From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This user was rejected by the community. It is inactive but retained for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump. |
|
Games & TV
| P |
This user prefers to side with the Protoss. |
| SEIN |
This user is obsessed with Seinfeld .. not that there's anything wrong with that! |
|
I'm putting all my non-wikipedia-related boxes on the page to make my main page more accessable.
[edit] My opinion on userboxes
They're harmless. Stop panicking. Some of the arguments against them are the most absurd things. They're distracting me from making beneficial edits to the encyclopedic content? Please. Does a poster on the wall keep you from doing your job? I respect that J.W. and many others feel that polemic boxes divide the community, hence my not having any boxes political in nature. I can understand some editors would have a conflict of interest getting along with someone whose political views are opposed to theirs - maybe it is better if we didn't share that sort of information, and you won't find any divisive userboxes here. But just because the encyclopedia is NPOV does not mean its editors have to be - that simply will never happen. What makes a good editor is not that they have no POV, it is that they don't let their personal feelings bias their edits. That's the difference between us and vandals. They would screw up a page on someone they don't like. I'd rather people had a userbox stating their opinion, on their userpage, where it is separate from the articles. Userboxes are harmless unless you want to start a war over them. Summary: userboxes cause less damage than flamewars about userboxes.-Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 09:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My opinion on AfD etiquette
I find it unfortunate how often AfD turns into a battleground. There are a few behaviors which I believe foster this environment, and I will try to always avoid. These are only my ideas, not rules, but I believe they would yield a friendlier environment if avoided.
- Strong opinions. AfD is not a vote. Even if it was, a Strong delete means nothing more than delete. Make a good case for your point, rather than trying to assert yourself with more bold letters.
- Calling everything something-cruft. Cruft is a nasty word. It inherently implies a topic is worthless, which can come across as offensive. Just because a topic may not deserve an article doesn't mean it deserves to be insulted, along with those interested in it. Again, make a well-reasoned argument rather than just using a line of clever words followed by -cruft. (Exception: There was once some Starcraft article up for deletion, and someone called it Starcruft. That was cute.) This idea applies beyond just the word "cruft". Saying things like "Delete, stupid topic that no one cares about" is just as bad.
- Voting, or especially nominating articles for deletion because they need a bit of cleanup. If an article is such a mess that it'd be easier to start over, that's one thing. But many, many times I see articles nominated for deletion because they only have a couple citations, and there are a couple places marked [citation needed] (or possibly not even marked at all). It seems it would be more beneficial to the project to either look for some sources or remove the offending facts than try to remove the whole page.
