Keane 16:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  subst'ing piped links 

message: Will members of the Userbox project please agree that the plural of "userbox" should be "userboxen"? This is a wonderful application of the Germanic plural, and makes for great mirth. And it just fits. So userboxen, please. Even changing the name of the project to reflect this would be a good idea. Thank you. Babajobu 09:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the german wikipeida, although i'm agreeing with you. Userboxen kicks ass, as we argued  about for two hours in IRC. - iGod 11:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Babajobu, it has a nice ring to it. If I start using "userboxen", can I direct any queries about it to you?--Commander Keane 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, CommanderKeane, I will happily receive all queries on the use of "userboxen". Babajobu 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise no one is asking me, mut I'll give my two pennies anyway.  It doesn't sound that great, and would look pretty silly... so I'd personally say not in a million years.  And I got an A* at German GCSE!   Deano (Talk) 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think switching to a kewl 1337 suffix is just the wrong thing to do if one wants this topic taken seriously, so I think going with regular English usage is the way to go. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although since first reading this I have found myself using Userboxen a number of times, I don't think the name of the project should be changed. Keith Greer  14:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A plea for the Germanic plural

message: I have taken my name off of the members list. I currently, and never want to be, active on a WikiProject with so much controversy involved. I don't think I'll ever rejoin this project after these past few days. 
All I have seen are 2 RFAr's surrounded by the topic of user boxes/templates from here:
*WP:RFAR#Kelly_Martin.2C_Snowspinner_and_Tony_Sidaway  
*WP:RFAR#Wheel_warring
And 2 RFC's filed surrounding the user boxes. 
*Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3 
*Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 
I don't see how filing RFC's and RFAr's are supposed to settle problems around here. All this could potentially do is drive away these users. Snowspinner already went on wikibreak. I think everyone involved, voting and otherwised involved should grow up, none of this taken personally though. All I'm saying is instead of pointing fingers, we should have tried to work things out amongst the wikipedians instead of blaming one another for actions that could drive them away and make them pursue further action. I don't see how removing someone's admin powers is going to resolve the conflict at hand. Everyone make mistakes once in a while and I don't think we should remove admin powers every time someone makes a mistake. What should have been done was to conduct a meeting somewhere, preferably here, about the matter and come up with a solution like the suggestion above (Userboxes for Deletion or UfD's). If this could have been talked out, maybe we could have avoided this little incident here and maybe no one would have been called up for RFC/RFAr. I not saying what they did wasn't wrong but I don't think we should try and burn people at the stake for every little conflict. — Moe ε 04:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaving this project

message: I created  for people who want to present information about themselves in a standardized way, but don't want a ton of userboxes. Basically it's one big configurable userbox which can be used to present the same info as 30 (or whatever) individual boxes. An example can be viewed on the template page itself and a slightly less whimsical usage can be seen at User:CBDunkerson. The template is very much in a 'draft' format at this point, so feel free to add/change sections. Since it hides any information not set there is no reason this couldn't include 'contact information' for every conceivable means of contacting a person (main email, secondary email, google email, IRC, ICQ, live journal, telephone, postal address, et cetera), every conceivable religion and sub-group (|religion=invisible pink unicorn, |christian=1|catholic=1|lapsed=1, et cetera), every wikiproject, et cetera. I set this up to default to the same width as a standard 'babelbox', so it can be used in conjunction with babel and other userboxes. Also, before anyone asks... no this is not a meta-template. It is a single call to 'User Infobox' which doesn't call any other templates. --CBD ☎ ✉ 14:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another new toy 

message: The Chinese zodiac userboxen (found here) have been split and are ready for subst'ing. I would do it myself, but cleaning up the mess after substitution boggles me (wasn't there a subpage for this, I couldn't seem to find it).--Commander Keane 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  — Jeff | (talk) | 11:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese zodiac userboxen ready to be subst'ed 

message: The proposal for 'Userboxes for Deletion' has been put forth; I would like to conduct a discussion to discover whether it would be supported. Please also consder making it 'Userpage templates for deletion' (can still be UfD), to cover a more broader base but still be able to consider specific userpage policy. All comments are welcomed. Ian13ID:540053 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide a link to the proposal pages? Thanks! (yes it's searchable but the poor server doesn't need the extra load, it seems) ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support this proposal, if i had a link to it... -  «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» T | C 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UfD 

message: There is now a Wikiproject Userboxes IRC channel where real-time discussions can be held. Need advice or just a chat, just drop in. #wikipedia-en-userboxes. --Grand Edgemaster and Ian13 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically unauthorised at the moment, awaiting authorisation from User:Fennec. --Grand Edgemaster Talk 22:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was denied, so it is at ##wikipedia-en-userboxes, where permission is not required (freenode call it an about channel). Ian13ID:540053 17:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this still in use? I couldn't find anyone there. Or is there a mailing list for this project? --Epeius Hippos 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC Channel 

message: How can we change the Wikipedia policy to allow logos onto userboxes? A lot of userboxes are having to be modified to comply with the existing policy at the moment, and with such a strong support for userboxes, wouldn't it be sensible for a policy change? I've looked around and can't find any extensive discussions on this matter. mdmanser 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that would make policy violate the law. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CAVEAT EMPTOR: That's only her opinion, and it's a minority one. Image use in user boxes, technically, would fit fair use guidelines. There are indeed discussions going on, you just have to find them. --CJ Marsicano 16:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, buyer beware indeed... there is another body of opinion that holds fair use is only for purposes of review or comment, and that user boxes don't fall into that usage. I'm not sure it's fair to characterise it as minority, nor am I sure it's useful to let opinion drive WP to do something that would get it in legal trouble. IANAL but someone here has to be, and perhaps could give meaningful legal advice to those that would get sued if things went awry (the foundation). Users aren't the ones at risk here, WP itself is. ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use policy change 

message: I have created a template, , to assist in userbox cleanup where an immediate descision cannot be made. This template should be included as follows:
 
A reason for why the template was included must be placed on the talk page.
Once an item has been tagged, it will be placed into the userboxes in need of cleanup category. --Grand Edgemaster Talk 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup template 

message: * I noticed that :Category:WikiProject Userboxes is inside :Category:WikiProject Userboxes.
* You can say that again, an infinite number of times. User:AlMac|(talk) 09:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Recursive]] Category 

message: Jimbo wrote the following on wikien-l:
:I'm not going to be heavy handed about this, but I would recommend that as a general social rule, we try to refrain from self-identifying as advocates within the context of Wikipedia.  Given that we're trying to work together collaboratively on a _neutral_ encyclopedia project, it seems to me to be not relevant and perhaps leaning towards the unhealthy to do so.
Kelly Martin (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I comment that Jimbo is not God. I would also like to question why he didn't post this somewhere himself, and that IRC logs are not acceptable on wikipedia (could have been anyone, not wikipedia servers, and the last person who posted logs was banned). I also question if he was refering specifically to userboxes, and that fact is, if you support something its not going to change anything by posting a note saying so on your userpage, is not going to change anything. I would be more prepared to see a consider a Wikipedia from him atleast. Ian13ID:540053 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree with Jimbo here. There is a conflict of policy/guidelines here. The  userpage is where a user can briefly describe his/her self and interests. Virtually all self-descriptions could be constrewed as bias, and it is inevitable that a user's "leanings" will be expressed one way or the other. However, as Wikipedians, we all strive towards NPOV. Perhaps by declaring our interests and possible biases, we become more self-aware of our own POV. --Fang Aili 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I rather be honest in showing my own beliefs and such on my userpage and still strive to do NPOV edits in encyclopedic content than vice-versa (claiming to be totally unbiased and submitting POV edits) TCorp 02:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I share Jimbo's concern, up to a point. Being polemical and acting as advocates of POVs is harmful to Wikipedia. However, it's also important that we learn to be Civil to other people even if they have a userbox which tells us they have different views. Also it's useful to be able to find people who are very interested in particular topics. I wrote a bit more about this issue here, but the bottom line is that we while shouldn't suppress our POV, we should be respectful and not argumentative, being more conscious of this the stronger our POV. --Singkong2005 06:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from Jimbo 

message: made a cleanup of user wikipedia, but a bunch of boxes does not fit there or I don't know what to do:
:
:
:
:
CVU already have a box, no need fow two of them, →AzaToth 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  user wikipedia cleanup 

message: The babel level description list with the proposed level included:
* xx-0 if you don't understand the language at all. Don't use it for every language you don't know; only when there is some reason why you might be expected to know it.
* xx-S if you are a student of the language who is actively making effort to reach a basic understanding of the language.
* xx-1 for basic ability - enough to understand written material or simple questions in this language.
* xx-2 for intermediate ability - enough for editing or discussions.
* xx-3 for advanced level - though you can write in this language with no problem, some small errors might occur.
* xx-4 for 'near-native' level - although it's not your first language from birth, your ability is something like that of a native speaker.
* xx (no dash or number) is to indicate that you are a "native speaker" who has grown up speaking this language.
Why a new level?  Because there is a significant gap between no knowledge at all (and presumably not even a desire to know) and a basic level of knowledge such that someone can read and possibly even communicate in the language.  For example, I love Icelandic and am making a free-time effort to learn it, but I can't claim "basic knowledge" of it, but neither do I know "nothing at all" and don't wish to claim absolutely no knowledge.  Hence the need for a level between the two.  I propose "xx-S" (referring to student) so that the existing boxes don't have to be changed to accomodate the new level. -- Guðsþegn 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Ian13ID:540053 19:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool. Good idea. I like it. --Fang Aili 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I will also propose it on the Babel discussion page first. --   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather like that, since I'm not really comfortable with de-1 for myself.  de-S would be a better match. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <font color=red>Babel boxen proposed level for students  '''xx-S'''</font> 

message: I proposed this at WP:KC, but with userboxes being a rather err.. contentious issue at the moment I thought I'd better ask here. Basically, for people who prefer for their user page to be just userboxes, an alternative template award which uses the same syntax and fields as the normal award template but in the userbox form. See this test page for working examples. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created it at template:User star. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Someing like "This user has X barnstars"? That would be nice. The Republican 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar Userbox 

message: Do we have any sort of coordinated plan to check for fair use images in userboxes (before the userboxes are nominated for deletion)? Maybe we should have a list of userbox categories, and someone can check off sections after they've checked the images. --Fang Aili 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a table in which we can keep track of image-checking. I've listed the userbox categories. Once you've checked for and deleted all fair use images from those userboxes, replace unchecked with Checked, and sign/date. The date will, in theory, allow us to more easily check any userboxes added to those categories after that date. (If you think this is a dumb idea or you think the table can be improved, I'm certainly open to suggestions.) --Fang Aili 22:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinate efforts to check for fair use images

message: I know about the code,I just don't know where to put it. 
1/13/06 8:30 PM EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudtz (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 January 2006
* Put it in your userspace till you're happy with it. Test it by doing inclusion elsewhere on your space. Once you have it looking the way you want, and you have thought long and hard about whether it is appropriate as a generally usable template (doesn't contain copyvio images or text, doesn't attack people, doesn't cause divisiveness to the project, will be of interest to more than you, isn't a template whose sole purpose is vote stacking (summing up some of the userbox discussion, read it here for more: WP:UBP)) then add categories to it (if appropriate!!! not always appropriate!!!) and do a move on it from userspace to templatespace. Hope that helps. Ask again if not clear! ++Lar: t/c 05:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I create one? 

message: Any userbox with the template label  as opposed to  is now showing up as . I do not know how to fix this, so I ask your assistance. for example the userbox for recent changes patrolers--CastAStone|(talk) 05:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look here: Template_talk:User_wikipedia. I have no idea what exactly is going on but it looks like it's not fixable by non admins till whatever it is that is at issue is resolved. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, someone objected to the time it was taking us to split stuff, so protected it - but badly. No-can-do unless you can find an admin who will fix. Ian13ID:540053 10:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have visted all the "What links here" for  and fixed the broken userboxes. Strangely CastAStone's userpage wasn't in the "What links here" (but I fixed it just now). Anyway, hopefully most of the borken userboxes are fixed now.--Commander Keane 12:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken boxes? 

message: On the main page it says all the templates starting with "userbox" were delt with (or at least I think thats what it says) but I found 3.  Userbox Night (which I moved to Template:user Night), Template:Userbox preference & Template:Userbox Love.  I got unsure of myself after I saw more "userbox" prefix's.  Should these be moved or did I screw up?  --ShakataGaNai 19:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone is making userboxes without reading the how-to. I moved the other two. *sigh* - TCorp 21:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aparently.  Ok - well next time I'll just move them anyways.  I was just unsure.  Thanks!  --ShakataGaNai 21:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates Starting with Userbox 

message: Was the userbox debate ever resolved? I stopped reading the Kelly Martin RfC after a while. Did anything really happen? --Fang Aili 05:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll, she resigned from ArbComm and that's it. Not that if she didn't she could have clung on, but at least that's something. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I suppose at the least it teaches other admins to beware when deleting large numbers of files without discussion. --Fang Aili 16:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, I suppose that what happened could be described as 'she resigned'... however, it could also be described as 'her term ran out and she wasn't re-elected'. As to the userboxes... the debate continues. --CBD ☎ ✉ 16:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the debate

message: I wonder if you might consider...
I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political userboxes and asking others to do the same.  This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.
Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project.  They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.
I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time.  Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it helps people assume good faith, about one's political-related edits, then I'm all for it.  --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 12:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't wikipedia all about various people coming together to make an encyclopedia? People from all walks of life and political backgrounds? With all sorts of ideologies and beliefs? Did I miss something there? Or are well all in fact to be no more than mindless, opinionless edit drones? Surely, we all strive to write NPOV edits, but no one should be forced in hiding their political or ideological background. There should be consequences for people that push points of view in articles, not for those that state their personal beliefs on userpages. - TCorp 15:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you did miss something. WIKIPEDIA IS NEVER CENSORED --Shell 16:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am against userboxes that are incendiary in nature (i.e. "Democrats suck!"), but I do not see any harm in declaring oneself a Democrat, Buddhist, etc., while understanding that we all strive towards NPOV in articles. I also do not think a policy against "polemical" userboxes is possible, because the community will never agree on what exactly constitutes "polemical". I also think you, Jimbo, are risking the alienation of quite a few dedicated Wikipedians by calling them "the wrong kinds of people". --Fang Aili 17:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. It's not really WP:AGF to me to state their beliefs are for the worse to Wikipedia. Ian13ID:540053 17:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note from Jimbo 

message: This is the new project to take care of projectboxes. Many considerations and necessary skills are same as for this project, so please join. Zocky | picture popups 18:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Projectboxes|WikiProject Projectboxes]] 

message: I realize that adding "subst:" to a template will allow it to be rendered code-wise onto the user page, but that page still be listed in the "What Links Here" portion of the template? Kareeser|Talk! 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Subst:ing a template into a page will remove that page from the template's "What links here" list. There's really no reason to subst: templates on your user page, though; WP:AUM only applies to the use of templates on pages in the Template namespace. —Andux 07:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, right, that clears it up. Thanks! Kareeser|Talk! 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  The reason to use subst is not because of WP:AUM but rather so that people can't find your templates via categories or "what links here" and try to influence your vote in various controversies (so called Wikipedia:Vote stacking) ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of subst: tag 

message: .........--God of War 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a userbox. I cut & pasted it from Uncyclopedia, then adjusted it accordingly. I think it's pretty funny. --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Kind of a big userbox, don't you think? =P Kareeser|Talk! 02:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hilarious! Unfortunately, that's a fair use image. Otherwise I'd probably steal it for my userpage. :) --Fang Aili 03:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask and ye shall recieve. I think this image is fair game. --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 12:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, both userboxes are great :-) -  • Dussst • T | C 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't think anything made by Michaelangelo is still under copyright fer chrissakes.  --Cyde Weys 21:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't comment on old discussions when you don't know what was going on. The image he used before the Michaelangelo one was this. --Fang Aili 03:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If any one you want to add this to your userpage, I made it into  instead of that HTML gooblegook. --Harrington is like Montana 20:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I've added it to my userpage. --Fang Aili 05:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My lastest creation.........

message: Two of my userboxes have turned into something else recently:
*  changed from something like "This user doesn't really believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn" to "This user is religious". Not exactly the same meaning:-)  AdelaMae says it happened because the person who took over doing the split didn't fix the userpages.
*  changed from something like "This user is not an administrator and does not want to become one" to "This user is a member of Wikipedia".  Well, isn't every user?
If you don't have a safer way to catch such changes, it seems to me like it would be better to by default disable or delete "strange" userboxes when you cange their meaning, than to replace them with default messages like this.  And go through userpages and fix them if necessary, but then it'll matter less if you don't.  And/or maybe leave a message about it in the users's talk page if you feel industrious, though in my case the boxes were just silly stuff I wouldn't mind losing. HFuruseth 07:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they have been recently split. It generally seems to be / or : rather than |. What links here is broken at the moment, so I think people are catching what they can. Ian13ID:540053 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Subst-ing the  template causes some unforseen problems with  etc., which was likely the case here. -Xol 03:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the looks of it, it now loads  and then tries to find a variable to assign "invisible pink unicorn" to, and the same with  trying to find a value for "anti-administrator". The templates are now found at  and  respectively. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two bad substitutions 

message: I was going over some things, and I discovered on Wikipedia:List of userboxes that redirects of userboxes are listed.
An example:
*Template:User AWWD
*Template:User AWWD...
are both listed on the page when it actuallt redirects to Template:User wikipedia:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD which is not listed. Could someone please go over the list and add Template:User wikipedia:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD and take off redirects. — Moe ε 05:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:List of userboxes]]

message: I've noticed a number of red links in various userbox catagories, esp. of controversial userboxes.  Does anyone know what's up?  Are the anti-userbox extremists at it again? --Dragon695 10:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the deletion log to see who deleted a particular userbox and why. You could view the past 5000 deletions and use you browser to search for "Template:User" to find relevant deletions.--Commander Keane 11:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral deletion? 

message: Why are we generalizing the Newspaper templates? Does anyone know what's up? I thought we were only getting rid of duplicates, but not generalizing. --Dragon695 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspapers 

message: Currently there are several variations of category naming resultant from userboxes, three I've noticed being:
*Category:User …
*Category:Users who … OR Category:… Users
*Category:Wikipedians … OR Category:… Wikipedians
and a few that don't indiciate self-reference, such as :Category:Su Doku players. I think there should be a more consistent way of naming categories for Wikipedians. KramarDanIkabu 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, this is something that I think can stand to be fixed. KramarDanIkabu 19:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox categories 

message: I've added what may very well be a good basis for a template for this wikiproject to the debian and openbsd talk pages, it may be a good addition to the collection.
	has a category and userbox dedicated to its users, which means that users can show their affiliation to  by adding the userbox or category link to their user page. Check the user category located at :Category: users.
Though it likely warrents modification here to make sure it works for linking variables for the userbox and category, since not every subject has both but several have one or the other.  65.94.58.104 10:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a template idea 

message: Some people are trying to sneak a new line of text into the criteria for speedy deletion. It says divisive or offensive userboxes can be speedily deleted. There is no consensus or talk page discussion on this, only a brewing revert war. Now Tony Sidaway has used this brand new speedy deletion criteria to try and get rid of Template:User pacifist3 which is in the middle of an active TFD. Please voice your opinion on this before some admins go on a userbox deletion rampage.--God of War 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late, it appears that Doc, MarkSweep, and Tony Sidaway are at it again. --Dragon695 06:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion of divisive userboxes 

message: How could I organize my userboxes? It's just one big line going all the way down the page. --Revolución (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a table? Or maybe look at how the users in :Category:User ubx-5 organise their userboxen.--Commander Keane 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of userboxes

message: One of the userboxes on my user page is up for speedy deletion, and now my whole userpage falls under a category of being considered for speedy deletion! How do we fix that? --D-Day 21:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why we musn't speedy userboxes... 

message: I'll give you a hint it rymes with "Smuserbox/Alert"... so, was it polmatic and divisive? or did it just help with a bit of transparancy in the userbox debate? Mike McGregor (Can) 11:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's missing here 

message: How about creating a new namesace Userbox: instead of slapping them all in Template: ? Infinity0 talk 18:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *They're helpful to me. TheJabberwʘck 02:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New namespace Userbox instead of Template 

message: I've requested that Template:User PresidentBush be unprotected explicitly so that it can be recreated and TfD can run its course. we'll see how that goes i guess...Mike McGregor (Can) 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: trying request for unprotect for a protected deleted userbox

message: As a WP:RCP, I know a vandal when I see one.  So I'm disgusted by the recent spate of admins -- people who should know beter -- who are deleting userboxes without running them through TfD, informing the "what links here" users, or following the Wikipedia:Userbox#Administrators policy.  Is anyone currently in Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution over this?  If not, I volunteer to head up the committee.  I am utterly convinced that userboxes are necessary to preserve NPOV on the articles, so I am willing to give up all of my other Wiki duties so that I have enough time to work on a solution for this blatant abuse of deletion power.--M@rēino 04:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember jimbo isn't god, people are intitled to follow dispute channels, especially where there is a valid dispute. Ian13/talk 19:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution]] 

message: Some of you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/February userbox deletion. --Fang Aili 18:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Doesn't Template:User queerrights need to be added here? Moe ε 04:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts]]

message: I am trying to create a new userbox for the Cleanup Taskforce that links to the desk of the user upon whose page it sits. My current work is found User:Averykrouse/Cleanup here. Essentially what I need it to do is to replace the "here" link with one that will direct to User:EXAMPLE/Desk where EXAMPLE is replaced with the userpage it's used on, no matter who is using it. Can someone help me? Feel free to edit the code there at my page if you can fix it for me. (This is my first attempt at userboxes, mind you, save the User:Keyboard category.) Thanks! --Avery W. Krouse 06:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CT Userbox Code 

message: Maybe for better organization of Wikipedia's userboxes, we can split them up into positve/negative, if appropriate. For example, the Opinion of Band can be split up into positive i.e. This user listens to Green Day and negative i.e. This user does not like Green Day. You can also see my userboxesOsbus 14:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postive/negative 

message: I'm afraid that this is terribly improper and I'm gonna get flamed, but you people are likely to be the experts and I can't think of anything else to help me. This is an appeal for help to the members of this project, not the project itself. I've inserted (using subst) some userboxes into my userpage, but they are  scattered without any layout. How can I arrange these into a neat rectangular table of all the userboxes? The original templates are included as comments below the substituted code. Please, someone help me claer up the huge mess that is my userpage. Thanks a lot. Loom91 19:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used some boboxtop and boxboxbottom templates to columnize mine here. --maru   (talk)  contribs 02:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help 

message: I seem to recall reading somewhere here that using company logos in userboxen does not qualify as fair use. Is this true, and if so, is there a different way they can be used?To be specific, I want to create two boxen, an ATI and a nVidia graphics card user one, to go with the AMD/Intel processor pair. --SheeEttin 23:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UBs not fair use? 

message: Is there a list of available or appropriate fonts to use on Wikipedia? I'm not sure which would be alright to use in making Userboxes, and I'd like to know. --Chris Griswold 09:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fonts? 

message: how do you make this userbox a template of its own?
√αʑʑρεɾ 02:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I am having trouble with userboxes..

message: There is talk of merging all existing Time zone userboxes into one userbox which takes the timezone as a variable. Current implementations are zone-specific or are based on either UTC or GMT offset. My proposal to replace the timezones is Template:User timezone. I'm want to get an idea of what people think of this, and maybe some help in phasing out the old boxes. --horsedreamer 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Time]] 

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 23:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about templates, but I copied some code from another user. See the bottom of the right-hand column on my page. --Singkong2005 07:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Babel-like template

message: I'm a member of Engineers Without Borders (Australia), and was thinking it would be useful to have a userbox and category for members of an organization like this one. it would help in identifying other members of the same organization who also edit Wikipedia, which would aid collaboration (through meeting up at conferences or other gatherings). If I were going to a national conference for EWB, I could arrange to meet up with other Wikipedians there, which would be very cool. Do other editors think that userboxes for such organizations would be a good thing?
I've realized that this same argument applies to political parties. This is a more tricky issue - there's more likely to be POV issues and even editing agendas. I am a member of a political party, and using userboxes would help to be able to identify people who are members... But it's a two-edged sword. Personally I'm more committed to accuracy and NPOV than I am to my party, but many others would easily be tempted into collaborating editing with a POV. 
My mind isn't made up on this issue, but I'm starting to be inclined away from political userboxes. If they were to be useful for the purposes mentioned above, though, it would be more useful to have locality based categories, such as "Members of the Thingy Party in Arizona", rather than a global "Thingy Wikipedians".
If political and belief-based userboxes are going to continue to be used, then I have some suggestions:
*Suggest that all POV userboxes be placed on a subpage, e.g. I might create User:Singkong2005/POV userboxes.
*Create and encourage the use of a userbox to go above the POV ones, which says something like:  "The following userboxes are meant to show the interests of this user, or to facilitate interaction with fellow Wikipedians who are members of the same organization. This user is committed to NPOV and respects other users regardless of belief or affiliation." (It would be a deeper than than usual userbox.)
*Create non-POV userboxes and list them on pages such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political Parties, next to POV boxes, with a note encouraging the use of these non-POV boxes in preference. Actually this seems pretty difficult... it's hard to summarize the interests of a Democrat, Tory, or Greens member/voter. A Greens voter is likely to be interested in the Environment, Ecology, [[Alternative economics and International development... and more, so that's a bigger bunch of userboxes. Another example: something like "This user is interested in alternative energy sources" could be a more non-POV alternative to "This user supports the use of wind power and electric vehicles," so that it reflects an interest regardless of the POV held. Of course, this isn't perfect, as an interest in environmental issues does tend to indicate someone with certain POVs, and an interest in animal welfare (which might be one alternative to the vegan userbox) is likely to indicate a certain view about animals. 
It's worth thinking about these things, as it looks like POV userboxes are going to be with us for some time yet. There appears to be a large minority who are very keen to keep them and who feel that such userboxes are a positive thing. --Singkong2005 07:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxes for political parties and other groups 

message: I'm about ready to throw the towel in on the userbox debate. The constant DRV's and edit wars have me drained, emotionally and physically. As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and delete, just be sure to subst the ones I have. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't let the turkeys get you down!  TheJabberwʘck 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see the ongoing changes to WP:CSD that may make most userboxes speedy deletion candidates. — xaosflux Talk 03:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving up 

message: Another effort to develop a policy on userboxes, proposed userbox policy, is in development.  Please consider contributing to this effort. Rfrisbietalk 15:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help develop a policy on userboxes