On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote: The problem with making this claim now is that you have rather
explicitly
said that you went after Satanism because it was disreputable and would bring Wikipedia into disrepute by having the userbox.
This is not a problem. That is precisely what I did.
Tony... When engaged in a general campaign regarding a class of things, the LAST thing you do is to initiate it starting with a particular item which you personally despise, while admitting publically that you despise it.
Well I don't see why not--if I were to particularly despised it.
And that would be presuming that I were "campaigning".
This isn't what Wikipedia is about at all. All of the religious userboxes are obviously unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted. Some for multiple reasons--in the case of the Satanist box it's not only unsuitable, it's got the added problem that it would bring Wikipedia into disrepute.
And as I explained in the original email:
"I don't think the goal of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging, though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse. Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be made for this particular template"