Jump to content

User talk:UBX/Userboxes/Religion/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Deletion

Deleted the offensive "muslim" box. --D SCH 02:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agnostics not sure (about how to make userboxes)

YOU DON'T HAVE ONE FOR AGNOSTIC PEOPLE! How would one make one?Carbunkel 01:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree - there isnt one for Agnostic or Pastafarian --ShakataGaNai 06:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
There is one for Agnostic now. Umm, I'll leave "Pastafarian" to someone else :p --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 07:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Aparently there was one for "flying spaghetti monster" which is the same thing - some how I completly missed that. Yay! --ShakataGaNai 22:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like it if there were one for Religious Pluralism and other similar views. I'd also like it if there were one for one who consider oneself a non-denominational Christian.
Indeed, how do one make a userbox, that I would like to know.Satanael 16:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, we need to add the flying spaghetti monster back because it was the only {{User 1|...}} example, which people are going to want for every little sub-denomination, faction, schism, or variant they might belong to. --—James S. 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Or not. Whatever. —James S. 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Umm... maybe because agnosticism isn't a religion? :P That is the weirdest question I've ever seen. -Kasreyn 11:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You're responding to an out-of-date conversation. We've had agnostic, atheist, etc. templates for a long time on Userboxes/Religion now. You also completely misunderstand the point of this page. A majority of the templates listed on the page aren't actual templates that are for a specific religion; there's only one section on the page actually called "religions". Rather, this page is for templates related to religion and spirituality, which includes atheism, agnosticism, reincarnation, vampires, Santa Claus, Buddhism, deism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and everything in between. -Silence 11:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, whatever floats people's boats is fine by me.  :) -Kasreyn 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. No userbox for the Church of the Subgenius? I'm shocked.  :(
Actually, there is, please look a little closer.--Vidkun 13:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did the box for atheist suddenly say 'religious'? Magnus 06:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to revive this conversation. The agnostic userbox is great, but I believe a userbox for Agnostic theism would be a good idea. Without one, users such as myself use the agnostic userbox, but this not accurately represent their religious views. So I'd like to put forward a request for a an agnostic theist userbox. Regards and thanks, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reorg

Okay, I put the generalities up at the top, followed by the religions sorted from oldest to newest. I don't know whether there should be a distinction of "Beliefs about origins" and "Beliefs about religions," but for now it's okay. If you don't like it, merge the two. —James S. 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Jainism

I added in my Jainism template next to hinduism (because they are directly related (see my talk page for an explanation) --Shell 15:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Religion by time??

Aren't the religions supposed to be by longest time of practice?! Hinduism has been practiced for MUCH longer than buddhism and christianity! --Shell 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I sorted them that way on December 30 from their previously apparently unsorted state, but Koavf thought that was too controversial and put them back semi-alphabetical, semi-clustered by related sects. Up near the top were Chinese traditional religion and Judaism, and it was very obvious from their respective history pages that there was no way to figure out which came first, so it did appear to be controverisial. However, I liked them much better when they were sorted by age. --James S. 19:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

understands evolution?

Why doesn't someone make a box that says, "This user acknowledges biological evolution," instead of "This user understands biological evolution." 'Acknowledges' is less vague, as there are, believe it or not, people who understand (the concept of) evolution but do not acknowledge it. It could use the same image. Thanks. Maprov 05:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, that's exactly what I thought of when I saw the evolution userboxes. I might make one, but I'm waiting until the current brouhaha over userboxes is settled. (See notices at the top of Wikipedia:Userboxes) --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 01:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I just found that somebody has already made one like that. ({{User evolution2}}) I put it in. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 20:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I learned how to do it and did it. Someone could change all the science-related ones to "acknowledge," however, instead of "believe." We don't need to believe science. That's what evidence is for.Maprov

User atheist

Why is that grey box listed instead of this swanky one?--KrossTalk 07:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The standard box is gray, and according to my POV, for atheist, thats the best color, reminds me of cement etc. I don't think green defines atheist so good. →AzaToth 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Green is good. TCorp 19:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

new

We should have jedi and sith under funny religions Batzarro 04:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinmaya Mission

I added my chinmaya mission template because there are many hindus that are a member of/believe in/follow the mission and its teachings. --Shell 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

a bit of humor to lighten the mood of wikipedia

Don't claim im distracting from the wikipedia cus I made 200 encyclopedia edits today. Heres the jokey question: What would happen to God if God edited on wikipedia? :)--Urthogie 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well he's obviously not allowed to edit his own biography - its against policy. But do you think god has access to TCP/IP devices? If so, what would a 'holy' IP address be? --ShakataGaNai 20:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
777.777.777.777. (Class G)--Urthogie 20:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, thats not holy, thats lucky. Vegas would love to have that (like they tried to go for the 777 area code). Besides, it has to be a valid IP address, I dont think 777... is, well, routable. --ShakataGaNai 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
777 is considered a number of the divine in many numerological works, Shakata. Just like 666 is considered the number of the Beast. Also, this topic is stupid. -Silence 11:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, 777 is holy. The reason why is that there are three digits, i.e. fullness, completion, the Trinity, and 7 represents Godly holiness, so therefore it's like Godly holiness to the max. I would imagine it would be something like that... . Hope you enjoyed that quick info on numerology.. - Bonzai273 (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of 'bright' and 'materialist' under "Religion"

I'm not so sure either the bright or materialist boxes should be included under religion - both these worldviews say far more than just 'god doesn't exist' or anything similar. Although it is (seemingly) impossible to be both a bright and religious, it is very possible to be non-religious but not a bright (e.g. atheistic dualism). That is, both boxes make reveal information about the user's religious views, but they say FAR more than just that. Any suggestion for dealing with this? Mikkerpikker ... 14:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

both these worldviews say far more than just 'god doesn't exist' or anything similar. - So do most religious and spiritual beliefs. Theism is a very, very, very small part of what religion (and irreligion) can, and often does, entail. While I'm tempted to indeed remove "user materialist" to the page (since, unlike bright, it is not chiefly used in the context of religious discussions, but can refer to a general scientific worldview instead), I'm not at all tempted to remove "user bright", which is indeed focused on the user's beliefs regarding the supernatural. Remember that Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion concerns the supernatural just as much as the religious (just as the Sexuality userboxes concern mar since its primary philosophy is an explicit denial of the supernatural, and this page coital status, politics, etc., not just sex and sexual orientation and such), which is important because it's often hard to draw the line between irreligious and religious spirituality (Buddhism is one of the most popular philosophies in this religious "grey zone"). The point is, most of these beliefs often (but not always) tell us more about the person than just his religion; but since these templates deal largely with views related to religion, spirituality, the supernatural, etc., this page is simply the best place to put them. However, because I agree that putting "materialist" on this page is slightly questionable (though not much more questionable than putting "I believe the Big Bang occurred" here), I'll consider a compromise for now, and add "materialist" to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs#Philosophy, at least for now, because its application is so much more general. On the other hand, it's also tempting to instead just move it to the "Science and religion" section, since it indeed has similarities to the Big Bang, spherical earth, etc. userboxes; would that satisfy you, Mikkerpikker?
Although it is (seemingly) impossible to be both a bright and religious - As long as one believes one's own religion to include mystical, spiritual, and supernatural elements, yes; this may not apply to 100% of religious people, though, considering how many people believe their religion to be the literal truth. However, you might also be interested in checking out how many people have both the "I'm spiritual" and "I'm a bright" templates on their userpage, as I did the other day; this really surprised me, since to me the very nature of "bright" is to lack spirituality. However, obviously some brights don't interpret it that way, and it's their right to define their views and self-identify as they wish, so I'm not exactly going to complain to them about it. People are just strange sometimes.
it is very possible to be non-religious but not a bright (e.g. atheistic dualism). - I think you just mixed up your terminology pretty badly, there. Irreligion is not atheism, and irreligious Wikipedians aren't always atheist Wikipedians too. You also seem to have mixed up materialism with bright (noun); it's true that a non-theistic materialist might be an atheistic dualist (though those aren't necessarily the only two options, I've met triplists before, and many agnostics don't like to be called "atheists"). In reality, a non-religious non-bright (assuming he wasn't simply an irreligious person who shares the bright philosophy but doesn't like being called a "bright", like myself) would simply be an irreligious person who still considers himself spiritual or mystical, or who still believes in the existence of the supernatural. There are actually a large, and growing, number of people of this sort nowadays; "religion" is starting to become a dirty word of sorts, associated with fundamentalism and dogmatism and becoming synonymous with "organized religion", so a surprising number of people these days take a vaguer, quasi-New Age spiritual view, rejecting religion in favor of a disorganized, vague system of spirituality. This group of people, the non-"bright" non-religious (as you put it) ones, are whom I made the {{user spiritual}} userbox for. However, what's confused me are the people who have both that userbox and {{User:UBX/Bright}} on their userpage; obviously, people are complicated, paradoxical little critters. And fascinating ones, hence the wealth of knowledge these belief-related userboxes can help provide us with. -Silence 15:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I see what you're saying & you're certainly making sense but I do think "brights" are something of a special case. Specifically, the way I understand the term (derived from http://www.the-brights.net), brights believe in a naturalistic worldview - and this encompasses far more than religion. Non-religious believers in pixies are not (properly speaking) brights, non-religious dualists are not brights, non-religious non-materialists are not brights, etc. etc. etc. That is, you have to have a quite specific worldview to be a bright (that is, in Dennett's terminology, you have to believe the world can be explained via cranes, no skyhooks needed. So Nozick, McGinn, Penrose, etc. are not brights). Anyway, I do not feel particularly strongly about this, but I do think materialist at a minimum should be moved... Mikkerpikker ... 20:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What do these symbols mean?

can anyone tell me waht religions are associated with some of Template:User religious pluralism these symbolson the religious pluralist userbox? specifically the center, bottom center, and bottom right? Gatherton 00:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the edit summary of the template's image at Image:Religious symbols.png:
Various religious symbols - uploaded by author ≈ jossi fresco ≈.
From left to right:
--Aquarius Rising 00:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Cross pattée (centre) is rather oddly placed - referring possibly to the Knights templar - which no longer exists, so maybe represents gnostic Christians - most of which do not exist. Ayyavazhi (bottom centre) is a small (on the world stage) syncretic Hindu sect, and also seems rather out of place. Lastly, I am guessing that the triple crescent of Diane de Poitiers is supposed to represent wicca or mother goddess type neopaganism which unfortunately bears a strong resemblance to the Biological hazard Symbol. Notably missing is any symbol for Buddhism - normally recognised as a major world religion. In light of your question, I feel that it is correct to edit the picture somewhat. If we were to represent nine religions, it seems to make sense to use the top nine organized religions found on World religion - namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Bahá'í, Jainism, Shinto. Notable absences would be those excluded by the 'organized religion' requirement - Chinese traditional, Primal Indigenous, African traditional, and Secular/Atheists.. (20040302 10:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

I have amended the picture for uses where it is meant to be representative of different religions. This should better reflect what I mention above. There is no ordering used in the image - I merely replaced some symbols with symbols from more popular reliigions. Moreover, I have thickened the lines used in order to make it more visible for Template:User religious pluralism. See Major world religions for the choice - I restricted the set to organised religions.

Image:Religious symbols.svg now has an SVG version (Image:Religious_symbols.svg), if that makes any difference... AnonMoos 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

moving userboxes

I changed the location of some recently-moved boxes to avoid confusion from a less informed user. Science adopts methodological materialism/naturalism. On the other hand, the boxes about dualism, bright-ism and materialism are treating the subject on ontological grounds. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 21:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the religion page deals chiefly with beliefs, not with methodologies. I think your rearrangement has caused a lot more confusion than there was originally: why is belief in a soul (or lack of it) a "philosophy", or belief that the universe is an illusion for that matter? That doesn't seem like a "philosophy" any more than belief/disbelief in Santa Claus would be, even if it (like pretty much all religious beliefs) touches on philosophical topics. Likewise, excluding deism, Buddhism, etc. from "philosophies" seems to be a pretty arbitrary and meaningless decision that will cause lots of confusion, and if your basis for the move is that "I believe the perceivable universe is an illusion" is philosophical while "I believe the universe is static and infinite" is scientific, your basis is pretty baseless; both are at best pseudoscientific. In fact, one could argue that there's much more evidence for the "illusion" belief than the "static/infinite" belief, since at least the former doesn't directly violate the entire field of astrophysics (merely throws it in the garbage :)). You seem to have mistaken the "Science and religion" section for being purely about scientific beliefs; this is obviously not the case, as the majority of views expressed in that section are actually currently deeply unscientific. Rather, the "Science and religion" instead just deals with controversies or contradicting beliefs regarding scientific topics, such as biology, cosmology, and astrophysics, which religion (or at least pseudoscience or spirituality or somesuch) factors into in some way. -Silence 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You complain about aspects of my reorganization... No problem, we shold then revert to the previous arrangement that properly framed "materialism", "brightism", etc... into the philosophy/beliefs list. As I said, we should not mislead the less informed Wikipedian. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 22:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
When, today, I tried to made the change above, Silence immediately reverted it with this edit summary: "apparently Leinad-Z did not see that I already resolved the issue yesterday by making "Science and religion" a subsection of "General philosophies and beliefs". - - - Now I ask: Silence, in which way does your last move resolve the issue? The mistake of mixing opinions about scientific theories with philosophical issues does not get resolved by artificially making that mistake "more official". --Leinad ¬ pois não? 15:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no mistake. This page is for religious, theistic, spiritual, and paranormal beliefs and ideologies, not for scientific theories. The only reason a scientific theory would be included on this page is if either (A) it is also religious, or theistic, or etc. (e.g. theistic evolution, even if it was a valid scientific theory rather than just a baseless mythology-derived hypothesis, would still qualify for inclusion on this page because it's inherently theistic), or (B) it's the opposing opinion to such a religious, theistic, etc. view or theory (which is why atheism, bright, the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc. are all listed here: to give both sides equal time in a fairly juxtaposed manner). My change makes that necessary distinction clear; I only regret that I didn't make the change weeks ago, when I first created the "Science and religion" section, to make the categorization obvious and thus avoid people like Leinad-Z misunderstanding the section as being for "scientific theories" (which is obviously impossible, read Theory#Further_explanation_of_a_scientific_theory for starters). Trying to distinguish "philosophies" from "scientific theories" from "opinions" would be ridiculously POV, and would cause much more edit warring than simply leaving them organized as they are: by either being "views about religions", "religions", "other religious and spiritual views and philosophies, and their counter-views", and "religious humor", which is the simplest and most effective way of subdividing the page, and avoids all the controversy, redundancy, and arbitrary overcategorization of introducing a "philosophy" system (since almost everything on the entire page can be considered a "philosophy", or at least "philosophical"). -Silence 17:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Silence, it's funny how you are highly underestimating my knowledge about some topics. I need no introduction about scientific theories. Also, it seems that you mistakenly assumed I was thinking that things like Theistic Evolution and ID were scientific theories.
What I'm trying to explain, and you are not getting, is that the objective and NPOV way to determine what should or not be in the “Science and Religion” section is to see if it's a belief ABOUT a scientific theory, or about her statements. (For that matter, Theistic Evolution isn't a scientific theory, but a view about how the theory of evolution relates to some religious interpretations; and Inteligent Design is a belief that stands in a kind of oposition to that same theory, etc.).
Without an objective way to choose what falls into the "Science and Religion" list, the selection of userboxes will be based merely on POV. For example: the distinction you made between those (A) and (B) groups was nothing more than your personal POV about what beliefs should be considered "less scientific" or "more scientific". Moreover: your division certainly isn't a reflection of what scientific knowledge really says about them. Maybe you should check out this article/section: Naturalism (philosophy)#Methodological naturalism versus ontological naturalism.
[The belief that there is only matter, or the belief that there’s no supernatural stuff, etc… are not beliefs about concrete scientific statements. Science hasn't yet found an answer to these questions, and, for now, leaves the discussion about the ontological reality of those propositions to philosophy. As I said before, science adopts a naturalistic view only for methodological reasons, but not on ontological grounds. It means that science doesn't say "there is only matter". Rather it says: "Let’s see what kind of knowledge we can develop under the unproved assumption that there's only matter - no supernatural stuff"].
Keeping, on the "Science and Religion" section, userboxes that say NOTHING about true scientific theories misleads people to think that science somehow have a statement about them, when it’s not the case. BTW, Science distinguish itself from philosophy with much clarity, going exactly the opposite way you’re trying to lead this article. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 20:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture necessary

Is the picture of hammer and sickel in user_orgatheism-0 really necessary? It conjures certain associations to communism and adverse effects of the same up. --belthil 19:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Traditional

I am a Taoist, not someone interested in Taoism, but a Taoist. I notice that there is a box for Chinese Traditional which I assume is a mix of Confuscism and Taoism, a box for interested in Taoism, but no box for those of us outside of China that consider themselves either Confusist or Taoist, but not both.

Then create one. It's pretty easy. Do you have any questions about how to do so? -Silence 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange deletions

Has anyone else noticed some rather odd, and seemingly random, speedy-deletions to assorted templates on this page, without a word of explanation? I fully agree with the recent speedy-deletion of the "Christianity?!" one, which is clearly antagonistic towards Christians, but the deletion of the ignosticism template seems rather odd indeed. Are Wikipedians not allowed to express the fact that they are ignostic? How is this different from the other beliefs on this page, is all I'm curious about—and even if it merits deletion, what's wrong with TfD? Last I checked, TfD was working just fine. I'm confused. :/ -Silence 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

evolution & athesim userboxes deleted?

Honestly, wtf? Is there ANY explanation for this? They are beliefs, plain and simple, just as much as being a Lutheran is. Cornell Rockey 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess they're getting on with the mooted mass deletion of userboxes, just starting with the ones that are less likely to complain much...
Any way, I'm taking this as a sign the userbox battle has been lost and will be deleting all of mine.
Now people will have to ask me if they think my edits are biased in some way... Mark Hurd 05:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not been lost, there are just a handful of slightly overzealous admins who have decided to take it upon themselves to destroy any userboxes they feel can fit under a very, very loose interpretation of T1. If you nominate those templates (you can probably do all the evolution-related ones as a group) at Wikipedia:Deletion review's userbox page, you'll probably be able to get a consensus to restore them. A majority of users oppose the userbox cull, they just don't have the power to reverse it. -Silence 05:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This is absolutely absurd, and just another reason why wikipedia is worse than britanica. Britanica doesn't take votes to find out "truth." They don't take votes to see what is offensive. Having worked on several contentious articles, I found that the stupid majority always won battles (e.g. Jesus taught about love vs. Luke 14:26, BCE/CE vs. BC/AD, etc). After being frustrated over this, I had resigned to simply having a userpage, and I withdrew from the rest of wikipedia. Alas! Even this realm is no longer safe from this tyrannical majority of the imbecils.
When I need brain surgery, I don't collect a group of strangers I meet on the street; I go to a surgeon. Science doesn't collect surveys from scientists to find the best theory. Schools don't let parents democratically decide the curriculum.
I quit - Wikipedia is worthless crap! Elindstr 05:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hear hear. TCorp 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This is insane. We're not allowed to have religiously or politically themed userboxes because people might actually then see us as-GASP!-individuals with opinions and beliefs. Well fuck that. Do the people who voted for this honestly believe Wikipedians are going to just stop expressing their beliefs on their user pages? All this makes me want to do is put a massive "ATHEIST" tag on my page. Jeff Silvers 02:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't take it THAT far. ----

Deletion 2006-02-20

Pretty much all of these religious userboxes have been or are in the process of being deleted. This is just a heads up ... it's not an accident, or a rogue admin. It's a shift in policy. If you want to have your say, I guess you can do so here. --Cyde Weys 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've learned that having your say on Wikipedia means about as much as having your say in China. TCorp 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"having your say on Wikipedia means about as much as having your say in China." . . . Sad, but true. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this kinda sucks a lot. Can somebody again explain to me why it's logical to do this? I'm sure the editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica aren't forbidden from expressing their views in public; nobody at Britannica headquarters is going to reprimand an editor for attending church (or temple, or an American Atheists meeting). But whatever. For the record, if any of my religiously- or politically-themed userboxes are deleted (liberal, dislikes Bush, going to Hell), I'm just going to replace them on my page with the necessary code. Jeff Silvers 01:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a nuke religious user box on religion. And no blanking the political use boxes. Its odd that expression of one's religious bliefs are blanked, but not poltical. Okay... I protest, I will place I am a Communist user box. Power to the people, we have nothing to lose our userboxes eh? " Kreb Dragonrider 12:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have had plenty of time to go to your user page and subst your userboxes. This isssue has been going on for at least two months (obviously longer, but I have been watching it for 2 months), and, while a general user consensus was not to get rid of userboxes, especially religious ones, they are going away. Why? It is considered, by the powers that be, a waste of server space to use templates. You want your userboxes back? Figure out the code they used, and put that on your user page.--Vidkun 13:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I am a wizard!Kreb Dragonrider 15:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Complaints

What the hell is wrong with you ppl??? I have a right to express my religous beliefs and you ppl are prohibiting me!!! go to hell you facist pigs user:SaintDante

i will start wikipedians agianst censorship of religion

I would like to appologise for over reacting. This is a privately owned server and i was ...wrong.... but i still think it is wrong. I will try to get them back. But i understand their rights. 

   My Formal Apoligies
   SaintDante 00:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPA Welcome to the real world: wikipedia is not public property. you have a right to express whatever you want, in public. Someone else (not you) is paying for the server space here. Therefore, you have whatever privileges they decide to accord to you.--Vidkun 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I can actually see both sides of the issue. The thing is, a person has the ability to write out in their own userpage that they are...a christian who believes in evolution (for example), but does not have the ability to express that in an userbox? There's a difference in being offensive with userboxes between "This user believes in god" and "This user wants to spit in the face on your god."

it is largely bollocks though. This user is not "interested in Zen". This user is a Zen Buddhist. It is a fact, like "this user had cornflakes for breakfast" rather than "This user is interested in people who have cornflakes for breakfast". Private server it may be, but that doesn't stop it from being a a bloody stupid policy. Lostsocks 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


There is also the server space issues. Userboxes were set up as templates which were not in userspace, but in encyclopediaspace. Userboxes are not encyclopedic. Additionally, because they could be used to track down who was using a specific box, they became prone to abuse for vote stacking. Have you, or User:SaintDante done any reading on the current issues regarding userboxes? try Wikipedia:Userboxes. --Vidkun 22:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I am disgusted by this userbox deletion rubbish. I thought Wikipedia held value. Esperteranta no mori. → Chèvredan∫ante talk · contrib 00:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So basically if you want to find a Jewish user to help clarify something about their religion you can't. If you want to find a Muslim user to ask whether or not something is permissible in their religion you can't. If you want to find an Atheist to help bring some nuetrality to pointlessly heated issue you can't. I see a point in such things- perhaps I am a fool, but better a simple fool than a sophisticated ignoramus...يلعنكم Meanwhile political and sexual orientation userboxes are sticking around. These are taking up just as much space and are just as susceptible to vote stacking issues. I'm not sure I like this kind of wikihypocrisy. In light of the fact that I cannot express my religon via userbox I have removed the other userbox reffering to my stance on gender issues. Perhaps this is what was intended, but I still don't quite like the idea. Angrynight 03:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that's exactly what the people who deleted the religious userboxes intended, even though it's not supported by Wikipedia policy at this time: User:Improv would love to see you ditch all of your userboxes. The only reason he and others started the cull with the religious userboxes was the notion that they'd be easier to get rid of than some of the other belief-based ones. They then expect to use these deletions as precedent for all other deletions, as soon as it's feasible. It's kind of sneaky, but an understandable ploy for someone so overzealously anti-userbox.
I just hope that eventually, even if the POV-expressing userboxes are all (wrongly) eliminated, they'll be replaced by interest-based userboxes so we will still be able to do what Angrynight mentioned: contact users based on their field of expertise or on what areas they'd be more willing to help with. Thus, "This user is interested in Christianity" replacing "This user is Christian". Seems like an effective compromise to me. We'll just have to see what happens, though. -Silence 03:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


My My. What statement is Wikipedia making when the only choices are "catholic, jewish, muslim, or athiest". Why not be more blunt and have "monotheistic or not". I am in total disbelief that this is an issue with the Wikipedia admins. I would rather see the site get rid of the religious boxes than have what appears to be either a self censorship because of pressure from the Big 3 (christian, jewish, muslim) or a very inappropriate sponsorship of monotheisim by its owners.

-/

I think every one just cares to much. people who get angry at this stuff have no life. And also Vidkun is a Self righteous dick. MegaloManiac 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

i feel we have a right to express our religion as long as we arent forcing them down other peoples throats. people dont have to go here and accept the religion i believe in. i mean as long as it isnt defaming religions i think everything here is good JMW814 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistent style

Now that the userboxes have been undeleted, I was wondering if there would be any support or opposition for making the style more consistent and easy-to-remember by not requiring that people memorize which userbox names are or aren't capitalized, which is rather random right now. The best way to do this without a flood of unnecessary userboxes is to simply uncapitalize every template on this page (thus requiring the minimum amount of caps-lock-shiftin' possible). So, based on that, combined with using an organized numbered system rather than the "spelling variants" system that's cropped up lately and combined with consistently naming the userbox after the follower, not the religion ("user muslim" instead of "user islam", etc.: and perhaps using the religion's name for the "interest"-based, rather than "pov"-based, box!), I'd like to recommend the following moves:

etc. -Silence 16:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Ooooooooooooo! Me like! Angrynight 19:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Who's deleting

Where's the antireligion template? and the proreligion one?--Manwe 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Userboxes of a polemic nature are bad for the project."-Jimbo Wales Angrynight 06:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

roger that...--Manwe 22:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the widely used anti-religion (or however you call it) userbox

File:FirstCrusade.jpg This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion.

is MORE "of a polemic nature" than the religious doctrines advertised here! þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A new Userbox

...has just been made. You could add it to the list. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This user is a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church.


Hail Lord Xenu

I am a dark servant of The Great An Immortal High Lord Of Darkness. (A.K.A. High Lord Xenu)) I Demand you make a This User worships Highlord Xenu. Or I will send the earth into a plane of eternal pain!!! MegaloManiac 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hail Lord Xenu! MegaloManiac 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Down with scientology! Theropy for every one! MegaloManiac 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

New Catholic Template

{{User Catholic3}} I added a new template for liberal Roman Cathoilics. ISD 12:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


New Christian generic template

This user believes in Christianity.

I added a new template for Christians who do not want to show their church affiliation or do not have any. It is a temporary (?) replacement for the User Christian template, taken over and destroyed by vandals. Friendly Neighbour 13:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In case Template:User Christian is restored to its previous glory, I plan to differentiate "User Christian generic" by changing the text to something like" "This user is a Christian but does not wish to be identified with any church" or "This user is a Christian but does not wish to disclose his church affiliation, if any". Friendly Neighbour 14:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The "User Christian" template is restored and I made the latter of the two changes I suggested above. Friendly Neighbour 16:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete Creationism? jerks. MegaloManiac 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Request

I think there should be a " This user is willing to die for his/her religion. or martyr somthing. MegaloManiac 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving all belief userboxes

Now that the speedy-deletion criterion for userboxes has been changed (see WP:CSD#Templates), I strongly recommend that we move all belief-expressing userboxes here to interest-related ones, where there is clearly a significant interest related to it. For example, I propose moving {{User:UBX/muslim}} to {{user islam}} and changing the text from "This user is a muslim." to "This user is interested in Islam." as soon as possible. I'll do it myself, in fact, if no one objects; anyone who the new template text doesn't apply to can then pretty easily remove the revised version from their userpage (in fact, it'd be nice if we could get a bot to send userpage messages to each user with such a 'box telling them that they can either subst the original userbox or simply remove the template altogether if they were a membre of hte religion, but not "interested" in it per se, for example). This will ensure that most of the concerns that led to the new T1 criterion being expanded are allayed (at least in the long term), and will also keep the hard work people put into making these 'boxes and putting them on their pages isn't wasted, so I think it's a very effective compromise and effort-saver, and will also cause much less conflict than something absurd like a mass-deletion. What do you guys think? -Silence 13:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it was pointless. I want them back MegaloManiac 17:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

whiy did sikh and zohorastrian get deleted?

?--Dangerous-Boy 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway speedy-deleted both based on the proposed new T2 criterion for speedy deletion, which would permit speedy-deletion of "Templates designed for user pages that express divisive and inflammatory personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues." Since this speedy-deletion is a disputed proposed one at this point, and since it is arguable whether its current wording ("divisive and inflammatory personal beliefs," etc.) applies very well to a template on Zoroastrianism or Sikhism, feel free to nominate either or both (separately) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. Personally, I'd seek to get them undeleted even if they were currently against policy, if only so they could be renamed and rewritten to versions that don't express a POV (e.g. "This user is interested in Zoroastrianism" and "This user is interested in Sikhism") without losing the edit history or current designs, but that's up to you (and any other interested parties). -Silence 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a TfD going on for them (and all the boxes). The deletion should be overturned pending the decision of the debate Will (E@) T 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Please give the link to the ongoing TfD, so that we can help overturn this act of vandalism. -- Olve 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The link is already provided at the top of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Userboxes_in_Wikipedia:Userboxes.2FReligion. And please do not accuse valued admins making good-faith edits of "vandalism", as you are misusing the word. It is possible for two parties to disagree without one side being good and the other being evil: things are rarely so straightforward in this world, and misunderstandings play a key role. -Silence 21:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that continued mass deletions, in the face of a TfD keep, without a chance to have the various boxen reworded, can easily be interpreted as bad faith.--Vidkun 15:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly can... :( Olve 06:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I am also perceiving a trend towards treating ubx's of non US majority religion as divisive. I'm not going to go and make a point by converting all of the Christian inspired belief boxes into interest boxes, but I can see why the whole ubx thing has become divisive: perception of a lack of evenhanded treatment of belief based ubx's by admins are who are perceived as ignoring process . . .--Vidkun 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Plan of action

Here's the current course of action I recommend for all userboxes on this page (in progress): User:Silence/RUBX. If anyone disagrees with any, feel free to say so (or edit the page yourself). I'd simply make the changes myself, but I can't deduce whether people think it's a good idea to move the belief templates to interest ones (per CSD:T2) or not, and I like an easy way to mass-subst any of them. -Silence 16:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As I have said on WP:DRVU, I object to having the wording changed. "I am" and "I am interested in" are two different things. If, due to a real or imagined policy, the text of a userbox is inappropriate, I believe that it ought to be substed and destroyed. Then, if you want to make an "I am interested in" version, I'd see no problem with it. But really, it's neither your, nor my, nor anyone else's place to put words in someone's mouth. If a template is being transcluded, fix grammer, fix colors, fix alignment, fix the picture, whatever, but don't change the meaning of the text, IMO. BigDT 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You clearly have not thoroughly read any of my posts on this issue, as each time I have suggested this ever since my first posts on the matter on the Deletion Review page, I've specifically stated that the templates should be substed and then moved. For all practical purposes, this is exactly the same as substing and deleting it, just with the advantage of having less potential for divisive conflicts over it (no DRV can occur, the edit history will remain viewable to non-admins, and the overall atmosphere will seem much more peaceful and respectful). There will be no difference for the users who have it on their page, as substing in both cases will imprint the original version on their page. Please see User:Silence/RUBX, where every single template which will be significantly altered or deleted includes a "subst all" notice first. To reiterate: there is absolutely no putting words in anyone else's mouth. There is only doing the same thing that will be done if the templates are deleted, but with the advantage of circumventing DRVs and conflicts, the further advantage of avoiding wasting users' time on recreating new, interest-focused userboxes when they should be focusing on editing the encyclopedia, and the further further advantage of not wasting years of edit histories, talk pages, and template-layouts that we could easily use as a tool rather than tossing out the baby with the bathwater. -Silence 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks like your attempts to save various ubx's by making them in to is interested in are being subverted by the deletionistas. Nice to see hard work stomped on.--Vidkun 15:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did the Jew or Jewish template get deleted?

Why did the "Jew" or "Jewish" template get deleted? What is this whole 'interested' nonsense? I am a practicing Jew, but I'm interested in tons of things! Eliyyahu 14:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Pilgrims

I protest at the alteration of the pilgrim-related userboxes. I am not "interested in pilgrimages", so I don't want the new "user pilgrim" box, but I do not want to identify explicitly with Christianity, so I don't want the "user pilgrim Christian" box either. The simple "pilgrim" userbox was a useful label for those of us who are on a spiritual journey but do not wish to identify explicitly with Christianity. Myopic Bookworm 11:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Boycott

I have been boycotting Wikipedia for some time now as a result of this matter. I came back to give it one last chance, but now I see the censorship of beliefs is still fully in place, so I'm afraid its still a permanent boycott from me. —gorgan_almighty 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Good for you- thats one Wikipedia user gone and 1.8 million staying! Ronan.evans 08:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Satanism

I am not a satanist but why did you delete them. It is a religion just like every other one MegaloManiac 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I AM a Satanist and I'd quite like to know the same thing. Also, what about Luciferian? I think we should have a box for that as well. Moose 11:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ignosticism

Why did the ignosticism userbox get deleted? It was replaced on my userpage with a box saying that "I am interested in agnosticism". This is not the same thing. I realize that a box which says "This user is an ignostic, and finds the question of whether or not God exists nonsensical." is now not appropriate, so I suggest that it be replaced with the following text instead of replacing it with the agnosticism userbox: "This user is interested in ignosticism, which finds the question of whether or not God exists nonsensical."

Is this a reasonable thing to ask? Esn 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty reasonable. The main reason I didn't bother replacing the original template's text with an interest-based version is because Wikipedia only has one ignosticism-related article, and even that article is of dubious noteworthines, thus making such a userbox pretty useless for Wikipedia's purposes (much like a userbox saying "This user is interested in the Lesser Dwarf Lemur.": it's just not significant enough to justify a box). So instead, I provided a raw-text version, which you can now find in the second "Theism" section of the page:
Code Result 
{{subst:userbox
 |border-c=#797979
 |info-c=#eeeebd
 |info-fc=#000000
 |id-c=#eeeebd
 |id=[[Image:ignostic.jpg|42px]]
 |info=This user is an '''[[ignosticism|ignostic]]''', and finds the question of [[existence of God|whether or not God exists]] '''nonsensical'''.
}}
This user is an ignostic, and finds the question of whether or not God exists nonsensical.
However, if you really think an ignosticism-interest template is merited, feel free to revert my redirect-edit and change the text accordingly. -Silence 06:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure if the comparison with a Lesser Dwarf Lemur is apt - this is a philosophical position that, from what I've seen, a fair number of people seem to ascribe to, whether they know the word or not (I think most do not, as the word seems to be fairly new. But it's a usefull new word - it describes a belief which is quite distinct from agnosticism or atheism). I guess I'll try to revert the edit, except I'm not quite sure how to right now. All in time, I suppose... Esn 09:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's job to propagate useful neologisms, especially not to further a certain agenda. The same reasoning is why we don't need a "This user is interested in apatheism." template. I'm not interested in a fight over something trivial, but do keep in mind how problematic something like could become, if we become forced to let users have templates like "This user is interested in homophobia." or "This user is interested in cock blocking."; whether or not you want the term to be popularized is entirely outside of Wikipedia's scope. -Silence 10:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
So much hostility in your tone, and for what?... it is not something that I'm interested in fighting over either. It was never my intention to propagate this term because of any agenda (I take offence at the implication that I had one); I simply thought that it was a usefull one, in the same way that other philosophical terms like "materialism" are usefull. I certainly do not care enough to fight for its usage here if there are voices like yours which are heavily opposed to it, so I hereby cede the argument to you. Please try to assume good faith in the future. Esn 11:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
There was no hostility in my tone; I apologize if you misinterpreted it that way. My point was a valid one: you claim one second that you have no agenda, then the next second explain your agenda: to propagate what you consider a useful term. I don't think that's in any way a bad agenda, or an unreasonable one, but it is important to rmeember that Wikipedia should not go out of its way to popularize anything, be it a concept or a vocabulary term, even if doing so would be clearly beneficial. As such, even though I agree with you that "ignosticism" is a useful term, a "WikiProject Ignosticism", for example, would probably be a very bad idea, because the limited range of its scope (a single article, ignosticism) would probably force the WikiProject to interject the term into other articles, thus popularizing it excessively. And interest userboxes can be considered "miniature" WikiProjects, in that they're specifically designed to help improve Wikipedia, albeit in a much more relaxed and loose way than WikiProjects. "Materialism" already being an extremely common and widely-used term, your analogy crumbles into dust upon closer inspection. Please try to assume good faith in the future by not assuming that others are assuming bad faith. ;) -Silence 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tolerance

I understand the criteria for speedy deletion on the "beliefs and views" section, but there are two userboxes there (4th & 5th) that only state that the user respects other peoples' beliefs. Both are just messages of tolerance and I have a hard time understanding why they shouldn't have their own template. Could anyone make it clear for me? Rosa 06:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't delete them, but I personally found them more offensive than just about any other religion-related template that's ever been deleted from this page, because of the implication that anyone who doesn't use the userbox isn't tolerant of other religions. Would you find it acceptable to have a template that says "This user doesn't persecute people for their beliefs" or "This user isn't a religious bigot"? It's obviously expressing a good value, and isn't really advocating a specific belief per se, but its implications are divisive, factionalizing, and perhaps even designed to inspire arguments—not to mention pompous and self-righteous. I'm sure that's not the intent of the users who made the template, but it's the message I got. I'd actually prefer a template that said "This user isn't tolerant of others' religions.", since it's a more informative and original message, and thus more valuable for learning new things about people. :) But that obviously wouldn't be acceptable either, so, raw code will have to do, and I've added code for the "tolerant of other religions" templates to the page now. -Silence 06:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was offensive. It may be offensive to idiots, but noone cares about them. (Note: Acording to recent warnings I am forced to tell you that this is not a perosnel attack on anyone.) MegaloManiac 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I was offended by the template (not due to its explicit contents, but due to the implication of not using the userbox), you just called me an idiot, and are indeed violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Describing everyone who disagrees with you as "idiots" is very bad form; please try for more civil and substantial counterarguments in the future. -Silence 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Riight.

There are several boxes that say 'this is user is a christian somethingorother', but there are no boxes for judaism, islam or other religions that say the same. They're all victim of the belief that NPOV policy applies to user pages.. So why isn't that the same for Christianity? Joffeloff 22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There aren't supposed to be boxes like that. Most of them are probably re-creations of templates that had been deleted. Ardric47 03:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe they are being ignored. Agfter all the various TfD's that have resulted in keeps, it seems like there are people who simply don't care about process or consensus, and they seem to target smaller usage "non traditional" religious ubx's. This makes it increasingly hard to assume good faith.--Vidkun 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A new userbox??

How about one that says: "This user is interested in Humans" I had considered "This user is Human" but clearly that would be offensive and absurd . . . Lostsocks 09:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that would be violating WP:Point.--Vidkun 14:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

here are all my user box ideas and I know every one is going to hate them

  • This user believes violence is the answer
  • This user is interested in facism
  • this user is willing to die for his or her religion
  • this user is interested in s&m
  • and i want Misanthrope back
  • this user doesnt care
  • this user is pro - war
  • this user is pro-war (but thinks the iraq war is a complete and utter failure *and shouldnt be glorified as a war.

MegaloManiac 06:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • We already have one similar to the S&M one, at {{user Kinky}}. As for the others, creating new userboxes at this time is discouraged because of the ongoing policy discussions, but you're certainly welcome to transplant the raw code to your userpage, rather than using a transcluded template. It will have the same appearance, but without the possibility of deletion. If you aren't sure how to do that, and aren't just interested in stirring up trouble for the hell of it, I'd be glad to be of assistance. :) -Silence 08:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

... what if I am interested in stirring up trouble just for the hell of it...MegaloManiac 00:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Then the userboxes may be deleted under T1 by some admins --Hunter 04:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I may be anti-Christ and Anti-muslim but I say leave religious userboxes. I think a "This User Is A Satanist" userbox needs to be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouijalover (talk • contribs) 20:44 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This userbox has been created and deleted before which means further creation of it will exhaust the community's patience. — Nathan (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So how come the "This user is a Buddhist" template doesn't work? I tried the Christian one out and that works fine! There do seem to be an incredible amount of Christian-related boxes, at the expense of all the other faiths/ideologies. Joziboy 10:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Shinto

I am a Shintoist, and i am wondering if a Shintoist userbox will be made (there is 1, but it reflects interest not beleif in Shinto). -Thanks User:Merlin Storm02:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm new to this whole debate too - and it seems that the boxes expressing belief have been removed which strikes me as quite odd. Following a belief system is not the same as being interested in something. Most open-minded people are interested in everything, no? I'm also not sure why there's only a Zen Buddhist box. What about Mahayana, Theravada, Tibetan, Chinese, Western, Pure Land? Joziboy 06:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a solution: don't use userboxes! Then these fascists can create and delete userboxes till their hearts are content! If you seriously desperately need them then create them in your own userspace (so you won't wake up one morning and find that your user page looks different, again...). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's just that the hypocrasy is astounding! Why is it okay to be a Christian but not a Buddhist or Shintoist? Maybe I should learn to make my own userboxes... although I very much doubt my computer cabalities stretch that far :) Joziboy 00:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
People calm down! All userboxes are available in user space including the shinto one... They are slowly being migrated from this directory which will be emptied eventually. There are many good directories in user space, one very good one for religious userboxes can be found at: User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Religion. Tal :) 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks :) I had no idea what userspace was! Joziboy 20:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, any time. Tal :) 08:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's unbelievable, Alistair!!! One way to make sure that you don't have to play by their rules is to stop playing. Who needs userboxes? And why the hell am I getting myself involved in this "debate"!? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 22:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but apathy achieves nothing Tebello :) Joziboy 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, LSD, but what's the point of userboxes, again? All those little squares on your user page look queer perculiar ;) The isiZulu box still has incorrect grammar, btw... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 21:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because I can't get them to line up! Yeah, I suppose they are pointless. They're succinct though - and pretty :) Bite-sized chunks of information is what we're all about these days... Hmm, okay I'll try fix the Zulu box. Not sure I remember how..Joziboy 08:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Relgion Userboxes

How are we suppose to find where certain userboxes are and how will we be placed in a category now? For exapmle if one was a Muslim and placed a Muslim userbox on his/her userpage, he or she would be placed in the Muslim Wikipedians category. How is that going to happen now? Will this page tell us where the original userboxes were? Zulfikkur 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, I don't think this page will exist once all the userboxen have either been userified or deleted. However, if you want to find, say, a Muslim userbox, if you do a userspace search for "muslim userbox," I am sure you will find what you're looking for in the many results. Granted, it's not as easy as it used to be with this page, but on the other hand you can rely on no one deleting the search function. - Nellis 04:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
User categorization by beliefs is going to be done away with soon too ... Cyde↔Weys 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody explain this to me???

Why have religious userboxes been deleted? I'd like a clear explanation. I sense some hostility towards religious people by the Wikipedia staff. --Rambone (Talk) 03:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User going to hell

What happened to User:Hell That was my favorite, I want to make sure people know I'm going to hell. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 10:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UBX/Userboxes/Religion/Archive_1&oldid=1060997304"