User talk:MarkSweep/archive6

Block of MSK

Can you please post a notification on AN/I? I'd like to have it all there as a running tally--Tznkai 04:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template:User freedom

Hi MarkSweep, I noticed you speedy deleted this template while there is a near-consensus on it's tfd entry to speedy keep it. Perhaps this was a mistake? Anyway, if you please would undelete it and wait for the tfd discussion to finish I'd be grateful. Thanks! Larix 13:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been closed as speedy kept, so therefore your deletion now seems invalid, I invite you to undelete it. Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel appears to have restored it, and I put the text back to what it was before TFD. Let me know if I did anything wrong. Ral315 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian photography

Please explain to me your credentials in the field of Norwegian photography, since you obviously have determined on behalf of all readers of Wikipedia that is a non-noteworthy topic. Otherwise, please retract your category for deletion and refrain from seeking to destroy other people's good efforts in the future. --Leifern 21:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall do no such thing. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magic organizations

I fully understand that lists and categories can "serve [two] different purposes" but this is a situation where it would appear to me that they do not. If you could please compare the two and advise what purposes each serve so that I'm not guilty of this mistake in the future. -- Krash 21:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, have a look at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes and the links listed there. In a nutshell, lists can point to articles that don't exist yet and can be sorted and structured arbitrarily. Categories take less work to maintain, but they cannot contain red links, are usually organized alphabetically, and can essentially not be structured at all (e.g. with custom headings). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. What I'm asking is how does that apply to the list and category in question? Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magic clubs. -- Krash 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GWB dislike category

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't aware that ghosts like that could occur. I'm not particularly attached to the category as I don't see how it could benefit the encyclopedia or its community. As it seems that it actually is depopulated, I have no problem with its deletion. —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 22:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my user page

I was under the impression that we were allowed to have what we wanted on our user pages, please don't revert it again. I like the red link in the box.--God of War 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter F. Paul

I've got all the "paper" sources on this (everything that doesn't have a link, including the litigation releases and the 1979 Time Magazine article). All the changes I've been making come from reputable sources. Do you want copies, or do you prefer for me to note the citations myself? Uucp 03:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get started on the citations. If you could fill in the rest later, that would be tremendously helpful. It's mostly a matter of formatting so that it's clear what sources each statement is backed up by. Thanks for offering to help! --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. It is such a relief to have your help on this entry. Time permitting, I'll fill in many of the missing references today. (Many of the "Paul claims" assertions refer to unsourced text from the article as it was originally written. We may never find evidence to back them. The rest has sources.). By the way, the 1979 Time Magazine article describes the Cuban crime but never mentions Paul's name; it describes several other people as responsible. We have only the original author's assertion that this was the fraud for which Paul went to jail. Uucp 11:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled in a lot of the blanks. If you have a chance, I'd appreciate your giving it a review. Uucp 16:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for your current edit -- "Franklyn2" has made a number of dramatic changes to the article, unbacked by evidence, mostly aimed at softening Paul's crimes. In many cases, the text is added before one of my researched, footnoted entries, so that it appears that my footnote applies to his/her addition as well. I think all of these should be removed, including (1) the claim that the ship in 1979 "was abandoned in Costa Rica and never sunk". TIME Magazine was clear that the boat was to be sunk as part of an insurance fraud, a fact that Franklyn2 removed. (2) the claim that the cocaine came from "a coffee caper participant [leaving] a sealed bag containing cocaine in his garage" does not match Paul's guilty plea in federal court, and should be removed. He was sent to jail for having cocaine with the intent to distribute, not for having a messy garage. (3) The claim that he was sneaking into Canada "to meet with representatives of Contra leader Eden Pastora" is unbacked by any evidence. Might be true, but I doubt he could prove it, and does it really matter?

I'll check "The Reliable Source by Llyod Grove" August 17, 2000" article that Franklyn2 cites and make sure it says what he claims. The typo in the spelling of the author's name doesn't give me great hope. Uucp 04:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared, it's a fabrication by Franklyn2. The "Reliable Source" column did not even run on August 17, 2000. The closest date on which it ran was August 18, and the article mentions nothing about Peter Paul. In fact, I checked all instances of the column in 2000 and neither Warren Burger's nor Peter Paul's names appears even once. I'd pull his "citation". You may also want to pull the award that he claims to be citing. Uucp 04:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Could you please repost this (or a summary) on the article's talk page? I'll remove Franklyn2's additions in one of the next edits. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the block on User:68.125.198.65. I was getting tired of changing the same article every hour. Dismas|^(talk) 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleting MY userboxes/templates

what exactly made you do that? Can I delete your templates? --timecop 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why they are needed? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you are needed? Excuse me, but removing thigns I wrote on my page would be the same as me removing things from YOUR user page. --timecop 10:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GUI Records

Do you think this should go away? See Talk:GUI Records. Friday (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know. Try nominating it for deletion and see how that goes. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ViscID

Thanks for the note on the above user. I didn't know about that Requests for CheckUser page until now. I may well find it handy - some sad case has been vandalising my user page a few times. Arno 03:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert war?

Hi, can you explain to me why we are engaged in a revert war over capitalization over at Talk:beta function ? linas 18:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm

Not surprisingly, you can't just take it upon yourself to delete articles, templates or other things you happen to disagree with. A TfD was launched for Template:GermanGov *Today*, and you just arbitrarily deleted it without waiting for an outcome. Plz revert back to the actual template. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the deletion - it was the only right way --Historiograf 23:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has requested review for this issue on WP:ANI. The issue seems to be that people are not sure about German copyright law. Please drop a line there. Radiant_>|< 21:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was I who requested a review of your decision to delete after less than five hours of discussion. I have restored the History, as this seems vital for any further debate on the subject: your placement of the {{PUI}} tag remains. Also, if you link to the template talk page, you might wish to leave a message there. Physchim62 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that we need as much information as we can have about all images. We also need to understand the different copyright laws under which we operate, which is the crux of this dispute. By closing off the debate, you have taken sides on a complex issue which was in the process of being discussed. A simple look at the template talk page would have shown you that there was not a full arguement for deletion there. I am still discussing the question with, notably, Historiograf (talk · contribs): I would be grateful if you would reopen discussion on the TfD for the normal seven days, during which time I hope we will have a consensus position as to what to do with these pictures which I will be able to sell to the rest of English Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so against POV on userboxes?

Hi, MarkSweep. I was just curious about why you are so against having a POV on userboxes. According to WP:UBP, we're allowed to have opinions on our pages. Why are you out to get all of the opinionated ubx's? Are you some sort of political correctness person? I don't mean to be rude, but I'm kind of curious. WriterFromAfar755 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright (Germany)

Hi Mark, could you take a look at this? PeeCee translated it from the german article. Could be helpfull to understand the problems. It would be nice to take it on your watchlist. --ST ○ (sysop on deWP) 08:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding timecop

I've made a few observations regarding the situation:

You implied that the image is used for trolling. This might be true if he went from page to page posting it in innappropriate locations, or causing pages to irrelevantly link to it. Displaying it on one page at a userbox scale of 44 pixels or so is not trolling.
The penalty for improper placement of a fair-use image is not a one-month ban.
At the time of the block, timecop was awaiting a response to an e-mail in which he was seeking licensing permission for the image.
At the time of the block and the deletion of the image, he wasn't using it for anything, as the userbox employing it had been deleted days earlier.
The image itself was was taken from the a page at the Anti-Defamation League's website, where it was used for critical review of anti-semitic literature. The image, as a book cover, may serve encyclopedic purpose in the future, if an article about (or mentioning) the booklet "Facts the Government and Media Don't Want You To Know" is written, and the conspiracy theories contained therein may also be of merit in appropriate articles if properly sourced.
You may feel that policy should be applied differently to timecop due to his status in the GNAA, and because he was recently the subject of a blocking wheel war, regarding an incident which even the victim clarified that timecop had no involvement with.
You have occasionally implied that timecop is nothing but a troll. This is clearly untrue. In addition to seeking out and assisting the deletion process of scores of unencyclopedic articles, he has also cleaned up other articles and translated missing articles from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.

Given all these factors, would this one-month block seem fair if applied to anyone else? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:32, Feb. 1, 2006

Feel free to unblock or shorten the duration his block. I won't contest it. Let me just point out that Timecop has created and used templates that are deliberately offensive (hence trollish), so I do think he should be held to a different standard of behavior, at least for the time being. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add silly links to Owl, which is intended to be a scientific article. I routinely block anon users for this. jimfbleak 06:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that wasn't even intended to be silly, only as a link to a quirky article. But I can see that it's not exactly a whale / exploding whale type of situation. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User admins ignoring policy

You speedy deleted this template, which was under discussion at WP:TFD, with the summary "trolling". I strongly suggest you reconsider this decision. First of all, "trolling" is not a criterion for speedy deletion, and the term is very ill-defined. In most cases, it's simply a pejorative term for disagreement. (WP:TROLL seems to restrict it to malicious actions only, but we're assuming good faith - right?) Secondly, this deletion will almost certainly be listed at WP:DRV, thus doubling the amount of unproductive discussion. (I could write the exact arguments we're going to hear from both sides right now.) I am not going to list it at DRV because I don't particularly care about this box personally and because it would just cause more pointless arguing. But I can guarantee you that someone else will. Please undelete it to avoid further strife. These deletions accomplish nothing but to get users more and more angry at each other and contribute to an atmosphere of bad faith. If, as implied, the box initially contained a link to Kelly Martin's RFC, then that should be removed and replaced with a link to WP:ACC or a similar page. But this doesn't require a disruptive deletion. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is not a policy and it is not a guideline. You are causing a deletion war. Let the TfD run its course. Ashibaka tock 17:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mark

I don't mean to be wasting your time but I was just writing to thank you for the welcome and for dealing with my wikiraces article which I later found already existed (sorry) Superdantaylor 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonsgallery TfD

I have asked WP:DRV to review your closing of this discussion. I know the deletion discussions are not votes, but I don't believe they're debates which get 'won' or 'lost' either. --Malthusian (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATCA emblem

Isn't that splitting hairs. I have permission from ATCA to use that emblem how I see fit as appreciation from ATCA for designing it. Therefore, I'm within my rights to use it on the template. If this means changing the copyright tag, then what should I change it to???? Expatkiwi

Arvanites

I've noticed that you've locked the article Arvanites. It was wise to do so, especially after the lastest edit war, in fact I was intending to request protection from an admin myself. The problem is that you locked the article in the unsourced, POV version. Arvanites are not Albanians, and they are not an ethnic minority of Greece. They are ethnic Greek in the same way that the Bretons and the Normas are ethnic French, or the Irish-Americans are ethnic American. They are a linguistic minority of Greece which is in fact almost extinct (but Albanians don't know that). However, Balkan nationalism is an inevitable result of the recent communist regimes. Albanian nationals can't accept reality and push POV in that article by making extreme claims on the Arvanites. I know this simply because I have some Arvanite origin myself, and I know very well how Arvanites see themselves and how they're seen by others. Albanian editors will call me a liar, and I have no way to prove them wrong, for the simple reason that the Arvanite identification has no official status, only a semi-extinct traditional one. I don't think those Albanian editors have ever met any Arvanite in their lives, and even if they had, they wouldn't know it, because in our modern society there no such distinction. Such edits foolishly try to invent it. The label "Arvanite" doesn't even exist anymore, except maybe as a traditional self-identification term, in the same way that an American will recognize himself as an Irish-American or Italian-American. The Albanian edits (included in the protected version) are as extreme as to claim that those X-Americans are actually an Irish and Italian minority in the United States. The protected version includes claims as ludicrous. I read your suggestion in the Talk page, but I don't think it's an appropriate solution on the current topic. The version debated by the Albanians (great part of which was compiled by myself), is fully sourced by Greek Arvanite authors. The Albanian version is not only unsourced, but also unjustified in discussion. I don't think the compromise suggestion of mentioning all points of views will work, simply because we know what's the truth already. It's not some kind of mystery that needs to be discovered. If there were some foolish people who claimed a huge ethnic Irish or British minority in the United States, I don't think that anyone would agree to have it mentioned as a second point of view. I can't think of a better way to describe it. I would kindly ask you to lock the article on the other version, and wait to see whether the opposing party has anything useful to say in discussion (which I highly doubt). If a discussion is instigated in the currect version, none of the Albanian editors will care to participate, simply because in their own mind they have already got what they wanted. The discussion page will remain inactive and a new edit-war will start right as soon as the article is unlocked. Last but not least, I feel that the current version is an insult to every Arvanite (or any ethnic Greek for that matter) who would randomly read the article. Personally, I feel extremely offended by it. Regards. Miskin 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's protection policy does not allow the administrator who instates a page protection because of an ongoing edit dispute to pick a particular version to protect. They have to protect the most recent version; at most they may revert blatant vandalism. In a content dispute it is impossible to make everyone happy; this is not the administrator's fault, it is simply a consequence of the underlying dispute. See The Wrong Version for an essay about this exact type of situation. There is no point in lobbying administrators to edit or revert a protected page, since they are generally not allowed to do that. If you're unhappy about the protected version, the fastest and best way to do something about it is to resolve the content dispute on the talk page and ask for the page to be unprotected. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User band templates

Why are you deleting one of these templates? Could you please explain? Alex 101 03:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are all special cases of Template:User band-3 or Template:User artist-3. People can express their musical tastes using the already existing templates, there's no need to create duplicate ones. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generic Templates

What's with deleting the Beatles and Pink Floyd userboxes? What decision on Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes are you referencing? I apologize for being somewhat of an asshole right now but...I can't help it. Please explain. -Theaterfreak64 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with userboxes per se, but rather with the fact that we don't need forks or duplicates of existing templates, articles, categories, etc. If an existing template can do the same job as a new template, the existing one should be used instead (perhaps with some modifications to increase its applicability). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst:ing

Where did you get the idea/mandate to substitute tempaltes on people's userpages? Example: diff.--Commander Keane 20:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I subst:ed that template because I was about to delete it. The template in question was formerly a duplicate of Template:User brit, and both are already subsumed under Template:User artist-3. Subst:ing it allows users to express their views while decrementing the usage counts of superfluous templates such as this one. In fact User:Pojojo was the only person using it, and once it had been subst:ed there was no longer any rationale for keeping it. It's the best of both worlds: User:Pojojo will see no visible changes, and we don't have unnecessary templates to maintain. The alternative would have been to replace it with {{user artist-3|Britney Spears}}, if subst:ing is considered bad. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is ok. I thought it might be confusing for new user Pojojo to have all the new text on their userpage but it's better than nothing. Are you deleting all ill-used userboxes?--Commander Keane 21:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, at the moment it's just an effort to avoid further duplication and fragmentation. I already cleaned up newspaper boxes, which were not heavily utilized. I worked a bit on boxes for specific artists and bands, because they were not used heavily and had good alternatives. I think we may be able to achieve a workable compromise which involves keeping a small number of generic, customizable boxes, as opposed to a large number of highly specific ones which don't get much use and make easy target for vandalism. See Template:User newspaper name for an example of what I have in mind in terms of making the boxes more generic. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

metallica

hey - thanks for changing the template on my user page. At first I thought that you were being a bit rude and changing stuff around...but...you weren't, so thank you :) x XYaAsehShalomX 21:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always a bit rude, but I tried not to make any substantive changes. ;-) Cheers, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual_place_names

You might be interested in a/m undeletion. -- User:Docu

Thanks. I commented on it, but I don't think I can be objective enough to vote on it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read, but then who is? I suppose some day even "Inherently funny word" [1] will get deleted. -- User:Docu

If "inherently funny word" does get nominated, please alert me. I added a source by an acknowledged expert (Dave Barry) to that article, which shows that the topic in and of itself is notable and has been discussed by humor professionals. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the page was relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). -- User:Docu

Oops!

Hah. Sorry about that. Funny enough, I also managed to post the entire Administrator's Noticeboard to several user's talk pages as well... --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut'n'paste error when you copied it from AN. Now cleaned up. Do you need help with the talk page posts? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Holmes

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have? I don't recall. Must have been clean-up work. I'll look at the PR page, but probably won't have anything to say. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Deletion

When would you cease and desist? You are attempting to restrict Freedom of Speech here. This is absolutely unacceptable. Please stop! Arbiteroftruth 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mark, please stop deleting Template:User Bad Religion and Template:User Green Day also. Right now I'm getting kind of tired of recreating them. Why are you trying delete them? You hate my templates? Please refrain. Also, I would want to apologize what I said to you when I voted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 10 about deleting those templates. Alex 101 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User gw1

I saw, after I finished moving it back, that it was you who had moved that template to my user space. I saw it appear there, and figured that I had somehow created it incorrectly, and moved it back to its intended name. It was only after looking at the history that I saw that you had chosen to move it for whatever reason. Smerdis of Tlön 19:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Mr. Sweep, would you please cease to 'delete' 'userboxes' for the reason of "POV?" (They are articles, and, therefore, do not need to conform to the "neutral" policy, at least in my opinion.)--Anglius 01:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying. We're talking about the template namespace here, not about articles. And per WP:TFD, templates can be nominated for deletion if they are tendentious or biased ("not NPOV"). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that they are not article, Mr. Sweep, and I disagree that they need to be 'deleted.' There should be a Wikipedian "bull" (or at least a decided policy) against their deletion (not to sound like I am ridiculous), Mr. Sweep.--Anglius 02:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. We have a policy and process, namely WP:TFD, which says that tendentious and/or unencyclopedic templates can be deleted. If you disagree with that policy, you're free to lobby for a change, but you cannot simply ignore this policy just because you happen to disagree with it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you, Mr. Sweep, but, not to be impolite, you should not be so 'hard-lined' concerning them. I suppose that what I meant by Wikipedian bull was that the policy should be different. Are you certain that that restriction is for 'user-boxes?"--Anglius 03:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question of a slightly different nature. While two templates were on TfD, you closed the debate (which seemed to be a consensus keep) and speedy deleted them. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I had been under the impression that speedy deletion was only to be used in cases where the Wikipedia community at large wouldn't disagree with the deletion. Taking that into account, I'm not sure your deletion was proper, and I voted to overturn it on WP:DRV. And this from an anti-userbox person, too. Thanks in advance for any comments. Cheers. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which two templates you're referring to, but I did close TfD discussions recently after other admins speedied the templates in question, simply because there is no point in having further debates when a decision has already been made. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-UN Template

Just FYI...I will be contacting every user who participated in your moot discussion and making the following code available:

<tr><td><div style="float: left; border: solid #6699ff 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; color: #3a5791; background: #FFFFFF;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #6699ff; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt;" |[[Image:Anti-UN.png|43px]]
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user does not support the '''[[United Nations]]'''.
|}</tr></td>

<tr><td><div style="float: left; border:solid lightblue 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: white;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: white; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | [[Image:Anti-ACLU-2.PNG|50px]]
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user does not support the '''[[ACLU]]'''.
|}</div></td></tr>

Lawyer2b 02:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good code. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer2b, I believe this sort of stuff is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. We are in the business of creating an encyclopedia here, and not of pushing stupid points of view. 06:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Lawyer2b managed to turn this upside-down, and accuse me of a personal attack on my own talk page. As he is the attacker, and I am defending Mark Sweep, I find this distortion of facts a simple escalation. I'm moving the conversation here, where it started. Lawyer2b stated:

== Please do not engage in personal attacks. ==

Even if you disagree with it, I do not appreciate your calling my point of view stupid. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Lawyer2b 07:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied:

No. Quite the opposite, in fact; for you were the one being rude and uncivil. These templates are low and demeaning and insulting. They represent a stupid, uninformed, unenlightened point of view that is injurious to human existence. They're evil in the broader political discourse, and they certainly have no place on Wikipedia, where we are in the process of creating an encyclopedia. This is not a place for inciting riots. linas 17:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shush already, child. You have yet to give me a reasonable, logical answer for how stating your disliking of the UN is going to cause riots. Well? Anything? --PistolPower 01:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

linas, your calling my viewpoint stupid on User:MarkSweep's talkpage, is not a good reason to carry on a conversation about your incivility there. This has nothing to do with User:MarkSweep. This has to do with something you said about me and I think that either of our talkpages is the appropriate venue -- not some third party's. If you would like to discuss on my talkpage, I am more than happy to accomodate the discourse. (Ths conversation continued on User:linas's talkpage.) Lawyer2b 03:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ifd

Er.. the instructions are already there. Why are we duplicating them? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't see them there. What am I missing? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "[Show]" button on the lower right edge of the box, click it, and it shows the instructions (this is also done with Template:Afd, Template:Afdx, Template:Md1, and Template:Cfd). On skins without the javascript, the box should just show (or so the theory goes, let me know if you can see the show/hide boxes on the other templates but not on Template:Ifd and I'll see if I can fix it). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see what you mean and I've reverted myself. I just wish that "[Show]" could be changed to be a bit more descriptive, for example, "[Show instructions]". I assume that's done in the global skin files; I couldn't find it in the templates themselves. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you get banned

You came and deleted three of my userboxes. What is your problem? I reported you for blatant vandalism. If you are such an ALCU, UN, and EU lover then why are you such a hypocrite that you eliminate anyone with the opposite view through petty vandalism? I hope you get blocked for a nice long time. --PistolPower 16:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, you and I have had our arguments, which I did not enjoy, and these remain unresolved. However, they pale in comparison to the inappropriate, low behavior of User:Lawyer2b, and the hostility of User:PistolPower above. These users are in the process of spreading evil and hatred, and that is wrong. Its wrong outside of WP, and its wrong within WP. Should you file a formal complaint, I'll support your position. linas 17:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Linas, and thanks for being able to keep a nuanced position. I know many people who would be tempted to think "I had one run-in with this crazy MarkSweep guy which I didn't enjoy, so he must be Evil". I'll reply to PistolPower below. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to express one's hatred of the UN? How? Are you a wannabe petty dictator? Do you enjoy censorship? Do you believe that you are always right? Do you think that freedom of speech is speech that is directly in line with your opinions and everything else is defamatory, hateful, and vile hate-mongering? Are you out of your mind? I suggest you take your crack-pipe, hippy, and throw it away because you have absolutely NO clue about life in the real world. Get off the internet now. Thank you and good night. --PistolPower 18:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, please explain HOW exactly I am spreading evil and hatred? I think the ACLU and the UN are spreading evil and hatred. Kofi Annan for one is directly responsible for the massacre of 800,000 Rwandans and the ACLU has long lost sight of its real goals and is up to stupid shit like their recent decision to declare a Christmas tree a religious symbol and the Crescent Moon and the Star of David non-religious symbols, which is complete and utter bullshit. The Christmas tree is of totally pagan origins and until recently wasn't even associated with Christmas. Even today, it is not part of the religious celebration called Christmas. The Star of David and the Crescent Moon are clearly religious symbols like a cross, for example. Two words: fuck you. --PistolPower 19:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing at a completely wrong level here. First of all, cut out the personal attacks. Calling me names does nothing in terms of getting your point across. Second, you're entirely missing the point. It's not primarily about whether you're pro-UN, anti-UN, UN-agnostic, etc. I couldn't care less. What this is about is that the anti-UN template serves no useful purpose in this encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with who you are as a Wikipedian. It doesn't tell me whether you're a good technical writier, proofreader, fact checker, or whether you have any other applicable skills. It's simply a polemical bumper sticker that factionalizes and divides users by distinctions that are irrelevant on Wikipedia. It doesn't advance the goal of writing an encyclopedia. It runs counter to Jimbo's wishes that userboxes with political or religious messages not be used. It runs counter to the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, and is not a blog, a cheap web hosting provider, or a soapbox. Wikipedia is not bound by free speech. If you want to air your views about the UN, you're free to do so on one of the many blogging sites. But keep them off Wikipedia, and definitely keep them out of the template namespace. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SO YOU HYPOCRITE BE CONSISTENT! Delete EVERY political and religious and other POV userboxes! Because now it seems that you have only been deleting a select bunch that seem to disagree with your POV. So, if you claim to be impartial and consistent, please, delete them all, no matter what POV they represent. Ok? Furthermore, who the hell is this "Jimbo" guy and why does he think he can get away with censorship because he doesn't like a particular political POV? Anyway, please: Be consistent! --PistolPower 01:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. Hey, vandal MartkSweep, I have already plead for protection. The next step is requesting you be blocked. Constanz - Talk 09:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on userbox deletion

I have no opinion on userbox policy, or your deletion of userboxes that express opposition to something. However, I am highly interested in consistency. Thus, if {{User no Rand}} was speedy deleted, {{User No Marxism}} must be speedy deleted at well, for the same reasons. Please consider this issue. Thank you. -- Nikodemos 18:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've tagged {{User No Marxism}} for speedy deletion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not consistent. You should delete every userbox that displays any sort of POV in this case. You keep on deleting all my userboxes. So, you should get rid of the atheist, roman catholic, jewish, anti-facist, communist, communist bastard, anti-bush, pro-bush, pedophile, and all the other POV userboxes. If you don't, I will seriously go above your head for favortism, inconsistency, and selective deletion to push your own POV. --PistolPower 01:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did it ever occur to you that this actually involves quite a bit of work? I sincerely appreciate and share your concern for an even-handed approach. In fact, you can help out, for example by requesting speedy deletion of divisive and/or inflammatory templates, or just by compiling a list of templates with a political POV. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't have a clue how do do that "speedy gonzales" or whatever your magic auto-delete thing is, but here is a list:

Then, delete each and every single one of these because they are clearly affiliated with a specific POV: (Just mass delete those categories, dont bother doing them one by one)

Talk to me

I honestly do not appreciate it when people just skip over me when I have a point that they do not like. You have replied to several other civil talks and a few uncivil ones, but not mine. Now, if it was an honest mistake, fine. But you simply ignored me an' quite a few other people, by the looks of it. As an administrator, I would expect better of you. By the way, look at it from this point of view. Userboxes are used to tell you more information about our pages (our userpages). Plus, PLEASE DO NOT GO DELETING STUFF using speedies when the debate was moot (which I must admit was terribly rude). Example: the Template:User participant userbox war for Deletion. You saw that things weren't going your way, so you just speedied it. That's just the way I feel; I don't mean to be disrespectful. Please, as an admnistrator and an editor, keep your emotions under control and go with the flow please. WriterFromAfar755 23:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not appreciate being wrongfully accused. If you check the logs, you'll see that Template:User participant userbox war was tagged for deletion by another admin, Tony Sidaway, and deleted by a third admin, Johnleemk. I've commented plenty on the merits of that box (or rather lack thereof), as have others. "Go with the flow" is not an option for admins if the flow is going against Wikipedia policy. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are still selectively deleting userboxes to push your POV while not deleting others that show the opposite POV. You should start deleting ALL the political userboxes. But I forgot, you won't, because you only delete the ones that you don't like. Great administrating! Very fair and impartial! Go Mark! Woohoo! --PistolPower 01:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you this has nothing to do with my POV. You can't even presume to know what my POV might be. In fact, I agree with you. More importantly Jimbo agrees with you: ALL political userboxes should go. With your help, we may even get there. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if you have the power, seemingly, to instantly delete certain userboxes that don't seem to suit you but not delete the ones that show the opposite POV, then how exactly again are you doing what this Jimbo guy, whoever the heck he is, wants? I know that the Wikipedia charter thingy basically says that you have no rights and the admins get to own your life and do whatever they want, but if I recall it also says something about not catering to one POV, that is, applying deletion and such across the board when it comes to POV matters. Why haven't you worked your instant delete magic on all the other POV boxes? --PistolPower 01:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we get rid of your so-called POV userboxes, we might as well get rid of the whole "Politics and Beliefs" userbox category - not to mention all self-identifying userboxes! Sct72 01:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, so let me get this straight. "This user does not support the UN" is bad, but "This user supports the UN" may stay? And "This user is an anti-communist" is bad, but "This user is commie bastard" [that's real] may stay? Yeah, very even and fair POV deletion. Very consistent indeed. That is so not pushing a certain POV. See this is what I love about Wikipedia, people like you. You idiots insist that what supports you POV should stay and be enshrined for the ages but anything that is against your POV is bad, evil, vile and must at once be deleted! HOW IS THAT FAIR? Answer me. --PistolPower 01:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's unfair, and they should also be deleted. I'm not arguing against you here. You're more than welcome to tag them for speedy deletion with {{db-attacktemplate}}. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Thanks for not telling me about this. If you had actually bothered to look at my talk page, you would have seen that one of your complaints had already been addressed there. You may want to get your facts straight and refresh your understanding of Wikipedia policy before airing unfounded accusations. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- No problem. If it was certified, you would have been notified. Sct72 01:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]