Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User onemanonewoman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion | User:MiraLuka | Userboxes
You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Not surprisingly, especially given the precedent from the great userbox wars compromise. —Doug Bell talk 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User onemanonewoman

I nominated this for speedy deletion, but was told to bring it here. Basically, this userbox promotes discrimination and is divisive. It is also very POV. I request its deletion Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Not criteria for a speedy deletion but it definitely violates WP:NPOV and may create the wrong impression of wikipedia to new users and scare them away. TellyaddictEditor review! 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    NPOV doesn't apply to user pages. —Doug Bell talk 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rather offensive to many people, and no good reason why it's of editorial importance what a specific Wikipedian believes. -Amarkov moo! 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not censored. —Doug Bell talk 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    I knew someone would say that. Anyway, what the policy means is that articles will not be stripped of content that people find offensive. It doesn't apply nearly as much out of articlespace, and offensive messages on userpages simply should not be allowed. -Amarkov moo! 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Just about any statement of position could be considered by someone to be offensive. Besides, where in policy or guidelines is your claim of higher sensitivity in user pages supported? —Doug Bell talk 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    The userbox doesn't say "This user thinks that gays should be 'be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'" (the inner quote's actually from Leviticus 20:13) It states a simple legal political and philosophical position. Articles aren't censored, neither are userpages. If you want to have a penis picture on your page, it's perfectly allowable. And believe me when I say that I've seen far worse on userpages that "This user opposes SSM". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can anyone see userbox wars round the corner? Much as I don't agree, it is an entirely valid point of view to believe that only men and women should be allowed to marry and represents the law in most of the world. The userbox says nothing about other forms of partnerships for same sex couples. If this userbox were deleted then for consistency many others would need to go as well: especially those that support same-sex marriage. Religious views and beliefs about sexual preferences are bound to be controversial, but that does not mean they cannot genuinely be held. Starting another attempt at policing userboxes would be a disaster. WjBscribe 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not attempting to police them. The userbox specifically excludes SSM and is discrimatory and divisive - as I recall most SSM userboxes say stuff like "equality for all" not "only gays should get married". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    You know, you don't need to !vote twice. We get from your nomination that you want it to be deleted. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: stereotype, fails WP:NPOV. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    NPOV doesn't apply to user pages. —Doug Bell talk 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Commment. Maybe I've missed something but since when does WP:NPOV apply to userboxes. Surely by definition most of them are an expression of some sort of point of view? WjBscribe 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And if that point of view is divisive, or discrimatory, then it ought to be deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And then our personal POV that same-sex marriage is a good thing will have triumphed over that of those who hold the contrary view. Funny, I didn't think that was how we did things here... WjBscribe 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not, and you're twisting what I'm saying. I'm saying that userboxes are tolerated by the community on the basis that they are not offensive, divisive, inflammatory or discrimatory. This userbox does not meet those requirements and should be deleted. I would just as well delete any userbox that said "This user believes that civil partnerships are between two romantically involved people of the same sex", which is discrimatory towards those people who are agitating for civil partnerships to be made open to heterosexual couples. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That argument is based off of personal preference and not on Wikipedia policy (especially GUS). On personal level, I would ask why we at wikipedia seem to favour the liberal viewpoint of everything over anything slightly religious. First userboxes about religion were blacklisted. This userbox expresses something that some people of certain religions believe in (and is endorse by, say, the Pope). For the record, I am against SSM. That doesn't mean that I find a userbox saying "This user supports SSM" inflammatory. Once you start saying no viewpoints on userpages, you might as well just disable them. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The NPOV policy does not apply to userspace. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 17:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Much as I disagree with the viewpoint expressed, I don't think we should be in the business of censoring viewpoints like this. If this goes then presumably we'll also be excising User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User samesexmarriage, User:Wintran/Userboxes/Pacifism and User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User feminism as well? These all advocate views that are offensive to significant numbers of people. Gwernol 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
What's divisive about them? Now if there was a userbox that said "This user hates feminists"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Ask a serving soldier whether they think advocating for pacifism is divisive or not. There are millions of people in America who consider feminism to be deeply offensive and divisive. I don't believe either of those things, by the way, but we either allow all legal viewpoints or none. Gwernol 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm indifferent to whether this box is kept or deleted, but "Userfied boxes can show any point of view that they feel like" is wrong. -- Steel 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WJBscribe. While it is personally offensive to me, it is non the less a valid, individual POV for a person to have. I don't think WP:NPOV crosses over to Userpages. If it did, then everyones user page would certainly fail to some degree. I know mine would. AgneCheese/Wine 18:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Modify slightly to 'This user supports opposite-sex marriages', for example? Raystorm 18:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That would certainly lessen the offensiveness in it. But I have a feeling that the holders of this userbox would disagree with the removal of the word "only". AgneCheese/Wine 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I see your concern, and understand it. But that doesn't have to happen necessarily. After all, the point is the same, while not being offensive to anybody. :-) I'd rather assume good faith from everyone, and believe no one wants to offend other users knowingly. Cheers Raystorm 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep On a personal level I disagree with the userbox. So what if a woman loves a woman or a man loves a man and wants to marry her/him? Its none of your business. On the level of a Wikipedian I cannot help but defend this box, since it is a valid expression of free speech and is not truely inflammatory (as a box saying "This users hopes that gay couples die horribly slow and painful deaths, so their eternal torment in hell be even more argonizing" might be - mind the hyperbole). If it were in templatespace I would !vote it to be moved into userspace (as it is not NPOV amongst other things). But as it is already in userspace I fail to see where the issue lies. Wikipedians use this userbox as a way to express their opinions, and Userspace is quite lenient in regard of what is accepted or tolerated (non NPOV content for example). For the curious, there have been long, long, long debates and conflicts about what is acceptable when where - escalating in the Userbox Wars, which have, for now come to end in the compromise that non NPOV userbox don't belong in templatespace, but are accepted in userspace (always provided they conform to the big policies like WP:USER and WP:NPA). CharonX/talk 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I disagree with this userbox, but that's not my sole reason of deletion. It goes against this and this. Cheers, — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 20:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to hop on the simplified summary below: "If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes." Is stating that one holds extremely traditionalistic views on marriage permitted on a userpage? If not, then I imagine we are in a hot tub full of trouble. For the same arguments (it being divisive) a traditionalist could demand deletion of userbox advocating same sex marriage. Or a pro-military activist find pro-peace userboxes divisive. CharonX/talk 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Weak keep. Argh, Homophobia. Seriously though, we previously had many debates over similar userboxes, including the pedophilia, nazi, and Ku Klux Klan ones. Although I'm normally in favor of keeping userboxes that provide an uncontroversial point of view, I'm inclined to strongly oppose userboxes which take an anti-X stance. This can eventually lead to unproductive wars and harassment among editors with a different sexuality; note that Wikipedia is not a battleground. I believe these userboxes have no place on userspace, nor Wikipedia in general. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Mentioning nazis, pedophilia and the KKK in the same breath as a box which (in direct, but inoffensive) words advocates the conservative view on marriage is a little strong, ne? Anyway, as I read this box it is not "this user opposes gay marriage" (even if it were, its a valid statement under free speech) It is formulated in a not-anti way - controversly a userbox saying "this user support same-sex marriage" could then be contstructed as "this user opposes the traditional definition of marriage". Which then would, under a objective point of view also be merited for deletion? CharonX/talk 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That's different, "traditional definition of marriage" are not a group of people. The way I see it, a userbox saying that marriage should be restricted to a man and a women is exactly the same as a one against same-sex marriage. Freedom of speech should never be offensive. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Same sex marriage is also not a group of people. It is a concept. And using you example above, a box saying that a user supports same sex marriage, could be then interpreted being against the traditional "only different sex marriage" which afaik a number of people still strongly support. How would you deal with a box that approves of polygamy? It is okay to say that you think everybody should be allowed to marry no matter of gender, it is okay to say everybody should be allowed to have severeal wifes or husbands, but it is not okay to say that you think only "man and woman" should be allowed to marry? That is somewhat counter intuitive. Just because a concept "feels" right and the other "feels" wrong does not mean the one that "feels" wrong does not have a right to exist or to be said. Because there will always be another person who feels the other way round, and would be entiteled to demand of removal of conecepts he "feels" are wrong - Freedom of speech does go both ways. CharonX/talk 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, and I struck my above vote for now. Freedom of speech or not, Wikipedia shouldn't contain offensive material for certain groups of people. This includes racism, homophobia, nazism, etc. Although it doesn't seem to be very offensive against a certain group in this case. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless, serves only to divide the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Keep. As much as I disagree with the viewpoint expressed by this userbox, I do agree with CharonX and WJBscribe, among others: if this userbox is unacceptable, then so are this one and this one and this one, etc. —Mira 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Free speech works both ways. Johnny 0 00:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep NPOV does not apply to userspace userboxes. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  00:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Reasons to keep or delete need to be based on policy, not your personal agreement/disagreement with the statement. —Doug Bell talk 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I do not agree with this userbox at all, and I believe in SSM. However, this userbox does represent a ligitimate religious belief of the user, and deleting it would be just as intolorant as deleting an LGBT support banner. --NavyHighlander 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per policy, in particular WP:GUS. Is this 2006 all over again? Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do not like this userbox, but that is not a reason to delete. In the "Great Userbox War" the compromise was to userfy this type of userbox, and that is where it is - in user space. Let it be. We do not want "Great Userbox War II". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 02:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep - with as strong a keep message as possible. As mentioned above, if this userbox is to be deleted, then should all userboxes that are pro-life and pro-choice and anti-pro-life and anti-pro-choice and pro-war and anti-war anti-pro-war pro-anti-war and just anything else that could possibly, potentially, eventually, in some small or large or insignificant or significant way, manage to rub anyone the wrong way or offend, or for that matter, make someone aware of another's point of view (which is what the USERpage is supposed to be all about, isn't it?) Guess what folks, we (in the US at least) live in a society that is supposed to have free speech, unless it offend someone. Well, this level of censorship offends me - so now what? If there is something on someone's userpage I don't like, I just go on to the next. Kind of like changing the channel. Or turning the TV of if you don't like O'Reilly. or Gore. Or Bush. Or Clinton. Or Reagan. Or any of the other presidents that the US has had.
Even if this were a userbox that I don't like (and there are QUITE a few), I will still fight to keep it - userboxes are not supposed to have to subscribe to a neutral point-of-view. They are all about putting forth the user's point of view to better understand the built-in (even if not always spoken about) biases that we all have.
<begin rant>I don't think there has ever, EVER been an elected official with 100% "pro" vote. I don't think there has ever been a bill that passed with a 100% "yes" vote. I don't think there ever will. People, there will ALWAYS be something somewhere that someone doesn't like. If that person happens to be you, live with it. If that person is me, than I'll live with it.</rant>NDCompuGeek 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Very, Very Strong Keep I can understand why this was proposed for deletion, but this is America, and we do have free speech. The userbox is POV, but not so much so that it is in violation of our guidelines (I think). If we deleted this UBX, then we would have to delete a whole lot of others, too. -- P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 03:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A few of things. (a) This is not America, this is the internet. (b) This is a private website of a private organisation, there is no right to free speech here. (c) "If we deleted this UBX, then we would have to delete a whole lot of others, too." is not an argument. Perhaps those "whole lot of others" ought to be deleted too. -- Steel 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep on the who-cares principle, with the note that 'free speech' and especially 'this is America' are totally irrelevant. Why does anyone care if someone posts conservative politics on their userpage? Opabinia regalis 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no particularily good reason to agitate editors by deleting user boxes that express personal beliefs in a way that doesn't sound like advocacy. -/- Warren 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Userboxes reflect a user's point of view. ~ PseudoSudo 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as long as it doesn't violate a policy like spam or personal attacks, it's in userspace - so who cares? --BigDT 12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per RoyalGuard11.↔NMajdan•talk 14:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Sorry, Dev, but deleting this userbox would open the doorway to deleting various other userboxes. As much as I don't like the message (and it personally offends me) I still think MiraLuke is well within her wikirights to use it. It'll announce his/her POV too, which will be helpful if he/she decides to start destroying articles. CaveatLectorTalk 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. It should be noted that all the gender, sexuality, marriage etc. userboxes are reproduced at User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Sexuality in accordance with WP:UBM, regardless of whether they apply to him or not. They should not be taken as an indication of MiraLuka's POV. WjBscribe 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Right. Userboxes expressing my personal views can be found at User:MiraLuka and User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Mine. I don't use the userbox under discussion because I do not hold the opinion it expresses, I'm just hosting it so that other may use it if they wish. And I promise not to destroy any articles. ;) —Mira 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
        • My sincerest apologies! I should have checked that before making such an assumptive statement. CaveatLectorTalk 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
          • No worries! :) —Mira 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep NPOV doesn't apply in userspace. --sunstar nettalk 14:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep"""--Umedard Talk 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep* - Censorship, if any, should not apply to userboxes. Valencerian 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not only is it discriminatory, it's a userbox, which is criteria enough for me for deletion. ^demon[omg plz] 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    You know, I could sit here and call the userbox saying that a user supports SSM discriminatory against several different religions. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, so delete it too. Delete any userbox that has a posibility of being discriminatory or divisive. ^demon[omg plz] 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This is a bit discriminatory, and violates WP:UBX#Content_restrictions mirageinred 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Could you please elaborate how it violates WP:UBX#Content_restrictions? —Doug Bell talk 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe, but am not sure, that this phrase is common among anti-same-sex marriage circles -- vernacular if you will. The wording is not meant to be insulting or shocking. No censorship plz. GracenotesT § 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Honestly, I'm totally OK with it, but if it makes others uncomfortable, it should not be used. Of course, the user could say that on their userpage without a box, and that would be fine. YechielMan 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    You can say everything without userboxes. Should we just delete them all and tell people to just explain on their userpage instead? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. All of the endless templates/categories for categorizing Wikipedia users is a waste of time and space. And before someone says "Hard disks are cheap," I know that they are. Just because they're cheap doesn't mean you can't waste space on them. ^demon[omg plz] 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Well, that just identifies you as an anti-userbox deletionist. But that probably doesn't mean a thing to you. It's too bad then that this wiki works mostly on compromise. Hence WP:GUS, between anti-userbox-deletionists and anything-goes-inclusionists. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm well aware that the wiki is based on consensus, and I respect that. While I am in favor of removing userboxes, I do not believe it should be done, as it would create more backlash and a revisit of the userbox war, which is something I'd much rather avoid. If I disrespected consensus, I'd just go around tagging userboxes for speedy, or mass-nominating them for deletion, neither of which you see happening. ^demon[omg plz] 18:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep − It's not a definition with which I agree, but if you get rid of this, then you will have to get rid of userboxes supporting same-sex marriage. I think you'll be opening up a big can of slithering, slimy worms. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - If this gets deleted, then my "This user supports same-sex marriage" userbox is next on the list. Jeffpw 11:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Keep It's ridiculous to try to stop people from expressing a political view when describing themselves, simply because you disagree with that view. And the suggestion above that "Free Speech shouldn't be offensive" is absurd. The very notion of free speech exists to protect offensive speech. Inoffensive speech doesn't need protecting because no one would ever think to suppress it. If this gets deleted, then ALL userboxes that express an opinion or belief should go. zadignose 12:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "All userboxes that express an opinion or belief should go" does not follow from "I think this particular userbox should go", which is the basis of any deletion nomination statement. -- Steel 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: A lot of the delete votes seem to be instances of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Isn't that wrong? --Quentin Smith 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. IDONTLIKE several userboxes, but I let them live so that people can express their opinion. Anything else would be censorship. Free speech works both ways. From The American President (film) "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." A great quote that sums up free speech. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well I always understood the project here to be building an encyclopedia, not an exercise in individual expressions of free speech (i.e. Not a free webhost, not a soapbox etc.). Can't speak for the US but the European Convention on Human Rights certainly recognises a number of rights and that there is a tension between them, such as the right to free speech may directly interfere with someone else's right to a fair trial. (Article 10 freedom of expression provide for restrictions necessary in a democratic society). Not much to do with this debate, but nor do I see freedom of speech issues as much to do with this debate. --pgk 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I've got to be a lot more straightforward in the future. Some people are saying "this discriminates against certain people, then it should go". They're in that promoting a position against the box (ie, in favour of SSM). The quote above was meant to say that if you believe in one extreme diverse position, then you must be willing to listen and tollerate the other extreme diverse position in a climate such as Wikipedia. There is no free speech built into Wikipedia, but it is understood that there is no censorship of speech (to a point of corse). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If NPOV applys to Userspace, it looks like i'm up for a large ban, i've been displaying Christian Fundamentalist sentiment on my userpage for quite some time now with no remorse whatsoever or intention to remove the content, or any respect at all for this invisible Userspace NPOV policy. :D Homestarmy 23:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just as legitimate as any other userbox, should we also get rid of the ones espousing equal rights? — MichaelLinnear 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Userboxes are supposed to express a wide range of preferences, including personal beliefs. It does not say "This user believes homosexual marriage is wrong", which would be offensive. It merely says what the user feels is the best alternative. Just because somebody is offended by the UBX doesn't mean it should have to go. There wouldn't be any UBX's left if that was the case. For perspective, what makes this more offensive than the opposite perspective's userbox? What makes one more offensive than the other? --Hojimachongtalkcon 06:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NPOV applies to "Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content" only. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep no vaild rationale given for deletion. "It's offensive" is not a reason since Wikipedia is not censored, "It's POV" is not a reason since NPOV does not apply to the content of userpages, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason because--well read the essay it links to. The userbox is not a personal attack on any group or individual (though it could be construed as an attack in a broad sense). Thus, while it is may well be a bad idea (for being discrininatory, offensive, divisive etc.), it should certainly not be deleted. Eluchil404 11:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reviewing the guideline, you're right that none of them apply by their terms. On the other hand, the guideline is much stricter than current actual practice and thus of dubious validity since guidelines are ment to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. My "no valid rationale" could be considered a broader version of the second bullet of Wikipedia:Speedy keep which WP:SNOW and WP:IAR would counsel bringing into practice. Eluchil404 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep the fact that there are userboxes on one side suggests a NPOV to have the other side of the belief systems. If this is deleted I would propose all of the related ones are also deleted. -- Tony of Race to the Right 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/s/Wikipedia%7EMiscellany_for_deletion_User%7EMiraLuka_Userboxes_User_onemanonewoman_fa7c.html"