Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elaragirl/blackmagic

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 per WP:SNOW. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elaragirl/blackmagic

This user space template is inherantly uncivil. It is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F Jerry lavoie 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template employs black magic and/or voodoo doll manipulation of template syntax. Please do not edit this page unless you know what the fuck you are doing and are prepared to fix what you fuck up. Any experiments you wish to conduct should be conducted far the fuck away from me and my space.

• (nominator) This page should be deleted Jerry lavoie 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Please review that part of WP:USER again. It mentions the following:

   * A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities
   * Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia
   * Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia
   * Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.
   * Other non-encyclopedic material
   * Polemical statements:

Nothing there about language. Wikipedia is not censored. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Users, particularly active users in good standing, are permitted some latitude with including humor and other non-encyclopedic content on their user pages. This template falls into that category. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the who-cares principle. Anyone offended by finding this in userspace has a skin-depth problem. Opabinia regalis 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am offended by it. Jerry lavoie 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand WP:CIVIL or WP:USER. For one, it's in my personal user space, linked to a template for my own use. I don't post it on other people's pages. Second, WP:CIVIL is about "personally targeted actions". WP:USER regards things that are inappropiate for user pages. Whether you are offended by something that was not directed at you, not posted on your user space or in mainspace, and has no relation to you, is not only irrelevant but suggests that you did this to prove a point. Please read WP:DGAF for an example of something else that will offend you and yet illustrates why it's a who-cares principle. As civilly as possible, --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you pedicted that did offend me. Is this your goal on wikipedia? To test how thick editors skin is and shock them with vulgar content? I doubt either page would be easy to defend if the media would make a news story on them. I did not do anything to prove a point. Look at my edits and you will see that I am here trying to make wikipedia better, not to make some point and disrupt it. You might give me just a tiny smidgen of WP:AGF on that. I have a novel idea: let's make this Miscellany for deletion about the proposed content for deletion, not impune the motives or weaknesses of the proposer. I think that idea might even be good enough to put in some kind of policy here.... oh wait, I think they did... WP:NPA. Jerry lavoie 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) I have looked at your edits. AGF on your part would have been nice. Instead of answering my question, you nom'd for deletion. Don't act like a victim. Don't toss NPA, unless you can directly point to any form of personal attack. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this qualifies: "Anyone offended by finding this in userspace has a skin-depth problem". Jerry lavoie 03:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. That would be a reading comprehension problem, since I did not say that, but a Wikipedia administrator did. Smile! :) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 09:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was not directing my comments regarding NPA at you, but rather at the discussion on the page. I was aware that you did not say that... Thanks. I would be willing to withdraw my nomination of this page if you would be willing not to use the template on another editor's talk page or outside the user namespace. That was my only concern all along. If you look at my edits at about the time I had originally edited you template, you will see numerous attack-only pages that I edited. I can see that I did not research your user status and look over your contributions before I made a cursory judgment, and I am sorry about that. But don't you think that the content of that template lends itself to being cursorly judged when taken out of the context of your entire user space? As I said, if you agree not to use the template I will agree to widtdrawe the nomination. Of course my nomination appears to fit WP:SNOW, so there is no reason for you to make such an agreement, except to demonstrate good will. Jerry lavoie 14:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Doug and Opabina. Also, if we delete it, we might get bad mojo. JoshuaZ 04:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a big mistake to think that profanity = "inherently uncivil". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After having been censored by the wikipedia morality squad myself recently, I adamantly support editor's rights to speak freely in their own MySpace userspace. The template is not personally targeting anyone, and I think tampering with other user's namespace is uncivil, rude and despicable. Catering to the lowest common denominator's delicate sense of morals is fruitless. Someone, somewhere, somehow will *always* be offended by something. - WeniWidiWiki 04:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - hadn't seen this one but found it quite amusing and certainly not incivil and yes, WP:NOT#CENSORED. We can permit established users a tad of profanity in the userspace, methinks. Really, harmless. Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As above, Wikipedia is not censored. There's nothing inherently uncivil about it, so long as it remains in the user namespace. Kafziel ^Talk 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We must cenzorz the humor, of course. And what "spirit and intent" does this violate"? -Amark moo! 14:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't know precisely what Elaragirl's intentions were when she created this template, but the subscript text "Please do not edit this page unless you know what the fuck you are doing and are prepared to fix what you fuck up. Any experiments you wish to conduct should be conducted far the fuck away from me and my space" (emphasis mine) suggests to me that the current template was never meant to be placed elsewhere than within her own userspace. In other words, I interpret "this page" as being Elaragirl's userspace, and I read the second sentence as a request that other people not edit within her userspace. If I had to guess at her intentions, I would guess that this was an experiment in creating and formatting a template. --Kyoko 15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC), amended 15:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although it's not really a good idea to say "don't edit this." When other people edit in my user space, they usually improve it. JChap2007 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOT#CENSORED, this box is related to wikipedia project and is certainly useful. Wooyi 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.