Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster/belief

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination to make a point in relation to another MfD nom. Nominator has been blocked by another admin for ongoing disruption. WjBscribe 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:WebHamster/belief

Hatebox designed to promote hatred against a sub-section of wikipedians. Contains badly drawn self published hate image, which does nothing to help build an encyclopedia Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete per WP:USERBOX Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as creator. It's a box that does not promote hatred in anyway, shape or form. It promotes the concept of personal belief over the belief of organised religions. This is a bad faith nomination by Prester John (talk · contribs) after I nominated his user page for deletion on the grounds of soapboxing and disparagement towards Muslims. --WebHamster 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

comment, WebHamster should assume good faith. A badly drawn picture of a cross (the sacred symbol of Christianity) with a "ban" symbol stroked through it has no place in wikipedia. It does nothing but promote hate against christians. If he really does believe the aim of the box is against organised religion then he must allow the symbols of other religions such as Islam to be included. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith of what? Perhaps you should with your accusation of promoting hatred. And just how does one fit symbols of all religions (if they actually have one) in a 45px x 45px box? The text of the box makes it clear that no particular religion is being targeted, unlike your past history of course. Likewise what is the relevance of "badly drawn"? You are disrupting WP to make a WP:POINT, it's as simple as that. --WebHamster 19:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are pictures that indentify all religion. Your last comments indicates this would be preferable than just one religion. Let me adjust it for you and I will withdraw the nomination. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm happy with that one. But if it offends your aesthetic sensibilities I'll improve the artwork. --WebHamster 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So I included a picture per WebHamsters request that icluded all religions yet he continues to editwar his Christian hate symbol back in. It is obvious this userbox was created to violate WP:POINT, not to critisise all religions but to bash Christianity specifically. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I made no request, I asked a question. Secondly the image you supplied presented symbols of organised religions, the very thing this userbox was professing a disbelief in. I'm certainly not going to edit that picture you supplied to show a negative aspect. If you wish to have access to a userbox that matches your belief system then I suggest you create your own rather than screwing round with mine. Similarly I suggest you quit the hypocrisy you are demonstrating with regard to your dislike of certain religions. Please also note that this userbox is in user space, it's not in template space so ownership is acceptable. So quit editing pages in my space. --WebHamster 20:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Let's get some perspective on this shall we? I chose a cross for several reasons. It's a world-known symbol of 'religion', it's a symbol of the religion I was brought up with, i.e. Church of England. If I'd chosen a religion I didn't subscribe to I could have been accused of sectarianism. Similar to the way it's acceptable for Blacks to call each other "niggaz", or Gays to call each other "queer" or "queen". The red circle with a diagonal bar is a world-known negation symbol. It is not a sign of hate any more than the road signs that use it are. If I'd used some symbolic way of destroying the cross you may have had a point but I didn't 'destroy' the cross did I? I negated it. So please explain in a logical manner how that can be construed as "hatred" or as a "hate image"? --WebHamster 02:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - frivolously pointed nomination. ITAQALLAH 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - bad faith (sic) nomination. UBX actually makes a valid point. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a bad faith nomination; if this userbox truly is inappropriate, someone who does not have a conflict of interest will nominate it for deletion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet people with the same COI can vote here. No hipocrisy here folks. Move along. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

1) It's not a vote, 2) There's a big difference between nominating and taking part in a discussion 3)Pot and kettle spring to mind after your recent WP:POINT-making exercise. --WebHamster 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Why are we having this discussion - didn't the UBX wars end long ago? This UBX is a religious statement (e.g. "I don't think organised religion is a good idea"), not an "attack" (e.g. "Everyone who goes to church is a do-I-dare-to-say-what"). The picture can be debated about, but last I checked, you can change that with no Mad Admin Powers. invocation of which is the raison d'être of XfDs. (Plus, as you can see from the picture page, the image itself is hardly "crude", though I agree the artist has taken a stylistically questionable approach to the three-dimensional effect, particularly with the no-sign, where the technique is not flawless as is and could use improvement. However, this is hardly the forum for debating Christian iconography and proper depictions of the symbols, but it might be worth mentioning that as a person with Christian upbringing, I've seen quite a few simplistically rendered crosses and most people I've discussed with seem to take no offence in simplicity in itself; in fact, most consider simplicity a virtue in itself. I am merely suggesting that the nominator might want to reconsider some of the statements here, or at least elaborate on what exactly makes this cross so badly-drawn - after all, unlike many other religious symbols, it is a shape that is demonstrably almost impossible to draw badly.) My argument is that the UBX itself requires no deletion. Sorry, I'm a little bit off the rocker - a slight lack of caffeine did wonders to my brain cells. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• In all fairness I have changed the image to the 3D version. Originally it was a very basic, 10 seconds to create, cross and 'prohibited' circle. --WebHamster 00:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Wwwwolf. This is a statement of personal opinion situated on the user's space, where I believe we may express our point of view. It isn't an attack on anyone's religion. I'm also concerned that this is an attempt to get back at WebHamster, though I'm going assume good faith and say that you just misunderstood the userbox. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--this nomination is a logical fallacy; that is, it relies on a statement that personal belief is equivalent to a dislike of others who do not share this belief. While perhaps there have been many throughout history for which this was true, it is logically false, and I highly doubt that the creator of the userbox "hates" all people who take part in organized religion. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The box reads "This user believes in personal belief but doesn't believe in organised religion." and currently sports a "crossed-out-cross", which I interpret as "not-religion" (the cross acting as a common symbol for religion, and the crossing out as a negation of it). I must remind the nominator to assume good faith, though in the current form I cannot but wonder how he came to interpret (and label) said symbol as a "hate-symbol". CharonX/talk 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum Looking further I can not shake the feeling that this nomination is a "retaliation-nomination" for the nomination his own userpage. I strongly suggest Prester John to be more mindful of his actions. Continued disruption of Wikipedia to prove a Point will not be tolerated. CharonX/talk 01:45, 5 December 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.