Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Disruptive nomination by sockpuppet, consensus to keep firmly established. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:UBX/sex

This is a little inappropriate and I think should be deleted. I realize Wikipedia isn't censored but still. ZapBoy (contribs) (sign here) 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - as nominator ZapBoy (contribs) (sign here) 16:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not censored; this userbox is no different from all the other userboxes. —Nightstallion 16:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I prefer deleting (almost) all userboxes, but I see no reason why this one especially should be deleted. Garion96 (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. Cheers, Lights 17:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (Speedy) Keep Wikipedia is not censored. 84.145.245.161 18:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not censored. Hut 8.5 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Treat like any other userbox. I see no reason to single this one out. --Carnildo 19:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • deleate. Even though wikipedia isnt cencored still...ug.Vandalfighter101 20:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per opposite of nom. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd like to point out most of us, if not all of us, are the result of a sexual act. ^^ ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 21:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So you're saying some of the editors here might be the result of mitosis? Or are you implying parthenogenesis? --Carnildo 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Or, much more sensibly, IVF -Halo 01:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
not speaking personally, but I would have assumed that mechanical construction in a factory was the implication.DGG (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nominator. Politics rule 23:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, oddly for the opposite reason to Zouavman. There is no difference between this and other userboxes, since it states a distinct personal preference - as such it's no worse or better than User:KyraVixen/Userboxes/chocolate or User:UBX/Footballer. Not everyone enjoys sex, you know. And the thing is pretty tame, really - it's not like there's a picture of the user and his/her S.O. in their favourite position (unless the user is one of those tortoises, of course). Grutness...wha? 00:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep there is nothing wrong with it. I see no reason to delete it. Acalamari 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This userbox is no different from all the other userboxes. Therefore delete, as we would with other things that do not help the project in any way. --Bduke 02:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. In userspace. No good reason to delete, apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not censored. No other reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 08:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The idea of "Wikipedia is not censored" is that we do not censor encyclopedic and valid content from articles (or their associated images and templates) on the grounds that it is indecent. This is part of our mission to build a neutral and balanced encyclopedia. Userboxes, on the other hand, are not part of the encyclopedia; they're for users' own amusement - and just as we disallow profane and indecent usernames that may offend people, the same should apply to indecent userboxes. WaltonOne 13:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This reasoning assumes that mentioning one's affinity for sex is indecent. I, for one, hold that assumption to be incorrect.
  • Keep Inoffensive, mildly humorous bit of personal expression. Sex is a valid encyclopedic topic, and the expression of interest in (or affinity for) it is within the range of topical disclosures usually permitted on userpages, so that other editors might know the areas of expertise, and the biases, of their colleagues. Xoloz 15:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    I quite agree that sex is a valid encyclopedic topic - so are a lot of other things which can be considered indecent or offensive. As Wikipedia is not censored, I do not object to our preponderance of articles about sexual techniques, pornography etc., nor to the existence of Wikiprojects in those areas. Those are legitimate. However, it is my understanding that userspace content (which does not form part of the encyclopedia per se) should avoid offending people, wherever possible. Just as we do not permit usernames that refer to sex, so it should be avoided on userpages. Obviously the concept of what is "indecent" is subjective, but I would advocate following similar guidelines to those already in use at WP:U, viz. no reproductive or excretory references or racial or ethnic slurs. Although I would never advocate censorship for encyclopedic content, as it contradicts our core mission, censorship in userspace and projectspace is entirely legitimate, as inoffensive content is more likely to build a collegial working atmosphere. WaltonOne 16:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Full reply at your talk. The brief summary is that I find this expression -- "I like sex" -- to be the simplest, clearest, most dispassionate reasonable expression of a given view. If it can be forbidden, then the topic of sex itself becomes taboo, and that obviously would stifle the work of the project in this area of encyclopedic interest. Xoloz 18:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I admit that I find the choice of photo (turtles) weird, but what exactly is inappropriate or indecent about stating that one enjoys sex? Almost all humans do. If the userbox went into gory details of how a user enjoys sex (maybe involving anchovies dipped in strawberry jam or the ritual sacrifice of goats and chickens), then it might need to be toned down. But a simple expression of something that is true of almost everyone? It's fine as it is. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:25, 16 July 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.