User talk:Dan Dan Teddy Bearz/User hates Feminists

Umm... Wtf? There's no profanity nor is it directed at a user. If it was a feminist who marked it, you're just reinforcing my point. In fact, if you're going to mark this for deletion, you may as well mark every userbox that hates/dislikes something. Where is the logic? O_o Teddy Dan, yo. 02:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This userbox was meant for MY userspace. Whether anyone else copies it or not is up to them. If someone has a personal problem with it, they can simply ask me to mark it, myself. Otherwise, I see you marking it as an unreasonable, hasty abuse of authority. Should I start marking every page I disagree with? Teddy Dan, yo. 02:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a response. If you don't have one, remove your mark. If you had one, you wouldn't have to think about it so carefully that you'd need this much time to justify yourself. Teddy Dan, yo. 02:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of trying to be some ignorant Internet White Knight, maybe you should consider discussing userboxes (meant for THEIR userspaces) with the users who created them before you go off on a blind marking frenzy. Teddy Dan, yo. 02:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Or, hell, you could just fix "what links here" so you don't have to see it. Teddy Dan, yo. 02:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

If it's meant for your user space, you can move the template to your user space. (And people can still make use of it from there if they choose.)

The hate/love user boxes that I have seen have to do with elements of the game. This one makes a political statement about something unrelated to the game, which makes it inappropriate for the main space of this wiki.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Then tell the creators this information before you mark their creations, otherwise the page gets deleted and the creator either makes another one to repeat the process or cause all other sorts of other mischief simply because you marked something for deletion A) before discussing it so they know why and B) before they can fix it themselves. Simply whipping around shooting your deletion-pistol off is only going cause problems. Teddy Dan, yo. 02:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you'd simply discussed it before-hand, we could've avoided all of this. Teddy Dan, yo. 02:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Things marked for deletion don't get deleted right away; there's plenty of time to fix stuff.

Maybe you are correct that I should have dropped a note on your user page, but it looked like you intended this for all users...since you chose to place it in the main space area. This wasn't any sort of blind marking frenzy; it's a single user box (and you created several which weren't touched). This was a targeted {{delete}} markup for a single template.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The delete tag exists to spark discussion on the matter, not to make the page disappear instantly. -Auron 02:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I over-reacted. I apologize. I'd tried to create a userbox on my page, to stay on my page and be inaccessible elsewhere in the past, but it didn't work. So, I gave up. Now that I know a little(/tiny) bit more about userboxes, I'm trying again with this one so that it doesn't cause any further problems. Again, my bad for snapping at you. Teddy Dan, yo. 02:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Although "marked for deletion" does not imply discussion. Perhaps that should be fixed. All the creators get is "If you disagree with the deletion of this page, please explain why on the discussion page.", which does not specify in any way how long the creator has to dispute the mark before the page is arbitrarily deleted. There should at least be a set deadline to plea one's case, and a notification of such. Teddy Dan, yo. 03:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Aside from all of that, there are plenty of userboxes that have nothing to do with GW. "This user is nocturnal.", "This user hates userboxes." (Don't even argue that userboxes are part of the wiki and therefore relevant because my userbox itself is a userbox and would therefore be just as relevant.), "This user is a 4chan fan.", "This user is a child of the 80s.", and just as much of a "political statement" as you claim mine is is this one: "This user sees religion as an instrument of power and control." Really? What's so different about that one? It's okay for them but not for me? I haven't even touched columns B-Z, barely touching the tip of A, and I've found all of these GW irrelevant userboxes. Are they marked for deletion? No. Why so quick to jump on mine? If it's favoritism, I want to know so that I can spread the news. Can you honestly say you still don't see enough irrelevant userboxes to overlook mine just the same? Teddy Dan, yo. 05:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"This user has a habit of accidentally making innuendos.", "This user has Aion Wings.", "This user likes apples.", "This user is an artist." 1/4 of the cataloged userboxes in column A alone are irrelevant to GW. They may not all be religiously, politically, socially, ethically or racially controversial, but they are just as irrelevant. Irrelevance is clearly not the issue, here. Neither is controversy, given the continued existence of Template:User AntiRel. So, what precisely is the issue? Why is this so important to me? I hate hypocrisy in all forms. I hate favoritism within a public domain. I hate being made the scapegoat for somebody else's ego. I hate when people try to justify corruption, regardless of those they step on to do so. It just bugs me to the point of speaking up against it. Is that what's going on, or have you simply not gotten around to tagging all of the other irrelevant userboxes (which have been around far enough longer than mine to be dealt with before mine)? This issue concerns me. Is this what this wiki is about? Teddy Dan, yo. 06:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is about one of the several user boxes that showed up in Special:RecentChanges; I tagged for deletion the only newly-created one that expresses hate towards people, their views, or the political category in which they might identify themselves. It's hard to see how someone who identifies themselves as a feminist wouldn't take offense and so it seemed like an inappropriate use of the main space.

You're right that not all of the user boxes are about the game; I posted that comment in haste and am regretting it at leisure. Sure, there might also be other inappropriate boxes out there; feel free to tag them or bring up the issue on the talk page. But that has no direct bearing on whether this template belongs in main space.

You'll notice that there are 5 other user boxes that you created today; this is the only one that is in the form of User hates [group] and it's the only one tagged.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It has all the direct bearing on whether this template belongs in the main space. Template:User AntiRel on the very first main space for user boxes is no less hateful, suggestive or clearly offensive than my own userbox, which (beyond watching the recent changes page like a hawk) could only be dug out from pages upon pages of other userboxes for anyone to find it. Do you mean to imply that my userbox is especially inappropriate simply because of the group it opposes? My question is why have other controversial userboxes, that have been in the main space far longer than my userbox, not been tagged for deletion long before mine has? Why so quick to jump on mine before touching anybody else's? I want to know why a new userbox is being treated with more contempt than an older one. I want to know why this subject matter is so much less appropriate than something just as "politically loaded", as is being implied. Is this one group receiving special treatment (even though it ironically demands equality)? What's the difference? Where is the line drawn? Why is it drawn where it is? Attacking one opposition but not another within a public domain is something that needs to be addressed. I'm aware that it is the only page on this wiki I've created that has been marked for deletion by anyone other than myself, but that doesn't make it right. If I have to delete every page and post I've ever created on this wiki just to even things out, so be it. I just want everything to be right. Teddy Dan, yo. 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"I want to know why a new userbox is being treated with more contempt than an older one."

Because the new one is the only one he saw. It's that simple. In fact, he said so already. Don't beat a dead horse, especially not one that isn't related to the issue.

At this point, the discussion should focus entirely on whether "hateful" userboxes should be allowed in mainspace/allowed at all. You might want to post on the requests for comment page to get more involvement from the community.

I don't think that userboxes belong in the main space at all, period. They aren't Guild Wars encyclopedic content, they're simply userpage-prettier-uppers and thus belong in userspace. But on the topic of hateful userboxes... who cares, lol. They aren't that damn hateful and I doubt someone would get legitimately mad at a userbox on someone's wiki page. -Auron 01:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I care, and am legitimately mad. — Skakid 01:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

1) It is related to the issue, the issue being why my userbox is being attacked while there are other similarly potentially offensive userboxes in more easily accessible view that haven't been touched. If the new one is the only one he saw, it's not my fault. Again, Template:User AntiRel is on the FIRST page in the list of userboxes. Clearly harder to miss for anybody who scouts userboxes. 2) You're mad, just not legitimately so. All of your concerns are misplaced and if you feel you belong in the category mentioned in my userbox to the point that you're offended by it then you're clearly proving my point. 3) I don't mind at all the idea of making userboxes completely userspace-centric. I just can't tolerate being oppressed for the very same thing others are allowed. Any feminist my userbox may actually offend fits its description far better than I could have possibly planned, in that they would seek to actively oppress any opposition while demanding freedom and equality. That is the idea my userbox opposes. Perhaps I could've broadened the scope to omit the "feminist" specification, thus including all forms of hypocrisy, but I simply don't feel the need to be so general just to appeal to that which I oppose. 4) If an offensive label fits you, it's not the dictionary's responsibility to change its definition just to appease you. If you feel an offensive label doesn't fit you, the message isn't for you and you shouldn't be offended. A guilty conscience is nobody's responsibility but its owner's. Nobody else should have to suffer for it. 5) If it doesn't belong in the main space, for whatever reason, either edit it to center it on the user's userpage (disconnecting it from the main space) or tell them how. Problem solved. You don't have to stalk userpages to find userboxes you disagree with just to oppress people. You don't have to view anybody's userspace at all but perhaps your own. Don't ruin it for everyone else with your selfish hypocricy. Teddy Dan, yo. 02:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Although "marked for deletion" does not imply discussion." did you bother to ready what the tag actually says? It clearly states that if you disagree with the deletion begin a discussion... I for one do not believe this belongs in the mainspace for all the reasons listed above. If you wish this userbox to appear on your userpage and not be a template that is readily accessible to anyone else, simply copy the code from the template and paste it into the location on your page you wish it to appear. There are thousands of examples of userpages with userboxes that are not templates. The purpose of making it a separate template is to make it easily accessible to others. -- Wyn talk 02:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you bother to read what I posted after that statement? The one where I mention it doesn't specify how long a creator has to dispute the mark. If you're going to question my intentions, at least try not to be guilty of the same. I made it a separate template because I'd tried to make a userpage-centric userbox in the past and failed, so I gave up and simply did it the easy way. Now I'm getting people whining at me left and right about how it doesn't belong where it is, regardless of all of the other similar cases that aren't being touched. I, for one, don't care how many reasons you people can come up with to say it doesn't belong where it is. I honestly don't care about your personal opinions, especially since you've all made it abundantly clear that you don't care about mine (not that you should in the first place, but having it shoved in someone's face isn't exactly constructive toward the solution). If you'd actually read what I posted, you'll note that I said "marked for deletion" does not imply discussion. The small-print at the bottom of the mark, separate from the initial (larger) text, only implies there will be a window through which to discuss it. It does not state how long that window will last or how soon the creator is to expect the mark be discussed. Of course the creator is going to panic when the first thing they see on their creation is bold text stating their creation is going to be deleted. Do you honestly believe that tiny bit of text below the warning that merely implies their opinion on the matter will be considered actually relieves said creators? You're not helping this matter at all. All you're doing is stoking the flame to get your two cents in. Could you try actually bringing something constructive to the discussion? It's okay, I'll wait... Teddy Dan, yo. 04:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It seems clear that you have a chip on your shoulder on this issue. Regardless, this is a wiki about a videogame, not a platform for editorialising about anything that gets your goat. Unless there are feminists in GW who upset you, this doesn't belong here; take it to Livejournal or start up a Facebook page. -- Hong 05:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)\

It seems clear that you're just a troll. Userspaces are about wiki users. My userboxes are about me. We've already gone over the issue of relevance. If you knew how to read, you'd have figured that one out. Unless you have something constructive to add, you don't belong here. Take your trolling to YouTube or 4chan. Congrats on your fail, here's a "Tissue". Teddy Dan, yo. 05:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you're (still) just rambling. The only defense you've come up with is "but other people do it". That is an implicit admission that your template does, in fact, have nothing to do with GW and hence is irrelevant. What other people may or may not do won't change that. -- Hong 05:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you only knew how to read. That is only one of the issues concerning its belonging. I already conceded early on that it is irrelevant to the game and, mostly, to the wiki. The issue is whether it belongs on the wiki (clearly challenged by the mark for deletion), whether on the main space or my userspace. You're another one who isn't offering anything new to the topic. Either bring something new to the table or shoulder the mockery. Please don't make me repeat myself, again. Teddy Dan, yo. 06:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is irrelevant to the game, then it doesn't need to be on the wiki. Glad that we cleared that up. Of course, a lot of material on the wiki is irrelevant to the game, and what governs whether it stays is basically the whim of the community. It also seems that you like repeating yourself regardless. -- Hong 06:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"If it is irrelevant to the game, then it doesn't need to be on the wiki." Then you, personally, remove every single userbox that is irrelevant to GW or this wiki. I've already named several you can get started on. If you refuse, you're a hypocrite and need to stfu. I don't enjoy repeating myself. In fact, I hate it. I hate having to say the same thing with different words over and over again until the person I'm talking to gets it through their head. I even made note of that on the discussion page of my userspace. If the whim of the community decides these issues then this wiki is an ignorant mass of liars, hypocrites and trolls. If you can admit to that, personally, we'll be done here. Teddy Dan, yo. 06:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Because other people do it, I can do it too" is not an argument. Repeating false logic multiple times does not make the logic any more sound.

If you want every "hateful" userbox template on the wiki to be deleted, start a discussion on the topic (which is what I suggested earlier, and which you conveniently ignored). In such a discussion, you would lay forth your arguments in favor of the deletion of hateful userboxes in general - links to places where they've been found hurtful or disruptive is a good place to start. Once the consensus on the wiki is that hateful userboxes are disallowed, you can go around and tag every one of them you find for deletion.

Whining about dumb shit on this talk page is not going to change anything. Using false logic to support your arguments will get you nowhere, because fortunately, editors on this wiki can think and reason. Your options are simple - to prevent this userbox from being deleted, make a clear, logical post as to the benefit it brings to the wiki. On the flipside, if you want all hateful userboxes deleted, make a clear, logical post as to the harm they bring to the wiki. So far you've done neither. Continued unrelated ranting and disruption is not appreciated or tolerated. -Auron 06:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Because other people do it, I can do it too." was not my argument. My argument was just the opposite. If other people do something I'm not allowed to, they should face the same consequences. Singling like individuals out is just as illogical as allowance by majority. Both are false logic. You won no points, there.

Yes, I conveniently ignored your suggestion. Why? I don't want every single irrelevant userbox to be removed from the wiki. I just don't want mine to be a scapegoat, especially not based on a whim.

Those whining about dumb shit on the discussion page of my userbox page include you, just to clarify. Using false logic to counter false logic to devalue my argument will get you nowhere because, fortunately, I can think and reason. Your options are simple: contribute to why this userbox should be deleted or why it should remain. So far, you've done neither. Continued unrelated ranting and disruption is not appreciated or tolerated. See what I did there? You're another one who shouldn't post things that you're equally guilty of. Back to your claims, though. Userboxes, themselves, are not beneficial to this wiki. Implying that is what this issue is about will only raise yet another irrelevant discussion regarding the deletion of all userboxes in general due to said lack of benefit. Care to try again? Teddy Dan, yo. 06:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, no. Just stfu and delete it. Whatever it takes to keep you from prattling on as if you even know what you're talking about. Teddy Dan, yo. 07:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You may or may not feel that whoever marked the page for deletion is singling you out, but that is not the case. Your userbox isn't a "scapegoat." It was marked for deletion because it showed up in recent changes. You are being unreasonable if you expect a user to go through all the templates just because he looked at this one. You're making a big deal over chance. 24.208.82.87 07:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I figured that out after TEF explained it, the idea just really bugged me. Then other people started jumping on my back and it really only made matters worse. Until now, some of them even had me going in circles, seemingly trying to catch me in some childish trap so they could dismantle my argument. When I figured that out, I knew it was time to call it quits. There's no room for logic when people start trying to sabotage the discussion. It just becomes a finger-pointing flame war, and that only vilifies everyone involved. So, hopefully, that's the end of that. Teddy Dan, yo. 07:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It is refreshing to see you stop the circular arguments, but unfortunate that you stop for the wrong reasons. I take no stance on the issue, which I think was one of your biggest errors - I didn't care if the userbox stays or goes, and I didn't care if any of the rest of them do, either. I was simply showing you the options you had, since you seemed hell bent on making some kind of change. In case you legitimately wanted to keep the userbox in the mainspace, you could have brought up the benefits the userbox brings. In case you wanted all the offtopic userboxes deleted, you could make that argument, as well.

All you had been doing was claiming that life was unfair because your userbox had been tagged when none of the others had, when that had very little to do with anything - and even after TEF explained that it was simply because he saw it on RC, you kept bringing it up as an argument. That "argument" wasn't going to stop the page from being deleted, nor was it going to fix your perceived unfair treatment by clearing out other userboxes - so I suggested that you find another plan of attack.

Giving up wasn't quite the plan I had in mind, but if it suits you, it suits me. -Auron 08:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you still going on about this? You simply weren't helping. How the userbox was being treated in comparison to others had very much to do with the entire discussion, whether you see it or not. Unfair treatment should always be fixed. I was fine with the idea that my userbox was going to be deleted, but only so long as other similar userboxes were dealt with similarly. Of course, I understand that TEF simply acted on convenience. Ending it there, however, was just something I wasn't comfortable with. It would be much the same as five children stealing from a jar of cookies but only the fifth having his/her cookie taken back simply because of bad timing. That just isn't fair. Life in general may not be fair, but this is a public domain. If a public domain isn't governed with fairness, it is corrupt. If it is corrupt, it needs to be fixed and people in a position to fix it should act accordingly. As for why my userbox shouldn't be deleted, I do have a very simple answer: Userboxes exist for their users. They exist to express a certain aspect of one's life. Their gaming style and preferences are a part of that life. So are their personal beliefs. Again, as seen by what continues to exist in the main space, clearly neither relevance or belonging were the issue here. Convenience was. Is. Unfortunately, for that to be the only excuse is just wrong. It is not unreasonable to demand similar "punishments" for similar "offences". Fairness is reasonable. Unfairness is not. However, it is unreasonable to continue to drag something on that ends up being more trouble for the defender than it was ever worth to them since the beginning. So, I no longer wish to defend the userbox itself. Only my stance. TEF did what he thought was reasonable at the time. Truly, though, it should have remained between him and I. Had it done so, it likely would not have come nearly as far as this. In fact, he and I have already settled the issue with help from GREENER. So... it would be helpful to us all if you would stop bringing it back up. Thanks. Teddy Dan, yo. 12:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion Edit

Thanks to Amakiir for editing the mark to affect only the userbox page and not the page(s) of the user(s). Teddy Dan, yo. 00:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I give up

Go ahead, delete it if it'll fulfill your weekly quota of oppression. I'm sick of arguing about this. I'll just resign myself to the fact that this wiki is full of unethical elitists. Teddy Dan, yo. 07:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Though, I will say that TEF has been surprisingly civil with me even after my verbal lashing. Again, I apologize to you specifically. I won't be ruining that by sending another wave of nerdraeg your way, this time. Thanks for keeping your cool, TEF. Teddy Dan, yo. 07:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I accept the apology and thank you for taking the time to do so.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)