| Revision as of 03:56, 11 December 2008 editRspeer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,678 edits anti-atheist stereotypes← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:01, 11 December 2008 edit undoNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,665 edits →{{User|Keepscases}} oppose: endNext edit → | ||
| Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
| #:::::::::Everyone has the right to be clueless, I suppose. ] | ] 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | #:::::::::Everyone has the right to be clueless, I suppose. ] | ] 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| #:::::::::So what does it say that you're choosing to make your case using typical anti-atheist stereotypes, like describing atheists who dare to show pride as "smug" and "self-congratulating"? As the , atheists have a good reason to push back by showing pride and solidarity. ] / ] 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | #:::::::::So what does it say that you're choosing to make your case using typical anti-atheist stereotypes, like describing atheists who dare to show pride as "smug" and "self-congratulating"? As the , atheists have a good reason to push back by showing pride and solidarity. ] / ] 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| #'''Candidate comment''' - I thank my supporters for their comments here, but I'm not sure that it is helping. Since this discussion is getting rather heated, I suggest a closing of it. - <font color="navy">]</font>''''' <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>'''''<sub><font color="purple">]</font></sub> 04:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:01, 11 December 2008
Edit count for NuclearWarfare
User:NuclearWarfare
run at Tue Dec 9 00:37:46 2008 GMT
Category: 16
Image: 19
Mainspace 13991
MediaWiki talk: 1
Portal: 5
Talk: 360
Template talk: 3
Template: 21
User talk: 3569
User: 662
Misplaced Pages talk: 74
Misplaced Pages: 1192
avg edits per page 1.36
earliest 00:45, 30 October 2007
number of unique pages 14629
total 19913
2007/10 2
2007/11 24
2007/12 19
2008/1 23
2008/2 50
2008/3 108
2008/4 81
2008/5 58
2008/6 1695
2008/7 2333
2008/8 2423
2008/9 2567
2008/10 4942
2008/11 4663
2008/12 925
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red
denotes edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
74 Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
69 Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)
57 Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle
56 Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)
45 Avatar: The Last Airbender
37 Article Two of the United States Constitution
32 List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes
22 The Steel Wave
19 Article One of the United States Constitution
19 Nancy Pelosi
17 United States Constitution
13 Keith Olbermann
13 Acton-Boxborough Regional High School
12 United States presidential election, 2000
12 Article Three of the United States Constitution
Talk:
15 Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)
11 Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)
11 Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle
10 Avatar: The Last Airbender
8 United States Constitution
7 Kingdom of Loathing
7 List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes
6 List of all-female bands
5 Article Two of the United States Constitution
5 United States Vice Presidents' tie-breaking votes
4 Faithless elector
4 Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
4 The Case Against Barack Obama
4 President of the United States
3 Azulon
Category:
2 Hospitals in Malaysia
Image:
2 Reaper20-small.jpg
2 Lateral Link.gif
Template:
6 Vandalism information
5 Db-g1
User:
188 NuclearWarfare
70 NuclearWarfare/monobook.js
68 NuclearWarfare/Admin Coaching
31 NuclearWarfare/Userboxen
24 NuclearWarfare/huggle.css
22 NuclearWarfare/Watchlist
20 NuclearWarfare/Questions for RfA
20 NuclearWarfare/subpages
19 NuclearWarfare/Accomplishments
9 3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations
9 NuclearWarfare/Welcome
8 Roux
8 NuclearWarfare/Sandbox
8 NuclearWarfare/Rules Before Posting
7 NuclearWarfare/Menu
User talk:
449 NuclearWarfare
20 Darth Panda
18 Bibliomaniac15
11 NuclearWarfare/Archive index
10 Lightmouse
9 Xenocidic
9 Zbvhs
8 Antandrus
7 Rau J
5 J.delanoy
5 Nsindy
5 Haha169
5 Dyslogia
5 David75104
5 Cameron.moody
Misplaced Pages:
232 Administrator intervention against vandalism
84 Requests for page protection
39 Huggle/Whitelist
39 Usernames for administrator attention
21 Sandbox
18
Featured article candidates/Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle/archive
1
13 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
12 Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare
12 Featured list candidates/Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)
12 Help desk
11 Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 14
11 Requests for adminship/Peripitus
10 Village pump (policy)
10 Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 11
10 In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates
Misplaced Pages talk:
10 AutoWikiBrowser
8 Abuse filter
6 Proposed Deletion for a Hoax
6 Requests for adminship
5 Template messages/User talk namespace
4 Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
3 Featured topic candidates
3 Criteria for speedy deletion
3 WikiProject Prison Break/Right panel
2 AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
2 Use common sense
2 WikiProject Television/Avatar: The Last Airbender task force
2 WikiProject Articles for creation
2 AutoWikiBrowser/Feature requests
2 WikiProject Television Stations
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at
User talk:Interiot.
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 00:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC).
Keepscases (talk · contribs) oppose
- Oppose Per Ecoleetage. Smug atheist userboxes don't help his cause, either. Keepscases (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- While I have supported opposes based upon offensive userboxes (EG one's that put down other people's beliefs/positions) I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of NuclearWarfare's user boxes as they currently exist.---Balloonman 15:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Although, he did have a controversial userbox, until he removed when it was criticised at another RFA. Epbr123 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- If anything, of the userboxes there, the 'Billo the Clown' one with a piped link to Bill O'Reilly is the one that concerns me the most. Avruch 17:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with that one... I was looking for the smug athiest one, but yeah, "Billo the Clown" is not appropriate.---Balloonman 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)And that is what I would expect to see. The fact that there was an offensive one, doesn't bother me, IF the person removes it. He removed it 3 months ago, but Keepscases oppose cites a smug atheist user box---and I don't see a smug atheist user box on his page.---Balloonman 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) He removed that one amongst others long before your post here. And I think we all know that opposes based on personal beliefs, be it religious or political, will not really change the consensus in one way or another, so I think we are best advised to not continue judging userboxes and rather start judging contributions. Regards SoWhy 17:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't long before, it was one day. And the political context is irrelevant - but describing a public figure as a clown in a userbox violates BLP just like it would if you did it on an article talkpage or anywhere else. It isn't a unique point of view, and I'm sure it happens on the wiki despite the policy, but it doesn't belong. And anyway, you can see I haven't opposed. I was just saying that if you wanted to pick on a userbox, that would be the one for me. Avruch 17:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- As to the Billo the Clown thing, it was a reference to Countdown with Keith Olbermann. It had already been removed after I did a general purge of my vast collection of userboxes. - NuclearWarfare My work 00:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, SoWhy, userboxes can be just as valid a reason to oppose as other reasons. If a candidate has user boxes that violate BLP or NPA, then it is clear they don't understand or accept those principles. If a candidate has them, it also raises questions about their judgment. While I would agree, I would never oppose somebody for having different religious beliefs than myself, I might oppose if that person showed hostility towards my religious beliefs or those of another party. Some userboxes are offensive and can be construed as BLP/NPA violations or cutting a fine line therein. In those cases, Opposes based upon user boxes, IMO, do hold some weight.---Balloonman 19:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I find the "God made this user an atheist", "Imagine no religion too", and "Evil Atheist Conspiracy" userboxes to be smug and unnecessary. Keepscases (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- The EAC, I will give you... I think it show poor taste on NW's behalf. I missed that one when I looked over his boxes. The God made this user an atheist, do you question his wisdom box is cute. The Imagine is a classic John Lennon song, and yes, I do mean classic. When looking at artistic classics, I'm a little more open to controversy.---Balloonman 20:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- If Balloonman, a user whom I trust acts in good faith and in accordance with NPOV and CIV, has said this, then I shall strip it from my userpage. - NuclearWarfare My work 00:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- But that's fortunately irrelevant. I find religious boxes offensive to my lack-of-belief, yet I don't go blocking RfAs for personal agendas. You are acting childish - no, not even a child would act this ludicrous. This is like not hiring someone because they're Irish. +Hexagon1 20:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's a lot more like not hiring someone because he believes white people are the smartest people in the world, and that the world would be better off if it were only white people. I don't have any issue with someone who self-identifies as an atheist and leaves it at that, without proselytizing, self-congratulating, or belittling others. And yet, many atheists I've seen around here seem to adore doing those very things. They have the right to say whatever they wish; I have the right to oppose them for what they choose to say and how they choose to say it. Keepscases (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- What a stupid analogy. The color of one's skin has nothing to do with what goes on inside one's mind (at least, not generally - I suppose we could bicker this down to semantics, but ffs). Spirituality, on the other hand, has been shown time and time again to pervert (I suppose "influence" would be a more neutral word, but really, after what you just said, neutrality isn't really what I'm looking for) the conclusions one draws - one of the key pillars of intelligence itself. Badger Drink (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone has the right to be clueless, I suppose. Tan | 39 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- So what does it say that you're choosing to make your case using typical anti-atheist stereotypes, like describing atheists who dare to show pride as "smug" and "self-congratulating"? As the most hated minority group in America, atheists have a good reason to push back by showing pride and solidarity. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's a lot more like not hiring someone because he believes white people are the smartest people in the world, and that the world would be better off if it were only white people. I don't have any issue with someone who self-identifies as an atheist and leaves it at that, without proselytizing, self-congratulating, or belittling others. And yet, many atheists I've seen around here seem to adore doing those very things. They have the right to say whatever they wish; I have the right to oppose them for what they choose to say and how they choose to say it. Keepscases (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- The EAC, I will give you... I think it show poor taste on NW's behalf. I missed that one when I looked over his boxes. The God made this user an atheist, do you question his wisdom box is cute. The Imagine is a classic John Lennon song, and yes, I do mean classic. When looking at artistic classics, I'm a little more open to controversy.---Balloonman 20:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I find the "God made this user an atheist", "Imagine no religion too", and "Evil Atheist Conspiracy" userboxes to be smug and unnecessary. Keepscases (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't long before, it was one day. And the political context is irrelevant - but describing a public figure as a clown in a userbox violates BLP just like it would if you did it on an article talkpage or anywhere else. It isn't a unique point of view, and I'm sure it happens on the wiki despite the policy, but it doesn't belong. And anyway, you can see I haven't opposed. I was just saying that if you wanted to pick on a userbox, that would be the one for me. Avruch 17:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) He removed that one amongst others long before your post here. And I think we all know that opposes based on personal beliefs, be it religious or political, will not really change the consensus in one way or another, so I think we are best advised to not continue judging userboxes and rather start judging contributions. Regards SoWhy 17:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- If anything, of the userboxes there, the 'Billo the Clown' one with a piped link to Bill O'Reilly is the one that concerns me the most. Avruch 17:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Although, he did have a controversial userbox, until he removed when it was criticised at another RFA. Epbr123 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- While I have supported opposes based upon offensive userboxes (EG one's that put down other people's beliefs/positions) I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of NuclearWarfare's user boxes as they currently exist.---Balloonman 15:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Candidate comment - I thank my supporters for their comments here, but I'm not sure that it is helping. Since this discussion is getting rather heated, I suggest a closing of it. - NuclearWarfare My work 04:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)