View source for Wikipedia talk:Userboxes

{{WP:UBX}}
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Archive 1|October 2005 &ndash; December 2005]]
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Archive 2|December 2005 &ndash; January 2006]]
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Archive 3|January 2006 &ndash; February 2006]]
*
*
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

<small>''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes|action=purge}} Refresh page (Purge server cache)]''</small>
:''For [[Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas|userbox ideas]], see '''''[[Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas]]'''''
:''For [[Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New Userboxes|Recently Created or Changed Userboxes]], see '''''[[Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New Userboxes]]'''''
{{clear}}{{WP:UB/A|right}}

==Fair use==

Could we see a bit more self regulation in this area?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 12:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

*Indeed. Re-iterating what it says at [[Wikipedia:Userboxes]], "The use of copyrighted work as fair use is not allowed on templates". A significant number of the interests userboxes are using fair use images, mostly logos. I've removed a small number of these but many more need to have these images removed. Based on recent events, it's likely that such activity is going to result in problems. Therefore, I'm asking (despite the presence of the above quote) if there is any defense of these images being used on the userboxes? --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 21:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

== Images size, 45px vs 43px ==

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:

{|
|
{{User browser:Mozilla Firefox}}
{{user CVU2-en}}
|}

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. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 18:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

*That is fine for iconified images. Howver, with pictures in userboxes 43px produces an ugly and un-needed colored frame around the picture. That's why I like to bump things up to 45px.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 04:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Featured Userbox ==

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.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 05:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

{{user proud to be a Wikipedian}} 	

{{user 1RR}}

==Seperate Help Desk Talk Page==

Should we create a new help talk page, where wikipedians ask question and another answer it? --[[User:RaptorX|RaptorX]] 18:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

== Jimbo's request ==

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? -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Dalbury]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
: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. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Dalbury]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 23:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
::[[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn's]] compromise wording works for me, and I won't contest it. --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 00:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:::As I said, I won't try to insert my version again, and I'm also comfortable with Sam Korn's wording. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Dalbury]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

== Polemical userboxes ==

:{{userbox|#33CCCC|#33DDDD|NPUB|This user supports the summary deletion of polemical userboxes.}}
:At the current point in time, this box would be itself polemical. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler]] [[User_talk:KeithTyler|&para;]] 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

== Speedy deletion of divisive userboxes ==

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.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:By now, this idea of 'speeediliy deleting divisive userboxes' has turned into complete anti-[[NPOV]] orgy: [[User:MarkSweep]] has deleted several times (now irreversably...) [[Template:No_Marxism]], while other so-called 'divisive' infoboxes continue: we have here [[Template:User_anti-imperialist]], [[Template:User_anti-fascism]] etc. 

:I suggest keeping them, and I also recommend restoring my infobox and banning users who have bypassed legal limits of their power in wikipedia. [[User:Constanz|Constanz]] - [[User_talk:Constanz|Talk]] 10:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:BTW, those who claim [[Template:No_Marxism]] may be deleted due to 'divisive or inflammatory' nature fall into ridiculous trap -- according to their way of thinking, '''a lot of infoboxes should be deleted, including all pro-Marxist ones''' (and its socialist-communist heirs), '''for being divisive''' (bourgois exploitators, the proletariat...) '''and inflammatory''' (Class war...). [[User:Constanz|Constanz]] - [[User_talk:Constanz|Talk]] 11:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::It's as though a million userboxes cried out in terror, and then were suddenly silent...[[User:Dr. B|Dr. B]] 03:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Long live the Rebel Alliance!!! [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 11:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]]

== Policy proposal to move userboxes out of template space ==

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but [[WP:UUB|this]] just cropped up on my radar. I'm really want to [[WP:FAITH|AGF]], but I believe it is a deliberate attempt to sidestep the public debate going on [[WP:UBP|here]] and formulate policy which doesn't reflect the consensus of the community as a whole. It would appear that only the anti-userbox activists and their acolytes are actually contributing to it. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:''(N.B.: While the following is minimally in response to Dragon695's above criticisms of [[WP:UUB]], it is largely in response to the general issue of userboxes on Wikipedia.  Any reference to ''you'' beyond the first paragraph should be viewed as a reference to the reader and not to Dragon695.)''

:You'd be well advised to continue [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]].  For the record, I'm a supporter of this proposal and I have contributed to the discussion (leading, indirectly, to a minor change in the proposal text); I'm neither anti-userbox, nor an acolyte of those who are.  Now I wouldn't call myself pro-userbox, but I've been a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes]] for some time and have worked to cleanup a number of userboxes to help maintain policy compliance.  Until now, I haven't backed a proposal on either side of the issue, primarily because I've tried to stay away from the contentiousness on this topic.  (As an aside, I've been largely unsuccessful at this, and have found a disheartening number of [[meta:DICK|dick]]s on both sides of this debate; I really think this conflict has done more to hinder the ability to assume good faith and to raise the polemicism in the atmosphere more than any userbox could.)  Not that I was necessarily being included in Dragon695's generalization, but I wanted to make it clear where I come from on this issue before discussing my support of [[WP:UUB]].

:Enough about me. About the proposal: We're not against public debate, and we're not trying to impose a solution against consensus.  We just want to offer a solution that might help to reduce the conflict before it escalates much further to the point of drastic action.  The proposal was promoted, I believe, on the talk page of [[WP:UBP]], so we're also not trying to be obscure about it.  The proposal on userbox policy has served to help flesh out some of the related issues, and has also provided a place for people to sound-off with their arguments.  IIRC, it originally offered debates over specific policy proposals, but that was abandoned in preference of more general, initial discussion of userboxes.  [[WP:UUB]] (which stands for '''Use of Userboxes''') suggests a specific solution: content created by users for use in describing themselves and/or other users ought to be in the User namespace (aside from a few exceptions, as noted on the proposal and discussed on the talk page).  Aside from resident namespace, this proposal really doesn't make any further policy statements regarding userbox content; residing in the User namespace, userboxes would be subjected to the [[WP:USER|userspace guidelines]] and related policies like [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]].  The proposal wouldn't solve every problem, and it probably isn't going to satisfy everyone's concerns on both sides of the debate, but it does help fix a couple of issues:
:#By placing userboxes into the User namespace, it's more clear what policies and guidelines apply to them.  The current situation, where userboxes are in the Template namespace, involves disputed userboxes being sent to [[WP:TFD]] which is probably better suited to discussing the deletion of article and/or project related templates.  Since it's argued that userboxes ought to be less restricted than regular templates (e.g., userboxes need not be [[WP:NPOV]] or [[WP:CITE]]d), they ought not be judged by the deletion criteria for Templates.  The lack of speedy-deletion criteria for templates has also meant that any speedy-deletions of userboxes (some justified, IMHO) have been officially outside of [[WP:PI|process]].  (Note that Jimbo has imposed a new speedy-deletion criteria for templates&mdash;seemingly created specifically to deal with the userbox-as-template situation&mdash;that says that templates that are intentionally divisive and/or inflammatory can be speedy-deleted; discussion is at [[WT:SPEEDY]].)  Having userboxes in User namespace places them under the more appropriate guidelines at [[WP:USER]] which are more suited for autobiographical/user content than the template rules.
:#Moving userboxes from the official and centralized Template namespace into the personal and decentralized User namespace also more clearly represents userboxes as being the statements of individual editors and doesn't represent any sort of (pseudo-)official position of Wikipedia/Wikimedia.  This might also lend some legitimacy to the position of pro-userboxers who want to claim that userboxes represent an extension of their userspace, and that the content of userboxes ought to enjoy the same amount of freedom that has been traditionally afforded to regular user pages.  This also might help to combat the problem, as claimed by some anti-userboxers, that having a centralized userbox template results in grouping people by 'bumper-sticker' ideologies.  Moving from a single and established source for ideological userboxes to decentralized sources from individual users might encourage users to make more personalized userboxes to more specifically state their views.  For example, instead of using the generic &#123;{[[Template:user liberal|user liberal]]}} template promoted at [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs]] (and thus linking oneself with the hundreds of other users of that template via Whatlinkshere), users might instead be encouraged to create their own userbox in their userspace that more accurately reflects their views (for example, "This user is a '''[[social liberal]]''' who believes in maximizing [[civil liberties]] and taking a moderate approach toward [[economic liberalism]].")

:Aside from the practical implications of the proposal, there's another reason (one I'll likely regret bringing up here) I support this proposal: the current situation is not sustainable, and (ultimately) neither is the position of the pro-userbox faction.  I think (one of the few) positions which we can all agree on is that the level of contentiousness on this issue is unhealthy for the project.  I'm sure both sides would like to see the divisiveness on this issue go away, but (perhaps not unexpectedly) each side wants the issue resolved on their own terms with minimal concessions.  I've seen pro-userboxers who have argued that anti-userboxers want to take away their [[WP:FREE|freedoms]], and that we wouldn't have all this dispute and disruption of the project if anti-userboxers would just leave userboxes alone, and instead focused on the encyclopedia.  On the other hand, some of the anti-userboxers (and I think [[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Userboxes|Jimbo's note]] might be an example of this) argue that the existence of POV userboxes is what's fueling the conflict and causing much of the discord, and that removal of the POV boxes (either voluntary or compulsory) is what's needed to resolve this conflict. (Or, as Jimbo's note says, "This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.")  Of course, if both sides essentially argue, "Division is bad for the project.  However, if we can put our disagreements aside and accept my position as the best one, then we can put this divisiveness behind us&mdash;wouldn't that be nice?", then we're probably not going to make much progress toward a solution or anything resembling consensus ;-).  If the userboxer wars (if they can be so-called) continue as is, I fear that the long-term status of userboxes will be unduly influenced by which side has the greater tolerance of incivility, the boldness to [[WP:IAR|flaunt process]] and to maintain reverts, and the willingness to hit the other side harder with [[WP:ADMIN|the mop]].  We cannot have a [[war of attrition]] on Wikipedia, and so the userboxer conflict cannot be sustained in its current state.  Ultimately, it won't be.

:The conflict won't be sustained because the position of the pro-userbox faction can't be sustained.  I make this claim with neither malice toward pro-userboxers, nor with judgement against their arguments.  Indeed, it's not that there aren't good arguments for the usage of userboxes&mdash;there are. Nor is it that there's strong consensus against the position of pro-userboxers&mdash;there isn't.  The reason the pro-userbox position will not last is that those who exercise discretionary power beyond policy (usually exercising [[WP:IAR]]) tend to be predisposed against the pro-userbox position.  I think the best and most prominent example of this is Jimbo.  There's no question that Jimbo has the widest discretion in making mandates beyond policy; when the [[BDFL]] sets down a firm rule, it's going to be enforced heavy-handedly and will take precedence over just about anything else (even WP:IAR).  If/when Jimbo comes down firmly against contentious userboxes (or, if he feels like it, all non-babelboxes), they'll be deleted en masse and there'll likely be nothing effective anyone else can say on the issue.

:Now, obviously, we're not quite there yet.  In fact, I think Jimbo's maintained a largely distant (if not entirely neutral) perspective on the userbox issue.  His recent [[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Userboxes|request to voluntarily remove contentious userboxes]], while controversial, maintains a largely non-confrontational, civil, and fair-minded tone; he deserves to be applauded for that.  He's also said (somewhere, I'm not sure where I saw him say this) that this request should be seen as a request for ''voluntary'' removal of userboxes, and ought not be interpreted as a policy statement or a mandate to remove userboxes from other users' pages.  (An aside here for those unaware of the history of the userboxer wars: Jimbo initially expressed some concern upon running across [[:Category:Wikipedians by politics]].  He made the statement, still listed on that category page, that he discouraged the use of the categories and related userboxes as they represent POV's that Wikipedians shouldn't bring to their Wikipedia editing.  He made a similar posting to the project mailing list.  On New Year's Eve, an administrator took his statement, derived a policy from it, then proceeded to begin deleting political userboxes in alphabetical order.  This was, as far as I'm aware, the first instance of mass deletions of userboxes and was a major event in the beginning of this conflict.)  Jimbo's sensitivity in clarifying that his recent request should be viewed as advice and not as a policy directive is something we ought to be appreciative for as well.  While speaking softly, however, Jimbo's request carries a big stick: if people don't agree with his request, we might have "to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away)".  If a regular user said this, it might be fairly viewed as a pessimistic outlook; if an admin said it, that might be a threat, albeit a controversial one; when Jimbo says it, it's probably going to happen and it's likely not something we'll be able to discuss effectively after-the-fact.  I have little doubt that contentious userboxes have a limited future as templates.

:My fear is that this will come sooner, rather than later.  For those unaware, tensions regarding userboxes have increased with the creation and deletion of a userbox identifying the user of the template as a pedophile.  It was listed on [[WP:TFD]], then speedy-deleted and restored a few times before Jimbo speedy-deleted the template himself.  Jimbo then suspended the administrator privileges of five administrators who participated in the [[WP:WHEEL|wheel war]].  While I trust that Jimbo is smart enough to [[WP:COOL|keep cool]], events like this can only hasten any impending plans for mass deletion of userboxes.

:My hope is that we, as a community, can come up with a solution that will make such policy-by-fiat unnecessary.  For me, I think that migrating userboxes to the User namespace might serve this purpose.  You might agree with me that [[WP:UUB]] offers an effective solution; you might find some of the proposal questionable, in which case you might want to consider discussing your concerns on the talk page; you might think the proposal takes an entirely wrong approach, which is fine too.  However, I urge you: Consider this proposal.  Consider an alternate proposal.  Consider '''something''' that can serve as a widely-acceptable compromise on this issue.  The status quo (or lack thereof) regarding userboxes is not sustainable.  Those pro-userboxers who wish to sustain their position will find themselves with little ground to stand on.

:I'll close (finally!) with a request of my own à la Jimbo (though ''A request from Jeff'' admittedly just doesn't carry the same weight...):

:If you don't want to remove your political/religious/etc. userboxes (as [[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Userboxes|suggested by Jimbo]]), then ''I'' wonder if you might consider simply not linking to the existing userbox templates, and instead making your own in your [[WP:USER|userspace]].  You can use subst to include a copy of an existing userbox by using <nowiki>{{subst:user foo}}</nowiki> instead of <nowiki>{{user foo}}</nowiki>.

:You can also use the &#123;{[[Template:Userbox|Userbox]]}} formatting template to make your own userbox (use of this and related templates is described on [[Wikipedia:Userboxes#Designing the userbox|Wikipedia:Userboxes]]).  In particular, you're encouraged to take advantage of the versatility available in making your own userbox by creating more personalized and specific userbox content (rather than relying on the generic userboxes you used to use).  You can use your own userboxes directly on your user page, or you can create a subpage for each userbox and use the subpages as you would templates. Keep in mind that your new userboxes, along with everything else on your user page, must comply with [[WP:USER|User space guidelines]], as well as with our policies on [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] and [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]].  If you choose to make a userbox as a subpage template, you'll also need to make sure it won't be speedy deleted under the [[WP:SPEEDY#T1|criteria for speedy deletion of templates]]. If you need help with any of this, feel free to [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|ask me]].

:Using your own user page for userbox content instead of using Wikipedia's template system helps to put user-related content back where it belongs.  By using your own userboxes instead of the generic ones available, you can express yourself more specifically and independently.  If you agree with my request, take a look at [[Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes]], a proposed policy which seeks to migrate userbox contents out of the Wikipedia Template namespace and into the User namespace.  If you want to show your support, you can add to your page &#123;{[[User:Ashibaka/Userbox/Migration|User:Ashibaka/Userbox/Migration]]}}, which is&mdash;most appropriately&mdash;a userbox in the User namespace. &mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

:(FYI, I included that request from a template, so I've said some things in there that I've also said above.)  Thoughts on the matter, as always, are appreciated. &mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you, Jeffrey. I really like what you have said, and how you have said it. I personally have let myself become a little too involved in some of the discussions, but I think that [[WP:UUB]] is workable, and I support it. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Dalbury]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 18:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

:::I second/third/''n''th this proposal - I totally agree with everything said and am beginning to export all userboxes created my yours truly as of now.  Hopefully more people will follow.  [[Image:Anglo-Indian Indentity.svg|20px]] [[User:Djr xi|'''Deano''']] <small>([[User talk:Djr_xi|Talk]])</small> 10:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

== EU and UN ==

Please excuse, does anyone know why the anti-UN and anti-EU userboxes are not working anymore?  Thanks,[[User:Salva31|Salva]] 19:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

:Both were speedy-deleted. &mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

== Internet service providers ==
Can someone tell me what, if any, point these userboxes serve? [[User:Morgan695|Morgan695]] 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
*I think they allow regular users/editors to break free of the [[NPOV]] for a bit. I see them as a harmless and socially acceptable way to blow off steam.[[User:Steppenvalve|Steppenvalve]] 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

== Proposal: Specifics not blankets ==

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. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler]] [[User_talk:KeithTyler|&para;]] 21:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
: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. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Dalbury]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 00:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

== Latest from Jimbo ==
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 [[Wikipedia:IRC|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 [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-February/039853.html 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.
&mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 10:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

:Yep, [[Irony|that'll bridge that divide]], all right. [[Sarcasm|Good work]], Jimbo. &mdash;[[User:Andux|Andux]]<sup>[[User_talk:Andux|␅]]</sup> 11:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In many of these Jimbo comments, I am seeing rather too little 'good faith' for my liking. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User:Ian13|Ian13]]/[[User talk:Ian13|talk]]</span> 13:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

:"Assume good faith" doesn't mean ignore plain evidence of deliberate provcation. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Dalbury]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 14:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

::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. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User:Ian13|Ian13]]/[[User talk:Ian13|talk]]</span> 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::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'. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

:While your hurt feelings are regrettable, they do not meaningfully alter the force of Jimbo's comment. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

::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. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User:Ian13|Ian13]]/[[User talk:Ian13|talk]]</span> 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians need to have some identity. Jimbo's definition of a Wikipedian, just my impression, is someone who contributes a ton of information with no emotional leanings whatsoever. While Buddhists all over the world are celebrating this ideal, I just don't think it's a realistic goal. We're all living breathing human beings with thoughts, beliefs, opinions, passions, hopes and dreams firmly rooted in our personalities. We can't just ignore them. It's a physical impossibility. Humans are by nature POV. All we can do is turn the volume down on the POV and give it anger management. Denying users a certain level of induviduality actually hurts the community in my opinion. It's like taking all the hollidays out the school year. Sure, the kids may learn more and retain more but they are also miserable. Stick the fun in there and work is of higher quality and they tend to care more. I think the same holds true for Wikipedia or any other community of human beings. -- <font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="gold">[[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons|§]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica">[[User talk: E. Brown|Hurricane]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="#000000">[[Special:Emailuser/E._Brown|E]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="FF0000">[[User:E. Brown|RIC]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones|§]]<sup><small>[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=E.+Brown&amp;dbname=enwiki_p Damages]</small></sup><small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small></font> 06:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

: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. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::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.  [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

== Encouraging non-template userboxes ==
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]]&mdash;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 &#123;{[[Template:Userbox|Userbox]]}} 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 [[WP:AGF|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 [[WP:BOLD|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.  &mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 10:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

: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. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User:Ian13|Ian13]]/[[User talk:Ian13|talk]]</span> 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

::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. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

:::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? <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User:Ian13|Ian13]]/[[User talk:Ian13|talk]]</span> 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

::::I can tell you from experience that getting people to agree on what boxes [[Wikipedia_talk:Userfying_userboxes#Instruments_Excempt|should]] or [[Wikipedia_talk:Userfying_userboxes#Arbitrary_elevation_of_certain_box_types|should not]] stay in template-space is like herding cats. &mdash;[[User:Andux|Andux]]<sup>[[User_talk:Andux|␅]]</sup> 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Untill people learn to respect our fair uses policies we are going to continue to need lists of who has got what.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

==Move NRA user boxes?==
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”. [[User:Accurizer|Accurizer]] 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

==My theory on userbox limiting==

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.--[[User:Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x)|Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x)]] 19:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

: Of course, you can always just break your userboxes up into categories of 6 or 7. :p --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

==Userbox Deletion==
Who deleted some of the belief userboxes? --[[User:Shanedidona|Shanedidona]] 20:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:As well as a lot of politics userboxes. [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 20:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
So... you deleted some?  --[[User:Shanedidona|Shanedidona]] 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
: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: {{tl|User Israel}} was undeleted while {{tl|User Palestine}} wasn't. I hope the Userbox policy will be finished soon. [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::Whoda thunked that admins and deletionists couldn't be trusted to make unbiased decisions in the absence of a clear [[WP:UUSM|policy]]? - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler]] [[User_talk:KeithTyler|&para;]] 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What does T1 Mean?  --[[User:Shanedidona|Shanedidona]] 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
:T1 is a new speedy deletion criterion that includes divisive/polemical/inflammatory content.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
::T1 means that the admins can delete whatever the hell they please because anybody can stretch a subjective criterion.  [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
For those not aware, there have been a number of userboxes deleted by a number of admins as part of a deletion spree based upon the aforementioned T1 criteria. (In my earlier comments on this page, I was under the mistaken impression that mass deletions might not happen until Jimbo formally backed them.)  Deletions of userboxes (and subsequent recreations, etc.) can be monitored using this [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_del_userbox very helpful tool].  I should also point out that [[User:Pathoschild]] has been going around and semi-automatically subst'ing in deleted userboxes, as part of his [[User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes|userbox project]].  He also has a practical and equitable [[User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy|policy proposal]] that I think both sides would be well advised to consider. &mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 02:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

*Is the fact that a userbox used a [[fair use]] image good enough grounds to have it deleted? Wouldn't the easy thing be to just remove the image? I have seen this as a reason for some of the deletions. [[User:Station Attendant|Station Attendant]] 04:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
**It isn't part of the speedy deletion criteria, but I'm not surprised that it is grounds for deletion.  If you read the actual [[WP:CSD|Criteria for Speedy Deletion]], the relevant criterion (T1) states that templates (including userboxes) can be speedy-deleted if "polemical or inflammatory".  Inclusion of fair-use images is not covered under T1 or any of the general criteria for speedy deletion.  Including fair-use images in user pages or related templates '''is'''&mdash;in case anyone's unaware&mdash;a violation of [[WP:FUC|policy]], and so they certainly ought to be removed from any userboxes.  The "easy thing" would indeed to be to remove the fair use image (and I'd advise anyone who sees such images to do so).  However, for those more concerned with mass deletion of userboxes than ease of modification, such considerations are not in play.  Checking the logs, I do see that [[User:Doc glasgow]] has removed a number of band-related userboxes due to fair use images.  Now, I'm fairly certain I've seen that user remove fair-use images from userboxes before, so I doubt it's a case of him not knowing the less destructive alternative.  I'd suspect that it's more of a case that an atmosphere of on-going mass userbox deletions makes it easier for those pre-disposed to deleting userboxes to do so instead of taking more moderate and proportional action.  In any case, I'd say you're probably not getting your band userboxes back in their old form.  I'd advise you (and those in a similar situation) to instead make your own replacement userboxes for personal use on your own page.  There's instructions on [[Wikipedia:Userboxes]] on how to do this.  (Remember, though, that the fair-use criteria also apply there, and that you won't be able to use the fair-use images [or any others] that served as an excuse for the original userboxes' deletion.)  &mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

== POV Userbox Suggestion ==

I wonder if objections would be satiated if we make POV userboxes an explicitly POV-countering tool by rewording them along these lines (as an example):
*User (Sun):+ : "This user admits to having a pro-(Sun) POV." or "This user attempts to prevent his pro-(Sun) POV from entering articles." or "This user tends towards supporting (the Sun)."
*User (Sun):0 : "This user feels he has no bias towards (the Sun)."
*User (Sun):- : "This user admits to having a anti-(Sun) POV." or "This user attempts to prevent his anti-(Sun) POV from entering articles." or "This user tends towards opposing (the Sun)."

Or even:
*User (Sun):++ : "This user's pro-(Sun) POV discourages themselves(himself/herself) from editing articles about it." (or reword of this)
*User (Sun):-- : "This user's anti-(Sun) POV discourages themselves(himself/herself) from editing articles about it." (or reword of this)

Of course, not all userboxes would have to have the same wording, they would just need to somehow make it clear that the box isn't advocating/advertising the POV, but is expressing a possible bias in encyclopedia-writing.

Comments? :) --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 14:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

:That all is fine, as long as it's done with non-transcluded userboxes. If anyone tries to create a template for something like that, I, for one, would support its immediate deletion. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Er, why would you object to putting them in templates?
:: (To anticipate one possible objection: I think this does fix the "What links here" problem, since anyone who actually wishes to inject POV probably would use the "no bias" userbox (if any userbox at all), so it'd be no use to anyone trying to votestack or form some sort of clique (i.e. it speaks to a rejection of [[cabal]]s , so it can't be a proxy for them).  Personally, I would punish any attempted abuse, not delete the userboxes.)
:: I think this sort of thing might be part of some compromise, perhaps? --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 04:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
::This wouldn't work - many people may hold a particular view, but don't feel that it is a POV which affects their Wikipedia editing, therefore they would not add these boxes. Whereas, if people put ordinary userboxes (non-transcluded, vote-stuffing is bad) saying e.g. 'This user supports political party X' then other users ''can decided for themselves'' whether that view is affecting the person's edits [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 08:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
::: The problem with keeping the current style of userboxes ("This user supports party X") is that the userboxes are being interpreted as advocacy or the promotion of a POV in their editing, not as an anti-POV measure.  (If people were recognizing POV userboxes for their anti-POV potential, this whole blowup wouldn't exist...)  Banning transclusion might reduce vote-stuffing (though I don't see why the same problems wouldn't arise with, say, a search for the text of the box) but the existance of the current userboxes, whether in User or Template space, looks as if POV is accepted or encouraged within the workings of Wikipedia.
::: I'm not sure that I understand the first part of your post.  Wouldn't someone that "may hold a particular view but [doesn't] feel that it is a POV which affects their Wikipedia editing" use a + or - box?  Do the wordings need to be changed to make that more clear? --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: In the context of the current proposal at [[Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll]], I think it would change "Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded." to "Advocacy is specifically excluded.  Declarations of possible bias in the Template space should/must also discourage, or acknowledge the discouragement of, bias in encyclopedia-editing and other Wikipedia activities." --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 21:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

== No more userboxes can be created ==

See the discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Userbox debates#Solution | here]].  Basically, while we haven't decided on how to deal with extant userboxes yet, we are all pretty much in agreement that no NEW ones should be created, as that will just make whatever ultimate solution we decide on harder to implement (because there'll be more userboxes to subst, delete, userfy, whatever).  Thank you for understanding.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 02:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

:"...the creation of any new userboxes is prohibited per new policy..."  Can you point me in the direction of this new policy that's mandated such a moratorium?  I was under the impression we were still trying to figure out what policy is to be implemented.  While "pretty much" everyone might be in agreement of this at the DRV subpage, there are people discussing other proposals out there that wouldn't go so far against userboxes.  The [[User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy|Pathoschild proposal]] (which will hopefully get a better name and shorter link), for example, is receiving support and recognizes some limited uses for userboxes.  It would permit the creation and use of userbox templates that benefit the encyclopedia (as defined in the proposal).  There ''would'' be a moratorium on creating userboxes that don't meet this criteria, but not the full moratorium you're claiming is policy.

:I've partially reverted your changes to bring back instructions on how to use &#123;{[[Template:Userbox|Userbox]]}} to "roll your own", since it's likely that any policy will prefer non-template userboxes over template userboxes in some situations.  I've also restored some mention of content that still applies in user-space  (no fair use images, no personal attacks, etc.)  I'm not removing your claim of new policy, as I'm [[WP:AGF|assuming]] that there's some policy statement mandating such a moratorium that I yet haven't seen.  Thank you, as well, for your understanding.  &mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

::The basic reasoning is "It's a Good Idea".  It's something that the vast majority of people, even the pro-userbox people, can agree on.  If you read Jimbo's statements it's very clear that he does not want the Template: namespace used for userboxes and their deletion is imminent.  Given that, it makes sense that we shouldn't be allowing people to create more userboxes in the Template: namespace, which will just make the inevitable deletions more time-consuming and will piss off more people, as it's easier to see something just created get deleted than something that's been around for a bit.  A moratorium on the creation of new userboxes is consistent with any finalized userbox policy that is likely to be made.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

:::(Hope you don't mind, I moved your comment so it wouldn't split mine.)  Have the vast majority of people agreed that we should have an absolute moratorium on userbox creation?  I've read all of Jimbo's postings (that I'm aware of) on the matter, and while I agree that it's clear he wants POV-boxes out of template space (and I can't say I disagree with him), I don't think it's as clear that he wants all userboxes out of template space.  His original objections to userboxes were based on the POV-boxes, and while the conflict's probably made him more critical of userboxes in general (and who could blame him?), I haven't seen anything "very clear" from him that he wants all userboxes gone from template space.  He's said (yesterday), "...there is a strong consensus that having various sorts of ''advocacy'' userboxes is problematic, especially when they are promoted in the Wikipedia namespace..." (emphasis mine).  On Saturday, he said, "I've become more and more convinced that the right thing to do is to take any and all userboxes which don't fit some very very narrow "practical" uses into people's personal userspace."  His main problem seems to be with advocacy, and not with all userboxes.  I certainly don't see anything there that would justify calling a moratorium policy.  (While Jimbo certainly does have the power to directly mandate new policy, comments from the mailing list don't necessarily represent him stating new policy.  As has been quoted elsewhere, Jimbo has said "...in this entire userbox conflict, I have actually done absolutely nothing. There have been no decrees from me, no mass deletions, nothing but a serious attempt to engage a wide variety of people in serious discussion.")  In short, I don't see that Jimbo has mandated a moratorium against all userboxes ("advocacy userboxes" perhaps).

:::I also don't see that we can claim the moratorium is based on a "new policy" if it's only the case that it's claimed that it will be consistent with expected, but as yet nonexistent, policy.  As I mentioned above, the Pathoschild proposal would permit userboxes in template space if they had some benefit to the encyclopedia.  The terms used in the proposal (which admittedly might be too broad) would include WikiProject userboxes, geographical userboxes, and statements of general interest.  If the Pathoschild proposal is the policy likely to be made (and I'm clearly biased in hoping that it is), a moratorium on all userboxes would not be consistent with it.  In case anyone's thinking along these lines, the Pathoschild proposal isn't some strictly pro-userbox proposal.  It has the backing of some of the more anti-userbox Wikipedians, such as Tony Sidaway.  (I've also found that Doc glasgow contributed much of the text about a month ago; I don't know his current views on it, so I wouldn't want to represent him as a supporter of it).  So, clearly, if it's your position that gets adopted into policy, then a full moratorium will be in order.  If its something like Pathoschild, we'll have a moratorium on advocacy userboxes and other userboxes that don't serve the project.  

:::Now, I'd really like to revert that statement off the main page that an absolute moratorium is part of "new policy"&mdash;that's not accurate language.  However, I'm not all that taken to drastic changes without consensus if it looks like a compromise might be in order.  I'm certainly sold on the concept of decreasing userbox growth.  I'd think it appropriate to refactor the page towards the primary goal of specifying "how to make your own userboxes for your own user page", rather than "here's how to make a new template".  (I talked a little about this elsewhere on the page under the header "Encouraging non-template userboxes".)  The page ''should'' encourage user page userboxes when possible, but allow for (greatly minority) cases where template-space userboxes might be permitted (subject to future policy). I'd probably also think it appropriate to put out a moratorium against advocacy/belief-based userbox templates.  I think Jimbo's statements are quite clear on this point (especially his comment on [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs|/Beliefs]]).  With CSD-T1 being interpreted as it is, such templates are definitely going to be deleted, so it makes good sense to stop their creation as well.  However, I don't think we ought to be stating such a moratorium on ''all'' userboxes (especially being so heavy-handed in claiming it's in enforcement of undefined future policy), when there's valid policy candidates with support from both sides that would not be consistent with a complete ban of userboxes in template space.  Thanks for your time and consideration.  &mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

::::I don't think it's too hurtful to keep the moratorium in effect for all userboxes for at least a few days until further clarifications are made as to exactly which userboxes might still be allowed in Template: namespace.  It's been made quite clear that a lot of them are not acceptable.  In the mean time people can just code new userboxes directly into their userspace.  And I agree with you about refactoring this page to place the focus on userspace userboxes rather than Templatespace userboxes.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 04:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Well, I don't think it's too hurtful, but it's unnecessarily heavy-handed&mdash;especially for users already angry at the speedy deletions.  How about we use less firm language?  As I said, I think most would agree that advocacy userboxes are out, so we can be firm on those.  Instead of a strict moratorium on others, how about we "heavily discourage" them?  Say, something like:
::::::''The [[WP:SPEEDY|Criteria for Speedy Deletion]] of templates, which allow for the deletion of inflammatory or polemic templates, are currently in active enforcement.  Existing advocacy-based userbox templates are being removed, and any newly created advocacy userboxes will be immediately deleted as well.  The use of other userboxes in templates will also soon be limited, as the template namespace is to be used to serve the goal of writing an encyclopedia.  Until a policy is agreed upon to determine the use of userboxes as templates, the creation of new userbox templates is '''heavily discouraged''' at this time.''

:::::Then we give the alternative of "rolling your own" later on the page.  It's not perfect, but I don't think it's particularly harmful to present this as strong advice (with the warning further that restrictions are coming) instead of as a mandate.  &mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 05:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Oh, and thanks for removing the reference to policy from the main page.  I just saw that.  &mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 05:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

:Debate over keep / don't keep userboxes have taken away soooo much time from editing, however, until a policy is implemented, or we get something like specific ruling from Jimbo or a Arbcom case of Everyone v.s. Everyone else ruling; a moratorium on userbox creation does not appear to have a consensus at this time.  If I've cleary missed something SPECIFIC to the contrary of this, please reference it here. [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup><font color="#888888">/</font><sub>[[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit|<font color="#666666">CVU</font>]]</sub> 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
::I have a simple question for you: are you in favor of or opposed to the moratorium?  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Great loaded question.  I am opposed to a moratorium of the creation of all userboxes.  I totally support speedy deletion of inflamatory userboxes, but do not think we have either a clear ruling, or community consensus on what comprises "divisive".  (e.g. Someone making a box that says '''This user is a male''' is gender divisive, but is it harming the community?).  [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup><font color="#888888">/</font><sub>[[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit|<font color="#666666">CVU</font>]]</sub> 03:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Additionally, this debate also seems to have a lot more to it then a polygon, but doesn't get to the pure "don't describe anything about yourself on your userpage".  Some feel it is a good way to avoid being able to find editors with like ideals, but without spilling the [[WP:BEANS|beans]] I can think of at least 3-4 immediaet other ways to link to them. [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup><font color="#888888">/</font><sub>[[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit|<font color="#666666">CVU</font>]]</sub> 03:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Have you seen the latest comments from Jimbo?  He's made it quite clear that template space should be for encyclopedic content only and that userboxes should be removed from it.  In this light it makes sense to prevent the creation of new userboxes in template space.  That's all the moratorium does.  It doesn't matter whether the userbox is "divisive" or not, it just shouldn't be in template space.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 04:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::I would be fine with moving ALL userboxes to User: space somewhere, but do not agree that they should all be required to be transcluded.  Many of the boxes are collaberated on by many editors, and I believe that they can contribute positively to community building.  A ''problem'' is that there is currently no approved place within the User: namespace for placing these without running in to [[WP:OWN]] issues related to userspace and/or not having user space pages for non existant users, although I'd welcome a proposal to accomidate this. [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup><font color="#888888">/</font><sub>[[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit|<font color="#666666">CVU</font>]]</sub> 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::There are a variety of proposals to deal with userboxen, but all the viable ones include removing userboxen from the template namespace.  In this light it only makes sense to restrict creation of new userboxen in template space.  If you read Jimbo's statements though he really doesn't like userboxes ''at all''.  They encourage a sort of bumper sticker mentality which gives a false impression about what Wikipedia is really about.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

----
Rather then go on about what we don't agree with, I'm hoping that by defining common goals we may get to an amicable solution quicker:

=== Quick recap on things that someone might agree on (?) : ===
*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:
#[[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup><font color="#888888">/</font><sub>[[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit|<font color="#666666">CVU</font>]]</sub> 04:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-endorsements:
#I cannot in good conscience endorse this policy. [[User:Cjmarsicano|Cjmarsicano]] 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
# If I read it correctly, the reason for Jimbo saying the first bullet point isn't because those templates are meant for the User namespace but because he feels those boxes are advocacy or advertising.  I think moving them into User space does nothing to solve the primary problem. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 06:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

*Nearly all templates primarily for use in the User: namespace are not appropriate to be housed in Template: namespace.
** User: or Wikipedia: namespace ''may'' be a more appropriate place for these items, although the better solution would be having them inline on the pages they are used.
*** The best solution is to use your own words, not silly colored boxes.
**The only exceptions that currently come to mind are "This user is an admin" and "This user is a member of WikiProject _____".
*Templates that meet the community standards for '''Inflammatory or Personal Attacks''' are not appropriate anywhere.
*Templates designed to express a point of view should not include categories, period.
*Categories that are primarily used in the User: namespace should be deleted unless there's a very good reason for them to exist.

Endorsements:
#<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 04:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with 1, 3 and 4, disagree with 2 because there are no "community standards" for what inflammatory userboxes are. Putting that into effect is essentially giving admins a blank slate. —<b><font color="darkgreen">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuiviénen]]</font></b> <font size="1">(<b><font color="darkblue">[[User Talk:Cuivienen|Cuivië]]</font></b>)</font> 22:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-endorsements:
#I cannot in good conscience endorse this policy. [[User:Cjmarsicano|Cjmarsicano]] 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
# (copied from above) If I read it correctly, the reason for Jimbo saying the first bullet point isn't because those templates are meant for the User namespace but because he feels those boxes are advocacy or advertising.  I think moving them into User space does nothing to solve the primary problem. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 06:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I have to agree with AySz88 here.  The best solution may be just to delete all userboxes immediately so that users don't have a chance to subst: them into their userpages.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 06:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
: 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 ). ([[#POV Userbox Suggestion|See above]]) --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 18:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
: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?  [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 14:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
::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 {{tl|subst:Userbox}} is fine, but no templates or categories for anything POV and/or not contributing directly to building a quality encyclopedia. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 17:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I maintain that informing the userbase of xfD polls in progress, which we all are entitled to participate in, does not harm the encyclopedia.  [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 14:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
::::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. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
::: 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. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
::::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. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
::::: 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. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 20:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

=== FOUL!?===
*'''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. --[[User talk:Cjmarsicano|CJ Marsicano]] 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
**You are welcome to create the userbox for that WikiProject, just put it somewhere like [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Hello! Project/Userbox]].  Or a better idea would be to write the code on your WikiProject page and encourage the users to copy that onto their userpage.  The bottom line is it shouldn't be in Template: namespace.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
***There are a number of projects that have userboxes already, and some of them are in templatespace. I'm not sure I see why these project specific userboxes (or messageboxes for that matter, there are MANY projects with messageboxes.. see my user page for usage, I have two there) have to go in projectspace exactly... could you elucidate? ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
****The general case for the deletion of the vast majority of userbox templates is that they don't help build the encyclopedia and/or are unencyclopedic content.  This same claim can't exactly be made about the WikiProject userboxes, though, so I don't know if this rationale is so strong.  I still think it'd be preferable for them to be moved into WikiProject space though because, at least to me, Template: should be mainly for templates that are used in main articlespace and WikiProject: is thus a good place for WikiProject-related templates that are exclusively used in User: space.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 19:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
*****I've been following all this discussion fairly closely for quite some time now, so you don't have to repeat all the claims about why or why not userboxes are or are not divisive, disruptive, etc... I guess my issue here is that you seem to have come up with some rather blanket provisions and are claiming them as policy without giving cites to where they are actually mandated as such, and without the consensus process having arrived at them as policy (independent of mandates). The consensus process seems to be coming to rest at a set of policies rather different than the draconian ones you are claiming are policy. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

== Keeping manual userboxes up to date ==

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. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler]] [[User_talk:KeithTyler|&para;]] 20:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
:<nowiki><sarc></nowiki>Wouldn't it be a lot easier for others to just transclude them <nowiki></sarc></nowiki> -- [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup><font color="#888888">/</font><sub>[[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit|<font color="#666666">CVU</font>]]</sub> 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
::Yar, and it would even save space. Of course, [[WP:WINP]], though not that that precept has affected the argument against UB templating. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler]] [[User_talk:KeithTyler|&para;]] 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
: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.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
:: I'm assuming you meant banned-from-Template-space advocate/POV userboxes, not stuff like the Babel boxes or Wikiproject boxes? --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

== Retaining deleted UB templates ==

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. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler]] [[User_talk:KeithTyler|&para;]] 18:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

== User:MarkSweep's mass removal of categories from templates ==

[[User:MarkSweep]] has just done a mass removal of category tags from Userbox templates [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=MarkSweep&offset=20060302023740&limit=50]. Basically rending most of this user categorisation empty. What is the current view on this? --[[User:Salix alba|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]) 10:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

: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"&mdash;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 -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 11:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

::Regarding ''("this user is interested in Christianity", not "this user is a Christian"&mdash;just like WikiProjects exist by field of knowledge, not by bias)'': Are you saying that stating one "is a Christian" is being biased? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] <small>([[User talk:Dcljr|talk]])</small> 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
: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 <nowiki>{{User AFOL}} (That's: Adult fan of Lego)</nowiki> 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. [[User:Reuvenk|Reuvenk]]<sub>[[User_talk:Reuvenk|[T]]][[Special:Contributions/Reuvenk|[C]]]</sub> 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

::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. [[User:The Republican|The Republican]] 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

:::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. [[User:The Republican|The Republican]] 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think userboxes should be kept, because if an administrator wants to delete the userbox, he/she should contact the creator of the userbox and tell the creator whats right and whats wrong. Then the admin should suggest ways to better the userbox '''not''' delete it! Userboxes show one's way of expressing themselves, and if that gets taken away, its like loosing the right to vote for your own government! [[User:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

:[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Funnybunny&dbname=enwiki_p Hmmm!] -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What? Is there something wrong about my user history? [[User:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] 03:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

:I'll let others decide for themselves. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 10:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I must admit, I spend most of my time editing my own userpage but not real articles. But, who else wouldn't, right? [[User:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

:You seem to have your priorities out of whack. Please read [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider]]. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 23:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least I have threee successful edits to the main part. [[User:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

== Other languages ==

And what of the userboxes on the other wikipedias?--[[user:ikiroid|ikiroid]] | ([[user talk:ikiroid|talk]]) 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

== Can you ever  make new user boxes? ==

well?

[[User:Pece Kocovski|Pece Kocovski]] 23:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

:You can make all the userboxes you want on your user page (well, no personal attacks, no copyvio, no fair use images, no categories). Use {{tl|subst:Userbox}}. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)



==Respect==
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. <div style="float: left; border:solid gold 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 288px; background: #33aa55;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #bb7755; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt; color: black;" | '''[[Image:No-US.png|30px]]'''? '''[[Image:No-UK.PNG|30px]]'''? '''[[Image:No-EU.png|30px]]'''?
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: white;" | [[User:ROGNNTUDJUU!|ROGNNTUDJUU!]] thinks that users who cross out [[flag]]s show a lack of '''[[respect]]''' for those represented by them and therefore created this [[template:user respect|template]].
|}</div> 02:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

==Debate==
: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. [[User:The Republican|The Republican]] 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
::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. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 11:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

== are there any warhammer 40000 ==

userboxes?

[[User:Pece Kocovski|Pece Kocovski]] 11:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

:I certainly hope not. Your userpage is provided to help you contribute to Wikipedia. It is [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider|not a free host, blog, or webspace provider]] -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 12:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
::Could you try to rephrase that, it does unfortunatly sound a little uncivil. Thanks! [[User:Ian13|Ian13]]/<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User talk:Ian13|talk]]</span> 14:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

:[[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: {{tl|user 40k}} is a Warhammer 40k userbox. Enjoy! -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 14:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

== How do you make userboxes? ==

Is there a page for that?

[[User:Pece Kocovski|Pece Kocovski]] 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Just type in the url for the box you want like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Nameformybox
The "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User" should remain the same. The rest is up to you.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God]] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> [[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

whats an url?
[[User:Pece Kocovski|Pece Kocovski]] 23:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be making new userboxes at this juncture.  They're on their way out.  And as for [[URL]], this ''is'' Wikipedia, you know.  You can find out here.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 00:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do want to make a new userbox, you should probably be making it on your own userpage using {{[[Template:Userbox|Userbox]]}}, rather than making a new template.  Instructions on how to do so are at [[Wikipedia:Userboxes#Designing the userbox|Wikipedia:Userboxes]]&mdash;the project page that this talk page is attached to. &mdash; [[User:Jeffrey Smith|Jeff]] | [[User talk:Jeffrey Smith|(talk)]] | 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

== What happened to the UBX policy? ==

What happened to the userbox policy and its poll? It seems that activity has stopped. [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 19:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
: No consensus either way (61% support), so a new one needs to be drafted somehow. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 20:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
::It's already underway, it's just being done a bit differently this time.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 20:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Could you give me the link? [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 20:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
::::The actual policy isn't being done in the public eye until it is actually implemented, but here's an idea of what it may look like: [[Wikipedia:Proposed template and category usage policy]].  --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::''Isn't being done in the public eye''? Why? Is it classified? ;-) [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 17:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::We all know what happened the last time it was done in the public eye ... vote-stacked to death by Myspacers.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Umm, any vote you reach in secret won't be valid.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God]] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> [[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Looking this his user contribs, He might be talking about this page: [[Wikipedia:Userfying_userboxes]].--'''[[User:God_of_War|God]] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> [[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 02:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::<--
: (edit conflict) I'm not sure I understand - I hope you're not talking about your own proposal as if it's an official policy in progress, and it's probably a bad idea to not be looking for others' comments especially as it seems [[Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy poll#Where do we go from here|people are finding problems with it]]. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

===For reference===
All the userbox policy proposals I'm aware of (with commentary):
;[[WP:UPP]] → ''Userbox policy poll''
:Would have effectively banned transclusion (without [[WP:SUBST|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 [[Wikipedia_talk:Userfying_userboxes#I_don.27t_like_it|seems]] like it could turn out to be a fair compromise proposal.
&mdash;[[User:Andux|Andux]]<sup>[[User_talk:Andux|␅]]</sup> 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

== The missing principle of the anti-UB crusade ==

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) - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler]] [[User_talk:KeithTyler|&para;]] 22:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

== New series of userboxes ==

I created a series of "This user is glad to help in" userboxes [[User:Cedar-Guardian/test|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? [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 12:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

: I think it would be best to delay creating new userbox templates until userbox policy is settled. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)